36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 226
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 11, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PETITIONS
|
| Impaired Driving
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1010
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 1
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Motions Nos. 2 and 3
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Motions Nos. 9 and 10
|
1015
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion No. 11
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Motions Nos. 12 and 13
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 14
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 31
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion No. 32
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 40
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 48
|
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1035
1040
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1045
1050
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1055
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1100
1105
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1110
1115
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1120
1125
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1130
1135
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1140
1145
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1150
1155
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1200
1205
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1210
1215
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1245
1250
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1255
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1315
1320
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1325
1330
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1335
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1340
1345
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MINING INDUSTRY
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1400
| DONAT GRENIER
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| SPORT CENTRES
|
| Mr. George Proud |
| ORGAN DONOR REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1405
| REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| DEVELOPING NATIONS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
| NURSING WEEK
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| NURSING
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1410
| CANADA POST
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| QUÉBEC ATELIERS OUVERTS
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| PALLIATIVE CARE
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| CANADIAN COAST GUARD
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1420
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1425
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| JUBILEE 2000
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
1445
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1450
| CHILDREN
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| SIERRA LEONE
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| TAXATION
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| YOUTH
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| ARTS AND CULTURE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1500
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Report stage
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1510
1515
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1520
1525
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1530
1535
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1540
1545
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1550
1555
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1600
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1605
1610
1615
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 3 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
1620
| Division on Motion No. 8 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 9 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 32 deferred
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Motions Nos. 15 and 17 to 23
|
1625
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Motions Nos. 24 and 25
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Motion No. 26
|
1630
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Motion No. 27
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Motion No. 28
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Motion No. 29
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Motion No. 30
|
1635
1640
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1645
1650
1655
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1700
1705
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1710
1715
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1720
1725
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Motion
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Report stage
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1735
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1740
1745
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1750
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1755
1800
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1805
1810
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1815
1820
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Air Safety
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1830
| Mr. Peter Adams |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 226
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 11, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in
council appointments which were recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of the greater
Peterborough area who are concerned about drinking and driving.
The petitioners point out that an average of 4.5 Canadians are
killed and 125 Canadians seriously injured every day as a result
of alcohol related vehicular crashes.
The petitioners pray that parliament immediately amend the
Criminal Code to streamline the judicial process and to provide
sanctions that better reflect the seriousness of the crime and to
commit to formal reviews of impaired driving legislation to
determine the efficacy of the law in reducing drinking and
driving and the deaths, injuries and social costs that it
generates.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions from various areas. The first
petition is from the Toronto-Mississauga area. The second
petition is primarily from Lethbridge, Alberta. The third
petition is from Scarborough and other areas, including Calgary.
All of the petitions deal with Bill C-225, an act to amend the
Marriage Act (Prohibited Degrees) and the Interpretation Act so
as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
The petitioners pray that parliament adopt this law.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by my constituents of Stoney Creek who call
upon parliament to ask the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration to review existing income requirements so that
potential sponsors will not be unduly burdened by them. The
petitioners request that more than one person be allowed to
sponsor the same individual and share the responsibility for
financial support of the immigrant.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question
No. 215 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 215—Mr. John Duncan:
For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, what is the breakdown
by line item and business line of all expenditures comprised in
the amount of $6.5 million under vote 10 in the Natural
Resources Canada's performance report “Promoting Canada's
International Interests” for all categories, which would include
any estimates of travel, operating and capital expenses, grants
and contributions, salaries or benefits?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.):
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1010
[Translation]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend
the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act,
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada
Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 54 motions in amendment in the
Notice Paper concerning the report stage of Bill C-78.
[English]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
[Translation]
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 14, 31, 32, 40 and 48.
[English]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 15, 17 to 30.
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 16, 38, 39, 46, 47 and 54.
[Translation]
Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 33 to 37, 41 to 45, 49 to 53.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 14, 31, 32, 40 and 48 to the
House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 9 to
13 on page 4 with the following:
“(4) Where the Minister proposes to make changes to pension
plan design or funding with respect to a pension plan created
under an Act referred to in paragraph 4(1)(a), the Minister shall
consult the Pension Management Board established by the Act that
created the plan.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 17 on
page 5 with the following:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 18 on
page 5 with the following:
(i) pollution or environmental degradation,
(ii) labour standards and practices which are inferior to those
required by law in this country,
(iii) any practice or activity that may result in the elimination
or contracting-out of the jobs of members of the plan, or
(iv) any aspect of the sale, manufacture, or promotion of tobacco
or tobacco products.”
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 18
on page 5 the following:
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 20
and 21 on page 7 with the following:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 20
and 21 on page 7 with the following:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 26
and 27 on page 7 with the following:
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 29
on page 7 the following:
“(1.1) A copy of the appointment of a chairperson by the
Minister under paragraph (1)(a) shall be laid before each House
of Parliament on any of the next 15 days during which that House
is sitting.”
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-78 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 15 the
following new clause:
“27.1 The Auditor General of Canada shall be the primary
auditor of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.”
That Bill C-78, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 10 on
page 15 with the following:
“28. The audit committee shall be responsible for presenting
all records of all financial activity of the Public Sector
Pension Investment Board to the Auditor General on an annual
basis. In addition, the audit committee shall”
1015
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 31, be amended by adding after line 25
on page 16 the following:
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 3 on
page 17 with the following:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing line 2 on
page 19 with the following:
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 30
to 34 on page 26 with the following:
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 90, be amended
“41. (1) There is established a Board to be known as the
Public Service Pension Management Board.
(2) Despite any other provision in this Act, the Board
established by subsection (1) shall be responsible for designing
the pension plan to which this Act applies, its funding, managing
the plan's surplus or deficit, administering the plan and
ensuring that the plan's funding level is adequate to deliver
pension benefits.”
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 90, be amended by adding after line 31
on page 69 the following:
“(3.1) a copy of every appointment made by the Governor in
Council in accordance with paragraph (3)(a) or (c) shall be laid
before each House of Parliament on any of the next 15 days during
which that House is sitting.”
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 145, be amended
“49.1 (1) The Minister shall establish a Board to be known
as the Canadian Forces Pension Management Board, the members of
which are appointed by the Minister in accordance with subsection
(2).
(1.1) Despite any other provision in this Act, the Board
established by subsection (1) shall be responsible for designing
the pension plan to which this Act applies, its funding, managing
the plan's surplus or deficit, administering the plan and
ensuring that the plan's funding level is adequate to deliver
pension benefits.”
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 192, be amended
“25.1 (1) The Minister shall establish a Board to be known
as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Management Board,
the members of which are appointed by the Minister in accordance
with subsection (2).
(1.1) The Board established by subsection (1) shall be
responsible for designing the pension plan to which this Act
applies, its funding, managing the plan's surplus or deficit,
administering the plan and ensuring the plan's funding level is
adequate to deliver pension benefits'.”
1020
[English]
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to be able to spend a little time debating Bill C-78 and I
have to emphasize a little time.
The bill was introduced at first reading in the House on
Thursday, April 22. The following week, on April 27, it came up
for second reading and the government immediately introduced
closure. Before we knew it, second reading was over and done
with, out of the House and off to committee before we had any
time to debate the bill in detail.
Last week the bill was in committee. We had witnesses on
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. By Thursday morning, the bill was
in committee for clause by clause. This happens to be a 200-page
bill, 200 pages of complex technical points. It deals with $100
billion. It is the livelihood of the retirees of the civil
service. It is a bill that calls for the privatization of $100
billion of government debt over a number of years.
One would have thought that the bill would have merited some
serious attention by members of parliament even if only for the
fact that the pension of members of parliament happens to be part
of the bill.
Last week we had witnesses on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and
that was all the government members were prepared to allow to
come before the committee. Although I suggested other
organizations and people who would have an interest in speaking
to the bill, the government said that it did not want to hear
about it, that it wanted to get on with it.
Last Thursday morning, the bill was in committee for clause by
clause. I have not added up how many clauses there are in a
200-page bill because they were not consecutively numbered and
there were a large number of amendments. However, suffice it to
say there were several hundred clauses and we were there to deal
with clause by clause. If I had not been in committee last week,
the committee would have dealt with all 200 pages of clauses in
10 minutes or even less if it had the opportunity.
1025
I tried to have debate in committee but, while I could raise the
issues I wanted to, I was severely limited in my capacity to
debate the issue because of the constraints imposed upon me by
the committee.
I raise it in debate this morning because they told me I could
appeal to the Speaker of the House if I was not satisfied.
However, members know very well that any time an incident in
committee is appealed to the House, the Speaker rules that the
committees are the masters of their own house and thus we cannot
appeal to the Speaker.
Before I get into talking about the motions this morning, I
would like to put on the record that I put up a valiant attempt
to have the whole bill debated in detail in committee rather than
consuming a huge amount of time in the House by people who are
not interested in the particular bill. There are some members
who do have a serious interest in the bill and I happen to be one
of them. If we could have dealt with that in committee it would
have saved the boredom for those in the House who are not
interested in it.
I understand it is not improbable that now that it is back in
the House the government may decide that it does not want to talk
about the bill for very long and debate may be closed off once
more. We will have to wait to see how events unfold, but I would
not be surprised if the government feels that another two or
three hours of debate on this 200-page bill, $100 billion in
assets and directly affecting 700,000 Canadians, requires no
significant debate in the House at all.
I have the transcript from the committee meeting. I will read
just a couple of things in order to give the House an indication
of what actually went on in committee. On page 13 of the
transcript I said:
There is no limit on my time, Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware. Can
you tell me where I'm limited on my time?
This was when it was severely curtailing what I felt was my
privilege to speak in committee. The chairman replied:
It certainly is at the discretion of the chair to allow a
reasonable amount of time for debate and discussion of clauses.
And when at such time the question is called, and I will seek
some degree of leniency from my colleagues to call a question,
after an appropriate amount time, at which time I'll use my best
judgment to wind up the questions and call the question.
I might have been talking at that time about 20 or 30 clauses
that had been lumped into one debate and I was limited to two
minutes. How could I intelligently talk about that amount of
clauses in two minutes and do it justice, do my constituents
justice and do justice for the people who are concerned about the
bill. It was an absolute impossibility.
I will now refer to some comments by the member for Humber—St.
Barbe—Baie Verte in Newfoundland. As he was interrupting my
speech, he said:
It appears that we're getting into very...discussion here
about...we have a very specific task at hand. It's to pass this
bill, with or without amendments.
I thought we were there to discuss the bill not to pass the
bill. That was definitely the attitude of my colleagues on the
government side because later on, on the same page, I am quoted
as saying:
As soon as any member of the government called the question,
meaning calling for the vote, it meant the end of debate. As
soon as I started to speak someone would call for the question
and that was the end of the debate in committee. It was an
affront to the democratic process in the House. No one was
prepared to enter into serious debate or analysis, or checking
the bill to see that it was appropriate.
1030
I will mention another comment that I made in committee. I
said:
Mr. Chairman, you know, they're rather testy around the table
this morning, and I would have thought that since there was very
little time to debate in the House we would have had more
opportunity to debate in committee.
On it went. They shut me down at every opportunity. There is
page after page of attempts by me to raise specific issues on the
bill, to debate amendments I had tabled regarding the bill, and
to improve the governance of $100 billion of assets.
I recommended at one time that the auditor general be the
auditor who would be required to do the special audits which the
bill calls for because he has expertise in that area. He has
perhaps the best expertise and is the most qualified person in
the country.
I would have thought for a $100 billion pool of capital that we
would have wanted the best in the country to do the special
evaluations and assessments. Unfortunately there was no
opportunity. Government members were not the slightest bit
interested in hearing, debating, discussing or suggesting any
improvements to the bill whatsoever.
Three minute changes were proposed by the government. I think
one word was changed. The word “and” was deleted and the word
“or” was inserted, or vice versa.
Government members recognized at second reading of the bill that
they had made some mistakes in drafting it. They were not
interested in talking about substantive change. They were not
even talking about analysing for minute change. They strictly
wanted to pass the bill, and if there were mistakes in the
complexity they would fix it up later on, a travesty that I
wanted on the record.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a rather
sad day today, as we are discussing Bill C-78.
The government is picking on people who already are not well
off. I have looked at the statistics a bit and I found that
retired public servants are currently getting about $9,000 a
year.
Obviously, the funds have accumulated some surpluses. Yet,
instead of trying to improve the annual income of its retirees,
or lowering the contributions made by today's workers, this
government is drooling at the prospect of other surpluses and is
dying to get its hands on them.
I got into politics in order to do my bit for justice, and I
feel obliged to speak to this bill because I see it as totally
unfair.
I will start with how the government has managed public funds
since the Liberals came into power in 1993, because of what is
going on now. The government is patting itself on the back for
having succeeded in reducing the deficit, started paying down
the debt, everything is great. But we need to have a look at
how this was accomplished, how the government and the Minister
of Finance in particular handle the public finances.
First, they began by cutting transfer payments to the provinces.
The government had some responsibilities toward them.
And what did the current government do in the first years it was
in power? It announced: “We are going to transfer less money”,
which means that it kept more for itself.
The second thing it addressed was another surplus, the one in
the employment insurance fund, an annual surplus of $6 billion
to $7 billion, and an accumulated surplus of $20 billion to $25
billion. The government siphoned off the money in this fund at
the expense of the workers. It then congratulated itself “See
how well we are running things”.
Meanwhile, the provinces and the jobless are paying for it.
They are the ones who bore the brunt of paying down the deficit.
They are the ones whose contributions or cuts in benefits are
being applied to paying down Canada's debt.
1035
Pay equity is also involved. During those years, the government
unfairly paid women working in the federal public service.
These are the women who paid off the deficit. They are paying
off the debt.
Let us now take a look at the pillage in the employee pension
fund, because that is what we can call it, we are not talking
about peanuts here. We are talking about $14.9 billion for the
public service. A lot of these people work in my riding. There
are some 200 or 300 who work in the federal public service at
the Saint-Jean military base.
The RCMP will be sacrificing $2.4 billion and the Canadian armed
forces, $12.9, for a total of $30.2 billion.
What we are seeing today with Bill C-78 amounts to pillaging this
fund. It recalls for me unfortunate examples from the past.
This morning, as I prepared my speech, I thought of Robert
Maxwell, the famous British media magnate, who travelled the
oceans of the world on his huge 60 foot boat. He was one of the
first to take money from pensions of his own workers.
I see the President of the Treasury Board travelling about on
his own Titanic. I would remind him that the Titanic's owners,
in their arrogance and invincibility, claimed it was unsinkable.
I remind the President of the Treasury Board and the members of
the government, especially, of that fact and tell them that it
is not too late to drop their arrogance and their thoughts of
invincibility.
There will be no problem if they consider the amendments the
Bloc Quebecois is proposing today, but I know that the members
of the government tend to say “This is the way we are going, and
you will follow us. We will let you have a few debates in the
House. When it no longer suits us, and it has gone on long
enough, we will call for closure”.
I appeal to government members and to the President of the
Treasury Board to look at the amendments the Bloc is proposing
and, for once, to drop their arrogance and their thoughts of
invincibility in this House.
I consider it disdain by the majority, when it goes ahead
totally oblivious of the opposition. We do represent the people
of Canada and Quebec. The government should listen to the
opposition a little more and make certain amendments to bills
instead of heading off, visor lowered, saying “You will follow
us.
If you are not happy, we will use closure”.
I call on hon. members to look at the amendments moved by the
Bloc Quebecois to avoid penalizing public service retirees, who
currently have an annual income of about $9,000.
Let us also not forget what the President of the Treasury Board
did about this issue. In 1996, an advisory committee was set up
and the minister said “Make recommendations to me and we will
see what we can do”. In 1998, the President of the Treasury
Board said in a press release “The consultations may lead to a
partnership that could result in the establishment of a
management board in the public service that would be independent
of the government”.
In actual fact, the first group of amendments moved by the Bloc
Quebecois seek to create a management board that would deal at
arm's length with the government. However, we forgot to take
into account someone who may be the future leader of the Liberal
Party. We forgot to take into account the Minister of Finance
who, in managing the public purse, probably said to the
President of the Treasury Board “My dear friend, we will look at
the $30 billion surplus and we will try to get our hands on it”.
This is just as I said earlier: cuts in the transfers to the
provinces and siphoning off of money from the employment
insurance fund, which belongs to the unemployed.
The Minister of Finance has a big say in all this, because he is
the one holding the purse strings. Workers must not forget that
he is probably behind this bill, even though it was introduced
by his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.
One also wonders about the signal that is being sent to private
businesses. Earlier, I alluded to Mr. Maxwell who is travelling
all over the world on his big boat, with his employees' pension
fund.
1040
A bill like this one will send signals if it is passed. I would
propose the most striking example from my riding, that of the
pillage of the fund of the former employees of the Singer
company. For a number of years, the Bloc Quebecois has been
trying to get through to the government and remind it of its
fiduciary responsibility for this fund.
The answer we get is “No, there is no problem. No, we have no
commitment in that. We were not the watchdog, settle your own
problems”. We might well wonder whether these responses were
conditioned by the government's intention to introduce the bill
before us today.
How would it have looked if the government had told the Singer
Company or if its representatives had told themselves, as those
responsible for the fund, “That is right, we have a share in the
responsibility. We should not have allowed the company to
pillage the Singer employees' pension fund”? This however was
not the government's intention. It could see the surplus that
was accumulating.
It was beginning to realize that it had to take the surplus,
that if it acknowledged its responsibilities toward the people
at Singer, it would have to give up the surplus and ensure that
it went to retired workers. We can see all the intentions of
this government.
In the case of other companies as well, we have often been told
by the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is
responsible for the matter “There are other companies, so we
cannot follow up on your request”.
This is a terrible example for private employers to follow now.
They will be able to do as the government does and let workers
down.
The dictatorship of the majority must stop. It is time to stop
treating employees with disdain. The government has an
opportunity today to set its arrogance aside.
It could also set aside its great superiority and invincibility
complex aside and listen to what the opposition parties have to
say, include it in the bill and amend the bill to give us
something potable in the future. This is not just for those now
retired, but also for those who will be retiring from the public
service.
The government must assume its responsibility. If the
government does not do that, the Bloc Quebecois will naturally
oppose Bill C-78.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
sense this will be the last opportunity I will have to talk to
Bill C-78 or any amendments to it. Even though four groups of
amendments were taken from the many that were put forward, we
have reason to believe that some time during the day today the
government will again move closure on debate and shut down the
opportunity for us to talk to the 30, 40 or 50 amendments which
really need to be debated. It is a pattern that has developed
right from day one of the debate on Bill C-78. We have every
reason to believe, given the history and the pattern, that it
will happen again today.
I will take this opportunity to say a few words in the short
period of time I have on some of the many amendments which our
party put forward to try to clean up what we feel is a very
flawed bill. I am tempted to say it is a flawed bill, but it is
not a flawed bill. In a way it is a masterful piece of work. It
is a true piece of art in the way it was put together so the
government could achieve what it set out to achieve. It will
take the $30 billion surplus from retirees, pensioners and
beneficiaries of the pension plans and use it for whatever
purposes it sees fit.
I want to condemn the government in the strongest possible
language I am allowed to use. Unfortunately I am limited in what
things I can say about the bill. There are many things I could
say about it. I cannot use the word theft. I do not intend to
try the Speaker's patience by using the word theft, stealing,
highway robbery or any of the other words that come to mind. I
will not say those things because I know I am not supposed to do
so.
I guess I would have to ask the Chair if I could use the word
excrement. Is the word excrement allowed in the House of
Commons? That is one word which certainly comes to mind. I do
not believe it is in the book. If members worked in a circus and
it was their job to follow the elephants in a parade, the stuff
they would be sweeping up would pretty well typify or exemplify
what we are dealing with today.
The word travesty was used earlier and I am not going to repeat
it over and over again.
1045
There are not many Liberals here today to listen to these final
words of debate on Bill C-78. I do not blame them for not being
here, although I have some admiration for the Liberals who hang
around to listen to this kind of thing. It must be hard not to
get jaded about the whole political and parliamentary process
when Liberal backbenchers are used as nothing more than a focus
group for cabinet when it wants to ram something through.
It is going to be those members sitting here today listening to
this who will have to go back to their ridings to justify, defend
and explain that the senior citizens are going to have their
pockets picked to the tune of $30 billion. I admire those who
have the courage to come here and face the music. I wish them
well when they go back to their ridings.
Opposition to this bill is building up steam as we speak. Right
across the country seniors are rallying. They are getting
together to study this bill, and it takes a long time to digest a
bill of this size.
That is exactly what the government is trying to avoid because
it saw what happened when it tried to tamper with the OAS and the
GIS and when it tried to create the new seniors benefit. That
committee toured the country and seniors had a chance to look at
it in some detail. Seniors had a chance to mobilize, to voice
their opinions and to tell the government that they did not want
a new seniors benefit which actually resulted in less benefit for
them. They did not want the GIS and the OAS to be merged into
one so-called seniors benefit. That is exactly what is happening
with this bill. The government has to stop it in its tracks
because there is too much opposition right across the country.
The largest single group of beneficiaries, the federal
superannuates national association, had 12 hours to prepare.
Representatives were called the night before to make a
presentation to the committee the next morning. They complained
vigorously that they did not have a chance to prepare a proper
presentation. They did not even have a chance to read the 200
pages of text that makes up Bill C-78. Seniors now, because they
pay attention to the news and read the papers, are a very well
informed group of voters and they are catching on in large
numbers.
Like every good son, I had brunch with my mother on Sunday. She
collects a pension through the public service pension plan. It
was a very nice brunch. She collects the survivor's benefit
because my father worked in the public sector all of his life and
she survives on the meagre survivor's benefit that she gets. She
lives in the same little wartime house at 998 Warsaw that I grew
up in. Betty Martin, who is 82 years old and lives in Winnipeg,
asked me at brunch, unprompted I might add, “Are they going to
take away my pension?”
I had to answer, to be fair, that nothing was going to happen to
the pension she is currently collecting. However, I told her
that the $30 billion surplus would be taken out of the fund. Her
question was “Is that not part of our pension?” That is an
innocent question which came right out of the blue. An 82 year
old woman saw immediately what was happening. Without reading
the text she knew that it was fundamentally wrong to take $30
billion out of the pension fund which could have gone to improve
the benefits of pensioners and retirees.
This whole thing got off to a bad start because of one statement
made by the chief human resources officer of the Treasury Board
Secretariat in June 1998. I will quote Mr. Alain Jolicoeur
because I want to get this right. He made one statement that
started the ball rolling on this whole atrocity. He said
“Employees and retirees have no proprietary interest to the
surplus in the superannuation plan”. He defied all conventional
wisdom on employee benefit plans by saying “The surplus is not
yours. You get your benefits, but the surplus is not yours”.
It is a basic tenet of anybody who is involved with employee
benefit plans that any surplus is deferred wages. It is part of
the pay package. It is money being held in trust to improve the
benefits of the beneficiaries of the plan. That is where we got
off to a bad start.
The President of the Treasury Board made it worse when he came
out publicly and said even more strongly “There is no chance in
hell that the union can claim a $30 billion surplus”.
1050
First of all, he is wrong. It is not the union that is trying
to claim the money. None of that money would go to the union.
The union is arguing that it should go to the beneficiaries. His
quote was “They do not have a chance in hell of getting their
hands on it”. The government had made up its mind in a cold and
callous way. It had targeted that money and then it set about
taking very logical steps to take it.
This is a pattern we have seen before. The government took $25
billion from the EI surplus, which was taken from the most
vulnerable people in society, the unemployed. Now it is taking
money away from arguably the next most vulnerable bunch of people
in society, the retirees, senior citizens, pensioners,
beneficiaries of the pension plan, many of whom live in poverty.
We should not let anybody tell us that this is some kind of
Cadillac pension we are dealing with. A disproportionate number
of retirees are female. The average woman, with 20 years of
service in the federal public service, is receiving a pension of
approximately $9,000 a year. This is not a Cadillac pension.
Nobody is living in luxury as a result of it.
If that $30 billion were divided up among the beneficiaries it
would result in about $30,000 per beneficiary. Spread out over
the period of their retirement it might mean $2,000 or $3,000 a
year per beneficiary. Again, $9,000 to $11,000 or $12,000 is not
a huge amount of dough.
I will not get a chance to speak to many of the motions which I
put forward, but obviously we have put forward amendments to this
bill that would take away the enabling language that was cleverly
put in to allow the government to take not only this $30 billion
surplus, but all other surpluses; all future surpluses which will
be invested by the public sector pension investment board.
At the very least, one of the amendments that we put forward
dealt with that board and the pension investment policies that it
might be bound to or that might be stipulated. The legislation
is really silent on that. The only goal would be to produce the
maximum profit. Obviously that has to be the first goal of any
trustees of a pension plan.
We would argue that there should be some ethical investment
policies as well. For instance, the government should not invest
in any company that might be engaged in a service that is
contracted out which would cost public service members their
jobs. What if it were a janitorial company that was bidding on a
contract to clean the House of Commons? The people who
traditionally do those jobs would be laid off and replaced with
people from a company in which their pension plan is invested.
That would be fundamentally wrong. I think the beneficiaries
would want to speak out against that. They will not get a chance
to speak out against it now. That is just one example of how
many things need to be discussed and we will not get a chance to
discuss them. It is deplorable. It is excrement.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for
participating in the debate. The answer to the question the hon.
member asked is, I would assume, based on the fact that the
Speaker did not provide a ruling, that excrement is indeed a word
that is applicable and usable in the House. However, I would
simply ask that hon. members present who are participating in
this debate not use bathroom humour, however playful or however
humourous it may seem at the time. This is a very serious piece
of legislation and I would like to elevate the debate to make
sure that we continue to focus on the issues at hand. Hon.
members, I am sure, would like to engage in a bit of playful
conversation during the course of the debate, but I think that
our responsibility and what we are charged to do here is to stick
to the issues at hand, the specifics of this legislation and the
needs of our respective constituents.
Hon. members opposite have raised the issue that certain
pensions should be based not on the contributions or the formula
that the pension plan was based on, but that consideration should
be given for lower income pensioners or lower pension levels and
that those levels should indeed be topped up. I understand the
merit and general detail of that particular proposal. I think it
is a very kindhearted idea. In my own personal view it has some
merit.
Basically, those who contribute to the pension plan are all
public servants.
They really want and need the pension plan to be devised and to
be implemented on a formula based approach which is accountable
and fair so they will know exactly where their money is going as
they contribute. That is the way the policyholders themselves
would like the pension plan to be administered. I ask hon.
members opposite to bear that in mind.
1055
One final point is that there was some reference made by a
member of the Reform Party, who I understand is also chairman of
the public accounts committee, who attended the committee
hearings on natural resources and government operations which
reviewed this particular legislation at second reading. A point
has to be made. When the committee was considering this
particular piece of legislation what it was faced and charged
with, in part, was to look at specific amendments; in other
words, specific ideas that the opposition had as to how it would
change the legislation.
There were very few amendments put forward by the opposition.
As a procedural matter the amendments were grouped in various
sections. We debated the amendments in those sections, which
proved to be a very efficient and effective way of dealing with
the legislation.
The point that has to be made is that debate in committee has to
be based on specific ideas that have been brought forward by any
member of the committee. We as government House members and
government committee members did indeed put forward specific
proposals for change to the legislation. We debated those and in
some measure we got them through in committee. Very few
amendments were put forward by the opposition to this particular
legislation. Therefore, that in itself was a limitation on
debate. The issue at that point in time became whether the
legislation as it was currently drafted by the government would
indeed be passed at the committee stage.
That is a point in which I think members of the House would be
interested. Many of the people who spoke here this morning were
not in attendance at committee where much of the work of the
House is conducted from the point of view of reviewing
legislation, reviewing different amendments and talking about the
general issues surrounding the legislation.
I am pleased that members opposite have now joined the debate at
this stage. It would have been very helpful if they had joined
the debate at the committee stage, but that is their choice. Now
we have a chance to renew the debate. We have to maintain a
focus on very specific issues. I say to members opposite that we
should try to not get involved in too much bathroom humour. It
is too serious a piece of legislation to do that and I think that
members of the pension plan and members of the general public
expect a bit more dignity and decorum in the House.
I would like to thank the House for its indulgence and I would
like to proceed with this very useful debate.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it
is with a degree of sadness that I rise today to speak to Bill
C-78. I believe that many members of the House, including
members on the government side, share this sense of remorse for
the process in which we are participating. We feel very badly
that we are participating in what effectively, and let us be
candid about it, is a parliamentary charade. Canadians can watch
this on CPAC. Somehow, in some way, the government is trying to
demonstrate that there is legitimate parliamentary debate on
important public policy issues, in this case Bill C-78, which is
a 200 page bill, a complicated piece of legislation which affects
all Canadian public servants and entails remarkable changes,
sweeping changes, relative to $100 billion ultimately.
Canadians may, in watching this, actually believe that there has
been legitimate debate. I would like to inform Canadians who may
be watching that there has not been legitimate debate. The
government has railroaded this through parliament, through the
committee process, through the House and has utilized closure
again. The government has, at an unprecedented rate, used the
instrument of closure to railroad legislation through parliament.
It has not allowed the committee to effectively study this
important piece of legislation.
1100
The government claims that the main purpose of the legislation
is to improve the financial management of the financial sector
pension funds and the superannuate funds of the federal public
servants, RCMP and military. Keep in mind that the average
annual pension for these individuals is around $9,000 per year.
These are not fat cats we are talking about. They are very
average Canadians.
We should be sceptical whenever the government claims to have
the interest of public servants at heart, particularly if we look
at the record of the government on public servants. Sunday's
Ottawa Citizen said that the Treasury Board president “has
clobbered public servants harder than any cabinet minister in
Canada's history”.
The politics of attacking public servants is similar to the
politics of attacking politicians. It is very easy to attack a
group that may not be particularly popular with the public
because of misperceptions, or to make gratuitous attacks on the
banking sector which the government has been willing to do.
It is very cynical that the government would use in a political
sense any tool it has to attack groups that may not be incredibly
popular but are groups that have legitimate causes and claims.
For the government to play a very dangerous and cynical political
game of pitting one group of Canadians against another simply for
political expediency and political palatability is atrocious.
The government has eliminated 55,000 federal jobs, has frozen
wages, has eliminated job security from the public service and
has appealed the pay equity ruling in opposition to Liberal Party
policy. I think it was a red book promise. It is a government
that continues to use heavy-handed back to work legislation and
suspends binding arbitration. This is the same Liberal Party
that under the leadership of Lester Pearson introduced collective
bargaining to the public service 30 years ago.
The current government leaders and the Prime Minister are being
the patron saints of hypocrisy in backtracking on every major
tenet of not just Liberal policy, but also of the fundamentals of
fairness we value as Canadians.
It is the government that introduced back to work legislation to
end a strike of 14,000 blue collar workers. Again, these are not
high income workers within the public service. The government
maintained the policy of regional rates of pay and a
ghettoization of public servants. It introduced the back to work
legislation without proper debate and sought closure.
The President of the Treasury Board reached a tentative
agreement with the public servants and withheld that information
from parliament before a crucial vote. That night he snookered
the Reform Party. Unwittingly the Reform Party supported the back
to work legislation because the government had pitted the
interests of one group against another, in this case the grain
farmers and the grain industry in the west against the interests
of blue collar public servants.
Again that was cynical. It was an abuse of the parliamentary
process and an abuse of members of parliament that should not
only offend the Reform Party members, and I am sure it does, but
it should also offend members of parliament on the government
side of the House who watched that night and who participated in
the vote without the proper information.
The level of morale in the public service is at an all-time low.
While Canadian corporations are pursuing innovative
labour-management and human resources management policies, the
government is continuing to attack the public service and ignore
the fact that the public sector represents 40% of the Canadian
economy.
1105
I see some hon. members present who serve on the finance
committee with me. We are studying the issue of productivity.
When 40% of our economy is public sector and the government has
created a level of morale that has never been lower within the
public service, I would argue that we have a productivity issue
within our public service. This government through its continued
gratuitous attacks on the public service has had a significant
deleterious effect on the morale and the productivity of the
federal public service. It has impacted the growth and future
prosperity of Canadians in doing so.
The only group this government has demonstrated more contempt
for besides public servants is members of parliament in this
House. The government is persistent in its propensity to use
closure and to railroad legislation through committees and
through this House without legitimate and important public policy
debate. Committees are being operated as branch plants of the
ministers' offices. Government members are told to pass bills
but not really discuss them. There is no objective, constructive
development of public policy as there should be and at a time
when public policy and the challenges facing us are very complex.
There has been a secular decline in the role of the MP which has
occurred over a 30 year period. This decline has occurred at a
precipitous level under this government.
With this legislation the government is failing to follow its
own guidelines set out in S-3, the pension benefits standards act
for the private sector. It sets out guidelines for the private
sector and for private sector employers which the government
itself is unwilling to use. Why is it doing that? Because it
wants to get its hands on that $30 billion surplus.
The government would tell Canadians that that money is being
applied to the debt. Keep in mind, in some ways it is a
theoretical number; it is just a paper shift. The fact is that
the government has not done anything to better Canadians by
taking that from one group and putting it against the national
debt.
The government has done something it believes to benefit itself
politically. Come the next election the government will claim
credit and say that it reduced the debt by the figure of $30
billion when it has not. Public servants through their pensions
and their sacrifices, work and contributions over the years have
provided the ability for the government to have that surplus and
the government is taking that in a very cynical way.
I have said cynical several times. I feel very cynical today to
be participating in this process where the government is again
pitting the Canadian public against the public service, creating
more division in a country that needs more unity. We should be
working particularly in a post-deficit and a surplus environment
to rebuild our relationships as parliamentarians and as
government with the public service.
The Federal Superannuates National Association, the FSNA, has
done a very good job on this, as have other organizations. The
federal superannuates were effective in their lobby against the
seniors benefit package which through clawbacks would have
reduced pension benefits for seniors.
This government is not focused on creating better prosperity for
Canadians. This government is focused solely on the next
election and not on the next century. This treatment of
parliament and of public servants has to end.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill.
As the hon. member for St. Albert has pointed out so rightly,
the time we have had to bring to light the various issues in this
bill before the Canadian people has been cut short again. It is a
tragic abuse of this House. There are some very significant
factors in this bill that need to be brought to the attention of
Canadians. I will focus on a couple of them this morning.
I want to preface my remarks to Group No. 2 amendments. We are
only on Group No. 1 amendments at the moment. I do want to point
out that I have some very serious concerns with Group No. 2 which
I will be addressing later in the day.
It is important for us to ask in this House when new legislation
comes along, how is it serving the Canadian people? With this
piece of legislation it is important to look at the before
picture and the after picture. What was it like before and what
is it going to be like after?
