36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 39
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 27, 1997
1005
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amending Legislation—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Drafting Legislation—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1010
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORGANIZED CRIME
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1045
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Climate Change
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1100
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-292. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-293. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1105
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1120
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 9
|
1125
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1140
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1155
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1200
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1205
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1210
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1215
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1220
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1225
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1240
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 10
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 12
|
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1305
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1310
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1325
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1340
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1355
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1400
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BC MINE WORKERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEAFORTH HIGHLANDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1405
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD TAX BENEFIT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FLAG
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1410
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALTERNATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC SOVEREIGNTY
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1415
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE JUSTICE JOHN SOPINKA
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KREVER REPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1435
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KREVER REPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KREVER INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1450
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CLIMATE CHANGE
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POWA
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KREVER INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LITERACY
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEAL HUNT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1500
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pharmaceutical Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Withdrawal of Comment
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1505
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1510
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. ll and 13
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 14
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1605
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1615
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1620
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1635
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1730
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1735
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEOPLE'S TAX FORM ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-214. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1820
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1835
1840
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1845
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1850
1855
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1900
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1905
![V](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1910
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 39
![](/web/20061116183231im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 27, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
PRIVILEGE
AMENDING LEGISLATION—SPEAKER'S RULING
DRAFTING LEGISLATION—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I would like to deliver a ruling on the
questions of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville on October 21, 1997 and by the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton on November 18, 1997.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville objected to an
administrative change where House procedural staff were drafting
legislative amendments for private members, rather than
legislative counsel. The hon. member felt that this change would
reduce the quality of service available to him and as such
interfered with his ability ot do his job as a member for
Parliament.
[English]
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, on the other hand, objected
to his private member's bill being drafted by lawyers enrolled in
the legislative drafting program at the University of Ottawa. The
hon. member felt that this arrangement breached the
confidentiality that applies to such matters and was evidence of
inadequate legislative counsel support for members.
Furthermore, the fact that the program is headed by a justice
department lawyer caused him to wonder about possible government
interference in private members' bills.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. members for their submissions on this matter and
the other hon. members who intervened. The legislative work of
private members is an important part of what it means to be a
member of Parliament. As your Speaker, it concerns me that some
private members feel they are not adequately supported in their
legislative function.
[English]
As I indicated in my ruling on October 23, 1997 on a point of
privilege raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton in
respect of legislative counsel services, questions pertaining to
resources provided to private members should be brought to the
attention of the Board of Internal Economy and should not be
raised on the floor of the House as a point of order nor as a
point of privilege.
The matters raised on that earlier occasion and the matters now
raised by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville and the hon.
member for Sarnia—Lambton involve in my view basic
administrative issues. I had however committed to both hon.
members that I would ensure this matter would get priority at the
board.
With respect to the administrative changes to which the hon.
members referred, I have directed that both initiatives, the
drafting of amendments by procedural staff and the drafting of
private members' bills at the University of Ottawa, be put on
hold pending a decision by the board on the mandate and the
resourcing of legislative counsel services generally.
I want to reassure the hon. members that amendments and private
members' bills shall only be drafted by legislative counsel
retained under the authority of the Speaker. For this the board
has authorized additional resources for the balance of the
current fiscal year which should improve timely delivery of
services.
The larger question of legislative counsel services remains on
the agenda of the board.
It is hoped that a more comprehensive solution will be found in
time for the next fiscal year, as the board is currently working
on the proposed 1998-99 estimates.
1010
It is my hope, given the nature of this matter and the number of
times it has been raised, that the board will resolve this
matter.
But I want to close this statement by giving the hon. members
for Sarnia—Lambton and for Yorkton—Melville a further
commitment, and it is this: If this matter is not resolved in a
timely fashion at the board, I will not shy away from my duty and
responsibility as the Speaker of this House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to address an issue of grave concern
to the Government of Canada and to all Canadians, that being
organized crime.
In this the first of what will be annual statements to
parliament on organized crime I want to give parliamentarians and
Canadians an understanding of the immense challenge our nation
faces. I also want to discuss the concrete measures the
government and its partners are taking to combat organized crime.
Organized crime is big business and it is bad business. It is a
national problem that threatens public safety and erodes the
social well-being of all Canadians. Organized crime is a global
problem. The United Nations has recognized it as a priority for
the next century and has called on all member states to declare
it public enemy number one.
Organized criminals and gangs prey on society through a variety
of destructive activities: drug trafficking, prostitution,
forgery, weapons trafficking, auto theft, liquor and tobacco
smuggling, and bank fraud. The economic cost of organized crime
in Canada alone is measured in the billions of dollars annually.
There also can be losses suffered by legitimate businesses, tax
payments evaded and a high law enforcement expenditure, to name
only three.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police estimates the total
amount of money made from illicit drug sales at $10 billion
annually. The smuggling of black market jewellery is estimated
to be a $400 million illicit business in Canada, leading to
additional tax losses of $30 million.
Untold illegal revenues are being made through the use of new
technology colour copiers by counterfeiters. Credit card fraud
can run as high as $80 million annually. One illegal lottery
scheme alone, operated out of Canada between 1994 and 1995, may
have cost elderly American victims $100 million or more. The
elderly in Canada are also at risk and we are committed to their
protection.
The economic impact of organized crime is only one measurement
of harm these activities inflict. Our communities pay dearly to
finance organized crime kingpins. One shipment of heroine landed
successfully in Canada can lead to numerous deaths and human
suffering in cities like Vancouver and Toronto.
1015
Children are hooked by schoolyard pushers. Muggings,
robberies, auto thefts and house break-ins increase as addicts
scramble to finance their habits. Higher drug use dramatically
increases the chances of infection with HIV and other diseases.
Families can suffer under domestic violence and child abuse.
Canadians are also seeing firsthand the problem of organized
crime violence.
[Translation]
In Quebec, for example, biker gangs have been tied to dozens of
bombings and related violence. Biker gangs are very visible sign
of organized crime, but other groups are buried deep, disguising
themselves as legitimate enterprises or using today's tehcnology
to prey on their victims from afar.
This government will not allow organized criminals to use their
ill-gotten gains and threats of violence to intimidate our
communities.
[English]
Allow me to elaborate on what Canada is doing to deal with this
huge crime challenge. My ministry has mounted a combined
offensive against organized crime working together with the
departments of justice, revenue, finance, citizenship and
immigration, foreign affairs and others. To increase the power
and effectiveness of that offensive, we have joined forces with
our provincial, territorial and international counterparts and
police forces across Canada.
This government has consulted closely with law enforcement,
business and others affected by organized crime. We had a number
of excellent suggestions come out of the national forum on
organized crime convened last year, practical suggestions that
would hit hard at organized crime. Forum participants also
recommended that the solicitor general make an annual statement
to the House of Commons to draw attention to this grave problem.
At that forum Canada's police urged governments to give them
the tools to do the job. That is what we have done. We renewed
the resources for the anti-smuggling initiative.
Early in the first mandate of this government, we took decisive
action against organized tobacco, alcohol and firearms smuggling.
We quickly and effectively curbed the smuggling and
re-established order in the marketplace. Just as important, we
restored the sense of safety and security in affected border
communities.
We passed the Witness Protection Act to provide police with an
effective means of protecting people who help police collect
evidence against organized crime groups. We passed the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, establishing a legislative
base for police to conduct undercover reverse sting operations.
We passed the Criminal Law Improvement Act to provide police with
the means to conduct storefront operations.
We listened to the police and passed tough, comprehensive
anti-gang legislation. We acted on law enforcement's call to
define in our criminal law what constitutes a criminal
organization. The law gives new powers to the police,
prosecutors and the courts to deal with these newly defined
criminal organizations.
The legislation also lets us seize any property used by criminal
organizations and the courts can ultimately order the property
forfeited.
Anti-gang legislation is being used right now. Arrests and
seizures regularly make headlines. We are monitoring its
implementation and I will provide a status report in next year's
statement on organized crime. We are also attacking organized
crime through the existing proceeds of crime laws. The police
have also told us that the most effective way to dismantle and
disrupt criminal enterprises over the long term is to target the
upper levels of criminal organizations and focus on the kingpins.
We have been able to mount a highly successful attack on the
illegally obtained assets of criminals.
The joint integrated proceeds of crimes units, where the RCMP
worked together with provincial and local police as well as
customs officers and Justice Canada counsel, were so successful
that we established 10 more units located across Canada. In
addition, justice has created a proceeds of crime prosecution
team in each region to complement these expanded enforcement
activities. We are not finished.
1020
A key recommendation out of the organized crime forum was to
continue to improve the ability of the police to investigate
money laundering. Therefore the government will introduce
legislation in this Parliament to create new financial reporting
requirements regarding suspicious transactions and the
cross-border movement of currency.
These measures will give the police more information on illegal
financial activity and put us in step with our international
counterparts.
The heart of our anti-organized crime strategy is bringing all
the concerned agencies together from all involved jurisdictions
and maximizing the use of our resources, federal, provincial and
municipal. Co-operation will be the hallmark of our effort.
Again, law enforcement has urged greater national co-ordination
of effort and policy so that organized crime faces a seamless
net. We took that suggestion very seriously and that is why we
established a national co-ordinating committee of police and
other officials, chaired by my department, along with regional
counterparts in British Columbia, the prairies and territories,
Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic region.
As I said earlier, the United Nations has expressed alarm at the
rising threat of organized crime internationally. We recognize
that global problems demand global solutions. We are working
with the United States and other partners in Europe, the Americas
and around the world in forums such as the United Nations,
Interpol and the Organization of American States.
In early December in Washington I will attend the first ever
meeting of G-8 ministers on organized crime to further our work
internationally. Co-operation and information sharing only makes
sense when criminals can use borders to hide from police. That
is why we have to work smarter and more effectively with our
neighbours to the south.
In September I hosted the first ever Canada-United States
cross-border crime forum here in Ottawa attended by United States
Attorney General Janet Reno.
Canadian and United States officials are working together to
build on the co-operative relationships between our countries.
Ms. Reno and I believe this forum will pay great dividends in the
future. Law enforcement of all jurisdictions needs to be
networked with each other so that criminals cannot slip through
the cracks.
As members can see from my remarks, the Canadian law enforcement
community has been the cornerstone of our anti-organized crime
efforts and it will always be.
I would particularly like to recognize the efforts and the
commitment of the police community in helping to keep the public
informed about the organized crime problem and providing us with
advice on how to address it.
In concluding the first report to Parliament on our efforts to
combat organized crime in Canada, let me restate this
government's commitment to provide national leadership in the
fight against this menace and to keep Parliament informed on the
progress in the battle.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to respond to the
minister's statement today on behalf of average Canadians from
the official opposition.
In his opening remarks the solicitor general stated that
organized crime is big business and it is bad business. I agree.
Gang business is far from simply riding around on loud,
outrageous motorcycles. It is about the almighty dollar and
finding the most direct way of getting lots of it, whether it is
being done legally or illegally. In almost every case the
fastest way is the illegal way, drugs, theft, prostitution and
business scams.
Earlier this month, the 10 month undercover police sting at
Edmonton led to 51 drug trafficking, possession and conspiracy
charges against 10 gang members. This is what the police seized:
$800,000 worth of property including two homes, one worth
$350,000 and the other $300,000, four motorcycles, a Lamborghini
sports car, several firearms, not registered I suppose, TVs and a
great deal of cash, well into the thousands. This is no small
town operation.
The minister is also right when he states that this issue is of
great concern to all Canadians. Canadians really fear for their
safety. Organized crime affects each and every Canadian. It is
not something that is untouched or does not affect the local
community.
With the continued operation of the notorious biker gangs, each
and every one of us sitting in the House is at risk. Our families
are at risk.
1025
A couple of weeks ago in Quebec a man who was linked to the
Hell's Angels was gunned down in a restaurant. Then a couple of
days later a gang sympathizer was discovered dead in the trunk of
a car. Gang wars in Quebec are out of control. Edmonton is
another city that is starting to feel similar pressures. The
violence is absolutely unacceptable. Since 1989 there have been
well over 65 gang related homicides in Quebec alone.
I was astounded to learn the number of gang members there are in
Canada. According to Staff Sergeant Jean-Pierre Levesque who is
with the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada there are about
1,200 gang members in total in Canada formally recognized.
However, if we count friends, connections, business associates,
the number may be as high as 12,000.
In addition, according to Interpol there are close to 95
chapters of the Hell's Angels operating in 16 different countries
around the world. To say they are well connected would definitely
be an understatement.
Almost daily there are news stories directly related to gangs.
Canadians are concerned. They want solutions and, most important,
they want solutions that are going to work.
Today the solicitor general trumpeted the government's record.
This government has had over four years to correct the flaws of
the justice system but all it did was often tinker with it. I do
not think the government should be too proud today. It should
perhaps apologize to Canadians for not doing enough. It has had
enough time.
The power to implement change was there to use. It had complete
majority governments, but all it did was sit on its hands and
hope that everything would get better, until the cries could not
be stemmed anymore.
In the solicitor general's statement he said that his government
listened to the police and passed tough, comprehensive gang
legislation: “Anti-gang legislation is being used right now.
Arrests and seizures regularly make headlines. We are monitoring
its implementation. I will provide a status report in the next
year's statement on organized crime”.
I can honestly say that I eagerly await next year's statement.
I want the minister to stand up and say how gang violence has
dramatically dropped from one date to the next. It is the
government's administration and its responsibility. I want the
minister to say at that time that his new legislation has not
been overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada because it
infringed on the charter of rights and freedoms.
On November 2 of this year gang member Ettore Sabastiani was
apparently the first person to be convicted using the new law. He
was sentenced to five years in prison. The solicitor general may
be proud of his headlines, but he cannot be proud of what is in
the article. Two of the headlines surrounding this story were:
“Gang member first convicted under new law” in the Ottawa
Sun; and “Sabastiani sentence believed to be the first
convicted under the new anti-gang legislation” from the Kingston
Whig Standard. But here is where the minister's happiness
perhaps ends. I want to read two clips, first from the Sun
article and the second from the Whig Standard:
But Friday, Sabastiani tried to withdraw his plea to the
anti-gang charge. He lawyer, Wayne King, argued that the law
violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it
is too vague, too broad and contradicts the provisions for
freedom of association.
The next quote:
If Sabastiani had not plead guilty, a constitutional challenge
would have likely been allowed and may still happen in other
cases. The legislation has a good chance of being struck down if
it is challenged, said King.
The Kingston Whig Standard had similar words:
Queen's law professor Don Stewart agrees with King. He said in
an interview yesterday that it's a bad piece of legislation
because it is so loose that it is ripe for misuse and ineffective
against organized crime. It was drafted in great haste—to get
votes in Quebec where there was concern of the Rock Machine and
the Hell's Angels—it's a very bad piece of legislation. The
law is likely to be challenged under the charter as too vague,
too broad.
Bringing forward legislation should never be done just for short
term political purposes. It should be done for the well-being of
all Canadians, for the long term vision of a great society.
Reform supported the organized crime bill in the last Parliament
because there was need for something to take place. The bill was
a start in providing the necessary tools for law enforcement. But
the questions we asked then are the same as we are asking today.
Is the law constitutionally sound? Ten months ago was the time
to make the changes. It may now be too late.
So, like the minister, I want to see an immediate stop to
organized crime. I also want to see laws that will withstand the
supreme court challenges. When is the government going to
understand that a major overhaul of the justice system is needed?
Ministerial statements are fine, but ministerial action is
preferred.
The longer the government waits to act, the worse our streets
will become.
1030
The solicitor general has made his statement. He is directly
responsible for the administration of federal prisons. Yet
organized crime flourishes in our prisons and he has been unable
to respond to it. We hope that on this score he will clean up
the backlog of union grievances and fully support his staff to
rid us of organized crime in federal jails.
Since the second world war we have had many years of Liberal
governments. With that backdrop of a history of administration,
the government must more fully accept its responsibility for
where we are today in society.
There are broad sociological reasons for the success of
organized crime. Some of it has to do with the general legal and
economic culture which the government is creating.
When economic prospects are dim, young people are more easily
preyed upon to become involved in street level crime supervised
by the organized crime bosses. When tax policy kills the spirit,
the sinister elements can more easily get a foothold. When
governments in the past have erected unreasonably high
differentials between the U.S. and Canada, unnecessary economic
incentives are created for the perverse to arise. Capacity
creates its own demand.
Historically the Liberals have been very soft on crime. We are
pleased when we can get the government to move substantively
rather than just in a cosmetic fashion. If the government can
gather courage and do what is right rather than just what is
politically convenient, we will certainly support those efforts.
Sadly, how many times in the House has the general debate gone on
about some crime measure?
On our side after looking at the bill, we are calling for more
substance, a more comprehensive approach, a more thorough job
than just tentative measures.
The most recent example was the DNA evidence collection bill. It
is good as far as it goes, but here again it stops far short of
what is needed.
These are the broad societal reasons for the success of
organized crime. The government has to accept a share of the
blame for the context of the culture it has created for organized
crime to flourish. If it could learn those lessons, then the
courses of action would become evident.
Everything that we have brought to this House on the economy was
helpful in fighting organized crime. One of the biggest crime
prevention strategies is low unemployment.
I applaud the minister for anything he can do on this file. He
is now committed to an annual statement. It is hoped that he will
be able to measure how the government's rather haphazard
administration of public affairs is successfully responding to
this challenge which will be measured from year to year.
The vision for the national voyage must be based upon honesty,
competence and real leadership. May the legislation that flows
from the government statement be honestly presented. May the
government administer with the highest of standards guided by
real accountability measures. The annual statement may form a
bit of an accountability measure.
May the government gather some courage to legislate against
crime and to lead, for whatever increases hope will also exalt
courage. If the government faints from these principles, the
nation knows that we on this side of the House are more than
ready.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, organized
crime is a major problem in Quebec and Canada, but particularly in the
Quebec City area, where my riding of Charlesbourg is located.
As my hon. colleague from the Reform Party mentioned earlier, there
was another murder in my riding last week, in a family restaurant.
As families were enjoying a quiet evening meal at the restaurant, they
witnessed the cold-blooded murder of a man. This dramatic incident is
but one example of the kind of violence biker gangs are responsible for
in Quebec. It has reached such proportions that recently—two weeks
ago I think—the Lloyds Insurance Company of London announced its
intention to no longer insure bars in the Quebec City area. This shows
how bad the situation is.
The party that has been asking this government to do something
about biker gangs since 1995 is our party, the Bloc Quebecois. After the
Bloc Quebecois put a great deal of pressure on the government in Ottawa
on behalf of Quebeckers, the government started to act in April 1996,
but that was not enough, because too many unfortunate incidents have
occurred in the past year.
1035
As I referred to a while ago, there is a very heavy
concentration of biker gangs in Quebec. There are, of course, the
Hell's Angels, but there is also the Rock Machine, which is
apparently about to join forces with another biker gang, an
international one this time, called the Bandidos.
It is very clear that the government does not have the desire
to put all of the law enforcement resources necessary in place to
deal with this problem.
In his speech, the minister claims that he has restored
security in the border communities where the goods were crossing.
As recently as this fall we witnessed the aborted raid at
Kahnawake, where there were sizeable stocks of arms brought in from
outside, and it was not the Quebec Minister of Public Security who
was responsible for aborting the raid, either. This one very
recent example can make us doubt the desire of this government to
fight organized crime effectively.
One can also ask oneself the following question: Is the
antigang legislation the government across the floor wants to see
passed sufficient? Is it stringent enough? According to the Bloc
Quebecois, even the definition of a criminal organization, referred
to a moment ago by my hon. colleague from the Reform Party, still
does not go far enough. Vagueness remains, and this could lead to
challenges of the constitutional validity of this legislation.
The act also authorizes the seizure of goods that have been
used by criminal organizations. Although it is a nice initiative,
a look at the concrete facts points to some shortcomings.
Consider the cases where the police moves in to make a seizure.
Two weeks ago there was a raid at the Hell's Angels hideout in
Saint-Nicolas, near Quebec City. When the police arrived at the
bunker, they took it over, but there was almost nothing left.
Is there not a way to ensure that the police can act more quickly
so that these seizure operations can really be effective against
organized crime? This is a legitimate question.
Concerning Bill C-95, the Minister of Justice at the time said that
the object was to hit the master minds behind these criminal
organizations. But at that time, the bill was not at all that clear, and
I remember a discussion between my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm and
the minister. My colleague had difficulty finding in the bill what was
meant by a master mind, and these people were not mentioned anywhere in
the bill.
So this is another weakness in the bill.
The minister also wants to give the police more flexibility to
carry out investigations on money laundering. This is an excellent
initiative, but we have to go further than that. We should also consider
parole because, beyond these gang problems, there is for instance the
Lagana case, where the lawyer succeeded in getting him paroled after he
had served one sixth of the sentence. The minister will have to tighten
up the law generally and also the Parole Act so as to prevent this type
of criminal from going on parole so soon.
In this regard, I will be introducing in a few minutes a bill to
amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so as to make it
clearer.
Its purpose will be to amend section 103 of that act so that
appointments to the National Parole Board will stop being subject to the
political patronage they are exposed to nowadays and will instead be
made under supervision by the people, and through the people under the
supervision of the elected members of this House. In this way, impartial
people will be appointed and they will have the necessary background to
deal with this type of problem.
In conclusion, many other efforts have to be made in the fight
against organized crime. The government must act and it must act quickly
to reassure the public, which is frightened. They have reasons to be
frightened when violence reaches people in a family restaurant in a
quiet and prosperous suburb. The government must come to realize that
its laws and its commitment to deal with this issue are not clear.
1040
One reality that the government does not seem to recognize is the
fact that biker gangs, to take only this example of organized criminal
groups, are growing, and that every day there are more and more people
joining these gangs.
The Bloc Quebecois doubts that the government is willing to commit
the necessary resources to the fight against organized crime, and we
expect initiatives that are much more concrete than those that the
minister is proposing today.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, the
annual statement on organized crime stems from Bill C-95, an act
to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organizations), passed in
the last session of Parliament.
The bill was tabled in response to biker gang violence in Quebec
and involved a package of measures targeting criminal activity
and organized crime. It created a new offence of participation
in a criminal organization and gave law enforcement agencies new
powers to combat criminal activity and to confiscate the proceeds
of organized crime.
Our caucus supported passage of the bill and measures to combat
organized crime in gang related activity. There is nothing new
in the minister's statement. In fact, the bulk of the statement
merely quotes the former solicitor general's speech in the House
at the time of the introduction of Bill C-95 at second reading
last April.
The statement talks about the government's commitment to provide
leadership in the fight against organized crime, while in fact in
at least one important area the actions of this government have
had the opposite effect. It would appear that the government's
privatization of our national ports and the disbandment of the
Canada ports police has been a serious blow to the fight against
organized crime in this country.
The government's actions have resulted in a serious setback in
the efforts to control and stop organized crime activities. It
is a well-known fact in the law enforcement community that
organized crime and gang activity are thriving in our ports. Is
it possible that the federal government's disbandment of the
ports police and the privatization of the ports has been to open
the doors for an increase in the very destructive activities such
as drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, auto theft and liquor
and tobacco smuggling that the minister referred to in his
statement?
The Canada ports police were created in 1968 and represented a
highly specialized and dedicated police force with skills and
powers specifically designed to combat organized crime, smuggling
and gang activities in the ports. Local police and private
security companies have neither the resources nor the expertise
to effectively combat crime in our ports. When I spoke on Bill
C-9 in relation to the ports police, I expressed my disgust at
the suggestion that low price security should have their lives
devalued by placing them in a highly criminal and violent
atmosphere.
The minister in his statement noted that Canada's police urge
governments to give them the tools to do the job. It would
appear that in the case of the ports police the opposite is
taking place. Other jurisdictions in the United States and
elsewhere which have experimented with similar privatization
schemes for the ports and ports police have had to re-evaluate
their actions in the face of increases in criminal activity and
have reinstated specialized ports police to take back control of
their ports.
The minister speculates about how one shipment of heroin landed
successfully in Canada can lead to numerous deaths and human
suffering in cities like Vancouver. In fact we know that the
drug trade in Vancouver is flourishing and has widespread impact
in that city and across Canada.
Vancouver has experienced a serious increase in crime, gang
activities and increased drug trafficking in the ports which many
believe is a direct result of the privatization of the ports and
ports police. Numerous case files and ongoing investigations
into organized crime and gang activity were halted or compromised
with the removal of the Canada ports police from the Vancouver
port.
On the opposite coast in Halifax, in a few weeks the ports
police will be disbanded. We can be sure that organized crime is
just waiting to fill the void. The Hell's Angels biker gang is
known to be active in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. It is rumoured
that the notorious Rock Machine bikers have recently purchased a
bar in the area. It is also rumoured that a California bike gang
is currently looking for property in the area and we can be sure
they are not coming for the balmy weather.
With the privatization of our national ports this government has
put out the welcome signs for gangs and organized crime. It is
putting our communities and citizens at risk.
The minister talks about creating a seamless net against
organized crime. It is clear that this net has some very large
holes.
1045
The minister has indicated in the House that we should be proud
of and support the workers in the justice system. Yet this
minister and this government are doing the opposite. I would
suggest that the minister practice what he preaches, that he work
to ensure that the concerns of the ports police and the employees
in the penitentiary systems are addressed.
We encourage and support this government in its fight against
organized crime. Yet there appears to be contradictions in its
actions.
It is our hope that when the minister reports to Parliament
again there will be some concrete news of success in the fight
against organized crime and that we do not once again hear the
same speech from the year before.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I rise today as well in response to the Solicitor
General's first annual statement on organized crime in Canada.
I would like to take this occasion to congratulate all the men
and women of this country who are on the front lines of law
enforcement in Canada. We know them as police officers, peace
officers, customs agents, crown prosecutors.
We must address and recognize the need and responsibility that
we as parliamentarians have to those individuals in charging them
with this important task of fighting crime in Canada. They are
the thin blue line, these men and women who walk the beat and
patrol the neighbourhoods of Canada, and they are tasked with
enforcing the laws that we make in this House.
Without the active support of these hard working Canadians, many
of whom put their lives at risk time and time again, any
government's anti-crime measures will fail and fall flat on their
face.
The self-congratulatory tone of this report is fine but it is
early in the game. I remind the government that as far as this
initiative goes, the true test will be time.
I feel it is important to put on the record that the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada also had a key role in kick-starting
the government's action against organized crime. Contrary to the
implications of the Solicitor General, this government's fight
against organized crime did not simply begin under the Liberal
government. In fact between 1989 and 1993 the former Progressive
Conservative government passed four major pieces of legislation
to assist our law enforcement community.
In 1989 the Conservative government passed proceeds of crime
legislation for the first time in Canadian criminal law history,
making money laundering a distinct crime. This was done to help
police officers trace the flow of money derived from criminal
activities. The former Progressive Conservative government then
passed new proceeds of crime legislation in 1991 which required
financial institutions to maintain detailed records of
transactions relating to crime.
The former government also passed legislation in 1993 with the
passage of the Seizure of Property Management Act. This act
created the office of an administrator to seize and retain
forfeited property. More important, this legislation provided an
incentive to organizations participating in criminal
investigations by developing new provisions for the disposal of
property obtained by crime.
The final initiative I would mention by the Progressive
Conservative government was an act to modify the Customs Act and
the Criminal Code. It was a far reaching omnibus bill and made
many positive changes to the Criminal Code, in particular in the
area of contraband products such as tobacco and alcohol.
I do not want to inject partisanship into the debate, but it is
important that everyone realize that this government is picking
up where previous governments left off. I mention these
legislative initiatives not to dwell on the past but to put in
perspective what is going on in this process today.
I am nevertheless willing to extend credit where credit is due.
The Liberal government and the Solicitor General in particular
have taken positive steps in this area. I commend the Solicitor
General for recognizing that more can be done. The Solicitor
today used his statement to renew a commitment first made in
response to last year's national forum on organized crime. That
commitment, although somewhat more vague today, was used to
create a new financial reporting requirement regarding suspicious
financial transactions and cross-border movement of currency.
To be successful, these requirements must include a very clear
principle. Canada must adopt the current U.S. policy that
requires financial institutions to report all transactions which
exceed $10,000.
1050
With the largest undefended border in the world, Canada and the
United States share one of the largest bilateral legal trading
relationships in the world. Unfortunately, because of this
border, we also share the largest bilateral illegal trading
practice in the world.
Because Canada lacks the same tough reporting requirements of
the United States, we are allowing our country to serve as a safe
haven for these large criminal organizations for ill-gotten
gains.
A $10,000 reporting rule is not only my position but that of the
party and it is the position of the solicitor general himself who
just less than two months ago made a speech to the U.S.-Canada
cross-border crime forum. I would therefore urge the solicitor
general to live up to his earlier commitments. Instead of being
timid and vague on the question of mandatory requirements, the
solicitor general should be bold and straightforward and set
clear financial transaction requirements in this legislation.
I would recommend that the solicitor general review the
definition of participation in organized crime. The new criminal
offence and anti-gang legislation approved by the previous
Parliament in April of this year leaves that definition very
vague in my opinion.
According to this definition, participation in criminal
organizations occurs when “a person participates in or
substantially contributes to the activity of a criminal
organization and knows that all the members engaged or have
engaged in an indictable offence within the preceding five years
and when the person is a party to the commission of an offence
indictable for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in
association with criminal organizations”.
What a mouthful. The problem with this particular wording, I
would suggest, is that it lacks specific intent. There is a huge
vague definition that leaves open the issue of intent which makes
it very difficult to prosecute. I would suggest that this
particular definition could be reworked and the solicitor general
has an opportunity to do so in his upcoming round of legislation.
The solicitor general also commented that arrests and seizures
under the new anti-gang legislation are regularly making
headlines. Headlines are nice, but law-abiding Canadians are
seeking concrete results and, as has been referred to earlier by
some of my colleagues in the opposition, this is what Canadians
are looking for the most from government and from Parliament,
concrete results not empty rhetoric.
There was also a very telling comment made by my colleague from
the New Democratic Party about the government's apparent
contradiction in fighting crime. On the one hand, it has taken
the initiative to introduce anti-gang legislation but, at the
same time, it has taken away one of the frontline abilities that
law enforcement officers have in this country and that is by
disbanding the ports police. This, by all intents and purposes,
opens up many of Canada's ports for business in terms of illegal
drug and gun trade. The port of Halifax was mentioned by the
hon. member from the New Democratic Party.
I must say that people in the province of Nova Scotia are
extremely concerned, particularly in and around metro Halifax,
that these new organized crime organizations are going to be
setting up shop. With these ports now falling under the
jurisdiction of the RCMP or metro police in the coming months, it
is going to be very difficult for them to combat crime in a
substantive way when we already have a specialized force in the
ports police who are charged solely with that task.
Again I would reiterate my earlier remarks. Laws are not the
only answer. In fact, creating laws without accounting for
adequate resources to properly implement and enforce these laws
can be very dangerous. I would cross reference again the fact
that there has been legislation introduced that is going to
charge customs officers with more onerous tasks and a more
proactive attempt to have them fight crime at the border.
However, we do not yet know if adequate resources and training
are going to be put in place as well to help them implement and
enforce these new pieces of legislation.
Throughout the solicitor general's statement, we heard that the
government has been creating partnerships between local,
provincial, national and international law enforcement agencies.
We have also heard about existing resources to fight crime. I am
very much aware of the situation that is going on in New
Brunswick presently between the Moncton municipal police and the
RCMP who are imposing their particular services in place of the
municipal police. This is a situation that I suggest the
government has been very lax in addressing.
I support the government's efforts in bringing about various
elements of our criminal justice system to fight organized crime.
I do so wholeheartedly, but the government must not, however, use
the co-operative partnerships as an excuse to withhold the
necessary resources. That is not just my opinion. It is the
opinion of many local police officers across the country.
1055
The police chief in London, Ontario summed this up perfectly
when he stated last month “Just because we now have a law, that
does not realize anything unless we have the programs which mean
resources for police and enhanced training. Laws for the sake of
laws mean nothing. They are just more paper”.
Unfortunately, this is the impression that many law enforcement
officers and I would suggest many Canadians have when we have
legislation put through Parliament and the resources to see that
it is enforced are not there to support it.
In conclusion, I thank the solicitor general for his statement.
I would reinforce my comments with four main points. One, let us
not forget the foundation upon which this present government is
acting by developing policies and legislation with respect to
organized crime. Let us work to build upon it.
Second, the solicitor general needs to commit to a
straightforward, mandatory reporting requirement for financial
transactions which will correspond with our biggest trading
partner, the United States.
Third, the solicitor general needs to clarify the definition of
a criminal organization to better establish the principle of
intent so that prosecutions can be successful.
Fourth, the government should provide necessary programs and
training through additional funds if necessary to help police and
all law enforcement officers to properly implement and enforce
this legislation.
I am hoping that we are not going to hear more
self-congratulatory statements from the solicitor general. We
must work toward concrete examples of crime reduction so that
Canadians will be satisfied that this Parliament and our
enforcement officers are doing their job.
I am very supportive of the government in its efforts, but let
us not just give lip service to this serious matter. Let us see
that the right thing happens and that we can actually report back
in a year's time that these initiatives have been successful.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the first report of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts.
The report by and large calls for reports four, five, six, seven
and nine that were presented in the last Parliament and there was
not the opportunity to respond because of the dissolution of
Parliament. I am asking for these reports to be tabled in this
Parliament.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of
Commons, the committee requests the government to table
comprehensive responses to all the reports mentioned in this
report.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[English]
This report deals with the preparedness for the year 2000 as far
as technology and computers are concerned where the committee
heard testimony toward the situation that could cause some
difficulties at that time.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons,
the committee asks the government to table a comprehensive response
to the report.
[English]
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure on behalf of the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources and Government Operations and an honour for me
to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Climate
Change as we prepare for the Kyoto conference in Japan.
Our committee undertook several weeks of hearings with
representatives of industry, NGOs and private citizens to hear
their concerns as we prepare for discussions in Kyoto.
1100
In presenting this report, I want to thank all committee members,
our very capable clerk and researcher for their efforts to
support the committee's work.
In tabling this, I want to point out that the title of the
report is “Let's get the Ball Rolling.” The main point is that
we have to get started on dealing with climate change, regardless
of our views on science or how we get there. We have to agree on
getting started.
I am proud of this report and I recommend it to all hon.
members.
* * *
[Translation]
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-292, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill I am introducing with pride
today is very simple.
The aim is to take appointments to the National Parole Board out of
the hands of the Prime Minister and his patronage and put them
under the responsibility of the House of Commons so that they will
be non partisan and better reflect a concern for impartiality and
ability.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-293, an act to amend the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service Act (Review Committee).
He said: Madam Speaker, along the same lines as the preceding
bill, this bill aims to ensure that the members of the security
intelligence review committee are appointed by the government,
obviously, but with the approval of each of the leaders of the
parties with more than 12 members in this House and by resolution
of the House of Commons.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have a petition to present today which comes from my riding of
Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society.
The petitioners also point out, in agreement with the report of
the national forum on health, that the Income Tax Act does not
take into account the cost of raising children for those families
that choose to stay at home and provide direct parental care to
their preschool children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
choose to provide care in the home for preschool children.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Question No. 24 will be
answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Peter Mancini:
With regard to Unemployment Insurance Act paragraph 3(2)(c),
the “Arm's Length Provision”: (a) how many appeals have been
filed in the last two years in Cape Breton; (b) how many appeals
have been rejected, resulting in cases beofre the Tax Committee
of Canada; and (c) how many of those cases involved “family
entreprises”?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): The dpartment does not capture information solely for
Cape Breton. The data collected are based on the cases hadled by
the Sydney tax services office which has jurisdiction for the
Cape Breton area. In the last 2 years, 223 requests for
determination or appeal had been filed with the Sydney office.
Of those 223 cases, 179 decisions were issued. In 124 of the
issued decisions, it was determined that the employment was not
insurable as the parties were dealing at non-arms's length.
During the same 2 year period, 28 of these 124 decisions were
appealed to the Tax Court of Canada. The department does not keep
statistical information on those cases involving non-arm's length
situations that are family enterprises.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri:
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1105
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I wish to inform the House
that, because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be
extended by 45 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed from November 26 consideration 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, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee; and of Motion No. 8.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker, we are
resuming debate on Motion No. 8, tabled by the Conservative
member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
[English]
What he is saying in this particular motion is that the
regulations made under paragraph 1(b) must reflect the objectives
of the board as set out in section 5.
This is something which appears to be highly technical. He is
talking here, of course, about the investment board of the Canada
pension plan.
We are going to have a radically new departure from the Canada
pension plan when this legislation is passed through the House,
through the Senate and receives royal assent in a matter of a few
weeks.
