36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 213
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 22, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Health
|
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| CANADA FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-80. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill 496. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1010
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-497. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| AWARDING OF THE ORGAN DONATION MEDAL ACT
|
| Bill C-498. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1015
1020
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1025
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1030
1035
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1040
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Motion
|
1130
(Division 385)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD
|
| Bill C-78. Second reading
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
1135
1140
1145
1150
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1155
1200
1205
1210
1215
| Amendment
|
1220
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1250
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1310
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1315
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1340
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1345
| Mr. David Pratt |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE BALKANS
|
| Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1400
| ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| EARTH DAY
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| BALL HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| EARTH DAY
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| ARMENIAN PEOPLE
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1405
| NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR WEEK
|
| Ms. Maria Minna |
| MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH—WESTON
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| QUEBEC
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| BILL C-78
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1410
| EARTH DAY
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| WOMEN IN THE WORKFORCE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. David Price |
| DAVID MILGAARD
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1415
| MEMBER FOR BOURASSA
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1420
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| CANADIAN ADAPTATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1440
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
1445
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| KOSOVO
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1450
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NUCLEAR WASTE
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1455
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1500
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1505
| Mr. Randy White |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Comments in Chamber
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1515
| THE LATE FRANK MCGEE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1520
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1525
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1530
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Randy White |
1535
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. René Canuel |
1620
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1625
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1630
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1635
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1640
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1645
1650
| Mr. John Bryden |
1655
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1700
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1705
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1710
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1715
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1720
1725
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| ISSUE OF CEREMONIAL STATEMENTS OF SERVICE ACT
|
| Bill C-453. Second reading
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
1735
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1740
1745
| Mr. René Laurin |
1750
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1755
| Mr. David Price |
1800
| Mr. Bob Wood |
1805
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
1810
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Shipbuilding
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1815
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 213
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 22, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
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 nine petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HEALTH
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week is organ donor week and today is national organ and
tissue discussion day. On the occasion of both I am pleased to
have the honour to present to the House, in both official
languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health
entitled “Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation: A
Canadian Approach”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee proceeded to
consider the state of organ and tissue donation and
transplantation in Canada. The report was developed following
intensive consultation and provides a comprehensive and national
approach sought by numerous groups and individuals already
working in the field.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to the report within
150 days.
I thank all of my colleagues on the standing committee, from
both sides of the House, for the dedication and energy which they
have put into this very important and comprehensive study.
* * *
CANADA FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION ACT
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-80, an act to revise
and consolidate certain acts respecting food, agricultural
commodities, aquatic commodities and agricultural inputs, to
amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, the Agriculture
and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the Health
of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Plant Breeders'
Rights Act, and to repeal and amend other acts in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-496, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act (medical expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the seconder of this bill, the
hon. member from Burnaby—Douglas. In summary, we hope that this
private member's bill will assist thousands upon thousands of
Canadians who obtain their medical prescriptions from a licensed
physician.
The purpose of this enactment is to expand the list of allowable
medical expense deductions in the Income Tax Act to include
expenses incurred due to a herbal remedy prescribed as a
substitute for a prescription drug that would qualify as a
medical expense under the act, but which a person cannot use
because he or she has severe allergies or environmental
sensitivities to that drug.
I wish to thank the environmental health clinic of Nova Scotia,
which is in my riding, in Fall River, for helping us to draft the
legislation and all those people in Canada who have supported the
bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
[Translation]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-497, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(reimbursement of election expenses).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this, my
first, private member's bill in the House. It amends the
Elections Act by allowing a registered party reimbursement of
part of its election expenses, when at least 30% of the total
number of elected candidates endorsed by it are women.
I believe that concrete mechanisms must be put in place
immediately, which is why I am proud to introduce this bill. As
I have already said, this bill constitutes a major step in
relation to the presence of women in politics. I would remind
my colleagues that 52% of the population are women. Now is the
time to act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
AWARDING OF THE ORGAN DONATION MEDAL ACT
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-498, an act respecting the establishment and
award of an Organ Donation Medal to commemorate a person for the
posthumous donation of an organ.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this very
special day when the health committee will be introducing its
report.