1110
My particular concerns revolve around the pension board itself,
the people who administer and manage the funds on behalf of the
employees of the Canadian government including the MPs in this
very House. Prior to this legislation the way the board operated
or how the fund was managed was under the scrutiny of the auditor
general. The House was aware of any changes that were made.
There was public scrutiny. That served the public interest and
the employees covered by this plan.
What does this legislation propose to do in that arena? It
proposes tragically to completely remove any kind of public
scrutiny of the management of these public service pension plans.
It proposes to set up a totally independent separate board, a
board of people managing this fund who are appointed to their
positions. I have seen no reference in the act to any sort of
qualifications or skill sets for this particular job. They are
appointed to the positions.
There is no option for the employees or those in the union to be
represented on the board. It is their own pension plan and there
is no allowance for them to be represented on the board.
There is absolutely no allowance for access to information which
there was prior to this bill. If someone wanted to find out some
of the details about how the fund was being managed or some
aspect of the ongoing management, there was the option to do that
with the current legislation. With the establishment of a new
arm's length board, the access to information regulations and
legislation will not apply.
In the before picture the auditor general had the purview to
look at this fund, to see how it was being managed and the
decisions that were being made. After this legislation, guess
what? It is gone. The auditor general does not have access to
or will not critique the management of this fund.
We can see a consistent number of changes with this legislation
that move the management of this fund of so many public service
employees of the Canadian government out of public scrutiny.
The thrust of the amendments by the hon. member for St. Albert
is that they try to bring back some of the accountability to the
members, the employees and the public in general as to how this
fund is being managed.
An hon. member: Backbench Liberals will support that.
Mr. Eric Lowther: I hear a member commenting that
hopefully backbench members from the Liberal Party will support
that. I do not hold out much hope for that because we have seen
them before, when the orders come down they fold their tents and
line up.
The amendments we brought forward in Group No. 1 are
specifically designed to bring the accountability in this pension
plan back to the Canadian people and to the employees covered by
the plan. I will cover the thrust of the amendments for those who
are listening and for those in the House today.
Motion No. 4 would force the board of directors of this new
separately established pension board to maintain contact on an
ongoing basis with the actuaries of each fund the board manages.
In other words, this forces them to look at how the fund is
actually being managed, to get the report from those who are
looking at how many people are drawing from the fund, how many
people are putting into the fund, how it is going to survive in
the long term.
Our concern is that this appointed board with no accountability
may not look at what is actually going on. It may make decisions
without full consideration of the long term implications of those
decisions. We are trying to bring some quality control back into
the process.
1115
The hon. member for St. Albert put forward Motions Nos. 8 and 11
which deal with reporting to the House who the appointed
chairperson is and who are the members of the board. At present
there is no obligation to inform us. Let us think about that.
This is a public service pension plan for the employees of the
federal government. This House, this institution, is not advised
who is managing the pension plan as a result of this new piece of
legislation.
Thankfully the member for St. Albert put forward some motions
which would at least let us know what is going on, who are the
players and hopefully their credentials for the job. This is the
thrust of our amendments. Consistent with the Reform, we are
calling for greater accountability in the management of public
funds.
Let us look at some of the other Reform amendments. I look at
Motion No. 16 which would force an act of parliament to be passed
in order for changes to be made to the contribution rates. Who
would this protect? It would protect the employees who are
contributing to the pension plan. Without this protection rates
can go up or down. If there is a surplus in the fund we know the
legislation would allow the Liberal government to get a hold of
it. This is a checkpoint, a way of controlling management of the
fund and protecting employees from potential abuses.
Before there is any increase in the rates they will be brought
before the House and an act of parliament would be required for
them to be adjusted. It just makes sense. Without that there is
no protection.
Let us look at Motion No. 32. Members can see the consistent
theme in all Reform motions: greater accountability in the
process. I do not have near enough time to cover all amendments
on the the whole theme of the bill.
A number of amendments drive home the need for greater
accountability, but I will not have enough time to deal with
them. For the 51st or 52nd time the Liberal government has
forced closure on important pieces of legislation so we cannot
bring to light the critical considerations the Canadian public
needs to be aware of to see how the Liberal government is
mismanaging public funds. We are calling for greater
accountability in this area.
With great chagrin I have to stop. I hope my colleagues in the
House have heard my appeal. We have to bring forth some
accountability by supporting the Reform amendments the hon.
member for St. Albert has put forward on behalf of Canadian
people and employees in this plan.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on Bill C-78, which is essentially, for
those who do not know, a bill giving the present government the
power to get its hands of $30 billion in surplus funds in the
federal employees' pension plans.
We are not talking here of $30 million, but $30 billion. This
is a bill that gives the federal government the power to get its
hands on that money and to use it as it sees fit.
In other words, this gives the government a great deal of power,
even allowing it, to a certain extent, to treat those who have
contributed to this pension fund most unfairly.
What gives the federal government the power to do this is a grey
area of the law. There is apparently nothing in federal law at
this time that governs the use of pension fund surpluses,
nothing that makes sure they are used in a reasonable manner or
in the taxpayers' interest.
1120
This grey area allows the federal government to act in this way,
to pass Bill C-78 and to get it hands on the $30 billion or so of
federal employee pension fund surplus.
In my opinion, this is a grave injustice because, when it comes
down to it, there appears to be absolutely no concern for the
interests of those who contributed to this pension fund. Nor
does the interest of the public seem necessarily to be served.
Such action is precedent setting.
If the federal government helps itself to the surplus in its own
employees' pension fund, what is there to prevent any company
from helping itself to the surplus in its employees' pension
fund, as used to happen? Several examples were given in the
House of companies that relied on this argument to dip into the
surpluses in their employees' pension funds.
What the federal government is doing with Bill C-78 is unfair.
It is setting a poor example for companies and decision makers.
There are several indications that it is acting in bad faith.
The President of the Treasury Board has not even bothered to
appoint to the board union representatives or employees who have
contributed to this pension fund.
Rather than opening up the board responsible for managing this
pension fund to people who truly represent contributors or to
union representatives, the President of the Treasury Board has
decided to appoint a group of people. The reason is obvious;
these people will defend the interests of the federal government
rather than those of actual contributors to the fund.
I am not in the least surprised. What did the federal
government do for unemployed workers? Exactly the same thing.
Unemployed workers contribute to employment insurance, but the
government is making it increasingly difficult for more than
about 36% to 39% of them to qualify for benefits. Sixty per
cent of workers do not qualify, although they contribute to the
employment insurance plan.
This is of course unfair. It is also a misappropriation of
funds. The unemployed or the workers who contributed to the
employment insurance plan expect the government to use the money
to create jobs, particularly since, in the case of employment
insurance, the federal government does not contribute one penny
to the plan. It is the workers and employers who contribute to
that plan. The money belongs to them and it should be managed
with their best interests in mind, not those of the federal
government.
This government is trying to find oblique ways to get as much
money as possible, whether it is fair or not, as in this case.
This is unfair, and even immoral and dishonest. The government
collects a lot of taxes and has a lot of debts. Taxes have
increased considerably since it took office. Since 1993, there
have been about 38 increases. The overall tax burden in Canada
has gone up about 15%.
We are paying something like $30 billion more in taxes than we
did in 1993.
Canada is among the countries with the highest tax rates in the
G-7, the OECD and the industrialized world. This statement is not
from me, but from the OECD, which says that we are one of the
most heavily taxed nation in the industrialized world.
Instead of lowering taxes and acting fairly and equitably, the
government is using oblique ways to take money out of the
pockets of taxpayers, including its own employees. It is
grabbing the surplus in that pension fund to use it for its own
purposes.
1125
As has been said, this is dishonest. It is a kind of piracy.
The Minister of Finance is Captain Morgan, who has decided to
break into the treasure chest of his own crew. The Minister of
Finance is Captain Hook, pillaging his own crew a second or
third time. I am not sure how many times, but this is not the
first time that this piracy has taken place. Taking $30 billion
in surplus from one's own employees' pension fund is indeed an
act of piracy
We in the Bloc Quebecois are proposing some amendments because,
basically, there are honest ways of handling a surplus, ways
that are not hard to understand. There are many examples, in
Quebec and elsewhere, of handling funds in compliance with
legislation. The purpose of our amendments is to suggest to the
government fair, respectable and honest ways of handling the
surplus in the federal employees' pension fund.
There are plenty of examples. The 1985 act suggests all kinds
of ways to apply pension benefit standards and ways to see that
surpluses are, in some way, returned to those who contributed to
them. There is a whole series of measures that could be
implemented so as to respect the interests of those who paid
into a pension fund.
First of all, the legislation created must not only ensure that
the money gets back, one way or the other, to those who
contributed it, but also a committee must be struck to represent
unionized workers. The President of Treasury Board does not
seem to be contemplating this possibility. The government has
decided instead to reject outright anyone who could speak for
the workers, opting instead for appointing people who will speak
for the government. To what end? To get their hands on the
surplus in the public servants' pension fund, that $30 billion,
and no doubt to use it for other purposes. Once again, this is
a roundabout way of taxing people. Unfortunately, this is a
most unfair way as well.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill
C-78. I understand this will be my one and only time to speak to
it.
We have heard other adjectives to describe the bill, but my
favourite is that the legislation came from the south end of a
northbound cow. It does absolutely no good for the Canadian
people. It does absolutely no good for the regard of parliament.
This is another example of the Liberal government having
absolutely no consideration and no respect for the hallowed place
we call the House of Commons. All four political parties in
opposition represent people in constituencies from coast to coast
to coast. Government members disregard us, so that means they
disregard our constituents as well and the people in their
ridings.
It is a disgrace to listen to them table over 200 pages of
legislation which takes a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out and
then ram it through. We find out through discussions that when
all is said and done not even the auditor general will be able to
review the aspects of the bill.
It is an absolute disgrace that current members of the plan who
are working pay 7.5% of their salary into the plan. After the
$30 billion have been ripped away from their wallets, they will
end up paying 8.9%. In essence it is another tax upon Canadians,
especially workers in the federal public service.
1130
I read something very interesting yesterday in the National
Post. I love this. The government can find more ways to
spend money and waste tax dollars than any other government in
the history of the House of Commons. The article stated:
Government wants to know what creates unhappy workers. For the
first time the federal government is going to survey all its
employees across Canada to find out what makes them so frustrated
and unhappy on the job.
The government is to spend $1 million to do that. If it wished,
it could give me $100,000, which I would spend in my riding much
more effectively than it can, and put the other $900,000 toward
the debt, reducing taxes or into social programs. I could tell
the government for free why people are so unhappy and so angry at
the federal government.
First there is the pay equity concern. It totally ignored pay
equity. It broke its promise on pay equity. On the table 2
negotiations there was another broken promise by the federal
government. It absolutely forced the lowest paid workers in the
federal public service back to work against their wishes without
even consultation in terms of consideration for fair collective
bargaining.
We could talk about our military personnel who are in Kosovo
right now working in our peacekeeping efforts, over 60,000 men
and women and their families. There is an absolute disregard for
their future in terms of their pensions. It will take this money
and spend it willy-nilly.
Our RCMP officers are under attack all the time in the press and
sometimes by citizens because of some misgivings of a few of
them. The RCMP does a fantastic job. To treat its members this
way when it comes to their retirement and taking their money away
to be spent in other areas is an absolute disgrace.
I could talk about many aspects of the federal public service. I
cannot shout it loud enough. It is a disgrace what the federal
government is doing. It has total disregard for its workers and
retirees who amount to about 1.8 million people.
I find appalling as a new MP that this kind of effort goes on
and on and on. The government has done it in many other aspects.
There have been over 50 time allocation motions brought forth by
the government since 1993. Now it has brought forth a piece of
legislation that is 200 pages thick and has cut off debate after
four hours. It never took the government four hours to write up
this legislation.
My hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre brought forth
recommendations and amendments to the bill. Everyone in the
House should heed his warning. If he says they are right then
they are absolutely bang on. There is not a more honourable
member of the House than our labour critic from Winnipeg Centre.
That was a free paid public advertisement for my colleague from
Winnipeg Centre.
We can go into the various details and aspects of the bill, but
I want to ask the government one question. Why when all is said
and done will the government not allow the auditor general to
review the legislation in upcoming years? Why is it hiding it?
Why is it ramming the bill through so fast?
There have been many speculations on that side that the war in
Kosovo is a perfect opportunity to present the legislation. It
will not make the press. It will not make the news. It can be
kept quiet and hushed. As its own internal reports say, if the
government wants to do something bad it should do it fast, do it
dirty, do it quick and get it over with; forget consensus from
the Canadian people and forget even consulting with them. It
will not even allow elected parliamentarians to speak to it.
If that is not the case, why does the government not hold
committee hearings across the country to get a fair view of what
the people are saying? It will not do that because it is afraid
to face the public.
I have said to many of my constituents that the government plans
to spend the money some three to six months prior to the next
federal election. We will see the Minister of Finance and other
cabinet ministers going across the country from coast to coast to
coast and asking, for example, what Winnipeg Centre needs. Does
it need a new road? Does Halifax need a new building? Do they
need this or that? Do they need tax cuts? They will have over
$50 billion between the EI surplus and the pension surplus to
spend at their will.
Liberals keep saying that it is Canadian taxpayers money.
However, no one was fooled when they came down with the recent
health care budget of $11.5 billion over five years, after taking
away $21 billion.
This was money that was taken away from employees and employers
through the EI fund. That is where the money came from. It was
not new money. Maybe next year it will be a green budget. It
could be a tax reduction budget. However, I can assure members
the money will be taken away from federal public servants and
retirees. That is where the money will come from. It is nothing
new.
1135
It is the oldest shell game in the book. It robs Peter to pay
Paul. There is nothing new about it. It is the oldest form of
government. It forms on fascism and dictatorship.
I have always said that it appears at times we live in a
capitulated democracy. As long as Liberal backbenchers do what
the cabinet says, they can do whatever they want. I would be
ashamed to be a Liberal backbencher. They are like sheep or
grazing cattle. They sit back and do whatever cabinet tells
them.
I would like to be a fly on the wall when federal public
servants call their offices to hear what their explanation is,
what they tell these people. We know what we would tell them. We
would offer our support and tell them that the government should
not take this money.
The government should scrap Bill C-78, just ignore it and leave
the money where it is. It should reinvest in public servants,
pensioners and widowers. It should improve the benefits. It
should give better dental care, health care and eye wear. It
should improve pension benefits. That is what the money was
there for. It was not meant for the government to take and spend
at its pleasure, similar to what it has done with the EI fund.
I could talk all day on this subject. Any time we get to bash
the government on something that is right we should take the
opportunity to do it, but it is rare that all four political
parties on the opposition side agree on something. We have agreed
on hepatitis C and on various aspects of EI. Now we totally
agree on this one.
If the government wants to lose the next election, this is
exactly how it should go about doing it. It takes the money from
taxpayers and whenever the election is held it tries to buy votes
with their own money. Canadian electors are too smart for that.
They will see through this smoke and mirrors in a heartbeat. They
will know right away. If the federal government wants to try to
win the next election, it should start backtracking on
legislation like this and start listening to the opposition.
It is deplorable that the treasury board minister who holds the
key to the vault says that it is the taxpayers money and no way
in hell are the unions to get that money. I echo the words of my
colleague for Winnipeg Centre. It is not union money. The
unions are saying that it should go to all federal public
servants who have retired and all those who are currently
working. That is where the money belongs, not to the treasury
board minister. It is a disgrace that he would try to belittle
the effort of the union.
Although this is the only time I will speak to the bill publicly
in the House, we will be raising the alarm bells loud and clear
in our ridings.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have this limited opportunity to debate a very
important issue for Canadians. They should know the abuse of
democracy in this place. I have always viewed democracy as being
a very fine way of getting the consensus of the governed. If we
do not have the consensus of the governed in a democracy then
government falls apart.
Democracy is voluntary. Each of us voluntarily subjects
ourselves to the authority of the government because in a true
democracy the government is under authority to the people who
elect it. That is being seriously eroded by the present
government.
I am speaking to the fact that we are dealing today with a bill
being rammed through parliament by a government that has gone
totally crazy with power. Just because it has a majority it can
do whatever it wants and its spineless backbenchers vote on
command. I wish there were someone over there with some
principles. They were several two parliaments ago when the GST
was being rammed through, greatly against the wishes of the
people.
There were several members who had the personal strength to vote
the way they believed peopled wanted despite what their
government was telling them. That was democratic. I will not
make any individual references, but I have high respect for
people who do things such as that.
1140
I would like to see some Liberal backbenchers finally get up in
this place and say enough. This is not democracy. This is not
the will of the people. This is not the wish of the people. This
is a dictatorship. That is a strong word. I almost do not like
to use it, but that is what it is. That is what is being done
here. It is unconscionable. It is unfortunate.
We have many reports of people losing respect for government.
This is one way respect could be restored. It is one way we
could just back off and cool down the whole process. It is time
for us to do what is right and to do it in the right way.
We are dealing with public service pensions. I will not use the
strong words of some members to my political left and my physical
right, but it is absolutely atrocious. I feel very strongly
about it as well. It is unconscionable that the bill should be
rammed through. I hate to use the word arrogance because when I
use it, it makes me sound arrogant. However there is arrogance
in a government which believes that it alone can come up with the
best way of doing things and that it cannot be touched. That is
wrong.
For many years I taught at a technical institute. For many of
those years I was a supervisor and I learned that I could not
make all the best or perfect decisions. I consulted those I
supervised whom I considered my peers because many of them had as
much experience as I had. Certainly most of them had as much
wisdom and maybe even as much intelligence, although that would
be debatable. We had many good discussions and debates.
There were many times as their supervisor, even though I thought
we should go in a certain direction, that I was persuaded by the
collective wisdom of the others to change direction. Sometimes
it was dramatically; sometimes it was minor changes. That is an
effective way of managing not only the affairs of a small math
department in a technical institute but the affairs of
government.
I cannot believe members on the other side are ready to invest
in two or three people the autocratic right to dictate the way
this should be and not to say that we think some of these
amendments are fine.
We are at report stage on Bill C-78 which concerns the pensions
of civil servants. It just happens there are many amendments. I
know I cannot use props so I will resist the temptation to use a
copy of the bill as a prop. Because of its weight it has sunk
right to the bottom of the pile on my desk.
It is a large bill. It has 200 pages. Consequently it is
possible that one or two of its clauses or phrases are not quite
perfect. What is the role of parliamentarians? It is to listen
to each other. That does not mean there is a line down the
middle of the House with all the collective wisdom on that side
and nothing but stupidity on this side. That cannot be. That is
illogical.
Therefore we have put forward a number of amendments. My hon.
colleague from St. Albert said in committee that he wanted to
have debated some of these amendments and others that he put
forward. Basically he was shut down by the committee.
Government members were so intent on ramming it through that they
would not even let him debate the issues in committee.
We are continuously told that the role of parliamentarians is in
committee; that is where the real work takes place.
1145
If there is no effective give and take, negotiation and
agreement to make changes in committee, then it has to take place
here. I know it is speculation at this stage but we expect the
government to limit our ability to debate. A number of members
have already said that. I regret this. This is a big bill with
many clauses and amendments. This will probably be my last
opportunity to speak on the subject. I do not think that ought
to be so.
There are several groups of amendments. It is absolutely
shameful for this government to even think of shutting down
debate before members have been given an opportunity to express
themselves on these amendments. It is even more shameful that
even though we do that, the government on the other side and all
of those wimpy backbenchers will probably—I will not
presuppose—just fold and do as they are told.
When it comes to pensions it is important to consider some basic
thoughts. There is an MP pension plan. I am very proud to be
one of the Reformers who opted out of that pension plan because
it is unconscionable. It exempts this group of Canadians, namely
the 301 in this House of Commons, from parts of the Income Tax
Act so they can have a very very rich pension which is primarily
paid for by others. It is true that members who participate make
some contribution but the rate of contribution of the employer,
namely the taxpayers, is way out of proportion. Because I do not
believe we should be a privileged group, I opted out of it at
great expense. It is an example of other people being expected to
provide for the pension benefits of a person when he or she
retires.
It was the same thing with the Canada pension plan.
Mathematicians and actuaries did calculations and the politicians
of the day for political reasons did not act on those
recommendations. They underfunded the thing and now we are
facing a 70% increase in premiums in order to fix it because of
political considerations.
Now there is this pension plan. The question very simply is who
should pay for it? The principle we generally recognize as fair
especially in government is that there be an equal payment. About
50% of the money to fund the pension should come from the
employee and about 50% should come from the employer, 1:1. If we
had an MP pension plan like that, I would probably be permitted
by my constituents to participate in it.
The question with regard to this pension plan is whether the
government has the right to take the $30 billion in surplus.
Clearly the actuaries have made a mistake and there is an
adjustment to be made. We need to make sure the mathematics is
done correctly. They have overcharged. Whose money is it? In
my view close to half belongs to the taxpayer or the government
and half belongs to the employees who have contributed to it.
For the government to unilaterally take it away without giving
them their share deserves a very strong word which I am not
permitted to use. It has to do with taking things that do not
belong to you.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I find it interesting. We are debating a bill of a lot
of significance. It has been through a committee process. It has
had over one year of negotiations between the unions representing
the workers and the government. It is in the House for
discussion at report stage where we would generally put forward
and discuss amendments. I have listened to the last three
speakers from the opposition and I have not heard anyone discuss
the actual amendments they want to put forward.
An hon. member: That is not true.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It is true.
Instead they are using the stale argument that somehow the
government is ramming something through. One of them made the
statement that just because we have a majority we think we can do
things around here. Is that not bizarre in a democracy?
When we get a majority it means we are responsible to do things.
It means we are the government.
1150
Not that it would ever happen, but were the members opposite
through some freak of fate on this side of the House with a
majority government, would they turn the reins of government over
to a minority opposition party, to a party that represents only
one region of the country, a party that does not have the
interests of the entire nation in its platform? I do not think
they would. If we wanted to see things rammed through this place,
just let those guys get control of the reins of government for
one minute.
What we have here is a public pension fund. It is particularly
curious that members of the Reform Party, of all people, would
not support using a surplus. How did that surplus build up? It
was through contributions over the years guaranteed by the
employer, which is the federal government. A surplus of some $30
billion has been identified. Rather than leaving it in a black
box or leaving it on the books, the government says it makes
sense to reduce the size of the federal government's debt with
that money. This is only one program of many.
At least I understand the principles behind the New Democrats
who would purport to represent the men and women in the unions in
this situation. At least with their principles they say that the
money belongs to the workers. I do not agree with them but I
understand the philosophy and the principles they stand behind on
the issue.
I find such difficulty coming to grips with the other parties,
notably the Reform Party. It would purport to want to cut taxes,
eliminate the debt, reduce spending in every aspect of the
government, except health care of course where it is going to
spend more except it is cutting so it will not have more to
spend. The math is quite mind boggling. It comes out opposed to
reducing the debt.
I am really curious. The member opposite said he would like to
find a member in the Liberal backbench who would stand up and
vote against the government so that he could respect that member.
I would like to find a member over there who could possibly
justify the total abdication of Reform's stated policy for fiscal
responsibility by suggesting that a $30 billion surplus generated
primarily through good management of the pension fund and by the
taxpayers should be left alone.
I do not understand it. I am sure if their constituents back
home in western Canada had an opportunity to question them on it,
the constituents would wonder why Reform members are doing this.
It goes contrary to everything they have stood for. Where is the
public?
It is interesting. We do not hear about the bill. We do not
hear about the fact that there has been over one year of
consultation with the public sector unions. There are things we
could not agree with.
Should it be such a tremendous surprise that in an
employer-employee bargaining relationship there might be things
that cannot be resolved at the bargaining table? There might be
things we would have to agree to disagree on and move on. That
is exactly what has happened here. That process has taken place.
Nobody is ramming anything through. If the opposition members
were doing their duty as opposition members they would be putting
on the floor the real issues of debate in this bill that have
been raised in committee.
That is the other point. The bill went to the natural resources
committee. A member stood and showed this 200 page bill. If the
members opposite are so upset with it, we would expect out of a
200 page bill there might be 50, 60, 100 amendments. We see it
all the time. We see it with other bills. Why is it there are a
total of 15 amendments that have been put on the floor and most
of them are absolutely not the type of amendment that would have
a great impact? They are minor amendments.
I do not understand why those members will not discuss the bill.
They continually want to talk about the so-called issue of
closure which is not what we are doing at all.
We are at report stage in the House which is a normal process.
1155
Members opposite think that Canadians are in a uproar over this.
A lot of Canadians would love to have a pension both as secure
and as generous as this pension is. A lot of my constituents
would look at this and ask why should they, taxpayers, leave a
$30 billion surplus for somebody to play around with in the
future when in fact it should be used to pay down the debt.
One member opposite said that at election time somebody is going
to be using this money to build roads or to do favours in
someone's riding. We are talking about reducing the national
debt.
An hon. member: On the backs of the workers.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I say on the backs of
the taxpayers because it is the taxpayers who have to carry the
burden of that debt.
We should take every opportunity in this place to identify
surpluses in each and every plan, in each and every department.
An hon. member: It is not your money.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, the member says it is
not my money and he is right. The money belongs to the taxpayers
of Canada. I am only one of them but I speak on behalf of others
and they want us to pay down the debt, without a doubt.
The Vancouver Sun said “If the money had not gone into
the pension plan, it would have been paid as wages to the
employees”. That is the position the opposition takes. “It is
an argument with merit”, the Vancouver Sun went on to say,
“but it runs up against one with even more merit. The employer,
the federal government, must make up any shortfall in the
plan”—in other words, the taxpayer is the guarantor of the
pension plan—“which as a defined benefit plan guarantees the
amount of pension received. The
employer”—taxpayer—“shoulders the risk and should get any
reward”.
That is not a statement by a member of the cabinet. That is not
a statement made by a member of the backbench in support of the
cabinet. That is a statement right out of the Vancouver
Sun. Members opposite who represent ridings in western
Canada should listen to that.
The Montreal Gazette said “But fair is fair. If
taxpayers were willing to take a risk to keep the plan solvent,
they should get their money back if it is no longer required”.
The Edmonton Journal said “The reason is simple: that is
government money. If it is not needed to provide a fair pension
to government employees, a fair pension not a sumptuous one, it
is urgently needed for other purposes”. The Toronto Star
asked “Whose pension surplus?” Whose surplus is it?. We know
whose it is. It is the taxpayers' surplus.
This bill is responsible. Those members are trying to cloud the
issue with some nonsensical statements about forcing something
through. There has been over one year of consultations and there
have been committee hearings. It is now in the House at report
stage. In this case, democracy is working well.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, it
is of course with pleasure that I rise this noon hour to speak
to Bill C-78, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act.
I should point out that three categories of public service of
Canada employees are affected by this bill. There are the
employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian
armed forces and the enormous public service, spread from one
end of the country to the other.
The Bloc Quebecois, naturally, will be opposing Bill C-78, unless
the government agrees to the amendments it proposes.
As I have few illusions, I can tell you we will be opposing this
bill.
1200
First, we in the Bloc have moved amendments to clauses 90, 145
and 192 in order to establish a management board that would
report to the House annually. The President of the Treasury
Board had established an advisory committee, which, in December
1996, in fact recommended to the President of the Treasury Board
the establishment of a management board.
One would not give the job of managing blood to Dracula. One
should not give responsibility for the $30 billion to the
President of the Treasury Board. This is the worst mistake the
Parliament of Canada could make.
The management board could properly manage the accumulated
surpluses. It could establish contributions.
And the reason there are these huge surpluses is that premiums
are too high. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure
this out.
The board of directors could also manage the surpluses, and
deficits if any. In the event of deficits, premiums would be
increased. This is always part of negotiations.
The valiant Liberal member who spoke before me has never
belonged to a union. He has never needed to negotiate his
salary and working conditions. When the employer says that he
has 10% for increases and is going to put them only toward
salaries, this will not include holidays, benefits or pension
contributions. As a general rule, contributions to the pension
fund are on a fifty-fifty basis. The good member opposite should
know that.
So, if there are surpluses of $30.1 billion, it is because
employees and the government put in too much. However, if the
fund is well run, $30.1 billion at 10%—and I think that just
about any manager can easily get more than 10% interest on such
an imposing amount—would yield annual returns of $3 billion,
while the federal government is now paying out $3.1 billion to
retirees and surviving spouses. So the fund shrinks by only
$100 million a year. As well, the workers in the three groups I
mentioned earlier generate $1.8 billion annually, enriching the
fund by $1.7 billion each year.
We find two things particularly maddening.
The first is that the government is using its majority to gag
the opposition, by allowing only four hours of debate on a bill
over 200 pages thick, a bill that will allow the President of
the Treasury Board to appropriate $30 billion. This is $30,000
million. It is a huge amount of money.
We saw what this government did with the unemployed and the
poor. It took the surplus in the employment insurance fund, $21
billion, and of course used some of it to reduce the debt, but
also to intrude into provincial jurisdictions, including with
the millennium scholarships.
This government is warped and mean, and it is about to plunder
the surpluses in its employees pension funds.
1205
These surpluses were largely accumulated with the employees'
contributions, as I will illustrate in detail. There is a
surplus of $14.9 billion in the public service pension fund;
another of $2.4 billion in the RCMP fund—there are not as many
participants—and another of $12.9 billion in the Canadian forces
pension fund. When we add up these three amounts, we get a total
surplus of $30.2 billion.
Ministers in this good Liberal government, with the complicity
of its backbenchers, will rise this evening and say “Yes, we
agree to gouge public service workers, RCMP employees and
Canadian forces members”.
These three groups currently include 275,000 participants.
Some have retired, so that makes around 160,000. Then there are
52,000 surviving spouses as well.
With proper management, we could give workers several years'
break from contributing. For most of them this would be a
considerable break, amounting to over $1,000. The surpluses
could finance the funds just from the revenue generated. If
properly managed, they could earn well over 10%. This could go
beyond the $3.1 billion monthly payments to retirees cost the
fund.
Did the big cheese, the President of Treasury Board, the hon.
member for Hull—Aylmer, consult the unions? No way. Were there
any negotiations with anyone? No way. He has shown no respect
for the committee he himself struck, by not paying attention to
a single one of its recommendations.
This is another disguised theft the Liberal government is
preparing to commit.
Yesterday I got an e-mail from Jean Morin, a young man from my
riding, from Thetford Mines to be exact. He asked me to speak
out in the House against the flaw in the employment insurance
system, which counts short weeks, when he works just a few hours
in a week, in order to do the calculations for his last 26
weeks. He described this as robbery, as abuse.
These robberies are not being committed against the rich, people
like the Minister of Finance, but against the poor, because
there are greater numbers of them and they are often
defenceless.
I am therefore asking the member across the way to stand up and
vote against Bill C-78.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
yesterday we had cowboys on this side of the House and today we
have horsemen on that side. I feel quite comfortable on this
side with the cowboys.
I will begin by thanking some people from my riding who came to
see me last Friday to discuss this bill. They are five retired
gentlemen who are involved in this pension fund. They were very
concerned about the speed by which this was being put through
with very little debate, and that the government was using
closure to force it through. They would have liked a little more
time for input to their members of parliament and to ask the
government to reconsider.
I am also here today representing the people of Lethbridge, home
to, among others, hundreds of people who will be affected by this
legislation.
This legislation, Bill C-78, is nothing but a bald-faced attempt
by the Liberal government to continue its tax and spend policies
on the backs of Canadian workers and taxpayers.
1210
The act has been controversial from the day it was proposed, and
rightfully so. What the government is proposing to do is
underhanded and displays a flagrant disregard for the
hard-working men and women who have helped the federal government
finally land back on its feet after nearly collapsing under the
weight of years and years of unethical free spending policies of
successive Tory and Liberal governments.
The government has reached new lows using all the procedural
tricks in the House to push the bill through the House and
through committee, showing a blatant disrespect for the
democratic traditions of the House.
The bill will affect the following three pension funds: the
public service pension plan; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
plan; and the Canadian Forces plan. The gentlemen who came to
see me last Friday are in all three of these plans.
The bill will give the government authority to seize the $30
billion surplus that exists in these plans and establish a public
service pension investment board to invest the public sector
pension funds in the markets. It will increase the employees'
premiums from 30% to 40%. It will sweeten benefits for employees
and retirees and will allow the Canada Post Corporation to
establish its own pension plan by October 1, 2000.
The government in its usual way is assuring Canadians and
pensioners that this is a much better method of safeguarding
their money because, after all, if we cannot trust our government
who can we trust.
It sounds very sugary, but the Canadian pensioners are not
buying this line of government propaganda. Canadians of all
political stripes, of all backgrounds and of all ages are banding
together to tell the government one thing: “Keep your hands
where we can see them and stay away from our money”.
It warms my heart to see Canadians of all kinds, weary of years
of Liberal oppression, uniting together to demand an alternative.
I want to tell all those opposed to the government's actions that
they have friends on the benches of the official opposition.
I want to invite all Canadians who want a national government
that will deliver lower taxes, better health care, greater
democracy and a stronger federation characterized by a
rebalancing of powers and equal treatment under the law to come
join myself and my colleagues. Together we will deliver
responsible government that cares, a government that listens to
the people instead of telling them how it will be.
The first reason I oppose the bill is because it allows the
federal government to continue its sleight of hand budgeting
shell game. Even the Auditor General of Canada will not sign off
on the government's budgets because of its bookkeeping methods.
The three funds contain a surplus of over $30 billion, money
that has been contributed to the funds by the workers and by the
taxpayers. This massive surplus has accumulated so quickly for
several reasons. In order to explain this I will explain the
basics of what affects the value of a pension fund.
A pension fund's value turns on three critical factors: interest
rates, inflation and salary increases. The key reason for the
size of the surplus was that actuaries assumed that wages would
grow at 2% above the rate of inflation when in fact they have
been frozen for the last six years.
That is another thing. A lot of people who worked for the
government and who have retired in the last few years have had
their wages frozen for six years. The settlement that they
reached just a few weeks ago was not any great shakes after six
or seven years of being frozen.
Since salaries were frozen, inflation was no longer a concern.
The fund also grew because of the heady interest rates from the
1980s. The 20 year government bonds held by the funds have been
providing handsome returns for the last five to ten years of
relatively low interest rates.
Undoubtedly this is an enviable position to be in, as $30
billion is a huge amount of money. However, it goes without
saying that when there is money involved there are bound to be
two sides of the story.
The unions are telling Canadians that this money belongs to the
civil servants who contributed to the fund. The government is
telling Canadians that this money does not belong to the workers
and it does not belong to the taxpayer, that it belongs to the
government and the government alone.
The government does not feel that this money belongs to the
workers alone because it alone was on the hook when the fund ran
a deficit so it feels solely entitled to the surplus.