Currently the Canada pension plan has, roughly, a two year
contingency fund of about $40 billion. That $40 billion fund is
now being loaned to the provinces at federal government long bond
rates, which are the cheapest rates for long term debt. That has
been very positive for a number of provinces in the country,
including my own province of Saskatchewan which a while ago was
going through a difficult financial time.
It has also been very helpful for Manitoba, which at times has
not had a very positive credit rating. As well, it has been
helpful to the provinces of Atlantic Canada, particularly
Newfoundland.
That has actually been a pretty good part of the Canada pension
plan. The provinces have borrowed to build schools, hospitals
and infrastructure to make a stronger province and a stronger
country. That is what the fund is used for.
However, there will be a change. Instead of having about two
years of funding set aside, in a few years there will be five or
six years of funding set aside through the establishment of an
investment fund. In a few years that investment fund will grow
to over $136 billion. The fund will invest in the market,
similar to the way in which private pension funds are invested. A
board will be established. That board will have regulations,
objectives and goals.
Our concern is that we think the goals and objectives of the
fund will be too narrowly defined. I do not support this
amendment today because it reasserts support for that narrow
definition of the objectives of the fund. We believe that the
fund should have more broadly defined objectives, similar to the
Caisse de dépot et placement in Quebec. Its objectives not only
speak to the return to the eventual pensioner but also talk about
some of the social objectives in terms of Quebec society.
It looks at things like creating jobs in the province of Quebec,
investing in Quebec industries, building a stronger economy in
the province of Quebec, and so on.
[Translation]
Quebec's Caisse de dépôt et placement has served Quebeckers well
over the past 60 years. The province's economy is now stronger, partly
because of this fund available to Quebeckers.
1110
The economy gradually became stronger and unemployment diminished,
thanks to the Caisse de dépôt et placement, whose objectives were
broader and more encompassing, and whose vision was more positive. In
fact, the vision was not at all the same in the federal fund for the
rest of Canada.
[English]
There is a vision here that is more narrow. It talks only about
maximizing the returns to the people who are making the
contribution to the fund.
It is important to maximize returns but we need some balance as
well. I think about jobs in Canada, creating more jobs. That is
very important, investing in Canadian industry, in Canadian
business. There are a lot of very profitable businesses in this
country which, if they had access to more funding, major pension
funds, might do even better.
I noticed in the House yesterday that we were criticized. Indeed
the Bloc Quebecois was also criticized for talking about
doctrinaire investment. We are not talking about doctrinaire
investment. We are talking about an investment fund that has a
similar objective to the Caisse de dépots et placements in the
province of Quebec. That is not what I would call doctrinaire
investment.
[Translation]
It is a fund which was supported not only by the Bloc Quebecois.
Long before the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party was in office in
Quebec, with Mr. Lesage, who had previously sat here as an MP if I am
not mistaken. The Liberals were followed by the Union nationale, which
was a conservative party quite similar to the federal one. The Union
nationale also supported the Quebec fund and its objectives. Then came
Mr. Bourassa and the Liberal Party again.
[English]
I think what is happening in Quebec in terms of the fund's
objectives is very laudable, very positive and could serve as a
model in terms of this particular investment fund. The concern
we have is that the objectives are too narrowly defined, looking
solely at the maximization of the return.
My prediction is that it is not going to be very long before the
Minister of Finance will succumb to pressure from the investment
community to lift the rule that says only 20% of the funds can be
invested outside this country. I have asked that question to the
Minister of Finance. He said for the time being we are not going
to change the rules. He has always left that door open, that in
the future those rules may be changed.
I believe they will because this will be the biggest investment
fund in the country. There will be pressure from other funds as
well to lift the rules so that more money can be invested out of
the country. I think that is going the wrong way. This is the
Canadians' money. It is Canadian workers' money. It is money
from Canadian business, from small business, from the employers
and the employees and most of those funds should be invested
right here in the country.
With a great deal of respect to my colleague of the Conservative
Party from New Brunswick, I cannot support the motion before the
House today because I think it just reinforces the narrowness of
the objectives and goals of that board of directors. The board of
directors, I believe, will be lopsided in terms of who it
represents. It will represent mainly the business community.
We moved an amendment in committee that would have a balance in
terms of the board of directors between the two stakeholders,
between labour and business. That amendment I moved in committee
was supported by the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the
Conservative Party, the four opposition parties, but the
government across the way would not accept that very reasonable
amendment that there should be balance on the board of directors
between business and labour to stakeholders. If we do not have
that balance and if we have narrow objectives in terms of what
the board should do, then I am even more concerned about the use
of the money of the working people of this country.
It is bizarre that we have a Parliament now where the Liberal
Party represents only 38% of the Canadian people and the
opposition parties represent 62% of the Canadian people, as of
the results on June 2. Yet the government has refused to accept
even a single opposition amendment at the committee stage and
appears unwilling to accept even a single opposition amendment
here at report stage. Is that parliamentary democracy?
1115
We do not expect all the amendments to be carried or accepted,
but surely to goodness some of them could be accepted. They have
been suggested by business groups before the committee. They
have been suggested by social action groups before the committee.
They have been suggested by trade union groups before the
committee. They are reasonable amendments. Some of the
amendments would not need the approval of the provinces yet they
have been turned down. They have fallen on deaf ears.
That is one reason we need a serious effort at looking at
democratic reform so that the people's wishes can be expressed
and accurately reflected in the House of Commons. It is ironic
that 38% of the people can elect a majority government and that
majority government does not listen to the representatives of 62%
of the people.
We still have some time left. The parliamentary secretary is
sitting across the way. I once in a while see his head nod but
that is about all I see. I hope he will be more receptive and
will consider some of the amendments, in particular amendments
where we have a three or four party consensus on this side of the
House.
This amendment is obviously not one where we have consensus. I
think two opposition parties support this amendment and two
opposition parties oppose it. Maybe this reflects a difference
between social democrats and conservative ideology, but on many
amendments there is four party consensus.
Why can the government not listen to the people and reflect the
wishes of the people by accepting some amendments that are
reasonable? I do not know whether the rules permit, but I would
like to have a response from the parliamentary secretary or from
the gentleman on my left who has been very active in the
committee on whether or not they might accept some of the
amendments. I will wind up by asking them to be reasonable and
to accept a few of the opposition amendments.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want to comment briefly on a couple of the points raised by the
hon. member.
The finance committee considered a number of amendments, but the
member will well know that amendments dealt with in committee can
also be dealt with in the House, so many of the amendments of
substance are coming forward at report stage. The member will
also know that amendments are being proposed which the government
is supporting.
I want to make sure members understand a couple of the points
the member raised. He indicated that the funding would move to
fuller funding, from two years of reserve up to five years, to
accumulate a fund which can be used by the CPP investment board.
The disagreement in this regard has to do with the application of
those funds. I understand the member and the NDP would like to
have these funds directed at certain programs for economic
stimulus and the like.
We cannot lose sight of the purpose of the investment board. We
are talking about the Canada pension plan. Its objective is to
provide a safe and secure indexed pension for Canadians and to
keep the rate of the CPP as low as possible.
The objectives have been ratified as a result of public
consultation. They have been agreed upon with the majority of
the provinces, at least two-thirds of the provinces representing
two-thirds of the population of Canada.
The issue of where moneys could be invested did come up. There
was a strong consensus, certainly in the consultation, that the
funds should not be used for other purposes, for other government
objectives such as regional economic development or something
like that.
If the fund is invested according to prudent investment
practices, it will earn a better return than it is getting now.
As a result the rates of premium will be kept at a lower rate
than they otherwise would be.
It was very clear from all experts that came before us that we
should not compromise the principal objective of the Canada
pension plan with regard to either other ancillary benefits or
with regard to other government social or economic objectives.
We had to make it clear that the CPP was there to ensure
Canadians had a cost effective, reliable and sustainable Canada
pension plan.
1120
The member is also well aware of the 20% foreign investment
rule. He is quite correct in his reference to the minister. The
minister, the finance department and the government are looking
at all issues concerning income taxation. We know the
principles of the 20% rule apply to all pension plans and to
RRSPs. They apply also to the Canada pension plan.
The consistency will remain but will always continue to be held
under review to ensure the best possible arrangements are
available not only to the Canada pension plan but to all
Canadians.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to
rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-2.
Today I want to discuss the four pillars of retirement security.
These are private RRSPs, the old age pension, the Canada pension
plan and tax relief. My comments will focus on two areas.
First, I will examine the damage the Liberals have inflicted upon
each of the four retirement pillars. Second, I will outline
positive steps the government—
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. With all due respect we are now on Group No. 4, report
stage Motion No. 9 by the NDP. I believe the debate should be
focused on the elements of that grouping rather than a general
speech on Bill C-2.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must inform the
hon. member that we are now debating on Group No. 3 and not Group
No. 4.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Madam Speaker, in light of those
comments I will reserve my comments to later.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate on
Group No. 3.
[Translation]
In accordance with
yesterday's agreement, the motion in Group No. 3 is deemed to have
been put and a recorded division is deemed to have been demanded
and deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to debate Group No. 4. Pursuant to
agreement made earlier Motion No. 9 is deemed proposed and
seconded.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That Bill
C-2 be amended by adding after line 29, on page 28, the
following:
“53.1 Notwithstanding any provision in this Act or any other
Act, a provincial government is entitled to borrow funds from the
assets managed by the Board at the lowest rate of interest
available to the federal government.”
He said: Madam Speaker, Group No. 4 has only one motion which I
have moved. I want to spend a few moments on it this morning in
the House.
Motion No. 9 reads as follows:
That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 29, on page 28, the
following:
“53.1 Notwithstanding any provision in this Act or any other
Act, a provincial government is entitled to borrow funds from the
assets managed by the Board at the lowest rate of interest
available to the federal government”.
I alluded to this motion when I was making some comments on
Motion No. 8 in the previous grouping.
1125
The interesting thing about the Canada pension fund today is
that the two year reserve, which is around the $40 billion mark,
can be borrowed by provincial governments at the federal
government long term bond rate.
If we look at the last 30 years, the federal government's long
term bond rate has been a pretty good deal for a number of
provinces. Over the last while many of them have not had the
same credit rating as the federal government because of economic
difficulties or their sheer size.
I am joined in the House this morning by my friend from New
Brunswick. Over the years New Brunswick has a rather high
unemployment rate as a small province with a small population.
Its credit rating has probably always been lower than the federal
government's credit rating. Therefore it is more expensive for
the province of New Brunswick to borrow money for its schools,
hospitals and universities other than from the federal
government.
One goal of the Canada pension plan was to set aside its reserve
for about two years and to allow the provinces to borrow moneys
from it at the federal government rate. That made it cheaper for
the province of New Brunswick to build schools, hospitals and
universities. It could borrow money from the fund at a lower
interest rate than if the fund had not been there. The federal
government bond rate was at a lower rate of interest than New
Brunswick could borrow money elsewhere.
The same thing was true in my province of Saskatchewan. It has
been very helpful in terms of the infrastructure we have built in
our province over the years.
[Translation]
It was also true for the province of Manitoba, the Atlantic
provinces, not just New Brunswick, but Newfoundland, Prince Edward
Island and Nova Scotia too, as well as every other Canadian
province. It is a good thing, a positive thing. I recall very
well—I heard the debates in the 1960s—that it was in 1966
that this bill became reality in Canada. It was under the Liberal
Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson.
[English]
Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson, in a minority parliament
in those days, supported particularly by the NDP, people like
Tommy Douglas and David Lewis, brought the country the pension
plan. One of its objectives was to provide the fund at lower
interest rate to the provinces so they could build their
infrastructures, become stronger provinces and build stronger
economies.
Now that will disappear. That is one of the changes in the CPP
legislation that I am personally very concerned about. Now every
province will be on its own. That may not be a problem.
Alberta has a very strong and robust economy and a very good
credit rating today. It will be a problem for Newfoundland that
does not have a good credit rating. It will be more expensive
for Newfoundland to go to the market for long term debt to build
a university or to build the infrastructure than it will be for
Ralph Klein in the province of Alberta.
If the government is worried about national unity, about
building a strong federation and about doing some things at the
federal level that help all Canadians regardless of where they
live, surely to goodness this is one part of the bill that should
be changed by the federal government across the way. If we are
looking at equality for all our citizens and at equality of
opportunity or condition for all our citizens, surely to goodness
this is one of the changes the government should look at in terms
of the Canada pension plan.
One of the reasons the governments of B.C. and Saskatchewan did
not agree to the changes in the CPP was that it set up a
balkanized Canada in terms of interest rates. It seems to be
very bizarre that a so-called Liberal government would do this.
Now provinces will be at the mercy of bond rating agencies like
Moody's of New York. They will determine how much the taxpayers
in Manitoba, New Brunswick or Newfoundland have to pay when they
borrow money to build a project.
They will be at the mercy of Moody's or other bond rating
agencies such as the Dominion Bond Rating Service. The bond
rating agencies will fly into a province with their books and
their own technocrats and sit down to determine at what rate of
interest the provinces can borrow money. That decision is out
of our hands as parliamentarians.
It is out of our hands and in the hands of a few foreign bankers
and bond raters. It does not matter what political party is in
power, we are at the mercy of these people.
1130
I know how important it was in Saskatchewan a few years ago when
the province was in great debt and suffering from a humungous
deficit. The bond rating companies had the province on the verge
of bankruptcy. We are at the mercy of these New York bankers.
They set the rates. What has happened in the last few years is
that the province has recovered. It has a balanced budget, the
debt is going down and the credit rating is going up.
How can a Liberal government put the provinces at the mercy of
these speculators from New York and elsewhere? That is exactly
what is happening in this bill.
Our amendment today is restoring to the Canada pension plan the
same provisions that have existed since 1966 that will allow the
provinces to borrow from the fund at the federal government's
long term rate. The federal government's long term rate is a rate
that is attractive because the federal government is large, it is
credible, it has a good credit rating. It is the economy of the
whole country that is supporting this credit rating.
It is only fair that the federal government accept this
amendment. Accept the wisdom of a Lester Pearson, accept the
wisdom of a Paul Martin, Sr. when they had a vision of trying to
build a co-operative federalism where Canadians were equal and
had equality of condition whether they lived in New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, Quebec or Saskatchewan.
Where is that Liberal vision of old that wanted to offer this
equal opportunity right across the country? Why is it the new
Liberalism in this country has the vision of a Brian Mulroney or
the Leader of the Opposition where it is dog eat dog? Why is
that happening?
I do know there are many Liberal backbenchers who are very
uncomfortable with this new very conservative model of
Liberalism. In fact somebody said that we have probably the most
conservative government now in the history of the country sitting
across the way.
Brian Mulroney did not try to do this. Brian Mulroney did not
try this when he was Prime Minister of this country. If he had,
the Liberal Party would have been up in arms. The rat pack would
have been up in arms in this House. It would have denounced that
government as right wing extremists and sellouts, balkanizing the
country, a supermarket of Canadians where Canadians are different
classes in different parts of the country.
Now the Liberals are in power. Now the sons and daughters
politically of the Liberals of old, of the Pearsons and the
Martins and the Pickersgills of old are changing that Liberal
vision that talked about equality of condition.
I think this is a fundamental amendment to a fundamental part of
the bill. I wish we had the independence and the freedom in this
country where parliamentarians on the government side could get
up and speak their minds and vote freely and independently and
accept some of the amendments being put forth by members of this
House.
People are getting cynical of this whole process. They get
cynical when they see this kind of thing happening. They get
cynical when they see this kind of radical departure and change
and not so much as a peep from the Liberal members sitting
opposite. Not so much as a peep.
I know how concerned everybody is about national unity and
keeping this country together and creating equality of condition.
Equality of opportunity is supposed to be a great principle of
Liberalism in Canada. Can the Liberals explain why they are
going to treat a Newfoundlander different from an Albertan? Why
they are going to treat an Ontarian different from somebody from
New Brunswick? Why they will treat a Manitoban different from
someone in British Columbia?
We are going to have the balkanization of this country in terms
of lending rates. That is not fair. That is not just. That is
not equality. That is not the kind of vision of a country I want
to build.
In the province of Quebec with the Caisse de dépôt et placement
du Québec there are not different lending rates for different
regions. There is one lending rate right across the province of
Quebec for their particular fund and their particular investment
board and agency. This will not be the case now in the rest of
the country. This will not be the case at all. That concerns me
as a Canadian.
If I were Brian Tobin, the premier in Newfoundland, I would be
up in arms denouncing the Minister of Finance and the minister of
human resources for saddling him with a regime that will make it
more expensive for him to borrow money for his schools and his
hospitals than for Ralph Klein in the province of Alberta.
1135
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam
Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the hon. member's
comments on this bill and the amendment he is bringing forward on
preferential loan rates to provinces.
I think Canadians are telling us that they are looking for
people to manage their money. Over the past 20 years we have been
lending money to provinces at a preferred lending rate, but where
are we today? There is a shortfall of $600 billion in the fund.
I do not think that Canadians were looking for that.
We have to provide Canadians with the best bang for their
dollar. They are looking for maximum returns, guarantees that the
CPP will no longer be affected. They are looking to have a
Canada pension plan in 20 years.
I also heard the hon. member talk about New Brunswick and how
this would help to create jobs. I will say that for 20 years we
have been lending money to provinces at a preferred rate and the
unemployment rate is still very high. I do not believe the status
quo would work. There are other vehicles to create employment in
New Brunswick. The way to do that is by electing a Conservative
government in the next election.
We are talking today about saving the CPP. The hon. member
mentioned keeping the status quo. Well today there is a $600
billion shortfall in the CPP fund. Imagine if the NDP were the
government today and passed this type of bill. Maybe in 20 years
the CPP fund would be a trillion dollars in the red. That is
scary. I hope that Canadians can see exactly what is going on
here.
I know that for my investment, my money, I want the best bang
for my dollar. This is 1997, not 1966.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker, on a
point of order.
I wonder if the member would entertain a question. He is
talking about this radical amendment. This is the same approach
that Brian Mulroney and the Conservative Party favoured over the
years. They suggested keeping this particular fund for the
provinces. That is what is wrong with it.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, if I can continue, this is
1997, not 1966. Canadians are looking for good management and
that is what we are proposing. We are proposing to secure the
CPP fund for future generations.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to address this topic. I will try to give a
little of the background in our province.
I am saddened to see my colleague rise and say that, if the
New Democrats were in office, the problem would be worse in ten
years than it is now. I can tell you that all the poverty we are
seeing today is a legacy from Brian Mulroney's Conservatives.
1140
They were followed by the Liberals, the opposition back then,
who said “Elect us and we will do better”. We have never been in
such bad shape as we are now. It is all very fine and well to take
the tack they are taking, to speak about the economy and how to
invest money and reap the benefits, but I can guarantee you Canada
never saw as many hungry children as it did under those two
governments. It was because of those governments.
I find it really sad that, today, someone from my region, my
colleague the hon. member, cannot grasp the fact that families are
living in such poverty and that the Canada pension plan, with all
the money that goes into it, plays no part in getting the economy
moving again.
The problem is that the Conservatives and the Liberals have
simply taken money and given it to their friends, the major
corporations, in $100 million and $400 million chunks. This is why
our economy is in such a sorry state today. There is too much
patronage, that is the problem.
Liberal and Conservative members make me think of employment
centres. There are the employees and the poor people that have to
go to see them about jobs, and if they are not Liberals or
Conservatives, they do not get a job. This is why Canada is so far
in the hole. This is why Atlantic Canada is always impoverished.
Governments have never carried out their responsibilities in the
Atlantic provinces.
They talk about national unity, but the day Canada considers all
the provinces in the country, fewer children in the Atlantic
provinces will suffer. I am ashamed of the previous speaker.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, on reading the NDP amendment, the deep
feelings behind it are quite understandable.
It can be seen that in the past many regions of Canada have
indeed been the victims of decisions by the central government. It
must be kept in mind that the text that existed in 1964 was part of
a kind of a deal to have the Canadian economy centred in Ontario,
with transfer payments and employment insurance to give the
peripheral regions a top-up income to allow them to survive.
One important mandate was lost sight of at that time, however,
that a supplementary income was not the only thing needed; regional
economies also had to be diversified.
The regions—although I speak for eastern Quebec, I think the same
applies to the maritimes—have long respected this agreement,
saying that industrialization and all the manufacturing sector
would be mostly located in Ontario and the natural resources sector
would be more in the eastern provinces and Quebec, but there was no
change in the regional economy so that we would not just cut down
the trees but also process them in our regions, not only catch the
fish, but also have the fish plants in our regions. In short,
there was no worthwhile diversification of the economy.
It must be kept in mind that, at the end of the 19th century,
the maritime provinces were self-sufficient and the state of
dependency we have today was created and perpetuated by the
systemic implementation of federal government policies,
particularly during the Trudeau years.
So, as I said, we can certainly understand the deep feelings behind this
amendment.
However, on the eve of the 21st century, the amendment before us is
not necessarily the solution to revitalize regional economies. Nowadays,
the provinces can get fairly easy access to credit. They can get money
from various sources and use the pension fund in compliance with the
stated purpose.
Let us not forget that the Canada pension plan is the fund that has
had just about the lowest rate of return over the last 35 years.
Compared to the Régie des rentes du Québec—and this is partly because
of the investments made by the Caisse de dépôt et placement—the
Canadian plan is way behind and does not perform nearly as well as the
Régie des rentes du Québec and its investment instrument, the Caisse de
dépôt et placement.
1145
So, the bill seeks to correct a situation whereby the pension fund
may no longer be self-sufficient and may no longer provide the funds
necessary for future generations. Many of the amendments to the current
act are based on the Quebec experience. I was told that federal public
servants travelled to Quebec City to look at how the Caisse de dépôt et
placement and the Régime de rentes du Québec worked. They looked at why
the RRQ provided better control than the CPP over areas such as
disability claims. They concluded that our system worked and that they
should try to implement a similar plan in Ottawa and get it to work as
well.
I hope the bill before us will lead to such results.
Let us bear in mind that, given the opportunity to go about doing things
differently, in an original way, Quebec can make an outstanding
contribution and demonstrate, with concrete results, that Quebeckers
have all it takes to take the necessary and appropriate steps to promote
their development.
So, regarding the amendment under consideration, which seeks to
give some sort of preferential rate to provincial governments that need
money and borrow from the Canada pension plan fund, the solution may be
to give the regions the opportunity to develop adequate infrastructures
to ensure the most appropriate free trade possible. Since the free trade
agreements were signed, some industries have expanded and Quebec
certainly came out a winner in this respect.
Safeguards will also be required to ensure that environmental
regulations and labour laws are respected, but it will nevertheless be
possible to diversify our economies.
There is a tool available that would be much more efficient than an
preferential interest rate and that is a federal government procurement
policy based on the regions. If in evaluating its procurement contracts
with suppliers, the federal government was accountable to the House of
Commons and to the people of Quebec and Canada for not concentrating its
expenditures in Ontario, without necessarily distributing expenditures
among all regions, that would be the beginning of a solution.
The federal government's performance will have to be assessed on the
basis of whether or not transfer payments are maintained, because there
is no doubt that some action is required in that area, that some
distribution of wealth is required, but in addition to transfer
payments, there should be decentralization of procurement to the regions
so that each region can create an appropriate number of jobs depending
on its population. There is nothing of the sort in the government's plan
of action right now.
I would be much more in favour of questioning this government on
all its actions, and it does not seems to me that giving the provinces
a preferential rate on loans from the Canada pension fund is the best
solution because, at the same time, the public will demand that the fund
finally become cost-effective after 30 years of going about it the wrong
way, after discovering that it was not successfully replenished, it
would be a grave mistake not to let this fund produce the best results
possible.
And I believe that today the provinces have other opportunities to
borrow. There are various markets opened to them. They are not all the
same economically, that is true, but if this approach had already
produced over the past years what we are looking for, we would not have
to be discussing it today. So it did not help achieve what was being
aimed at. The result has been that basically the provinces were not
encouraged to look for investments with capital that may not come from
the federal government or from the Canada pension plan.
For these reasons, we will vote against the proposed amendment,
although we are well aware of the fact that many changes should be made
in the way the federal government helps the regions and the provinces.
The best way to do that is to restore the transfer payments that were
withdrawn four years ago, instead of trying to design new programs for
youth or for any other group, such as the disabled or other groups. It
is of course very appropriate that assistance be provided to these
groups.
1150
But we should have more confidence in the ability of the provinces
and of the professionals in these areas to address these issues. We
should give back the money that was taken away because of cuts over the
past four or five years, and I am sure there would be a much greater
positive effect than by letting the provinces borrow from the Canada
pension plan at a preferential rate.
Having assessed this whole situation, we feel that this amendment
should not be allowed. It is contrary to the general scheme of the act,
which is not the same as the one passed during the sixties. We have
learned that there is less money coming in than expected to finance the
plans.
Such an approach could have the following undesired effect: if we
allow the provinces to borrow at a preferential rate, who will be paying
the cost of such a preferential rate? Will it be future generations, the
young people who will have to finance the program, by increasing their
contributions over the next 10, 15 or 20 years? It is absolutely
essential that the act, and the scheme of the act ensure a better
intergenerational balance.
I believe we should avoid adding amendments that would not help
achieve that objective.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I would
like to comment on the comments of the hon. member from the NDP
that we are seeing more and more poorer Canadians and poorer
children. I think a distinction has to be made here.
What we are talking about is preventing poorer and poorer senior
citizens in this country. That is the concern that we have.
Lending money to provinces at preferential or lower interest
rates is not what we are talking about.
We want to ensure that there is a solid fund that will provide
for Canadians who are planning for their retirement. We see the
reason why there is a $600 billion shortfall in the CPP system.
It is partly because these funds were loaned to the provinces at
far too low interest rates.
We want to see a solid fund that is going to provide a regular
income for retired citizens in a way that basically gives the
people what they deserve and not having younger people paying
exorbitant amounts for this.
I think the hon. member for the NDP is out in left field on this
one.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I would like to speak in favour of the opportunity for provinces
to have access. I think previous members speaking in opposition
to this do not realize that economic indicators are major cycles.
Some day their riding or their province may realize a downturn,
something that Hong Kong, Taiwan or Korea as state nations in the
Pacific Rim are realizing. Their national interests have closed
the door on them to be able to build much needed infrastructures
like schools, hospitals, water and sewer facilities for the
health and well-being of their communities.
All these major needs are prevalent in my region. I look at a
region in northern Saskatchewan. We do not have big banks. We
cannot walk down the street, then play golf with the local banker
and hopefully get a few million dollars to build our next major
infrastructure to create an economic cycle.
We still have the remnants of the Hudson's Bay Company. They
took the profits and left nothing. There is no Hudson's Bay
hospital, school or highway. These guys took the profits and
ran.
Here a government finally has a fund that is available from our
pensions and then members want to close the door to allowing us
to access our own investment for our children, our communities
and for the betterment of our entire country.
They are willing to close this door without knowing what our
economic future is going to be like.
1155
We are speaking on behalf of people who are aware, people who
are at the poverty level, the unemployed and the people who do
not have huge bank accounts. We do not even have major banks in
some of these regions. Having a bank teller is basically a way
of accessing one's bank account. However, if one has nothing to
put in it then one is in trouble.
Territorial governments have been borrowing from the provinces.
They do not seem to have access to this investment fund unless
the provinces do it on their behalf. The government is closing
the door on the whole territorial region that is at the
developmental stage. Some of these regions that the hon. members
who are speaking represent have had their opportunity for
development and now they are closing it on the underprivileged or
underdeveloped areas of this country.
I carefully ask for the government to take its time on this
whole issue of investment of pension funds and access by
provincial governments at a federal rate as opposed to a
marketable rate. If a province's rating by Moody's has been
classified high the interest rate will be high. We may run into
trouble in the future and maybe our grandchildren will run into
trouble in the future and the door has been closed.
I ask for support for this amendment to keep the opportunities
for these provinces to have access if they need it. It does not
necessarily mean they are always going to line up and take it
away. If they need it, they will be able to ask for it.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
recently talked to one of my constituents, Rene Jaspar, as well
as many small businesses in my riding. I am sure this is
applicable to a number of businesses across the country. These
people are right at the doorstep of closing their business doors
and going into bankruptcy. They are in a great depression.
I ask the permission of the House and the Chair to move a
motion:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must advise the
hon. member that a letter should have come to the Speaker seeking
an emergency debate. However, at this stage, the hon. member may
seek the unanimous consent of the House to hold such a debate.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, under my point of
order I asked for the unanimous consent of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is no unanimous
consent.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, in
response to the hon. member from the New Democratic Party, what
we are talking about here is wise investments. We cannot ask the
people of Canada to have their funds invested unwisely. That is
what we are talking about.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, as
someone who is not quite at the age where I am thinking about
getting on to the Canada pension plan, I have to admit that in
the last few months I have become very much aware of the
seriousness of this legislation and the consequences to the
people of Canada.
The amendment our caucus is supporting is a clause that has
been part of the Canada pension plan since its inception in 1966.
1200
When I listen to the comments of the member from the far right
on this being a devastating affect, putting the Canada pension
plan way under, that people of Canada want to see their money
invested strictly for profit, I suggest that the provinces being
able to access the Canada pension fund for investment to ensure
they can continue is an investment and is profitable. It might
not be a buck we can hand back and forth, run to the store with
or down the street, whatever our little hearts desire, but it is
profitable. It is an investment in the people of Canada.
I am surprised at the comments coming from that member. His
party left in Saskatchewan one of the most devastating results of
a government that so blatantly abused its power. I am surprised
that the present government did not have to borrow from this fund
to secure the locks on the jails of Saskatchewan because of that
situation. It was able to borrow from this fund and is very
credible in its approach to getting out of the mess that
government put us in.
As someone who grew up in Saskatchewan I would go back from
Manitoba year after year while that government was in place and
watch my home province go down and down and down. It literally
tore me apart. I have such pride in seeing the results of the
present government and knowing that this amendment, this
proposal, was the result of being able to see that province come
back life. For someone to suggest that it is not important, that
it is not a profitable investment, is absolutely disgraceful.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my intervention will not be long but I have been
carefully listening to the interventions from our NDP colleagues
with respect to this proposed amendment. Unless I heard it
incorrectly, from the very mouth of the last speaker comes the
reason why the amendment should not be supported.
She is talking about giving, as I understood, the opportunity
for the provinces to dip into this fund and use the money for
what they think is right, if I understand the amendment
correctly. Yet in the very next sentence she points out the
irresponsible behaviour of a certain province during the regime
of a certain government. There is nothing in the future to
prevent other irresponsible governments in other provinces from
doing things that might be irresponsible with the CPP.
It seems that what Canadians want is to make sure that the
Canada pension plan is there when they retire and to make sure
that when they retire they will receive an appropriate pension,
being one of the three pillars we are trying to get Canadians to
appreciate.
If we are going to do that we want to make sure that the fund is
invested in the most prudent and most efficient way to ensure
profitability, not for the sake of profitability but for the sake
of ensuring that those people who are retired can count on the
Canada pension plan. One of the ways we want to do that is to
make sure that the investments are invested in a prudent,
financially secure manner. If we are going to leave it
willy-nilly to governments that may or may not be good or bad
from time to time, it seems to me that in itself is
irresponsible.
If that is the intent of the NDP amendment I certainly cannot
support it.
1205
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one thing all of us in the House need to be absolutely
clear on is that this is not politicians' money. I hope my
colleagues in the NDP realize that. This money belongs to the
people of Canada. They work hard for it and they want to retire
on it with some security. They do not want it to be played with
for political purposes.
Why is the Canada pension plan in such a mess? Why do we owe
$600 billion when there is not a nickel anywhere to pay it? It
is because of philosophies like this, that somehow we can use
this money, we can play with it, we can benefit from it and there
will be no price to pay down the road. There is a price to be
paid. It will be paid by our children.
Unbelievably, we have a party which is arguing passionately in
favour of continuing to repeat the mistakes of the past. I hope
there is not one more member of the House who would support such
nonsense.
The Canada pension plan represents a second national debt. We
have to do everything we can to pay off that debt. It is a
disgrace. It represents a real threat to the security of our
future and to the well-being of our children. Yet we have a
group of people saying let us continue to use this money to
bail ourselves out when we get in a jam. Let us continue to use
this money with a lower rate of return. The people who
entrusted us with this money could get a better rate of return
under prudent management.
This kind of philosophy has failed us miserably in the past. One
of my gravest concerns about this whole scheme is that we are
going to create a huge investment fund, with billions and
billions of dollars in it, and we are going to have politicians
like these saying we need to do this, that this is a different
kind of investment, that maybe we will not get as much money out
of it but, boy, it is really important that we make these kinds
of investments. It is an investment for the future. Maybe we
will not get a good return on it, but it is an important
investment.
This is not our money to play with. This is money which has
been entrusted to us by hardworking Canadians who hope to retire
on it. We had better give them the very best management we can
possibly give them and forget about all the other nice things we
could do with this money.
I wish we had unlimited money. I can think of at least a
hundred things that I would do tomorrow if I had an unlimited pot
of cash, things that would help a lot of people. But this money
does not belong to the politicians and it should not be treated
that way.
I am very concerned about the political risk that is being posed
to our hard earned retirement investment before it even gets
going. I wonder as a middle-aged Canadian whether this kind of
thinking will be the death of my retirement hopes and those of my
children.
Someone has to pay. If money is loaned at low rates, someone
has to make up the difference. There is no way around it. It
will have to be made up by paying the extra money which should
have been earned or it will be made up by receiving lower
benefits because the maximum return was not earned. Yes, all
these nice things are being done but that does not give us a
secure retirement.
Let us not support amendments to a bill which would in any way,
shape or form suggest that this money belongs to the politicians.
The money belongs to the people. It is their retirement fund.
They had better get the best, most secure retirement they can
possibly get or there will be big trouble in the future.
1210
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on the comments
of my colleague who was just up speaking and addressing this
House, the motion is clearly inconsistent with the public's wish
to stop the practice of lending CPP funds to the provinces at
below their own market rates of interest.
I refer to the report on the Canada pension plan consultation
that was put out in June 1996. It says that there was widespread
support across the country for achieving a higher rate of return
by investing CPP funds in market securities. Participants said a
higher rate of return on investment is a prerequisite for the
changes to the benefits and contributions. Without it the
rationale for fuller funding disappears. There was agreement
that the inevitable increases in contribution rates must be kept
in check through diversified investments that will earn a higher
rate of return.
This is reflective of what Canadians have said throughout
consultations. The NDP this morning consistently gets up and
talks about how any of the changes that are put forward with
respect to Bill C-2 are not progressive enough or are not
reflecting what Canadians are saying.
I offer to this House the opportunity to put aside the rhetoric
the member for Qu'Appelle has put forward this morning, and some
of the other members of the NDP, and look at the facts.
They talk about the reasons why British Columbia and
Saskatchewan did not sign on to this agreement. Let us be quite
clear that during the consultations both those provinces never
said that provincial access to funds was an issue. They had
other issues.
British Columbia put forward toward the latter part of the
consultations and the negotiations between the province and the
federal government the proposal to expand coverage up the income
scale to $50,000 or $55,000 from where it is with the present
plan. That is fair enough, but it also needs to be stated that
particular issue is on track two.
The discussion with respect to that proposal from British
Columbia will be reviewed on track two when the provinces and the
federal government come together once again to review the Canada
pension plan.
There were no issues related to the investment board or the
investment board principles. In fact, both those provinces
signed on to the information paper that included the investment
board principles. The investment board principles stated quite
clearly that it will perform its function in the best interest of
the plan members. The best interest of the plan members is an
attempt to receive the best rate of return, and the best rate of
return is not achieved if we have this motion go forward.
The provinces agreed that the CPP fund should be invested in the
best interest of the plan member, just like other pension funds.
I think it is important to emphasize like other pension funds.
Another member of the NDP was up earlier this morning talking
about the limited access to the funds. The regulations included
in Bill C-2 quite clearly state that the bill guarantees
provincial access to funds at market rates.
There is a transition period. It was part of the negotiation.
The provinces wanted to ensure the amendments to the Canada
pension plan provided the opportunity for the provinces to
continue to receive access to those funds, and Bill C-2 does that
while at the same time providing the highest possible rate of
return to the plan members by ensuring the provinces are able to
have access to those provincial moneys at market rates.
I also want to state that this morning we heard the NDP get up
and say that the amendments are not progressive enough with
respect to Bill C-2. Yet here we have a motion that continues to
put forward the status quo. Let's not change it. What they are
doing is mixing all kinds of different motivations for these
changes. They talk about regional development. They talk about
labour participating and different types of initiatives.