I want to thank my hon. colleague from Dewdney—Alouette for
seconding this bill.
I rise to introduce my private member's bill, which I call the
organ donation medal act. If passed, the bill will serve to
formally recognize posthumously those who have given of
themselves through organ donation so that someone else may live a
richer, fuller life. This medal would be awarded to a family
member to recognize the gift of life.
Today over 3,000 Canadians are waiting for life-giving organ
transplants and Canada has one of the lowest donation rates in
the world. We know that needs to be changed. As a parliament
and as a society we can take steps to change this.
This bill is without precedence and I hope that through this
small step we can ensure that more of those 3,000 people will be
able to receive the organ donation which they so desperately
need. This bill would help those people.
I hope that all members on all sides of the House will give this
bill the non-partisan support it deserves.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) Mr.
Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, presented on
Thursday, December 10, 1998, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I want to admonish
the House that members who rise to speak under motions will be
asked to be strictly relevant to the motion on which they rise.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the
House that I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
I have moved concurrence this morning in the seventh report of
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade. The report was presented to the House on December 10,
1998, which was International Human Rights Day.
The report is profoundly important. It concerns nuclear
disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and the role of NATO. The
report raised a number of profoundly important questions and made
a series of serious recommendations.
1015
Moving concurrence in that report today is timely. We are
literally on the eve of the 50th anniversary of NATO's founding.
There will be a major NATO summit meeting in Washington, D.C.
tomorrow.
My New Democratic Party colleagues and I call on the government
to use this as an opportunity to put forward visionary and
forward thinking proposals. It should show leadership
particularly on two fundamental issues, on the issue of the
review of NATO's strategic concept and on the response of NATO to
the ongoing humanitarian and military tragedy in Kosovo and
Serbia.
I should say parenthetically that clearly in the context of a
debate around NATO there are obviously broader questions as well.
But bearing in mind the admonition of the Chair not to venture
onto that turf I will not do that.
My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I historically
have taken the position and continue to take the position that
given the dissolution of the Warsaw pact and the growing
irrelevance of NATO, Canada could play a far more constructive
role working within the framework of the United Nations and other
regional security bodies. Canada should withdraw from NATO.
We note as well with sadness the fact that a number of
profoundly important issues around NATO, including the
fundamental issue of the expansion of NATO, were never addressed
in any meaningful way by this parliament. However, that is a
debate for another occasion.
With respect to the issue of the recommendations of the
parliamentary committee on nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation, as my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre stated, Canada has failed to show any serious leadership
in this area.
There is no question we welcome the call of Canada for a review
at the NATO summit tomorrow of NATO's strategic concept. But on
the fundamental key issue that is involved in that strategic
concept, NATO's absurd and destructive clinging to a policy of
first use of nuclear weapons, what does the Government of Canada
have to say? To this day we do not know what the government's
position is.
In a background document on the NATO summit prepared and
circulated to members of the House, all the government says is
that Canada believes that nuclear weapons are far less important
to NATO's strategy than in earlier years. It is time we had far
more leadership than that and that Canada took to the table a
clear policy of no first use of nuclear weapons.
The committee urged the government to move ahead to support the
call for conclusion of a nuclear weapons disarmament convention.
There again the government has failed to respond positively. The
committee made recommendations as well around MOX fuel regarding
the total unfeasibility of that as a concept. Here the
government has shown contempt for parliament in moving ahead with
that.
My colleagues and I are urging the government to show leadership
with respect to the issue of the nuclear weapons test range at
Nanoose Bay. Just this week four very distinguished Canadians,
Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Michael Wallace, Elizabeth May and David
Cadman, urged the Canadian government to seek an advisory opinion
from a Canadian court to determine whether the activities at
Nanoose Bay are in fact in defiance of international law, and in
particular a decision of the International Court of Justice. I
urge the government to respond positively to that request.
With respect to the issue of Canada's strategy in Kosovo and
Serbia, this weekend at the NATO summit Canada does have an
opportunity, and my colleagues and I believe a responsibility, to
show leadership. Instead, as the leader of the New Democratic
Party pointed out yesterday, Canada is blindly following a
consensus instead of showing any leadership whatsoever.