The gentlemen who came to see me last Friday pointed something
out to me, and it is stated in some of their documents, that this
indeed is a bit of a red herring that the government is trying to
float.
However, what the government so easily forgets is that it does
not have any money of its own. This is money that belongs to the
taxpayers. It was the taxpayers who had to kick in when the
government found itself $13 billion short, so it should be the
taxpayers who benefit here.
Taxpayers will not benefit by having this money forfeited to the
federal government.
1215
The federal government has proven over and over again that it is
not to be trusted with taxpayers' money. For all we know, this
money will be used to print more joke books or to give away more
free flags. Even today on the front page of the paper there is
another story of some $50,000 or more going to a project that did
not deserve any government or taxpayers' money.
This surplus should stay right where it is, away from the
clutches of the government, right where the taxpayers can see it
and readily available should any shortfall occur again.
There is another reason for opposing this bill. Part of the
sugar-coating the Liberals are using to slip this bill past the
public is that they are sweetening the benefits for employees and
retirees. The bill states that survivor benefits are extended to
an expanded class of beneficiary. The bill will extend benefits
to the survivors of a so-called conjugal relationship, which
sounds fine, but it becomes a little tricky when one tries to
define what is a relationship of a conjugal nature. Is it a
relationship between a man and a woman in the traditional family
sense of the word? Does that include common law relationships
between a man and woman? Does it include relationships between
cohabiting same sex partners? Could it include two roommates?
This bill could cover any of these situations, but it does not
clearly define what is a conjugal relationship. Even if it did,
how would a government prove whether a relationship is conjugal
in nature?
Is this government, the party that is most famous for saying
that it will stay out of the bedrooms of the nation, now going to
hire private investigators to determine whether a relationship is
conjugal? This is absolutely absurd. Without defining what
conjugal relationships are, Bill C-78 survivor's benefits
provisions could be subject to all kinds of litigation from
individuals who deem their relationships to be of a conjugal
nature.
My time is limited, but I would like to conclude by stressing
one last point. Taxpayers are the odd man out in this debate.
When these pension funds were created the government structured
the funds in such a way that employees paid a combined 7.5% of
their wages for their pension plan and the government's Canada
pension plan. However, after years of successive CPP increases,
with more to come, brought on by years of government
mismanagement and neglect, the employee contribution to the
pension fund slipped to 30%, with the government picking up the
other 70%.
It was because of this mismanagement that taxpayers were forced
to kick in $13 billion recently to cover shortfalls. In addition
to that $13 billion, the government has taken an additional $10
billion by not making interest payments on the actuarial surplus
of the fund. To anybody else this amounts to highway robbery,
but to the Liberal finance minister it is called being fiscally
prudent.
The government is about 30 years late in breaking the linkage
between the CPP and pension plan contributions. It has already
cost the taxpayer over $20 billion. It is high time that the
taxpayer is shown some respect. It is because of this flagrant
disrespect shown to the taxpayer and because of the extraordinary
contempt that the government holds for the traditions of
democracy that the Reform Party cannot support this bill.
As we work through this we must remember that this bill has been
rammed through the committee with very little chance for comment
and it is being rammed through the House.
The hon. member from Mississauga earlier said that there were
only 15 amendments. I have a list showing 51 amendments on a
bill that has 200 clauses. That represents one out of four
clauses which opposition parties felt needed to be amended. As
well, it is a tragedy that the government has brought in closure
over 50 times.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased indeed to speak to this bill today. I would like to
repeat what the motions we are debating in Group No. 1 are about.
Several of the amendments that are proposed in this group were
presented by Reform. These motions deal pretty much with
accountability.
One would find it hard to understand why the government would
not support these amendments which would lead to more openness
and more accountability on the part of government. Some of the
things being asked are things which one would think any
government would find acceptable.
1220
For example, Motion No. 4 would force the board of directors of
the PSPIB to establish and maintain contact on an ongoing basis
with actuaries of each fund. That is something that I think we
would find to be not only acceptable, but we would expect it to
be part of the legislation. We have to wonder why it is not.
Motion No. 8 would force the government to lay before parliament
a copy of the appointment establishing the chairperson of the
PSPIB. I do not think the government should vote against this
amendment. All we are asking for is a reasonable degree of
openness in this regard.
Motion No. 11, which again is a Reform amendment, is similar to
Motion No. 2, except that it would deal specifically with the
investment committee of the board and not the board as a whole.
Again it is asking for more accountability.
With Motion No. 16 all we are asking for is openness and
accountability. I do not believe that this government should
oppose these amendments. This motion would force an act of
parliament to be passed in order for changes to be made to the
contribution rates.
Bill C-78 currently reads that rates are determined by the
Treasury Board on the recommendation of the minister. Why on
something this important, affecting this many Canadians, would it
be done in the backrooms? Indeed, why should this process not
come before parliament so that it would be a very open and
transparent process?
I can ask the questions, but it is up to the government to
provide the answers. It is not providing the answers. Not only
is it not providing the answers to the questions that we are
asking on these issues, it is also going to invoke closure or
time allocation on this legislation and it will not allow debate.
I think it is important to talk about that and the process that
this government has used. I believe it has invoked time
allocation 51 times. It has become routine in a way that we have
never seen with any government before, even the hated Mulroney
government. We know how Canadians felt about the Mulroney
government by the time it was near the end of its second term.
Even the Mulroney government did not abuse the use of closure and
time allocation the way this government has. It has set a new
standard and it is not a standard about which it should proud.
It is a standard about which the government should be completely
ashamed. I will talk more about that a little later.
One of the big concerns about this legislation, which has been
expressed several times before, is that the government is
proposing to rob the public service pension plan of $30 billion.
It wants to take $30 billion out of the public service pension
plan. That is completely unacceptable.
It is hard to understand how a government which talks like it
supports the public service can propose this kind of action. It
is really hard to understand. We do not understand it, except
when we look at the record over the past five years. When we
look at the record of the government we see tax increase after
tax increase after tax increase. It has balanced the budget,
eliminated the deficit, on the basis of tax increases. The
revenue is up somewhere over $25 billion per year from the time
the Liberals took office. There have been incredible increases
in the amount of taxation.
Some of the increase is due to growth in the economy, but much
of it is due to tax increases. Frankly, I lost track after the
first several dozen tax increases of just how many there have
been, but the number is certainly substantial.
Now we have a balanced budget due to the increase in taxes. We
would think that the tax grab would stop. Not only has the tax
grab not stopped, now the government is trying to rob the public
service pension plan of $30 billion besides the incredible tax
burden it has put on people.
We have the public service pension plan and the people involved
in it treated in this way. What about other Canadians? What we
have seen from this government with regard to pensions of other
Canadians over the five years that we have been here is a record
about which it ought not to be proud.
We have seen reductions in pensions to seniors that have caused
hardship to many of the seniors involved. Such reductions in
pensions to seniors, one of the most vulnerable groups in our
society, is completely unacceptable.
1225
We have seen Canada pension plan premiums increase by 73% and
that probably will not be the end of it. It is a plan that can
offer a maximum of $8,800 a year to someone upon retirement, yet
we are looking at 10% of income which will be put into the
premiums in this plan. That is an unacceptable development.
Reform has proposed an alternative to this proposal put forward
by the government which would offer Canadians, especially young
Canadians, but all Canadians, a much better return on their
pension plan dollars.
So far that has been rejected by the government. Instead it
tries to take $30 billion out of the public service pension plan,
and it will be successful. I can stand here right now and say
that it will be successful. The reason is that we do not have a
functioning democracy in this House.
I have been spending a lot of time lately in Toronto working
with new immigrant groups and people from new immigrant
communities. Several have commented that what they see in our
government in Canada is not a properly functioning democracy but
is more like an elected dictatorship. These are not concepts I
have heard first from these people. I have heard them from
people across the country. However, they are comparing Canada to
democracies in which they have lived, come from or seen. They
are comparing our Canadian political system to political systems
from other countries, and ours does not compare in a positive way
to democracies in other countries.
Part of what those people see that leads them to the conclusion
that we have an elected dictatorship rather than a
well-functioning democracy is the number of times time allocation
and closure have been used in the House of Commons. I believe
they have been used 51 times. With the government invoking time
allocation on this bill, which, mark my words, it will, it will
be 52. Is that a democracy functioning as it should? I think
not. Those people have recognized that and they are very
concerned about it.
I would encourage the government to stop using time allocation
and closure as a routine way of forcing legislation through the
House of Commons. It is forced through for two main reasons. The
first reason is to stop a debate from developing across the
country on these important issues. These issues are kept within
the confines of this House. There is not enough debate across
the country to really have a healthy, open debate, involving all
Canadians. Second, the Prime Minister and his very small group
who run this country use time allocation so the policies and
changes they want will pass. Then they use their whips to whip
their members into line.
We are going to see that again with this legislation. Mark my
words. Watch the voting record on the groups of amendments we
are debating today. We will see that all government members will
vote the way they are told to vote. No matter what they believe
is right, they will vote the way they are told to vote. That is
wrong. I think they should be ashamed of themselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on behalf of my party to Bill C-78, the
Public Sector Investment Board Act.
This bill, as my colleagues before me have rightly pointed out,
amends the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian
Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Pension Continuation Act and other related acts.
1230
I would first off remind this House and those watching that this
bill was introduced by the President of the Treasury Board, who
has a second job, as do all the ministers of the House. He is
the member for Hull—Aylmer.
Why do I refer to the fact that he is the member for
Hull—Aylmer? Because often, when there are bills of the
closure or bludgeon type, such as the law ordering blue collar
workers back to work—in which my colleague, the member for
Trois—Rivières did such a fantastic job managing the debate—
people forget that the President of the Treasury Board, member
for Hull—Aylmer, represents a strong proportion of public
servants living in the Hull-Aylmer area.
I would like the people, the workers and the public servants
living in Hull-Aylmer to remember two years hence that this
minister most of the time treats the federal public service with
disdain. What distress me is that he takes them for granted.
He says “We can pass laws of all kinds, we can hit them on the
head with a stick, and absolutely nothing will change. They
will vote for us”.
I do hope that people in the riding of Hull—Aylmer will remember
this come the next general election, in two years. The last
election was held two years ago, on June 2. I hope people in the
riding of Hull—Aylmer will remember. We in the greater Quebec
City region have clearly demonstrated how a President of the
Treasury Board who shows contempt for people can be ousted.
We will recall the Mulroney years, before this government took
office. Back then, Gilles Loiselle, the member for Québec, was
the President of the Treasury Board. In the election held on
October 25, 1993, Gilles Loiselle was fired by the voters in the
riding of Québec. He has since been replaced with my colleague
from the Bloc Quebecois, who is now representing the riding of
Québec. So, I do hope that people in the riding of Hull—Aylmer
will teach the President of the Treasury Board—who is taking
their vote for granted—the lesson he deserves.
This bill confirms once again this government's approach to
managing the finances of the country. The government tends to
come barging into exclusive provincial jurisdictions and
interfere in provincial jurisdictions in general. There are so
many examples of such intrusions by the Liberal government that
I simply cannot list them all in the 10 minutes that I have.
The government interferes in provincial jurisdictions and uses
the surpluses to finance such intrusions. Think about the
millennium scholarship program. The government does not
recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over education and the Quebec
education minister, Mr. Legault, has to negotiate with Mr.
Monty, a financier and a non-elected administrator. This shows
once again how arrogant the Liberal government is.
We could also mention the accumulated surplus in the
unemployment insurance fund, because as far as I am concerned,
this is not employment insurance, but unemployment insurance.
Those on UI can be sure they will remain on UI; this program
does not help the unemployed find a job. We should therefore
continue to refer to this program as the unemployment insurance
program, because that is what it is about.
The government appropriated the surplus in the unemployment
insurance fund and used it to eliminate its operating deficit.
1235
The Minister of Finance, who is a shipowner by trade, is
boasting about this. Anyone who still has doubts about the
minister's involvement in the shipping industry should be
reminded that, whenever a motion is put forward in connection
with that industry, the Minister of Finance leaves the House. He
does not take part in the debate and does not vote. The Minister
of Finance is still very much involved in the shipping industry.
Let us not forget that the Minister of Finance—
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
member knows very well that we are not to mention which members
are or are not present for votes. If he wants to start that, we
will list all those in the Bloc Quebecois who were not here for
the voting yesterday.
The Deputy Speaker: It is easy to determine who is present in
the House for a vote, given that the list is always published.
It is certainly contrary to the Standing Orders to reflect on a
vote in the House. I am sure that the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans does not wish to
act contrary to the Standing Orders.
He may continue, without referring to a vote held in the House.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, in any event, I think you have
seen that the member for Bourassa has been consistent.
The member for Bourassa is a master at this. He was in the
lobby and came back for a few seconds. From his post in the
lobby he decided to come back and give the Bloc Quebecois member
a blast.
We are on to the member for Bourassa—
Mr. Denis Coderre: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Like you, I am only too pleased to follow procedure. Once
again, if the member does not stop doing this, I will keep
getting up. He has no business saying what he said. How is it
that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is never here at the noon
hour?
The Deputy Speaker: I believe that what we have here is an
argument, not a point of order.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bourassa,
who is boasting about following procedure, should be reminded of
a very heated discussions he was engaged in last Thursday during
Oral Questions. The only member who was called to order by the
Chair was the member for Bourassa. The Speaker asked him to
lower his voice.
I am not, therefore, tempted to get into a debate with him.
Anyway, we are getting to know the member for Bourassa. Those
listening to us know what he is like. They know he is an
agitator, so I will not get into that.
I will continue, systematically and seriously, the speech I
began earlier.
After the systematic theft from the employment insurance fund
surplus—I am pleased to see that term did not get a rise out of
the member for Bourassa. I said “systematic theft from the
employment insurance fund”. We should just let him sleep on, or
go on home—.
The Liberal government is trying to get its hands on the surplus
that has built up in the pension funds of public service
employees, as well as those that are yet to come. These are
astronomical sums, to put it mildly. As of March 31, 1998, we
are talking of somewhere around $30.2 billion in surplus. That
is $14.9 billion for the public servants, $2.4 for the RCMP, and
$12.9 for the Canadian Forces.
Our party acknowledges the necessity of ensuring the long-term
viability of the system.
In our opinion, it is possible to have this while respecting the
thousands of Canadian and Quebec workers who have contributed to
the plan. The present plan has some 275,000 people contributing
to it, and 160,000 pensioners plus 52,000 surviving spouses
drawing from it.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are telling me I have just about
45 seconds left. It is too bad I lost the thread of my speech
because of the disturbance by the professional agitator from
Bourassa.
1240
I will conclude by saying that our party will be bringing in
some very serious amendments. We want to see each pension plan
have a board, in keeping with the recommendation by the advisory
committee report tabled in December 1996. In addition—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We
heard nasty words last week. We heard the word “collabo”, and
now we hear the word “agitator”. I am concerned for the members
opposite.
The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. This is a
matter of debate.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise today to enter into the debate on Bill
C-78, an act to establish the public sector pension investment
board and to amend several associated acts.
Bill C-78 is just one more bill in the history of the Liberal
government that attempts to set legislation based upon poor
policy development. Sixty-two per cent of the public elected
representatives to this side of the House. Regardless of our
political stripes on this side of the House, we have all been in
opposition to Bill C-78.
I represent the good people of Nanaimo—Cowichan and they have
told me loud and clear that they do not want to listen to the
empty promises of the Liberal government any longer. They have
told me that when a government does not listen to the people then
it is no longer the people's government.
The people I represent here today are gravely concerned about a
government that does not act logically to protect the nation's
children from pedophiles who seek to harm children through child
pornography. They do not trust a government that discriminates
against fair family taxation.
The people of Nanaimo—Cowichan do not look favourably upon a
government that turns its back on those who need our help, such
as the hepatitis C victims. Indeed, the people of my riding are
incensed in the way that the B.C. government, and now this
Liberal government, have treated them with complete disdain over
the Nisga'a agreement.
Now the government wants to have the trust of the people of
Nanaimo—Cowichan in order to quickly and quietly push Bill C-78
through the House of Commons.
In the few short hours that my hon. colleagues and I will have
to debate this bill, I do not anticipate that the Liberal
government will understand what the opposition is saying. Some
will hear but few will listen.
Motion No. 32, put forward by my hon. colleague from St. Albert,
speaks about the need for government to table in parliament
copies of the appointments made to the public service pension
advisory committee. I feel it is imperative that this board be
made up of qualified individuals. The board cannot be made up of
political appointees. This is not the place for more public
trough feeding. This is a place for expertise and applied
knowledge, not patronage appointments.
In turn, the board must be accountable for its investment
decisions. Accountability is imperative. Plumb political
appointments cannot provide the expertise and transparent
accountability that is required for a board such as this. It
applies likewise to Motion No. 33 regarding the liquidation of
the surplus into the government coffers.
Let us be perfectly clear about what the Liberal government is
planning to do with these surplus funds. It is planning to put
the funds toward the balancing of the books. During this
parliament, the government has purportedly balanced the books.
The real questions are: How was this done, and where did the
money come from to balance the budget?
The budget has been balanced purely and simply on the backs of
taxpayers, not on the reduction of the bureaucratic nightmare
that exists all around us. There have been more than 30 tax
increases by the Liberal government since it came to power.
Bracket creep and numerous other taxes are alive and well.
This budget has been balanced on the backs of every taxpayer in
Nanaimo—Cowichan and every other Canadian, not through wise
fiscal management. That is what the Liberal government wants to
do with this money today.
As the issue of accountability is imperative, the question that
begs to be asked is where and how will the $30 billion be put and
used.
1245
I see lots of writing in this bill, over 200 pages worth, but I
do not see the plan of action for the surplus. Where is the
plan? This bill is akin to the signing of a blank cheque. Mr.
Speaker, I know both you and I are not in the habit of signing
blank cheques. I would ask my hon. colleagues to tell us the
plan. We have yet to see the real plan for other moneys this
government has taken from the federal piggy bank. I will ask the
question anyway. Where and what is the plan? I would welcome
the answer, but frankly I do not expect to hear a full answer to
this question.
Rather than being prudent and cost cutting, the Liberal
government is looking for every available dollar that does not
affect its spending habits. I would strongly urge the government
to leave the surpluses inside the respective pension plans. This
is imperative for the security and solvency of the plan members.
Without these funds remaining within the respective pensions, the
risk to taxpayers from potential shortfalls is enormous. There
have been shortfalls in the past and it is conceivable there will
be shortfalls in the future. I say this not out of fearmongering
but rather out of a look at demographics.
It is common knowledge that the baby boomers, and I am one of
them, are rapidly approaching their retirement years. We are not
close to reaching the peak of potential retirees yet. As more
and more people begin to access their pensions, there will be a
greater and greater effect upon the funds within the pension.
Foolish spending today will certainly cause problems in the
future. The financial strain on the pension fund will continue
to grow, not shrink.
Surely this is a recipe for disaster. This is not being
fiscally responsible. Bill C-78 only adds to the fancy
bookkeeping. The Liberal government should not have access to
this $30 billion.
The Liberals have been saying they are putting this bill forward
for the betterment and benefit of the taxpayers of Canada. This
is nonsense. What Bill C-78 proposes puts the taxpayer at
greater risk, not less. Although the surplus in the fund is
enormous, there is a distinct possibility that a deficit could
develop in the future. There is a precedent for this statement.
This has occurred in the past. In fact, past deficits have cost
the very taxpayers that this Liberal government is purporting to
protect a whopping $13 billion. That is a very big number, one
that should not be foisted upon the taxpayers of Canada.
My office has received numerous calls and letters on this bill.
The calls and letters to my office are saying words that we
cannot utter, like “stealing”, “theft”, “criminal”, and
“leave my money alone”.
The union representatives state that it is unconscionable that
the government would seize the surplus. They are calling this a
unilateral decision. They clearly make the claim that the money
belongs to the workers and I agree wholeheartedly with them. The
federal Liberals balanced the books partially on the backs of the
federal civil servants and now they want to take away the
security of their public pension plan.
I have several other concerns regarding Bill C-78. One is that
the auditor general will not have the right to perform an annual
audit. In fact, the board's auditors will not even have to
report to parliament. This is simply wrong. Without public
accountability, questions regarding the transparency of the whole
process will and should arise.
By comparison, the auditor general is currently not prepared to
sign off on several past government budgets. Why on earth would
we in parliament deny him the right to assure all Canadians,
especially those who are in the pension fund itself, that their
funds are secure? This is wrong. This bill takes powers away
from the auditor general and it causes me great concern.
If this government wants to ensure that it is directly
accountable to the people and that the process is transparent,
people need to be assured there is not a separate set of rules
for Bill C-78. Why should the same rules not apply to all
legislation? Is there a problem with the auditor general doing
his job in this capacity, or is there something else that is
being hidden here?
In conclusion, I have many concerns with Bill C-78. I am
concerned with the way the board is being set up. I am concerned
with the accountability of this government and its fiscal
accountability, or as many would say, its lack of accountability.
I am concerned that the government is pushing through this bill
with its enormous fiscal implications in such a short period.
1250
I believe that if nothing else, the amendments proposed by my
hon. colleague from St. Albert need to be given very serious
consideration. Without those amendments I cannot support Bill
C-78 in its present form.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill
C-78, an act to establish the Public Service Pension Investment
Board and to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension
Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension
Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, and so on.
This bill is of particular interest to me since I rose several
times in this House to defend the rights of seniors as a
spokesperson for seniors and seniors organizations.
The purpose of this bill is to make changes to public sector
pension plans. Contrary to what the President of the Treasury
Board said, federal employees and retirees are concerned about
these changes. The Bloc Quebecois is obviously against this
bill.
The amendments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois are aimed
at implementing a true joint management system for public sector
pension plans.
On April 12, the President of the Treasury Board stated in this
House that federal employees should not worry about the future.
He said, and I quote:
Therefore, current and past federal public service employees
need not worry about the future, because it is precisely to
preserve the financial future of these pension plans that the
government decided to act.
The pension plans of the public service, the RCMP and the armed
forces have, in recent years, accumulated a total surplus of
some $30 billion.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot allow the government to act
unilaterally and make major changes to the employees' pension
plans. It is a rip-off.
The Bloc Quebecois has always said the same thing about pension
plans. They must not be changed to the detriment of seniors.
This is certainly not the first time the government has tried to
reduce its debt to their detriment. Seniors have always spoken
out strongly.
The consultation of government's partners over several months
was a failure. So there was no agreement on the necessary
reforms.
Clearly, there is some similarity in strategy here with the
federal government's control over the surplus in the employment
insurance fund, which has accumulated in recent years. The
federal government claims that this surplus belongs to it, as do
the surpluses that concerns us in Bill C-78.
Seniors are no fools. I recently attended a demonstration on
Parliament Hill. The message was clear: the surpluses belong
to those who are retired, and they will never let the government
appropriate it.
Furthermore, seniors do not want the government to appoint their
friends to manage the surpluses by unilaterally creating a
public sector pension investment board according to its criteria
on equity.
This board cannot be independent of the government.
I share the opinion of my colleague from
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who mentioned on April 12 that the
government should follow the example of the Caisse du dépôt et
placement in Quebec.
This is how the Bloc Quebecois came to ask the government to
honour its promise to submit the management of the public
service pension plan to a real system of joint management. A
management board comprising representatives of the employer,
employees and retired employees must be set up.
1255
Bill C-78 does not move in that direction. The purpose of the
joint management council proposed by the Bloc Quebecois would be
to set up a pension fund, to plan its financing, to manage any
surplus or deficit, to manage the plan itself and to ensure
adequate financing for the benefits to be paid.
Also, all of the legislation concerning the federal public
sector pension plans must be subject to the Pension Benefits
Standards Act. Consequently, a number of judicial rules would
control the use of any future surpluses. The regulations
established under this piece of legislation will set out the
criteria the employers will have to meet.
Pensioners want to be treated fairly.
It is normal that the surplus that belongs to them be used in
part to increase their benefits. The federal government's
unilateral misappropriation of $30 billion is a true insult to
seniors. The surplus should belong to both the employer and the
employees.
We agree that pension plans should be allowed to be invested on
the stock market, but we do not agree with the government taking
the $30 billion surplus. As I said earlier, it is a rip-off. The
surpluses should be used on the one hand to improve the pension
plan and, on the other hand, to set up the retirement fund being
created under Bill C-78.
Losses can also be incurred on the stock market. That is
something we have to think about. The federal government should
not neglect the people who worked all their lives to be able to
enjoy a decent and well-deserved retirement.
Let us recall the “Goodbye Charlie Brown” episode, under the
Mulroney government. Many seniors fight for their rights, and we
should not forget that 1999 is the international year of the
older person. Seniors should get everything they are entitled
to. A commemorative stamp is not enough.
Also, this year's theme for international women's day was “Going
strong”. Retired women are something of a majority among retired
public servants, and they are sometimes among the most
underprivileged. In the past, the Bloc Quebecois has often
complained about continuous intrusions by the federal
government.
For example, the federal government tried to put in place for
2001 a new benefit based on family income, which would have the
effect of depriving a number of women of their only independent
source of income.
We realize that Bill C-78 will have an impact on the lifestyle of
many retired people.
In 1995, the federal government also tried to amend the Income
Tax Act, through Bill C-282, to eliminate the deduction for
taxpayers over age 65 who are entitled to the disability income
tax credit.
This in further evidence that the federal government is trying
to pay off its debt on the backs of the underprivileged, and
more particularly senior citizens.
The Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-78, because it will allow
the government to grab the $30 billion surplus in the public
service pension plans. The amendments the Bloc Quebecois has
moved are needed to correct this flaw.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Group No. 1 amendments
to Bill C-78.
This bill goes to the heart of an issue that is very important
to many constituents in the ridings of all members in the House.
It concerns individuals in the military, members of the RCMP,
approximately 300,000 retirees, and nearly one-third of a million
people in other public service activities.
We oppose the bill, not for the sake of opposition but on some
very important ground.
1300
We need to go back in history. The pension plan was constructed
a number of years ago. It was based on interest rates, inflation
and salary increases. As a result of a combination of those
factors we see now a substantial and marked surplus within the
pension plan.
The government wants to take the pension surplus and put it into
general revenues to use as it sees fit. Does that surplus in
that pension plan belong to the government? No, it does not. The
surplus belongs to the people who paid into the plan.
Furthermore, the money that was put into it does not belong to
the government. It belongs to the taxpayers.
Rather than taking the money away from the people who
contributed it, a better way of dealing with it would be to lower
the contributions they have to make without changing the amount
of money they would get back. Although the pension plan is
enjoying a surplus at this point in time, that has not always
been the case. If we look back in history, when there has been a
shortfall the taxpayer has been on the lam for putting $13
billion into the plan to pay it off.
While we are enjoying a surplus at this point in time, this will
probably not be the case in the future. Interest rates will not
always be as low as they are now. Nor will inflation. Although
there has been a salary freeze for the last eight years at least,
salaries will go up and have gone up. That will translate into
an obligation on the part of the scheme to pay out more pension
money.
We should maintain that surplus. It would be a buffer to ensure
that the taxpayer will not have to put in more money at the end
of the game to buttress the plan.
We as a party would like to speak to a number of other issues
regarding the bill. One such issue is privatization. Previously
the government put the contributions of workers into low interest
bearing but safe rates of return vehicles. That money could also
be put into vehicles that are safe but generate larger amounts of
money. The bill does that, and this is what we support.
We only hope the government will do the same with the CPP. All
of us who put money into the CPP know that it goes into something
which generates a very small amount of return. It would be far
better to put it into the market, into higher interest bearing
and safe vehicles. We applaud that.
On the issue of same sex benefits, my colleague put forth a very
eloquent solution to the thorny issue of what people may or may
not be doing behind closed doors. My colleague mentioned
something called a designated partnership.
A designated partnership could be with a brother, a sister, a
family member or a friend. Both parties would be engaged in a
reciprocal relationship and have reciprocal responsibility. For
example, two sisters could live together for a long period of
time and take care of each other. If one of them were to pass
away, why should the remaining sister not benefit from her
deceased sister's pension?
Obviously it was a reciprocal, long term relationship, a long
term commitment between two people. This would be fair and would
enable people in long term relationships to give their pensions
to someone who has taken care of them in a reciprocal fashion. It
would get rid of the ridiculous discussions and the thorny legal
descriptions of what people may or may not be engaging in, in
their personal lives.
If we take that out of the picture, the concept of a designated
partnership would be fair to a wider variety of Canadians who
engage in living conditions which are far more inclusive than
what we have been discussing the last while.
1305
PSAC has been very adamant about not supporting the bill. It
has been in strong opposition to it because of the way it treats
workers with respect to the government's plan to pocket the $30.1
billion surplus. It wants to use that surplus to pad its
surpluses and tell the public it is doing a better job than it
actually is in terms of how it is managing the country's
finances.
We could do some very constructive work in terms of looking at
what the government is trying to do with this surplus. The
surplus is being reorganized in a very questionable fashion.
Accountants would call it a questionable accounting practice,
which enables the government to take $30 billion through
subterfuge and put it into something it should not be in. It is
taking it away from the workers who have earned money and put it
into the plan. It is taking it from the workers and putting it
somewhere else.
We are thankful the military managed to get a raise. We applaud
the government for doing that. However, the working and living
conditions of many people in the military have not changed
substantially. In Victoria the cost of living is very high. Men
and women who work for the military have a very difficult problem
making ends meet, particularly in terms of accommodation. Three
years ago we proposed a plan to the then minister of defence,
General Dallaire, and the assistant deputy ministers involved
which would enable military personnel to live more comfortably.
The plan involved making the accommodation assistance allowance
applicable to all people in the military. The accommodation
assistance allowance would be non-taxable. The rents that were
increased egregiously, even though salaries were frozen, would be
rolled back to the point in time when they were frozen. Although
they have had an increase in salary, it pales in comparison to
the rent increases that have occurred for their homes.
Another thing can be done to make life a little better and more
comfortable for hardworking men and women in uniform. They could
enable the base commanders to have more power and control over
the economics of their bases. They could find some ingenious and
innovative ways to generate funds for people on bases.
Historically the RCMP has not been the best paid police force in
the country. Neither does it want to be, but it wants to be paid
fairly. RCMP wages have plummeted to the bottom of the barrel.
The way in which its salaries have been calculated has changed
over the last few years.
The government has a different method of calculating the
salaries of the RCMP officers so that they are now among the
lowest paid police officers in the country. I implore the
solicitor general and the minister of finance to pay the RCMP a
salary that is at least in the middle with respect to other
police forces in the country. They would find that to be fair
and reasonable, given the economic circumstances we as a country
are in today.
Members of the RCMP do not have the finances for the tools of
their job. As we saw in my province of British Columbia, they do
not even have money to put their cars back on the road after
having been bashed up. They do not have the money to prosecute
serious criminals. As a result serious criminals, particularly
people in organized crime, are being let out and not being
prosecuted, convicted and put behind bars. The reason is that
the resources are not there for them to do the job.
Many RCMP officers and other police officers across the country
are working for free because they feel compelled or obligated to
put criminals behind bars. Unfortunately the government is not
giving them the power, the resources and the tools to do their
job.
I strongly urge the government to listen to the suggestions of
members from this party and others and to implement them for the
benefit of people who work in the public service.
1310
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak on Bill C-78, which aims at establishing a kind of
investment board to manage the pensions of public servants,
members of the RCMP and of the Canadian armed forces.
According to accounting charts submitted by actuaries—not the
opposition's acutaries but those of the government, the people
in power—at present the surplus in these three pension funds
totals $30.2 billion.
This morning, I listened with great interest to members of the
governing party who see themselves, as always, as those who have
the absolute truth. They were telling us that they could not
make a mistake and that they knew and understood the issue
because of their skills as managers and that the surplus had to
be deposited in the consolidated revenue fund, that is in the
hands of government. There was no doubt in their mind about
that.
When a government has a majority in the House, it can say
anything false it wants, and no one can force it to do its duty,
because it is convinced that it cannot be wrong since it has a
majority in the House.
Last week in committee, I listened to the witnesses, among them
distinguished actuaries, people who work in investments, and
also pensioners. We had the Public Service Pensioners
Association, which was represented, if I am not mistaken, by
Mrs. Jeanne Smith. I asked her what amount a retired public
servant got.
Of course, there are several categories of retired public
servants. There is one apart from the others, consisting of
generals and very high ranking members of the Canadian forces,
who enjoy a pension equivalent to that of a cabinet minister
having worked for 30 years and thus being entitled to the
maximum. Those people receive a pension of $115,000, $120,000 or
$130,000 a year.
The day after their retirement, they are hired at a salary of
$180,000, $200,000 and even $250,000, based on my information,
to act as consultants for the Canadian armed forces and the
government, to help the government make decisions.
Most people—even though it is disgusting to see such cases as
these—do not, the day after they retire, sit in the same chair,
use the same telephone and carry out the same duties as the day
before, while collecting an annual pension of $115,000, $120,000
or $130,000 and getting a new salary that is sometimes just as
exorbitant to do the same job, but as a consultant. This is
outrageous.
However, this is not the case for the average member of the
Public Service Alliance of Canada. I asked Mrs. Smith how much a
retired public servant gets. She gave me a few examples.
A public service employee who worked for 23 years and who is
living alone collects an annual pension of $8,900 or $9,000.
With 30 years of service, that annual pension is $15,000. These
are gross, not net figures.
1315
Along with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead—who sits on my
left and whom I salute—I visited military bases across Canada
last year, with the Standing Committee on National Defence. We
saw military personnel housed in PMQs, which are houses that
were built in the middle of the century, immediately after World
War II. These houses have not been maintained or renovated.
It is now unthinkable to live in a house that would not have a
hood to vent cooking odours above the stove. Yet, this was
common in all the PMQs that we visited, since they were built in
the middle or late forties, when these hoods were a great luxury.
It was the same everywhere. When the committee tabled its
report, it recommended a considerable improvement in how we
house our soldiers, as well as how we pay them, so that they can
live decently. But all these recommendations were naturally
shelved. The government did not want to hear them. It gave a
paltry increase to soldiers to ease its conscience. With their
minds easy, the Liberal members opposite are busy congratulating
themselves. The government came up with a few million dollars
to increase soldiers' pay, but their living conditions are
completely unacceptable.
I see the member who just sat down, the committee chair, giving
me a look.
But, at the time, this member was as disgusted as I was at the
conditions in which our soldiers lived and worked. Naturally,
when they are paid so little during their working lives, they
cannot be expected to have built up a huge pension.
The government is benefiting in all sorts of ways. When it
underpays its employees, its contributions as an employer are
lower, because these are a percentage of salary. The government
is ahead on all counts, so members opposite can sleep easy.