1215
Regional economic development is an issue that is being dealt
with outside the Canada pension plan. Canadians have said
unequivocally that they want the pension plan to survive. As my
colleague from the Reform Party stated quite clearly, it is
Canadians' money. They are asking for the highest rate of return
with prudent management and investment of the money. That is
what we are doing. This motion would not speak to the concerns
of Canadians or support what they want.
Let us be quite clear that nothing would put benefits at risk in
the long run more than the failure to deal with the fiscal
realities of the program.
The higher rate of return the actuary has indicated the plan
will receive speaks to the contribution level. If we take away
provisions from the bill that do not allow the board to achieve
the highest possible rate of return in a prudent fashion, which
reflects what Canadians have said then, as my hon. colleague from
the Reform Party said, the money has to come from somewhere,
either from higher contributions or reduced benefits.
On the one hand the NDP continually says that the benefits are
being slashed in the program. At the same time it is saying that
we should not allow Canadians to receive the highest rate of
return on their money. The NDP cannot have it both ways. Bill
C-2 strikes a very good balance in achieving the sustainability
of the plan financially while still providing crucially important
benefits to Canadians.
I close by saying that we should oppose this amendment for the
reasons stated by me and by members of the Reform Party, the
Conservative Party and the Bloc who all stated quite eloquently
reasons why we should not support the motion.
The provisions in Bill C-2 reflect what Canadians have been
saying throughout the consultations. It allows for a higher rate
of return than is presently there. It also continues to allow
provincial access to funds, which is part of the
federal-provincial agreement.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add a couple of points. The parliamentary
secretary has made very clear why the motion should be defeated.
Page 58 of the report on the Canada pension plan consultations
says that all but one presenter were opposed to giving the
provinces continued access to CPP funds at below market rates.
As a result of those exhaustive consultations and with the
requisite support of the provinces the issue is quite clear not
only for the provinces and the federal government but for
Canadians at large.
I also want to make one brief comment about the issue of the
unfunded liability raised in the speech of the Conservative
member. He referred to it as a shortfall of some $600 billion.
Technically it is referred to as an unfunded liability, but in
the context of corporate pension plans an unfunded liability
determined by an actuarial report must be dealt with and
provisions must be made to fund the unfunded liability for one
very simple reason. Pensioners have to be protected. Should the
business fail there would be no recourse to deal with an unfunded
liability.
There is a difference, however, with regard to the benefits
accrued under the Canada pension plan by today's workers which
have not been fully funded. Finance officials have advised that
should the benefits accrued by all current workers which
continued to build up over the years require funding, we would
need some 30 years of funded benefits put aside in the investment
fund.
Needless to say, that is a very substantial amount of money.
Since that money is not funded it is in the hands of businesses.
It is in the hands of Canadians, the premium payers of the CPP.
1220
I should point out for the benefit of members the reason crude
benefits to current workers who are earning credits for their
pension plan are funded on a pay as you go basis. When the plan
came into effect the then retirees had come through two world
wars and a depression, the depression of the thirties and
forties. We all know they did not have the opportunity or a full
working career to be able to provide adequately for their
retirement needs. As a result the plan was structured on what is
called a pay as you go basis. Today's workers pay for the
benefits of the then retirees.
We have an aging society. The ratio of workers to retirees is
going down. This is one of the principal reasons amendments to
the Canada pension plan are necessary. We have to move to an
investment opportunity which will achieve higher rates of return
than previously was the case so that the fund earning those rates
will subsidize the premiums Canadians would otherwise pay.
It makes good sense. It certainly was the view of Canadians and
experts that appeared before the finance committee that attention
should not be seconded away from the principal purposes of the
Canada pension plan, which is to provide a secure guaranteed
indexed pension to all Canadians today and for future
generations. That should not be jeopardized or undermined by
either ancillary benefits or other activities such as regional
economic development, et cetera.
In closing, the member from Qu'Appelle continues to suggest that
the amendments being proposed by the NDP are reasonable and that
the government has not accepted any of these amendments. It is a
prime example of the motivation of the amendments proposed by the
NDP being totally inconsistent with the objectives of Bill C-2
and the creation of the Canada pension plan investment board.
That is precisely the reason this amendment should be defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the purpose of the amendment now being considered, Amendment No. 9
moved by my distinguidished colleague, the hon. member for
Qu'Appelle, is to amend Bill C-2 in order to allow certain
provinces to be able to borrow from this huge fund at a very low
rate of interest.
It must be remembered that governing means forecasting,
anticipating. It means being able to see 10, 20 or even 100 years
down the road. If I may, I would like to go back to the early
1960s, when the late Jean Lesage was elected to office in Quebec
with his slogan about things having to change. And he was
successful.
In 1962, I am sure you will recall the Liberal Party in Quebec
talking about being masters in our own province, the primary goal
being to create the Quebec pension plan fund and to nationalize
Quebec's electricity companies. This phenomenal team included René
Lévesque, who did wonderful things in Quebec for Quebeckers, and
Eric Kierens.
The Quebec pension plan investments are earning a distinctly
higher return. If the QPP loaned money to government corporations
at 3, 4 or 5%, it would be in the hole today.
1225
If corrective action is not taken quickly, the CPP will be
running a large deficit. With $5.85 on every $100 insurable today,
and hundreds of thousands of baby boomers all set to turn 65 at the
same time, or just about, the fund will be in the red. The
Minister of Finance would then be facing serious problems.
The CPP must therefore be properly managed so as to deliver
the highest return possible. To this end, it is anticipated that
a minimum of 80% of the fund will be invested in Canada. This
could go as high as 99%, of course, but never below 80%.
And the 20%, also as a maximum, could be invested in certain foreign
countries, where it is the safest to do so. We should not be investing
in countries offering 100% or 120% interest, but without any guarantee.
In other words, we should not be investing in a company like BREX, which
was very profitable, as you noticed also, but many Canadians lost their
shirts after having invested in BREX.
So these assets have to be invested, not with a charitable but
rather with an intelligent approach, to achieve maximum return, in the
same way that such assets are administered in Quebec by the Régie des
rentes du Québec. In Quebec, we have our Caisse de dépôt, and in Canada
we will have a fund called the Canada investment board, which is the
equivalent of the Caisse de dépôt et placement.
In conclusion, I would like here to pay tribute to Jean Lesage and
his tremendous team; in 1964, they created the Régie des rentes du
Québec, which is working very well and providing fruitful investments
for Quebeckers.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this House a second time to speak to Bill C-2
concerning reform of the Canada pension plan.
When I spoke the first time, I mentioned that this reform of
Canadian pensions was of special concern to me, because I am the Bloc
Quebecois critic on policies affecting the elderly. Furthermore, I have
risen many times in this House to defend the rights of the elderly, one
of the most vulnerable groups in society.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the general objective of the reform,
which is to preserve the viability of a public pension system. However,
this reform concerns Canadians more than Quebeckers, since less than
0.5% of the people living in Quebec receive Canada pension plan
benefits.
I would like to reiterate what my colleague for Mercier said: the
Government of Canada or the governments of the other provinces should
have done the same thing as Quebec in 1964-1965 when it created its
Caisse de dépôt et placement.
According to forecasts, retirement benefits from the Régie des
rentes du Québec, and also the benefits from federal income security
programs, will reach $49 billion in 2001, and as much as $170 billion in
current dollars in 2030.
Since the birth rate has gone down considerably over the past
several years, we have to ask ourselves: What will be the consequences
of the greater than expected rise in the contribution rate that will
result from the increase in capitalization?
1230
Whereas there were 7 people of working age for every pensioner
in 1951, the ratio dropped to 5.3:1 in 1991, and by 2031 will be
2.4:1. Unlike the Quebec pension plan, then, the federal programs
have no reserve they can capitalize on.
We therefore believe that this will have the effect of
reducing the intergenerational inequality by making the baby-boomer
generation pay, and most of these have about twenty years left to
work. Needless to say, the Bloc Quebecois has never called for the
end of the Canada pension plan and I would refer you to the
speeches of myself and my colleagues in this connection, all of
which focussed on the same thing: leaving seniors' rights
untouched.
The younger generations must also be able to benefit from a public
pension plan.
In Machiavelli's Prince, he says “The people could bear any
burden, provided it was imposed gradually”.
I would like to focus once again on the changes proposed for
federal disability benefits. The federal government is
experiencing great difficulty in implementing the disability
benefit. Last year, the auditor blamed the federal government for
the unjustified escalating costs of disability benefits, for the
most part the result of its rules being too lax.
At the present time the federal benefit is more generous that
the Quebec pension plan's disability benefits, mainly because
federal administrative policy allows more people to be eligible.
A departmental directive allows a person to be declared disabled
after the age of 55 if unable to perform his or her own job. The
federal government intends to abolish this directive, thus
tightening up administration of the plan.
Quebec has never had a directive of this type. In fact, a
person is eligible for disability benefits if he or she has
contributed for two of the past three years, five of the last ten,
or half of the same contributory period.
The federal government wants to limit eligibility to those who
have contributed for four of the last six years, which ought to cut
back considerably on eligibility to the plan. Today, at the report
stage, we need to look at a number of amendments moved by several
of the parties.
I will deal particularly with Motion No. 9, moved by the New
Democratic Party, which provides that a provincial government should be
entitled to borrow funds at the lowest rate of interest available to the
federal government. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support
this amendment, because it goes against the primary responsibility of
the investment board, which is to achieve a maximum rate of return to
ensure the plan's viability. A wide consultation process will take
place, possibly in early 1998.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: This is very unfortunate, because it is my
party.
Mr. Maurice Dumas: I see that the hon. member just realized we were
talking about his party.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: You are a social democrat.
Mr. Maurice Dumas: The Canada pension plan must be adjusted to have
a semblance of fairness that will be accepted by all generations.
Therefore, the earlier proposal made by the Reform Party to create
a super RRSP is also unacceptable.
1235
Under a system of super RRSPs, the government would have to
guarantee a basic income for retirees, either through a minimum annuity
or a separate assistance plan. In both cases, major costs would be
associated with such a type of guaranteed minimum income. Again, the
Bloc Quebecois never advocated the end of the Canada pension plan.
In my first speech on Bill C-2, I mentioned that the United Nations
had declared 1999 the international year of the elderly, to pay tribute
to our seniors. The theme promotes a society for all ages by developing
greater public awareness regarding the essential role played by seniors
in every field of activity.
The international year of the elderly should promote the principles
aimed at improving our seniors' quality of life by emphasizing autonomy,
participation and care.
It goes without saying that the Canada pension plan is obsolete and
no longer meets the public's requirements. I hope that, as the UN
international year, 1999 will be special, because the Bloc Quebecois
supports the objectives of the reform.
However, we urge the government to be very vigilant and to adopt
the appropriate amendments.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it always intrigues me when Bloc members wax eloquent
about the Canada pension plan when in fact they do not
participate in it. I want to respond very briefly to the comments
of the Bloc member.
The member said that there are problems with the fund. He
described the demographics and so on. The point that needs to be
made is that if the fund had been managed properly, demographics
would not matter. I wonder if that has ever occurred to those
members. Because the fund was mismanaged the money will not be
available for those who are looking forward to it as some
security for their retirement.
The suggestions made by the Bloc and by the NDP will not fix it.
There will be more government mismanagement. They already have
their greedy eyes on that money. They are telling us how we
should manage it, how we should lend it out at low interest rates
and so on. That is what got us into this mess in the first
place. More of that will not solve the problem.
The bottom line is that the proceeds should go to those who
invested the money. They should have a say in how it is done.
If people looked clearly at what we are proposing, at the whole
plan and not just nit-pick at little parts of it, they would begin
to realize that is the most realistic solution to our problem
with the Canada pension plan. It will take many years to roll it
over to the point where people have control over the funds, but
that is what we need to do. That is the bottom line.
As long as it is managed by the same people in government who
have been managing it up until now, and as long as those people
are giving directives and appointing people to boards to manage
the fund, we are still going to have the same problem.
The Bloc says there is not the appearance of justice which there
should be. We do not want an appearance of justice; we want the
fund managed properly so that those who expect a retirement
income will get it according to the funds they invested.
I was reading some of the articles which comment on the payroll
tax hike we will have. One of the commentators said to kiss
176,000 jobs goodbye. My Conservative colleagues have made the
point over and over again that this increase in tax will kill
jobs. The evidence is right here. We have been saying the same
thing. That has to be a consideration.
1240
For a government that claims to be compassionate, to raise taxes
even further and destroy more jobs is the absolute opposite of
compassion. Those people over here on the left side who are
advocating this have to realize that that is going to be a
tremendous job destroyer.
Seniors who retired in 1976 got over $12 for every dollar
invested. Young people today who are going to retire in 2041 are
going to get 59¢ for every dollar they have in the fund. It is
not their fault. It is not the fault of seniors who are getting
a very high return now for what they have actually put in. Nor
is it the fault of the young people who are going to retire 40
years from now that they did not get a good return. It is the
fault of the government that has mismanaged it. For the Bloc to
say we need more of that, to only tinker with it a little bit, is
not the solution. We have got to have a solution that will serve
us for all time. What has been proposed here is not that
solution.
I reiterate that their analysis of this is flawed because if it
had been done properly in the first place, the demographics would
not matter.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order
made November 26, all motions in Group No. 4 are deemed to have
been put, recorded divisions deemed requested and deemed
deferred.
The House will now
proceed to the debate on the motions in Group No. 5.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 59, be amended by adding
after line 33 on page 30 the following:
“(3) Any increase in the contribution rate referred to in
subsection (2) for the year 1997, 1998, 1999, or 2000 shall not
come into effect unless the cumulative increase in anticipated
revenues under the Canada Pension Plan resulting from the changes
in the contribution rate after December 31, 1996 are offset by at
least a cumulative decrease in anticipated combined employer and
employee contributions under the Employment Insurance Act for the
years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
(4) The contribution rate for self-employed persons shall
not exceed 10.25 per cent even if the Chief Actuary of the Office
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, in preparing the
report under section 115, is of the opinion that a higher
contribution rate is warranted.”
[Translation]
He said: Madam Speaker, this amendment concerns the rate of
contribution to the Canada pension plan and accordingly to the
employment insurance program.
We all know that excessive payroll taxes kill job creation.
Small and medium size businesses are hit hard by increases in
payroll taxes. We must encourage them to expand and not force them
to limit their projects because they simply lack the means to hire
the staff it takes to do the job.
[English]
The first part of our amendment would tie CPP premium increases
to EI premium cuts. It would require that at least for the first
three years, increases in cumulative CPP revenues from the
combined CPP employee and employer CPP premium increases be at
least offset by cumulative EI revenue decreases from combined
employee and employer EI premium decreases.
We know that the government's internal reports show that the EI
premiums could be cut to less than $2 and still cover the cost of
the program. This amendment would ensure that at a minimum,
higher CPP premiums are at least offset with EI premium cuts over
the next three years.
We are deeply concerned about EI and CPP payroll taxes. We have
been talking about this since the very beginning and we are not
the only ones. Business leaders and organizations from across
this great country have been telling the government the same
thing. If we want to create jobs, start by cutting payroll
taxes. Put people back to work. Give them the opportunity to
make our economy grow.
The government chooses not to do that. Last Friday it announced
new EI premiums for the year 1998. While it had the opportunity
to give Canadians a much needed tax break, the government decided
to spin a mere 20¢ reduction in EI premiums as good news.
1245
It is not good news to Canadians who have to foot the bill for
an $11 billion tax hike with CPP premium increases. That is an
$11 billion tax hike.
It is not good news to a small businessperson who come the new
year will have to lay off people. It is not good news for the
Canadian economy. Actually it may be good news for the Canadian
economy, the underground economy that is. A lot of people will
be forced to lay off because the cost of having skilled workers
will simply be too high.
In the last election we heard the Prime Minister say during the
campaign that he could see the light. I recommend to him today
to turn on his lights and bring the cuts necessary so that
employment in this country can grow.
To the extent that this can be done, increases in one program
should be offset with decreases in the other. The current EI
premiums are now set more than 50% higher than EI benefits
justify. This year alone the EI surplus is expected to be $7
billion. Hello profit, profit on the backs of Canadian workers,
profit that equals deficit as far as employment growth goes.
This is a shame and I sincerely hope the government will choose
this opportunity to see the light.
[Translation]
The levels of contributions to the Canada pension plan are of
grave concern to Canadian workers. This is why I think we must
amend Bill C-2 by adding another paragraph.
I would, however, like to draw your attention to a small
omission in the French version as it compares to the English one.
The second line of subclause (4) should read “même si” rather than
just “si”. This omission is important, because, as you will agree,
it radically changes the meaning of the sentence.
Thus amended, the French text of the subclause reads as
follows:
Le taux de cotisation des travailleurs autonomes ne peut
dépasser 10,25 p. 100 même si l'actuaire en chef du Bureau du
surintendent des institutions financières est d'avis, au
moment de préparer le rapport prévu à l'article 115, qu'un
taux de cotisation plus élevé est justifié.
As it stands, the bill, which affects almost all Canadians,
permits an increase in contributions without new legislation. If
we let that go through, we will be giving the government a blank
cheque essentially. This is unacceptable.
What I propose is that we preclude any increase above 10.25%
without a decision by this House on the matter.
To put it plainly, any increase over 10.25% would require new
legislation.
1250
This would mean the consent of the provinces was essential for
any premium increase. The CPP cannot be changed except with the
agreement of at least seven provinces representing 50% of the
population.
Why this amendment? The answer is very simple. By their very
nature, actuarial estimates are subject to error. Even if CPP
premiums were to exceed 10.25%, there would be such a discrepancy
between the basic actuarial estimates and those submitted to
Parliament that there would automatically have to be a review.
If the government is serious when it says that amendments to
Bill C-2 will keep premiums from climbing past 9.9%, it should not
be afraid to ask Parliament to review amendments if the rate were
to reach 10.25%.
It should also be emphasized that the fact of making it more
difficult to increase premiums beyond 10.25% is not just the result
of some bloodless number crunching. On the contrary. CPP premium
rates have a direct impact on the lives of millions of Canadians,
whether they are employers or employees. So imagine what is like
for Canadians who fall into both categories.
Self-employed workers are hard hit by higher premium rates.
They must shoulder the heavy burden of a combined premium.
When there is talk of a 10.25% premium rate, the self-employed
worker does not need a calculator: he knows he has to turn over
$10.25 of every $100 earned.
Some people will perhaps say that the self-employed represent
only a small proportion of the labour force and that, on the whole,
this is not an issue of concern to Canadians generally. Wrong. It
is indeed of concern to Canadians generally, increasingly so.
It is precisely about the 2.5 million self-employed Canadians
that members should be thinking as they consider Bill C-2 and the
proposed amendment. We have an obligation not to allow premium
increases until the House has examined the consequences to Canadian
workers, particular those who are self-employed.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this
amendment proposal, which addresses one of the main issues of the last
federal election.
On the one hand, the government considers its reform as the best in
the world and is completely insensitive to the plight of the unemployed.
On the other hand, while looking to reduce payroll taxes as much as
possible, the Progressive Conservative Party does not expect, with this
amendment, that the system could be improved in an effort to bring the
employment insurance plan back down to human proportions by meeting a
number of requirements.
If we read closely, this amendment means that, in the year 2000,
the premium rate will be reduced by 80 cents per $100 of earnings.
Should we go for it and adopt this amendment, we would effectively close
the debate on possible improvements to the system in the interests of
those who, as unemployed workers, benefit from it, and the Bloc
Quebecois will not stand for that.
The position put forward by the Bloc Quebecois during the campaign,
which we feel is, all in all, the most balanced, is that the employment
insurance premium rates could be reduced by a reasonable yet substantial
amount.
1255
We note with interest that the government accepted the suggestion
we made at the first meeting of the committee, which all party leaders
attended, that the reduction should be at least equal to the amount by
which contributions to the Canada pension plan increase in order to
partly offset this increase.
There is something else that you should also reduce because you can
afford to. There is a surplus in the EI fund, which is literally
overflowing, a surplus that makes no sense and is only used to solve
deficit management problems at the expense of workers and employers.
We therefore feel that premiums should be cut significantly.
The Bloc thinks that premiums should be cut not only by the current
20 cents but perhaps by something like 40 cents so some money will
go back into the economy and into employees' and employers'
pockets. However, we should keep the option of improving the
conditions of the plan open. The amendment before us would not do
that. Worse, it would make it impossible to do so, because if
contributions are reduced to a point where there is no more
manoeuvring room, we will be asking workers to agree to live with
the existing plan for the next few years when they lose their jobs.
In the latest federal election, if one message was sent to the
government and to the opposition parties, it was that the people
living in regions with high unemployment do not want the plan that
turns workers into cheap labour. The former Minister of Human
Resources Development said they profited by the system.
This minister got the message from the NDP member here. The people
gave the clear message that they did not want what the Liberals had
done to the employment insurance plan based on the model the
Conservatives had set up. They want something that will distribute
wealth. The government talks about fighting poverty and giving
more money to poor children, but most poor children have poor
parents.
One of the best ways for the federal government to reduce
poverty is to put money back into society.
The unemployment insurance plan was not set up just to impress the
unemployed. It was set up to avoid a repetition of the depression
of the 1930s by distributing wealth among the people. The people
creating the wealth—woodworkers, peat producers, fishers—all
keep the economy moving. They often work in sectors offering only
seasonal work.
Our society and our country must recognize the need to assure
workers in these sectors of a decent living if we want to sustain
these economic sectors.
The proposal on the table, which in part deals with the
necessity of decreasing contributions, goes much too far in
ensuring that there is money left in the system to improve the
conditions of the unemployed. The Liberal Government must not,
under any circumstances, be handed the perfect excuse to say that
Parliament has passed an 80 cent decrease, so nothing more can be
done for the people concerned.
Basically, this proposal sort of closes the circle. The
Conservatives undertook unemployment insurance reform some seven or
eight years ago. The Liberals came into power announcing they
would change all that, but they went even further than the
Conservatives.
It was very surprising, and I recall it because I was in
Montreal at the time, three or four years ago, to see 30,000 people
demonstrating on a day when it was 30 degrees below zero.
The demonstration was attended by federal Liberal MPs then in
office who marched with us to show that the Conservative reform
made no sense.
The day after the Liberals came to power, they continued along
that path with a vengeance. And now they are being told by the
voters that there is no way they can talk out of both sides of
their mouths like this.
A clear message must be given to the Liberal government:
unemployment insurance must be changed so that the fund can be
properly monitored, allowing premiums to be at a level that would
yield a reasonable surplus so as to improve the conditions of the
unemployed.
The Conservatives' proposal is along the same lines as the
Mulroney government's reform, that is to level the situation of
workers as much as possible so that they will be increasingly
available to work as cheaply as possible. Doing so is following
along the same lines as in the United States where unemployment
insurance is at 50%.
1300
In Canada, we have gone from 65 to 55 and someone affected by
the rule under which for every 20 weeks used a person will lose 1%
of benefits, will have the dubious pleasure of getting down to the
U.S. level.
This is not a choice we want to make. I do not think it can
be the choice of a society like Quebec. It cannot be the choice of
a society like Canada. We must take care not to end up with our
hands tied behind our backs preventing us from improving the
conditions of our unemployed. The necessary leeway must be there,
and that is why we are going to vote against this amendment.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker,
first, I will be voting against the amendments and I will give my
reasons why.
I believe, as I said a while ago, that this started with the
Conservatives and has continued under the Liberals. They still
have not learned their lesson. That is not what Canadians and
the working people are asking for.
[Translation]
They want to mix employment insurance premiums with Canada
pension plan contributions so they can tell people how much money
they can save on their paycheques. I have never seen workers in
Canada out in the streets demanding decreased contributions. I
have, however, seen employers demanding this.
We must not forget what I sincerely believe is happening in
our economy, the reasons our small businesses are experiencing
difficulties. In the June 2 election, no small business in our
part of the country claimed that it was because they were paying
too much in employment insurance premiums. What they did tell me
was that there will be nobody left who can afford to buy anything
from them, the way the employment insurance system is going.
This is why small businesses are closing.
We have to back up and look at what really hurt Canadians and
small businesses. If there is no one buying what a small business
is selling, the negative effect on the system is far greater than
the contributions. People working can pay their contributions.
When they are not working, they cannot.
Our system in Canada is running amok, and we have not yet
finished paying. We have not finished paying for what we is going
on. I listen to what the people at home are saying. I can tell
you that it was not only people working who voted for me. Small
businesses worked for me and believe in what I say.
The change to the unemployment insurance system began with the
Conservative government and was continued by the Liberals. My
predecessor said, when he was in opposition, “You are going to
create a mess in New Brunswick. I encourage all New Brunswickers
to fight any changes to the unemployment insurance system with
vigour, because they will spell disaster for New Brunswick”. That
is what my predecessor Doug Young said at home. Do you know what
our people said? “Mr. Young, we will show you the door, because
you have done our region damage”. I say to my colleague that he
should think about what he says and that it is not the rates that
did the most harm.
I have a problem with the way these things are considered. In
other words, we will have to improve our employment insurance
system. The focus must really be on job creation and when it is
on real job creation, the system will automatically cost less,
because there will be fewer people on employment insurance,
contributions will decrease and it will all happen.
1305
I think that is what we must look at. The Canada pension plan is
expensive at present, but we could perhaps consider alternatives for the
Canada pension plan.
I have nothing against the fact that a person who is sick or
injured will receive a disability pension, provided this person does not
work for a company and the disease or injury is not work related. But I
do have a problem with a person who works for a company and pays for
compensation, as we call it where I come from, who, one year after
having been injured, is asked to apply for the Canada pension plan.
Because in that case the CPP has to pay first, when another plan should
perhaps be paying for that, especially when the person in question has
an employer.
Instead, benefits are paid out of the Canada pension plan for any
accident that happened on the employer's premises. The compensation plan
only covers the difference between the two plans. Perhaps we could take
a look at this, at having employers make their businesses safer places
where fewer accidents happen. It might save money.
How many Canadians are receiving CPP disability benefits today when
the company that employed them should perhaps be held financially
responsible, if the accident happened at the workplace. But that is not
how it goes.
My point is that we should look at the whole picture and see how
CPP money could be saved by making those responsible pay. Next, we
should look at employment insurance and see how small business people
can have enough money left to run their businesses.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, there are
those who think there will no longer be a government pension in a
few years. The birth rate is dropping and life expectancy is
increasing. As a result, the number of people receiving pension
benefits is going up and the number of people paying into the plan
is going down.
Our pension system is losing ground and in need of changes.
We want to put it on a rock solid footing. We are working hard to
ensure that all Canadians will receive a pension when they reach
retirement age.
In order to understand the impact of our amendment, let us take
a look at the pension system in general. There are three
components. First, there is the basic income received by every
resident of Canada: old age security and the guaranteed income
supplement. Second, there is income based on work earnings:
Canada pension plan, or CPP, and Quebec pension plan, or QPP.
Third, there is income paid by an employer or drawn from RRSPs.
The Liberal government is proposing a program to improve the
system. It represents, however, a large threat to the three
components of the existing system.
The Liberal government is creating the seniors benefit by
combining old age security and other seniors benefits. Low income
seniors will thus be getting a bit more than before: a meagre
annual allowance of $120 will go to the least well off; and too
many retired Canadians will be living under the poverty line. In
addition, middle income seniors could lose up to $7,000 annually.
The Liberals will increase contributions to the CPP by $11
billion, one of the largest tax hikes in Canadian history. No tax
relief is planned by way of compensation. In short, workers will
have to pay more, and young Canadians will have to foot the bill
for mismanagement of the plan for years to come.
1310
They discourage people from putting their money in RRSPs or in
private pension plans. The Liberal government reduced the tax deduction
available when investing in a RRSP, and it continues to impose
restrictions on authorized pension plan investments.
We think we have a better idea to improve our pension system.
For the time being, we must limit ourselves to amending the
government's legislation. But, before amending seniors benefits,
we would like all Canadians to have a reasonable period of time
to examine the effects of the proposals and to express their
views. We want to make sure that the pension system reflects the
values dear to Canadians, rewards them for their hard work and
encourages them to save for their retirement.
We want to improve the administration of the Canada pension plan.
In order to do so, we want to provide a sound financial basis for the
plan, to make up for the increase in contributions by lowering taxes,
and to encourage people to put more money into their RRSPs.
The Canada pension plan is an essential element of our social
safety net. We want to maintain it. The Canada pension plan needs
another $600 million to fulfil its obligations to tomorrow's retirees.
The CPP must be saved. It must be properly managed by a board whose
members would come from the business and financial community and have no
ties to the government.
We must increase contributions to the Canada pension plan, so as to
ensure its financial viability, but we must also be cautious not to
penalize young workers. The increase should be compensated by tax
reductions in other areas, such as employment insurance contributions.
The employment insurance fund has a $13 billion surplus. Combined with
the $11 billion increase in CPP contributions proposed by the Liberals,
this surplus represents a huge tax grab by the government.
Governments should encourage people to save for retirement. They
should not penalize those who do it. I support policies that help
Canadians get the best possible return on their investments in
RRSPs and that include as few government restrictions as
possible. This means a guarantee that the funds protected in
RRSPs will not be taxed, as long as they remain in these RRSPs.
It also means allowing a higher percentage of foreign investments
in RRSPs.
We have no choice but to conclude that our pension system is in a
sorry state and that something must be done. Any system, either new or
improved, should be based on the following principles: long term
viability; sound management free of any political interference; fair
contributions regardless of income; and built-in incentives designed to
encourage people to look beyond the Canada pension plan and to put more
money aside for their retirement.
These amendments seek to improve the bill so that it can meet these
objectives. I urge members to support our amendments.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, the Bloc
will obviously be voting against this amendment because, as my colleague
has stated, we want to go much further.
I am surprised that such an amendment is being proposed today. I
find this surprising, coming from the Conservatives. Why do we have to
discuss this today, instead of discussing full employment?
The employment insurance, of course, should be protected; I agree.
Contributions should be reduced, of course; I agree.
1315
Why is it that in my area, in the riding of Matapédia—Matane,
there are so many unemployed workers? It is because there are no jobs.
Why is it that there are no jobs? It is because the Liberals, beginning
with Mr. Trudeau, created such a debt for Canada—the Conservatives
continued afterwards, but they slowed down a bit—that we have to
earmark billions and billions of dollars every year to pay for that
debt. Because of this, it is obvious that everyone is backed up against
the wall.
Today, we are being told that pensions have to be protected. But
when workers have almost nothing left on their pay, how do you expect
them to go out and buy things?
Even small businesses, which have to pay such high contributions, often
have to lay off several employees, and these receive employment
insurance that I would call poverty insurance, while the owners of these
businesses have to work 18 or 19 hours a day.
That is the real problem. There has been poor management for 30
years, and now, they are waking up all of sudden and saying that this
is most unfortunate, that this is painful and that we have to protect
the elderly and also the people who, because of circumstances, have to
rely on employment insurance.
At the same time, here are the Conservatives wailing and arguing
that contributions have to be reduced. But it is the Conservatives and
the Liberals who put us in this mess, into this gaping hole. Today, they
are waking up and saying “We have to wake up”. But the Conservatives are
saying that we have to wake up because they are part of the opposition.
When they are in office, they say the same thing, it is more of the
same, as you know full well.
Why? I have said this before and I will say it again, today. It is
because their campaign coffers are full and, when they are in office,
they do not even have to ask for money; it just pours into their
coffers. When the Conservatives are in office, their coffers are full
too and, as a result, their hands are tied.
I can tell you, we have always said we were willing to help
workers. We are willing to take to the streets with them. I went to
Rivière-du-Loup, Amqui and Matane, where I took to the streets with
workers in the riding of Matapédia—Matane. Now we have two new RCM,
Denis-Riverin and Avignon, and they are not the richest in Canada. I
will be with these people because they want to work. These people have
intestinal fortitude. Quite often, they are responsible for large
families and have nothing.
When they start working, the premiums are so high they are already
strapped for cash. They cannot put a few dollars in the bank for the few
months that are difficult for them.
You know, when a father works only to get his stamps and that,
quite often, they are small stamps, it means abject poverty for his
children. It is not because people do not want to work, you know that
very well. People want to work, but there are no jobs.
When we ask the government to help small and medium businesses,
there are so many factors that come into play in handing out some money
that some always end up being struck off the list, and told “No, this
does not match the criteria”, “No, sir”, “No, madam”, and that is the
way it goes.
So, for this amendment to be ordered, if I can put it that way,
by the Conservatives, it is somewhat hypocritical, I would say.
They are trying to make amends. When they were in office, they
should have taken some action to create jobs.
1320
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, there are actually two amendments in this group. I
would like to speak mostly to Motion No. 10 which was introduced
by me. It would strike clause 58 of the act. I am sure that
does not enlighten many people.
Essentially what clause 58 does is make the contribution rate
increases retroactive. A small portion of the contribution
increase to CPP will actually kick in for our 1997 obligation. Of
course here we are at nearly the very end of the year talking
about legislation which will make Canadians' tax bills for this
year higher than they had anticipated.
In our view that is very unfair. It is taxation by stealth. It
is something that will be a real hardship for Canadians to have
to go back and pay something that they had never anticipated
having to pay. Not only will it put their budgeting out of whack
but it also will be paper work grief they do not need.
I would like to refer to one example of how clause 58 will
impact on at least one sector of the economy. That is with
respect to the people who provide temporary services. These
temporary services are used by businesses and by government
during peak work periods for special jobs or projects, when
permanent employees are ill or on vacation. Some of the temporary
services provided are office administration and support, data and
word processing, industrial, marketing, technical, financial,
professional and health care services. So there is a wide range
of Canadians employed in this area of temporary employment.
In fact, it is a major entry level for recent immigrants to
Canada and also for workers returning to the workforce after an
absence. A lot of students are involved in these kinds of
temporary employment opportunities and so are recent graduates.
Also retirees and older workers who are moving into retirement
are attracted to temporary employment opportunities. So it is
fair to say that companies that offer jobs and opportunities for
temporary employment are major Canadian employers.
What is going to happen with this retroactive increase that the
government is trying to put into place is this. The 1997
contribution rate was 5.85%. If this bill passes the
contribution rate for 1997, that is from January 1, 1997, a year
ago almost, will go up to 6%, a retroactive increase.
The government will argue that is just a few dollars and it
really is not going to make a whole lot of difference. But if we
take an increase like that and make it retroactive and put it
back on employers, because they have to pay half of this, that
can significantly affect their bottom line.
The case of the temporary help industry is just one example.
There are other businesses affected very adversely but I will
give this example. The payroll that is paid to employees by
temporary service employers accounts for about 75% to 85% of the
firm's revenue, and that is a lot greater than some other
industries. For example, the financial services sector pays only
9% of its expenses to payroll paid to employees. For some
businesses this is a significant portion of their cashflow.
Increases or decreases are usually announced in advance of the
date at which the rate takes effect. That gives businesses
adequate time to adjust.
1325
However, this 1997 CPP rate is an increase, as I said, after the
existing rate was confirmed a year ago. What we have is a
contribution rate that is going to cost one sector of the economy
millions of dollars, and this will take a big bite out of its
expected profit and cashflow. These businesses refer to the rate
as punitive.
What they did was enter into contracts for 1997 based on their
expenses being at a rate of 5.8%, their CPP contribution
rate. Now they are going to have to pay 6% and they
will not be able to pass the added cost of the rate increase on
to their customers. The profits these companies are making are
going to be put at risk.
These are companies, as I said, that hire some of those
vulnerable workers in our society. Yet what the government is
doing in this retroactive tax grab is causing a real hardship to
at least this sector of the economy, and it is only one example.
There are others but time does not permit me to go into all of
them.
There is another consideration that I will bring before the
House. This retroactive rate increase is going to be a real
administrative cost. What will happen is that, interestingly
enough, for governments that use temporary services, companies by
law are able to change their bill if there is a retroactive
change to the payroll burden. What will happen is that service
firms will have to go through their payroll records for every
employee, for each assignment that employee had, and prepare
invoices to add on this retroactive 1997 CPP rate increase. That
invoice will then go to government clients. Then the government
will have to go back and double check to make sure that these
temporary people were hired on, to make sure that the amounts are
calculated correctly and to make up cheques to send back to pay
this retroactive rate increase.
It is an administrative nightmare, and it is simply because
government did not have the foresight or the administrative
expertise to bring in these changes in a way that was fair and
reasonable and could be handled with the least disruption
possible to the people it affects.
These amounts, we think, should simply be collected another way,
if they have to be collected. They should not be collected in a
way that is so costly, so disruptive and so unfair to the people
they affect. Just because government cannot get it right does
not mean that other people should scramble around and have to
pick up the ball.
That is why we proposed that clause 58 which brings in this
retroactive tax increase be struck and that government go back
and find other ways to make up this amount if it feels it has to
do it. It is not fair to people who have to pay the freight to
do it this way. It is poor form. We really urge the government
not to do this to people.