Canadians are asking a growing number of questions about NATO's
whole approach to this humanitarian and military disaster. Just
what are NATO's objectives in these air strikes?
1020
Initially we were told that it was military targets. We know
now that the bombing has expanded far beyond that. We know now
that NATO is bombing party headquarters in the heart of Belgrade,
Milosevic's home, and a PVC and VCM plant at Pancevo in
Yugoslavia which proposes a profound threat to the environment.
We know they have expanded far beyond military targets and are
bombing many non-military targets. There have been tragic losses
of civilian life in convoys in Kosovo, trains in Serbia and
elsewhere.
What are the guidelines? What is Canada saying? Has Canada
voiced its concern about this very dangerous expansion beyond
military targets? We know that the United States, the so-called
supreme command, is making the decisions.
Canadians are asking if Canada is speaking out forcefully within
NATO. Will we speak out this weekend about the uses of depleted
uranium in that conflict? We know that the A-10 helicopters are
going to be there and they use depleted uranium. This poses a
very grave long term environmental and humanitarian disaster as
we have seen in Iraq and elsewhere. What does Canada have to say
about that? Absolutely nothing.
What about the refugees within Kosovo? There are some 400,000
desperate people with no food, no water and no shelter. NATO's
only strategy appears to be to keep bombing and it could last for
months. In the meantime what does Canada have to say? What is
Canada's position with respect to this? Are we prepared to talk
about getting desperately needed food in? The Greeks have made a
proposal which would lead to getting some food on the ground.
Where is Canada's leadership? There is silence here as well.
Finally and most important, what concrete diplomatic initiatives
is Canada putting forward? At the foreign affairs committee this
week we heard from Jim Wright, a director general and
spokesperson for the government in this area, that the key to a
negotiated settlement is getting Russia on board. Indeed the
Russian special envoy, Viktor Chernomyrdin, is in Belgrade now.
We also know that the key issue for Russia is the composition of
the international peacekeeping force. Jim Wright said that that
was the only outstanding issue.
Why is it that our government refuses to take to the NATO summit
a clear proposal that that international peacekeeping force
cannot be a NATO led peacekeeping force. It must be a UN led
peacekeeping force. Why is Canada not showing leadership on this
front which could mean that we could return to the table? Why is
Canada not urging to move forward with the uniting for peace
resolution at the United Nations similar to that which Lester
Pearson moved forward?
Let me say that Canada has failed abjectly to show leadership
here. The United Nations Association in Canada has urged a
number of proposals. It has urged NATO to consider a temporary
halt in the bombing, urgent consultation with like-minded states,
moving ahead within the United Nations.
Canada cannot simply blindly continue to follow. We have an
opportunity tomorrow at the NATO summit to show leadership. My
colleagues are calling on the government to end its following, to
stand up and show leadership on behalf of Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to
questions and comments the title of the report to which the
concurrence motion refers is “Canada and the Nuclear Challenge:
Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the
Twenty-First Century”.
When ruling on relevance, that is what the Chair will be ruling
on in the questions and comments and on debate.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I sit on
the committee and took part in the nine months plus of listening
to witnesses from across Canada. A lot of questions were raised.
I believe all parties could agree with a lot of the questions
and issues that were raised, like the dangers that MOX fuel might
possess and so on.
I disagree with parts of that report and I would like to hear
the member's comments. So much of it seemed to me to deal with
an idyllic world. All of us would like to get rid of all the
nuclear weapons. That goes without saying.
The reality is that we are going into a more dangerous world in
the 21st century than we came out of after the cold war in the
early nineties. I would like the member to address that.
1025
I also wonder from some of his comments whether he believes that
Canada really does have an agreement already with NATO in terms
of our plans for Kosovo. The third and final point is on the big
problem with the international force and having talked to the
Russians as recently as this morning, Milosevic refuses to have
the Russians as part of any force as well. He does not want any
force in there, peacekeeping or otherwise, made up of anyone,
including the Russians.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
to question the relevance of the questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The first part of
the question is relevant.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
issue of nuclear weapons, the committee's proposal was that the
committee call on the Government of Canada to urge a review of
NATO's strategic concept. It is not a particularly revolutionary
concept.