They say that the government has contributed its share, that
there are surpluses, and that, when there were deficits, the
government naturally stepped in to help.
I would agree that the government—because this is what it wants,
and because it made up deficits in the fund in the past,
although it has paid itself back by now—should be able to recover
some of its past outlay, if it thought it made one, which is far
from certain.
But before helping itself to the accumulated surplus in the
pension funds, the government should try to improve the plans,
not for the retired generals I mentioned earlier who are now
pulling in $250,000 or $300,000 annually, but for those at the
bottom of the totem pole. These employees have kept their noses
to the grindstone all their lives without asking too many
questions. And they certainly were not asking whether their
pension plan was well run. Their energy went into doing what
they were paid to do.
They trusted their employer, but it failed them miserably.
Today, there is a cumulative surplus of $30.2 billion and the
government will grab it and put it in its pockets, leaving these
people, most of whom are below the poverty line, to try to make
ends meet and unable to enjoy a well deserved retirement. We
never had cause to complain about our federal public servants.
But once they retire, we complain about them, and say that they
get too much. If the government had something to complain about,
it should have said so before they left the public service. Now
it is too late.
The Bloc condemns this approach, the same one that was used in
regard to EI fund. The federal government long ago stopped
contributing to the EI fund, but there is a $15 billion surplus
in the fund. All workers pay into the fund, but very few receive
benefits.
We are told that only 35% of the workers are eligible to
benefits, even though 100% of them pay premiums.
1320
Once again, the government has grabbed the surpluses. This is
misappropriation of funds. Since this morning, all opposition
parties agree on that. The government must stop stealing. It is
Robin Hood in reverse: it takes from the poor to give to the
rich. In the original scenario, Robin Hood took from the rich to
give to the poor.
For all these reasons, the population, the civil servants,
particularly the RCMP officers, who are not known as
complainers—one must be very committed to join the RCMP—and
proved long ago that they were ready to make many sacrifices to
be members of the RCMP, wear the stetson and ride a horse, all
those people do not complain, but they must have something to
live on.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have heard a lot of debate today in the House on Bill C-78.
The opposition parties have stated some very sound arguments as
to why the government should reconsider the bill and look at the
amendments that are before us.
I would like to correct the record on something that was
mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Mississauga West. He
seemed to indicate that there were only 15 amendments before us
at this stage of the bill. I believe it is well over 50
amendments.
A lot of the amendments that have been put forward by opposition
parties, the Reform Party and my hon. colleague from St. Albert,
have to do with accountability and the fact that the $30 billion
the government is raiding in this pension grab is certainly not
set up in this piece of legislation to the degree of
accountability that we would like to see. I just wanted to
mention that off the top.
The bill also does not give any seats on the board to those
individuals who this bill directly affects. An advisory
committee will be set up, but we all know what that means. When
the Liberals set up an advisory committee it means we will have a
little meeting group where we can raise our concerns, but none of
our concerns will be listened to. Well, they may listen but they
are not actually going to do anything about them. They will just
let us get together and have a talk and maybe that will make us
feel better. It is almost like giving us a pat on the head and
sending us out the door.
If the government was serious about this, it would allow these
individuals to sit on the board. That is quite obvious.
I hear members from the Tory party agreeing. Members of the
opposition are in agreement that the bill is a flawed piece of
legislation and that is why we had to bring forward so many
amendments. Hopefully the government will listen, but alas, our
requests often fall upon deaf ears.
I want to get to the premise of the government's argument for
the bill. Its premise is to say “Trust us. We are the
government. We'll take care of this money, the $30 billion.
We'll pay down the debt”. Why in the world would we believe
that given the record of the Liberal government?
I am going to point out something which I think is obvious to
all people. If we are trusted to be prudent and take care of a
small amount of money, in whatever our job or our responsibility
is, we will then be given more responsibility to take care of a
greater amount of dollars. If we are able to manage that well,
then we will be given the care of more and more dollars.
If the government was doing that then perhaps we could trust it
to take care of the $30 billion in the pension surplus, the
clawback of that hard-earned money from those individuals who
have contributed to the fund. However, I want to point out a
glaring example of how the government manages dollars. It is an
issue that some have touched on in the House earlier today and
one which is before us in media on the front page of one of the
national papers today. It has to do with how the government has
mismanaged some $55,000 of taxpayers' dollars, a fairly
substantial sum I would think to the average Canadian. For most
people that would be the amount of their salary if they had a
well paying job. Unfortunately it is not even that for many
folks. Fifty-five thousand dollars is a large sum of money.
It is shocking to hear where the government spent this money. The
Liberal government spent $55,000 on the funding of a pornographic
movie production called Bubbles Galore. The producers of
this film thanked the Government of Canada on their website which
is directly linked to the Government of Canada's webpage. That
is unbelievable. How could this happen? The Liberal government
dedicated $55,000 of taxpayers' dollars to that expenditure.
1325
This is a government that tells us it has the best interests of
Canadians at heart. This is a government that says “ Do not
worry about us. Send us your tax dollars. We will cut, slash
and burn health care by $20 billion”—
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It behooves the House that all members participating in this
debate stay closely to the topic at hand. We are talking about
Bill C-78. We are talking about the superannuation act. I
simply request the hon. member, instead of divulging into
gratuitous conversation about other matters which he knows have
no relationship to the bill, to stick to the matter at hand.
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary is
correct. We are debating a series of amendments to the act.
Members' remarks should somehow be relevant to the amendments to
the bill. I am not sure if the movie is relevant, but perhaps
the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette has some way of tying it
in. If so, we are all looking forward to hearing it.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had
been present earlier to hear the debate he would have heard me
talk about the different amendments. He wants to shut me down
now so I do not embarrass the government by bringing to light
this wasteful spending.
The Deputy Speaker: We do not seem to be on the same wave
length here. There are a series of amendments before the House.
If the parliamentary secretary has another point of order I will
hear it but I hope it will be very brief.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made
reference to the presence or absence of a member in the House. It
is not a point of this debate.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the point has been made. I
have invited the hon. member to bring his remarks within the
ambit of the amendments before the House. I think that is a
relevant point.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, this is a government that
tells us, under the premise of their whole argument on the bill
and on these sets of amendments, to trust it with this $30
billion and it will be applied to the debt. That is what the
member for Mississauga West said earlier and what other members
of the government have said throughout the debate on the bill.
This is a government that wants people to trust it with the
dollars they send to Ottawa but, as I have just pointed out, the
dollars have been wasted. If the government wants people to
believe that it is serious about applying $30 billion which is
indicated in Bill C-78 and the accountability measures mentioned
in the amendments that are before us—many of them brought
forward by my colleague for St. Albert—it would look at these
amendments.
Instead, we hear members of the government rising on points of
order and trying to stop debate when things get a little dicey in
terms of its record. It must defend that record because it is
the government. It is our job as opposition members to point out
the record of the government. If government members do not want
to hear that, they do not have to be here to listen to it.
Members from the NDP, the Reform Party, the Bloc and the
Progressive Conservative Party will continue to point out the
government's failure in its fiscal responsibility before the
people of Canada and in the House. This is a clear example of a
waste of taxpayers' dollars. I would like to challenge any
Liberal member from that side to stand up and defend the
expenditure of $55,000 on the production of a pornographic film.
An hon. member: It has nothing to do with the amendments.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, a member on the
government side says it has nothing to do with the amendments. I
will say it for the third time.
The premise of the government's argument on Bill C-78 is that it
wants Canadians to trust it with the expenditures of these funds,
which are Canadians' hard earned tax dollars. That is the
premise of the government's argument for this bill. It is also
the premise for rejecting the amendments that the opposition is
bringing forward.
1330
I state once again that if the government wants to seriously
have the trust of Canadians, then it had better do a better job
on accountability in terms of taking care of taxpayers' dollars,
such as the $30 billion surplus in the pension fund that it says
it is going to apply to the debt. How can we know that to be the
case when we see these examples popping up over and over again of
the government wasting taxpayers' dollars?
I can understand why the government would rise on points of
order to try to shut down this line of debate because it is
embarrassing for it. It is very embarrassing.
Mr. Mark Muise: And it should be.
Mr. Grant McNally: The member on the opposition side says
that it should be embarrassing. Absolutely it should be
embarrassing. I know that many members of the Liberal government
are embarrassed by this expenditure as well. I think that as
parliamentarians we are embarrassed by it. How could that
possibly have happened?
This is an area of financial responsibility which falls under
the direction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. How can that
minister, who says that she stands to defend women's rights,
allow an expenditure of $55,000 of taxpayers' money for a
pornographic video? I cannot understand it.
The premise behind my argument is that if the government wants
us to trust it with taxpayers' dollars, then it had better start
showing us that it is accountable.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the third reading debate of Bill C-78. I
understand that we are dealing with a group of motions this
afternoon. I want to refer specifically to Motions Nos. 2 and 3,
as well as Motions Nos. 9 and 10. These are motions which have
been put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 deal with the ethical investment of the
pension fund and specifically suggest that they not include
tobacco sales or manufacture or promotion. They also would
exclude pollution or environmental degradation, labour standards
and practices which are inferior to those required by law in
Canada, and any practice or activity which may result in the
elimination or contracting out of the jobs of members of the
plan.
Motions Nos. 9 and 10 simply make reference to the fact that the
Auditor General of Canada should be the primary auditor of the
public sector pension investment board to protect the interests
of the retirees and those who will be retirees sometime in the
future. I certainly stand in full support of those valuable
recommendations.
I would like to make some general comments on Bill C-78 and to
say that this is a closely watched debate. I know that because I
have heard from many constituents in Saskatchewan who have spoken
to me about this issue. Some have met with me as recently as
last week in the riding to talk about their concerns. I know the
government knows it is a closely watched debate. That is why it
is ramming this through as fast as it possibly can. That is why
it has introduced closure. The government has refused to hold
cross-country hearings because it does not want the people to
come forward to vent their spleen and anger at what is happening
with Bill C-78.
Simply put, the approach of the government is to commandeer
$30.1 billion and to appropriate that unto itself. There is no
hint that it is prepared to share this surplus with the retirees
or the current public sector workers in any way, shape or form.
There are basically three groups which have or are contributing
to the plan: the government, the pensioners who have contributed
over the years, and the current employees who are contributing.
As I said, the surplus stands in excess of $30 billion.
1335
This affects public service superannuation members, folks who
were employed by the Canadian forces as well as the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police.
When we debated this at second reading a week or so ago the
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
indicated to us that one of the reasons the government was
commandeering the $30 billion was because the government has to
guarantee any deficit and it has to ensure that the pensions are
paid out. The parliamentary secretary indicated that over the
years the government has paid out some $13 billion.
If we can just picture this, the government has paid out $13
billion according to its figures, but it will grab $30 billion.
Where in the world is the equity in that proposition? It has
refused to share this with the other two groups that have
contributed over the years. It is the old adage, “What's mine
is mine and what's yours is mine as well”.
We have seen this movie. The member for Dewdney—Alouette was
talking about movies. There was another pornographic film around
and that was on the $26 billion grab that the government made on
the employment insurance fund a few years ago where there was
absolutely no money and even less justification from the
government. It put none of that money in. It was all employers'
or employees' money, but somehow it appropriated that unto itself
as well.
When the government takes the $30 billion and runs with it, who
is left in the lurch? The people who are primarily left in the
lurch are women. The average pension, not the bottom end, for
women in the public service is $9,600 per year. Again, that is
not the low end. That is the average received by these folks who
have worked over the years earning low wages, having their
salaries frozen, not qualifying for equal pay for work of equal
value or anything of that sort.
That is why the government wants to close this debate down as
quickly as it can because it knows how high the feelings are
running out in the country on this issue. That is why it chose
to stonewall any suggestion from the member for Winnipeg Centre,
or others in our caucus or on this side of the House, that there
be cross-country hearings.
Once upon a time the Liberals, when they sat on this side of the
House, saw this issue much differently than they see it today. At
that time, in the 1991-92 period, they proposed that any
surpluses in pension plans should be resolved by binding
arbitration. That was then and this is now. Then they were
sitting to the left of the Speaker and now they are sitting to
the right of the Speaker and they have a whole different approach
to this issue.
I submit that what is happening is not only a shame, it is also
a sham. Obviously, with its majority the government will get its
way on this issue today, but I predict that there will be a day
of reckoning because the government has not heard the last from
the retirees on this issue. I suggest that it will rue the day
when it absconded with $30.1 billion.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are debating Bill C-78, the public service pension plan raid.
At least that is what I would suggest the title should be.
As we have heard from many of the people who have spoken on this
bill, what it all boils down to is the government getting its
sticky fingers on $30 billion of private pension funds.
The money that the government insists on putting its sticky
fingers on is being taken from the Canadian people who paid into
this fund. Let us look at who it is taking this money from. It
is taking $14.9 billion from the public service plan.
1340
It was only weeks ago that we had to stand in the House all
night to debate, while the government's only solution was to
force these men and women across Canada back to work. That was
absolutely unacceptable. Now, to add insult to injury, it is
helping itself to the pension plan fund that rightly belongs to
PSAC. That is absolutely wrong.
The government is taking $2.4 billion from the RCMP members'
plan. It is ironic that I attended a community policing forum
last week in my riding. I spoke to an RCMP member as well as the
mayor of the town of Sidney, Don Amos. They are very frustrated
with what is going. In that city there is a fairly large
detachment of RCMP officers. As we know, in British Columbia we
have 400 vacancies that are yet to be filled because there are no
officers to fill them. The government will not allocate the
funds to train people. There are four vacant positions in
Sidney, the community in which I live. I am told by the mayor
that those four positions are 100% funded by the municipality,
yet there is nobody to fill them. They go unfilled.
I was told by one of the other police officers that they have
been advised that they should be using all the gas coupons they
have received to fill up their police cars. Morale is very low.
What is the government going to do to add insult to injury? It
is going to raid their money. That is absolutely unacceptable.
It is outrageous that the government sees this $30 billion
surplus as its money. Thirty per cent of the pension plan fund
is funded by the members. It is funded by the employees of the
Public Service Alliance of Canada. It is their money and the
government is confiscating it. That is unacceptable.
When the government does things like this it is clearly
embarrassed about it. It is not putting up speakers. The last
speakers on this bill have been my colleague from the NDP and
another Reform member. The Progressive Conservatives and the
Bloc are also speaking on this bill. Why? Because the
government is embarrassed. We fully understand that it will most
likely bring in time allocation or closure on this bill because
it is embarrassed.
I cannot believe that we are fighting to get basic, core funding
for a national institution, one of which we are very proud from
coast to coast, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The
government treats those people like the musical ride and nothing
more. It makes them go around in circles and they do not get
anything out. That is unacceptable. What is the government
doing now? It is confiscating money from a fund which those
members paid into.
It is the same thing with the PSAC members who went on strike
for a long time. The government's only solution to that was to
come down with a big hammer and force them back to work. These
are the facts. They are indisputable. They are there. Why is
the government so silent? Because it is absolutely embarrassed
about it.
There is a very simple solution to this. The Reform Party has
put forward numerous amendments. We will watch when they come up
for debate. My colleague from Alberta put forward these
amendments. There are a number of them. At the end of the day
what we need is a pension investment board. Let us remove it
from the government and politics and have it at arm's length from
the government. It should be made up of experts in the field, in
the private sector, who can manage these pension funds so the
Liberals cannot get their sticky fingers on them and raid them.
Then the Liberals will stand and say that they balanced the
budget.
Who has balanced the budget? The union members. The RCMP
members. Who else is the government robbing? It is robbing the
Canadian forces plan of $12.9 billion. These are the men and
women who are in active combat in Kosovo, putting their lives on
the line in very scary situations. While they are on the other
side of the world fighting for humanity, what is their government
doing behind their backs?
It is stealing their pension money. That is unacceptable. I
will retract that.
1345
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I think the hon. member knows he
is overstepping the bounds with language of that sort and I
invite him to stay within the rules.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I will retract that. But the
government is taking their money. Those men and women are on the
other side of the world fighting for Canada. At the very same
time their own government is confiscating their pension plan
funds to the tune of $30 billion, from the public service union,
from the RCMP and from the armed forces. That is wrong. That is
so dead wrong. Thirty billion dollars.
I hope when we stand up to vote on this that some of the
government members will actually look at what they are doing.
They have to be held accountable. They should be focusing their
priorities on these very groups where the morale is so low.
It is so real in British Columbia. RCMP officers have come up
to me individually to tell me how tight cash is. It is absolutely
unacceptable that the government has cut back the budget of the
RCMP so much that they cannot fill the vacant positions. They
have grounded all boats. They have grounded the drug squads in
Vancouver. They have cancelled overtime. It is not acceptable.
At the very same time, what is the government doing? We have
seen examples. The one I just heard about today is a $55,000
grant for Bubbles Galore a sex fantasy porn film. Another
one which comes to mind is the outright grant of $100,000 that
went to some person to write a dumb blond joke book. The list
goes on and on. It is outrageous that the government can even
consider this.
An hon. member: Had they written about munchkins in the
Reform Party it would have been about you.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, the insults can keep coming
from the other side, but this is a very serious discussion.
Members of the RCMP are not laughing. The PSAC members are not
laughing. They are watching this. Members of the Canadian
forces are not laughing. They are watching every minute of this.
Someone is going to be held accountable. It is their money. We
have to do the right thing and put it in the hands of a private
investment board where there will be accountability and the
government cannot get its sticky fingers all over it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to have a turn at speaking to Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend
the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act and other related acts.
I am all the more pleased because I will be speaking as well as
the labour critic, a role which has led me in recent weeks to
examine the sometimes sorry lot of public servants.
In fact, a few weeks ago we saw once again that the state as
employer gave precedence to its power as a legislator over its
power as a negotiator. And it is holding the line on that. Now
we have another bill that is completely in the government's
favour.
Federal public servants will have to remember the President of
Treasury Board, now arriving, as the member for Hull-Aylmer, when
it comes time for the next elections and the next referendum.
Those on the other side of the floor will have to learn to pass
legislation, not just in the supposedly collective interest, but
also perhaps in a greater spirit of generosity than what is
motivating the government at present.
Thousands of people and billions of dollars are involved here.
Overall, there are some 275,000 contributors to the pension
fund.
We are talking about 160,000 retirees and 52,000 surviving
spouses, people who have lived with public servants.
1350
We are talking about a surplus of $30 billion that has
accumulated since the fund was first established in 1924.
Between 1924 and 1998, a period of 74 years, some $75 billion
have been accumulated in surpluses, with the particular surplus
we are looking at being $30 billion. Believe it or not, $14.9
billion of this come from the public service superannuation fund
per se, $2.4 billion from the RCMP superannuation fund, and
almost $13 billion from the Canadian forces superannuation fund.
This $30 billion surplus directly affects government employees.
Just as the federal government decided to use the money in the
EI fund to bring down the deficit, to the detriment of this
country's unemployed workers, now it has decided to lower the
national debt, this time dipping into the accumulated money in
its employees' pension funds.
It is a bit disconcerting from a public morale point of view to
see a body as important to the Canadian economy as the federal
government acting in this manner, given the moral authority it
carries. It is disconcerting to say the least.
In addition, this belies all the government's supposed attempts
at proceeding with caution. On the face of it, the government
has made an effort. In 1996, it established the Public Service
Superannuation Act Advisory Committee.
Surprisingly, the President of the Treasury Board was quite
positive at the time in his remarks, praising the efforts of the
workers, the union representatives and the government. He said
they had made a generous effort, that they were perceptive and
that he planned to implement many of the recommendations. He
said the work had been productive.
I think he did not anticipate the authority of the Minister of
Finance, who saw things quite differently than he did. The
Minister of Finance decided that it would go instead into the
consolidated fund to pay off the debt.
In this body known as the federal government, there is no real
collaboration, unlike Quebec, in brackets, between unionized
workers, government employees and the government as such.
The government decides arbitrarily, unilaterally, in the hopes
the unions will go along.
We can also say it is in contradiction with the advisory
committee I spoke of earlier. It followed none of the
recommendations the committee made.
And yet, it would be so simple if the government complied with
the law that applies generally to the funds in the federal
government pension plan. If it applied the regulations of the
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, the problems and disputes
we are facing today would not exist.
This is where the government is acting once again unilaterally
and arbitrarily. This legislation currently applies to all jobs
covered by federal regulations, except a job for Her Majesty in
Right of Canada.
So it is all very well for others, but it is not a good thing
when one works directly for the public service of Canada,
because the government as employer prefers to issue its own
rules to its own advantage.
Under the regulations, an actuarial gain must first be used to
reduce an outstanding debt or a solvency deficit. This is what
the regulations provide.
1355
Also, the regulations state that the balance must be used to
increase benefits or to reduce the employer's contributions
related to the normal costs of the plan, or must be left in the
plan. If I understand correctly, this applies to any corporation
under federal jurisdiction, like Canadian Pacific or Sun Life
for example. Any corporation under federal jurisdiction must
abide by the rules set out by the federal government, even
though it does not abide by these rules itself.
The regulations also provide that all or part of the surplus can
be reimbursed if the surplus is in excess of twice the
employer's contributions or 25% of the plan's liabilities, if
the administrator has notified plan participants, in writing, of
his or her intention to withdraw part of the surplus and of
their right to submit to the superintendent, in writing, their
comments on the withdrawal and if the superintendent has
approved the reimbursement.
Therefore, if we applied these rules, we would not have the
problems we have today.
What we propose, among other things, is that employees be
present at the table, that they be an integral part of the
committee instead of being represented by a person who is
appointed by the President of the Treasury Board. Right now, out
of 12 committee members, employees and unions will be
represented by one person appointed by the President of the
Treasury Board. This situation is not normal; it will breed
challenges and condemnation.
In compliance with the wishes of employees and pensioners, we
want a management board to be set up with a mandate to design
the pension plan, to provide for its financing, to manage any
surplus or deficit, to manage the plan and to ensure adequate
financing for the payment of benefits.
This is simple, but fair. This is all the opposition is asking
for and all the public servants are asking for.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MINING INDUSTRY
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week it seems appropriate to consider the effects of mining on
the environment, its speculative nature and its impact on water,
soil and the environment in general. One need only think of
Bre-X, the use of cyanide to extract gold and mine tailings
containing arsenic, as in the case of the Giant mine, with
substances that are harmful to human health.
Last year in Spain and before that in Guyana, two major spills
took place involving Canadian mining companies. Such accidents
should not happen anywhere. If mining is to have a place in
Canada, its promoters should take strong measures to prevent
spills, to adopt non-toxic processes and to decommission mines
properly.
The mining industry must be made to prevent the creation of
toxic time bombs rather than leaving a mess to future
generations.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today is tax freedom day in the United States. That is
the day you stop working to pay the government and start working
to pay yourself. In Canada our tax freedom is delayed until late
in June.
Why are our taxes so high? Even after the Liberals slashed
health care, pillaged pension funds and gutted the EI system so
that hardly anyone qualifies, we are still paying through the
nose. This is their balanced approach. Pay more, get less.
Reformers believe that when Canadians spend more money on taxes
than they do on shelter and food, tax dollars should at least be
spent wisely. But when we question the finance minister's
priorities, instead of answering he asks where Reform would find
the money to cut taxes.
We would start by cutting most of the heritage department. For
what would Canada do without funding for blond joke books and
porno movies? What a tragic milestone for the 60th anniversary
of the National Film Board: Bubbles Galore, award winner
of the Freakzone International Festival of Trash Cinema. Need I
say more?
* * *
ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week was National Elizabeth Fry Week.
In Peterborough and across Canada, Elizabeth Fry societies
organized public events. The goal was to enhance public
awareness and education regarding the circumstances of women
involved in the criminal justice system. They hope to challenge
and break down the negative stereotypes that exist about women
who come into conflict with the law.
Elizabeth Fry Week is always the week before Mother's Day. This
is not a coincidence as the majority of women who come into
conflict with the law are mothers. Most of them were sole
supporters of families when they were incarcerated.
When mothers are sentenced to prison, children are sentenced to
separation. That is why the focus this year was alternatives to
incarceration.
1400
I congratulate the Elizabeth Fry Society for its good work in
our communities and wish it continued success as a driving force
behind effective change in society.
* * *
[Translation]
DONAT GRENIER
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to congratulate the chamber of commerce serving the
asbestos region on giving its Personality of the Year award to
Donat Grenier, a generous businessperson who is involved in many
social and humanitarian causes.
The tribute that he will receive on Saturday at Thetford's
Aramis club is well deserved, and I want to congratulate Mr.
Grenier, whom everyone affectionately calls Donat.
The numerous organizations with which Mr. Grenier has been
associated include Étang Madore, which allows disabled people to
enjoy fishing, and the Aube de la paix detoxication centre. Mr.
Grenier also played an active role in numerous community
projects, including the restoration of the organ in the Disraeli
church.
On behalf of all the residents of the asbestos region, I
congratulate and thank Donat Grenier for being a pillar of our
region's community association.
Bravo Donat and keep up the good work.
* * *
[English]
SPORT CENTRES
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to take this opportunity to congratulate
those involved in the creation of the National Sport
Centre—Atlantic Canada, located in Halifax.
The opening of the National Sport Centre—Atlantic Canada is the
final link in a series of sport centres across Canada. With this
centre we have linked athletes and coaches from coast to coast.
The Atlantic centre is the seventh in a network which includes
Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal.
This centre meets the needs of fine young athletes from Atlantic
Canada, needs like coaching support and access to training
facilities.
I know all hon. members join me in congratulating the Department
of Canadian Heritage, the four Atlantic governments, the Canadian
Olympic Association and the Coaching Association of Canada in
partnering together to make the National Sport Centre—Atlantic
Canada a reality.
* * *
ORGAN DONOR REGISTRY
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday the government member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam introduced a private member's
bill to establish a national organ donor registry.
This is completely consistent with a Reform private member's
motion passed in October 1997 and a Reform opposition minority
report released last month articulating constructive solutions to
address the crisis taking place right now in our organ donor
system, which is causing the death of over 150 Canadians every
year.
The national registry of intended donors will only work if it is
implemented with other changes, including an opportunity to be a
donor every year and if intended donors discuss their wishes with
family members.
These and other solutions are in Reform's opposition report. The
government has the report. It is a plan of action. The work has
been done. We do not need more studies. We do not need to spend
more time on this issue. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.
We need to act.
Since government members obviously support the idea of a
national organ donor registry, I urge the Minister of Health to
act today to save lives.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada is proud of its achievements in Quebec City and the
surrounding areas.
Since 1995, that region has received a total of $42 million to
promote regional growth. The government also created two
programs to help and support the regions.
The first one, IDÉE PME, provides assistance to small and medium
size businesses interested in exporting their products.
The second program, Initiative régionale stratégique, is also
designed to help the regions. This program has two components.
The first one is geared to technological development.
The second component, which is the regional initiative, is
geared to promoting the region at the international level,
through major tourist attractions.
These are concrete tools put in place by the Government of
Canada to promote the regions of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals favourite yesman is up to his old tricks again.
Instead of realizing the funding shortage of the RCMP in British
Columbia and supporting its call for much needed funds, the
member from Coquitlam has called for an audit of the RCMP.
He said yesterday he thinks that the B.C. attorney general is
doing a disservice to British Columbians by telling them about
the staffing shortages and that he is fear mongering by doing so.
The hon. member did not stop there. He said that he would like
to give the attorney general of B.C. a night course in budgeting.
1405
In an attempt to move up a few seats from the translators booth
and out of the smoking section, the member has done a great
disservice to members of the RCMP in British Columbia. He has
told them there is no funding crisis and that they should stop
talking about it so that the public remains in the dark.
Once again he has toed the government line instead of speaking
up for his constituents and members of the British Columbia RCMP.
The member can be assured that come next election the residents
of Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam will say no to this
yesman
* * *
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I get an awful lot of calls from people
in communities, municipalities and cities all over British
Columbia represented by MPs from the Reform Party inquiring about
grants and many things that are happening in Ottawa.
The ridings of Fort Nelson, Smithers, Prince George, Midway,
Cranbrook, Kelowna, New Westminster and Maple Ridge are
represented by Reform Party MPs. That can only mean one thing,
that Reformers are not doing anything in their ridings. They are
here full of hot air. On the streets they are full of hot air
and nothing else.
* * *
DEVELOPING NATIONS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, human
poverty is more than income poverty. It is the denial of choices
and opportunities for living a tolerable life. The year 2000 is
a call for jubilee, a chance for a new beginning for people in
countries enslaved by debts they can never repay.
We do not expect people who go bankrupt to sacrifice the health
and education of their children to continue paying their debts.
Yet we jeopardize the survival of people in less developed
countries by forcing them to pay back debts that have already
been paid many times over. Since 1981 these countries have paid
over $3 trillion U.S. in interest and principal payments. For
every dollar they get in western aid they pay back $3 in debt
servicing.
I have received hundreds of requests from my constituents in The
Pas, Thompson, Pine Falls and Flin Flon who believe Canada should
cancel the debts of the most impoverished developing countries.
Let us mark the millennium by being a leader among the G-8
nations.
* * *
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to announce the introduction of an exciting new
educational initiative at the University of Western Ontario.
Beginning in September, Western, along with its partners Air
Ontario, Empire Aviation, Diamond Aircraft and the local airport
authority, will be offering a four year undergraduate degree
program in commercial aviation management.
This forward looking program is the first of its kind to be
offered by a major Canadian university. It will enable some of
the country's best and brightest university students to combine a
solid academic training in business and the social sciences with
professional flight training. Graduates will be prepared for
rewarding careers, not only as airline pilots but in related
areas of the industry such as airline and airport management.
The commercial aviation management program is another excellent
example of how students at the University of Western Ontario are
being equipped with the skills necessary to ensure that Canada's
high tech industries such as air transportation remain
competitive in a global marketplace.
* * *
[Translation]
NURSING WEEK
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May 10 to 16 is
Nursing Week. This is a time to stop and pay tribute to the
work done by the women and men working on the front line in the
health care sector.
In 1999, the Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec has
chosen a topical theme focussing on the ways that nurses improve
care and the beacon of hope that they provide.
Whether it be hospital care, home care, instruction, or self
care, nurses are constantly innovating and coming up with ways
to improve the quality of services.
Their skills, their expertise, and their talent for sharing
their knowledge have always made them top-notch professionals.
This week, and especially tomorrow, International Nurses Day, I
urge parliamentarians and all members of the public to pay
tribute to the work that nurses do and to thank them in some
tangible way.
* * *
[English]
NURSING
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
nursing week is an important opportunity for us to recognize the
contributions made by nurses on the frontlines of our health care
system.
In Newfoundland and Labrador our nurses are doing their best to
cope in a very difficult professional environment. Tomorrow
afternoon they will be holding a silent vigil at the house of
assembly in St. John's to increase public awareness of their
struggle for fairness.
1410
As we all know, the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador were
legislated back to work without any recognition of their
tremendous efforts on behalf of all patients in our health care
system. Nurses and those who depend on their care deserve to be
treated fairly by both federal and provincial governments.
I applaud the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union for its
ongoing efforts. My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative
Party join me today in expressing our support for all nurses
across this great country.
* * *
CANADA POST
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was my pleasure to represent Canada Post recently at the World
Orchid Conference in Vancouver. The conference, which was
attended by over 1,000 delegates, was held in Canada for the very
first time.
It was an honour to unveil the new series of orchid stamps which
were specially designed in two Chinese painting styles.
* * *
[Translation]
QUÉBEC ATELIERS OUVERTS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as part of
Québec Ateliers Ouverts, artists from the Quebec City area
submitted their most recent artistic offerings for the scrutiny
of the public.
A young and talented artist, Agnès Riverin, combined words and
images to present an unusually sensitive rendering of the wounds
inflicted by war. Here is a short extract:
I have come from the shadows
to breathe in the light.
I know that we must
bind up the wounds of so many wrongs.
That we must pay the price
of so much madness,
those who steal freedom
and stifle the cries.
We will no longer die
Tortured into silence.
We will find expression
for our collective solitude
breaking down the distances
that keep us apart.
And in the night through
which we pass,
we will kindle the memory
of a world not yet born.
* * *
[English]
PALLIATIVE CARE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to inform the House that May 9 to May 15 is National
Palliative Care Week.
Hospice palliative care relieves suffering and improves the
quality of life of persons living with or dying from advanced
illness. Social, emotional and spiritual supports are provided
to that person and his or her family by physicians, nurses,
social workers, home care planners and volunteers.
The Canadian Palliative Care Association provides leadership
through advanced standards of practice, support for research,
advocacy for improved policy research allocation, and support for
caregivers.
I ask members to join me in congratulating the Canadian
Palliative Care Association and its affiliates which ensure
comfort and dignity for those who are dying.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it with sadness that I rise to remind the House of the
government's abandonment of a sacred public trust, the origins of
which reach back to the justinian code in Roman times when it was
proclaimed that the water and sea were owned by no one and were
available to all for the purposes of fishing, navigation and
commerce.
The public right was also encapsulated in the Magna Carta. The
right to fish belongs to the people, not to the sovereign or her
government. That right was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of
Canada in the Van der Peet decision of 1996.
The Nisga'a treaty marks the first time since Confederation that
parliament has been asked to create in British Columbia a fishery
that excludes the public, a fishery that will not be open to all
Canadians regardless of race. The Nisga'a final agreement will
create an exclusive fishery for the Nisga'a based on race in what
has been public waters.
The federal government has not sought to put a dollar value on
the right being transferred and for good reason. The Nisga'a
treaty will legislate an end to a right the Supreme Court of
Canada has traced back to the Magna Carta.
* * *
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on March 13
a Canadian Coast Guard employee was seriously injured while
attempting to rescue an ill stricken fisherman from the Bay of
Fundy.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Ian McBride, is an engineer aboard
the Digby based coast guard cutter. Attempting to transfer the
ill stricken fisherman from his vessel to the coast guard vessel,
Mr. McBride fell overboard and was pinned between the two vessels
that were being smashed together by high winds.
It is precisely these types of rescue missions that members of
our fishing communities have come to depend upon. Instead of
drastically cutting their existing budget, resources should be
reinvested in the protection of our fishers.
Despite the recent downturn in the fishery, our West Nova
economy continues to depend on the support of industry for its
social and economic well-being. Our fishers deserve to be
protected by a well equipped coast guard. I call upon the
government to reinvest resources in this program.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in June Mr. Justice Cory will be retiring from the
Supreme Court of Canada after 10 years of distinguished service.
The Prime Minister will be filling this position on the advice of
the Minister of Justice.
Since the supreme court is becoming increasingly active in
rewriting the law as well as interpreting it, many Canadians feel
that elected legislators should have a role in questioning and
approving supreme court nominees before they are appointed.