I hope the examples I have been able to give will be persuasive
that this is not a compassionate thing to do. It is not a fair
thing to do. It is a real hardship. We hope that this amendment
will pass.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, I
support the amendment just brought forward. The member is
absolutely right.
1330
Basically what we are talking about is retroactive taxation
which I think most of us on all sides of this House would find
most unsavoury. What it does is eat away at government's capital
in the sense of confidence.
I do not think most Canadians can accept that. It means that at
the end of the taxation year we are going to have to ante up more
money for the government.
How many of us going into 1997 thought that was going to happen?
I would submit not very many Canadians would expect the
government to bring in a bill that is going to add to
contributions already paid. There is something wrong with that.
The reason the government has the problem with regard to the
Canada pension plan is that it simply failed to deal with that
reality over the last number of years. Having failed to deal
with that reality, it has to make up ground. Let us take a look
at some past administrations. The person who comes to mind is a
prime minister who was here long before our time, Mackenzie King.
That is what this government reminds me of, that type of
leadership. I think if I could summarize how Mackenzie King
operated, he operated on the basis that if someone waits long
enough the problem will go away.
I think the present Prime Minister operates under that same
formula. If you wait long enough, the problem will go away, so
let's not touch it, let's not deal with it, because if you deal
with it, it means that you would have to exercise that rare
commodity that we call leadership.
When they took office in 1993, that was a problem facing them as
a government. If they took a look at the numbers today, what
they would have to do to fix the problem is multiply it tenfold.
Had they dealt with the problem in 1993, the exaggerated rates
of payment or the premiums that all Canadians are going to pay
would have been much less. They were operating on the premise
that no, we do not have to deal with it today, the problem will
disappear. It has not disappeared.
I think any financial analyst and anyone with any kind of
thinking mind at all would have told the government then that the
problem would not disappear, and they did. Canadians were
warning the government what would happen.
Some of them were in this House. It could be the member
standing and speaking because we all knew what was going to
happen. The sad part about this horrendous increase in these
premiums is that it is the young Canadians who are going to be
paying the price for the present government's mistakes.
That is the tragedy in the whole equation. None of us mind
paying our own way and that is the way it is supposed to be.
However, the present CPP pensioners deserve what they have. None
of us argue with that but the unfunded liability in the CPP
amounts to $600 billion. That is spelled with a b, $600
billion.
Basically what we have now is a pay-as-you-go scheme that is
quickly going broke. The demographics and the age differences
and percentages in terms of the individuals who are retired now
and the number of individuals working, that equation just will
not support the system.
In future years that equation is going to be weighted too much
on the retirement side. Again, the government knew that this was
coming. It is like a freight train. It could be seen coming
down the rails. The light is there. It is on the track. It is
coming.
A collision can either be avoided by drawing back or by doing a
number of things, but the government chose not to do it. Now we
are looking at the most regressive of all legislation I think to
enter this House in a number of years.
We are talking about a huge tax increase.
1335
We can talk about it as being a premium, but anything that comes
out of our pay cheques at the end of the week is a tax no matter
how we want to word it. What this is is a hidden tax. It is a
silent killer of jobs.
What we are suggesting as a party, and a responsible position,
is that the government over the last number of years has built up
this huge surplus in the unemployment insurance fund. Right now
it has a surplus of about $12 billion, and that is spelled with a
b as well. What is the government doing with that? The
finance minister is using it to fudge the deficit numbers.
What we are suggesting is to simply reduce the unemployment
insurance premiums that are paid by all Canadians. In all
fairness to the government, it reduced it by a mere 20¢ last
week. However, it could be reduced by at least 70¢ or 90¢ if it
wanted to but it chooses not to do it because it wants to use
those numbers and that fund for its own political purposes.
The finance minister is certainly not going to let the minister
responsible for the unemployment insurance act or CPP use any of
those funds other than for debt reduction or deficit reduction
which is where the unfairness lies. If the government took those
moneys today and said “Let's reduce the amount that we are
paying into the EI fund, it would neutralize those increases in
the Canada pension plan”. At the end of the day the workers in
your constituency and the workers in my constituency are going to
look at their pay cheque and it is going to be the same.
In other words, what we need is a reduction in some of those
other taxes to offset the increases in the Canada pension plan.
We cannot be totally naive. The government has put off the
problem for five years and the problem has now compounded to the
point where it has to go in there with a big hit.
I am going back to where I opened my remarks in this debate. It
is like the old Mackenzie King philosophy: Wait and the problem
will take care of itself. It has not taken care of itself. The
government has provided no leadership at all.
In regard to the motion we are speaking on, I support that
amendment in the legislation which would eliminate the
retroactivity that is going to hurt every working Canadian in
this country.
I am going to get off the topic a little bit. Yesterday in
question period I and some of the other members had the same
question for the health minister. I am going to point this out
because it is the lack of leadership in solving a problem that we
are talking about.
Yesterday I mentioned to the health minister the need to address
the 12,000 hepatitis C sufferers in Canada as a result of the
incompetence of the federal government to recognize a problem a
number of years ago. The result is that we have 12,000 Canadians
infected and compensation has to be paid.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member
Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance on a point of
order.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am sure the member does
realize what I am going to say because I would expect that the
member knows in fact what we are debating this morning and also
understands the rules that are in effect at report stage. I
would only ask the member, through you, Madam Speaker, to respect
the rules of the House and continue his debate with respect to
the motions that we are debating.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, I knew this was coming
because the one thing the Liberal Party does not want to do is
deal with the truth.
The point I want to make is simply that the Liberals dilly-dally
on every single issue and problem in Canadian society. They are
in office to deal with these problems today. It is like the
hepatitis C sufferers. We need compensation for them but again
they postponed that decision for five years and postponed CPP
decisions for five years. These problems just compound and
multiply. By the time they get ready to deal with it, it is
blown completely out of proportion. That is what they have done
with these CPP premiums that you and I and all Canadians are
going to pay. It has been completely blown out of proportion.
I object strenuously to the type of bill that they want to
introduce here to deal with the problem today.
1340
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
want to say a few words on the two motions before the House in
the name of the Reform member from the Calgary area. I concur
with much of what she said in her remarks.
The member wants to eliminate clause 58 of the bill which calls
for the CPP premiums to be made retroactive to January 1, 1997.
The CPP premiums now are at 5.85% and once the bill goes through
they will be increased to 6%. The employer will pay 3% and the
worker will also pay 3%. However, we are still on the old regime
of 5.85%. When this goes through the House and the Senate has
given royal assent, part of the law will make this retroactive to
January 1, 1997. So it is a retroactive premium or assessment.
Some would say it is a retroactive tax on both the employee and
the employer. Doing this retroactively is something that I am
very uncomfortable about. It is like closing the barn door after
the horse has already gone.
I do not think that assessing someone retroactively has been
done very often by Parliaments. There seems to be something a
bit unjust about it. People plan their lives, draft their
personal budgets, businesses draft budgets and make plans
according to a set of rules.
In general I guess people have been notified that this is going
to happen. I am sure we could go out on Wellington Street in
Ottawa or on Albert Street in Regina or the big main street of
Thompson, Manitoba, and ask the first ten people who go by
whether or not they were notified that there is going to be a
retroactive increase in the CPP. I think of those people, all
would say no, they were not aware of it, despite the fact that
they have a very good MP from Thompson who notifies them of
absolutely everything. I think that is unjust. I am happy that
the amendment is before the House.
We might say that the increase from 5.85 to 6% is not that much.
In many cases it is not because it is split between the employer
and the employee. However, for some families and people living
on the edge with very low wages, even an increase of a few
dollars a year will be meaningful.
The other problem will be on the employer's side. A group of
people came before the committee to make their case about the
difficulty of collecting money retroactively from temporary help
agencies. They are very, very labour intensive. Most of their
costs are going to salaries, to labour.
They talked about the expense and the difficulties it would
create for them as employers, the red tape, the bureaucracy and
the bother and how tedious and cumbersome it would be. In some
ways maybe the cost of doing it would be even more than the money
they would collect from the federal government.
My understanding is that the federal government would have
dropped the retroactivity part of this, but at a loss of about
$400 million. That may sound like a fair amount of money, but
the cost of collecting the money is going to be several million
dollars as well. It might be wise for the government to consider
not making this retroactive.
If we are concerned about money in the CPP fund, the most
important thing we should do is make sure that we have a strong
economy, jobs in the country and income growth, because when
people are working they are going to be paying into the CPP. That
is the way to raise the money, enlarge the fund and make the
Canada pension plan sustainable. I do not think we can do it by
making it retroactive, which people are not anticipating.
1345
It is fine to say that people were notified, but I am sure there
is scarcely a soul out there, including a lot of businesses, who
realize this has to be done on a retroactive basis. That is
going to cause needless hardship for Canadians across the
country.
This is an example of an amendment which should be looked at
seriously by the government. If it were to move in the direction
of eliminating the retroactivity, it would make good sense. It
would be good politics and would restore faith in the democratic
system. It would indicate that parliamentarians do indeed listen
to the people.
The second amendment before us today was moved by the
Conservative Party and would attach EI premiums to Canada pension
plan premiums. As much as the intent is positive, I would not
support this amendment as part of the statute changing the Canada
pension plan.
That being said, I believe the increase in CPP premiums of 73%
over the next six years is too steep. It will be a hardship on
Canadians. It is not progressive; it is regressive. The very
fact that the government is eliminating the indexation of the
basic yearly exemption which is now some $3,500 makes it even
more regressive and more difficult for low income people.
These are hardships. The premiums are going up. To attach CPP
premiums to EI premiums is not the way to go.
Instead the government should have listened to what it heard in
British Columbia and Saskatchewan. It should have listened to
what it heard from the trade union movement, the progressive
people across the country, and made the contributions more
progressive. It should have continued the indexation of the
yearly basic exemption.
In 1966 when the CPP originated, the yearly basic exemption was
around $400. It was then indexed to the inflation rate. It has
moved from $400 to about $3,500. This means that low income
people have progressively been receiving a higher exemption. That
has been a positive step in keeping this plan a bit more
progressive. Now indexation will stop. It will remain at $3,500
for the next 5, 10, 20, 30 years and every time the inflation
rate rises the plan will be a bit more regressive. It will be a
bit more difficult for low income people in this country.
That is wrong. It is unfair. If I remember correctly, I
believe that the Minister of Finance as much as acknowledged that
in committee three or four weeks ago when he said that this
should be on the agenda when the CPP is reviewed in the year
2000. I hope he does that. I hope there will be a change to
once again index the basic exemption to make the premiums more
progressive.
On the other side we have the employment insurance premiums.
There was a bit of a reduction announced last Friday by the
federal government. It was a small reduction. It was a step in
the right direction, but the reduction should have been higher.
There is now a big surplus in the EI fund and there should be a
reduction in the premiums to help working people in the country.
It would also help the business community in Canada, particularly
small business.
I do not think we should be tying one to the other in this
legislation. The government should keep both items as separate
files. On the one hand the government should reduce EI premiums.
That would put more money into the pockets of ordinary people. It
would allow the small business community to create jobs. On the
other hand the government should ensure that we have a more
progressive Canada pension plan premium.
If we listened to public opinion, listened to what the people
are saying, they would agree that these funds should be handled
separately and that they be handled for good social reasons and
for reasons of progressiveness in our income tax system and
progressiveness in our social policy within Canada.
1350
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have
this opportunity to speak to this issue, especially to add to these
statements we have just heard on Motions Nos. 10 and 12.
These two motions have one thing in common. The present pension
plan is inadequate, it has insufficient funds for the long term. If this
decision is delayed, it is the future generations that will bear the
impacts. This is unacceptable.
The amendment proposed by the Conservative Party attempts to link
the reduction in contributions to employment insurance. From the point
of view of business, this makes sense to a certain extent, because it
would offset any increase in their payroll taxes.
However, going as far as the Conservatives would like us to go can
perhaps jeopardize the employment insurance program and have an effect
on this program and also on the positive aspects of these initiatives.
We already know that the reduction in employment insurance benefits
has had an effect. Repeat claimants are affected by seasonal
unemployment and have to bear a 1% reduction of their benefits. It is
not their fault if there is seasonal unemployment.
We have to be careful with this because it can affect the program.
I used to sit on the human resources development committee, and we in
the Bloc were opposed to changes in the employment insurance system.
Today, we are still constantly reminding the government that it made an
error, that it went too far in its cuts to employment insurance.
I would like to come back to the Canada pension plan. The situation
is a bit similar, the fund has to be sufficient to provide for the
future. A Quebec success story is often mentioned, the Caisse de dépôt
et placement. It has been in existence for at least 25 years, and it has
had positive results for Quebec.
This bill will allow among other things to manage this money by
creating a fund, and this would be more efficient. It would allow an
increase in assets and ensure the future of the Canada pension plan for
ordinary citizens.
People can talk about payroll taxes, but often these taxes exist
for the benefit of the whole population, especially the underprivileged.
As you know, it is not everyone that can have access to a pension fund
through the workplace. Not everyone works for the government, for a
municipality or for large companies that have pension funds. There are
people who cannot benefit from these.
There are also people who, because of their family obligations,
like single mothers, do not have the opportunity to contribute to RRSPs
and to plan for their future, when their children will be grown up and
will have finished their studies, etc. Very often these are people who
have few assets, and this plan allows many people who are less fortunate
to know that they will at least have a basic minimum for their
retirement.
We have to be careful when we touch this. The people concerned form
a very large part of the population. Very often, they are the less
fortunate, the underprivileged in the system. I think that the
government acted too slowly in proposing better contributions in this
area.
1355
Any amendment that proposes to slow down or reduce rates and to
improve the management of this fund to better plan for the future in the
interest of future generations is worth considering because such action
is urgently needed. However we, in the Bloc Quebecois, oppose Motions
Nos. 10 and 12, especially since Motion No. 12 has a connection with the
employment insurance.
As I said, we believe that the employment insurance plan is a plan
that was considerably thinned down by the Conservatives. We remember the
impact of the cuts made by Minister Valcourt, who lost his seat in New
Brunswick. The Conservative government was severely criticized for its
lack of compassion for the unemployed.
In spite of their promises, the Liberals did the same thing during their
last mandate. They too got their just reward; in the maritime provinces
in particular, where seasonal unemployment is widespread, election
results spoke volumes. Voters made it clear first to the Conservative
Party, then to the Liberal Party, that they should be careful.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, will not be counted among those who wish
to slow down efforts to improve the pension situation of ordinary
people.
The Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr. David Price: On debate, if I may, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: My colleague, you may not want to start right now, as
we are only minutes away from 2 o'clock. You could begin after oral
question period, since you would have the floor.
Mr. David Price: I have one minute, so I would like to begin, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: You have one minute. You have the floor.
[English]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
are six years into what economists are calling a recovery but it
seems to be a jobless recovery.
Too many Canadians are being left behind. The unemployment rate
continues to hover around 10%. There are areas in regions of the
country where high chronic unemployment has become the norm for
second generation Canadians. This is unacceptable.
Canadian families are working harder than ever, many needing two
or three incomes just to make ends meet. Working Canadians are
falling further and further behind. Canadians have not
experienced a real tax pay raise since the 1980s. A person's
disposable income has actually fallen by almost 6 per cent since
1990. Canadians are paying more and more in taxes but getting
less and less in return. For the first time ever a generation of
Canadians are at risk of leaving their children a lower standard
of living than that of their parents.
The tax burden on small business is unacceptable. I know. I
have run a small business for 30 years and we are hurting. That
is what I want to talk about today. Small business.
The Speaker: My colleague, that is precisely what we want
to hear about and we will give you the floor right after we come
back from question period. We are now going to go to Statements
by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
protection of the environment begins in our communities. In that
respect Environment Canada launched its Action 21 Network program
earlier this year to identify Canadians undertaking successful
environmental initiatives.
I am very proud to announce that the town of Georgina in my
riding of York North has recently received a certificate of
environmental citizenship from Environment Canada. The town of
Georgina was the first town in the greater Toronto area to
implement a full user pay for garbage program. They charge $1.00
per bag.
Georgina soon discovered that people think much differently
about what they are discarding when they have to pay for garbage
disposal. Within one month of implementation there was a 50%
increase in recycling and a 40% decrease in waste going to
landfill. Overall there has been a 40% decrease in the amount of
waste.
I commend Mayor Grossi, the council and citizens of Georgina for
their achievements.
* * *
1400
YEAR 2000
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
warn the Liberals that Canadians do not accept the government's
failure to guarantee that the computers of federal departments
will work properly and not crash in the year 2000.
The Canadian public will suffer when programs and services are
seriously disrupted.
Most computers use two digits to represent the year and do not
recognize 00 as the year 2000. The Liberals have not properly
budgeted for billions of dollars to fix this problem. Only
one-third of federal departments have a strategy for dealing with
the crisis.
The Liberals should prepare and table in parliament a
contingency plan to address possible failure. The Liberals have
not addressed the long term legal implications of failure. The
slow and haphazard planning of the Liberals is interfering with
the year 2000 compliance.
The auditor general has already lambasted the Liberals for their
tardiness. Canadians are watching the Liberals fudge the year
2000 project.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, former separatist premier Jacques Parizeau had more to say
about what he called ethnic communities and the defeat of his
sovereignist option at the last referendum. Such remarks are
unacceptable. We do not have different classes of citizens in Quebec, at
least not in my Quebec.
I would like to quote a few comments made by Lucien Bouchard about
his predecessor, Jacques Parizeau. He called him “A man of integrity and
great conviction”. “We have been very happy allies so far”. “Few
politicians act on the basis of a philosophy”. “This honest,
intelligent, determined and experienced leader that Quebec
needs”.
What the people of Quebec need is certainly not to have
disgraceful, disparaging remarks made about them, their friends or their
neighbours. Lucien Bouchard—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Manicouagan.
* * *
BC MINE WORKERS
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development showed unacceptable contempt for the BC
Mine workers.
It is unacceptable to keep saying that these workers should take
advantage of employment programs because, as the minister knows, having
met with their representative, 82% are over 50 years old of age 36% are
55 and over.
After working 20, 25 and even 30 years in the mine, workers need a
program that will guarantee a reasonable minimum income before they
become eligible for a pension.
The federal government will be judged on its sensitivity to the
situations experienced by these workers and their families. So far, its
behaviour has been dangerously similar to what the Reform Party
advocates in its ideology.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
night the Leader of the Official Opposition asked Canadians to
put their heads in the sand and ignore global warming as defined
by over 2,000 scientists.
In a further display of crass ignorance the Leader of the
Official Opposition engaged in scaremongering and waved the flag
of taxes, ignoring over 2,000 economists who say reducing
greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency, energy
innovation and other measures is a win-win situation.
It has become quite evident that the Leader of the Official
Opposition is being dragged reluctantly into the 21st century and
has precious little to contribute to the climate change debate.
* * *
SEAFORTH HIGHLANDERS
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Asian Pacific Economic Co-operation conference has wrapped up
in Vancouver. Canadians are asking what the government achieved.
Somehow the Liberals managed to insult a proud army regiment
based in Vancouver. The Seaforth Highlanders were rejected for
honour guard duty in favour of the Vandoos from Quebec. The
reason given was that the Seaforth Highlanders uniform did not
look Canadian enough.
In October 1944 the Seaforth Highlanders spearheaded an attack
in northern Italy. They were suddenly set upon by three German
tanks and about thirty infantrymen.
1405
A one man army, Smokey Smith won the Victoria Cross for his
amazing acts of bravery during this battle. Smokey Smith wore
his medal proudly on a very Canadian uniform in a very real war
far from his home in British Columbia.
The Liberal government should be ashamed for rejecting the
Seaforth Highlanders at the APEC conference.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise and comment on the remarks made by Jacques Parizeau
during a university tour in Alberta Tuesday.
Although he has an unfortunate habit of blaming the ethnic
communities for the defeat of the separatist option in 1995, Mr.
Parizeau was astonishingly frank when he clearly stated that
francophone communities outside Quebec would have trouble surviving
if Quebec were to separate.
I for one am delighted at Mr. Parizeau's frankness.
I must, however, point out the blatant contradiction between Mr.
Parizeau's frank remarks and the remarks of Bloc Quebecois members,
who are, after all, in the same political camp.
According to the Bloc Quebecois, francophone communities
outside Quebec would be better off if Quebec separated. Would one
of the members of that party be so good as to explain this
contradiction to us?
* * *
CHILD TAX BENEFIT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
responsible for the child tax benefit is hoarse from telling us how
wonderful his government is and that we must invest in our
children.
In 1997 dollars, the federal government invested $6.7 billion
in 1984, compared to $5.1 billion this year. The Caledon Institute
and anti-poverty groups have estimated that an additional $2
billion annually would be the minimum to launch the fight against
poverty.
The Bloc Quebecois adds its voice to that of hungry children
and urges the government to put an additional $1.2 billion into the
child tax benefit program, without infringing on provincial
responsibility in this sector. We are far from the $850 million
announced by the government.
* * *
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the
former leader of the yes side during the last referendum campaign in
Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, once again accused the Greek, Italian and
Jewish communities of being responsible for the sovereignists' loss, in
1995.
The former PQ leader and Quebec premier decided to treat us to more
of what he said on the night of the referendum, when he claimed that the
yes side had lost because of money and because of the ethnic vote.
Such comments from someone who claimed he could lead a nation are
irresponsible and unbefitting. Today, I ask all sovereignists to
dissociate themselves from the comments made on Tuesday by the former
leader of the yes side. I feel personally insulted by Mr. Parizeau's
remarks.
Regardless of our origin, we chose Canada as our country and, as
citizens of Canada, we take very seriously our duty and our
responsibility to express our views on the future of our country by
exercising our right to vote.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Tuesday night I watched one of the most disrespectful acts that
could ever be conducted, the burning of our Canadian flag.
This took place in Verdun where Raymond Villeneuve and a band of
thugs wearing bandannas over their faces burned the Canadian flag
and shoved and kicked elderly people as they entered a council
meeting.
Politics aside, these people should be charged for such a vile
act. Tens of thousands of people died defending this flag and
the values it represents. What kind of a message does it send
when we see young people burning our flag?
Are we moving toward a culture of mass cowards? This is simply
not the Canadian way. We are a tolerant people who have fought
for our freedom both here and abroad. The Canadian flag is one
of the most respected symbols of peace around the world.
We are allowing these hooligans to ruin the reputation Canadians
fought and died for on foreign soil. Is the government so weak
that it will allow their assault on our heritage? If the country
is to remain united we must take a stand now before it is too
late.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebeckers from all over the province have expressed their outrage
following Mr. Parizeau's latest remarks, which are along the same line
as the comments he made on the night of the referendum.
As a Quebecker, I do not recognize myself in the picture the former
premier drew. Mr. Parizeau's comments are dangerous but, given his
refusal to vigorously and strongly condemn these remarks, Mr. Bouchard's
attitude is even more dangerous.
1410
Mr. Bouchard is not an ordinary citizen. He is the premier of all
Quebeckers. In our democracy, he is my premier. I would had hoped that
he would represent me.
I am not speaking as a federalist condemning the independentists,
but as a man who is looking for inclusion and who opposes those
advocating exclusion. I am speaking as a man who deplores the missed
opportunity, by his premier, to make an unequivocal appeal for
tolerance.
* * *
[English]
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, alternative
service delivery is a Liberal government initiative aimed at
obtaining goods and services in the most efficient and effective
manner possible.
Government employees, for example in the Halifax area, have been
forced to prove that they can do the job better and more cheaply
than a private company, and they have. In Halifax and across the
country these workers have successfully proven they are far more
cost effective than the private sector.
I have a document from the defence management committee that
uncovered the government's change in plans. The Liberals want to
fast track ASD by bundling bids. This simply means that all
contracts will be awarded on a national basis. Local work units
will not be able to bid effectively. Only big corporations with
the resources to bid will get the contracts.
Why is the government changing the rules? Have public sector
workers been too successful under ASD?
We believe the real goal of the Liberal government is to
privatize at any cost, no matter what the impact is on our
workers and our communities.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, so Lucien
Bouchard, the Premier of Quebec, has refused to distance himself from
the words of the former leader of the yes camp, Jacques Parizeau, who
said that the referendum loss was attributable to ethnic groups such as
the Greeks, the Jews and the Italians.
These words are offensive for all members of cultural communities
who have always felt that they are Quebeckers in their own right.
We expected the Premier of Quebec to state loud and clear that he
disagreed with such statements by Jacques Parizeau. On the contrary, and
I quote one of the answers by Lucien Bouchard yesterday in the National
Assembly: “Mr. Parizeau is a prominent citizen.
He has the right to express himself and he went to speak directly to the
people in English Canada—Mr. Parizeau is a great democrat”.
Since Lucien Bouchard supports these offensive statements, we take
note that Mr. Parizeau's message now constitutes the official position
of the PQ government in the area of cultural communities in Quebec.
* * *
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago,
I wrote to the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, and to the Leader of the
Official Opposition, Daniel Johnson, asking that they take action on the
issue of Bill C-91 and that they state clearly to the Government of
Canada the position of the Government of Quebec.
Yesterday, Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, MNA for Saint-François, tabled
the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted, and I quote:
That the National Assembly demand that the Federal
Government not amend Federal Statute C-91, which refers to the
pharmaceutical industry, in such a way that would weaken the
said Statute and its rules, and this, in compliance with the
international agreements reached with our commercial partners
regarding the protection of intellectual property, and
ascertain that Québec's pharmaceutical industry remain strong
and competitive.
I hope that the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Health, the
Prime Minister and everyone in the Liberal government are listening,
because if they are not, the pharmaceutical industry will suffer
everywhere in Canada, including Quebec.
* * *
QUEBEC SOVEREIGNTY
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
May 1963, in its Speech from the Throne, the Pearson government
recognized that Canada was a bilingual and multicultural country. In
order to promote national unity, it called for co-operative federalism
with the provinces. In the same breath, that government implemented a
series of programs coming under provincial jurisdiction.
Thirty-four years later, in 1997, the Liberal government reiterates
that Canada is still a bilingual and multicultural country. To enhance
national unity, it is promoting a new orientation for federalism based
on partnership with the provinces. Yet, we are faced with a new series
of encroachments on programs under provincial jurisdiction.
History repeats itself. Flexible federalism means rigid status quo,
it means going backwards.
In Quebec, we want to go forward, we want real change. That is why we
want sovereignty.
* * *
1415
[English]
THE LATE JUSTICE JOHN SOPINKA
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week as Canadians we have been reflecting on the remarkable
life and accomplishments of one of Canada's finest legal minds,
Supreme Court Justice John Sopinka.
Spending many of his younger years living in Stoney Creek, John
Sopinka attended Salt Fleet High School between 1946 and 1951.
There he excelled both as an athlete and as an academic student,
graduating a valedictorian.
His leadership abilities were evident through his work as
student council president, while his capacity for excellence took
shape through his membership on Salt Fleet's football team and
playing the violin with the Hamilton Symphony Orchestra.
Justice Sopinka brought his considerable talents to bear in all
of his pursuits, whether it was in professional sports as a CFL
athlete or within Canada's legal system. His reasoned
legal opinions and his many insights on Canada's legal system
will remain his legacy not only to his colleagues in the legal
profession but to all Canadians.
As the son of hardworking parents who showed so much promise in
those early years at Salt Fleet High, John Sopinka rose to the
very heights of our society and enriched us all. Truly he will
missed.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for 10 solid days now Canada's post office has been
paralyzed by a strike. The CFIB says this strike is costing the
average small business $240 a day or more than $2,000 lost per
business since the strike began.
I just received a letter from a small outfit in Manitoba that
has laid off four of its six employees. Its business is down 60%
and the owner is remortgaging his house to pay the bills.
Will the prime minister legislate the post office back to work
today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the parties are in negotiations at this moment. We hope
they will find a solution. The mediator is doing his work. He
is asking for more time and we have given him more time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we and Canadians have been waiting for mediation to work
for months. This is the fourth strike at the post office in 10
years. These negotiations have been going on for over seven
months. It is the third federally appointed government
conciliator who has become involved in this thing. The strike is
costing up to $2 million to this point.
I ask the prime minister again why will he not legislate the
postal workers back to work?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Parliament of Canada decided a long time ago that
public service employees working in the post office have the
right to strike. They are exercising the right that Parliament
has given to them at this moment.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, getting nowhere with the prime minister, I wonder if we
could ask the last question to the minister of public works.
Every now and then he pops up and says something about
legislating the post office back to work. Then he goes back in
his hole. It is like groundhog day, he pops up, sees his shadow
and goes back in his hole.
I am wondering if the minister of public works, rather than
whispering about back to work legislation, will stand up in the
House today and introduce that legislation which he obviously has
in his files.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague has to
continually talk about legislation. He is well aware that all
this does is hurt the process. We have appointed a highly
qualified mediator. Let the mediator do his job and help us come
up with a collective agreement, not trying to harm it by making
it public.
* * *
[Translation]
KREVER REPORT
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Krever report
on tainted blood clearly indicates that the federal government
played a major role in the tragedy.
Its first recommendation was to compensate victims
immediately. When will the Minister of Health announce that this
compensation will be paid? When?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that we have now received a summary, a very detailed report
concerning what happened. We are most grateful to Justice Krever
for his report. It will truly be an ongoing legacy to ensure the
safety of Canadians.
As far as claims by victims are concerned, I have already made
my position clear. I would prefer to avoid a decade of litigation.
I will be working with my provincial and territorial counterparts
to find solutions.
1420
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he blocked
Krever when he was trying to do his report and now he is blocking
the victims.
The minister apologized and then said that the federal
government was in fact involved and that he would act fully on
the report. But by his vague answers on compensation, he now is
hurting the victims. Would he prefer these victims of hepatitis
C to drag their hospital beds into court where the lawyers will
get most of their settlements, or will he give them a dignified
compensation package before Christmas? Hepatitis C deserves
better than this minister.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have made my views on the issue of compensation very clear. I
do not think victim claims should be bogged down for 10, 12 or 15
years before the courts. At the same time we have received from
Mr. Justice Krever some clear recommendations, some findings that
include the past, the present and the future.
It is my intention to take up these matters in the very near
future with my provincial counterparts. That is the place to
start. We should have a concerted approach to these issues, and
I shall be working toward that result.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in a statement that
was both arrogant and without precedent, claimed that the question
during the last referendum was a fraud.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister who, on the eve of the
referendum, stated at Verdun that Quebeckers were going to make the most
important decision of their lives, if he was inviting them to
participate in a fraud.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that when we heard Mr. Parizeau's statement after the referendum,
there was a very great difference between what was on paper and what the
government intended.
I suspected there was a trap in this, and I asked Quebeckers to be
careful.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
the Prime Minister voted in his riding of Saint-Maurice on October 30,
1995, did he have the impression of participating in a fraud, in a
fraudulent exercise, when he went to vote?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to point out that there was no mention of separation in the
question. When I read the question, there was no mention of creating a
new country. When I read the question, there was no mention of becoming
a member of the United Nations.
They were saying that an association would be worked out with the
rest of Canada, that Quebeckers would keep the Canadian passport,
Canadian money and Canadian citizenship, and also economic union and
political union. I have always said that I hope one day they will be
honest enough to ask an honest question “Do you want to separate from
Canada, yes or no?”
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to quote part of the speech by the Prime Minister in Verdun,
in case he has forgotten it. He said “Listen very well to what the
separatist leaders are saying. They are being very clear”.—That is what
he said: “They are being very clear. The country they are proposing is
not a improved Canada, it is a separated Quebec”.
I ask him again how he can speak today of fraud, when he was saying
on the eve of the referendum, with a look of desperation, of
understanding, of openness towards Quebeckers, that the separatists were
being very clear. How can he say today that it was a fraud?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was telling Quebeckers that when looking at what was written at the time
of voting and when hearing what the separatists were saying in some
areas of the province, what they meant was not very clear to the people.
They were saying “Nothing will happen, you will receive your old
age benefits from Canada, and all the benefits of Canadian citizenship,
while at the same time voting yes to this ambiguous question”. I am
asking for only one thing, and that is a little bit of honesty, to ask
Quebeckers “Do you want to separate, yes or no?” There is nothing
complicated in that, it is not much more than a sentence and the people
would understand clearly. They would vote very clearly, once again, for
Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we
want to speak about honesty, the last person we would want to deal with
is the present Prime Minister of Canada.
In the evening of October 30, 1995, following the results, when the
Prime Minister had promised to everyone in Canada that there was no
danger from sovereignty, that Quebeckers did not want it, these are the
things he said.
1425
He said, considering the narrow margin, “In a democracy, the people
are always right. Tonight, there is only one winner, and that is the
people. Tonight, more than ever, we can be all proud of Quebec
democracy”.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the prime minister.
This morning Campaign 2000 released its report card on child
poverty, confirming that child poverty has increased by 58% since
1989. It demonstrates the appalling record of the government on
child poverty.
Government talk is cheap considering that the funding for
programs our children need has not been there. The new child tax
benefit does not even replace what the government has already
cut.
Will the prime minister commit now to restoring these cuts?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the prime minister
took the leadership in June 1996. The premiers of the provinces
have asked us to work very hard on child poverty. I have seen the
report of Campaign 2000 and it supports the initiatives we have
been taking on the national child tax benefit. It has seen what
we have been able to do along with all the governments of this
country to help children with CAPC, which my colleague, the
Minister of Health, has been increasing thanks to last year's
budget. We are working toward that.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
that is not acceptable. The federal government is behaving like
the schoolyard bully who takes the weak's lunch money and then
feels he deserves a reward for buying a small milk. By refusing
to index the child tax benefit, the government is allowing it to
slowly fade away.
Will the government as a first step commit to fully indexing the
child tax benefit?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government will commit
very clearly that we will have $850 million more dollars as of
July 1, 1998. The Government of Canada will commit very clearly
today that there will be at least another $850 million in this
Parliament directed toward children. That is a lot more money
than they are talking about on the other side.
We should realize that a lot of work was done in the last
Parliament and will be in the next Parliament because child
poverty is a major priority and concern for us.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker,
while the prime minister was away at the APEC conference,
peppering his meals with other APEC leaders and peppering
Canadians with amusing jokes, the Governor of the Bank of Canada
this week peppered Canadians with a 25 basis point increase in
interest rates. As a result of this, the value of the Canadian
dollar went down the following day and continues to go down
again.
Could the prime minister explain to Canadians why the financial
markets are reacting negatively? Could the prime minister tell
us what is wrong with his policies that is provoking this
downward trend in the dollar?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the record of the government in managing the economy is
much better than when the Tories were in power.
Under the circumstances there is a fluctuation in a lot of the
currencies around the world. But at this moment because of the
good management of the government we have low interest rates,
much lower than American interest rates. We have more room than
when we took over government from the Tory administration when
interest rates were at least three points above American rates.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
doubt that Canadians are applauding as the Liberal benches are
applauding with 9.1% unemployment, more Canadians having a lower
standard of living than when he was elected and there are more
poor children.
Could the prime minister tell us what are the policies of the
government when it maintains artificially high payroll taxes,
when there is an increase in CPP premiums which will kill jobs
and increasing interest rates which will also kill jobs? What
are the policies of the government that has made Canadians poorer
today than when he was elected in 1993, that has created more
child poverty today—
The Speaker: The right hon. prime minister.
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are one million more jobs today than there were
when we formed the government. When we took office there was
11.2% unemployment and now it is 9.1%.
In terms of employment insurance premiums, we stopped an
increase which was supposed to raise the level to $3.30 in
January 1994. Last week we reduced it another 20¢. It will be
lowered to $2.70.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is in
crisis and the minister refuses to answer questions. She
continues to say that only 3% of her social assistance budget is
misused yet her own internal reviews state that as much as 75% of
the money is unaccounted for.
Will the minister now admit that her native welfare
administration is in chaos and in crisis?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about
this line of questioning is that the hon. member of the
opposition picks up a report and thinks it is news. Indeed that
report is not news to me, nor to my department.
Let us look at some of the chronology. In 1994 the auditor
general looked at social assistance and gave us some
recommendations for change. The department responded immediately
and commissioned a report. When we received that report in 1996
we shared it with the Assembly of First Nations. Together in
partnership we are building new strategies to provide social
assistance to aboriginal peoples.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister can bet her bottom dollar that it is news.
The fact of the matter is that she has been unaware of the
crisis within her own department because her own officials have
stonewalled her. On the other hand, she is not able to obtain
information from the grassroots Indian people about the horrific
conditions under which they live because she will not meet with
them.
Inasmuch as her own officials will not tell her the facts about
what is going on, will she change her mind and explain to the
House why she will not meet with the aboriginal grassroots people
who have been pleading with her to do so? Why will she not do
that?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed I have had the
pleasure since being made Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development of crossing this country and meeting with aboriginal
people and First Nations from coast to coast to coast.