Some of us on the committee wanted to go further. Some of us
clearly suggested that Canada should show leadership within that
review process and urge an end to the policy of first use of
nuclear weapons. The World Court ruling, the International Court
of Justice ruling was a very compelling and very powerful
argument in support of that. It was a very compelling and very
powerful argument in support of negotiating a nuclear weapons
convention.
What Canadians are absolutely appalled by is the position of the
Reform Party which is that NATO should not even review its
strategic concept on nuclear weapons. That is absolutely
unbelievable. That is the position of the Reform Party. That is
the position of the member. It was not even do not call for an
end to first use of nuclear weapons. The Reform Party with its
head in the sand, back in the cold war, said “Forget about that.
We do not think NATO should be reviewing its strategic concept
at all”.
If we want to talk about a failure of leadership on the part of
the government, that is an abject and shameful failure of
leadership by the Reform Party of Canada.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I think I should say a few words about why we moved this motion
today. We feel that there has not been enough opportunity to
debate the things which the foreign affairs committee report
addressed. This is certainly one way of creating that
opportunity.
The report deals not only with nuclear weapons but with the
ongoing role of NATO and the need for NATO to review its
strategic concept which includes a great many things. We have not
had the opportunity in this parliament, when it comes to policies
adopted by NATO, to have the kind of debate we ought to have in
this place with respect to the review of the strategic concept.
Presumably this will be done this weekend at the NATO summit.
Yet has parliament had an opportunity to debate this and express
ourselves about the very survival of the planet and whether NATO
which contains a majority of the nuclear powers on the face of
the earth is actually going to take some bold step to review its
strategy, in particular its first use strategy or not? Surely
that is something this parliament should have had an opportunity
to address itself to. This is what we are trying to do here this
morning, however briefly, depending on what the government's
response is to this, whether it wants to continue the debate or
whether it wants to snuff out the debate by moving to go to
orders of the day.
We were concerned, as I think we ought to have been, that there
was no debate in the House about the enlargement of NATO. It was
a major decision that was debated in every other parliament of
every other NATO country. This is embarrassing. Are we a banana
republic run by order in council and executive committee? Even
in the U.K., where it was not required that they do so, they had
a debate in parliament about the enlargement of NATO. In every
other country it was a requirement that their congress or their
parliament address this issue. Yet here in Canada we just read
about it in the Gazette.
The same thing is happening with respect to a number of issues
on this.
The same thing is happening now with respect to the strategic
concept, and whatever it is the government proposes to contribute
to the debate at the summit about review of the strategic
concept, about out of area operations on the part of NATO which
we are seeing precedents set for in Kosovo, without there having
been a debate in this parliament about the principle of out of
area operations by NATO, and what grounds and what criterion
would be used or whether or not it is a good idea at all to
transform NATO from a defensive alliance into an alliance that
sees itself as policemen of the world or at least policemen of
Europe in this case. We have never had that kind of debate.
1030
One of the things that the committee addressed itself to
primarily was the whole question of strategic concept. In that
there is the key question of the first use of nuclear weapons,
which has been and continues to be one of the primary objections
of the New Democratic Party to the way in which NATO understands
itself, the way in which it conducts itself and one of the
primary reasons why we have had a policy over the years of
withdrawal from NATO. We think that a policy of first use of
nuclear weapons, and let us call it what it is, is terrorism writ
large. In the name of whatever interest it is that NATO might
think of itself as defending, we would be willing, if not to
destroy the planet and the environment, to destroy civilian
populations in ways that make Hiroshima and the bombing of
Dresden and other calamities seem insignificant.
Is this the moral high ground of the 20th century that our
strategic concept rests upon waging war against civilians in a
way unknown in human history and waging war against the
environment, therefore not just against our own generation but
against all the generations to come?