Is the government prepared to consult parliament on this
appointment and to give a parliamentary committee an opportunity
to discuss and question the nominees?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the system we have been using over the years has
produced an outstanding supreme court. I do not see any reason
to make any changes.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately the public does not share the view of the
Deputy Prime Minister. In a recent national survey, nine out of
ten Canadians said they were opposed to the Prime Minister
appointing the next supreme court justice. Eighty-four per cent
preferred a greater role in appointments by the legislative arm
of government, that is, parliament and the legislatures.
Why does this government not respect the will of the vast
majority of Canadians and stop defending an appointment process
that they neither support nor respect?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Prime Minister carries out with the cabinet
this appointment process, not only has it resulted, as it will in
the future, in an outstanding supreme court, but the Prime
Minister and his cabinet are accountable to this House for the
decisions. Through this House the Prime Minister and his cabinet
are accountable to the Canadian people. The Canadian people will
have their say and I am sure they will support the decisions that
the Prime Minister makes in this important matter.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister fails to consult this House on the
most important judicial and administrative appointments. He
signs treaties, even commits Canada to involvement in a war with
neither a vote nor a mandate from this House. He does nothing to
prevent appointed judges from short circuiting this elected
assembly through rewriting the law rather than just interpreting
it.
Why does the government not seize this opportunity to show some
real confidence in the House and insist that the Prime Minister
consult the House prior to any judicial appointment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just called for
political interference with the work of the judiciary. I do not
think that this is what the House wants. I do not think this is
what Canadians want.
There is no reason to link this with the matter of the situation
in Serbia and Kosovo. In that situation there has been and there
will continue to be consultations with this House.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is obvious the government is refusing to hear the concerns of
Canadians on this issue. The courts across the country are
increasingly isolated from the people they judge. Hand picked
ministerial appointments are eroding Canadians' faith in the
justice system.
Will the justice minister continue to lock Canadians out of this
process? Or will she take the first steps toward rebuilding
confidence in the justice system and allow the next supreme court
nominee to come before this parliament?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Let me say first of all, Mr. Speaker, that
the appointment process that has been used in this country for
the appointment of supreme court judges has led to the creation
of the most respected final court of appeal anywhere in the
world.
Let me also say, since our hon. friends across the way are so
busy trashing federal institutions, that in the same poll they
referred to, Canadians overwhelmingly voiced their confidence in
the Supreme Court of Canada as the final appellate court in this
country.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister talks about consultation. I want to ask her, did
Canadians have an opportunity to be consulted on child
pornography, on aboriginal land claims, on redefining the family?
The list goes on and on and the answer is no.
These issues are too important to shut out Canadians. We should
be able to see, learn and evaluate the supreme court candidates,
before his or her appointment is a fait accompli. It is a closed
shop today.
Will the minister open the door to public scrutiny and allow
parliament to assess the nominees? Yes or no?
1420
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked it was
the Parliament of Canada that voted on the sections of the
Criminal Code dealing with child pornography. This parliament
will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the Nisga'a
treaty.
Far from the public being excluded, I would hope the hon.
members would do their business and in fact come to this House
and debate in good faith those important proposed laws.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSPORT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the reform the Minister of Transport intends with Bill C-77 is
causing great concern in all regions of Quebec.
The deregulation of interprovincial bus transportation will
cause chaos in the regions of Quebec, because it will subject
bus lines to the implacable law of the market.
Does the minister realize that his deregulation bill tolls the
knell of bus transportation in all regions of Quebec?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has followed a process for three years.
The result is the bill currently before the House of Commons for
debate.
It is up to the hon. member and his colleagues to bring this up
in debate. We will accept whatever consensus is reached in the
House.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one
way of raising the issue is to ask questions and have the
minister respond.
If he has travelled in Quebec, he should realize that the
president of Orléans Express, one of the main bus companies in
Quebec, has said that the federal bill could deprive some 100
municipalities in Quebec of intercity transport.
Would the minister explain, for example, how a circuit such as
the one in the Gaspé, which loses up to $1 million annually,
could operate without link cross-subsidization? Does he realize
that he is signing the death warrant of bus transportation in
Quebec?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this bill is the result of a
process that has gone on for three or four years. It follows a
general consensus among the provincial and federal governments to
move toward freer movement of goods and people within Canada.
There have been consultations with all the provinces. It is true
that there are some concerns on the part of various members of
the transportation sector in the province of Quebec, as there are
in British Columbia. On the other hand, other provinces such as
Ontario are completely opposed to the position as outlined by the
leader of the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the newspaper Les Affaires, over half of the
passengers using intercity buses do not have access to a car,
one third are seniors or students, and one quarter are living
below the poverty line.
Will the Minister of Transport admit that, by putting an end to
the cross subsidizing of routes and by letting companies drop
routes that are not profitable, he is hitting the poor and the
vulnerable very hard?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member raised a point of view, an opinion.
There are arguments against the hon. member's opinion. We agreed
to discussions with the provinces. On Thursday evening, I will
meet with my Quebec counterpart. A federal-provincial conference
will take place this weekend, and this issue will be discussed.
There will also be a debate in the House of Commons on the bill.
I hope the hon. member will put forth his arguments at that
time.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I call upon the Minister of Transport on behalf of the regions
and of those who need an adequate bus service.
Does the minister not realize that he must respond immediately
to the concerns raised by Bill C-77 by unconditionally
withdrawing it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member says that the Bloc Quebecois supports
the development of adequate service.
We, on this side, want superior service. This is why we are
proposing amendments to the legislation. I hope we will have a
major debate in the House on this issue, as we should under our
parliamentary process.
* * *
1425
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on the
weekend I had the privilege of meeting with Kosovar refugee
families who have come to Nova Scotia. I was struck by their
immense gratitude for Canadians' generosity. The Prime Minister
today is meeting with refugee families in Borden and no doubt he
will hear the same sentiments.
Will the Prime Minister use the opportunity today to announce
the elimination of the odious $1,000 refugee head tax? Will he
assure the refugees that if they choose to stay they will not
have to pay?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the refugees
are here on a minister's permit. Their intent is to return to
Kosovo.
I can tell the hon. member if and when they decide to stay, then
it becomes an issue we will have to answer. Most new Canadians
coming to the country want to contribute and help pay their way.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, these
are homeless, penniless, persecuted people. They have lost
everything that they had. They are highly vulnerable.
Why would Canada want to be the only country among developed
nations that views refugees as a revenue source? Why not
eliminate the head tax for Kosovars and for all other refugees
trying to rebuild their lives?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I think we should reject the use of the words head
tax. This fee is not intended to be a tax. It is intended to
cover costs of processing applications. Furthermore, as the
parliamentary secretary said, as and when the refugees apply to
stay here permanently this is a matter which will be given
further consideration. I can assure the House of that.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today is tax freedom day in the United States, that day every
year when taxpayers get to stop sending their paycheques to
government and start keeping them for themselves. Canada's tax
freedom day will not be for another month and a half, almost into
the summer.
Canadians are paying more taxes than they have ever paid before.
The finance minister is sitting on the biggest bag of cash that
any government has ever sat on before. It is taxpayers' money.
When will he give that money back to the taxpayers? Why can we
not have tax freedom day today in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it may well be that the discussions of the united
alternative are going better now that the Tory party is allowing
the Reform to ask its questions.
As the hon. member knows, we have cut taxes substantially. That
is not the difference of opinion between ourselves and Reform.
The difference of opinion is that we want to protect health care
and education. The real question is, why is the Reform Party
prepared to sacrifice health care in order to pay for upper
income tax cuts?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Health care and
education. What a joke, Mr. Speaker. The real reason we have
taxes galore in Canada is that the government funds garbage like
Bubbles Galore.
Canadians are paying the highest taxes in Canadian history. The
minister is sitting on the biggest surplus in Canadian history.
Never has a minister taken in as much money as this minister
right out of taxpayers' pockets. When will he give that money
back to the people he took it from?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, health care and education are not a joke. They
are part of the social fabric of the country. That is one of the
fundamental differences between ourselves and Reform. Second, we
are generating surpluses. Think what a difference—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1430
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of
Finance, if he wishes to continue.
Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a movie
since The Full Monty. Surely to heaven it is
unparliamentary that the hon. member rises uncovered in his
place.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, despite the denials of CSC commissioner Ole
Ingstrup, the 50:50 prison quota is still in effect.
Canadians continually hear of prisoners walking away from
correctional institutions, being given unescorted bus tickets to
freedom and using grappling hooks to scale prison walls. It is
obvious that the commissioner will quickly see the release of 50%
of all prisoners in Canada.
Will the solicitor general admit that there are growing
indicators, including the scathing comments of the auditor
general, that CSC is facing a crisis that will put Canadians at
risk?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague
continues to indicate that there are quotas. When public safety
is the number one issue there are no quotas, there will be no
quotas and there never have been quotas.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there is evidence to the contrary when it comes to
public safety.
Will the solicitor general confirm that he or his colleague, the
Minister of Justice, are in receipt of a letter allegedly sent by
Tyrone Conn, the inmate who was serving 47 years for armed
robbery, who escaped from Kingston Penitentiary last Thursday?
In the letter Mr. Conn mocks the liberal penal system, its
wardens, its lax security and gun registry.
Will the solicitor general advise whether he is in possession of
the letter, its authenticity and the status of Mr. Conn?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this matter very seriously. This
is the first escape from Kingston in 41 years. It is a very
serious situation.
I can assure my hon. colleague that I am not in possession of
any letter and I am sure my hon. colleague, the Minister of
Justice, has no letter of recommendation from this gentleman.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
all those who have operated the shipyard at Lévis in the past,
and those who might eventually acquire and operate it in future,
are unanimous: the federal shipbuilding industry support
measures are inadequate.
Does the Minister of Industry intend to take advantage of the
unanimous support of the opposition, the industry, and his own
Liberal party faithful, to support my bill, which would finally
give the federal government an effective shipbuilding policy?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was pleased to meet with leaders of the shipbuilding industry a
few weeks ago, at which time they expressed their thanks for the
opportunity to meet with me, and congratulated me on my interest
in the issues surrounding their industry.
[English]
What is really interesting today is to see the Reform Party
supporting subsidies for the shipbuilding industry. That is an
interesting thing that happened here today.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
Since two of the measures put forward in my bill concern
taxation, what is the Minister of Finance waiting for before he
finally takes some positive action with respect to shipbuilding,
by ceasing to tax the benefits provided by the Government of
Quebec and by adopting similar measures at the federal level?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are already measures in place, including tax shelters, to
support the shipbuilding industry.
During the debates in this House a week ago, it was stated that
the very existence of a shipbuilding policy, which consists not
only of tax shelters but also of assistance with export sales
and a government purchasing policy, is proof that there is a
true policy to assist shipbuilding.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's suppressive tax levels are
driving our brightest and best to the U.S., where today they are
celebrating tax freedom day.
1435
Major players in the high tech industry are threatening to say
goodbye to Canada and our tax crazed finance minister.
While he is sitting on this huge budget surplus, Canadians are
labouring under his insatiable tax demands. Why does he not
just give some of the taxpayers' money back? Why does he not do
it today? Why does he not do the right thing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have stated, the difference between the two parties
is not in the desire to cut taxes, it is in the desire to
preserve health care, education and the social fabric of the
country. Does the hon. member not agree with that?
The Reform Party has said that it would cut taxes by some $26
billion, but so far it has refused to state, apart from a couple
of comments in terms of the elimination of health care spending,
what it would do. Will the hon. member in his supplementary
stand in the House to tell us where he would get that $26
billion?
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to burst the finance
minister's bubble but here are the facts. There have been $40
billion in tax increases since 1993 when the Liberals came to
power. Disposable family income has dropped by over $4,000 since
they came to power. The Canadian personal income tax level is
56% higher than the average of the G-7 countries.
Out of all that he has a huge budget surplus and Canadians are
saying that they want some back. Why does he not give Canadians
some real tax relief? Give them their money back.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's facts are simply wrong. The
government's revenues are up because economic activity is up and
there are more people working, over a million and a half. The
fact is that personal disposable income growth is up. It is not
down. Our national net worth is up. It is not down.
Now that I have answered the hon. member's question, I ask him
to answer mine. Where is the Reform Party going to get $26
billion worth of cuts? Why will he not answer the question?
What is he afraid of?
The Speaker: Order, please. This side asks the questions
and that side answers them.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the permanent representative of China to the United
Nations said that his country would not approve any security
council resolution regarding a peace plan for Kosovo unless NATO
air strikes against Yugoslavia stopped.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us whether Canada and
NATO member countries are rejecting China's condition?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I talked with our representatives at the United
Nations and there is no substance to many of the reports that the
Chinese have said they will not negotiate. In fact, China is now
engaged in a series of discussions. The Chancellor of Germany is
there on behalf of the G-8. They just finished meeting with a
Russian envoy and they are in active discussion with a number of
members of the security council, including Canada. To say that
they will not negotiate simply is not the case.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
not clear whether or not China wants to participate in the work
of the security council.
As a council member, what does Canada intend to do to overcome
this new difficulty and ensure that the UN and its security
council play a role in finding a solution to the conflict in
Kosovo?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at noon hour I had the opportunity to have a very
extensive discussion with Carl Bildt, who is now the UN Secretary
General's special envoy for the Balkans. We exchanged a number
of views about how we can, most importantly, begin looking at the
development of specific detailed implementation plans which can
be taken to the security council as quickly as possible. We
believe strongly, as the Prime Minister has said, that there must
be a security council resolution. We are working with the UN to
make that happen and we will continue to work as well with our
Chinese colleagues.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government always uses the excuse that it cannot lower taxes
because it needs the money to fund our public health care system.
Here are the facts. First, it has taken $21.4 billion out of our
public health care system. That is how it fixed it.
Second, in the U.S. the average taxpayer pays 30% less taxes
than Canadians. Third, the U.S. government spends $800 more per
person on its public health care system than we do in Canada.
1440
No more excuses. The minister is sitting on a fat budget
surplus. When will he give real tax relief to Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these are the facts. In the previous parliament the
Reform Party said that it wanted to take $3.5 billion out of the
health care system.
Fact: Two weeks ago the member for Elk Island said that health
care spending was irresponsible.
Fact: The member for Calgary—Nose Hill said that spending on
health care was irresponsible.
Fact: The member from Okanagan, who started the whole thing,
said that health care spending was questionable.
Let me tell the Reform Party that health care is part of the
basic fabric of this country and we will protect the health care
system.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if the minister really believes that, why did he slash so much
out of the health care budget of this country?
In 1997 the Canadian government spent $1,775 per person for
public health care expenses. Here is the difference. The United
States government spent $2,600 per person to fund its public
health care system. Its taxes are lower and it spends more per
person on public health care.
When will the government get off its budget surplus and put the
Canadian taxpayer back on the road to health?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those of us who were elected to this House in 1993 will
not forget Reform member after Reform member standing and saying
“Cut spending. Cut health care spending. Cut the transfers to
the provinces. Cut the social fabric to eliminate the deficit”.
The fact is that we eliminated the deficit and we preserved the
social fabric of this country.
At the same time as this government was bringing in special tax
incentives for the physically disabled and for young children,
the Reform Party fought against them. The Reform Party has not
had a balanced approach on any issue. It has been scorch and
burn all the way. That is why it is at 6% in Ontario.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Association des
collaboratrices et partenaires en affaires released a report
showing the negative impact of the act, which automatically
excludes from the employment insurance program those workers who
are related to their employer.
The Minister of Human Resources Development does not ask himself
any questions when he collects contributions, but he imposes a
burden of proof and becomes very suspicious when it is his turn
to pay benefits that are earned the hard way by workers in many
small family businesses.
How far will the Minister of Human Resources Development go in
his harassment of the jobless?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the rhetoric of the
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques
to be excessive, but we are getting used to that in the House.
Let me make it clear that our department is making sure that all
those who are entitled to employment insurance are indeed
covered. The program's integrity is important to a good manager.
As for referring the claims the member mentioned to Revenue
Canada, this it is the case for only one claim out of every
6,000. We can hardly talk harassment, considering that only one
out of every 6,000 claims is referred to Revenue Canada.
* * *
[English]
JUBILEE 2000
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier today a representative of the Jubilee 2000 campaign
presented the Minister for International Cooperation with a
petition signed by 600,000 Canadians calling for debt relief for
the world's poorest people.
Can the minister today tell the House what Canada is doing to
promote the debt relief agenda on the international stage?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all members should salute the organizers of the Jubilee
2000 campaign. They have done a remarkable job. Their
petitions, along with those of other countries, will be presented
in Cologne to the G-7 in June.
Canada has already written off most of its ODA debt to the
poorest countries. We are prepared to do more for these same
poor countries and we ask the international community as well as
international financial institutions to offer more generous, more timely
and more flexible debt relief to the world's poorest countries,
those that meet the requirements of the HIPC initiative.
* * *
1445
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's balanced approach has raised taxes 60
times in the last 6 years. Revenues have grown by over $40
billion a year. The surplus has never been bigger.
For all our hard work, Canadian taxpayers get a health care
system in jeopardy, increased student debt, high unemployment and
reduced coverages, Canadian agriculture in crisis, east and west
coast fisheries that are dying and no national highways program.
Where has all the money gone?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is very difficult to understand. The hon. member's
party opposed the agricultural assistance and now he stands to
talk about it. It opposed health care funding and now he stands
in the House to talk about it. It opposed the child tax benefit
and now he stands in the House to talk about it.
The fact is one is entitled to ask the Reform Party to keep its
lines consistent if not from week to week at least from day to
day.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister has record surpluses because 2.5
million taxpayers have been pushed into higher tax brackets and
840,000 low income families have been dragged onto the tax roles
with bracket creep.
Is this the finance minister's answer to brain drain; tax until
they cannot afford to leave?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's revenues are up because there are 1.5
million more Canadians working; 450,000 last year alone. Our
revenue is up because business confidence is up and consumer
confidence is up. We have had very high housing starts over the
course of the last year. Our revenues are up because Canada is
functioning very well.
North America is part of one of the strongest economies in the
world. That is why we are doing well and why we are going to
keep on doing well.
* * *
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Bill C-32, received
the lengthiest clause by clause review in recent parliamentary
history. The committee responded when health and environment
groups said the bill was weak. The standing committee
strengthened Bill C-32.
What happens then? The unite the right to pollute reaches a new
low. We witnessed the Liberal, Reform and PC Parties fighting to
impress their chemical lobby friends.
Can the environment minister explain why the industry wish list
for Bill C-32 comes first and children's health comes last?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 is a bill about protecting
Canadians' environment and health. I want to congratulate and
thank my caucus colleagues on this side for their extensive work
in committee to improve the bill.
If the package that was presented to the House today at report
stage is carried through, it will create the best piece of
environmental protection legislation in the world. Its
principles of pollution prevention and precautionary approach to
pollutants and the virtual elimination clauses are very important
principles that this act engages and will be there to protect not
only the health of adults but the health of children as well.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
we hear this bill is really going to get carried through. Our
environment is being poisoned. Our children are victims of
pollution. Every Canadian family knows of a friend or relative
affected by cancer. The links between chemicals and disease are
proven. Bill C-32 is our chance for cleaner air and waters.
Canadians demand improved environmental protection, but the unite
the right to pollute says no.
Will the government commit to a full and open debate on Bill
C-32 or will it force closure to hide from public scrutiny?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member and his
colleagues want to discuss the amount of time apportioned to any
particular bill, may I suggest to him that he discuss it with his
House leader. If he is not on speaking terms with his House
leader, I can arrange an appointment for him.
* * *
1450
[Translation]
CHILDREN
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Justice released the government response to the
report by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and
Access. The reform strategy put forward by the government
endorses the committee's recommendation that children be made
the number one priority when parents separate.
Every day that goes by is a vital importance to children who are
being exposed to the conflicts generated by the separation of
their parents.
How then can the minister justify the additional three-year delay
she plans to make these children endure before implementing the
federal reform strategy?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first take the
opportunity to thank the special parliamentary joint committee of
the Senate and House of Commons for the very fine work that it
did in relation to the difficult issues surrounding custody and
access when husbands and wives dissolve their relationships.
We as a government have endorsed and developed a strategy that
speaks to the recommendations made by that committee. The
committee recommended that the best interests of the child be the
focus of our amendments to the Divorce Act. We endorsed that
approach wholeheartedly.
However, it is very important for us to get it right. Getting
it right involves working with the provinces and the territories.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the joint
committee travelled the length and breadth of the country for
months, hearing more than 520 witnesses, including
representatives of the provincial governments. We know the
government is very fond of consultation, but it also needs to
know how to move on to action, particularly when the ones paying
for the delays caused by government inaction are children.
Could the minister not invite her provincial colleagues to speed
up implementation of the federal strategy for reform?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because issues surrounding
custody and access are of shared jurisdiction between the federal
government, the provinces and the territories, we have a
federal-provincial-territorial working group in place. I will be
referring both the special committee's report and the
government's response to that working group. I will be
encouraging them to do their work as quickly as possible.
* * *
SIERRA LEONE
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while the world is extremely concerned about the ongoing human
security issues in Kosovo, we are also very upset about what is
going on and the atrocities taking place in Sierra Leone.
I wonder if the Minister of Foreign Affairs could bring us up to
date and tell us what is being done in order to alleviate,
particularly the lives of women and children, and to regulate
this situation.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the House that I was very
pleased today to receive a report from the special envoy to
Sierra Leone, the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton. He outlined
a number of recommendations which I will share with my
colleagues. I know he will also be taking the report to the
foreign affairs committee this afternoon.
I would like to personally thank the member for Nepean—Carleton
for a really dedicated task and for bringing to the attention of
Canadians an area of great concern and urgency for children in
Sierra Leone.
* * *
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one
bad law plus another bad law equals an injustice.
A teenager drinks six beers before driving to school and then
kills two girls when he loses control of his vehicle. The
breathalyzer evidence is excluded on a technicality. The judge
apparently does not think that six beers in two hours is enough
evidence for impairment. The young offender gets one year in
open custody.
Yes, the impaired driving laws are under review, and yes, the
new youth justice act is before the House. However, will the
minister assure Canadians that any new legislation will prevent a
similar travesty of justice from ever occurring again?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is fully
aware, the whole question of impaired driving is under review by
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It has had
the matter before it for some time. I look forward to seeing the
report and reviewing the recommendations. I will then report
back to the House as soon as I can. I am the first to
acknowledge what an important issue dealing with the scourge of
impaired driving is in our society.
In addition, let me remind the hon. members that I would like
nothing more than to to pass our new youth justice legislation as
quickly as possible. However, who in the House is stonewalling?
The Official Opposition.
* * *
[Translation]
MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Ontario
court has awarded a constitutional exemption to an individual
with AIDS to enable him to use and grow marijuana for medical
purposes, because the federal government is so slow in providing
marijuana to the terminally ill.
1455
In the light of this new situation, what does the Minister of
Health intend to do? Will he appeal this decision by Mr.
Justice LaForme, or will he apply section 56 of the Health Act
to give Mr. Wakeford a special exemption?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
no intention of appealing this decision.
As I have already said in the House, we intend to start clinical
trials later this year. The government intends to pursue
research on the medical use of marijuana for people who are
gravely ill.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
In March we became the first parliament in the world to endorse
the idea of a Tobin tax, a tax on international currency
speculation. Yesterday the Bank for International Settlements
said that the currency transactions are now up from $1.3 trillion
a day to $1.5 trillion a day, an increase of over 20%.
In light of that, I wonder if the Minister of Finance will be
raising the issue of the Tobin tax at the G-8 meeting in Germany
in June. At that time, would he be willing to express the will
of parliament and raise the issue of the Tobin tax, the question
of speculation on international currency?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada first raised this issue
a number of years ago at G-7 meetings and at the annual meeting
of the IMF.
Since the vote in the House, there has been a G-7 meeting and I
raised this issue. I also raised it at the IMF meetings that
took place some three weeks ago.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
One of the most controversial issues that has come up in the New
Brunswick election already is the toll highway between Moncton
and Petitcodiac, and rightly so. In 1995 the New Brunswick
minister of transportation signed an agreement to pay for 50% of
the total eligible costs of the highway and then he broke the
agreement.
When the federal minister meets the provincial minister on
Friday, will he help the people in Atlantic Canada and demand
that the New Brunswick government finally honour the agreement
signed by the minister himself, an agreement to pay for 50% of
the highway?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, up until now I thought the hon. member was motivated
by a genuine desire to deal with this difficult issue, but to
raise this in the course of the New Brunswick provincial election
tells me that he really is using this as a partisan issue.
On the substance of the matter, I have answered these questions
many times in the House. I will be meeting with my provincial
counterparts on Friday and I am sure the issue of tolls will be a
subject of discussion.
* * *
YOUTH
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.
As we all know, our youth are our future. In the wake of the
recent tragic happenings with high school students, there appears
to be a tendency to label young people as problems in our
society.
Can the secretary of state tell the House what action we are
taking to reach out to our young people and to involve them in a
positive problem solving process?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the things we believe
is that young people will provide the answers to some of the
problems we face today.
We know that a large number of Canadians believe that the
government has a role to play in eliminating racism. We have a
plan called Action 2000 and together with the YWCA and the Boys
and Girls Club of Canada we are engaging young people in action
for the next year ending March 21, 2000 to come up with solutions
to deal with racism in our country and to set up a positive
relationship for harmony.
We also have an international component. The Prince of Wales,
Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and others in other countries have come
on side to join with us in a global network of youth fighting
racism.
* * *
ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
see that our cultural protector, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, has not only spent the $98,000 to fund the dumb blond
joke book, but now has coughed up another $55,000 for Bubbles
Galore, a feminist sex fantasy that won the Freakzone
International Festival of Trash Cinema award.
On behalf of Canadians, we would like to ask why the Minister of
Canadian Heritage feels that money spent on this kind of trash is
in the best interest of Canadians.
1500
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can report to the House that I have not viewed the
film in question and I assume the same can be said about most
members.
This is certainly one of those very serious cases where I would
very much like to shorten the arm's length relationship which
exists with the Canada Council and other agencies.
When the Mulroney appointed Canada Council members approved this
grant some six years ago and when the Mike Harris Conservatives
approved a similar grant some five or six years ago, I think they
were seized of the arm's length policy which I am sure we would
not want to put at risk for the sake of one bad decision.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last fall we
questioned the Minister of Human Resources Development on
employment insurance quotas, and were unable to obtain any
answers here in the House.
At the same time, journalists for the TVA network applied to the
information commissioner to obtain details. The word came back
today, and the commissioner has clearly stated that the minister
put his own interests before those of the requesting parties and
has defied the law all this time.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development justify not
responding to our questions in this House, on the one hand, and
defying of the Access to Information Act when inquiries are made
by journalists, on the other?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always answer questions from
the Bloc Quebecois. I am always pleased to do so.
I give the best answers I can, because the matters raised in the
House are very important to our government.
I will therefore look at the report to which the hon. member
refers. Clearly, we have excellent access to information
legislation, which is also very useful in ensuring that we have
government transparency. I believe all Quebeckers greatly
appreciate the transparency of our government, which is greater
than elsewhere.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[Translation]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-78, an act to establish
the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public
Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the
Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post
Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of
the motions in Group No 1.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to rise in the House after
oral question period to make a speech, but I will take advantage
of the fact that there are many members present right now,
especially on the government benches, to share my thoughts on
the infamous Bill C-78.
First, this bill is highway robbery. The government is trying to
put its hands on $30 billion stolen from various civil service
pension funds, and would have us believe it is doing so after
due consultation and negotiation. This is bogus, and I want to
say this while everybody, or nearly everybody, is still here.
Why is the government trying to do this kind of thing in today's
economy, especially after four years of negotiations with the
three groups involved? We are talking about the RCMP, the
federal public service and the Canadian forces. Thirty billion
dollars will be taken from these people.
Negotiations went on for four years, and the President of the
Treasury Board even said these discussions were encouraging. He
went as far as to say that these consultations could lead to a
partnership that would implement, within the public service, the
concept of a management board independent from the government.
That statement was made in February 1998 by the President of the
Treasury Board.
We have before us today Bill C-78, which totally ignores the
discussions that went on for four years as well as the nice
words of the President of the Treasury Board.
I think the government is showing us its true face. We are
seeing the insatiable appetite of the Minister of Finance, who
wants to put his fiscal house in order at the expense of these
workers.
It is easy to understand. The government has taken everything
away from fishers and from victims of the lack of jobs, those
people who used to be eligible to some unemployment insurance
benefits, now known as employment insurance benefits. It has
taken $20 billion from that program. Where to go from here?
Wherever there is a little bit of money left. It is now turn to
its own workers and alienating them. It will steal $30 billion
from its own employees' pension funds.
It may seem somewhat odd that a Bloc member rise in this House
on a principle and ask the government to come back to its
declaration of intent of February 1998 with respect to
developing a partnership with its employees. It may seem unusual
because some people contend that all we want to do is to leave
and slam the door behind us. I wish people would at least
remember that, while the Bloc Quebecois was represented in this
place, they were men and women of their word. We would wish
that, when an issue arises, it be discussed openly, and not
behind closed doors.
I am happy to see that my comments today are waking up members
across the way. However it is unfortunate that we have to rise
our voices from time to time. I can do it and I will do it.
What I find even more horrendous is the similarities between
what is being done today and what was done to those who rely on
the financial support provided through the employment insurance.
They were robbed of $20 billion and now the same thing is going
to happen to others.
If, at least, the government said it was going to use that money
for equalization purposes, or take a part of that money so that
less money has to be taken out of the employment insurance fund.
Public servants are fortunate enough to have a job; financial
support should be provided to those who fall victim to the lack
of job opportunities, or at the very least the money should be
used to reduce workers' contributions and to create new
catalysts to revitalize the economy in severely affected
regions.
1510
We hear speculation that the finance minister will use it to pay
down the accumulated deficit. That would be nice, but can
someone tell me what good it would do to pay $30 billion on a
debt now reaching some $600 billion? Especially since, according
to the documentation I have received, these payments would be
spread over a period of 15 years. I am a bit skeptical about this
whole thing.
The second question we should ask ourselves—and I am not saying
that it should not be done—is: How will the payments be
calculated or estimated so that they have as little impact as
possible on the exchange rate? We know full well that when the
finance minister turns on the tap to pay off accumulated debts
we owe to other countries, the next morning, Canadians will
realize that they have not only been paying toward this debt,
but they will continue to pay, because the exchange rate is
dropping and they will have to pay more for imported goods.
The Bloc Quebecois wants the President of the Treasury Board to
redeem himself, to face up to the Minister of Finance, who seems
to carry more weight than him within the Cabinet, and to come to
an agreement with the three groups concerned. An agreement
should be negotiated with the public service, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and the Canadian forces.
Otherwise, what signal would we be sending out to Canadian
corporations? If the Canadian government sets an example by
taking money out of the public service pension plan, what will
prevent Canadian corporations from doing the same with the
accumulated surpluses in the pension plans of their own
employees? This is the example it is about to set. It could be
hazardous.
There have been lawsuits.
I will let my colleague from Saint-Jean elaborate on that. But we
will recall that that is precisely what the Singer Company did.
The case is still before the courts, but I have yet to see the
Minister of Human Resources Development put pressure on the
company and tell it “You were caught helping yourself to your
employees' pension fund”. Apparently, the case has not yet been
settled. With Bill C-78, the President of Treasury Board is
legitimizing a $30 billion robbery.
When I was knee-high to a grasshopper, whenever a kid from the
neighbourhood was caught stealing candy from the pot at the
convenience store—sometimes the general merchant would keep in a
corner the extra candies he could not find place for on the
shelves—that kid was called thief.
Today, a man who may have done the same thing as a kid—because we
were all kids at one point—is stealing $30 billion and we call
him Mister Minister. Furthermore, we are expected to say “Thank
you very much”.
What Canadians should do now is pay very close attention to what
the President of the Treasury Board is doing. They should
monitor the adoption process of this bill. Of course we cannot
put pressure on a government between elections. I hope however
that people will remember who turned the tap off, who stole
$30 billion, who gave such a bad example to Canadian businesses,
which will no doubt feel free to help themselves to the private
pension funds of their employees.
We should keep an eye on that—
Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.
I am quite prepared to respect everybody's ideas, but there is
no thief here. Nobody has stolen from anybody. We can exchange
opinions, but I believe the word “stealing”, as the member used
it twice, is unparliamentary.
1515
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must admit that the member
who just spoke went a little too far. I ask him to be more
judicious in his choice of words.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: You are indicating that I have only 30 seconds
left. In such a short time, there is no other way I can describe
somebody who takes something that does not belong to him. It is
still stealing.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I appreciate why my hon. colleague who spoke just prior to me
became so upset. I will not use the same words unless I get as
upset as him, but what we see today is a government embarking
upon the taking of money that belongs to Canadians.
We have to ask some fundamental questions about Bill C-78 at
second reading. What does the bill do and to whom in the
Canadian community? Let us talk about what it does. It takes
the proceeds of pensionable earnings and reinvests them in the
way the government wants instead of returning the money to
individuals.
It is important for people to understand that the government can
take the money, invest it or do with it whatever it wants. That
means investing that surplus in multinational corporations or in
whatever way the government would choose, not necessarily in the
way the people who have paid into the fund would like to see the
investment take place.
Let us ask who is affected. It includes everyone who has ever
worked for the public service. Military personnel, the people
who are currently fighting in Kosovo, the peacekeepers who have
done the country proud and have ennobled the nation, are
affected. The RCMP is affected. People who keep our streets
safe and keep peace, order and good government are affected. The
widows of our public servants are affected. There is an old
saying in the Bible about taking the widow's mite. Those women
are affected and women who have worked in the public service
whose average annual pension income is about $9,600 are affected.
We are not talking about multimillionaires who are affected by
the legislation. We are talking about average workers who have
worked hard for their country in public service. They are the
ones who are affected.
What will the legislation do to them? It certainly will not pay
back to them the surplus from the funds invested by their hard
work. We are opposing it because there is no provision to give
this money back to the workers. The women earning $9,600
annually from her pension will not benefit from the government
bill. In fact she will suffer directly because of it. Money
that could go to improve her standard of living will instead go
to whom? Perhaps the government could answer that question for
us.
What does the bill say about priorities? What does it say about
the government's commitment to community economic development? I
will speak from my own riding's perspective because the vast
majority of people in my riding are seniors.
Because of government policy many young people in the Atlantic
region and in northern regions of the country leave for areas of
high employment because of the high unemployment in those areas.
That leaves retirees in those communities. That leaves in those
communities people like the individuals I have already mentioned:
people in the RCMP, military personnel who retire in the Atlantic
region, widows of those who have worked for the public service or
other retirees.
Because of changes to the employment insurance act in my own
riding over the last seven or eight years over $30 million has
been taken out of the economy in the form of employment insurance
because of cuts.