The hon. member should look at the kinds of things I have been
talking about in my speeches. They focus on social assistance.
They focus on the need to modernize our programs. They focus on
the understanding that indeed aboriginal peoples are going to be
connected to the economy of this country. We have to modernize
social assistance. We have to make it proactive. Aboriginal
peoples have to have training and educational opportunities, as
do all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday, the minister said that the 1995 referendum question
was phoney, fraudulent and would never be repeated.
Are we to understand from the minister's remarks that the
federal government intends to prevent Quebec from holding another
referendum?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, we are not talking about Quebec but about the
PQ government.
Second, the leader of the official opposition in the National
Assembly, Mr. Johnson, described the question as fraudulent.
Third, the Prime Minister challenged the Bloc to put the
question clearly. He said that if they put the question clearly,
Quebeckers would make them face the music. So the word on the yes
side became “Chrétien, Quebeckers are going to make you face the
music”. It was libelous.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what a
performance.
Here is my supplementary. Are we to understand from the
minister's provocative remarks that his government has decided to
draft the next referendum question?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has said and is saying that
Quebeckers have the right to not lose Canada to confusion and
repeated trickery.
* * *
1435
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's focus is on a misunderstanding of
Canadian Indian people. For example on one reserve a 13 year old
boy with no family is involved in deviancy, gangs and auto theft.
A spot in a treatment centre has been reserved for this lad but
there are no funds for his therapy. Yet according to the memo
leaked from Indian affairs, there are no restrictions to stop
others from making multiple claims for social assistance.
Is the minister aware of how some abuse the system by making
multiple claims while others in desperate need get nothing? Have
her officials so blindfolded her from seeing the real story—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of Indian affairs.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that one
of the fundamental differences between this side of the House and
that side is in the area of aboriginal issues.
On that side of the House they talk about assimilation. Over
here we talk about respect and recognition for Canada's First
Nations. On that side of the House they refuse to accept
aboriginal rights. Over here we are implementing the inherent
right to self-government. On that side of the House they use
tactics of divide and conquer. Over here we talk about
partnership and building communities.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the way
I see it the real difference between that side of the House and
this side is that we talk to the grassroots Indian people rather
than the leaders.
The minister has been talking a lot about working together and
partnerships. Yet her department is betraying all the partners
in this issue: the grassroots Indian people and the silent
partners, the taxpayers of this country, and all the while her
bureaucrats, people like her own ADG, Allan Horner, do the
talking for the department.
When is the minister going to send Mr. Horner to the corner and
take charge of her department?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talking about listening to
aboriginal people, let me quote from one of the most appreciated
aboriginal people in this country, the new national chief, Phil
Fontaine. He said: “Using the unfortunate situation in two
communities to heighten tensions and claim that they represent
First Nations communities is not only irresponsible on the part
of the party now acting as the official opposition, but it is
divisive to the members of those communities and it is
detrimental to the Canadian society as a whole”.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the more the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs speaks, the more his true nature
shows through. He used strong words like fraud, libel and gimmicky to
describe Quebec's plan.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not simply going off
the deep end when he uses words like fraud, libel, and gimmicky to
describe a process the Prime Minister gave credibility to, the very next
day—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, it is a question of semantics. We are not talking about
Quebec's plan, but the plan to secede that Quebeckers have rejected
twice already.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs use such strong language and then
justify using it by saying “See, your option was democratically
rejected”. When is he telling the truth, before or after?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
democracy would have been better served had a clear question been put to
the people. Then, it would have been clear how much Quebeckers wanted to
remain within Canada. Support for the yes side would not have been
artificially inflated for the sole purpose of winning the referendum,
with a separation they did not want in the first place forced on
Quebeckers.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have heard the minister say that she is concerned and that she
has given many speeches.
Constituents of mine from the Hobbema reserve are also
concerned. They are concerned that even though there are
billions of dollars spent by her department they have the highest
substance abuse, the highest disease rate, the highest crime
rate, the highest poverty rate in Canada.
When will the minister stop her talking and act on the report
that she has been given?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes some
very good points, that indeed aboriginal people in Canada do not
live on a level playing field, that their lives are significantly
different from yours and mine.
1440
It is extremely important for us to understand that we need a
new structural relationship. We need to connect aboriginal
people to the economic levers that are so much a part of this
country.
I would ask the hon. member to join with me to build communities
and to work in partnership to make sure that Canada is number one
for all.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is using all these nice sounding words in
her speeches, like partnership and building, but they mean
nothing because she does not act.
Sixty-nine of 72 reserves in Saskatchewan have members in the
coalition for aboriginal accountability. While she quotes from
the letter from the chiefs, these grassroots people cannot meet
with her.
My question that she must answer is, why are the bureaucrats in
her department shielding her from the concerns of people on the
reserves?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny this.
In fact, when the warriors from the Samson First Nation came to
Ottawa, they were unable to meet with me because I was in Quebec
meeting with other First Nations. They were however invited to
meet with my ADM and they had a productive meeting. Our job is
to work together, to speak together and in partnership build a
modern future, a healthy future for Canada's aboriginal people.
* * *
[Translation]
KREVER REPORT
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now that the
Krever report has been tabled, we are left with the sad fate of
thousands of people who were contaminated because of an inadequate
system.
Since the federal government is the first to blame for the lack of
rigour in the blood supply system, should it not now compensate the
victims of its own negligence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
we accepted our share of the blame for what happened.
As I said earlier today, we can now refer to Mr. Justice Krever's
recommendations to deal with the issue of victims' compensation. I will
soon discuss our response with my counterparts.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the Law Reform Commission of Canada was
established to consider remedies for survivors of physical and
sexual abuse in communities across Canada.
Could the Minister of Justice tell survivors of physical and
sexual abuse how this commission's mandate will help them?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
important question in relation to a very difficult and complex
issue. Because of that fact, it is the kind of issue the Law
Reform Commission of Canada can do well to review and report on.
I would hope that everybody in this House would agree that
institutional child physical and sexual abuse is a very, very
important issue.
What I have asked the Law Reform Commission to report on is the
processes by which we as the federal government, and perhaps
other levels of government, can deal with this important issue.
I do however want to clarify—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Athabasca.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
empty rhetoric coming from the Indian affairs minister and the
accusations she is throwing out are unacceptable.
For 130 years in this country, Conservative and Liberal
governments have committed atrocity after atrocity on Indian
peoples. This Prime Minister even produced a white paper on
assimilation. Therefore, to throw that kind of talk out, I
simply ask the minister when she will quit that kind of talking
and simply act on the report that is in front of her.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the
hon. member that in our recent Speech from the Throne the
government clearly identified the issues facing our aboriginal
people.
We talked about the need to work together, to improve
accountability and transparency in government. We talked about
the need to build a fiscal relationship that is modern and
reflective of government to government relationships. We
identified the importance of helping to build a strong community.
The Speaker: My colleagues, once again I am finding it a
little difficult to follow the answers as well as the questions.
I would ask you to please keep your voices down.
1445
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister just identified the very problem. Talk,
talk, talk and no action.
This report confirms aboriginals worst nightmares. They have
been saying for years that corruption on many reserves is
rampant. If they want to report instances of abuse, the
aboriginal peoples must sneak into their MPs offices, pull the
drapes just to sit down and talk to their MPs because they fear
for their lives.
When will this minister choose to support the grassroots
aboriginal people instead of their own officials and bureaucrats?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that
First Nations communities across this country have the capacity
and the ability to govern themselves.
This side of the House believes fully in the inherent right to
self-government. We are committed to working with those
communities to build on what already seem to be effective
practices of management, effective services.
We are starting to see increasing and modernizing democratic
processes in all the 633 First Nations across this country. Our
job is to encourage that and work together to strengthen it.
* * *
KREVER INQUIRY
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Justice Krever is very clear about the federal role in
the blood scandal and the shortcomings in the health protection
branch.
Everything he calls for flies in the face of the minister's own
actions like the elimination of the Drug Research Bureau and his
plans for further deregulation, privatization and cost recovery
as outlined in his department's September discussion paper
entitled “Keeping Faith with Canadians”.
Will the minister start by keeping faith with the victims of
Canada's contaminated blood supply and send a message today that
deregulation is over?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I could not agree more with the member that there is a role for
Health Canada, a strong regulatory role, to ensure that the blood
supply system in this country is safe.
Yesterday, Mr. Justice Krever identified some shortcomings in
the past. He made strong recommendations for the future. We
will take his recommendations as guideposts as we assemble a
strong regulator in Health Canada.
I can assure the House that we have started already. We have
doubled the amount of money available for regulation in Health
Canada. We have established a blood safety council. We shall
continue because safety is our bottom line.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, wrongdoings and shortcomings in the federal government
are written all over the Krever report. The failure to demand
surrogate testing, the failure to play an active role in the
regulation of the blood supply and so on, all implicate the
federal government.
Will the minister today agree to immediately review the Krever
report to see if there was any dereliction of duty in the
adherence and the enforcement of the Food and Drug Act and would
he agree to refer this whole report to the solicitor general to
see if there was any wrongdoing?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can assure the member that the whole report and all
recommendations about the regulatory role of Health Canada are
under careful review.
Mr. Justice Krever has pointed us in a direction to assure the
safety of the blood system in the future. That will be our first
priority.
* * *
RCMP
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
In the province of New Brunswick the provincial government is
poised to remove the local police force and replace it with the
RCMP even though the provincial labour board has ruled that the
RCMP is acting without lawful authority.
My question for the solicitor general is has this government
entered into an agreement with the Liberal provincial government
in New Brunswick to allow police forces to be removed from
municipalities and replaced with the RCMP?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member better check her facts.
The reality is that the tribunal found originally that at the
time there was no authority to proceed. It was not irregular for
the RCMP to engage in discussions with the province and the
municipality in the event those legislative actions were taken.
Those legislative actions have begun and, if called upon, the
RCMP will act.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, does the
solicitor general know that the present premier of the province
of New Brunswick told the mayor of Moncton, New Brunswick that
either the mayor and the council agree to remove the police force
and put in the RCMP or they will never receive another grant, or
they will never receive another thing from the province of New
Brunswick?
Does this government want to be part of that kind of an
agreement?
1450
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would refer the member to our Conservative caucus in
the legislature of New Brunswick to put the question to the
Premier.
* * *
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Environment.
A couple of weeks ago the minister met with provincial ministers
to discuss Canada's approach for the International Cconference on
Climate Change.
My question is twofold: Why is it so important to have the
provinces on side to act on climate change and what kind of
consensus building role will Canada play in the Kyoto
negotiations?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
It is a very important question as our government goes into
negotiations in Kyoto.
In this country, the federal government and the provinces both
have authority and responsibilities in the area of environment.
When we met in Regina, our provincial and territorial
counterparts recognized that Canada has an important role to play
in negotiating in Kyoto a successful agreement and that we need
some flexibility.
With this co-operation from the provinces and territories,
Canada will play—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a few minutes ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development had the nerve to say that the difference
between those members and these members on those issues is that
Liberals care and Reformers do not. We resent those words.
The hon. member for Edmonton North spent 18 months living and
teaching on the worst aboriginal reserve in the province of
Alberta. This member has been a foster mother to six aboriginal
children.
If credibility in this House on this issue depends on caring and
contact with aboriginal people, will the minister—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the
Opposition is so committed to aboriginal people in this country,
I would invite him to support the newest senator who was named
yesterday—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[Translation]
POWA
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister recently said that BC mine workers were not interested
in a POWA. Yet, these workers are currently protesting in front of the
minister's Montreal office. They are asking for a modified POWA.
Given the repeated requests made by the former BC mine workers,
will the minister finally see the light and take the necessary steps to
ensure their financial security?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear: our government acted very
quickly following the closure of the mine. In late September, I asked my
department to allocate close to $3 million for active measures to help
these former workers, when no other action had yet been taken.
I draw the hon. member's attention to a letter, dated the 27 and
signed by the union president, which I am prepared to table in the
House. It says clearly that the workers want an improved POWA, that they
are not interested in a traditional POWA, only in an improved one.
Therefore, this has nothing to do with what the hon. member is asking
for.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of Finance.
The Prime Minister committed our country to be part of a $43
billion bailout to the investors, the speculators and even
dictators like Suharto in Southeast Asia.
How much is the Canadian taxpayer on the hook to bankroll
regimes with little regard for human rights? What is it going to
cost the Canadian taxpayer? What is that commitment? Are we
being taken to the cleaners by the minister? Are we going to be
Martinized by this minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was extremely fortuitous in fact that the APEC
meetings took place in Vancouver under the leadership of the
Prime Minister. It demonstrated to investors and to workers in
all of Southeast Asia that in fact the major industrial countries
were prepared to come together to make sure that the
international financial system continued on at a stable pace.
1455
What has happened, as the hon. member knows, is that
negotiations have been taking place with the International
Monetary Fund. We will be meeting a number of the countries in
Chile over the next week—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlotte.
* * *
KREVER INQUIRY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in questioning the government in regard to compensation for the
hepatitis C victims, the government basically said “wait 15
minutes for the Krever report to come down and we will act on
it”. The minister indicated he would act on it. Today in the
House, he is saying “I have got to consult with my provincial
counterparts”.
There are 12,000 Canadians suffering. They have now suffered
for 10 and 15 years with no financial reimbursement or support.
Will the minister show leadership and act unilaterally to help
these people as we did in 1991—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was yesterday we received the report. Mr. Justice Krever made
recommendations about compensation, findings about the past and
recommendations for the future. I think the only responsible way
to deal with those recommendations is to discuss the issue with
those in the provinces and territories who are also involved so
that we can furnish to the victims a response that is meaningful.
I have made it clear that I do not want this matter to languish
in the courts for a decade. I want a solution but I first want
to talk to my partners in the system who are in the provinces and
territories.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the minister wants us to defend their tokenism as they
appoint people to the Senate while thousands of people are going
without and are absolutely destitute across this country. We
will never support any appointment to the other House, no matter
who it is. For this minister to ask that I think is out of
order.
The minister is out of touch with her own department when she
said yesterday that the Alexander First Nation in my constituency
was a model of good management—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of Indian affairs.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the
Reform Party has finally come to understand the reality facing
aboriginal people in Canada. As I recall, in the last Parliament
the former member for Capilano—Howe Sound indicated that
aboriginal people in Canada were living like those on a South
Seas island.
* * *
LITERACY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a recently released international survey shows that more than 40%
of adult Canadians or seven million people do not have the
literacy skills needed to function effectively at home or at
work.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
What exactly is the federal government doing to improve the
literacy of Canadians?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department actually
supported the development of the report to better understand
literacy issues in this country. The report also recognized that
Canadians have the skills needed to succeed in the advanced
economy but not enough.
We are doing very well. We have the strongest literacy skills
in the world. However, we need to do more. In the last budget,
funding to the National Literacy Secretariat was increased to $29
million to better promote literacy. I must commend our good
friend, Senator Joyce Fairbairn, who does extraordinary work in
promoting literacy in this country. I thank her very much.
* * *
[Translation]
SEAL HUNT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Opponents of the seal hunt seem to be fuelling the controversy
by stepping up the campaign of false and biased information about
how the seal hunt is conducted in eastern Quebec and the Maritimes.
Since the minister tells us that the seal hunt is well
regulated and is conducted without cruelty, can he also tell the
House how many hunters were charged with operating without
licences?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact number of charges right now,
but I can obtain it for the hon. member. I would add that the seal
hunt is very important to the economy of the maritime provinces and
also to the province of Quebec, especially the Magdalen Islands.
1500
Islanders and others in these areas need accurate information
from the media, particularly the media in Ontario and in the major
cities in Quebec. There is really a campaign based on
misinformation—
[English]
The Speaker: That will bring to a conclusion question
period.
I have three points of order and I will take them in this order:
I will start with the weekly Thursday question, followed by the
whip of the Bloc Quebecois and followed by the leader of the
Conservative Party.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the government House leader the regular
Thursday question. I would like to know the business for the
remainder of this week and the business for next week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the following
business statement. We will continue this afternoon with report
stage of Bill C-2 respecting the Canada pension plan. Tomorrow
we will—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member
is heckling his own House leader. Perhaps we could get his
attention. I know this is a wild rose day.
Tomorrow we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill
C-10, the tax treaty legislation. This will be followed by
report stage of Bill C-5, the co-operatives bill.
On Monday and Tuesday we hope to conclude the remaining stages
of Bill C-2. On Monday we will have either report stage or third
reading of Bill C-2, with the conclusion on Tuesday as the case
may be depending on the stage reached this afternoon.
On Wednesday we hope to complete Bill C-5 followed by report
stage of Bill C-9, the ports bill.
There are ongoing discussions among House leaders every now and
then to further develop the agenda, particularly as we near the
Christmas recess. I thank my colleagues, the other House
leaders, for their usual co-operation.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will
agree with me that the language used in the House should be
conducive to maintaining an atmosphere of calm and respect for all
members of the House.
During oral question period, when the Leader of the Bloc
Quebecois was putting a question to the Prime Minister, the member
for Bourassa used offensive and disgusting language that is not
even worthy of being repeated in the House.
I ask you to request that he apologize and withdraw his
remarks.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I myself did not hear the
remarks. If the hon. member wishes to add anything, fine,
otherwise we will let matters lie.
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a resolution put forward
by the MNA for Saint-François, Monique Gagnon-Tremblay.
The resolution read as follows:
That the National Assembly demand that the Federal Government
not amend Federal Statute C-91, which refers to the pharmaceutical
industry, in such a way that would weaken the said Statute and its
rules, and this, in compliance with the international agreements
reached with our commercial partners regarding the protection of
intellectual property, and ascertain that Québec's pharmaceutical
industry remain strong and competitive.
Following consultations with the other parties, I request the
unanimous consent of the House to table this resolution here, in the
House of Commons.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member has asked for unanimous
consent to move a motion. Does he have unanimous consent to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last Thursday during debate in the House I made a comment to
which the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis took exception. He
raised a point of order with the Speaker and indicated that the
word was listed in Beauchesne's as unparliamentary.
1505
Although the Speaker ruled to simply continue debate, out of
respect for the House and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis I would
like to withdraw the remark I made last Thursday.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his withdrawal.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That the Standing Committee on Finance be permitted to make its
report pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) on December 1, 1997.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration 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, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 10 and 12.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House interrupted the debate
to proceed with question period the hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead had the floor. He has eight minutes remaining
in his remarks.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
just before we started question period I was talking about the
totally unacceptable tax burden on small business.
Small business people are the real job creators in Canada. The
tax burden for small business in Canada is higher than in most
competing jurisdictions. Small business owners have to pay both
employer and employee premiums. This makes it very difficult for
Canadian businesses to survive in today's global economy, which
means fewer jobs and fewer job opportunities for Canadians.
Study after study around the world have shown that high taxes
kill jobs. Jurisdictions with low relative tax rates have high
economic growth and strong job creation. Where the taxes are
high, growth is low and there are fewer jobs. That is a Polaroid
picture of Canada.
Within Canada our high payroll and corporate taxes form a
barrier to jobs and growth by taxing businesses for every new job
it creates. It is a job creation tax. That is unheard of. The
real solution is to create the conditions under which job
creation by the private sector is sustainable over the long term.
That is why it makes sense to cap increases to the Canada
pension plan at 10.25%. If the government is serious when it
states that changes made to Bill C-2 will prevent premiums from
rising above 9.9%, there should be absolutely no problem with
requiring parliament to review the changes if premiums ever
approach 10.25%.
The CPP is a fundamental part of the Canadian social safety net,
an obligation that the government must honour. Capping the CPP
at 10.25% and reducing EI premiums are ways of returning the CPP
to financial viability and protecting the investment Canadians
have already made in the plan.
The Reform Party believes that the only way to deal with this
challenge is to abandon our obligation to retiring Canadians and
eliminate the CPP. This approach is without merit. The current
government solution asks people to put even more of their
paycheques into its hands every year. This approach is without
merit. Canadians do not need a multibillion dollar tax hike.
Most experts agree that the best solution is to make the CPP
fully self-financing. In other words, enough new money should be
directed into the plan today to ensure that it can pay the
benefits due to those who retire down the road.
1510
It is possible to put more money into the fund and offset the
cost by reducing EI premiums. This plan has merit and it makes
sense. It would mean more money going into the plan without
asking Canadians to pick up the tab and without creating more
threats to job creation.
Small business is the engine of growth in the country. We
should encourage this engine to grow and run smoothly instead of
forcing it to run out of gas and stall. The House can and must
make a difference.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the first motion has to do with what some have called a
retroactive change. It is important for members to know the
dimensions of the change.
Currently an employee pays 2.925% on their insurable earnings.
The proposal in Bill C-2 would increase that to a full 3%. In
terms of dollars an employee earning $20,000 a year would be
required to pay another $12.71. It is important to keep the
dimensions of the change in focus. For example, if an employee
were making $35,000, the ceiling for insurable earnings, the
increase would be marginally over $17. To keep it in perspective
it is important to know the numbers.
The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill raised the issue with
regard to this change and the difficulty it may cause. All
members should know the increase that took effect in 1997 was
part of the consultation process. It was a change that was
discussed. It was also approved by the federal government and
two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the
population. This change was seen as an important starting point
with regard to providing fuller funding for the CPP.
The intent of Motion No. 10 was to delete that requirement. It
is important for Canadians to understand that if the change is
not made in 1997 the amount to be paid to get up to the full
funding rate would have to increase. It is a matter of a nominal
change in 1997.
For that reason, although there may be a case where temporary
workers require adjustments, those businesses had consultations
with the finance department as early as last spring and were
advised of the change. This is not a surprise to business at
all.
The second motion in this group has to do with preventing the
new CPP contribution rates from coming into effect unless the
increases are offset by EI premium reductions. In this area a
lot of comments have been made by members which require
clarification.
With respect to the EI surplus, it tends to connote that $12
billion will be sitting in some account somewhere, a surplus that
is available to be spent for EI benefits or programs. That is
not the case.
There is a notional account, an EI account, which keeps track of
the premiums received and the benefits paid out but as a
requirement or a recommendation that was accepted by the
government from the auditor general the EI premiums are included
in operating revenues, in the general revenue account.
1515
One would only have to ask what to do if there were a deficit in
this notional account. How would that be handled? I think that
is a very important question to understand. If in an economic
downturn the benefits paid out exceeded the premium base of the
reserve there would have to be some cross-subsidization or some
underpinning by other government revenues to be able to continue
to fund and pay out benefits.
I understand that the EI fund actually was in a substantial
deficit position in the last downturn of the economy in about the
same magnitude as the surplus is now. The amount of the surplus
that is being referred to is not really out of line.
I think the Minister of Human Resources Development's announcing
a $1.4 billion cut in EI premiums, from $2.90 down to $2.70 per
$100, is an indication that when it is sustainable and when it
can be delivered and can be counted on by business there will be
reductions in the EI rate as long as it is clear that those
reductions in the EI premium can be sustained.
Much of the discussion on this motion also has to do with some
of the funding requirements of the CPP by taking some this
notional surplus. As I explained, since there is no $12 billion
surplus that will be sitting in some account somewhere to use for
whatever purposes we want, actually what we are talking about is
the size of the deficit.
If we were to take funds out of the notional EI account we in
fact are taking moneys out of the revenues of the government and
therefore increasing the deficit. I suggest that also is
inconsistent with an important position of Canadians that we have
to get our fiscal house in order. We have to deal with the
deficit. Also, what the finance committee has heard time and
time again across the country through its exhaustive prebudget
consultations is that Canada must continue to deal with the
national debt.
The debt, the deficit, it does not matter what we call it, the
fact is we have a mortgage which we must continue to pay down on
an orderly basis to have our house in order. It is the reason
why we have low interest rates. It is the reason why we have one
of the strongest records of economic performance and the
strongest projected economic growth in the G-7. It is because we
have been getting our fiscal house in order.
Members should be very careful about suggesting that somehow
there is $12 billion floating around that we could somehow use.
Another very subtle point but I think salient in this regard is
that one of the principles that came out from the consultations,
agreed on by consensus of the witnesses and by the federal
government, the provinces and the territories, is that today's
seniors will be insulated from the changes to be made to the
Canada pension plan in order to make it sustainable for
generations to come.
If we were to somehow take moneys out of the general revenue of
the government and increase the deficit what we are basically
doing is asking today's seniors to pay something with regard to
the CPP changes. We are asking today's seniors, who already have
their pensions fixed, who already have their retirement income in
place and who have absolutely no major source of other
opportunity, to change their current retirement situation.
Members must remember that seniors do pay taxes. Because they
retire does not mean they have opted out somehow. They continue
to pay taxes on their pension income and on other investment
income and other transfers from various sources. They are
taxpayers. To the extent that we take money out of general
revenues and increase the deficit or reduce spending on some
other areas or have to increase taxes, which I doubt will happen,
it would therefore be asking seniors to bear some of the burden
of the changes in the CPP.
1520
I think it is important to also emphasize this aspect of
insulating today's beneficiaries under the CPP from having to pay
for some of the portion of funding future benefits of today's
workers.
It has to do with the fact that they came through two wars and
the depression of the 1930s and 1940s. Their working careers
were smaller than we have enjoyed today. Their opportunities to
build up a nest egg for their retirement were restricted.
In the real world there is a process of arbitrage and fairness
and equity. The CPP was built on that process of fairness and
equity and today's seniors will be protected by these changes.
In conclusion, they must be assured that they will not be
negatively impacted by the changes being proposed under Bill C-2.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a few
moments speaking on Motions Nos. 10 and 12.
Motion 10, proposed by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill,
intends to delete the requirement for workers and their employers
to make extra contributions for 1997, which are the maximum of
$24 each for employers and employees.
The contribution rate for employers and employees in 1997 is
2.925% and employers have been submitting their employer-employee
contributions based on that rate.
Section 59 of Bill C-2 amends the existing schedule of the
contribution rates to require employers and employees to pay
the 3% in 1997.
Again I state that the motion deletes the mechanism for
collecting the extra contributions resulting from the amended
contribution rate for 1997.
The motion would require that the extra contributions be
collected starting at the beginning of 1997. Since it is
impossible to undo the past, the motion is in fact eternally
flawed. I am sure that is not the intent of the member who
has put forward this amendment.
Let me spend a few moments talking about what the departments
have done to deal with the anticipated increase in the CPP
premium.
Departmental officials did meet with several staffing groups
concerned about the 1997 rate collections. Revenue Canada did
reflect the new higher rate in the 1997 withholding tables, which
it puts out each December.
Putting new tables in mid-year is quite expensive for the
government and administratively cumbersome for employers. The
government did try to make employers aware of the possibility
that the 1997 rate could be changed during 1997 so that employers
had as much notice as possible to deal with this situation and
they could take appropriate action.
As I stated, Revenue Canada alerted employers in December 1996
and contained this information in the 1997 withholding tables.
The Minister of Finance indicated in his February 14 statement
that the extra money for 1997 would be collected at tax filing
time. Revenue Canada again informed employers in May of the
procedures for collecting the 1997 premiums. Again, finance
officials talked to a number of employers and their associations
over the spring and summer.
There have been ample attempts by the departments and the
governments to inform employers that in fact this anticipated
increase is coming and tried to work with them to deal with the
administrative concerns they may have had.
I just want to talk for a second on the mechanism to collect.
Employers file, every February, a T-4 reconciliation statement
that is used as a final year end reconciliation for EI, for
Canada pension plan premiums as well as other taxes that are
collected and withheld from employees.
This T-4 reconciliation form is the form that would be
used to collect the 1997 premiums. There is no additional
administrative burden put in place as a result of having to
collect these 1997 premiums in 1998.
The changes that were made do eliminate that administrative
burden and if we had made those changes mid-stream we would have
caused much greater hardship on the business community.
With respect to Motion No. 12, it attempts to prevent
the new CPP contribution rates from coming into effect for 1997
through 2000 unless the increases are offset by decreases in
employment insurance contributions from employers and employees.
1525
It is clear that there is no link between CPP and EI. They are
separate programs that serve purposes and rates are established
independently. EI premiums nevertheless have been reduced since
1994 and they will fall again from $2.90 to $2.70 which is a $1.4
billion expenditure on behalf of the government. This completely
offsets the 1998 CPP rates for workers and more than offsets the
increase in CPP rates for employers.
The government has committed over and over again that it will
continue to lower EI premium rates as soon as it can. However,
the overwhelming message from Canadians throughout the entire
consultation period was that the government needs to take action
now to fix the CPP so that the contribution rate does not rise
above 9.9%.
The second part of the motion deals with the steady state
contribution rate. The motion intends to prevent the steady
state contribution rate from exceeding 10.25% regardless of the
chief actuary's calculations. Establishing a cap of 10.25% is
clearly inconsistent with the CPP financing principles set out in
the act. The principles require a constant contribution rate
that can be sustained. The 9.9% steady state contribution rate
is based on prudent assumptions and we are therefore confident
that the rates will not exceed this level.
There was also some discussion earlier from the Conservative
Party about the so-called tax grab. Let me be very clear that it
is not a tax grab. This is a contribution of savings toward
pension. When these contributions are made and collected by the
government, they go into a separate fund. They do not go into
consolidated revenues; taxes go into consolidated revenues. They
will go into a separate fund and will be invested like other
pension plans. That is what Canadians have asked us to do and
that is what Bill C-2 will do.
Under the existing legislation, CPP contribution rates are
already set to climb above the 9.9% rate. In fact, the rates are
scheduled to reach 10.1% in 2016, so we are reducing the amount
that the existing contribution rates would end up being if we did
not bring forward Bill C-2.
The chief actuary has shown that if we do not move fast, the
Canada pension plan will be bankrupt by 2015 and the rates will
have to soar to 14.2% in 2030, which is a 140% increase. No one
on this side of the House is saying that the CPP premiums are not
going up. Clearly they are going up but they are going up so
that we can sustain the plan. They are not going up as high as
they would have if we had done nothing. For the first time in a
long time the administration of this government has taken action
to save the CPP plan.
The same cannot be said about the prior administration which sat
there and watched the CPP go into disarray. It sat back and said
it would do nothing, that it should be left to become
someone else's problem. We do not want that to happen. We are
reflecting what Canadians have said. We had the consultation
period. Bill C-2 reflects what Canadians have told us.
The responsible thing to do to avoid bankruptcy and truly
intolerable rates is to put forward Bill C-2 to ensure the Canada
pension plan stays solvent and provides the security Canadians
are asking for.
The hon. member from the Conservative Party continued to talk
about the increases in the CPP premium. He referred to an $11
billion tax grab. Let us be very clear. He fails to mention
that because of the changes that have been made in this bill,
premiums would ultimately be $11.5 billion if we compared it to
the existing schedule.
When we talk about doing something for future generations, when
we talk about ensuring the pension plan is solid, when we talk
about doing it in a very balanced manner, and when we look at the
premium increase versus the changes on the benefits side, we will
find on review of Bill C-2 that we have met those criteria. We
have ensured that the concerns of Canadians have been reflected.
The provinces have played a very large part as joint stewards of
this plan in the federal-provincial negotiations. We have an
agreement that is clearly a balanced approach that will ensure
the Canada pension plan will be there for Canadians well into the
future.
1530
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise this afternoon in opposition to this particular
amendment which is being put forward. I want to rise in
opposition as the small business critic for the New Democratic
Party.
I look at this proposal and I see that the amendments they are
putting forward in many ways do not bode well for small business.
Small businesses have a lot of challenges right now. They are
faced with the pending increase in interest rates. Small
business people have always had challenges with respect to
capital acquisition.
We are also looking at the huge increase in profits by the banks
year over year. The only conclusion one can draw from that is
that not only are they receiving a huge amount of increased
profits and revenues from consumers in this country, but also
from the small and medium size businesses which employ the vast
majority of Canadians.
Business is also faced with the challenges of the GST collection
on behalf of the federal government. This is a burden the
government has put on them.
Finally of course the issue that we will be dealing with this
afternoon is the payroll taxes as they are called. They are
basically programs which assist small business owners to provide
some level of support in terms of a pension plan, or unemployment
insurance plan, or disability plan for their employees. By the
way, a vast number of businesses and owners of small businesses
employ those who own the businesses so this is something that is
very important to them.
What the amendment outlines in terms of this particular bill is
it proposes that any increase in the contribution rate with
respect to the CPP for the years 1997 through 2000 shall not come
into effect unless the cumulative increase in anticipated
revenues under the Canada pension plan resulting from the changes
in the contribution rate after December 1996 are offset by at
least a cumulative decrease in anticipated combined employer and
employee contributions under the Employment Insurance Act for
those same years.
I have some information which I would like to share. The Canada
pension plan has been a very helpful program for small business.
If small and medium size businesses did not have such a plan,
they would be forced in many ways to commit greater resources,
which are limited to them, to establishing their own type of
pension plan. As we know, establishing a pension plan for a
small number of employees on their own would be very costly and
prohibitive. There would be less pension coverage for employees
who work in the small and medium size businesses.
I want to share with members in the House today some information
which was provided and accumulated by Statistics Canada on
self-employment. Self-employment grew rapidly both in absolute
and relative terms between 1989 and 1996. During this period
self-employed workers accounted for more than 75% of total job
growth. Seventy-five per cent.
Throughout the period 1989 to 1996 the number of business owners
increased by 25%, by a margin of 457,500 compared to an increase
of 1% or 132,700 in the number of employees. In essence small
business has employed more people over the years. Most of those
who became self-employed during this period worked alone and did
not hire other workers.
We are concerned about the rapid increase in CPP premiums. As
the small business critic and spokesperson for the New Democratic
Party caucus, we believe that contributions should be increased
at a slower rate over a longer period of time to allow
self-employed people to adjust their businesses and to allow
small and medium size businesses to adjust their forecast and
financial analysis to meet these increased payroll taxes.
I believe the majority of business people want to continue in
the program. That is the information I have received. But the
information I have also received is that they want more time to
ensure that they are able to adjust their revenues.
1535
As we know, small business cannot announce a 25 or 50 basis
point increase in the charge for their services like the banks
can. If they do, they just do not seem to stay in business very
long. Whereby the banks are large businesses and are basically
oligopolies and can do whatever they want with respect to
charging these very same small and medium size businesses
increased rates at the drop of a hat. They do this on a
fluctuating basis without a lot of rationale, far too often
costing small business and self-employed people a great deal of
anxiety, anguish and concern, not to mention the fact that it
jeopardizes their business and their way of doing business.
Saskatchewan registered the highest proportion of self-employed
workers in 1996. Saskatchewan is the province I represent. If we
exclude agriculture from these numbers, actually British Columbia
had the highest incidence of self-employment in 1996.
It is extremely important to us in Saskatchewan as in other
parts of the country, but more in particular because of the
agricultural economy. Many farmers have incorporated and they
are paying their own contributions. They are self-employed. In
many cases family members work in the incorporated partnerships,
farm operations or agricultural operations and they pay their
Canada pension plan premiums as well.
People who are self-employed pay not just the employee share,
but the employer share. It is a very big concern for
Saskatchewan business people in terms of a quick increase in
premiums in a short period. This underscores our position in the
NDP that we should take lower increases over a longer period of
time.
According to the most recent data available, average earnings
among self-employed individuals in 1995 were 91% of average wages
and salaries. The distribution of earnings among the
self-employed is more polarized than the earnings of paid
workers.
In 1995 approximately 23% or 392,800 self-employed workers
earned less than $10,000. Almost one-quarter of self-employed
workers earn less than $10,000 a year. That means they are very
restricted in terms of discretionary revenues and discretionary
income to meet these higher increases in Canada pension plan
premiums.
About 45% of self-employed workers in Canada earned less than
$20,000 a year. At the other end of the distribution, only 4% of
self-employed workers earned in excess of $100,000. In 1995 the
average earnings of self-employed women were slightly higher than
one-half of their male counterparts.
Underlying the distribution and earnings of self-employed
workers is the amount of time self-employed individuals work.
Compared to paid workers, self-employed workers are more likely
to work either short or long hour work weeks. But part of the
earnings gap between male and female self-employed workers is
undoubtedly attributed to the fact that male self-employed
workers worked a longer work week. In 1996 male self-employed
workers worked an average of 13.3 hours more per week than their
female counterparts.
This particular proposal in my view is also detrimental to
women, whether they are in small business or not. The increases
and changes in CPP will affect women most in a very negative way.
Most of the growth in self-employment between 1989 and 1996 was
voluntary. It is estimated by Statistics Canada that only 12%
were pushed into self-employment because there was no other work
available. This particular statistic means that we have a trend
in our country whereby more and more people are being frustrated
in terms of finding employment and therefore are going into small
business. We also have a trend where more people are interested
in working for themselves because they have not had a proper deal
with respect to their employers.