This is a question of intergenerational morality in the final
analysis. This is fine enough or stupid enough or criminal
enough if we wanted to destroy ourselves, but to destroy the
environment for future generations and perhaps even to destroy
the human prospect is, as has been rightly called on many
occasions, a blasphemy to set ourselves up as God and say “We
will decide the future of the planet. We will decide whether the
human prospect continues”.
It is in this deep rooted objection to nuclear weapons
themselves, but also to a doctrine of first use of nuclear
weapons, that the NDP raises this motion today. We think nothing
could be more important than for parliament to address itself to
this particular issue.
What about the question of MOX? The Minister of Foreign Affairs
holds this up as one of the ways that Canada could contribute to
the elimination of nuclear weapons. We could do a lot more to
contribute to the elimination of nuclear weapons if we used what
influence we have within NATO and at the United Nations to work
for the abolition of nuclear weapons, not just some fine tuning
of NATO strategic concept, and that may not happen in any
significant way, but to work for the abolition of nuclear
weapons. That is the way in which we could contribute to this
process, rather than becoming a nuclear waste dump for the United
States and perhaps for other countries as well, all in a way that
is open to the charge that this is just a way of trying to keep
the failing nuclear industry in this country alive by giving it
some raison d'être or justification that is slipping away from
it.
There is a lot to be debated here. I would hope that the
government will seize this opportunity. It says we have an
opportunity to do this because we have take note debates about
various things that happen, particularly with respect to NATO and
peacekeeping. However, that is not enough. We do not get to
vote. We could vote on concurrence in this committee report. The
House could express itself as to whether or not it agreed with
the committee or with the government on these matters. If it
comes to a decision with respect to the deployment of ground
troops, we could have a vote in the House about that. Surely
parliament should vote on the important things and not just on
what it suits the government to have parliament express itself
on.
That is not playing into the hands of Mr. Milosevic or whatever
silly thing the Prime Minister said. How could the genuine,
authentic exercise of democracy play into the hands of someone
who is anti-democratic? Every time we confront a difficult
situation do we put our democratic values aside?
This reminds me of of what we did at APEC. Instead of showcasing
democracy to the visiting totalitarian leaders by showing how we
allow protesters and demonstrators to be seen by the people who
they are protesting and demonstrating against, we hide them away.
We become more like the people who we are allegedly trying to
convert to our values.
1035
Now we get the argument from the Prime Minister, “Oh, no, we
don't want a vote in parliament. That might show division.” It
might, but we do not know yet. I do not think the Prime Minister
should presume upon the judgment of the House. However, even if
it did, what would be wrong with that? What would be wrong with
showing that we are a country in which people hold a variety of
views and that those views are expressed in the parliament of
that country. I do not understand the government's reluctance
when it comes to involving parliament in this.
I was struck by the irony the other night when President
Clinton, responding to the massacre, the terrible tragedy in
Littleton, Colorado at the Columbine High School said “We have
to teach our children that we need to solve our problems with
words and not weapons”.
This is what we are urging upon our own government with respect
to Kosovo, that it go to NATO and say that the strategy that it
employed and which we approved in the beginning under
circumstances that have now changed and under criteria that have
now been abandoned, has failed. That it seek to solve this
problem with diplomacy because obviously what it set about to do
in a military context has not worked. It is time to review that
concept, not just NATO's strategic concept, but to review this
very significant approach that was being taken by NATO in Kosovo
and get back to the table, consider some of the things that have
been put forward by Mr. Pearson's son, Geoffrey Pearson and
others, and see if we cannot find a way out of this mess that
does not bring back the threat of cold war and an arms race
escalation.
The other day I got a letter from the Physicians for Global
Survival saying that one of the things that NATO and others
should be considering is de-alerting all the nuclear forces on
the planet for the year 2000 because of the Y2K concern. This is
one of the biggest concerns that Canadians have with respect to
Y2K, not whether their lights will be off for two days but
whether they will have nuclear bombs raining down on them by
accident. This is something it should be considering at the NATO
summit as well.
NATO could show leadership here and say it will de-alert and
take all its bombs off alert until it is absolutely certain that
the problem is settled. Better that it took them off and kept
them off but at the very least it could do that. I would hope
that would be something the government would take to that meeting
in Washington this weekend.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the
member who just spoke gave an excellent speech. He has a lot of
experience in the House of Commons.