1520
The government now has an opportunity to say to the retirees in
my community and in like communities across the country that is
has a huge surplus in the pension fund and will make sure those
people who paid for it reap some of the benefits.
If those people reap the benefits, then so do the small business
owners on main street of every city in the country where there
are retirees in the population. Those retirees will take the
additional funds, to which we in the NDP believe they are
entitled, and will invest them in their communities through
purchasing power. This will create jobs in small communities and
ensure the survival of small communities to some measure.
It is a small step the government could take to establish its
commitment to economic survival of small communities.
Unfortunately the government lacks either the courage or the
foresight to take that step, or it is simply not a priority for
it to ensure the survival of small communities by making sure
that people who have lived in those communities all their lives
or retire to those communities reinvest a part of the surplus to
which they are entitled in those communities.
Many things could be said about the legislation. The government
will say that the opposition is being unduly harsh and critical
of the bill, is nit-picking at the bill, and perhaps not giving
as clear an indication as it might. There is an opportunity for
the government to rebut, but the government has chosen to invoke
closure yet again on a most important piece of legislation.
If members of the opposition are somehow distorting the facts,
if we are somehow incorrect, I challenge the government to put
the bill forward and allow proper time for debate so that it can
rebut the arguments we put forward. The government does not want
to do that and we have to ask why. I think it is because the
arguments put forward by members like me, by members of my party
who oppose the bill, and by other members of the opposition
cannot be rebutted by the government.
Why else would it shut down debate on an incredibly complex
piece of legislation after four hours? This is the Kraft Dinner
way of making law: put it in the microwave, turn it on for 30
seconds and hope it is done. We are not making a Kraft Dinner.
We are making fundamental changes to legislation which affects
individuals in every part of the country.
If we are incorrect in our analysis of it, I dare the government
to come forward with its own facts and figures to rebut us.
Rather than do that, it closes down debate. This is the second
time I have had to address and bring the government to its heels
on the issue of closure. The last time had to do with
fundamental complex legislation.
It is not as if parliament does not have time to debate it. We
spend hours in the House on many different pieces of legislation.
When it comes to investing and taking money from a fund, the
government does not want to talk about it. It invokes closure. I
have not used the other word, but I am simply saying that the
government is taking funds from something into which Canadian
taxpayers have paid and to which we believe they are entitled.
Parliament was designed so that representatives of communities
across the country could debate serious issues. This is among
the most serious. When the government is playing with the
financial gain of the workers of the country and we limit it to
four hours debate, it is disrespectful of members of the Canadian
public because it is their money, future and investment upon
which we are limiting debate.
The bill talks to three issues. First, it talks about whom the
government sets as a priority in its thinking. It is not the men
and women of the public service, the surplus of whose pension
funds is being taken away from them.
Second, it speaks to the priorities of the government in terms
of community economic development. Clearly that is not a
priority because we could reinvest those funds back into smaller
communities.
1525
Third, it speaks to the government's commitment to democratic
debate in an open forum. Sadly the government's record on that
issue is a failure.
On each of those counts I am afraid we have to give the
government a failing grade. We are not alone in this regard. If
we look at newspaper articles or happen to walk around Ottawa
these days, we see normally mild mannered Canadians who respect
the law and parliament carrying placards. They would just as
soon be at work or at home getting their gardens ready. I am sure
this is happening in other cities.
They know something is fundamentally wrong. They know the
government is taking their money. They know they are entitled to
the benefits. They are just making enough money to survive.
They want to reinvest that money in their own families and their
communities. It is a shame the government will not let them, and
it is a shame it will close debate on this issue.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I feel duty
bound to speak to Bill C-78. For the benefit of those who are
watching the debate, it should be pointed out that this is a
bill enabling the federal government to take the surplus in the
superannuation funds of public service employees, the Canadian
forces and the RCMP.
Furthermore, it is aimed at changing the rules and preventing
employee representatives from sitting on the board that will be
setting the terms of their future retirement.
It is especially offensive that unionized public service
employees and other employees who have their associations should
not have their say in the management of their pension plan. It
is beyond me.
Having been a public sector union representative in the past, I
was involved in negotiations on the management of pension plans.
The Quebec government agreed to share the management of these
plans with the employee representatives. In the private sector,
unionized companies are doing the same thing, by and large. It
is perfectly natural that employees who contribute to the plan
should have their say in the management of the fund and of
surpluses.
In the present situation, actuaries tell us there is a $30
billion surplus, which is definitely not a small amount.
If we take into account all participants in these plans, present
employees and retirees included, we have over 340,000 people.
An amount of $30 billion is enormous, when one thinks about the
surplus that has accumulated in the EI fund at the rate of $5 or
$6 billion a year. Since the EI reform, all working Canadians
contribute to the fund. But members should view the surplus in
the public service funds in light of the fact that it took only
four years, at a rate of $6 billion a year, to accumulate the
current surplus in the EI fund. This means that the $30 billion
amount is truly enormous. And it is a surplus.
1530
The government wants to use the surplus as it sees fit in spite
of the fact that workers contributed to it. The government says
“Should the fund run a deficit, the government would be on the
hook”. However what the government fails to say is that
historically—and this is an important fact—between 1924 and 1998,
government contributions represented only 48% of all
contributions.
It means that the government has no right to take this $30
billion surplus, even though there is nothing in the law that
supports the employees' position.
But there is more.
Given that a large proportion of this surplus comes from
interests paid on these huge amounts of money, it becomes even
harder to understand the government's decision to use this $30
billion as it sees fit. To what use could this $30 billion have
been put if the fund had been jointly managed, if the government
had recognized it had no right to use this money for its own
purposes? What could have happened? For one thing we could have
improved benefits for a particular class of present or future
retirees, or we could have decided to put the money to some
other use.
Let us not forget that when Quebec was facing budget problems—as
other provinces did—public service unions agreed to negotiate
with the government the use of pension surpluses to help reduce
the deficit.
This is therefore unconscionable, because the government has no
right to take this money. It must be said.
Some of my colleagues say it differently, but I say the
government has no right to take all this money.
The second point I want to make is that this bill shows how the
government is incapable of coming to an agreement with its
employees, of recognizing that its employees are represented by
unions or associations and that these unions or associations
speak on behalf of employees and defend their interests.
The government is incapable of providing for a pension plan
where the interests of employees will be taken into account. It
is rather offensive—and this is the second time I use the word—that
the government is planning on appointing the members of the
committee that will defend the interests of employees. Will
employees have adequate representation on this committee? Will a
third of the members represent employees? No.
One of the eight members of this committee will be selected by
the minister from among federal pensioners. Employees will not
even have the opportunity to select their own representative.
There is something wrong with the fact that this government is
incapable of recognizing that employees should have a say with
regard to the contributions they pay into their own pension
plan.
Why should they have a say? Because, in this bill, the
government is forcing the funds to invest in the financial
market. This argument was not used very often. The government is
saying that, from now on, the money from these pension plans
will be invested in the market, with, of course, a percentage
that the committee will have to be set aside to buy government
bonds.
1535
It states further that this is required for the sole purpose of
maximizing returns. In today's world, if pension funds must be
invested in the financial market, there could very well be
transactions that the employees would not approve of.
Return on investments is not the only aspect to consider. More
and more, in the face of disturbances caused by the financial
markets in several countries, people are realizing that they
cannot invest their money any which way, with maximum return as
their only criterion. If employees are not involved in the
management, they do not have any say in the matter.
I summarize.
The government cannot legitimately use the $30 billion as it sees
fit because employees did pay their contributions. At least half
the surplus should be given back to them, and they should be
consulted on how the money should be used and be involved in the
decision making process.
Second, it is not normal that, unable to reach an agreement with
its employees, the federal government would then decide that the
pension funds, including the surpluses, will not be managed
jointly.
Third, it does not make sense that the government would decide
to invest these funds on the financial market without consulting
the employees.
I find this hardly surprising, given that the government is
unable to deal with anyone in a fashion other than authoritarian.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak on Bill C-78, an act to establish the
Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
I will try to share with my colleagues the views my constituents
of Berthier—Montcalm have expressed about this bill. They had
some very serious comments to make.
They said that this bill is another indication that the Liberal
government is having trouble understanding that the working men
and women are sick and tired of paying for the policies of this
government, which prefers to take the easy way out.
As some of them told me “You do not need to be a rocket
scientist to come up with such bills or to balance the budget
the way the Liberals did it”.
When they needed money, what did they do? They helped themselves
to the workers' contributions.
When they needed more money, they cut transfer payments to the
provinces, which means that the provinces are also paying part
of it. Then they needed even more money and increased indirect
taxes. They hid these increases in the budget. Now, they still
need more money, so they are getting ready to take it from their
workers' pension plans. This is totally unacceptable.
Workers are tired of seeing the government brag, especially with
all its usual arrogance.
Bill C-78 is just one more bill in the long line of government
measures that could be called “systematic pillage”. For several
years now, the government has misappropriated funds belonging
not only to Canadian workers, but also to Quebec workers.
The government has a simple strategy: spend in provincial
jurisdictions by using surpluses from large funds established by
workers. If the government at least abided by the Canadian
Constitution—which Quebeckers have not even signed—there would less
spending than there is now. The government would not be forced
to take $30 billion from the pockets of workers.
After misappropriating the surplus in the employment insurance
fund, the Liberal government is now going even further and
grabbing the accumulated surpluses in the public service
employees' pension funds.
The debate on Bill C-78, like the debate on the employment
insurance fund, should be an opportunity to condemn the
government's arrogance.
It is a matter of respect for the thousands of workers who have
worked all their life to secure the financial future to which
they and their family are entitled. More than 487,000 retired
contributors or their surviving spouses will be affected by the
bill, without their opinion having really been taken into
account.
1540
These people will be subjected to measures which, according to
the President of the Treasury Board himself, should have been
negotiated and on which workers should have been consulted. I
remind members that not so long ago, in February 1998, the
President of the Treasury Board had proposed consultations on
the pension plan.
He said, and I quote:
Consultations could lead to a partnership which would introduce
in the public service the concept of a management board acting
at arm's length from the government.
I stress the expression at arm's length, because it is extremely
important.
The bill before us makes no provision for partnership. I do not
see how the government can claim that the bill establishes some
sort of partnership with the members of the public service.
Bill C-78 is a unilateral act that permits the government to
dictate the rules of the game.
The members of the Public Service Alliance and the Professional
Institute of the Public Service are right to protest the way in
which the government is preparing to appropriate their assets.
I agree with the remarks of the alliance, which said, and I
quote:
We can certainly not sit back and watch this government
unilaterally take money out of the pockets of the contributors.
Not only is the Liberal government appropriating accumulated
surpluses, but Bill C-78 prepares the way for future surpluses.
In fact, in addition to taking the some $30 billion accumulated
in the various public service pension plans, clause 96 of Bill
C-78 will allow the government to take the surpluses of future
plans.
Let us not forget that the advisory committee on the Public
Service Superannuation Act noted, and I quote:
The Committee's view is that the allocation of surplus should be
in accordance with recommendations of the pension management
board.
The same committee stipulated that all special negotiations on
the subject had to recognize pensioners' interests.
Not only is the government blithely helping itself to something
that does not belong to it, but Bill C-78 also proves that it is
completely ignoring the recommendations made by the advisory
committee in 1996.
This is typical of the Liberal government. It examines issues,
keeps its backbenchers busy, produces wonderful reports, pens
lovely letters, and comes up with great discussion topics, but
it takes none of this into account when it comes time to deliver
the goods.
This government's arrogance can also been seen in the provisions
concerning the establishment of the public sector pension
investment board. The provisions of Bill C-78 must be completely
overhauled.
Once again, the government shows that it is incapable of taking
workers' interests into consideration.
Its bill does not guarantee sufficient worker representation on
the board's board of directors. Let it be noted that the
advisory board clearly recommended that six of the board's
directors represent employers and six represent workers.
Bill C-78 has a number of other shortcomings. As my time is
running out, I will only mention some of them.
For instance, the bill does not allow the board to establish
independently the percentage of funds that must be held
available for investment in Government of Canada bonds. Clause
50 provides that the governor in council may make regulations
respecting the limitations to which the board is subject when it
makes investments.
By setting too high a percentage of funds to buy government
bonds, the government could significantly reduce the board's
ability to achieve rates comparable to those of other pension
funds.
In conclusion, I hope the government will support the very
legitimate amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, which
reflect what we heard from our constituents, in our ridings
across Quebec.
The government would be well advised to take a serious look at
these amendments. It should leave aside its tendency to indulge
in petty politics and see the serious nature of our proposed
amendments.
1545
Again, these amendments did not come out of the blue, but from
workers in Quebec—because, as Bloc Quebecois members, we work
hard to protect the interests of Quebeckers—who came to meet us,
and who want to see these amendments included in the bill. We
cannot sit idly and let the government misappropriate $30
billion without saying anything. No way.
As one of my constituents said, “Tell the minister, if you see
him”—and I do now—“that he should keep his hands in his own
pockets. That way, we will be sure he is not going to take money
out of our pockets”. This says it all. People in Quebec and the
rest of Canada are fed up with this government, which takes
money out of their pockets whenever it feels like it, for its
own purposes.
By supporting our proposed amendments, the government would make
honourable amends for its lack of respect toward public service
employees. In fact, the least this government could do is to
take into consideration the advice and opinion of those who are
entitled to the content of the funds that it is about to steal
from.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to join the debate on Bill C-78.
The intent of this bill was to improve the financial management
of the three major public sector pension plans as well as to make
technical changes. I am convinced that if the intent of the bill
was strictly to improve those pension plans, the government would
have the undivided support of all members of this House rather
than just its own.
The bill will affect the RCMP, the armed forces and federal
public servants. It will also establish a new plan for Canada
Post employees at a future time.
With this bill the government has failed to truly take part in
improving the benefits for all persons involved. As far as the
discussion on the surplus is concerned, the government will argue
that the surplus is strictly its own. It has come to be
acknowledged in Canada and in a good many countries that when
workers and employers invest into plans for the workers, if there
is a surplus it is a shared surplus. In private business within
Canada that is the acceptable road to go.
The government has once again failed to truly support the
workers who in many cases give their lives for this country. The
government has failed to commit to the pay equity process over
the last 14 or 15 years. There has been a lot of rhetoric about
how it believes in pay equity and a whole spiel of things. The
government comes out with wonderful sayings but when it gets down
to the brass tacks of things, it does not come through.
Once again the government has said to public sector workers in
Canada and to all the others who are affected that they really
are not valued and the government is not going to put anything
extra into that plan, even though women will retire from the
public service with a wonderful pension plan of $9,600 a year.
This does not seem to be the infrequent case. It affects too
many members. Those persons will have no opportunity to have
further benefits from that pension plan.
In reality this bill will increase premiums at some point but
the government will still be responsible for deficits in the
plan. The Government of Canada did not want to have this deficit
hanging over its head. The government is using the deficit of
the public service pension plan as a ploy to get the deficit
down, get rid of the pension plan and have it looked after by
another medium.
However, the government wants to use the surplus to offset the
government deficit. Meanwhile it is using the money to offset
the deficit saying there is a surplus within the government. The
government has been playing a shell game with the book figure on
the public service pension plan surplus.
1550
Another area within this bill that certainly could have used an
improvement was in regard to the board. My hon. colleague from
the Bloc has just mentioned that it will not ensure
representation by the workers or the members involved in the
plan.
Certainly on the advisory board different groups will have an
opportunity to be represented. The advisory board can make
recommendations of names, but the minister does not necessarily
have to accept those names. I have seen situations where names
have been put forward and the minister says, “No, I do not want
that person”. Another name goes forth and another name goes
forth until the minister possibly will have the board that he or
she so chooses.
Sadly in a good many situations what ends up happening and what
has led to a lack of credibility and no longer a show of support
for a number of good organizations, is there are political
appointments. The minister may not end up on the board or maybe
not his cousin right now, or a former minister but there is the
opportunity for other political appointments from political
parties, somebody's wife, a minister's wife ending up on the
board. There is nothing to restrict those kinds of things from
happening.
Those types of issues have made Canadians leery of politicians
and the whole process. As a result we all suffer from the lack
of credibility the Canadian public will show for government and
for all politicians.
Another area that has been of concern, and I am glad we have put
forth an amendment to address that issue, is that the funds will
be invested through the normal investment process, the market.
There is a real situation arising and the workers, or individual
Canadians who are part of these plans, may see their dollars
being invested in companies such as Imperial Tobacco.
We are fighting so hard to decrease the number of kids who are
addicted to tobacco. We are fighting the dollars that go into
the tobacco industry as best we can. This is not because we do
not believe there can be some kind of an industry with tobacco
products. It is because we do not believe companies should be
selling the product as healthy and that it is okay to smoke. Suck
it in, end up sick, die, and the health care system is going to
pick up the tab. As we fight that in parliament, the pension
dollars will be at risk of being invested in those same companies
as they sell their products in countries that maybe will not
succeed in putting in some of the laws and regulations that I
hope we are able to do to protect our citizens and certainly our
youth.
Tobacco is an issue but there are others, to say nothing of
companies that make arms or land mines, for that matter. Is
there some way we can ensure that no dollars within these pension
funds are going to support companies that are producing land
mines? We are fighting the battle to have land mines banned
throughout the world. We cannot get the U.S. to come on board.
Can we ensure that these pension dollars will not be invested in
those companies?
Unless we can ensure that happens, I think we are failing
Canadians and the people in these pension funds who do not want
their pension dollars to go to those companies. That is a major
issue.
Some people do not think that ethical funds can survive or have
an extra dollar put in their pockets. I would suggest that the
people who strongly support ethical funds, if it were a
difference of a dollar or so, quite frankly if it were a
difference of a whole lot of dollars, they would still stand
behind the investment in ethical funds. They should be given the
opportunity to ensure that dollars coming out of their pension plan can be
invested in ethical funds. That is an absolute must within this
bill.
The mutualization of funds is taking place in some companies.
The investor I deal with actually was shocked when I asked what
was going to happen with the dollars that we had in our funds and
whether he was going to ensure that they were invested in ethical
funds. The question had not come up. He was taxed with the
process of finally having to check to see what exactly could be
done.
I can say quite frankly, if it were my dollar, I would not want
it being invested in tobacco companies, land mine companies, or
any kind of company that is not doing what is best for people
worldwide. If we want to talk about globalization, then let us
show a real interest and support for globalization in expecting
the same things for Canadians and people all over the world.
1555
The government's move for closure on this bill is really
disappointing. It is not allowing a thorough and proper debate
on an issue that affects so many Canadians. It was brought about
quickly, it was slammed through committee quickly. Closure
having been brought in did not allow Canadians overall and those
affected to hear about this. Some have heard but others are just
realizing now that their pension dollars are going to be
affected. The government needs a little slap on the wrist again
for invoking closure and for not allowing proper debate on an
issue so important to the people investing in these pension
plans.
I would encourage all members of this House to support the
amendments which will at least give this act some credibility.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on this bill to
establish the public sector pension investment board.
It is another measure designed to allow the Liberal government
to take money from taxpayers. This government is very
consistent. It always has a scheme to appropriate funds, and the
one who designs these schemes is the Minister of Finance.
Members will recall that, in recent months and recent years, it
was the Minister of Human Resources Development who designed a
scheme to take money from the unemployed. This resulted in a
surplus of some $26 billion.
We know what the federal government did with these $26 billion.
It created programs to interfere, once again, in areas under
provincial jurisdiction.
This time, the Minister of Finance has called on another one of
his accomplices to help him, and that person is none other than
the President of the Treasury Board.
He has asked him to find another way to grab funds. This scheme
will allow the Liberal government to get its hands on $30
billion, and that money will not come just from anywhere: $14.9
billion will come from the public service pension plan, $2.4
billion from the RCMP pension plan and $12.9 billion from the
Canadian forces pension plan.
The most frightening thing about this scheme is that, once
again, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury
Board did not hold any consultations regarding Bill C-78.
What do we see in this bill? We see that the President of the
Treasury Board has ignored his commitments, just as the Liberal
government has been doing since it came to power in September 1997.
How is the board going to be managed? Members should listen to
this: the Liberal government, through its ministers, will
appoint board members. First the chairperson will be appointed
by the President of the Treasury Board in consultation with the
other departments concerned.
The consultation will not take long, all they will have to do is
check whether the nominee is a card carrying Liberal, how much
he or she contributes to the Liberal Party coffers, and whether
he or she approves the Liberals' mistreatment of the poorest of
the poor. This is the main criterion.
Two members will be appointed by the President of the Treasury
Board on the recommendation of the advisory committee. One will
represent public service employees. Again, very partisan
appointments, which will not represent the interests of the
parties concerned by Bill C-78.
Then there will be a member chosen by the minister among
pensioners.
1600
Again, they will check whether the nominee belongs or
contributes to the Liberal Party. This is how the government
goes about making appointments.
In short, this means the government is once again poised to
create a new Liberal commando that will take all necessary steps
to attack the surpluses in three pensions funds.
It is very sad to see how the government has been operating
lately.
Furthermore, it is giving a bad example because, if it is going
to unilaterally take money from pension funds of the three plans
I have mentioned, there will be people in the private sector who
will be encouraged to do the same, which could put at risk the
surpluses in the pension funds of several dozens of employees.
The federal government's action could have bad consequences for
workers in Quebec and in Canada.
There is nothing much positive in this bill. We see once again
the government using its old methods to take money from the
poorest. Federal Liberals were very successful at this with the
employment insurance fund, and they are ready to do the same
with this bill to establish the public sector pension investment
board.
How can we get federal Liberals to listen to reason? How can we
make the people opposite understand common sense?
The more we move into this arrogant system, this authoritarian
system that does not respect anything and that develops a more
and more centralizing government, the more we see it ignores all
jurisdictions, all institutions and all things that were
established in the last 10 years.
To take the money it wishes to have at its disposal to implement
more partisan programs, the government is prepared to do
anything. It is prepared to invade all areas of provincial
jurisdiction and private sector areas to raid billions of
dollars.
If the President of the Treasury Board does not support the
amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, then my party will
certainly reject out of hand the establishment of this public
sector pension investment board.
We will vote against this bill, unless the government takes the
time to go over our amendments. Given the way the Liberal
government is behaving, the way it respects democracy and
listens to the people, I fear that Bill C-78 will give them even
more power to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers, of
people who have worked hard and have served the government for
many, many years.
To reward them, the government is taking money they have earned
through their hard work and using it for some unprecedented
propaganda, probably some programs to demonstrate once again how
generous the government is, when its generosity is only about
appointing its friends to manage this new board and extending a
helping hand to Liberal supporters.
There was no consultation. Board directors will be appointed by
ministers. Bill C-78 has me very concerned and I will definitely
vote against it.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
shall continue in exactly the same vein as my colleague, who
gave a most informative speech, which I hope will strike a
responsive chord on the government side, because I believe the
hon. member for Lotbinière has really pointed out what is at
stake.
1605
I would have liked to vote in favour of the legislation. It
contains an important provision which is close to my heart and
which is something I have been fighting for over the past few
years, that is the recognition of same sex spouses. I cannot,
however, vote in favour of this bill. There is not one member of
the Bloc who can vote in favour of the bill because it is
unfair.
I believe if there is one thing that characterizes the
government's actions, it is the total disrespect it has for its
public servants. What we are asked to vote for is not
insignificant. We are asked to pass legislation that will create
the public sector pension investment board.
Of course, we would have expected that such a bill would have
been arrived at as a result of the broadest possible consensus.
If there is something sacred in democracy, it is the way we
treat public servants who, as members know, are at the service
of their fellow citizens. Often, public servants earn $28,000,
$30,000, $32,000 or $35,000 a year. I am not talking about the
mandarins. The majority of public servants I am talking about
here are honest employees who work hard for their money. The
government says their pension funds are none of their business.
If the government had been serious about establishing good
public relations and harmonious labour relations, we would have
before us a bill establishing a joint management board where
Treasury Board and union representatives would work together,
discussing the best ways to spend the money in the pension
funds, particularly the surpluses.
The main purpose of the bill is to approve a mandate that would
give the government authority to unilaterally appropriate the
surpluses in the three plans.
We are talking about a total surplus of close to $30 billion. I
will be more specific. There is the public service pension fund,
with $14,9 billion; the RCMP pension fund, with $2,4 billion;
and the Canadian forces pension fund, with $12,9 billion.
Workers have contributed to these pension plans. That kind of
money does not grow in trees.
If workers have contributed to these pension plans, how is it
that they are not consulted when the time comes to use these
funds, especially when there are surpluses, since this is what
we are talking about.
We all know that ultimately it is a matter of respect for
Canadian workers. There are now 275,000 contributors in these
plans. That is a lot of people. There are certainly a few of
those workers in your riding, Madam Speaker,. There are some in
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in Lotbiniere, in Saint-Jean and in
Châteauguay.
They are honest workers who have contributed to their pension
plan and who, under the provisions of this bill, will not be
consulted about the use of the surplus.
Earlier, a member took offence at the fact that some of my
colleagues used the word “stealing”. It is true that the word
“stealing” is very significant. It is true that we should use it
most sparingly. Members know how careful the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are with words.
However, Madam Speaker, I wonder if you could suggest another
word because I cannot find any other to describe an action by
which someone pinches, appropriates, uses or grabs funds that
belong to someone else.
1610
Madam Speaker, if you think that this is not stealing, then I
think the issue will have to be referred to the French Academy
or the French Canadian Academy. From our point of view, when
someone uses something that does not belong to him, I believe
that we as an opposition party, have no other choice but to talk
about stealing.
We are not dealing here with pilferage, or shoplifting. This
type of action is comparable to what highwaymen did when they
robbed people of all their hard earned possessions.
I am convinced the word used by my colleague—and I say this
with all due respect—was the proper term.
The saddest thing about this bill—and I think I am right but
the member for Saint-Jean can correct me if I am mistaken—is
that I believe there were negotiations that went on for three
years. Three years of negotiations cannot be simply brushed away
and completely ignored in the balance that must be achieved in
managing the public service in a responsible way.
The question I ask all the government members in the House is
this: why not follow the model that exists in many other areas
where everything associated with labour relations is done
jointly? It is the Quebec model: the various parties sit own at
the same table, employers, public servants, union
representatives and, of course, the workers themselves. They try
to find solutions and they succeed.
From what we can see in the structure proposed by the President
of the Treasury Board—and we have no reason to question his
personal integrity at this time, that is not what this is all
about—why is he letting himself be sucked in by his government
when he should be the staunchest defender of public servants in
parliament?
Why is this minister, who, I repeat, should be the defender of
public servants' rights, letting himself be completely blinded
by his government and why is he accepting to sponsor a bill that
will steal from these workers part of the surpluses that
rightfully belong to them? I will remind members once again that
this money comes from contributions paid by the workers.
The member for Longueuil, who knows this issue well and who will
certainly rise to take part in this debate in a few minutes,
tells me to remind you that clause 10 is quite important. This
is no time to be reading the newspaper. I see some members doing
that, but I would ask them through you, Madam Speaker, to listen
to what I am saying.
Clause 10 says the President of the Treasury Board shall
establish a committee of eight members to make a list of
candidates from which the 12 directors of the board will be
selected. This means that no union representative will be
appointed directly under this bill. This is the tragedy of this
bill.
Members know full well that the government will appoint people
who embrace its philosophy and who share its views. There is a
term to describe this kind of practice: it is called patronage.
I see that my time has expired, Madam Speaker, so I ask you to
recall the bill and to ask the pages to take up all the copies.
1615
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motions Nos. 5 to 7, 14, 31, 40 and 48.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Shall I dispense?
An hon. member: No.
[Editor's Note: Chair read text of motion to the House]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motion No. 12.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. Shall I dispense?
An hon. member: No.
[Editor's Note: Chair read text of motion to the House]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motion No. 11.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
1620
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Shall I dispense?
An hon. member: No.
[Editor's Note: Chair read text of motion to the House]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motions Nos. 10 and 13.
The next question is on Motion No. 32.
Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred.
We will now move on to Group No. 2.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 9 on
page 29 with the following:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 38 with the following:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 62, be amended
(a) by replacing line 12 on page 40 with the following:
“payable under this Part to a surviving spouse or child,”
(b) by replacing line 24 on page 40 with the following:
“surviving spouse has become entitled under this Part to”
(c) by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 41 with the following:
“(b) a benefit to which a contributor, surviving spouse or child
is entitled under this Part or Part”
That Bill C-78, in Clause 64, be amended
(a) by replacing line 38 on page 42 with the following:
“annuity or an annual allowance, the surviving spouse”
(b) by replacing line 4 on page 43 with the following:
“(a) in the case of the surviving spouse, an immediate”
(c) by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 43 with the following:
“without leaving a surviving spouse, the surviving spouse is dead
or the surviving spouse is not entitled to receive”
(d) by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 43 with the following:
“died without leaving a surviving spouse, the surviving spouse is
dead or the surviving spouse is not entitled to receive”
(e) by replacing line 26 on page 43 with the following:
“(2)(a) or (b), the surviving spouse and children of the”
(f) by replacing line 42 on page 43 with the following:
“1967 of less than five years, the surviving spouse and”
(g) by replacing lines 15 to 17 on page 44 with the following:
“service, the surviving spouse and children of the contributor,
in any case where the contributor died leaving a surviving spouse
or a child less than”
That Bill C-78, in Clause 65, be amended
(a) by replacing line 29 on page 46 with the following:
“the surviving spouse and children of the contributor”
(b) by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 46 with the following:
“more years of pensionable service, the surviving spouse and
children of the contributor are entitled”
That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended
(a) by replacing line 4 on page 50 with the following:
“the surviving spouse and children of a contributor are”
(b) by replacing line 7 on page 50 with the following:
“surviving spouse except that”
(c) by replacing line 11 on page 50 with the following:
“payment is to be made the surviving spouse is dead”
(d) by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 50 with the following:
“for died without leaving a surviving spouse or at the time
payment is to be made the surviving spouse”
(e) by replacing lines 27 to 29 on page 50 with the following:
“surviving spouse at the time payment is to be made, the total
amount shall be paid to the surviving spouse and the children so
living apart in”
(f) by replacing line 32 on page 50 with the following:
“stances, or to the surviving spouse or any of the”
(g) by replacing line 37 on page 50 with the following:
“to be made the surviving spouse is dead or cannot be”
(h) by replacing line 39 on page 50 with the following:
“leaving a surviving spouse and at the time the”
That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended
“(2) If there are two surviving spouses of a contributor, the
share of the total amount to be paid to surviving spouse referred
to in paragraph (a) of the definition “surviving spouse” in
subsection 3(1) and the share to be paid to the surviving spouse
referred to in paragraph (b) of that definition shall be paid
as the Minister may direct.”
That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing lines 27
to 42 on page 51 with the following:
“(4) For the purposes of this Part, where a contributor dies
and the contributor had been, for a period of not less than one
year immediately before the contributor's death, residing with a
person of the opposite sex to whom the contributor was not
married, the Treasury Board may deem that person to be the
surviving spouse of the contributor if, during that period, that
person had been publicly represented by the contributor to be the
spouse of the contributor, and may deem that person to have
become married to the contributor on the day established by that
person to the satisfaction of the Treasury Board as being the day
on which the representation began.
(4.1) For the purposes of this Part, where a contributor
dies and, at the time of death, the contributor was married to a
person with whom the contributor had been residing for a period
immediately before the marriage and who, during that period, had
been publicly represented by the contributor to be the spouse of
the contributor, the Treasury Board may deem that person to have
become married to the contributor on the day established by that
person to the satisfaction of the Treasury Board as being the day
on which the representation began.”
1625
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing lines 28
to 30 on page 51 with the following:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 51 with the following:
“whom the contributor had been residing in a relationship of
mutual dependency and companionship for a period”
(b) by replacing line 42 on page 51 with the following:
“day on which that person began to so reside with the
contributor.”
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended
“(5) A surviving spouse is not entitled to receive an annual
allowance if the surviving spouse makes an”
(c) by replacing line 10 on page 52 with the following:
“three months after the surviving spouse is notified of”
(d) by replacing line 14 on page 52 with the following:
(e) by replacing, in the English version, line 17 on page 52 with
the following:
“surviving spouse is found criminally responsible for”
(f) by replacing line 19 on page 52 with the following:
(g) by replacing, in the English version, line 22 on page 52 with
the following:
“Minister that the surviving spouse cannot be found.”
(h) by replacing line 25 on page 52 with the following:
(i) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 52 with the following:
“(a) the surviving spouse referred to in paragraph (a) of the
definition “surviving spouse” in subsection”
(j) by replacing lines 34 to 39 on page 52 with the following:
“contributor or since having been deemed under subsection (4.1)
to have become married to the contributor bears to the total
number of years that the contributor so cohabited with the
surviving spouses; and (b) the surviving spouse referred to in
paragraph (b)”
(k) by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 53 with the following:
“with the contributor since having been deemed under subsection
(4) to have become married to the contributor bears to the total
number of”
(l) by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 53 with the following:
“surviving spouses, either while married or while having been
deemed to have been married.”
(m) by replacing line 12 on page 53 with the following:
1630
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended
(a) by replacing line 32 on page 52 with the following:
“number of years that he or she resided in a relationship of
mutual dependency and companionship”
(b) by replacing lines 35 to 38 on page 52 with the following:
“or she resided with the contributor in a relationship described
in subsection (4) bears to the total number of years that the
contributor so resided with the survivors; and”
(c) by replacing lines 1 to 6 on page 53 with the following:
“number of years that he or she resided with the contributor in a
relationship described in subsection (4) bears to the total
number of years that the contributor resided with the survivors,
either while married or while in a relationship described in
subsection (4).”
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 76, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 24 to 32 on page 53 with the following:
“surviving spouse of a contributor is not entitled to an annual
allowance in respect of the contributor under this Part if that
contributor married the surviving spouse or was deemed under
subsection 25(4) to have become married to the surviving spouse
after having become entitled under this Part to an annuity or
annual allowance, unless, after the marriage, or after having
been so deemed to have become married, the contributor became
or”
(b) by replacing line 39 on page 53 with the following:
“the surviving spouse of the contributor or the children”
(c) by replacing line 5 on page 54 with the following:
“Part by virtue of being the surviving spouse of a female”
(d) by replacing line 16 on page 54 with the following:
“Part by virtue of being the surviving spouse of a female”
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 76, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 53 with the following:
“survivor or began to reside with the survivor in a relationship
described in subsection 25(4) after”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 32 on page 53 with
the following:
“of so residing, the contributor became or”
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 81, be amended
(a) by replacing line 26 on page 57 with the following:
“nor the contributor's surviving spouse or children”
(b) by replacing line 41 on page 57 with the following:
“sion Act, all surviving spouses within the meaning of”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty pursuant
to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Cumberland—Colchester, Air Safety.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the thoroughness with which you have gone through the
motions for us today on this section of the bill and the Group
No. 2 amendments. This is an important group of amendments and I
would like to take a minute to detail why they are important and
to point out some of the grievous shortcomings in this section of
the bill.