I have a number of things I want to raise but the final thing I
will talk about is this. I want to agree with the Liberal member
for Mississauga South when he said that these increases are of
concern to him. They are of concern to us in the NDP. We agree
with him on this point, that we should not put the EI surplus
into the Canada pension plan benefits. That jeopardizes the
employment insurance program which was set up to insure workers
who are unemployed. We feel that is not only a
cross-subsidization but really a wrong way to deal with it.
1540
In ending my remarks, I want to say on behalf of the small
business community in Canada that we oppose this amendment. We
would put forward lower increases in CPP benefits over a longer
period of time to meet the needs of a very important program.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House
that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa,
November 27, 1997
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Peter de C. Cory,
Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy
Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 27th day
of November, 1997, at 4 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to
certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, an anct 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, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 10 and 12.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to make a few remarks on this bill, 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.
Bill C-2, which the finance minister introduced on September 25, is
a reform of the Canada pension plan, among other things.
This reform has three main components. The first one deals with the
level of capitalization of the plan which will increase from two to five
years of benefits, as suggested by the minister. The second one provides
for the optimization of the plan's performance through the establishment
of an investment board. And the third one is a series of changes to
certain benefits, such as the disability benefits.
Implementation of these measures depends on Bill C-2 going through
the parliamentary process. In order to assess this reform, I would like
to give the House if I may a brief background of the CPP. The plan goes
back to 1966, when nine provinces opted in, while Quebec created its own
plan, the Quebec pension plan, which is also being revised.
The Canada pension plan pays benefits totalling about $17 billion
a year. This includes survivor and disability benefits. Right now, the
plan has enough money in reserve to pay two years worth of benefits,
which amounts to some $39 billion. Of course, this reform will have a
significant impact on Canada pension plan premiums.
I will now talk about the various amendments, starting with Motion
No. 12 put forward by the Conservatives, which says that, for the years
1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, any increases in the contribution rate
provided for in the bill shall not come into effect unless they are
offset by an equivalent decrease in employment insurance contributions.
The motion also says that the contribution rate for self-employed
persons shall not exceed 10.25% except if the chief actuary is of the
opinion that a higher contribution rate is warranted.
We support the idea of a decrease in employment insurance
contributions to offset the increase in CPP premiums. However, the
cumulative decrease proposed by the Conservatives is equivalent to a 80
cent decrease in the EI contribution rate. Such a decrease is not
compatible with the Bloc's position, which calls for an enhancement of
the program in addition to a significant decrease in the contribution
rate, because we think that the reform went to far.
Now my mouth is watering in anticipation of what I am about to say
on the other amendment, this one being proposed by the Reform Party.
We thought we had seen everything, but this tops it all.
1545
The amendment proposed by the Reform Party calls for repeal of
the section of the legislation allowing retroactivity of the
increase in contributions for 1997. At this time, the agreed CPP
contribution level is 5.85% and the act will allow this to be
retroactively raised to 6% for 1997. The Reform Party members are
against this retroactivity.
I feel that, in politics, at some point one has to see beyond
the end of one's nose. I was pleased to be able to speak at the
first reading of this bill. Opposition parties are always
described as being there to get in the face of the government. I
do not believe this is the case.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of such a bill, except that I note
that its vision is rather a long term one. If I want to receive
benefits some day, at some point, we have to start realizing that
there must be more money in the fund.
Yes, I am in agreement with this reform. It imposes a
surcharge on taxpayers, in that people will have to contribute
more. It is like another tax. I know that the people will not be
delighted at that, but we have to look several years down the road.
We have to be able to look at our children and tell ourselves that
it would be worthwhile for them to have the same advantages we have
had all our lives.
What Reform is telling us is that this is a tax increase.
This makes no sense; they are playing politics with blinders on.
I find this very frustrating. We in this House see our share of
short-sighted policies.
I need only think of the position taken by the Minister of the
Environment, who, very quietly, will take a position much like that
of the United States. It is true they say greenhouse gases are
serious business, but what about future generations? I am not just
thinking about myself. Policies being formulated now will have an
effect in 20 or 30 years when I will be 40 or 50. I think they
should give thought to future generations when they establish
policies. Policies on sustainable development as they are called.
If I were the son of a Reformer or rather a Reform member, I
would be wondering how I could look my children in the eye and say
“Sorry, my education did not cost me a lot. When I finished
university, I got a job and it did not take long. When I retired,
I had a pension plan and one heck of a retirement.
Unfortunately, you my son, will have to pay for your university
education”. What is more, this morning in committee, a Reform
member said he was opposed to loans and bursaries. I am not going
to get into this, but as I said, the Reform approach is sort of
“You are going to pay dearly for your university education. When
you get out, you will not have a job, and that is no problem. When
you retire there will be no pension, because the coffers will be
empty”.
I do not understand. I am not into partisan politics. I do
not want to divide the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and the
Liberal Party. I am talking much more of a generational thing. I
feel sorry for the poor people my age who vote for the Reform Party
in Alberta and British Columbia. Perhaps it is time they looked at
their policies.
Finally, this shift to the right is of great concern to me because
such policies widen the gap between rich and poor. It is like saying to
young people: “Our generation was rich, but we don't care if you have to
live on a shoestring”. This makes me very uncomfortable. When I talk
about the gap between rich and poor, I am talking not only about long
term policies, but also about things that are happening right now. My
colleague from the NDP mentioned the banks. One of my Bloc colleagues
will soon propose a reform package to encourage banks to become more
socially involved in our communities.
1550
I believe it is time for policies that are more concerned with
social issues. This shift to the right will lead us nowhere. It only
redistributes the money so the rich get richer while the poor get
poorer. The poor must resort to violence to be heard, leading to total
anarchy. I do not want that kind of society. I want a fair system.
Your generation enjoyed a rather fair and equitable system. My
generation and that of my children deserve a system that is just as
fair.
I intend to keep Reform members on their toes. As long as they keep
moving such phoney amendments—I have no qualms about calling them
phoney—I will rise in this House to take them to task.
[English]
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure today to speak briefly on the motions before the
House and the debate about the Canada pension plan in general.
Having sat on the finance committee and having heard from
Canadians both on the larger question of the general finances of
the country leading up to our budget and on the CPP, it has
provided me with an opportunity, I believe, to speak to a number
of points and to add some clarifications.
The member for the New Democratic Party, the critic for small
business, referred to a number of points with respect to the
Canada pension plan contributions and the effect on small
business. Indeed, it is true that it will have an effect.
I think it is important to point out a number of features within
the tax arrangements between the provinces and the federal
government on the CPP question. That is to say, that with some
of the tax measures that are currently available, there is
possibly a $900 increase in the Canada pension plan between the
employer and the employee. After tax it is more like around
$700. I believe those features have to be brought out with
respect to small business and for the assistance of small
business.
Speaking about small business, the member for the Conservative
Party, who spoke eloquently earlier here in the Chamber, talked
about the plans of the Conservative Party with respect to
unemployment contributions and tying that into the CPP. It is
important to remind the House—and I am sure it is not lost on
all the members here and those who were here between 1988 and
1993—that the current leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party voted many times and repeatedly to raise contributions to a
level of $3.30 per $100 of earnings against the small business
people and employees.
What we have done in the four short years on that particular
question with respect to employment contributions is lower it,
indeed with the most recent changes a few days ago, to $2.70.
Taken all together over the past four years, this puts $4.2
billion back into the hands of small business people in Canada
and their employees. This is an important contribution. As was
pointed out by the parliamentary secretary earlier in the debate,
we will continue to work toward that goal.
It is really a false assumption to say that we have this large
and looming surplus in the employment fund when, as members know,
previously, around 1989-90, we had a deficit. Was it proper
then? I would like to ask the opposition if it was immoral, as
some had suggested at the committee table, to take money now from
the surplus? Was it immoral at that time, for example, to ask
Canadians to pay that deficit fund under the EI fund which
accounted for billions of dollars?
It is prudent practice in terms of consolidating the revenues of
the Government of Canada and to balance those out. Certainly in
times of surplus, last week we made a $1.4 billion contribution
back to the employees.
If it runs into a deficit financing position again, obviously we
would be prepared to back that up and to support that.
1555
Referring to the CPP specifically, one of the things the Reform
Party has not done to address this important debate is the
primary antecedent or variable that shapes this whole discussion
on the Canada pension plan. Thomas d'Aquino, President of the
Business Council on National Issues, for example, when he came to
the table of the House of Commons, specifically asked the
opposition parties what they were prepared to do with the $600
billion debt that was on the table momentarily and what we are
going to do with this liability over the next 25 to 30 years.
There have been no constructive proposals brought forward in
this regard. Most certainly the plan of the Reform Party for
this super RRSP may benefit a few but it certainly is not going
to help the majority of Canadians who make contributions at an
average of $3,000 a year. It certainly said nothing, absolutely
nothing, about the $600 billion liability which we are trying to
address in this formula.
It is very interesting that even in the province of Manitoba,
recent reports from Stats Canada, and reported in the local
newspaper in Manitoba The Winnipeg Free Press, that the
average contribution in Manitoba for RRSPs was less than $3,000.
Surely these contributions are not safe enough to provide that
template, that safety net for all Canadians into their future. It
is just not there.
In other words what I am saying is that the ceiling we have
employed at this point in the RRSP contributions of $13,500 is
exercised and enjoyed by only a few. The plan for the RRSP will
not do that. This says nothing about the absence of a disability
plan or some compensation for widows.
The Canada pension plan and the long term proposals we have put
forth to the House and through the committee are responsible
plans. It should be acknowledged that yes, the plan has fallen
short of its goals and its objectives. No one could have
foreseen, certainly the crafters and drafters of these documents
could not have foreseen, a reasonable person could not have
foreseen in 1965, 1967 and 1968 that successive generations of
adults would not be having larger families than we currently
have, two or three children per family. This is the central
feature. Demographics cannot be lost in this debate in terms of
their effect on ability to pay.
This is what we are trying to do by responding to the auditor
general, to outside consultants' reports and by looking at the
overall view and the long term health and prosperity of the
country. What we are doing now will provide that template to
make sure those people who are 60 years old now, those who are
turning 50 this year and in 10 years will be thinking more
acutely about their retirement, whatever their arrangements are
and whatever packages are as a combination of their work
benefits, family inheritances, RRSPs, are secured into the future
for their retirement. Further, the younger generation, those for
example between the ages of 30 to 40, can have the degree of
certainty to know that they will need to have a secure pension
plan into the future as well.
I want to conclude my comments by saying that over the next
number of months and in the upcoming budget we are responding to
the needs of small business in Canada. The recent reductions in
the employment insurance, the changes in the CPP to provide a
stronger stability and predictability in financial planning for
small business, the reduction in interest rates as well are
helping small business and keeping the economy moving and
growing. This is particularly so in Manitoba where we are
enjoying record growth in our exports.
I believe the amendment is wrong. I believe the motion by the
Conservative party to bring these two important programs together
is a misleading one. It will not be helpful to small business
and ultimately will not be helpful to Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motions in
Group No. 5, which are deemed to have been demanded and deferred.
1600
Accordingly, the question is on the motions in Group No. 6,
Motions Nos. 11, 13. 14, 15. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22. These
motions have been deemed moved, seconded and read.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved
That
Bill C-2, in Clause 61, be amended by
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC):
That Bill C-2, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing
lines 8 and 9 on page 31 with the following:
“(2) For each year beginning in 1997 and ending in 2006, the
amount of a Year's Basic Exemption is $3,500.”
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved
That
Bill C-2, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 36 on
page 36 the following:
“(4.2) Employer contributions for a self-employed person
earning less than the prescribed threshold income shall, for the
years 1999, 2000 and 2001, be calculated on a progressive scale
based on annual income in accordance with the regulations.
(4.3) Every regulation made pursuant to subsection (4.2)
shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within the first
fifteen days of the next session after the date it is made, and
the regulation shall remain in force until the day immediately
succeeding the date of prorogation of that session of Parliament
and no longer unless during the session it is approved by
resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
That
Bill C-2, in Clause 71, be amended by adding after line 23 on
page 41 the following:
“(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Year's
Maximum Pensionable Earnings for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001
shall be two times the amount calculated under this Act.”
That
Bill C-2, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 45 on
page 73 with the following:
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
dealing here with nine different motions, most of them in my name
and one from the Conservative Party. I only have 10 minutes, so
I just briefly want to touch on the motions in my name on behalf
of our party.
Motion No. 11 relates to the new investment fund that is being
established by the legislation. The amendment is to put other
objectives into the fund in terms of where it is to be invested.
Right now the only objective is to maximize the return for the
contributor. That is a very laudable objective. In addition, we
believe there should be some other objectives, such as investing
in the Canadian economy, in industries and sectors that would
create more jobs for Canada.
The model would be la Caisse de dépôt et placement.
[Translation]
The objectives of the Caisse de dépôt in Quebec were quite adequate
for a long time; they supported job creation and economic growth. The
Quebec economy grew stronger and stronger thanks to the Caisse de dépôt.
We must have similar principles and goals for the Canada pension
plan.
[English]
Motion No. 11 would create some of the goals and objectives.
Motion No. 13, is extremely important to members of the NDP.
This is the one that would reindex the year's basic exemption. In
the Canada pension plan there is a basic exemption of $3,500
which has been indexed over the years. That indexation is now
going to be eliminated.
When the Canada pension plan was formed back in 1966 the basic
exemption was approximately $400. People making less than $400
would not contribute to the Canada pension plan. The government
of the day and the Parliament of the day in their wisdom decided
to index that $400. Now it has gone up from $400, to $500 to
$1,000, to $2,500 and now up to $3,500. Low income people are
not making contributions to the CPP on anything they earn up to
$3,500.
Now, the government, despite the advice of a lot of people in
the country, has decided to deindex that basic exemption so low
income people will be paying more and more into the Canada
pension plan. That is why we have put forward these amendments
and that is why the changes are regressive.
Across the way there are Liberals who are ashamed of this
change. I am sure that if you could speak out, Mr. Speaker, you
would be ashamed that low income people in Kingston are paying
more and more into the Canada pension plan. Now, that is not the
tradition of Lester Pearson and Paul Martin, Sr. and the
progressive Liberals of the 1960s that brought in a Canada
pension plan that was progressive. That is gone.
That is why these amendments are not supported by the
governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan which have the
good fortune to have NDP governments which are very enlightened
and very progressive.
Motion No. 15 is of great interest to my colleague from
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. He spoke very eloquently on the
previous motion which is very similar to this one. This deals
with the problem of the self-employed who are going to be hit
very hard by the changes to the CPP. The premiums are going up
from 5.85% over six years to 9.9%. The self-employed person will
have to pay both the employer and the employee contribution of
9.9%. That is going to be very difficult for self-employed
people who are on the lower income scale.
For a wealthy accountant from the Toronto or Mississauga area
who is making $200,000 or $300,00 a year as a self-employed
person, it does not really matter.
However, it is very difficult for the small businesswoman who is
struggling along at $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a year, to pay
10% of her income into the CPP.
1605
My motion will make this contribution progressive as well. The
lower income people who are self-employed will pay proportionally
less and a wealthy lawyer or accountant from Mississauga will pay
proportionally more. Who could oppose that outside of the
wealthy who come from Mississauga? And he is a Liberal.
I am sure in the days of the old progressive Liberals like Paul
Martin, Sr. or Pickersgill or Pearson, they would never have
dreamed of doing this to the self-employed people. I am sure
they would not. That is another motion I present to the House
today.
My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre is extremely interested
in Motion No. 16 which would restore the benefits to where they
were since there will now be a reduction in benefits. This
reduction will affect women the most, especially low income
women. That is very regressive. And—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret that I must interrupt. The
hon. member will have time in a few minutes, but I have to
interrupt the proceedings at the moment because we have received
a very important message.
* * *
[Translation]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a
message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the
Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-22, an act to implement the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and
Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to His
Excellency the Governor General that this Honourable House attend
him immediately in the Senate Chamber.
Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1615
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that when the House did attend his honour the Deputy to His
Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, his honour
was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to
the following bill:
Bill C-13, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act—Chapter
32.
Bill C-22, an act to implement the Convention on the Prohibition
of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of
Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction—Chapter 33.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration 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, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 10 and 12.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, before
royal assent I was discussing Motion No. 16. I suggested that it
is a very important motion because it restores the benefits to
their current levels. Many people will experience a cutback to
their benefits under the legislation. It will make accessibility
to benefits more difficult. It is a step in the wrong direction.
Motion No. 17 has been moved by the NDP under my name. It would
restore the old formula for the calculation of disability
benefits under the CPP.
Unfortunately the Liberals across the way in their new
conservative style have decided to make it more difficult for
disabled people to collect benefits under the Canada pension
plan. They are hanging their heads in shame.
Disabled people are finding it more difficult to get benefits.
This is happening at a time when we are experiencing economic
recovery in the country. The so-called Liberal government is
taking it out on the disabled.
I would be willing to sit down if the Liberals would get up to
explain why there is an attack on the disabled. I am puzzled as
to why the party of Paul Martin Senior and the party of Lester
Pearson would do that kind of thing. It is amazing. They are
going after those who are most vulnerable in society. They are
making accessibility to disability benefits more difficult.
I plead with the government to accept this reasonable amendment
to return to the formula that currently exists in the Canada
pension plan for the disabled to receive benefits.
Motion No. 18 is also very interesting. It is a departure from
the current Canada pension plan. Currently there is a maximum of
$35,800. Above that maximum people do not make any further
contributions on their earnings. What actually happens is that
the person who is making $35,800 pays as much into CPP as a
senator, a member of Parliament, the Minister of Finance or
Conrad Black, who is a friend of the Minister of Finance.
I ask again if that is fair. I ask the hon. member for Abitibi
if that is fair. That member is a free spirit. He should be
rising in the House and saying that it is not fair.
My motion would make it more progressive. It would ensure that
people who make more money would make contributions on the money
they make above $35,800 a year. Some might say this is a radical
idea that could not be sustained.
1620
The upper limit for contributions to the United States pension
plan is $85,900 Canadian a year. That is over two and a half
times higher than what it is in this country.
Let us make it more progressive when it comes to people who are
making $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 or $150,000. As members of
Parliament we should be paying a bit more of our income into the
Canada pension plan to make it more progressive. It would be
more progressive than the contribution rate for low income
people. It would be lower. It would not be 9.9% but much lower
than that.
Turning to Motion No. 19, there is a cutback in benefits to
women. They want to restore the formula so that low income
people receive the same kinds of benefits they are getting today.
I am not asking for too much. The economy is starting to turn
around. Why penalize women? Why penalize the disabled? Why cut
back on survivors benefits? The death benefit is being cut back
from about $3,500 to $2,500. Again many widows are receiving
that benefit. Once again it is an attack on women.
My Motion No. 22 is self-explanatory. In a nutshell those are
the motions I moved. There is also one Reform motion in this
grouping.
This group of amendments would restore progressivity to the
Canada pension plan. I would like to see one or two progressive
Liberals, one or two so-called left wing Liberals or pink
Liberals, getting up in the House of Commons to offer a bit of
support to a couple of these amendments.
The member for Abitibi may do that. He used to be a
Conservative MP. Now he is a Liberal MP. Why does he not
continue that move toward the left by getting up and supporting
some of these progressive amendments. It would be good for his
constituents and good for Canada.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to correct the hon. member. This grouping contains
a Conservative motion as well as his amendments.
[Translation]
I have the pleasure to propose an amendment to Bill C-2, based on
the principle of equity for all Canadians.
As it stands, Bill C-2 freezes the basic annual exemption at the
$3,500 level. I wonder on which planet the authors of this bill live,
but they seem not to know the word “inflation” over there. It reminds
me of the George Orwell novel 1984. Whenever the characters in that
book wanted to get rid of a reality, they would ban the use of the word
depicting that reality.
However, we all know that this is not how things work in the real
world.
Everybody knows that it is not because Bill C-2 ignores inflation and
its impact on low income workers that inflation will disappear.
Bill C-2 in its present form does not provide for a review of the
basic exemption. How much do you think the $3,500 of today will be
worth in 2017? In 2037?
In clear terms, workers who think they can manage with this
exemption will gradually get smothered by inflation.
[English]
The government pretends that freezing the year's basic exemption
at $3,500 accounts for as much as 1.4% of the premium decrease,
but in fact such a case cannot be considered as a real premium
decrease of 1.4% since they will end up paying a higher premium
on higher income.
Is this what we call creative taxation?
[Translation]
The government should not have the power to change a fundamental
and essential program such as the Canada pension plan without explaining
to Canadians all the consequences of the changes.
However, that is exactly what it is doing because it does not
explain the impact of this deindexation of the basic exemption and it
does not specify which Canadians will be affected.
1625
The freeze of the basic exemption in contributory earnings will
have more impact on low wage earners, particularly women, students and
residents of disadvantaged areas. I should say will have, again, more
impact on these people. And I thought that the message sent to the
government on June 2 by several regions had been received loud and
clear!
The Progressive Conservative Party strongly believes in equity. If
the growth of the plan is stronger than forecasted by the last actuarial
report, we could have some room allowing us to restore indexation.
We believe that there should be a mechanism to allow for a review
of the year's basic exemption. Bill C-2 already provides for a review
of the plan every three years. What we propose is that the year's basic
exemption be reviewed also in 2006.
If we manage a return on investment comparable to the return of
private plans over the next ten years, it would not be necessary to
freeze the basic exemption forever. This is the only way to have some
equity in this bill. We should not forget that the people most affected
by the freeze on the year's basic exemption are the young, women and the
self-employed, 45 per cent of whom earn less than $20,000 per year.
In fact, young people are severely affected by the reform of the
pension plan.
In simple terms, they will pay much more than those before them and get
back only a fraction of what those before them received and will be
receiving. So much for intergenerational equity.
As for women, it is a secret for no one that their socio-economic
profile is generally such that they will not be able to benefit from the
plan as much as men. Does Bill C-2 contain anything that may help
counteract this? No.
What this government chose to include for these women is a year's
basic exemption, which will gradually be eaten up by inflation. The same
goes for self-employed workers who, in addition, have to bear the burden
of paying both the employee's and the employer's share of premiums. The
same goes for people from depressed areas struggling with horrible and
outrageous levels of unemployment. The same goes for all low income
earners.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Bill C-2 for these people.
There is nothing in here to ensure that Canadians are treated equitably,
nor, for that matter, in the employment insurance program, the other
major social security program, which once was the pride of Canadians.
Instead of compensating working taxpayers by reducing employment
insurance premiums by a fair amount, which would help consolidate
existing jobs and create many new ones, the government stubbornly
insists on offering symbolic reductions and mini-reforms.
Naturally, observers agree that this is a step in the right
direction. The problem is that, when I leave my riding, in New
Brunswick, and head west toward Vancouver on the Trans-Canada highway,
I am also going in the right direction, but I am very far from my
destination. At the rate premiums are going down, I will not even make
it to Regina by New Year's day.
1630
To conclude, we, in the Progressive Conservative Party, believe in
equity for all Canadians. Since this quest for equity is also one of our
fellow Canadians' most serious concerns, it is essential that a
mechanism be provided for in Bill C-2, that will allow the amount of the
year's basic exemption to be reviewed on a yearly basis.
And because equity is a value shared by the members of this House,
I encourage them all to vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to stand and participate in this debate on changes to the
Canada pension plan. I congratulate my colleague from
Madawaska—Restigouche and the other members of our Conservative
Party who have mounted solid arguments and amendments to try to
fix this ill conceived plan that the government has brought
forward.
Also, and this is probably the only time this will ever happen,
I want to commend the Minister of Finance for the amendments he
brought forth yesterday. I did not get a chance to speak on them
then but I was happy to see that the minister listened to our
concerns about his bill and being silent on the auditor general's
ability to request documentation on the CPP investment board.
As we pointed out to the House, the auditor general himself
indicated that there were no guarantees in this bill that would
ensure he could request the documentation that he needed to
oversee the board's operation. With the amendments he submitted,
the minister clarified that situation and we were very pleased
that he finally saw the light even if it was for only a brief
moment.
I wanted to speak today so I could talk about Motion No. 15.
This motion was introduced by one of our colleagues from the NDP.
It proposes that self-employed persons pay a CPP premium
rate according to their incomes. We believe this is a very good
idea and a very good recommendation.
One has to remember that self-employed persons are required to
pay the employee's portion and the employer's portion of the
premium. When rates go up even a little, self-employed persons
have to bear the brunt of the entire increase. In other words, when
rates go up
to 9.9% the self-employed have to pay $9.90 to the government for
every $100 they make. That can be very hard, especially when we
know that in 1997 more than 2.5 million Canadians were
self-employed.
Consider for a moment that according to Stats Canada, 45% of the
self-employed earn less than $20,000 a year. At $20,000 a year
you do not have a lot of disposable income left after you give so
much of your pay cheque to the government. We must help those
millions of Canadians who are trying desperately to earn their
livings and to have their dignity.
We can help low income Canadians by lowering payroll taxes. That
is the argument we bring forward today when we say that the hike
in CPP premiums should be offset by reductions in EI premiums. I
was very pleased to see that the minister came forth after I rose
to speak in the House and lowered it by 20 cents. However,
according to the actuarial report he should have lowered it by
90 cents because he will still have $40 billion in an account by the
year 2004.
We can also help self-employed workers by making them pay CPP
premiums according to a sliding scale based on their
yearly revenue. If you make only $20,000 a year, you could pay a
lower rate than someone who makes $60,000 a year. It is a small
measure but it can make a big difference in the lives and the
pocketbooks of many Canadians.
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 its parents did.
1635
Many Canadians worry that some of our most fundamental
institutions and values such as health care and Canada pension
plan might not be there for them and their families when they
need it. 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 for retirement for all Canadians
and more especially the restoration of the Canada 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 put 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 loaned to the provinces at
the rate Ottawa pays on its 20 year bonds. This is less than
what the provinces pay other bond holders and it is also less
than what private sector plans earn. No wonder Canadians think
the government cannot add.
The liberal plan to fix the CPP is basically a $11 billion tax
hike on working Canadians out there and employers over the next
six years. This is coupled with already high EI levels which the
Minister of Finance, as I have stated, has refused to lower, the
90 cents he should have done.
What this government is doing with these changes to the CPP is a
traumatic tax grab that will have a devastating effect on job
creation. If we were in power, 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 a substantial reduction 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 threats to job creation.
We would also make provisions to finance the extra cost per year
of seniors benefits resulting from demographic changes. We would
also ensure that 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 fund's 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 for
them, a Canada pension plan for them. It is up to each and every
one of us to make sure 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 would argue that unless Bill C-2 is amended to meet the
changes that our party is advocating and that the NDP is
advocating as well, the Liberals will be passing the biggest tax
increase this country has had in a long time and it will impact
and hurt every Canadian very hard.
I urge all members of this House to consider this very
seriously.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to
give up my turn to the member for Saint John earlier, the reason
being that there is a shipyard in her riding, as there is in my
riding of Lévis. This may strike you as odd, but all parties
sometimes have something in common.
When I listen to her, the old saying about not having your
cake and eating it too came to mind. Basically, she is deploring
the fact that the population is aging and that the CPP can be
expected to cost the government more. If one were consistent, one
would then admit that more money needs to be put into the fund, but
that is not what she is saying.
1640
On the contrary, she is saying that it is an unwarranted and
unacceptable tax hike. We in the Bloc Quebecois feel the same way.
The population is aging and there will be an increase in the needs
of seniors, of those retiring in the future.
But there is worse. We must not forget those to follow,
subsequent generations. Earlier, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean
spoke of his concerns and fears as a young person for the future.
There must be no mistake about this. The Liberal and
Conservative governments should have taken action much sooner. If
we look at the demographic patterns, at the statistics, it is
obvious that there will a problem to resolve.
It could have been foreseen and resolved much earlier, but this was
not done.
We therefore find ourselves in a situation where there is a
mad rush to build up the fund, to make it more efficient, more
productive, as Quebec did several years ago by setting up its
Caisse de dépôt et placement. The Caisse is the pride of
Quebeckers. Being a staunch sovereignist, I am delighted to see
that the federal government wants to copy Quebec. This augurs well
because it is also an admission that the Quebec government's
solutions are sometimes good ones.
But back to the amendments. Following this line of thought,
Motion No. 13 is admittedly a bit special. The New Democratic
Party and the Reform Party agree on something. This worries me.
What is the explanation when we see people from parties with completely
different ideologies agree? Why is it that they agree on that when they
are at opposite ends of the political spectrum?
They are also against it. They want to have their cake and eat it
too. That is not possible. There comes a time when we have to make a
choice, and this choice is now before us. The Bloc Quebecois' position
is that the fund for the pension plan absolutely has to be increased.
That is why we cannot support amendments designed to limit the assets
going into the fund. For us, it stands to reason that it should operate
this way.
The other amendments have more or less the same objective, and the
motives in the case of Motion No. 14 are the same. I do not have much
too say on Motion No. 15. We have to admit at times that we do not
understand very well. I hope the NDP members will be providing more
information because, as it now stands, this amendment serious questions.
As for Motion No. 16, it calls for the deletion of the section
dealing with the new rules for calculating the benefits. These rules
state that the pensionable earnings average will be determined by taking
the last five years, instead of the last three years as is presently
done. We are against this amendment for the reasons outlined before.
This would have the effect of not ensuring the long term viability of
the plan.
As for Motion No. 17, I do not have any comments. On Motion No. 18,
if I understood correctly, the member for Qu'Appelle wishes to increase
the contributions, so that the maximum earnings would go from $35,000 to
$70,000. If that is what is meant, we can announce right now that we
will be against it.
As for Motion No. 19, it calls for the deletion of the clause that
provides for stricter requirements on the payment of benefits in the
case of combined retirement and disability benefits.
There is something I do not understand in all this. When a person is
disabled, it is necessarily because he or she is sick or has a
disability. I think everyone would agree that a person with a disability
has a higher cost of living. Equipment and facilities that generally
cost more are required.
1645
It is the same thing in the case of people who have an incurable
disease. They need medication, many types of services, and people to
help them. So I think we have to accept the principle that people with
a disability, when they are retired, need extra support to continue to
live under conditions that are as normal as possible.
So these are the main arguments. Other colleagues from my party may
also have observations on this, but that is the position of the Bloc
Quebecois on Group No. 6.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to speak to this again. There are some new
amendments before the House and I want to say a few words on
behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus with respect to these
amendments to Bill C-2.
I would like to begin by thanking the member for Saint John and
her caucus in the Conservative Party for supporting some our
amendments. I have worked off and on with the member for Saint
John over the years and I find her to be a very co-operative
person on many issues. She does not totally agree with our
philosophy, but she sure agrees with a lot of it. I just want to
acknowledge that today and thank her for her support on these
amendments.
Before I deal specifically with Motions Nos. 11 and 13, 15
through 19 and No. 22, I want to say a word about No. 21 on which
I understand the government has undertaken to follow the advice
of the NDP. The NDP suggested that the auditor general be the
auditor of record for the Canada pension plan benefits. I
understand by reading the orders of the day that the government
has put forward an amendment suggesting that the auditor general
be the auditor of record for the Canada pension plan. That is
something all parties would agree to support.
With respect to Motion No. 11, the NDP has a bit of a problem
with accumulating a large surplus without reinvesting in our
communities, our local businesses and our provinces with respect
to infrastructure and creating jobs. Our motion provides some
recognition of the fact that the Government of Canada and the
people who support the funding of the government, the taxpayers,
unanimously agree that government is a going concern.
What we mean is that when we are in business there are certain
long term obligations, whether it is capital costs or capital
accumulation. There are long term costs when it comes
specifically to pension benefits for some business people. This
motion we are putting forward acknowledges that the government
has a going concern status, which means that it is going to be
around for a long time and has a source of revenue that
fluctuates on a regular basis, but is consistent. If it is a
stable concern it can fund a pay as you go pension plan more
easily than a corporation or a business that is having financial
problems.
The notion of an unfunded liability is not really pertinent to
the Canada pension plan as we know it.
With respect to Motion No. 13, we are very concerned about what
the government is doing with respect to deindexing the yearly
earnings. When the minimum is deindexed, there is a burden on
those at the lower income scale. Our basic amendment freezes the
year's basic exemption, the YBE, at $3,500 beginning in 1998.
We are proposing to let it float, let it be indexed for
inflation. My colleague from Qu'Appelle indicated earlier that
in 1966 when the plan was initially created as the result of a
lot of hard work from the CCF and the New Democratic members
across the country, the minimum yearly basic exemption was about
$400. At that time the maximum was about $4,000 on earnings. It
was a ratio of about 10 to 1.
1650
Now we see the basic yearly earning being $3,500 on the basis of
contributions made on a top salary of $34,000, so about a 10:1
ration has been sustained. We feel that if this is not sustained
on a long term basis, it will hurt those people who need the
support most. We are very concerned about this. We are asking
in this amendment to make sure that the yearly basic exemption is
indexed with inflation.
On Motion No. 15, I know the Bloc had some concerns about this.
We believe very strongly that employees are getting away from
paying the Canada pension plan share because many employees are
hired on a part time basis. They are paid up to about $3,500 but
they do not qualify to pay pension contributions and then they
are not called back. These are mostly part time workers, women
and others, who would suffer. We are asking that this minimum
$3,500 be adjusted particularly in the face of work in this
country which is ever-changing.
With respect to Motion No. 16, my colleague from Qu'Appelle
basically indicated very clearly what we after here. We want
better benefits for our seniors. Our change proposes that the
benefit formula in the calculation is altered. The net effect is
to provide increased benefits as opposed to reducing benefits,
which the government wants to do. It seems to me that as we get
older and inflation kicks in and the cost of living increases, we
want to provide our seniors, our pioneers, with some sense of
security so they will not have to rely on welfare and other
things to get by on in their retirement years.
With respect to Motion No. 17, we propose to delete clause 69
because 69 is really attacking those who can least defend
themselves. It reduces benefits for the disabled. It really
attacks those who need more support as they get older. For
example, we have a worker who works for 40 years, turns 55 or 56,
gets injured, does not have a disability plan and cannot work. He
or she does not contribute in those last eight or 10 years, which
are crucial for CPP benefits to maintain a higher pension when he
or she gets older. Therefore they diminish their pension for the
years they need it the most. These are people who are injured.
They are not people who are abusing the system or taking
advantage of it.
With respect to Motion No. 18, we want to uncap the ceiling. We
are proposing that the $35,800 be increased. For example, the
National Council of Welfare is quite disappointed that the size
of earnings are not considered an increase. Under current
arrangements, CPP contributions apply to a relatively narrow band
of earnings. Of the larger earnings base, contribution rates do
not have to rise so quickly. The trade off would soften the
impact on workers with lower than average wages. Those who are
earning more money can afford to pay a little bit more and
subsidize the plan.
In 1996 the rules of contributory earnings begins at the year's
basic exemption of $3,500 and goes up to the year's maximum
pensionable earnings of $35,004, a rough approximation of the
average industrial wage. In the United States the upper limit is
not $35,004. The upper limit for social security in the United
States is about $62,700 U.S. which is about $88,000 to $90,000
Canadian. We are pegging ours at a measly $35,000. We believe
it would be in the interests of Canadians to explore the impact
of expanding the upper limit of contributory earnings to the
Canada pension plan.
Motion No. 19 amends Bill C-2 by deleting clause 76 which in
essence, if clause 76 remains, is another attack on women. It is
unnecessary and it fails to provide a good overview with respect
to how the CPP works and how it impacts on future benefits for
Canadians.
Why the changes? Reduction in combined benefits, reducing the
ceiling for disability and survivor benefits. We do not want to
reduce them. We want to increase them. We are suggesting our
new combined benefit calculations should be increased for
survivor, retirement and disability benefits.
1655
I will end my comments by summarizing that we believe these
changes are beneficial to those people who need it most, those
people who are disabled, those people who have a lower income. We
believe if we adopt these changes we will have a more viable
Canada Pension Plan for not just the next four or five years but
for as long as our country exists.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, right now we are having a rather lengthy discussion
about Group No. 6 amendments.
The effect of these amendments is pretty much as follows: to
increase the level of benefits given in a fair number of areas,
better benefits for the disabled, better benefits for survivors,
mostly women, better benefits period. This is something that we
would all like to see happen.
We would all want to see everyone in our country, probably
everyone in the world, be very comfortable in their retirement
and indeed throughout their whole lives. It would be wonderful
if we could generously protect everyone and even make sure they
have the luxuries of life. The thought, the intention behind
these amendments is something we would all agree with.
Unfortunately, as we all learn from the time we are young, our
wants come at a cost. When we purchase something, we must have
money to do that. The reasonable question for Canadians is what
level of benefits can we afford. Are we willing to pay for them?