Whether they vote for the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or
the Progressive Conservative Party, the people have the
opportunity every four years to elect parliamentarians to the
House of Commons to assume their responsibilities.
I think it is up to the House of Commons and to each of the
members present to assume their responsibilities. One of our
responsibilities is to know whether the government supports all
NATO's decisions. If that is the case, it is a bit worrisome.
If NATO decides for the Government of Canada, and we as
parliamentarians have no part to play other than to bow and nod
in agreement, as the Prime Minister does without even consulting
the House, it is worrisome.
This week, the Bloc Quebecois presented a motion asking the
government for the opportunity to exercise a very democratic
right in the House of Commons: the members' right to vote and
give the government the mandate to takes its responsibilities in
terms of honouring commitments made to NATO.
1040
If NATO decided tomorrow to send 200,000 soldiers, would the
Government of Canada have the resources and materiel to respond?
Things are getting complicated. Are civilians going to be
called on to meet NATO's standards?
In closing, I want to ask the member a question. I do not know
whether he agrees with me, but I am sure the Prime Minister does
not have the backing of his own government and he cannot take a
vote, because he is afraid his own government will vote no, when
decisions have to be made in the war in Kosovo.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say for sure what
the mind of the Liberal caucus is on this or whether that is the
reason the Prime Minister does not want to have a vote. It may
be so, but I would not underestimate the power of the Prime
Minister to bring all his members into line even if some of them
were against it.
The hon. member raises a good point when he talks about the
Prime Minister's response to the whole question of Canada's role
in NATO. The Prime Minister said that he would not be the only
one not to go along and that he is a part of team, et cetera.
Maybe we should unpack this team analogy for a few seconds
because there are different people on the team. We can go all
the way from the captain to the water boy. They are all on the
team. What we are saying about Canada being a part of the NATO
team is that we should have something to say in the huddle. To
use a football analogy, we should have something to say about
what the play is going to be and what we are going to do.
In this case, are we going to seek a diplomatic solution? Are
we going to be open-minded about various other ways of creating
openings to get back to the table? No matter how many guys are
lined up, are we going to keep pushing through and trying the
same plays over and over again regardless of whether or not they
work?
The Prime Minister would do well to reflect on his own team
metaphor for NATO. We know that Canada cannot be the captain.
We know who the captain is. However, we can have members on the
team who have something significant to say and something
significant to contribute and that is what we ask of Canada in
this regard.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate. I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1130
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Assadourian
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 161
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Blaikie
| Brison
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Epp
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver) – 60
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Grose
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Lefebvre
| Mahoney
| Normand
|
Plamondon
| Proud
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wappel
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if you could tell me whether the record will
show that the Reform Party voted with the government to suppress
a debate and a vote on foreign policy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I do not think that
will be necessary.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
1135
He said: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the introduction of Bill C-78
was delayed by motions. This legislation is so important that it
should be considered a top priority.
Bill C-78 introduces the first major amendments to public service
pension plans in over 30 years. These amendments are critical to
the survival of these plans as we know them.
Let me first address my comments to those who benefit from these
plans, that is current and past government employees, because
many false statements have been made regarding the technical
changes that our government is proposing to our employees'
pension plans.
First, all the benefits for which our employees made
contributions during their career will be fully guaranteed and
maintained. Not only will these benefits be fully guaranteed and
maintained, they will even be improved.
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 technical changes submitted to the approval of this House
are based on our government's concern to ensure fairness to
Canadian taxpayers, but also to our current and past employees.
The existing public service pension plans were established some
50 years ago and they clearly must be adjusted to the new
realities.
[English]
Let me explain. When the Canada pension plan was established it
was agreed with our employees that their annual contributions to
the public service plan and to the Canada pension plan combined
would not increase over the percentage of their wages that they
were then paying, which was 7.5% of their salaries.
The original contribution rate of employees to the CPP has risen
over time from 1.8% in 1966 to 3.5% today. The CPP rate, as
agreed by the federal government and the provinces together, will
climb by 2003 to 4.95% of the wages and salaries.