The amendments I put forward and ones other members have put
forward, but particularly mine, are designed to return the act to
where it was prior to this current piece of legislation. There
is a very good reason to bring it back to where it was.
This government bill before us affects the pension plans of
public service employees. Bill C-78 makes a significant change
in the determination of who will be eligible for survivor
benefits.
1635
The bill changes the test. Prior to this bill the test was
fairly clear. With this bill if the contributor is married and
the contributor dies, the surviving spouse, a party to the
marriage, is eligible for the benefits. There are a few other
minor tests such as living together at the time of death and that
kind of thing. Basically a person who is married to a
contributor who has died is eligible for the benefits.
There is another group that is eligible. The sole test for this
other group for the benefits from the contributor is cohabitation
for a year and having a relationship of a conjugal nature. This
terminology is new to law. We have had the phrase “having a
conjugal relationship” but in this bill it is “having a
relationship of a conjugal nature”. It may seem like a small
point but it is not. Let me explain why.
The word conjugal usually applies to some sort of physical
intimacy or sexual activity within the confines of a marriage
type of relationship. Bill C-78 is basically saying that the
private intimacies between two people will be the determining
factor as to whether or not one is going to receive a benefit.
Think about that for a minute. The private intimacies between
two people will determine whether or not they receive benefits.
How will anybody know about these private intimacies? And whose
business is it anyway? That is where this bill is taking us.
Prior to this bill, in the legislation that is being amended,
that was not a required test for the extension of benefits, nor
should it be.
This bill is being proposed by a government that once had a
prime minister who said the government has no place in the
bedrooms of the nation. Now it is putting forward legislation
which says that someone who has physical intimacies with a person
will receive survivor benefits. It seems unworkable to me. How
will anyone know? What are we going to set it up? Will we have
some sort of inquisition of people's personal intimacies? That
is a scary thought but it seems that is where this bill is taking
us.
Beyond that, the bill does not in any way define what a
relationship of a conjugal nature is. What is that doing? It is
leaving it to the courts. People will be in the courts arguing
whether or not they had a relationship of a conjugal nature.
This is after the contributor has died. Who knows what was going
on and again, what business is it of the government anyway to
make that the key factor for determining benefits? It does not
make sense. Where could this take us?
The bill does not say a relationship of a conjugal nature with
one person. What about three people living together? Does that
mean that both of those people have a relationship of a conjugal
nature with the contributor? Are they both eligible? Nowhere in
this legislation is it defined or addressed. It is wide open.
This is a significant cause for concern. It makes the legislation
unworkable.
On the other side of the coin, why is this test of a conjugal
nature the key? If we want to extend benefits under Bill C-78 to
people who had some sort of relationship, does that mean we are
going to exclude certain people? If two people have a close
relationship, share expenses, have lived together for years, are
more than just average friends but they do not have any intimate
physical relations, are they out or are they in? Who is going to
decide that? The courts again? Certainly not this legislation
because it gives absolutely no direction in that area. It is a
recipe for confusion and litigation. It is very poorly drafted
and very poorly thought out.
We had an opportunity in committee to ask the minister about
this very issue.
I thought surely the minister would have thought this out and
would have an answer for me. Here is the answer I got and I am
paraphrasing but it can be seen in the committee Hansard.
He basically told me that the lawyers made them do it. I could
not believe it.
1640
The courts had made some decisions and I think he was referring
to the Rosenberg case where the courts ruled a redefinition of
the term “spouse”. The justice minister said she was going to
appeal that decision and defend the current Canadian law and
never did. Now the courts have redefined a section in one act in
government legislation.
The President of the Treasury Board said that the courts made
them do this and the lawyers told them to write it this way. Is
this how the Liberal government governs? The courts made them do
it. The lawyers told them to do it. What are they doing? They
are setting this up for a test of physical intimacy for the
determination of benefits. It just does not make sense. It is a
poor approach to the serving of the people.
What kind of a bureaucracy are we going to have to establish to
assess who qualifies and who does not? I hesitate to use the
term as I do not want to offend anyone, but we can envision some
sort of sex police or something like that who would determine the
regulations on this, who is included and who is excluded.
I am attempting to point out to the House and to those who are
listening today that if we are going to go down this road, surely
we have to keep it independent from the government invading in
the physical intimacies between two people. I concur with the
statement of the Liberal prime minister of some years back. Mr.
Trudeau said the government has no business in the bedrooms of
the nation, yet this very piece of legislation is driving it
right in there. For that reason we proposed the amendments.
I am hoping my talk today and talks I have given on this before
will cause us to rethink this. I believe the hon. member from
Scarborough has some points to make on this as well. I hope that
we can look at these amendments to bring the act back to where it
was before, where the government was not intruding in the private
affairs of people. If the government wants to go down this road,
rethink it and come up with something that works a lot better
than this.
Of course we are told that this change is not going to impact on
costs at all. It is going to be a very minor cost. How can we
know that when we do not know who qualifies and who does not
qualify? I do not buy the argument that this change is going to
be very minor cost because we do not know who is in or out. That
just does not wash.
Finally, the amendments I have proposed today were only some of
the amendments that were needed. There are 249 times in the 200
pages of this bill where any mention of wife or spouse or widow
or any of those kinds of terms has been replaced with one word,
the word survivor. Of course, survivor is subject to the
conjugality test.
We went to the legislative counsel for assistance in bringing
this act back to where it was before. Because of the rush and
the way the government has pushed Bill C-78 through the House
without a good airing of all the issues, the government has made
it impossible for the legislative counsel to make the appropriate
amendments to all sections of the bill. Many sections of the
bill need amending to bring it back to where it was before. I
have not had an opportunity to bring them to the House because of
time constraints.
Having said all that, I think I have shed some light on this.
There is a very serious concern to which we all need to pay
attention. I hope that when the vote comes we see some reason
and accept these amendments and have another look at the bill and
come forward with more appropriate legislation.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have four amendments in this grouping. I appreciate
the opportunity to have 10 minutes to explain to the House some
of the concerns I have with respect to the sections I wish to
speak on.
1645
I want to echo a number of the comments of the speaker before
me. I commend him for some of the motions he brought forward, in
particular Motion No. 23.
Motion No. 23 will bring clause 25 at page 51 back to the way it
was. In other words it will be a return to status quo. That
being the case I say outright that I will be supporting the
motion. I agree that the matter has proceeded in undue haste and
I think the motion is appropriate.
My motion, as I will explain in a moment, is a compromise to the
motion put forward by the member for Calgary Centre on the chance
that the House chooses to reject that motion and perhaps chooses
to consider in some way my compromise. I will explain that.
I am concerned about clause 75 found at page 51 of the bill. I
want to read it into the record. It refers to section 25 of the
act to be amended. I pity the people watching on television who
are trying to follow the clauses. However I hope to explain to
the House my main concern. It reads:
(4) For the purposes of this Part, when a person establishes that
he or she was cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature
with the contributor for at least one year immediately before the
death of the contributor, the person is considered to be the
survivor of the contributor.
As a lawyer I know that lawyers do not use language
indiscriminately. They use language very carefully. I disagree
with the hon. member for Calgary Centre who thinks that this
section was drafted in haste and drafted poorly.
My view is that it was drafted very carefully and very
insidiously by the justice department to continue its objective,
that is its drive eventually down the road to force Canadians to
accept same sex marriages and to change the law to require same
sex marriages.
This is a very significant step down the road. Why? Let us look
at the word conjugal. It has an ordinary English dictionary
meaning. If we are speaking the English language as we do as one
of the official languages in the House, we have to look at the
ordinary meaning of the word conjugal. It is very simple. By the
way I have checked it in French. It has the same meaning in
French as it has in English:
Conjugal, of marriage; the right of sexual intercourse with a
spouse; of the mutual relation of husband and wife.
That is its definition in the Oxford English Dictionary.
This is the section used by the government to provide for same
sex benefits. Yet the word conjugal is known in the English
language as pertaining to marriage and pertaining to the right of
sexual intercourse with a spouse. Therefore it is an oxymoron to
say that it deals with same sex couples because that is not a
husband and a wife and it is not the sexual intercourse between
spouses. Yet the word is used. It can only be used as the first
step toward trying to ensure that the federal law is changed to
permit same sex people to marry, which is federal jurisdiction.
What about the legal definition? Is there a difference? As it
happens there is no difference, but I went to a very well known
source, Black's Law Dictionary which deals with definitions
of the terms and phrases of American and English jurisprudence,
ancient and modern.
The definition of the word conjugal in Black's Law
Dictionary reads as follows:
Of or belonging to marriage or the married state; suitable or
appropriate to the married state or to married persons;
matrimonial; connubial.
Then it provides legal citations for that definition.
What does that mean? It means that both the ordinary English
Oxford Dictionary definition and the legal definition of
conjugal mean of marriage. It means relations between a husband
and wife.
1650
Why are the lawyers in the justice department using a word with
such a clear English and legal meaning to justify the extension
of same sex benefits to homosexual couples? There can be only
one reason. That is to further the agenda and to push us down
the road to the recognition of same sex marriages.
The allegation made by my own party is that we are simply
keeping federal pensions in line with court decisions. I have
three things to say to that. That is bunk. That is baloney.
That is balderdash.
All we have to do is look at the Supreme Court of Canada
decision in Egan and Nesbit which the government has ignored
purposefully and which the Ontario Court of Appeal in Rosenberg
grossly ignored and in my opinion improperly ignored since it was
a higher court. Egan and Nesbit was a case in which the court
was called upon to decide whether or not same sex partners could
get old age security benefits. That is right on point with same
sex survivors benefits here.
What was the decision of that court? It could not have been
closer, which is rather interesting. It was a 5:4 split
decision. Five of the nine judges were of the view that the
definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act contravened
section 15(1). Four of the judges felt that it was perfectly
acceptable. One of the five who felt that it contravened was
prepared to use section 1 to permit the contravention. Why?
Because, he said, the “government must be accorded some
flexibility in extending social benefits and does not have to be
proactive in recognizing new social relationships”.
Couple that with the majority decision, that is to say the
decision of four of the nine judges. There were no other
groupings of judges in the Supreme Court of Canada in that case
where four of the nine were agreed. They said:
Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our
legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of longstanding
philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison
d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the
biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have
the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the
product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared
for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this
sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible
to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but
this would not change the biological and social realities that
underlie the traditional marriage.
They went on to say:
The singling out of legally married and common law couples as the
recipients of benefits necessarily excludes all sorts of other
couples living together, whatever reasons these other couples may
have for doing so and whatever their sexual orientation. What
Parliament clearly had in mind was to accord support to married
couples who were aged and elderly, for the advancement of public
policy central to society—
The advancement of public policy central to society is to
sustain the traditional definition of marriage, and this will
erode it.
On Egan and Nesbit the Supreme Court of Canada has spoken.
Activist judges in lower courts did not like the decision so
Rosenberg in Ontario chose to ignore it and went right ahead and
decided their own way, ignoring a higher court.
The government examined the Rosenberg decision, realized that it
was more in thinking with what it wanted to do with its agenda
and with the agenda of the justice department and chose not to
appeal it, thereby legitimizing what I would argue is a
questionable decision.
I urge members of the House to consider rejecting the paragraph
as it now is for no other reason than the legally improper use of
the word conjugal. It will open up a Pandora's box of
nightmares.
1655
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is rather
odd that in debating a bill regarding the public service pension
fund surplus we have to address the issue of same sex partners.
Sometimes things are hard to explain, but this being said, we
are going to have to address it.
I believe the government should have settled the issue in a
different way.
It should have introduced a separate piece of legislation to
settle the issue once and for all; otherwise there will always
be a risk. No matter what kind of bills will be introduced in
the House of Commons, someone could always introduce an
amendment to clarify the same sex couple issue.
In my mind it would have been a lot simpler for the government
to settle this issue once and for all, and to proceed with the
necessary changes following debate and discussions in the House.
But instead it chose to take a piecemeal approach, which creates
some distortions.
I am going to give you another example I am more familiar with
as Indian affairs critic. It was found that in the area of
matrimonial property division in case of divorce there is no
protection whatsoever for women living on reserve. So we
wondered what to do about it.
What happened is that we started seeing bills regarding native
people being introduced in the House of Commons; Bill C-49 is a
case in point.
Native women lobbied hard and managed to convince us, in the
Bloc Quebecois, as well as other members who supported us, to
add to Bill C-49 a new chapter dealing with the division of
matrimonial property. We told the government “You would be well
advised to introduce a specific bill to settle this problem
regarding native women once and for all”.
There is a risk for the House. No matter what kind of bill
concerning native people will come before the House, native
women will want to add a section dealing with the problem they
want to solve.
The same applies to the bill before us today.
It does not matter what bill is introduced in the House, there
will always be someone who will want to debate indirectly the
issue of same sex spouses and manage to introduce amendments to
rectify the situation. So there is a problem.
I believe a great deal of debate would be saved if, once in a
while, the government took the bull by the horns and resolved
these problems once and for all.
We are beginning to hear legalistic talk about the supreme court
having ruled this, that or the other way. This shows some lack
of courage on the part of governments. Instead of settling
important issues through legislation, and through elected
representatives, they often dictate our conduct by giving us
lessons in common law or referring to the superior court, the
provincial appeal courts or the supreme court.
This shows a lack of courage on the part of the government,
which avoids dealing openly with important issues, which drag on
and will continue to drag on, despite all the debates we will
have in this House. Yet, a specific bill would have allowed us
to settle the issue once and for all.
Debate on a specific bill would probably have lasted quite a
while, until the government decided to gag us. However, I
believe that in the future it should be an option. If we want to
bring a substantive solution to the issue of same sex spouses,
the government should introduce a bill and amend the whole
legislation in a way that would allow the House to apply a final
solution instead of taking a piecemeal approach.
Now, what is the situation today? As I said earlier, there are
distortions.
For instance, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who openly
admitted he is gay, will probably be forced to vote against the
bill. I cannot speak in his place, but when he spoke earlier on
the motions in Group No. 1, he said this legislation was
unacceptable. He tried to find a word to describe it that could
be used in the House. All day long, words were used in debate
like “abduction”, “piracy”, “raiding”, “misappropriation”.
1700
We have been trying to avoid unparliamentary language. Still,
this bill is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois, and I think it
is unacceptable to all opposition parties.
Even my colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve intends to vote
against this bill. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas said he
would have voted against it too, if he had been here, but he is
away on a mission.
We also have the opposite situation. There are government
members who find this bill acceptable and will vote for it, but
they do not necessarily like the new definition of spouse and
their only way out is to move amendments.
I do not know what the outcome of our discussion on the second
group of motions will be, and I do not know how the vote will
turn out. However, after listening to the previous speaker, I
get the impression that this issue will more or less be
considered a moral issue, and that we will have free votes. In
our party, we are thinking about having a free vote on Group
No. 2, so that members can express their own views, because this
is a moral issue.
Personally, I did not choose homosexuality, but heterosexuality.
Yet I am open-minded enough to understand there are other things
that are important besides my own feelings. It is part of
politics that our ideals and ideas may not prevail. In the end,
we must sometimes recognize that certain things that are
different from our own lifestyle can be accepted.
I am one of the people who accept this. Some of my good friends
are homosexuals. I have, in fact, made an effort to invite them
over for a meal so that we could discuss these matters in depth.
I am now perfectly capable of understanding that someone can
have a life partner for 10, 15, 20, even 30 years. There have
been recent court decisions on a couple who had been together 25
years, two people who loved each other deeply. I feel that the
surviving partner of a person who has worked in the public
service is entitled to survivor benefits, even if he or she is a
same sex partner. That is, however, a completely personal
opinion.
I would have liked to see—and I shall close on this point—the
federal government follow Quebec's example. As recently as last
week, Quebec announced that it would be introducing a bill to
amend all of its legislation as far as this very issue of same
sex partners is concerned. That would avoid a great deal of
debate, as I said at the start of my speech. Then there would
not have to be debate on each piece of legislation, as to
whether to introduce a new definition of spouse or to stick to
the traditional one.
I salute the Government of Quebec for having had the courage to
do this. The courts are not going to be the ones to decide
whether the definition, as it stands, is legal or not. The
government will be undertaking a major change and a major
cleanup of all its laws and regulations. It will be holding a
debate on whether we, as a society, are in favour of recognizing
same sex spouses.
It will adjust the whole parliamentary mechanism, regulations
and laws, after the debate.
Naturally, people will be able to have their say, and I hope
that in Quebec City, as in Ottawa, if such a bill is ever
introduced, the debate will go on as long as possible. I think
this is the sort of discussion where people should speak up, and
the definition may be decided once and for all.
If there is such a debate, I would be pleased to rise and say
something of what I have said today and we would thus avoid
having to rise with each bill and say “The definition in the
bill is not traditional, I object and move an amendment”. That
would save us a lot of discussion.
I would ask the federal government to follow the example of
Quebec and to settle once and for all the question on the
merits, not only for same sex couples but, as I mentioned
earlier, for native women who are living on reserves, and for
the division of property. We would do well to resolve this
matter once and for all.
1705
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have another opportunity to speak to Bill C-78. We
have had precious few opportunities, given that the debate was
shut down at second reading after only four hours and the
committee hearings were stifled and curtailed to the point where
we entertained very few witnesses, even though all of the
opposition parties advocated hearing 40 to 50 witnesses and even
taking the show on the road.
We believe that this bill is so important we should be touring
the country with it so that seniors would have an opportunity to
make representation and to research it, as happened when the
government tried to make changes to the seniors benefit when the
guaranteed income supplement and the old age security were to be
merged into one seniors benefit. That was a huge, fundamental
change in the way we deal with retirees and senior citizens in
this country. To its credit, the government went on the road.
There was a huge touring task force which heard from people from
all walks of life.
The reaction and the very predictable consequence was that
seniors mobilized. They got active and they mobilized their
opposition to a huge degree and the government had to back off.
Presumably the reason the government is closing debate on this
bill is because it does not want the same thing to happen again.
The Liberals know they are on shaky ground and they know that the
public outrage is only starting to build momentum. In the last
few weeks the public has had time to start to research the bill
and to send newsletters to the memberships of their organizations
to get seniors motivated and active in opposition to this bill.
I predict that had they let democracy take its course, we would
have seen a huge backlash, a huge outcry.
I think any government should be very cautious about taking on
senior citizens. A government would have to be crazy to mobilize
a fair fight against the seniors' movement because seniors are
well informed, they are well read and they are well organized.
We cross them at our peril if we are fighting a fair fight.
However, the government clearly is not because it has taken away
any opportunity for seniors or their elected representatives to
raise all of the issues that are necessary.
From day one I have maintained—
Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
know that the CLC convention was very important, but the
committee was available and hearing witnesses while the member—
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of
order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That certainly is
not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that ruling.
I have said from day one that Bill C-78 is an extremely
complicated bill that has profound and precedent setting public
policy implications. The debate we have heard in the last hour
and the amendments we have been debating point out that this bill
is not only about the pension plan or the new public sector
pension investment board, it goes far beyond that. The
government, in a cynical way I would argue, has tried to
introduce the concept of same sex spousal benefits. That is
something I am personally in favour of and have lobbied long and
hard for, but the government slipped it in with another package
which makes it very difficult for people who are interested in
both issues. They are finding a bit of a contradiction in terms
of being able to support the bill.
One member of our caucus has dedicated half of his life to fight
for same sex benefits and all of those rights and he is being put
in the uncomfortable position of having to vote against this bill
because he is so obviously against the financial aspects of it.
Some of the debate we have heard dealing with the group 2
amendments mystifies me because we are hearing from a group of
people who seem to feel somehow that by giving rights to one
group of people that will diminish their rights, as if rights
were a finite pie and if one group has too many they are going to
have to take less. I disagree with that point of view. It has
always been my position that if we give full rights to everyone,
all of our rights are enhanced, not diminished.
I am very concerned that many of the amendments in group 2 find
their origins in some not too thinly veiled homophobia. I am not
comfortable at all with some of the things that we have heard in
this room today. I wish people would take a more generous point
of view.
1710
However, some of the issues that were raised are quite
legitimate. Using the word conjugal as the test for
cohabitation, or whether one will be able to give survivor's
benefits to another person, has to be looked at a lot more
seriously. We will not have time to do that. I will have three
or four minutes to speak about it and then I presume the House
leader on the other side will come rushing in to move closure on
the debate and the whole thing will be put to bed, if you will
excuse the pun.
I do not think conjugal is any kind of a test. There are other
living arrangements that come up from time to time when people
cohabit and do not have a conjugal relationship and we should be
able to assign survivor's benefits to that partner as well,
whether it is to a brother or a sister who might share the same
home and so on. There are many aspects to it that we need to
investigate. Again it is sad that we will not have time to
debate properly this important, precedent setting public policy
issue.
Had the government come in through the front door, honestly,
with a bill dealing with the thorny issue which has been
surfacing year after year of same sex benefits, we could have had
an honest debate and really dealt with it in the way that it
deserves to be dealt with.
I spoke about seniors groups. One of the groups that was most
disappointed about closure and not having an opportunity to deal
with this at committee properly was the largest group of retirees
and senior citizens involved with the public sector, the federal
superannuates national association.
That group was notified the night before the committee hearing.
It represents hundreds of thousands of superannuates. The night
before it was to appear it was given the 200 page tome. Even the
clerk of the committee, when he gave me my copy of Bill C-78,
said it was weighty tome. Those were the terms he used. We
could hardly lift it. It is the size of the Manhattan phone
book. Those people had 12 hours to prepare their remarks on
behalf of all of the people they represent.
The parliamentary secretary thinks there was adequate time. The
whole committee, on the Liberal side at least, made it clear that
they did not really need to hear a lot of witnesses; two or three
unions maybe, two or three actuaries and a couple of people
involved in public sector pension plans would be adequate for
this huge, precedent setting piece of legislation. I cannot say
strongly enough how much I disagree.
We did not get a chance to go into some of the jurisprudence
involved with public sector pension plans which are silent on the
issue of what to do with a surplus. We never got a chance to
wrestle with that issue or even to look at recent cases.
One example comes to mind, that being when Ontario Hydro wanted
to take a contribution holiday because it had a surplus and CUPE,
the union representing the workers, to its credit, took Ontario
Hydro to court. The courts backed up the union's position that
the employer did not have an exclusive right to the surplus of
the plan, even it is a defined benefit plan. The money, in this
case, was split evenly. The employer received some money and
some of the money went to increase benefits. That kind of an
equitable settlement, whether by arbitration or by some court
ruling, is something that would have satisfied the people
involved in this case.
One of the amendments that has been put forward argues quite
capably that the government should live up to its own
legislation, which would be the federal Pension Benefits
Standards Act. Under that act any plans operating under federal
jurisdiction would require two-thirds of the members of the plan
to vote in favour of using any of the pension surplus for
anything at all. The government's own bill, which recently
received royal assent in 1998, calls for the beneficiaries of the
plan to have a say in the allocation of any surplus. I would
hope that at least that amendment would carry when this comes to
a vote.
We will not have enough time to adequately go through the many,
many issues in this complex piece of legislation because the
government will move closure again. It is a disservice to all
the people who are involved in the plan and all the survivors who
collect benefits.
1715
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, I
regret that we again do not have enough time allocated to debate
a very important piece of public policy, Bill C-78, which deals
with several issues that are of great importance to Canadians,
including the ones we are dealing with in this group of
amendments.
The issue of same sex benefits, whether it is in the public
service or the private sector, has been an issue that has
developed over a period of years. I would remind members of the
House that the supreme court has been consistent in its
interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
which protects the rights of all Canadians. That is very
important.
It is also important to remind ourselves as members of the House
that we were elected to represent and defend the rights of all
our constituent and to protect the rights of all Canadians. That
is not simply the groups of Canadians that we tend to agree with
or the groups of Canadians that we feel live in a lifestyle that
we happen to support. We were elected to support and represent
all Canadians.
As some suggest, this is not an issue of the redefinition of the
family. This is not about the redefinition of marriage. This is
simply an issue of fairness.
There are some people who use the phraseology “family values”.
Family values should be an intrinsically positive phrase. I think
every member of the House believes very strongly in the benefits
of a supportive, close-knit family, a nurturing family that
provides support and encouragement throughout one's life.
If we are serious about defending the family, defending family
values, defending the principles of support and that type of
important nuclear relationship that can exist within a family, we
should be encouraging all Canadians to live in the types of
unions that provide them with that level of support throughout
their lives. If we are serious about it, we should be
encouraging not discouraging Canadians to live in those types of
relationships.
Unfortunately, family values is used by some members of the
House as a euphemism for discriminatory policy against one group
or another. Although some would argue that when we extend rights
or protect the rights of some we diminish the rights of others,
there is absolutely no precedent in history to that effect. A
significant number of precendents have been set throughout
history showing that when we fail to protect the rights of one
group we imperil the rights of all groups collectively. It is
very important for all of us in the House to defend the rights of
all the people we represent and all Canadians.
Seventy-five per cent of Canadians support human rights
legislation to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination
based on sexual orientation. The supreme court has been
consistent in its interpretation of the charter of rights. There
is currently a federal legal challenge that was initiated in
January 1999 to force the federal government to recognize same
sex benefits within the public service. The PSAC union has
represented the interests of its members in this case in support
of the extension of same sex benefits, particularly relative to
survivors.
This debate is not dissimilar to the debate that I believe
existed at some point relative to common law spouses and an
extension of survivor benefits to common law spouses that has
taken place in the House. We have seen how that has evolved. The
family has evolved and there is a more flexible definition of the
family in that regard.
We can have two individuals working for the public service who
perhaps work in the same job category or even in the same office
with desks next to each other.
One person is in a heterosexual marriage, works for the
government for 10 years and then dies. The survivor benefits,
based on what he or she has paid into the pension plan, will be
there for his or her survivor.
1720
In the other case, the second individual could be gay or lesbian
and living in a long term supportive relationship with
dependants. He or she may also have worked in the same job over
a period of 10 years. However, if something happens to this
person, the spouse will be denied benefits despite the fact that
both the first individual and the second individual paid taxes
and both paid identically into the public service pension plan.
This is a clear case of where the government needs to ensure that
this discriminatory policy is not permitted. Canadians do not
want a discriminatory policy to be part of our public service.
Corporations, not just government, have been proactive in terms
of providing these types of benefits. I will list a few of the
corporations, universities and provincial governments that have
moved in this direction: 3M; A & W Canada; Air Canada; Air
Ontario; BC Telecom; Bank of Nova Scotia; Bank of Montreal; IBM
Canada; Chrysler Canada; General Electric; Levis Strauss; London
Life; McMillan Bloedel; Sears; Stentor Resources; and
Toronto-Dominion Bank. I think part of the reason for this move
is from the legal perspective that there is no choice. We do have
a charter of rights and freedoms in Canada that was put in place
to protect the rights of all Canadians. The supreme court has
been consistent in its interpretation of that charter of rights.
I do resent the fact that the government has not allowed proper
debate and discussion on this very important issue and has
slipped this into another piece of legislation. The government
has pitted members of parliament, whose views on these issues
have been very clear for some time, against something they
believe in. It is unfortunate because this is a fundamental
issue of fairness. Fairness is a tenet of Canadian policy, not
just Canadian social policy but of what it means to be a
Canadian, our determination as Canadians to stand up and defend
the rights of minorities and of those who are being persecuted,
not just within Canada, but anywhere in the world.
We are known around the world through our peacekeepers and
through our foreign policy initiatives as a country that stands
up to defend the rights of all peoples. Yet within our own
country we still have intrinsically discriminatory policy within
the legislative framework. The government has moved to address
this, but I do not believe that it has acted appropriately in
terms of providing this as part of a very comprehensive piece of
legislation that will effectively pit members of parliament, who
may agree with some elements, against the legislation.
Polling is supportive of the extension of same sex benefits.
However, I would never argue that we should use polls to
determine policies on minority rights. Populism is not the
proper means through which to develop minority rights. If in the
U.S. polling had dictated what the leaders were going to do
during the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement would
not have moved forward. Black Americans probably would not have
been given the vote if polling had determined what the government
was going to do.
What defines the difference between politicians and political
leaders is that politicians do what the polls tell them to do and
political leaders do what is right.
1725
The government is not doing what is right by being dragged
kicking and screaming into the 21st century avoiding debates on
very important issues like this one and denying proper debate in
parliament on issues that are important to all Canadians.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
there have been consultations between the parties, including at
the meeting of the House leaders this afternoon, and I think you
will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the Subcommittee on the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act be granted authority to travel to Saskatoon from September 26
to 29, 1999 to attend the Canadian Institute for Administration
of Justice Conference, and that the necessary staff accompany it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
again there have been consultations among the parties, including
at the House leaders meeting, and I think you will find unanimous
consent for the following motion dealing with the fact that the
day we return after the break is a Tuesday. If members realize
that they will understand the motion. I move:
That, on Tuesday, May 25, 1999, the hours of the sitting of the
House and the order of business shall be as provided in the
standing orders for a Monday.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PUBLIC SECTOR INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend
the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act,
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada
Post Corporation Act, and to make consequential amendments of
another act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and
of Group No. 2.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to begin my speech today and I suppose
I will be able to continue it the next time we resume.
I certainly echo the sentiments that have been expressed by many
members here today. It is regrettable that we do not have an
opportunity both to debate the issues that are before us in the
House, but also to enter into a full debate with Canadians across
the country, the people in our ridings. We should be asking them
how they feel about the pension plan, the allocation of the funds
and the Liberal government.
Even though we know the funds are there as a joint venture of
contributions by the members who are in the pension plan and by
the taxpayer as their employer, it is regrettable that the
government chooses to simply take all of the money and not give
back a part of it.
I find it interesting, for example, that we had a bill not long
ago sponsored by the Minister of Finance in which the question of
pension fund surpluses for the private sector came up. In that
legislation, an agreement had to be reached before the pension
money could be divided up. Clearly neither side would get 100%
in that because the other side would not agree to it. Why can we
not have something like that here? It is because the government
is so stubborn that it will not consider that we need to debate
and amend the bill so that it is consistent with the wishes of
Canadians.
Speaking of the wishes of Canadians, I want to get to the topic
of this particular group. The amendments in Group No. 2
primarily have to do with the definition of the surviving spouse.
This is being changed in all of the acts which are affected by
the superannuation procedures of the employees of the government.
This change in the definition of spouse just sweeps across a
whole bunch of different acts in a very pervasive way. I know
there are some who will say that this is not what is being done
here. They will say that they are not changing spouse, they are
just adding a definition of a survivor to it. The fact of the
matter is that it is effectively being changed. This is quite
contrary to the wishes of Canadians. It is certainly contrary to
the wishes of the people in my riding. It is contrary to the
wishes of people in the House.
I remember shortly after the election in 1993 we had a debate in
the House on a private members' motion. The motion dealt
specifically with benefits for partners in a same sex
relationship. The motion was soundly turned down.
Madam Speaker, I see you are giving me a signal because it is
5.30 p.m. I presume I will be able to finish my speech when this
resumes.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member has
seven minutes left in his speech.
[Translation]
It being 5.30 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]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on this motion. I know the
member for Yukon has worked very hard on raising the profile of
this issue and adding to the very important debate in the House.
She has also worked on talking to members across party lines
about the need to get at the reality in a modern context in terms
of a section of our current Criminal Code.
Going back in history is relevant to a discussion of this
section of our code, which in essence had its history hundreds of
years ago. It was based on a concept of honour at a time when
men could treat women as property, at a time when men could
defend the honour of their children having been molested,
specifically sons being sexually assaulted. It has a historical
context which in reality is not as relevant in today's society.
There is a modernization. When our Criminal Code was codified
in 1892 this section was included. There has been discussion
over the years. I believe this section should be looked at when
we talk about the defences of provocation and self-defence. These
two issues are linked in my mind.
Around 1998 the Minister of Justice had the Department of
Justice start consultations across the land on this area of the
law, this specific section. They are still ongoing. I believe
that discussion is necessary. When I originally looked at this
section I thought it was fairly black and white and tended to
agree with the hon. member who presented the motion.
However, what I am hearing in my investigation is that some of
the consultations are still ongoing and different groups are not
reaching a consensus of opinion. In other words, a process is
under way that will address some of these issues. I think that
process has already shown—and I believe the Department of
Justice and the Minister of Justice would agree—that some of the
criticisms enunciated in the House and levelled at this section
would be valid criticisms.
A review of Hansard and the previous hour of debate on the
motion would also find that there are other views that raise
different arguments in relation to this section. The courts have
been more likely to use this in a situation where instead of a
man's ability for action, as in the argument of the hon. member,
there is the passing of violence against an individual out of
anger or frustration or a sense of honour that has been hurt in
some way. It is now the opposite. It could be used more as a
defence realistically when there is continuous provocation to
such an extent that somebody loses actual control.
This is a complex area. It is not simple. It is certainly not
black and white. At the end of the day this is an area in which
I welcome constant and continuing vigilance. I would like to see
some reform on this section. I would also like to see that
reform come at a time when the consultation process has been
completed and all various options have been put on the table for
us to evaluate together. I would be supportive after hearing
especially from the equality seeking groups across the land who
are coming to the table and discussing this as the consultations
go forward.
1735
It is necessary that Canadians realize that just because
something is old it is not automatically wrong. Something that
has a lot of history can be looked at with an understanding that
when we move to eradicate it, it could have repercussions or
different ramifications in areas which have not yet been thought
of. Some of the self-defence now is more likely for instances
where women are responding in a loss of control to a situation
where over a long period of time there has been assault by men
against women in a household and someone loses control for a
moment and acts out of anger. I could see that happening if
anyone came across someone attacking a child of ours or a child
of the community.
We should not excuse violence. We should never excuse violence,
but I think there has to remain some flexibility of an
understanding that human beings are fallible. I would certainly
want a very high test level.
In our review of the cases in this section that in some cases
the judge felt this defence was not available. It really is case
dependent, factual dependent. It provides for a level of
flexibility in our criminal law, but it is one of those areas
where there is no excuse for violence. If we go from that
position, I think there is a lot of value in laying this issue
before us today.
I commend the hon. member for her work on the motion. I would
look forward to a time where I could stand in the House and
support a bill that would modernize this situation. Before I do
so, as I say, in fairness to all potential situations I would
want to have all options laid before me.
I urge those conducting the consultation process inside the
Department of Justice that if it is being done at a pace which
has not been as rapid as it could be, this motion gives some
emphasis to pushing the process along so that we can come to a
point within parliament where we can be looking at modernization
of the particular section.