This notion that somehow “the government” is going to pay for
it is simply a myth. The government is us. It is taxi drivers,
hairdressers, people who are working hard every single day,
paying their money into these programs and funding the benefits
that come out of them.
Here we have amendments saying “We want more”. The question
is how much can we afford? We have to remember, and I am sure
the members who proposed these motions have not forgotten, that
already this program is $600 billion in the hole. Six hundred
billion dollars is a fair chunk of change. There is about two
years worth of payments only lying around to the pay the benefits
that have already been promised. Yet we now have a demand for
more benefits where we have almost no money to pay the ones we
have got already and some members are saying “More, more,
more”.
We have no money available to pay for the ones we have. I guess
the question has to be asked: where is the money going to come
from?
There are two amendments that are possibly talking about where
the money is coming from. They are kind of an interesting mix.
One amendment is to uncap the ceiling on earnings on which people
must pay benefits. That would make higher income earners pay
more into the program than lower income earners.
The other amendment would say that premiums must be based on
income and in a sense that is the same thing. If a person earns
less, they pay less premium and if they earn more, they pay more
premium.
With all respect to the members, we have to decide, and I think
this might be a good time, whether this is really a pension plan
or whether it is a social program, whether it is an income
redistribution program.
1700
If it is just an income redistribution program, let us not
mislead the Canadian public by saying that it is a pension plan.
Contributions are paid into a pension. They are invested and
everyone benefits from that. That is a pension plan.
I have never heard of a pension plan where some people pay some
money in and some people pay more money in and, then, at the end
of the day some people get more out and some people get less.
That is not a pension plan. That is an income redistribution
program. It is a social program. It is entirely different.
If we are to say that this is a social program let us be honest
about. I actually agree it has been run like a social program in
the past. Benefits have been paid to people who have not put in
sufficient investment to get them out.
Investment will be put into the plan by people who will not get
the value of their investment out. Then let us not call it a
pension plan. It is a fiction if we operate it this way and
pretend it is a pension plan. It is not a pension plan. There
is no pension plan in the world that operates in this way.
If this is a social program where we take from the rich and give
to the poor let us at least be honest about it. That is exactly
what the majority of the amendments are proposing.
I for one think that if we are to run a pension plan let us run
a pension plan. If we are to help the poor and disadvantaged
with retirement security, there are other instruments in society
to do that. We should get on with that. Let us not subvert or
convert a pension program for the purposes that are being talked
about here.
I notice the objectives of managing the fund keep coming up. NDP
members say that we have to use it for other objectives to build
infrastructure and help the economy. If this is actually a
pension program it belongs to the people who made investments.
Their sole purpose is to get a pension out.
I dare say members of the New Democratic Party would not go to
CUPW or any other union and say “By the way, the pension moneys
you pay into your union pension fund should be available to the
provinces to use for infrastructure and for economic
development”. They would get pretty short shrift if they went
to union members and said the pension funds should be used for
broader objectives. Yet they are saying to Canadians that their
pension investment should be used for other good works and to
help economic development in the provinces when necessary.
That totally flies in the face of logic, good management and the
expectations of Canadians. I do not see any logic, good sense or
proper management in the proposals. The one proposal I support
is to make sure that the year's basic exemption continues to be
tied to inflation.
As other members have pointed out the year's basic exemption,
the minimum amount of money that does not require a premium to be
paid, started out at $400. We can imagine if it was frozen at
$400 and the government went to workers and said “Aren't you
lucky you do not have to pay premiums on your first $400 of
earnings?” The workers would say “Whoop-de-doo, big deal”.
Because of inflation the basic exemption has had to rise to
$3,500. After a few years, if we do not tie this to inflation,
$3,500 will be worth to workers exactly what $400 is today,
nothing.
This is a very sneaky way of taking even more premium from low
income people who can least afford it. I think it is dishonest.
I think it is unwarranted. It certainly flies in the face of the
stated intention of having a year's basic exemption in the first
place.
I would certainly urge the government to get rid of taxation by
stealth. If it is to take money from people, it should at least
be done in an honest and forthright way.
We would like to increase benefits for everybody. I certainly
would like to retire on a much bigger pension than I expect I
will, having given up my MP pension.
I did not think it was fair in light of what other Canadians can
expect.
1705
The fact of the matter is that we are already billions and
billions of dollars in debt because of what we have promised. To
promise more would be irresponsible and totally unrealistic.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I would
like to discuss Motion No. 11 put forward by the NDP. Basically
if we voted for this amendment we would be negating our Motion
No. 12. The NDP amendment would eliminate clause 59 of the bill,
which sets out the premiums to be paid now and in the future.
We agree that certain measures must be taken to ensure the
stability of the CPP now and in the future. That includes
raising CPP premiums. We also believe that hiking CPP rates
would put payroll taxes at a level which would stifle job
creation. It would place a tax burden on Canadians that would be
hard to take.
While we can agree with raising CPP premiums they must be offset
by a reduction in EI premiums. As it stands the EI fund has a
huge surplus. During the election campaign we argued that EI
premiums should be reduced 70¢ per hundred dollars. If members
do not want to take our word for it, they can take the word of
several business organizations that have echoed our position and
said that premiums could be reduced 60¢ to 70¢.
Some business groups have recognized that reducing payroll taxes
will not necessarily create jobs but that increasing payroll
taxes will stifle job creation. The government recently ignored
all these arguments in favour of reducing EI premiums
substantially. It reduced them by a mere 20¢, not nearly enough
to offset the $11 billion tax hike with CPP premiums.
The NDP motion would eliminate higher CPP premiums altogether.
That is irresponsible, to say the least. We cannot turn a blind
eye to the crisis facing the CPP. Millions and millions of
Canadians are counting on us to save the CPP for now and the
future.
Certain decisions have to be made. The government wants young
Canadians to foot the bill almost entirely. The NDP does not
want anybody to foot the bill. We want to spread the bill as
equally and as fairly as we can. I believe our amendments will
do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to address Bill C-2 and to tell you why my party supports this
legislation, thus acting in a responsible way, as it always does.
Indeed, when a bill is good, we are prepared to support it.
First, I would like to briefly discuss Motions Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19 and 22. I am very disappointed by the behaviour of the
Reformers, the Conservatives and the New Democrats. It has always been
said that the opposition's role is to make constructive criticism.
Again, I am disappointed by the Reformers, the Conservatives and the New
Democrats as regards this bill.
Why is the Bloc Quebecois opposed to Motion No. 11? The purpose of
this amendment is to delete the clause allowing for an increase in the
contribution rate. We are opposed to this amendment partly because we
will partially restore intergenerational fairness through a faster rate
increase.
1710
Present workers and babyboomers will pay more than expected, and
this increase will ensure the viability of the plan in the coming years.
The increase in the contribution rate, as amended, is the result of
an agreement between the majority of the provinces and is identical to
the one proposed in the debate on the Quebec pension plan.
Motion No. 13 put forward by the NDP provides for the deletion of
the basic exemption limitation provision. Contributors to both plans
benefit from an exemption on the first portion. The basic exemption will
be fixed and premiums on total pensionable earnings will continue to
increase based on salaries.
That means that the more you earn, the more you pay.
The Bloc will vote against this motion. This cap on the exemption
will have the effect of reducing the gap between the amounts used for
calculating premiums and benefits paid. This cap represents in fact an
increase in premiums for everybody, but this increase will be
proportionally higher for low income people.
The viability of the program for future generations and the need to
maintain contribution rates at an acceptable level require that some
concessions be made with regard to benefits.
Motion No. 14 put forward by the Conservatives calls for the same
thing and we will vote against it essentially for the same reasons as
those for which we will vote against Motions Nos. 13 and 15 put forward
by the NDP. It makes no sense at all. I think even they do not
understand. How can we understand this total mess?
It makes no sense from beginning to end.
Motion No. 16, put forward by the NDP, also calls for the deletion
of a provision that sets new rules for calculating benefits.
I will not read through the motion. For the same reasons as Motion
No. 13, we will vote against this motion because we must make
concessions to ensure the long term viability of the plan.
Motion No. 17 is the same as Motion No. 14. As I was saying, we did
not understand what it was about and we will vote against it for the
same reasons.
Regarding Motion No. 18, if the amount is to go from $35,000 to
$70,000, we are against the motion.
As for Motion No. 19 proposed by the NDP, we will vote against it
motion for the same reasons as Motion No. 13.
Finally, we will be voting against Motion No. 22 put forward by the
NPD, because the lack of concern about the negotiations and the urgent
need for action about the pension plan are costing us enough money
without having to repeat the same errors.
Earlier, I said that I wanted to tell the House why I, as the hon.
member for Manicouagan, and my political party will be voting for Bill
C-2. I was elected four times to the Sept-Îles city council and during
the last term I was responsible for the senior citizens and the
pensioners. There were two associations with a total number of 3,000
members.
Some of these senior citizens came to me and said “We worked
awfully hard, we gave everything we had to take care of our children and
to get a good pension plan”. They explained their concerns and sent me
and my party a message. They wanted us to protect their rights and to
think about young people too.
1715
If we want to preserve the pension plan for our children, for the
next generation—and may I point out that I am a father of two and a
soon-to-be grand-father—we have to be extra careful.
This is why our political party will vote against the amendments I
mentioned, but for Bill C-2.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, I want
to speak to Motions Nos. 13 and 14.
Motion No. 13 has been proposed by the NDP and talks about
eliminating the freeze on the yearly basic exemption. I cannot
support that and I will go on to tell the House why a little
later.
While I am on my feet, I also want to speak on our Motion No. 14
which would freeze the yearly basic exemption for 10 years only.
I would like to frame this as best I can so that the House will
know what we are proposing.
The elimination of freezing altogether as proposed by the NDP
would impose an additional 1.4% in premiums. Obviously when we
are changing the principal amount of money that we are dealing
with and the numbers of people who are paying, it has a huge
impact on the fund. We cannot operate in a vacuum when we are
talking about the realities of finances. It would be fine if we
could, but unfortunately we cannot. We need to make sure that the
fund is stabilized. The stabilization of that fund is paramount.
Madam Speaker, earlier today you were very gracious in allowing
me a few more seconds than what I should have had in the debate
when I was talking about this bill. I talked about the
government postponing the inevitable. That is what has happened
in regard to the Canada pension plan. The government knew full
well a number of years ago and certainly when it took power in
1993 that something had to be done. It could only postpone the
inevitable for so long. At some point reality comes home and we
have to deal with it.
If it was a normal business transaction in an insurance company
in the private sector, it would have had to declare bankruptcy.
It would be insolvent. However in government, and this is the
only place it can happen, the government has the power to take
measures to resurrect itself almost from the dead. Basically the
fund at this point is dead. The Reform member mentioned that
there is about two years of premiums in the fund. In other words
in two years the fund will be broke.
What we are really talking about is pay in and pay out. It is
on a day to day basis that the fund is sustaining itself now.
The reality of having to deal with it is there.
Picking up from where I left off earlier in the day, the chance
to have dealt with this reality presented itself in 1993 but
postponing it is only postponing the inevitable. Now with
compound interest and the demographics changing and moving around
as they are and more people retiring and the pressures that are
being placed on that fund, it has forced the government to
increase the rates. I would call it an astronomical increase in
rates.
Getting back to the reality of it, we have to deal with the
cards that we have. None of us in this House or in the country
want to see the fund go broke. There is an unfunded liability of
$600 billion staring the government in the eye.
1720
The motion that is proposed by the NDP just will not work. The
one proposed by the Liberals talks about an indefinite freeze on
the basic exemption, and we are talking about a 10 year freeze on
the exemption. The differences in these three divergent points of
view reminds me of what Aristotle said 2000 years ago when he
said that virtue was in the middle. It is in the middle, between
the two extremes. That is what our amendment does. It is
grappling with reality but it is not going to one extreme or the
other. We are looking at a 10 year exemption.
What could happen in the meantime if the plan's earnings are
invested wisely, and much more wisely than they have been in the
past and are left untampered with, in a 10 year time period we
could be looking at a completely different picture. The reality
at that time would be that maybe our plan of a 10 year exemption
would work, but in the meantime we have to deal with the cards
that are on the table. I do not think any of us wants to duck
that bullet because if we do, there is going to be a lot of hurt
out there in Canadian society.
I think every member of Parliament is dealing with Canada
pension plan problems galore back home. A number of disabled
people are applying for Canada pension, and rightfully so, and
are being turned down. They are just not getting it. One of the
PC party members from Nova Scotia spoke yesterday of some of
these situations back in his riding. That was during the
statement period yesterday, right around 2.15, shortly before
question period.
I have the same type of cases back home. People who have had
hip replacements and cannot work. People who have a chronic
disease or a crippling disability and cannot work, some of them
much younger than I am. People apply only to find out that their
applications are turned down, whereas just a few short years ago
those same people would have been successful in their application
for Canada pension plan benefits.
What we have now is the government accepting the reality that
the fund is almost broken, but in the meantime there are a lot of
innocent people who are casualties because of the inability to
deal with this fund in the last number of years. In other words
the fund is money in and money out. The government is taking a
very hard look at who qualifies for these benefits. I think that
is wrong. It is absolutely wrong because we are brought up to
believe that if we pay into the fund, it is going to be there.
Now we find out that mismanagement over a number of years has
left a lot of Canadians out in the cold. The worst thing that we
could do at this point is to allow that mismanagement to continue
and to not deal with the reality of having to readjust the
premiums paid by you and me to sustain that fund.
Laying blame is not going to solve the problem. It would be
easy for me to stand up here and condemn the government for
having to do what it is doing, which is fine. And I do not agree
with the huge increase in premiums either. Nobody could.
Our position has always been and it continues to be to this day,
that if we are going to tackle the question of the CPP, let us
also look at the employment insurance fund. Canadians are paying
too much into that fund. It is just the opposite of the CPP. We
are paying too much into that fund. Today as we sit, there is
about a $12 billion surplus in that fund.
1725
What we are saying very simply is that the surplus in that fund
should be applied to reduce the premiums in the Canada pension
plan or at least to reduce the EI premiums that all Canadians pay
so that at the end of the day it is a wash and will not be an
extra tax burden on Canadians and on businesses. An increase in
the CPP premium is really a hidden tax and we cannot stand any
more of those hidden taxes on our businesses and professionals.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I want to talk about the huge problems Bill C-2 will create. This
legislation reforms the Canada pension plan, without taking into
consideration the needs and the interests of all Canadians. The Liberals
would rather protect the wallets of the Toronto brokers and go after the
most disadvantaged segments of our society.
The proposals put forward have a disproportionate impact on women,
the disabled and the low income Canadians. What is the government trying
to do? Is it trying to compete against the United States to see who can
best abuse the disadvantaged citizens in their respective countries?
Bill C-2 will make it even tougher to get disability benefits. It
is bad enough that these Canadians have to overcome their physical
disabilities, but now the government wants to reduce the number of
individuals who receive these benefits.
[English]
It is bad enough that the government is attacking people with
disabilities by reducing the number of people who will receive
benefits. Now it has created a category of storm troopers who
will harass the disabled to make sure they are worthy of their
benefits. Does this government have no shame?
[Translation]
Clauses 69, 87 and 107 of the bill must be deleted so that
people living with a disability can do so with dignity and without
being harassed by investigators. Resources would be much better
spent by increasing benefits and the number of beneficiaries.
[English]
Women will also be negatively affected by Bill C-2. It is
understood that because women leave the workforce to take care of
loved ones, live longer and have fewer wages than men, women
receive smaller pensions. On average, women draw CPP pensions
worth only 39% of an already low maximum benefit and only 57% of
average benefits drawn by men. The government had an opportunity
with this legislation to rectify these imbalances, but what did
it do? It made the situation of women even more difficult.
[Translation]
One of the most terrible things about this bill is that the
amount of the basic annual exemption is no longer indexed. That
means the poorest in our society will pay more, but the richest
will pay less as inflation rises. Women in particular are
penalized, because they are over-represented in the low income
worker category. We must ensure that subclause 61(2) is deleted.
Women are also penalized under clause 76, which introduces a
new calculation for disability, survivor and retirement pensions
combined. Women often live longer than their spouses, and this
clause will go after the already modest income they apply for.
Clause 76 must be deleted to ensure that the women and men affected
are not further penalized.
[English]
I have to also add it is not a surprise that women are attacked
since they are attacked in every way, if we look at the EI where
women have been affected and also the way that the government is
abusing its power by not paying the pay equity it owes to women.
[Translation]
Bill C-2 contains a number of problems, because according to
the government's philosophy the economy is more important than
people. The Canada pension plan looks after workers. Employers
and employees contribute to it to ensure that Canadian workers
enjoy a comfortable retirement. So would it not make sense for the
government to listen to workers in this country and come up with a
system that means more money for them? This would be the logical
thing to do, but Liberal logic is not always comprehensible.
1730
The Liberals will argue that they consulted provincial governments,
but I never saw Franck McKenna protect the interests of New Brunswick
workers. Also, union representatives came before the committee reviewing
this bill to voice their opposition to the bill. Did anyone listen to
them? Of course not.
This government made it very clear that it wants to protect the
interests of the rich rather than those of Canadian workers. If the
Liberals were really concerned about the situation of workers, they
would reduce unemployment.
Quite simply, the larger the number of workers contributing to the
Canada pension plan, the better it is for the system. If the Liberals
really take the interests of all Canadians to heart, they will deliver
on their promises and create the jobs so desperately needed by the
unemployed.
The Liberals could ensure that the money paid into the Canada
pension plan is reinvested in Canada. The Caisse de dépôt et placement
du Québec is a good example, as funds are reinvested to help the Quebec
economy prosper.
Why does this government not want to give us any assurances that
the Canada pension plan will be used for the benefit of companies here
in Canada? Is it afraid of seeing the unemployment rate fall under 9%?
It is clear, however, that job creation is not on the Liberal
agenda.
They would rather take the Canada pension plan and hand it over to Bay
Street brokers to make even more money off it.
The NDP asks that a panel of experts oversee the activities of the
board of directors. If this government is well-intentioned, it should
not be afraid to have a panel of experts ensuring that friends of the
Liberal Party act properly. If it is necessary to monitor people with
disabilities who make, at best, slightly more than $800, it is only
logical to want to monitor those who will be making millions.
I went through a number of problems Bill C-2 will cause. Simply
put, this Canada pension plan reform will see retired Canadians become
poorer and poorer. Over the past ten years, Canada has taken major steps
to reduce poverty among seniors.
This bill will take us back to a time when seniors were even more
vulnerable than they are today. We must see to it that this does not
happen and that all Canadian workers can rely on a pension that will
allow them to live with dignity.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on Bill
C-2, which the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting, since it is a
carbon copy of the Quebec pension plan.
This bill will make it possible to create a fund similar to
the Caisse de dépôt et placement created by the Quebec pension
plan.
This afternoon, I greatly appreciated the hon. member for
Qu'Appelle's praise of our fund. I also appreciated his being so
praiseworthy of a fund created by Jacques Parizeau, the former
premier of Quebec. Mr. Parizeau is a controversial figure, but he
has the courage of his convictions and he does not mince words,
whether they are good ones or bad, he dares to express himself. We
could do well with more politicians like Mr. Parizeau today.
Returning to the amendments proposed on Bill C-2 which we are
discussing this afternoon, I really can say no more, because my
Bloc Quebecois colleagues have pretty well touched upon everything
we do not like about them.
1735
I must state, however, that Bill C-2, if it is indeed modelled
on the Quebec pension plan, will be advantageous for all Canadians.
This is the role of a serious opposition, to stand up for everyone,
regardless of their political stripes.
I am pleased to have contributed to the review of this bill.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on this
group of amendments to Bill C-2 sponsored by the hon. member for
Qu'Appelle who has done my party and the Chamber a great service
by doing such a thorough job of researching and presenting
alternatives to the provisions before us as a whole.
If Stanley Knowles were here today he would be very proud of the
work being done by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and others.
When Stanley Knowles passed away we said the best way we could
honour his legacy would be to stand up for the programs he
pioneered and to fight against any erosion, cutbacks or plans to
terminate those very important programs.
If he were here today he would have stood in the House and said
to members of the Liberal government that they were doing a great
disservice to Canadians and to our history and traditions of
working together to ensure that everyone is guaranteed some
measure of equality upon retirement.
He would have said the proposals before us today in the form of
Bill C-2 are a fundamental departure from everything we hold near
and dear as Canadians, from the values of caring and sharing
which have built the country. He would have said to the Reform
member for Calgary—Nose Hill that she was wrong to spread the
myths and misinformation that have characterized this discussion.
He would have reminded all of us that we were talking about a
system which was not in crisis. It is a plan that needs
adjustment and changes but one that should not be changed so
fundamentally as to cause its inevitable destruction.
He would have said that we need balance. We need to look at the
sustainability of the Canada pension plan for the future. That
would mean some adjustment in the rates. That would mean some
changes in the benefit structure. That would mean some increases
in premiums. However these points must be balanced with our
sense of valuing human dignity in society today.
He would have said to the Reform member she was wrong to suggest
that the Canada pension plan was or should be a personal savings
plan. He would have said it was a social insurance program in
the best sense of the words.
He would have said that when Canadians supported the Canada
pension plan originally they agreed to get together to pool the
risk of providing for the loss of income we all face when we
retire or become disabled. In so doing all of us as Canadians
work to create citizenship rights or entitlements that reflect a
collective responsibility for and to future seniors.
He would have told Reform members and the Liberal government not
to tamper with a program, which means so much to Canadians, to
the point where they will cause its demise.
1740
He would have said this was not supposed to be a program or a
policy based totally on fiscal management but was about human
worth. He would have said that this was not about the Reform
view of society that this is a dog eat dog or survival of the fittest
world. The plan was originally intended to do the opposite and
any amendments to the Canada pension plan should uphold those
principles and those values. He would have given our caucus all
the support he could have mustered, for the amendments we are
proposing today are right and just and deserve the support of
every member of the Chamber.
In that context I want to focus specifically on a half dozen
amendments before us in this grouping, the amendments that
deindex the year's basic exemption of $3,500. All of us by now
should be aware that would download the burden of premium hikes
to low income earners.
I want to talk about our amendment which seeks to change Bill
C-2 in terms of its unfair burden on those who seek
self-employment. I want to support our amendment which addresses
the government's attempt to alter the benefit formula
calculation, leaving a net effect of reducing benefits.
I want to support our amendment which addresses the government's
proposal to change minimum contribution requirements for a
disability benefit, the net effect being a reduction in
disability benefits.
I want to support our amendment which addresses the government's
proposal to set maximum pensionable earnings at $35,800 so that
those who make over the maximum pensionable earnings pay a lesser
share than those who make under the MPE.
I want to support our amendment that addresses the government's
attempt to reduce benefits in general for people with
disabilities and for survivors. In every one of those amendments
we are attempting to stand for those people who are most likely
to be forced into poverty. Our amendments would raise people
above poverty or remove them from poverty so that they can live
their retirement years with dignity, respect and some sense of
security.
Is it not ironic that today we are discussing provisions in a
bill which disproportionately affect the lowest income people in
society, that disproportionately affect women and that place the
greatest burden in a negative way on people with disabilities?
Is it not interesting that we are debating those issues on a day
when Campaign 2000 came out with its report card on child poverty
in Canada? The report card shows that Canada is second from the
bottom in terms of the wage gap between the rich and the poor,
second from the bottom out of nine selected OECD countries at the
same time as being second from the top in terms of having the
greatest comparative national wealth.
When we are talking about the gap between rich children and poor
children we are talking about the gap between rich families and
poor families. Children are poor because their parents are poor.
The last thing in the world we should be doing today is anything
that will widen the gap even further and will relegate poor
children to absolute destitute poverty when they reach the age of
65.
Is it not enough that we have one of the worst records of any developed
country when it comes to treatment of women?
1745
Is it not appalling that we are talking about amendments that
will put women further into poverty when we know we are already
dealing with a situation in Canada where many women live below
the poverty line and where the majority of older women live in
poverty?
I refer to a report by our own legislative library on women and
poverty: “Much contemporary research also indicates that most
women in Canada can expect to live their later years in poverty.
Statistics show that 45% of unattached women between the ages of
70 and 74 live in poverty. The figure rises to 57% for women in
the age group of 75 to 79 and skyrockets to 75% for women 80
years of age and over”.
The report goes on to state that part of the explanation for
such high poverty rates for the elderly lies in the inadequacy of
the existing income security programs.
The National Council on Welfare has determined that in 1992
maximum benefits from the old age security pension and the
guaranteed income supplement for a couple living in a large city
were more than $2,000 below the poverty line. For unattached
pensioners living in a large city the gap was $3,460. And we
today want to make that situation even worse? We want to put
more women into poverty? We want to ensure that just because you
are a woman, when you become old you are designated to live in
abject poverty?
Why are we not thinking about ways to have a balanced approach
to income retirement security in this country? Why are we not
looking at ways to ensure people can live with dignity and some
sense of security after they have spent their working lives
trying to contribute to this country? They have raised children,
they have tried to hold down their jobs, they have juggled family
and work responsibilities, they have participated in the
community, they have gone to school advisory meetings to try to
help on every front and we say that their entitlement after doing
all of that is to live in poverty.
Our amendments are an attempt to address that fact, and it is a
fact. It is a fact with this legislation. If Bill C-2 goes
forward as this government is so determined to have happen,
without real debate, without accepting any suggestions, without
listening to any of these amendments, we will see that day, and
that can only be described as the most irresponsible action any
government could ever take, to deliberately go forward with a
policy that will hurt women, people with disabilities and low
income people in our society.
This is after the government promised that any social policy
initiatives would have a gender analysis. Where is the gender
analysis? All we heard from the Minister of Finance was that an
analysis was done which showed that women will benefit most from
these changes because they live longer. My goodness, what an
insult to suggest that because women live longer we should be
satisfied with the fact that we are getting anything at all even
if it is greatly reduced, even if we are talking about peanuts
every month.
Surely in a civilized society we should ensure that everyone is
entitled to decent security in their old age, in retirement and
when faced with disability. That is our goal today, to try to
make sure the government listens and accepts these amendments so
we can move forward to ensure we have a great nation of equality,
dignity and security.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will spend some time discussing points that were raised. Motion
No. 11 put forward by the NDP would eliminate the rate schedule
as proposed, which basically means to revert to the existing
schedule. The chief actuary has indicated that if we make no
changes now the fund will run out by the year 2015. This is what
the NDP would call “one of our reasonable amendments”, which is
to do nothing.
We have to do something. We have to make sure that the Canada
pension plan is still there.
1750
The NDP would prefer to apply the funds as well for regional and
economic development rather than for investment to provide for
the best possible return for Canadians so that we can keep the
rates as low as possible and at a steady rate so that it is
efficient in meeting the objectives of the bill and of the Canada
pension plan as a whole.
The second item on Motion 13 is with regard to the year's basic
exemption and the fact that the $3,500 is not indexed. It is
important to put in context the amount that we are talking about.
Inflation in Canada right now is about 1.7% If the $3,500
exemption on the CPP was indexed, it would result in a reduction
of the Canada pension plan premiums otherwise payable by $1.89
for the entire year. The deindexation item with regard to an
employee, the maximum for someone making $35,000, is only $1.89.
The member who just spoke talked about throwing people into
poverty. I am afraid this is not the case.
The last area I want to comment on—I know other members want to
speak and the parliamentary secretary would like to comment on
these—is with regard to the issue of self-employed persons. As
we know, self-employed persons pay both the employee and employer
share. Currently they pay the full 5.85% whereas an employee
would only pay half of that if they worked for a company.
There are a number of reasons for that. Members should know
that under the Income Tax Act self-employed persons have a number
of other opportunities within the tax system to reduce their
taxable income. It could be with regard to use of automobile,
travel, entertainment expenses, tools, clothing and a number of
things which are not available to employees. In terms of the
assessment of whether or not it is fair that a self-employed
person should pay both sides of it, you have to look at the full
tax consequences of being a self-employed person.
As a chartered accountant, I can tell you that in certain fields
there are a number of direct expenses related to that
self-employed income that are deductible. The same levels or
kinds of deductions would not be available to an employee. There
is a balance of a process of arbitrage which makes these issues
not as black and white as the member may indicate.
I would indicate that although there are a number of issues here
they are self evident—
The Deputy Speaker: I hate to interrupt the hon. member
but the hon. for Charlotte has a point of order.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I find this unbelievable.
We are here debating one of the most important bills to come
before this House, certainly in this session, and there is not a
minister in the House. It has always been the practice, Mr.
Speaker—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that it is
improper to refer to the absence of members in the House. I am
sure he would want to comply with the rules in that regard.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my
comments by clearly stating that, in my opinion, the comments
with regard to the last speaker about the benefits available to
seniors and those in poverty are going down are absolutely wrong,
false and totally out of character with the bill.
Seniors should be assured that the benefits under the Canada
pension plan continue at the same levels and are indexed. They
are guaranteed, they are secure and they will be there in
addition to survivor benefits and the disability benefits.
The member has misunderstood Bill C-2 and the provisions under
the report stage grouping which we are dealing with. I want to
make sure that it is understood clearly by all members that
benefits are not being reduced. We should not fearmonger and
scare seniors today that somehow things are going to happen here
which will reduce their benefits. It is not so. Seniors should
be assured.
I want to assure them that the benefits under the Canada pension
plan and the amendments of Bill C-2 will ensure that those
benefits are there, they are secure, they are guaranteed and they
will be indexed.
1755
For Canadians of all generations, the intergenerational equity
is in place with these changes and all today's beneficiaries
should be assured that nothing will change the benefits that they
currently enjoy from the Canada pension plan.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on
each of the motions that form part of this group.
With respect to Motion No. 11, I think it is important to point
out that essentially this motion puts the financial
sustainability of the CPP at risk, the very thing that the bill
addresses. The motion in fact would mean that instead of rising
to 9.9% by 2003 and then levelling off, contribution rates would
in fact rise to 10.1% and then to 14.2%, a 140% increase over
current contribution levels. That is in fact the motion put
forward by the NDP. This motion would impose an unfair burden on
our children and grandchildren and never in fact make the CPP
sustainable.
I ask the question, does the NDP want to kill the CPP by
neglect? Let us do nothing. We have heard a lot of rhetoric
from the NDP today which is in full flight. We did not hear
anything of substance unfortunately.
With respect to Motions Nos. 13 and 14, the federal-provincial
governments have put the plan on a sustainable track through
their negotiations after consulting with Canadians. Freezing the
YBE was part of the changes required to balance the cost of the
program. Despite the freeze, the low income workers will still
pay contributions on a smaller portion of their earnings than
higher income earners.
In fact the amendment put forward by the NDP and the
Conservatives would remove an essential element of the
federal-provincial package and would require a significantly
higher long term contribution rate than the 9.9% provided for in
this legislation.
It also may be of interest to hon. members of the House to know
that further examination of the basic exemption will occur in the
next phase of the Canada pension plan reform studies. More
specifically, the federal and provincial governments have agreed
to study Quebec's proposal for graduated removal of the exemption
as income rises. In fact there is a commitment on the part of
the federal government and the provincial governments to the
changes to the YBE in the next review.
Motion No. 16, essentially the measure that is the five year
average of earnings, is similar in concept to how most private
pension plans adjust for wage growth over a pensioner's working
life. The reduction again helps the costs over time and
strengthens the sustainability of the CPP. Again, I think it is
very important to ensure that Canadians know that current
pensioners and persons age 65 or older in 1997 will not be
affected by any of the changes.
Changes to the benefits that had to be made were in fact
balanced. This particular change is the only measure in Bill C-2
which affects retirement pensions and it is therefore not only
essential to the overall goal of sustainability but also to
achieving an overall balance in the impact to the benefit
changes.
The effect of the motion as worded is somewhat flawed and in
fact would make the legislation unworkable. It would not be
acceptable to take away this critical element to ensuring the
long term security of the program.
Motion No. 17 essentially talks about the labour force
attachment rule. The current provisions require very little
participation in the workforce, in fact as little as a few months
over the course of two years. I think this is important because
members of the NDP have been getting up all day and making
comments that in fact what the government is intending to do does
not reflect what Canadians have been saying. During the
consultations many Canadians have said that the current
requirements of labour force attachment were not strong enough.
Now, with the changes put forward in Bill C-2, workers do have
to demonstrate a slightly stronger attachment to the workforce to
be eligible for the disability benefits. The measure will not
affect current recipients of the CPP disability benefits. Under
the proposed changes, workers must have made contributions in
four of the last six years compared to the current requirement to
work in two of the past three or in five of the past ten.
Again, it is also very important to make note of this. The new
coverage rules are still more generous than the original rules of
the plan.
1800
Prior to 1987, workers had to contribute in five of the past ten
years and also in at least one-third of the years from their 18th
birthday in order to be eligible for disability benefits. We have
seen the progressivity of the plan. The new coverage rules are
still more generous than the original rules of the plan.
The NDP has continued to focus on the disability aspect of the
plan. Persons with disabilities are not being singled out. The
CPP changes are only one aspect of the government's broad agenda
focusing on persons with disabilities. It is also important to
note that the federal and provincial governments are moving
forward on a number of other strategies that will enable persons
with disabilities to participate more fully in the economy and
society.
With respect to the CPP disability, the chief actuary analysis
also points out that 75% of the proposed changes to keep the
contributions to 9.9% are on the financing side and only 25% are
on the benefits side. It reflects the message from Canadians
during consultations to go easy on the benefits side when fixing
the CPP.
With respect to Motion No. 18 put forward by the NDP, as worded
the provision would be temporary in nature and would only be
helping contributors who receive a benefit beginning in the
period from 1999 to 2003. This would be entirely unfair to other
contributors, especially the future generations who will be
paying for these pensions through their contributions.
We hear contradictions in the House where the NDP continues to
put forward the intergenerational argument and how it is unfair
to future generations. Here we have an amendment put forward by
the NDP which would in fact do the exact opposite and put a
greater burden on future generations.
If it was made a permanent feature of the program, the doubling
of benefits as the NDP is asking for would also require an
approximate doubling of contributions. This would be
unacceptable to the governments that are the stewards of the
program, both federal and provincial governments, and also to
Canadians who have asked us to ensure that the plan remains
financially sustainable.
The point has been made over and over again by various members
of the opposition parties other than the NDP that if we want more
benefits, premiums have to go up. The NDP have not formed any
sort of argument that would deal with the premium side of the
program. Canadians have said to deal with the plan, ensure that
it is sustainable, ensure that we go easy on the benefits side
and ensure that it is balanced off with the premiums.
With respect to Motion No. 19, I must stress that the proposed
changes will not affect those who currently receive combined
disability-survivor or retirement-survivor benefits. The CPP has
always had limits to restrict the stacking of benefits. The
proposed changes bring the limits on combined benefits more in
line with their original intent.
It is also important to understand that the combined benefit
provisions will have no effect on survivor recipients who are not
also receiving another CPP benefit, that being a retirement or a
disability pension in their own right.
It also may be of interest for hon. members of this House to
know that there will be further examination of the role of the
CPP survivor benefits in the next round of the federal-provincial
review of the plan. The object is to ensure as far as possible
that all CPP premiums remain relevant to the needs of Canadians.
I have one final motion to comment on in the time remaining.
Motion No. 22 put forward by the NDP asks that we delete the
requirement for increased contribution rates to cover the costs
of new or increased benefits. It is an important statement of
principle and something that Canadians have continued. It has
certainly been very effectively communicated during the
consultation process that the federal and provincial governments
agree that any future benefit enrichments must be paid for, that
we should never again put the security of the Canada pension plan
at risk by enriching benefits without being willing to pay for
them.
1805
On the intergenerational issue, we must ensure the
sustainability of the plan. We must do so not only for the
seniors who are receiving the benefit now, the near seniors, the
middle age Canadians, but for young Canadians. The changes we
have made to the CPP will ensure that young people are not
saddled with an unbearable burden.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
noticed that many of the amendments before the House simply want
to delete items from the bill. They do not try to improve and
they do not try to compromise. They think that whenever they do
not like something, it should be scrapped. They do not think
about the ultimate consequences and ultimate responsibility. We
have to be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the
bath water.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that the CPP
must be saved. Canadians deserve it and future generations of
Canadian deserve it as well.
Our plan for the Canada pension plan which our amendments speak
to has to be discussed today.
We know that payroll taxes kill jobs. The communique “The
Economist”, speaks to the fact that if we lower payroll taxes it
will ultimately create jobs, but also that if we raise payroll
taxes it will kill jobs.
The Canada pension plan provides a survivor's benefit. The
government wants to raise the premiums by 73% and we know that
will kill jobs. We believe that premiums have to be increased in
order to save the Canada pension plan and make it viable.
Canadians want the Canada pension plan.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is possibly one
of the most democratic business organizations in the country. It
polled 88,000 of its members. They said unequivocally and
categorically that the Canada pension plan is part of the small
business owner's plan for retirement. It is something that has to
be saved. However, they know that payroll taxes will continue to
kill jobs.
There is a $14 billion surplus in the EI fund. For the
government not to connect that with the increase in CPP premiums
will actually kill jobs. We propose that if we have to raise
premiums, we must at a minimum lower EI premiums. When the chief
actuary visited the issue with respect to the EI fund, it was
said that the EI fund would be sustainable at $2 and would still
be able to withstand a severe recession.
The government has lowered EI premiums by a mere 20¢, from $2.90
down to $2.70. During question period today I was afraid that
the Prime Minister would say that he was going to raise them back
up to $2.80 because he was a little confused about the reduction.
Reducing the premiums to $2.70 is only a drop in the bucket. We
need to get the premiums down to somewhere near $2. This would be
good for small business. It would be good for Canadians. It
would save the Canada pension plan and would ensure that we saved
jobs.
Some of the amendments before us do not recognize the need for
change. They do not recognize that we just cannot play around
with people's pensions. We cannot eliminate what we do not like
without any regard for the consequences.
1810
Actually, this lack of responsibility reminds us of another
party's plan for the Canada pension plan. I think you know who
they are, Mr. Speaker.
The Reform Party tried to save face by presenting a few
amendments to the bill. In fact, we agree with both measures
that it proposes. But let us remind everybody that this is not a
change of heart.
The Reform Party wants to eliminate the Canada pension plan and
jeopardize one of the fundamental pillars of our retirement
savings program. I agree with a lot of initiatives that the
Reform Party presents from time to time, but there are some
initiatives which are just plain wrong and some people might even
say just plain kooky.
Reform's plan to eliminate the Canada pension plan would ensure
that 325,000 disabled Canadians whose only source of income is
the Canada pension plan would not have access to income from the
CPP. The party to my left wants to scrap the Canada pension plan
and leave 325,000 disabled Canadians without a source of income.
I say shame on them. If that party were the government, the
Canada pension plan would be over.
I campaigned for 36 days during the election this past May. Mr.
Speaker, you did as well. You were there talking about the
different issues in the election. We talked about the need to
cut taxes, pay down the debt, get our fiscal house in order and
restore fiscal conservatism to this House and to this country.
During the 36 days of the campaign, CPP came up on occasion.
Every single day of that campaign I asked the Reform candidate
who ran against me what Reform was going to do about the $500
billion unfunded liability. Unfunded liability. What are Reform
going to do with the $500 billion unfunded liability? Mr.
Speaker, when I was on the campaign trail, and maybe when you
were there as well, Reformers did not have an answer. They did
not have an answer for what they would do with the $500 billion
unfunded liability.
An hon. member: What are you going to do with it?
Mr. John Herron: We are going to save the Canada pension
plan.
An hon. member: That does not solve your problem.
Mr. John Herron: We are going to raise premiums as well,
compensated with a reduction in EI premiums.
I want to talk about the Reform plan with respect to the $500
billion unfunded liability.
During the recent hearings on this the leaders of the parties
sat down and spoke. I am sure people might have seen some of
this on television when the finance minister actually presented
his plan to save the Canada pension plan and then the Leader of
the Official Opposition presented his plan to save the Canada
pension plan.
The finance committee in turn asked the Leader of the Official
Opposition about the $500 billion unfunded liability. What did
he tell that committee? I shake my head about the answer. He
actually told the committee that it was a complex issue and it
would take too long to explain Reform's plan for the $500 billion
unfunded liability.
You would think that after 36 days on the campaign trail and the
whole summer and part of the first session of the House that
Reformers would at least have some form of an answer about what
they would do with the $500 billion unfunded liability.
I have read Reform's platform, and guess what? It is not in the
platform either. This fresh start is in fact a false start.
I also want to talk about this very issue in terms of how this
party—
The Deputy Speaker: Not for very long. You have 50
seconds.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, in order to sum up, I will
just make a couple of small points.
That party does not understand the necessities or the wants of
small business. The Canada pension plan is what small business
wants and Reform does not support that.
They want to have a flat tax which would mean that ultimately
small businesses, because they are private enterprises, would be
rolled into taxable income.
1815
We have talked about some very important issues today with
respect to pension plan review. We do not support some of these
amendments because they do not propose any kind of
alternatives. We need to save the Canada pension plan, but we
need to provide small business with tax relief by cutting EI
payroll taxes.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 6.15 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
PEOPLE'S TAX FORM ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-214, an act to allow taxpayers to inform government of
their views on levels and priorities for the expenditure of tax
revenues and to provide for parliamentary review of the results,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill I have introduced will be
welcomed by all parliamentarians interested in improving their
tools of representation.
A democracy functions best when people are well informed and
through their representatives conduct the affairs of the country
according to their will. Information must be open and available.
Procedures must follow acceptable patterns. Decisions must be
open and available for close scrutiny and all the information
must be easily accessible.
This bill provides for one of the most important pieces of
information that could be made available to government leaders to
be in their hands.
People should have a mechanism by which they can tell government
how they want their money spent, the levels at which they want
their taxes and what their spending priorities are.
I can see the excitement building in this place as I describe
this bill.
A government which is truly democratic would want to carry out
the will of its people. It would not just ask for support and
direction every four years, it would want to receive that support
and that input on a regular basis. Look at the excitement. That
is what my bill is designed to do in a very important area.
The people's tax form act, which I have introduced in the House
of Commons, has wide public support. It has been around for a
couple of years. People up and down this country have been able
to look at it.
I only wish that we had three hours to debate this. I am sure
many people would like to have input. However, we only have one
hour. I only wish that the rules of the House required that all
private members' bills were to be votable and I will work toward
that end. That is a change which needs to be made. Otherwise we
are just wasting our time.
What would Canadians think if they only had one store that they
could shop at, which they were forced to shop at? What would
Canadians think if money were taken out of their pay cheque for
the store manager to fill the store with all the things which he
thought were important, not what Canadians thought they needed?
What would Canadians think if they went to the store to shop and
not only could not get what they wanted, but would be forced to
buy and to take the things they did not need, did not want or
could not even use?
Does that sound far fetched? Not really. Any Canadian who pays
taxes already shops at this store.
It is called the Government of Canada. At the end of every
month we have to give our money and take whatever it decides to
give us without having any input into it.
1820
The government forces Canadians to pay high taxes and give
taxpayers what the government wants, not necessarily what
taxpayers want or need. Pandering politicians and meddling
bureaucrats often will say trust us, we know what is best for
you, just keep handing over the money and be quiet.
Taxpayers do not get any choice about the programs and services
the government delivers to the taxpayers, to the people of
Canada. If they do not like it, they are told to vote for
someone else in the next election, as if that is the only way to
go.
It is time for us to change the way we do business, to
democratize the system. It is time to give taxpayers more say
and some choice about how their money is spent.
That is why I think the people's tax form is a tax form
taxpayers would really like to fill out. Why? For starters
because it is voluntary and because this is no ordinary tax form.
Taxpayers would like filling out this form because it would let
taxpayers tell the government where they thing the government
should spend the thousands of dollars each and every taxpayer
sends in every year.
The people's tax form would let them identify the government
programs and services taxpayers do not want to support with their
tax dollars. Does that not make sense, Mr. Speaker? I see your
excitement.
I think Canadian taxpayers would say this is the kind of
schedule that should be included in every Revenue Canada tax kit.
Canadian taxpayers want to send a message to Ottawa. They do
not just want to send them the money.
Passing my bill into law would give Canadian taxpayers an
opportunity to send Revenue Canada the people's tax form every
year.
This is the essence of my people's tax form act. It proposes
that government would design a form which would be included in
every tax kit.
Completion of the people's tax form would be voluntary. All the
forms returned to Revenue Canada would be analysed and summarized
and a copy of the analysis would be sent to every MP and senator.
The analysis would be tabled in both the House of Commons and
the Senate.
The analysis would be automatically referred to the standing
committee for review and reported back to the House. The duties
of the standing committee are included in the bill, including a
provision allowing the tax form to be amended.
I first heard about the idea for this people's tax form in an
article in the Fraser Forum November 1995. It was written
by Professor Filip Palda of the school of public administration,
University of Quebec.
He wrote, and I think it is very important that I include this
quotation, that every year millions of Canadians go through the
agony of filling out their tax returns, their T-1s. Filling out
these T-1s is painful, T-4s, whatever. It is painful because
people have no sense that they control where their money is
going. He suggested we add a sheet to this form that gives people
that control. This sheet, which he called the people's tax form,
would list the categories of government spending and invite
taxpayers to decide what fraction of their tax bill should go to
each category. Churches and charities call this earmarking. The
people's tax form would allow citizens to earmark where they want
their tax dollars to go.
The Library of Parliament examined Professor Palda's concept for
me and proposed alternatives for implementing the idea. I
bounced the idea off a number of other MPs and Professor Palda
was kind enough to give me his comments and advice as well.
In the spring of 1996 I tested the people's tax form in my own
constituency and finally sent instructions to lawyers in the
House of Commons to draft a private member's bill.
On December 10, 1996, I introduced the people's tax form act. It
says it is an act to allow taxpayers to inform government of
their views on levels and priorities for the expenditure of tax
revenues and to provide for parliamentary review of the results.
That is the essence of this tax form act.
More than 500 of my constituents were kind enough to fill out
and return the early version of the people's tax form act,
proving that given the opportunity, taxpayers do want to have a
direct say in how the federal government spends their money.
These results were very interesting but they need that mechanism
and they do not have it at the present time.
1825
Based on where they want their tax dollars directed, the top
five government programs most strongly supported by my constituents
were old age security, health care, justice and the RCMP, Canada
pension plan, debt reduction, but also there are areas that they
did not want their money to go to. The most strongly opposed
areas were official bilingualism. Does that surprise you, Mr.
Speaker? How about funding for special interest groups? Over
90% objected. Gun registration just did not fly. Foreign aid
was not a priority. Multiculturalism was opposed by over 80%.
Maybe I should not have mentioned those results. There are
interest groups in this country that are going to lobby the
government to veto this bill, to not have any part of it. Is
that not unfortunate?
My test of the people's tax form found support in an article in
Western Report, dated May 6, 1996. It read head of the
Canadian Taxpayer's Federation, now the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast, said the people's tax form is a great idea, and he
would like to see it adopted as an advisory measure. He went on
to say, and I quote: “If the government would compile the
results and then be measured against it, it would wrest control
of the budget away from interest groups”. I am honoured to have
had this MP second this bill when I introduced it on September
29.
My colleague's reaction was very similar to Professor Palda's.
Again I quote: “When I suggest the people's tax form to my
academic colleagues I get a shocked reaction: `But that's putting
power directly into the hands of the people who know nothing
about government. Why would you want to do that?”'.
I come back to my introduction. We live in a democracy.
Surprise, surprise. Do those people not have the right to give
us that kind of information? I really agree with Professor Palda
when he says giving Canadians the power to directly influence
government spending would create a panic in the ministries
responsible for that spending and among the groups that benefit
from that spending. Special interest groups could no longer
ignore public opinion.
In the last four years the Liberal government has cut billions
of dollars in transfers to the provinces for health and education
and programs that my constituents strongly support and yet this
same government spends billions on grants and handouts that my
constituents strongly oppose. I suspect it is not just in my
part of Saskatchewan. I suspect that opposition is across
Canada.
The problem is that once the Liberal government extracts money
from the taxpayers by force, then it can spend tax dollars any
way it wants. Tax dollars are not the Liberals' money to do
whatever they wish. All of a sudden the excitement is dying
down, Mr. Speaker. What is going on?
This is the truth, though. Listen. Constituents are telling
their members of Parliament what their priorities are and either
the government is not listening or it does not care, or the
message is not clear enough for it. How about making it a
little clearer and support this tax form act and get that
information into our hands.
Special interest groups, big corporations and paid lobbyist have
been able to hijack the agenda and persuade politicians to give
them tax dollars and implement programs that most people do not
feel are high priorities. It is obvious the people want
politicians to cut grants and handouts to special interest groups
and big business and thereby help preserve funding for pensions,
health care and law and order.
Somehow the Liberal government does not seem to be getting the
message. Everybody seems to be disappearing out of here now.
They just do not want to hear this. The people's tax form act
will make sure the message gets through loud and clear.
Our tax system focuses only on collecting money from people and
without allowing them a real say in how it is spent. The current
system rewards groups that make the most noise and individuals
and organizations that make the biggest donations to the
political party in power, not the people who are paying the
bills. We ought to listen to them.
Why should taxpayers be forced to support political programs and
activities that the vast majority do not believe in? The
people's tax form act will give Canadians a chance to make their
priorities the government's priorities.
As I draw near to the end, I want to give some other positive
spin-off benefits that we would have. It would foster debate
across Canada.
It would increase interest in the affairs of government. It
would combat apathy. It would decrease public cynicism.
1830
Second, if they see government wanting their opinion and
listening to it, the attitude of many people that government does
not care about what they think would begin to change. If they
see government actively seeking information and following the
direction, it would restore faith in their institutions.
Third, it may even help unity problems. That is not a stretch
because people in all parts of this country feel alienated. They
would again feel like they belonged. It would be a small step in
the right direction.
Fourth, Canadians would find citizenship much more meaningful.
They would be willing to accept more responsibilities.
I have listened to some of the objections from people in
Parliament. One of the first is that common people are not
capable of knowing how to best spend the money. That is not so.
I detect that here in Ottawa the elite have the attitude that
they know what is best for the country. The people out there
know.
There is an objection that this initiative may cost too much
money. It would actually save money. Will Rogers said it well:
“Lord, the money we spend on government” and it's not one bit
better than what we got for one-third the money 20 years ago.
That is the truth.
I seek unanimous consent not to make this a votable item but to
refer it to the committee for further study. There is very wide
support for this initiative among the members of this House and
among Canadians in general, and it is a non-partisan issue. Mr.
Speaker, I would like you to ask for unanimous consent because
this is supported on all sides of this House.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my understanding that the hon.
member is asking for unanimous consent to refer the subject
matter of the bill to the Standing Committee on Finance for
further study. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not consent. Resuming
debate.
An hon. member: There was dissent.
The Deputy Speaker: There was dissent. There was not
unanimous consent. Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes any
efforts to open up the lines of communication with ordinary
Canadians on tax and expenditure policy. Since we took office in
1993 we have greatly expanded the opportunities for individual
taxpayers to make their voices heard in the policy process.
As part of the new open budget process, the Minister of Finance
appears before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance
each fall to discuss the options and priorities for the upcoming
budget. The finance committee then begins a prolonged period of
direct public consultations on budget priorities across Canada.
This year for the first time the chair of the finance committee,
the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora, asked each and every member
of this House to consult Canadians in their own constituencies.
That is direct democracy.
The government is apprised of the results of these consultations
through a report of the committee which is tabled in the House
and delivered to the Minister of Finance before the budget.
The Minister of Finance and other ministers also receive many
other proposals and recommendations on tax and expenditure policy
from the public each and every day. These take the form of
letters, faxes, Internet, E-mail letters and other means. We
take each and every response into consideration in the
formulation of policy. In short, we already have a dynamic and
practical system of public consultation and communications in
place to help guide us in our tax and expenditure policy
decisions.
While further consultations are always desirable, I am not sure
this bill would significantly add to the information the
government already collects in the area. As mentioned by the
mover of this bill, the financial implications of this bill need
to be addressed.
I do not believe it is a prudent expenditure of public funds
since it would largely duplicate the results of the public
consultation systems that are already in place. While I
appreciate and share in the objectives of this bill, I do not
think it will improve upon the existing system of public
consultations on tax and expenditure policy in a very practical
and efficient manner. As such I really cannot support this
motion.
The member also stated that his bill will allow for extensive
debate to take place throughout this country.
I have to state quite clearly that at least the members on this
side of the House, and I am sure some members on that side of the
House, do involve themselves in extensive debate with their
constituents on an ongoing basis.
1835
Members of Parliament have ample opportunity to meet with their
constituents either through town halls or round tables and
certainly through householders. I ask my constituents on a
regular basis through my householder for feedback on various
items that the government is considering pursuing and certainly
on this very important issue of fiscal dividend as we move into
an era of balanced budget and a fiscal dividend. The government
wants to hear from ordinary Canadians.
I find it somewhat unfortunate that members continue to point to
the fact that those people who come before the finance committee
are all representatives of interest groups and they do not
reflect the concerns of individual Canadians.
I recall when the finance committee was in Vancouver we had a
very passionate presentation put forward by an individual from
Vancouver East. This individual was not there speaking on behalf
of any so-called interest group, as the Reform Party is so fond
of referring to. He was there to deliver a message on behalf of
those constituents and individuals who live in Vancouver East.
The finance committee took that information into consideration.
It was a very passionate presentation indeed.
What the member is proposing in this bill is to duplicate a
system that is already in place, a system which is quite dynamic
and practical and does allow for public consultation and
communications. This government, more than any other government
in the past, has been more open, more transparent in its
pre-budget consultations, allowing many Canadians the opportunity
to come before the committee or provide some written submissions.
Members of Parliament have gone out and consulted with their
constituents through town hall meetings and round tables so that
we can go directly to Canadians right across this country.
We do not require another bill that speaks to the duplication of
what is already taking place. I find it ironic. The Reform
Party has always been out there talking about government needs to
eliminate duplication. We now have a bill here that promotes the
duplications.
The Reform Party continues to talk about the prudent expenditure
of money. Passing this bill would allow for some phenomenal
bureaucracy to take place. We would have to go out and hire more
public servants at a time when we have been talking about
reducing the public service in order to deal with the financial
implications we were left with because of the past
administration, the Tory government, that did such a terrible job
over the last period it was in office in dealing with the
finances of this country.
In closing, while I certainly appreciate and certainly would say
quite clearly that not only on this side of the House but on both
sides of the House further consultations are always desirable, I
am not sure this bill would provide anything significant and
would add to the information the government is already
collecting.
An hon. member: Useful information.
Mr. Tony Valeri: The member makes a statement that it is
useful information. I will tell him, and I take exception to the
statement, the useful information that is coming to this House
right now is coming in the form of public consultations directly
with Canadians through round tables, through town halls that
members of Parliament conduct in their constituencies. We do not
require this duplication of effort. We do not require the
additional bureaucracy. Quite frankly, I am astonished that the
Reform Party is putting this forward.
1840
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
address Bill C-214, introduced by the Reform member for Yorkton—Melville.
The bill was drafted following the hon. member's experiment with
taxpayers from his riding in western Canada. Again, we can see that the
Reform Party has a hard time understanding how our democratic
institutions work. That right-wing party comes up with a regional idea
it sees as innovative and, above all, realistic.
Let us take a look at the title of Bill C-214:
An act to allow taxpayers to inform government of their views
on levels and priorities for the expenditure of tax revenues—
The title is a long sentence which could summarize our whole
democratic system. The way some Reformers behave in this House, one gets
the impression they want to reform everything.
“An act to allow taxpayers to inform government of their
views”.
The fact is that every three or four years, depending on the Prime
Minister's mood, Canadians are asked to support or reject the
government's achievements, through a general election.
They are also asked to choose among the programs of the various
political parties that clearly indicate how they intend to use
taxpayers' money.
The intentions of Bloc Quebecois members are clear. We want to give
back to Quebec the taxes paid by Quebeckers. We are convinced that the
federal system no longer meets Quebec's real needs. In the last
election, Quebeckers understood Reform's message and decided not to
elect any member of that party, a party which is openly opposed to
bilingualism and which flatly rejects every one of Quebec's demands.
For the Reform members, that consultation was not adequate. When
taxpayers prepare their income tax return, they want them now to fill
out a form describing how they want their money to be spent.
Imagine that tomorrow morning Revenue Canada has to review 18
million ideas on how Ottawa should spend the money. Who will determine
the priorities? Would Revenue Canada's unionized workers be willing to
screen these millions of ideas? No, with the cuts and the constant
remodelling that most departments have experienced, the work of these
government employees is now based on very precise duties and they have
neither the time nor the training required to perform the new duties
that the Reform Party would require of them.
The Reform Party could force them to do this work by implementing
a series of orders or special laws.
This is probably what would happen when you consider how that party
treats the postal workers. They really have difficulty understanding how
collective agreements are negotiated. The Reform philosophy, which leans
strongly to the extreme right, is once again leading them to opt for the
hard line by calling for a special law and by completely disregarding
the claims of Canada Post employees.
Imagine if after difficult negotiations with Canada, the Reform
Party had to hire personnel to try and compile these millions of ideas.
I would like to see the leader of the official opposition, who is
constantly calling for cuts, cuts and more cuts, rise in this House and
attempt to justify these additional expenses, and especially to explain
why the decision making process has bogged down.
Of course no one is surprised by the way the Reform leader changes his
mind, especially when we see that his official arrival at majestic
Stornoway cost taxpayers over a quarter of a million dollars.
The member for Yorkton—Melville thinks that he has made a great
discovery with this method of consulting taxpayers in his riding. This
type of consultation is part of a member's job to maintain a close
relationship with the grassroots, and we do not need to fill out a
Revenue Canada form to do this work.
Furthermore, Reform members have to recognize that there are other
means of finding out what the public thinks about the policy decisions
we want to implement. They only have to consult their supporters in the
community and, from time to time, to study the polls or read the
opinions of political and economic commentators.
At any rate, in Quebec, the public knows what the real face of the
Reform Party is.
They remember how the Reform Party insulted Quebec's political leaders
during the last electoral campaign, the anti-Quebec advertising. We all
know that this party from the right has absolutely no idea of what the
issues are in Quebec.
1845
I would like to remind the Reform member who sponsored this
bill that there is a whole other series of activities here in the
Parliament of Canada by which politicians, groups and individuals
can make known their points of view: oral question period,
parliamentary committees, statements by members, speeches, press
releases and even press conferences.
I really have trouble understanding how the logistics of this
bill could be defended.
I nonetheless took the time to examine the result of this
local operation in the riding of Yorkton—Melville. Here are the
priorities expressed by the 500 taxpayers who went along with their
MP's request.
But before I give you the results, I will briefly review the
purpose of this bill, an act to allow taxpayers to inform
government of their views on levels and priorities for the
expenditure of tax revenues. The French leaves something to be
desired, but what it boils down to is “Where would you like to see
the money you give Revenue Canada spent?”
The answers were as follows: 93% are against their money being
used for bilingualism; 81.2% are against multiculturalism; and
78.4% are against native peoples.
This is the upshot of the 500 forms completed perhaps by the
500 members in good standing of the Reform Party. The constituents
indicate their preference for justice and the RCMP, and jails, with
welfare 21st on the list. In other words, they would rather send
the least well off in society to jail than provide them with social
and community support.
Here again, we recognize the philosophy of the Reform Party.
My conclusion will look at the results of this operation, a
phoney consultation, a tool for disinformation in the hands of a
right wing party from western Canada trying to get the public to
swallow Reform Party ideas that will not work in the 1990s.
The political party to which I belong, however, would be
tempted to try this approach, given the negative sentiments
expressed about Quebec and about social democracy. This kind of
consultation would certainly help the sovereignist cause.
However, we will be voting against this bill, which has no
serious foundation and which is pure Reform party politics.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am also pleased to join with my colleagues in the
Chamber to debate Bill C-214, the People's Tax Form Act.
At first glance the bill seems to be quite interesting. It even
sounds great. I do not think a soul in the Chamber does not
support the basic premise that taxpayers, the citizens of the
country, have the right to have their views considered on how
government spends tax dollars.
However one has to ask if this is the way to address the
concerns. Is this getting to the heart of the matter when it
comes to people's sense of being disenfranchised? Are there not
other steps that must be taken first before we look at
establishing another form that requires a great deal of knowledge
to complete?
This will in some cases be seen as an unnecessary piece of mail.
The major concern of taxpayers is to feel confident the
government is prepared to achieve tax fairness and to address the
concerns working men and women deal with on a daily basis.
For example, a few years ago one of my constituents had a full
time job at a brewery in Winnipeg. The brewery closed down and
my constituent lost the full time job he had held for many years.
He found a part time job. Then he found another part time job to
supplement his income. He is doing night courses to retrain for
some other field, for some other hope in the distant future. He
has a couple of kids. His partner works. They are all juggling
work and family responsibilities to try to make ends meet. They
are barely surviving. They got a call from Revenue Canada saying
that they owe taxes on the RRSP they had to cash in.
1850
This person was dealing with an institution which did not make
the tax deductions at source. This person who is barely making
ends meet was suddenly faced with an adamant voice on the other
end of the phone from Revenue Canada saying “Too bad, you have
to give us something. We need something. You have to pay some
of the taxes”.
He asked me “How is it that I am getting harassed on a day to
day basis over this kind of situation when so many wealthy people
in society and so many big corporations are able to avoid paying
taxes, to take advantage of loopholes, to take advantage of
deferred taxes, to invest in all kinds of areas and not to pay
immediate taxes?”
I raise this situation because it demonstrates where people are
at today and what is important. They are saying that the first
pressing issue for them is to have some fairness in the system.
Sure, they would like to have a say, but the government should
first address the fundamental issue of how they survive on a day
to day basis, given the present tax structure.
They are saying that there is a heck of a lot of other ways to
make government more accountable than having another form come in
the mail which takes time, knowledge and resources to complete.
They are saying that the government could be more accountable if
it was willing to do so right now without the additional forms or
paperwork.
The current pre-budget consultations are relevant to this
debate. We had round table discussions. The Minister of Finance
went across the country and held discussions. Some people had a
chance to participate. A small number in each town were allowed
to participate but certainly not a vast number of people.
What was even more galling to the folk who saw that as somewhat
of an opportunity to participate in the decision making process
was that they learned, all the while the pre-budget consultations
were going on, the Minister of Finance was meeting with his
cabinet colleagues and making decisions about how the budget
would be allocated.
If we want to start somewhere in terms of restoring people's
confidence in government, letting people know they have some say
in how tax dollars are spent, and giving them the sense that some
day there might be a bit of tax fairness in our system, we need
to start with our own house. We must get our own house in order.
We must ensure that the government practises honest and real
accountability and does not create some pretence that it is
consulting with the people when all the while it has a set
agenda.
I have a few other suggestions. Why not ensure much more open
and transparent debate in the House and across the country? What
does it do to people's confidence in democracy and in parliament
when the government readily introduces closure and cuts off
debate? It denies us the opportunity to contribute the feelings
and beliefs of our constituents on an important issue such as
changes to the Canada pension plan.
We are talking about restoring confidence in the system, in the
government and in people's ability to influence decisions. What
about putting an end to the appointments of MPs who have either
decided not to run or who were defeated at the polls? These are
patronage appointments for defeated MPs turfed out by the
electorate because they did not win the confidence of the people
in their constituencies. They suddenly find themselves in a
lucrative position with as much power, if not more power, as a
member of the Chamber.
1855
Many people have made other suggestions. We need to look at a
more simplified tax form so people can see what is happening in
terms of their own situation and get a better handle on where
their money is actually going.
I made the suggestion again today of the need for a tax
ombudsperson, someone people can turn to for raising their
concerns when they feel their minister of finance or their
elected representative is not responsive. We could give more
powers to the auditor general to make his recommendations a much
more meaningful part of our decision making process.
The list goes on. It comes down to trying to restore people's
faith and confidence in government, in parliament and in
politicians. While the idea of the bill seems great at first
glance, it is not the solution at this time. It is not an
appropriate mechanism for dealing with those kinds of concerns.
People want to see us act to put in place measures that will
guarantee them a voice in this place.
We have to do that by improving our methods of accountability.
We have to try to encourage the government to hold honest and
open discussion on such things as pre-budget consultations and on
major legislation such as the Canada pension plan.
We have to be able to show people that we are always accountable
and do whatever we can to hold round tables in our own
constituencies, to get the information out about developments in
parliament and to give people a chance to give feedback to us. We
need the opportunity to convey those sentiments in the Chamber.
While I appreciate the efforts of the Reform member in
introducing the bill, my feeling and the feeling of members of my
caucus is that this is not the appropriate mechanism at this
time. There are many more ways to address the concerns of
people.
Let me conclude by saying that if there is anything we have
learned as members of Parliament at a time when people are so
cynical and sceptical about politicians, it is that we must go
the extra mile to restore that confidence.
Instead of talking all the time about deregulating, privatizing,
offloading and cutting back in terms of government
responsibilities, we should be truly talking about
democratization. This is the greatest service we could provide
to Canadians.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
applaud the hon. member of the New Democratic Party for giving
some consideration to the bill before us and for being open to
more accountability in the House. It is certainly one of the
things we agree is very desperately needed today.
I also appreciate the opportunity to represent my constituents
and my party. I am proud to stand in the House to speak in
favour of Bill C-214, the people's tax form.
As its title explains, the people's tax form would allow
taxpayers to give a sense to the government of their views on
levels and priorities for the expenditure of tax revenues and to
provide parliamentary reviews of the results. This is truly
direct input, a people type of bill, a bill where real Canadians
would have some input into the way their tax dollars are being
spent.
It is important for us to remember that Canadians are actually
paying the ultimate bill. The bill we are discussing and
debating is a bill of fiscal responsibility. It would encourage
the government to better priorize and account for where it spends
the taxes it collects.
The bill would not frighten any responsible democratic
government but it does seem to frighten the Liberals. They see
it as a potential hindrance to their agenda if people do not
agree with their priorities.
It frightens them because it would let taxpayers put priorities
on how governments spend taxpayers' money. It frightens them
because the Liberals are, I am afraid, increasingly out of touch
with real Canadians and with what they want their taxes going
toward. The Liberal priorities and values are not lining up with
those of ordinary Canadians.
1900
Instead of funding Liberal projects, this bill would give
taxpayers more say and some choice in how their money is spent.
That is something the people want but the Liberals do not. This
bill concerned the Liberals so much that they refused to allow a
vote on it in this House. Further, they will not even let it be
discussed. A few moments ago they refused to give unanimous
consent of the House to refer this bill to committee for further
study. What they are saying is no accountability and democratic
input. It is not allowed.
Why is it that the finance minister and the Standing Committee
on Finance travel around the country at this time of year under
the guise of prebudget consultation while refusing to consult
ordinary Canadians at a time when they are filling out their
taxes? Apparently the minister is more interested in controlled
input from a select few and racking up his air miles than getting
broad based input from ordinary Canadians.
Paying lip service to consultation by going through the motions
at staged committee meetings does not allow the priorities of the
whole Canadian public to be heard. Canadians are increasingly
and understandably jaded about the wisdom of their elected
representatives spending their dollars.
Thirty years of government overspending has saddled us with $600
billion of debt, the highest taxes in the G-7 countries, with
interest payments that are eating the heart out of our social
programs. Given this track record, the status quo on tax and
spend governments from on high is not acceptable. In fact it is
destructive.
Canadians want to have input into the governance of their
country. It is that desire that has put Reformers in this House.
This is the message that Reform has consistently promoted since
its inception over 10 years ago. This is the message we will
continue to promote.
This bill furthers this vision. I commend my hon. colleague
from Yorkton—Melville for his initiative and effort in putting
it forward. I was very interested to hear the results that he
received back from his constituents when he asked them to fill
out the people's tax form. It is clear that his constituents
want to retain public security for those who need it most. Old
age security, health care, justice and even the RCMP are their
priorities.
Reformers are true Canadians who care, despite how others in
this House want to misrepresent them.
My colleague's constituents also made it abundantly clear that
they do not want their tax dollars going to pet Liberal projects
like multiculturalism and special interest group funding. They
want government to encourage but not subsidize business
initiatives. They know that Canadian industry is strong enough
to stand on its own and that tax breaks to consumers will do more
to strengthen business than making them dependent on subsidies.
The people of Canada want Ottawa to stop telling them what is
best for them. They are tired of a Liberal position that it is
not the people's job to think but to obey.
This bill provides an effective vehicle for government to better
serve the people. I ask my hon. colleagues in this House to
support the people who have put them here and to support this
initiative. It is with this in mind that I would like to seek
the unanimous consent of the House to make this bill a votable
item.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
motion proposed by the hon. member?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague who
shares the southern borders of our province, the hon. member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
The day after the June 2 election one of the press people came to
me and said “What do you suspect will happen in the House when
you get there, given the fact that there are four opposition
parties and the Liberal Party, the governing party opposite”.
1905
I said to that young reporter “I expect that it is going to be
240 versus 60”. That is the way it has been. When we bring
common sense legislation in, we see 240 lining up to vote against
the 60 people that come here.
I come from the highest taxed province, Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan is the highest taxed province in Canada right now.
When I hear people talking about this being very expensive to
have one electronic sheet placed in everybody's income tax forms,
to be filed through electronic machines in each province on the
computer, any government should welcome this. They would have
more public opinion than a thousand town hall meetings and they
would have it every year in April. By April they would know what
the people across Canada are thinking. They would know that the
thoughts of British Columbians differ from those of the
maritimes. At least they would have before them a truly
volunteered opinion coming before them at very little cost.
No one in this House can say that this is an expensive measure
as far as democracy is concerned.
If any government were to take a look at a sheet coming in like
this, they could look down at the constituency of my colleague
and see that 88.8% of the people are opposed to government
expenditures in the matter of gun registration. The amount of
money that they would save in gun registration over the next five
years would pay the bill of the tainted blood inquiry and Canada
could walk away free.
We spend more money because some brainwave comes into existence
with no feeling toward the public whatsoever. Any government
that really wanted to be truly representative would say “We can
do this in a minute. We can have this ready in April. We can
have a form filled out and it would come through. It would not
have to be touched. It would be automatically recorded and there
the government would have the party's opinion”.
I wonder what the people of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec
would think if the people in the four western provinces were
paying $2.90 for a package of cigarettes and here they were
paying $5.70. I am sure they would be complaining.
An hon. member: I'm not a smoker.
Mr. Roy Bailey: I am not a smoker either, but boy there
would be something to pay.
For the last five years or six years the people in western
Canada who smoke pay at least $3 more for a package of
cigarettes. We have never had any big complaint about that, but
with this government it seems to matter where the complaints come
from. That is what makes the difference.
This would be one of the cheapest public relations jobs this or
any government could possibly do. We could possibly lead the
world in the way of getting an electronic opinion from the people
that we serve.
We should support the bill. We should discuss it further. I
will turn the rest of my time over to my hon. colleague from
Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the problem that we are encountering here with
endeavouring to get serious consideration for this bill was
actually spelled out by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville in
his address when he stated that if this bill were to become law,
there would be less public apathy in government.
The last thing that the Liberal government wants is less public
apathy. The more apathy the better. The government says “Keep
them out of it. Keep them asleep. Do not consult them. Tell
them, `Pay your taxes folks and then shut up and leave us
alone'.”
1910
The reason I am rising is really more than to speak to the
estimable merits of the bill. I want to comment on the
presentation by the hon. member for Lotbinière. He appeared to
think that this was not a bad idea, but he was distressed because
he felt that if this did become law, the people of
Yorkton—Melville might oppose the expenditure of federal funds
to promote official bilingualism. I would submit that if this
became law, it would also be the law in the province of Quebec.
The people of Quebec likewise would vote massively to avoid
spending federal funds to promote federal bilingualism.
The hon. member also commented on the fact that we did not elect
any Reformers in Quebec. I would like to point out that the Bloc
did not elect very many members in western Canada. So what pray
tell is the point of his argument?
Finally, he mentioned the fact that Reform said in the last
election that perhaps provinces other than Quebec should begin to
have some small voice at the top level of government. But do the
separatists not say the same thing? They not only want to reduce
the overwhelming influence and power of Quebec in Ottawa, they
want to eliminate it altogether. They want to leave Quebec as
this pitiful and powerless little fish in a vast anglophone sea.
This is one of the most interesting bills I have seen presented
in Parliament in Private Members' Business to date. It is a great
shame and a pity that it is not being sent to committee. It is a
bill that would not require any great expenditure of public
funds. It is pin money to this government. It is a bill that
would give the people of Canada a sense of ownership, a sense of
being a part of the process of governing this great country, a
sense that they are losing by leaps and bounds. There is a vast
distaste, a vast distrust out there of government.
All of us as politicians hear this all the time: “It does not
matter anymore. It does not matter who we elect, who we send to
Ottawa, it is all nonsense. Go on down there and play your games.
We will work and pay our taxes but we know in our hearts that it
is just a charade”.
I was just getting warmed up, but I see you are giving me the
finger, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I would not think of giving the
finger to the hon. member, but I was warning him that he had a
minute left in his speech.
However, the time provided for the consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
[Translation]
It being 7.15 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.14 p.m.)