I do not wish to prolong this debate by repeating myself. I
think I have laid where I stand clearly on the table. It is from
a viewpoint of not trying to sit on the fence but just saying at
this point in time I will not support the motion because I do not
feel that the consultation process has been finished.
I am at this stage glad that there is one in place. I would like
to hurry that process along so that at a future date within this
session of parliament I would hope we could be looking at the
issue and seeing at that stage where informed decision making
should stand.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Motion No. 265
which calls for a legislative committee to be established to
prepare and bring in a bill in accordance with Standing Order
68(4)(b) to abolish the legal defence of provocation contained in
section 232 of the Criminal Code.
The member for Yukon has been forthright in stating the genesis
of this motion. I can understand how she may be motivated by the
tragic case of Susan Klassen who died at the hands of her
husband.
On the surface it seems easy to remedy a situation of this
nature. It is quite human to perhaps strike out and fix it in
one fell swoop. I regret I cannot subscribe to one fell swoop. I
cannot support the outright abolition of section 232 of the
Criminal Code.
As I understand it, section 232 has remained virtually unchanged
since 1892 which to some may say it is time for a change. On the
other hand everything old is not necessarily out of date. Also
as I understand it, in criminal justice judges and the courts
apply certain flexibilities and interpretation which help to keep
the Criminal Code a fluid document.
1740
As my colleague from Yorkton—Melville has so cogently pointed
out during earlier debate, the application of the defence of
provocation has not remained static. He went on to say that many
cases before the courts set legal precedents to determine the
sufficiency of evidence to raise the defence, the nature of the
object of test of the term ordinary person, the instructions or
charges of the jury, the applications of this defence to
attempted murder, the definition of self-induced provocation, and
constitutional considerations. In short, section 232 has been in
constant scrutiny, interpretation and change. This is good. It
says the law is not static.
Previous speakers to the bill have spoken about the complexity
and controversial nature of section 232, but that in itself
should not lead to abolition. As the section reads, culpable
homicide may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who
committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden
provocation. For the provocation defence to be successful, there
must be a wrongful act or insult. The act must be sufficient to
deprive an ordinary person of self-control. The accused had to
act in the heat of passion. There had to be no time for the
accused to cool down.
This seems to be quite a comprehensive set of guidelines and
despite the complexity there seems to be enough caveats to ensure
it passes some sort of litmus test for its use.
We must remember that if the defence is successful it does not
mean the accused walks. In fact he or she can still be convicted
of manslaughter and face a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Nevertheless certain cases have given rise to concerns regarding
this section and it is currently under review by the justice
department.
In June 1998 a discussion paper on provocation was released by
justice. It was to form the basis of a public consultation. At
this point submissions by groups and individuals are still being
reviewed.
This discussion paper asks the public for input on nine options
with respect to the defence of provocation. Allow me to identify
these options: to abolish the defence of provocation, to reform
the defence of provocation by removing the phrase in the heat of
passion, to replace the term wrongful act with unlawful act, to
remove the ordinary person test to reflect the mix
subjective-objective test, to reform the defence of expanding the
suddenness requirement, to reform the defence so that it is not
available in a case of a spousal homicide, to reform the defence
so that it is not available in a case where the victim asserts
his or her charter rights, to reform the defence to limit it to
situations where excessive force was used in self-defence, and to
leave the Criminal Code provisions on the provocation defence
exactly as they are.
I ask whether these options as a result of input gathered by the
department have been reviewed sufficiently as the causes to
abolish section 232. I think not and I think the abolition
option is a bit premature.
Unfortunately the issue of provocation defence has taken on a
singular gender oriented, one dimensional focus. As was stated
in the government's discussion paper, the defence of provocation
might be useful for women in situations of domestic violence who
kill in self-defence but with excessive force in response to
physical or verbal abuse. It seems to me it would be dangerously
presumptuous to expunge section 232 before we at least review the
options in a lot more detail.
I must agree with the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, formerly a crown prosecutor, who
cautioned against taking a single case in isolation and using it
as a motivation to entirely change the law. If this were the
only mitigating factor to amend a section of the Criminal Code,
we could find one case for each section of the Criminal Code and
have a Criminal Code in perpetual motion and change. This seems
a bit frivolous.
The Department of Justice is now reviewing the options which in
the final analysis we hope will lead to a consensus of the view
of interested parties. Perhaps we should conclude that review
and see what the justice department has to say before we go
headlong into a complex area of law with interconnecting elements
in other sections of the Criminal Code.
I am not fighting a change by opposing Motion No. 265. I am
opposing precipitous change, premature change, and change to suit
just one case. This is not how our Criminal Code evolved. I do
not support incomplete review. Let us face it. Too often
politicians are accused of acting before we think.
1745
I am not diminishing the passion and legitimate concern that the
member for Yukon brings to this issue. It is a commendable
initiative, but I am sensitive to quantum change before the
department review is complete.
There is a lot of evidence that section 232 continues to serve
the criminal justice system with merit in rendering justice. I
suspect we could all pick one case where we feel some section of
the code has been negligent or deficient. There is a process in
our criminal justice system, by way of the courts, to deal with
these situations. I do not feel that we are at a point where we
should abandon section 232.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion M-265 introduced by
the NDP member for Yukon.
I will read the motion because it is important to know what it
is all about when listening to a speech. It says this:
That a legislative committee be established to prepare and bring
in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), to
abolish the legal defence of provocation contained in Section
232 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Although the motion calls for the establishment of a legislative
committee, one must ask a fundamental question right from the
start: should we maintain or abolish the defence of provocation
contained in section 232 of the Criminal Code?
The member for Yukon already had the opportunity to give her
point of view on this question. The wording of her motion leaves
no doubt as to her goal, namely to strike down section 232.
During the first hour of the debate she clearly explained why
she is seeking to have it struck down. No matter how legitimate
her reasons are, the question remains: should we or should we
not abolish section 232?
To answer this question properly, one must understand what the
defence of provocation is all about, carefully choose one's
arguments, and not get carried away.
It is really well defined in Quebec and Canada's jurisprudence.
I will quote Mr. Justice Irénée Lagarde, the author of several
criminal law papers, who gave the following definition of the
defence of provocation. I will read it because it contains all
the significant elements:
Provocation consists of one or several unfair acts by the victim
against the accused, or one or several insults hurled by the
victim at the accused, these acts or insults being of such a
nature as to deprive an ordinary person of his or her
self-control and push the accused to act in anger, in the heat of
the moment, and before being able to calm down.
It is a lengthy definition, but it is extremely clear and it
contains all the elements the accused must prove to be able to
use the defence of provocation.
The criteria are very strict. In fact, it must be said that in
the majority of cases that went to trial, the criteria set out
in section 232 were not met and, therefore, the judge did not
allow the accused to use the defence of provocation.
Before going any further, it must be said also that, contrary to
self-defence, the defence of provocation cannot lead to an
acquittal. It can only reduce the charge. It is only after the
crown has proven all the elements of the offence that the
accused can present such a defence.
The courts have widely interpreted the terms of section 232 to
establish a series of objective tests that are easy to apply.
These tests determine if indeed, under the circumstances, an
individual acted under the impulse of provocation.
The accused must prove, among other things, that his or her
behaviour was caused by sudden provocation that would deprive an
ordinary person of the power of self-control. The supreme court
has stated that the reasonable criteria required under section
232 calls for a test that takes into account not only the
characteristics of the provocation, but also the characteristics
of the person who was the object of such provocation.
The supreme court has determined that jealousy and admission of
adultery are not sudden provocation under section 232.
1750
Furthermore, drunkenness was not considered a relevant element
to determine if the criterion of “reasonable person” is met
under the objective test of section 232. Indeed, someone who
easily loses his temper or is intoxicated with alcohol could not
invoke provocation as a defence. Those who are said to have a
short fuse when provoked cannot use the defence of provocation.
Moreover, it appears clearly from section 232 that the accused
must not have taken time to think before committing the fatal
act. Case law confirms that if the accused has had the time to
cool off, he will not be allowed to use defence of provocation.
Indeed, for the accused to be allowed to benefit from section
232, the victim must not only have tried to provoke the accused
but the latter must also actually have been provoked. In other
words, the accused must have totally lost self-control. This is
even one of the arguments that judges use in similar cases. If
the accused has taken time to think, he will not be accused of
manslaughter but of murder and the defence of provocation will
not be allowed by the court.
The legislator also deemed it appropriate to indicate that there
is no provocation if the victim is only exercising a legal right
in reaction to the behaviour of the accused. For instance, a
person accused of sexual abuse cannot invoke the defence of
provocation because the victim hit him to defend herself. The
victim has a legitimate right to defend herself. She can plead
self-defence.
The victim has defended herself and the accused cannot plead
that the death of the victim, if there is a death, is the direct
result of provocation on her part.
As members can see, the defence of provocation is not easily
used. It cannot be used easily and one has a very objective test
to meet before a judge accepts or refuses it. However, the hon.
member has every right to condemn what appears prima facie to be
unjust, that is allowing a guilty person to benefit from a
reduced sentence.
Indeed, we can easily understand why section 232 of the Criminal
Code raises concerns among people. It is absolutely normal for
people to ask why favours should be granted to individuals who
have been found guilty of murder, because this is where the
defence would apply.
Section 232 of the Criminal Code must not be seen as a sop to
criminals. Criminal law condemns antisocial behaviour. The
Criminal Code identify actions that do not meet with the
community's approval. It must not be forgotten that these
actions are committed by men and women, human beings with
changing moods who are subject to intense emotions and who
sometimes act instinctively and in the heat of the moment.
But it would be far too easy to argue that people who commit
crimes of passion should be completely exonerated because it is
sometimes normal to react without thinking. That is why section
232 of the Criminal Code provides for a reduced sentence rather
than acquittal.
In short, while it is important to consider the relevance of
section 232, I do not think we should abolish it as Motion M-265
proposes.
The defence of provocation is an extremely complex process,
which may be justified in the context of a free and democratic
society. This does not exclude, however, the fact that we must
be sensitive to its overuse. At the moment, however, as I have
said, the judges are making very limited use of it. An
objective test is applied rigorously by all the courts. I think
our judges are sufficiently on the watch.
There is enough jurisprudence and doctrine in this regard to
make good use of this defence.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member
for Yukon concerning the legal defence of provocation.
1755
It is true that as we move into the 21st century and we progress
as a race we need to constantly question and be willing to change
the rules that we use to govern and create order within our
society.
As times change, we too need to change to reflect upon the
current needs in our society. Refusal to change outdated ideas
and practices will only result in societal stagnation that will
be of benefit to no one.
The Criminal Code is a document that is not immune to such push
for change. Certain sections of the Criminal Code are quite old.
Thus, it could be argued that they are in need of change.
However, the PC party's position concerning Motion No. 265 is
that there is no justification for throwing out the entire law
simply because of a few unpopular sections.
The Criminal Code, in all of its sections, however old they may
be, is written in such a way as to allow for judicial
interpretation. At first glance sections of the Criminal Code
may seem to be outdated, yet when subjected to judicial
interpretation they are brought up to speed in any number of ways
that will allow the judge to ensure that justice prevails.
Detractors may argue that problems arise in judicial
interpretation that allow for decisions such as the B.C. court
ruling which allowed the possession of child pornography. This
of course was an issue which our party opposed. However, I am a
firm believer in the system and, thus, I am confident that the
judges of the supreme court will correct this ruling and protect
the rights of children.
The Criminal Code is the written reference by which we as
Canadians conduct ourselves. It is the guideline for our
society, for a safe and orderly environment. It is true that the
Criminal Code is not perfect, as it was made by man, yet to allow
the dissolution of an entire law simply to appease the demands of
special interest groups would set a dangerous precedent that
could lead to constant band-aid solutions to very specific
problems. The overspecification of this law would limit judicial
interpretation of the code when dealing with future cases.
Constant change could lead to the eventual dismantling of the
Criminal Code, placing public protection in jeopardy.
The Department of Justice has asked for commentary on the issue
of the defence of provocation, self-defence and defence of
property. Concern over this issue of the defence of provocation
stems from societal progress. In the 1990s critics feel that
this section of the Criminal Code promotes outdated values and is
used to defeat modern egalitarian principles.
Currently, the Criminal Code allows for the defence of
provocation, but in recent years the nature and even the
existence of the law has been the object of more and more
criticism. Moreover, the successful use of the defence in a
number of well publicized cases has raised public concern,
especially about whether the law is in fact condoning violence.
I am referring to the Department of Justice report.
I do not believe for a moment that the law is condoning
violence. In fact the law is protecting those who find
themselves in a condition of mental anguish. This horrible
condition would stem from such unspeakable situations as mental,
physical and emotional abuse. These people will sometimes reach
a point of distress where they cannot be held responsible for
their actions when defending themselves from an abusive attack.
The Criminal Code can protect these people if it remains in its
current form, where non-partisan judges can interpret the code
and hand down a decision that will address the needs and concerns
of modern day society.
Issues of self-defence and defence of property have also been
singled out for change. Even critics believe that judicial
interpretations of the law of self-defence have evolved
considerably to reflect the modern values in our society, yet
they feel the Criminal Code provisions remain complex and
confusing.
With respect to this law the hon. member would like to make
individual rights paramount because anyone who mentions the
charter of rights and freedoms is seen as a champion of the
people.
1800
The Department of Justice has expressed that when dealing with
proposed changes to the Criminal Code section on the legal
defence of provocation it must be remembered that any proposals
for law reform must be consistent with the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. However, if one gets bogged down with the
issue of individual rights it is easy to forget the rights of the
community.
As I mentioned, if Canadian society allows itself to make
sweeping changes to the Criminal Code to appease the concerns
arising from individual cases then the Criminal Code will
constantly be at the mercy of popular will of the day.
The popular will of the day does not take into account the
rights of minorities. The popular will of the day does not allow
for unpopular individual judicial decisions, even if these
decisions will have a positive effect on the greater good of
society as a whole.
Perhaps such foresight requires the years of training and
non-partisan conduct that we see in the judicial system. Judges
have the wisdom from years of service. They have the knowledge
of legal precedence. They have non-partisan opinions to allow
for the proper interpretation of the Criminal Code.
In dealing with the defence of provocation the Department of
Justice report states:
—defence of provocation is made available to excuse outbursts of
violence in response to non-violent as well as violent acts is
considered by many to be a fundamental shortcoming in the law of
provocation. Many critics claim that this assumption is based on
a model of male aggression that is no longer
appropriate...provocation provides an example of the law's
failure to grapple with the problem of male anger and violence
against women in the domestic sphere...The law of provocation
focuses on the behaviour of the victim, whose behaviour does not
have to be unlawful or even deliberately insulting so long as it
is characterized as wrongful in the prevailing cultural climate.
Issues dealing with the legality involved in the interaction
between men and women is in a constant state of flux as society
works toward the creation of a level playing field. Thus we can
either change the law as frequently as society changes or we can
rely on our capable male and female judges to interpret the
current law.
The report of the justice department states that the purpose of
our criminal justice system is to protect and ensure the safety
and security of all members of Canadian society. The Criminal
Code sets out legal limits on behaviour by describing criminal
offences such as assault and murder. No less important, the code
also sets out certain defence that may be used by accused persons
to excuse or justify their behaviour.
This is the law of the land. It is an effective law because it
allows for our honourable judicial system to interpret the code
and make decisions which effectively apply in varying and
multifaceted cases that the courts would see in a such diverse
multicultural country. Allowing for changes in the Criminal Code
is a simplistic and potentially dangerous solution to a very
complex problem.
We need to have faith in the judicial system and not throw out
the law simply because of individual cases that may gain popular
support at a given time. In the case of unpopular judicial
decisions which the public may feel are unjust the principals
always have the opportunity for appeal. Therefore the PC Party
does not support the abolition of the Criminal Code section
allowing for the legal defence of provocation.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise with great pleasure to
discuss the motion of my hon. colleague from Yukon, Motion No.
265.
I will read it again for the House to put it on the record:
That a legislative committee be established to prepare and bring
in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), to abolish
the legal defence of provocation contained in section 232 of the
Criminal Code of Canada.
I have always respected the views of other parties, especially
those of the government, the Reform, the Bloc and the
Conservative Party, but it is amazing to listen to the Reform
Party and the Conservative Party. They are the ones who are on
record as wanting to lower the age in the Young Offenders Act
down to 10 years.
Now they are concerned about eliminating a provocation example
for the murder of an individual.
1805
Allow me to read some paragraphs regarding two cases. These
will illustrate the reasons the hon. member for Yukon brought the
motion forward. Listeners may want to turn off their television
sets because it is not very pretty:
This motion came on the heels of the Klassen trial's outcome. It
involves a murder that took place in Yukon and had outraged
Yukoners and Canadians nationwide. The main cause of this public
outcry in the Klassen case was the injustice of the sentencing.
This is exactly what the hon. member for West Nova said was
there to protect us. It continues:
Ralph Klassen who openly admitted to having strangled his wife
(Susan) to death when she tried to end the marriage, was
sentenced to only five years in prison. He was charged with
manslaughter. This lowered his sentence to five years, or less
if he gets parole. Unfortunately there is no lack of examples
which resemble the Klassen case where a person kills another
human being and receives minimal punishment. One may recall the
B.C. case involving Bert Stone, a man who had stabbed his wife 47
times, put her body in a toolbox and then went to Mexico for a
month. For this he received a sentence of four years in jail. He
had been able to successfully prove that his wife had provoked
this violent behaviour by verbal insults delivered over a four
hour drive.
It is a one sided debate. The fact is this woman is dead. She
cannot rise from the dead and present her case to the courts. The
courts have only one person's view on the evidence. The courts
took it and gave the man four years in jail, which means with
good behaviour he is out in a third. What kind of signal are the
courts sending to women, to the defenceless, to seniors, and to
young people?
It is quite obvious by the tone of the other three opposition
parties that the motion will not go very far. The member for
Yukon has raised the issue in the House exactly where it should
be. Laws in the country should be made through the legislative
process, through parliament, for judges to interpret. It is most
unfortunate that the judges in these two particular cases, and
there are other examples, have literally given people their
walking papers after committing such violent crimes.
In Beaver Bank in my riding a gentleman has received numerous
drunk driving charges. I believe on his eighth one he was
finally successful in killing someone, a young 18 year old woman
who had her whole life in front of her.
What did he get? It was the largest sentence ever handed out
for a drunk driving charge: 8.5 years. After only 18 months he
was given three days of parole on the condition that if he were a
good boy he would be allowed out. This man received eight
charges for drunk driving. He received an 8.5 year sentence, the
most ever in Nova Scotia, and after 18 months he got three days
of parole. Can we imagine what the parents of that child are
going through? Where is the justice in that?
Allow me to read a couple of other paragraphs to illustrate the
point that my hon. colleague from Yukon is trying to get through.
The first one reads:
One of the major distinctions that can be seen for our society is
the quest to preserve human life. The defence of provocation
came into being at a time when a life came second to an insult of
honour. This way of thinking may seem barbaric but this defence
has been repeatedly used, even by recent killers to “get away
with murder”. In essence it is a licence for violence. By
abolishing this defence we would be sending out a clear message
regarding murder. Namely, that excusing murder has no place in
our society and that violence cannot be used as a response to a
non-violent act, a legal act or an insult.
This means the defence can be used in the interests of the
killer to have a secure murder charge. In this manner the murder
charge can be lowered to manslaughter which carries no minimal
sentencing time. This leaves the sentencing of these crimes to
the discretion of the judge.
There is also the matter of the definition of provocation as set
out in section 232, which can be seen as forming the core of the
defence of provocation. It reads as follows:
—a wrongful act or an insult that is of a nature to be
sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of
self-control. This does not mean that the wrongful act or insult
has to be illegal, simply that it was enough to cause someone's
rage to explode and to strike out. It is arguable that no
definition of insult or wrongful act can justify someone killing
another even at the point of human weakness.
Revisiting the Klassen case discussed at the beginning, the
provocation of the husband was his wife was trying to leave the
relationship.
1810
There was obviously a reason she had to leave and it was
probably a very valid one. The paragraph continues:
Already separated from her husband, Susan Klassen indicated that
she wanted to end the marriage and to move on with her life.
I may point out that a person who is killed is not a special
interest group. A woman who is abused by her husband or by the
system is not a special interest group. The special interest
group in this particular case, as my colleague from the
Conservatives was mentioning in this case, is the murderers. They
are the special interest group. They are the ones who put
forward their defence to the judges because the woman or the
person they murdered is not there to defend themselves. It
continues:
No matter how she phrased this, did she deserve to be strangled
to death by her spouse? Couples end relationships every day.
This decision has become a common occurrence but killing a
partner is not a natural outcome of this decision. Killing due
to racial slurs, homophobic tendencies or any other prejudice,
however mean spirited, should not be enforced or supported in our
criminal system. By abolishing the defence of provocation there
would be a concrete reinforcement of the notion that killing in
retaliation is an illegal act.
The fact is there are too many objective elements in this
defence, each of which is at the mercy of countless
interpretations.
It is also important to note that the case only brings forth the
stories of the killers. The courts only hear their version of
what happened and how they were the victims of insults and
wrongful acts and therefore forced to kill. Imagine that. They
manage to turn it around and say they are the victims when in
actuality the dead woman in this case is the real victim.
Another side of the story remains silent as judges and juries
decide if the killer will be forgiven for the murder and given a
token prison sentence. Let us vote to eliminate this unjust
defence which promotes violence and inequality.
I also wish to make a personal note and speak as the father of
two young girls, a husband of a loving wife and a brother of four
sisters. The fact is that violence against women continues today
as much as it always has. Imagine standing in the House of
Commons and honestly saying that he was a little ticked off, a
little angry, but that was okay.
Imagine if the Littleton, Colorado, event happened in Canada as
it did in Taber and the excuse used by the young killer was that
they teased him and upset him? Imagine if the judges said that
was a valid defence and he received a minimal charge? What would
the parents of the victims say? What message is being sent out?
The opposition is correct when it says that defence issues and
legal issues are very complex and cannot be based on emotional
rhetoric. I agree. This is why the hon. member for Yukon has
asked for a legislative committee to be established. Although her
purpose is to get rid of the legal defence of provocation, she is
a very reasonable, understanding and intelligent woman. If the
legislative committee agrees with certain changes to the act, she
would support it because it would be an all party committee.
I cannot help but think how great it is that the hon. member for
Yukon has raised this very serious issue in the House for debate
so that it can be further debated within committee and within the
justice department.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Yukon for bringing Motion No. 265 to
the attention of the House.
The Minister of Justice is fully aware of the criticisms of the
law and the controversial cases that tend to promote public
outrage. My colleague across the way from Sackville—Eastern
Shore gave us a few examples.
The minister accepts the merit of many of the criticisms and is
committed to reforming the law of provocation. Indeed the
Department of Justice has been expending a lot of energy and
resources reviewing the law, as was noted earlier, and exploring
different options for addressing the concerns raised through
consulting with very important groups such as the Law Reform
Commission of Canada, individuals, and provincial and territorial
colleagues.
The Department of Justice released a discussion paper on the law
of provocation in the summer of 1998 which formed the basis of
public consultations. Abolition of the defence of provocation is
one of the three options being considered by the department.
1815
It is important to note that the consultation paper also focused
on the law of self-defence which is integrally related to
provocation as well as the defence of property. This consultation
process is still under way and for this reason the minister
cannot support this motion as it is worded at this time.
As the Department of Justice has determined and as it has heard
from many groups, this matter is very complex. We see that in
the comments made here in the House today. Any change could
clearly have a significant impact. As a result, the consequences
of reform must be carefully considered before the best possible
option is brought before the House for consideration in the form
of a bill.
When the original defence of provocation was developed hundreds
of years ago in England, it was founded on the social reality of
the time that men could be partially excused for killing if in so
doing, they were defending their honour either in the context of
a spontaneous fight or upon discovery of their wives in the act
of committing adultery, or discovery of someone in the act of
sodomizing their son. The original defence was based on the
concept of honour and in part on what is now clearly the
discriminatory and offensive idea of male proprietary rights over
women.
Provocation was actually relatively limited at that time. It
was only in the very precise circumstances I have just noted that
the partial excuse could be raised because it was felt that
although a provoked killer deserved to be convicted and punished,
he did not deserve to be put to death, which was the penalty for
murder at that time.
When Canada codified the criminal law in 1892, including the law
of provocation, the partial excuse was expanded to allow for
partial mitigation for a killing provoked by a wrongful act or
insult which allowed for a vastly broader array of circumstances
to amount to provocation that had been considered under the
common law.
The modern law is based on the rationale that the law should
make some allowance for human frailty where a person is provoked
beyond the ability to exercise self-control by an act or an
insult that would have caused an ordinary person to also lose
control.
The defence is meant to provide a measure of compassion and
flexibility where a person has killed while under extreme
psychological or emotional stress or anguish. It has built-in
protections, such as the objective ordinary person test designed
to ensure that a person is only excused for reacting to something
that an ordinary person would also have reacted to. The
provocation must be something of such a nature as to be
sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of
self-control.
This assessment has to be made on the facts of each case. For
instance, witnessing an attack on a person's child could be
something sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power
of self-control.
The defence is no longer explicitly based on offensive and
discriminatory notions of honour, or men's proprietary rights
over women. However, despite its modern rationale and built-in
safeguards, it can certainly be argued that the modern defence
has retained in part its profoundly inappropriate historical
foundation, as seen by the way in which the defence has been
applied and accepted by some courts.
The essence of the criticism of the hon. member for Yukon and
others is that provocation gives a credit for angry violence, in
particular violence by men against women and devalues human life
by minimizing the seriousness of homicidal violence in response
to common everyday and lawful acts such as leaving a
relationship, insulting someone, or expressing a difference of
opinion.
This criticism is understandable.
We have to question how effectively and fairly the law protects
Canadians and what values the law is upholding when it discounts
a killing simply because the killer was angered by the victim's
words or gestures, or departure from a relationship, or even
repeated nagging.
1820
As the hon. member for Yukon pointed out, killing in the
domestic context should receive a stiffer penalty, not a more
lenient one. On this point, I would like to add that the
government agrees and has enacted section 718.2 of the Criminal
Code which specifically requires the judge to consider the abuse
of a spouse as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.
The hon. member for Yukon was eloquent and indeed passionate in
her criticisms of provocation in her speech introducing the
motion. Again I congratulate her. She focused our attention on
the cases which cause the most trouble with the defence. These
problems cannot be ignored or overlooked.
However, the speeches of other hon. members reveal other sides
to this debate. We must also be clear that provocation is not
accepted in every case in which it is alleged. In many cases it
is rejected by the judge and not even given to the jury to
consider.
As another hon. member who spoke to this motion mentioned, the
defence has been virtually unchanged since 1892. A law of such
long standing must be carefully studied before the House decides
to abolish it since such a change could have many consequences.
Another member pointed out that while some cases clearly
illustrate a need to reform provocation, the defence of
provocation provides a concession to human frailty that may be
warranted or appropriate in certain other types of circumstances.
The member also referred to the fact that provocation, like other
laws, is subject to constant interpretation by judges who are in
a very good position to shape the law based on actual cases and
their perception of justice and fairness.
The need for open debate and caution cannot be overstated. While
it may appear clear to some that the defence must be abolished,
this view is not shared by everyone. Some groups take the
opposite position, recommending further expansion of the defence
on the basis that human frailties should be recognized by the
criminal law. Others still would prefer to reform the defence in
some way that it is not available in some types of cases, but it
is still available in other circumstances where there was
widespread agreement that a killing was partially excusable given
some extreme provocation by the victim.
Even equality-seeking women's groups have changed their views
about what to do with the defence of provocation in recent years.
It is simply not the case that there is consensus as to the best
course for reform.
Basically, reasonable people disagree about the best possible
solution and that is why the Department of Justice determined the
best course of action was to proceed in the prudent manner which
I have outlined.
I would suggest that this is premature. I note the passion with
which the member has presented her case but I think we should let
the course of action as outlined continue. Then appropriate
amendments which would reflect the comments made in the public
consultations can be brought forth to the House.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I had
the opportunity to listen to the debate from all the different
parties this evening. I have to admit it was one of those times
when it seemed that there was a fair amount of thought and
conscious effort made to consider the reasoning behind the motion
put forth by my colleague from the Yukon. That often does not
happen in the House. I am sure among ourselves we recognize that
and I am sure Canadians recognize that.
From my perspective on this, it was interesting to note that
this was one time when I heard the Reform member talk about a
need to be reasonable in the approach to justice issues and not
jump on one incident. Often that is not the case with the Reform
Party. I was very conscious of the fact that there seemed to
have been a little more in-depth feeling going into the remarks
and consideration of the whole process of a justice bill or a
justice motion.
1825
As has been mentioned, it is very complicated. We do not always
see the whole picture as we discuss things in parliament, and
Canadians do not get the whole picture with each case when they
hear what the media has to say about it. The sad reality of that
is that Canadians have lost faith in the justice system. They
have lost faith in the laws. They see situations such as the
Klassen case and hear what has happened. There seems to be no
reasoning behind how someone can get away with that kind of an
act.
I listened to the hon. member from the Reform Party whose son
was killed. I understand his passion. How can he not want to see
change so that kind of incident will never happen again? And
rightfully so. However, we need to be very conscience of all the
ramifications.
What has happened is that there is no faith in the Canadian
justice system. The delays with the justice department on a
number of issues have resulted in that lack of faith when
instances like the Klassen case come up. Too often it becomes
the case that offenders get out of jail ahead of time or are
released and then they kill someone. People are losing faith.
When it takes time for a process to go through the justice
department, the committees and everything else, it seems like
these issues are always on the back burner.
Had my colleague not brought this issue up, how many of us would
have had any thought or discussion about it? How many Canadians
would even hear about it? It would sit in some committee or at
some back door. It would get a little bit of advertising that
there was going to be a hearing here or there, but it would never
ever get discussed.
In spite of all the concerns that everybody has, it is extremely
important that more emphasis be put on the issue. The defence of
provocation has been used in situations which are unconscionable
to accept. I was not going to mention the recent shootings but
my colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore
mentioned it. It should not be perceived as being a crass
portrayal.
When the Littleton shootings were first mentioned I was
conscious and very aware of the fact that so many of the students
from that school stated their caring for the victims but also for
the two young people who had committed the crime. They stated
their concern over the attack that had taken place, the name
calling, the verbal things and that they were not a part of it.
They were sorry they felt that way. What my colleague mentioned
is true. Are we accepting that as a defence of provocation? It
cannot be.
There are faults within the system which have to be addressed. I
want to thank my colleague. I encourage the justice minister to
ensure that more effort takes place and that there is speed in
reviewing the defence and the whole issue. Canadians need to have
faith in the justice system and the laws. We are failing to give
them that with the way things are happening now.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
AIR SAFETY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of
Transport again the Kelowna air traffic control tower which was
deemed unsafe in 1984.
I would like to quote from the Department of Transport report:
“Due to the location and/or the height of the control tower,
portions of the runway and taxiways are not visible. Air traffic
controllers are supposed to control the traffic on the runways
that they cannot see”. The inspector went on to say: “A runway
encouraging going unnoticed is now a major safety concern. The
margin of safety has been jeopardized and restricted line of
sight visibility is a major safety concern”. His manager said
“The line of sight difficulties have been recognized as a
problem at Kelowna and the problem must be addressed”. This is
dated November 4, 1987.
Then we move to another Department of Transport report dated
October 4, 1989.
The Department of Transport then notified the manager of the
Kelowna air traffic control tower that they were only allowed to
operate on a temporary permit and that the waiver was conditional
on tower replacement documentation being formulated.
1830
Then, on September 21, 1989, another report was sent from the
Department of Transport in Ottawa to the regional office in
Vancouver, which brought up again the line of sight waiver at
Kelowna airport and stated that it must be emphasized that clear
lines of sight are of prime importance to the provision of safe
air traffic control services and that this decision was being
taken with much reluctance.
The Department of Transport was saying that it was allowing the
airport to continue operation with much reluctance. It was
saying that the waiver was conditional upon immediate action
being taken to produce approval documentation for an appropriate
tower replacement.
That was 11 years ago and still the tower has not been upgraded,
addressed, repaired or replaced. Since then new buildings have
been built. New hangars have been built surrounding it, blocking
the runways even more, and traffic has increased dramatically.
Not only has air traffic increased, but the planes are larger,
creating more difficulties. If it was not safe 11 years ago and
nothing has changed, it cannot possibly be safe now.
The minister has proposed a video system such as that used by
the Los Angeles airport. This is the second time they will try
this. The first time they tried a video camera they put it in
and it failed, so they took it out. Now, because of the
initiative of bringing up this old report, they are going to try
it again.
I respect the effort to try to resolve the issue, but part of
the reasoning they used in justifying the video cameras was that
they are used at the Los Angeles international airport. They
have said this over and over again. However, I talked to the air
traffic controllers in Los Angeles and they do not use video
cameras to see the runways. They do have them, but they are for
reference only. At all times air traffic controllers at the Los
Angeles airport can see the runways. They cannot in Kelowna.
They are two completely different situations. The video cameras
are for reference only and for parking on aprons in Los Angeles.
In Kelowna they propose to use them for actual traffic control on
the runways. It is not the same thing and it is not safe.
Considering the fact that video cameras have failed before, and
considering that they are not used in Los Angeles for air traffic
control, will the minister now commit that if the experiment with
the video cameras does not work and the situation is not safe, as
it has been deemed in these three reports, that a new tower will
be constructed and the minister will take action to tell Nav
Canada to stop the delays and to stop fooling around? This is a
safety issue. Will he tell Nav Canada to put safety first and
instruct it to build a new tower?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the matter
raised by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester regarding
the air traffic control tower at the Kelowna airport. I speak on
behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport, who is unavoidably absent.
I would like to emphasize that Transport Canada no longer has an
operational role with respect to the provision of air traffic
control services in Canada. Nav Canada is now responsible for
those services, including the operation, location and
construction of air traffic control towers.
I would like to assure the House that Nav Canada applies air
traffic control procedures to address visibility limitations such
as those at Kelowna and Transport Canada is satisfied with the
corporation's action to mitigate any potential safety risk until
a more permanent solution is available.
I would like to point out that the airport operator is expanding
the apron parking area. Construction has begun and this will
contribute to alleviating the obstruction of views caused by the
parking of large aircraft.
In the longer term, Nav Canada is continuing its efforts to
install an effective video system and is commencing feasibility
studies for the location of a new tower.
The Minister of Transport continues to be responsible for safety
oversight and the hon. member may be assured that Transport
Canada will continue to monitor the Kelowna airport as part of
the department's ongoing airport inspection program.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.)