However, each time our employees contribution rate to the CPP
increases their contribution to the government's pension fund
decreases since their total contribution cannot exceed 7.5% of
their wages. Historically the government and its employees
shared pension plan costs on a 60:40 ratio. With the increase in
CPP premiums this proportion has gradually changed to 70:30 and
it will be 80:20 in 2003 if we do not act now.
Members would no doubt suggest that the government could simply
increase contributions, reduce benefits or let the pension funds
accumulate shortfalls even if the benefits of the pension plans
were eventually reduced. To all of these options the proper
answer is no, and that is the whole reason for Bill C-78.
The three acts that govern the government's pension funds
restrict contributions to the ceiling of 7.5% of earnings,
prohibit the reduction of benefits, and require the government to
cover all annual shortfalls in its pension plans.
Is it fair for federal employees to enjoy both the guarantee of
always paying the same percentage of premiums and the guarantee
of benefits that will never be reduced while Canadian taxpayers
are constantly assured of paying a bigger and bigger share of the
pension plan of government employees, as well as funding any
shortfalls? The government does not think so.
1140
[Translation]
We must not forget that, ultimately, the government represents
taxpayers who, in addition to having to save up for their own
retirement, must also assume the costs of federal public
servants' pension plans.
It is neither right nor fair that taxpayers are having to save
up more and more for their own retirement, when public servants
are contributing less and less. Fairness to our employees
cannot take precedence over the fairness we owe Canadian
taxpayers.
In recent years, public service, RCMP and National Defence
services pension plans have built up a surplus of approximately
$30 billion. Regardless of what employee unions think, this
money belongs to Canadian taxpayers.
Over the years, it is taxpayers who have absorbed all the
deficits run up by government employee pension plans. It is
taxpayers who have therefore assumed all the risks while our
employees rested easy in the knowledge that their retirement was
looked after.
The existing legislation provides for mechanisms to manage
pension plan deficits, but none for accumulated surpluses. In
other words, the existing legislation accounts for surpluses,
but the government, and therefore taxpayers, must assume all
deficits.
Bill C-78 will address surpluses and deficits alike, and will
provide for mechanisms to dispose of future surpluses. Existing
surpluses will gradually be reduced to an acceptable level over
a period of up to 15 years.
People may wonder how we propose to dispose of any surpluses in
the future. As things now stand—and this is what the bill
provides for right now—Treasury Board will decide how these
surpluses will be used.
However, if representatives of present and retired employees
were to agree to share the risks with Canadian taxpayers, we are
completely prepared to co-manage and therefore to share any
future surplus.
We could, for example, decide together to give a contributions
holiday to plan participants, or to the employer, or both, or to
withdraw all or part of the surplus.
Bill C-78 will ensure the long term financial stability of our
employees' pension funds. To that end, it will create a public
sector pension investment board, which will be responsible for
investing future employer and employee contributions in the
stock market.
At present, contributions are used only to purchase government
savings bonds. In future, their investment in diversified
portfolios will give a better yield and thus will make it
possible to offer a better guarantee for the future, to limit
the increase in costs, and eventually to improve benefits.
For example, a 1% improvement in the long term performance of
the public service plan could reduce its overall costs by 15% to
20%. This new public sector pension investment board will be
completely independent of the government and of plan
participants. It will therefore be totally free in its
investment decisions, having the sole objective of maximizing
the holdings of the public sector pension fund.
Many other public pension funds in the country already make
market investments. This new provision will enable more
Canadian businesses access to a new source of financing.
1145
[English]
This should be of the utmost interest to our employees. If the
return on the investments which I just mentioned is lower than
expected, employees would receive the same level of pension to
which they had contributed during their careers, including 100%
inflation protection. The government guarantees the integrity of
the benefits of our employee pension funds and will continue to
cover the shortfalls.
Bill C-78 is part of an overall plan. It re-establishes
fairness between taxpayers and our employees in the funding of
the pension plans. It strengthens the long term sustainability
of the plans and will attempt to reduce the costs for all
members.
For its part, Bill C-71, the budget implementation act, proposes
improvements to the Public Service Superannuation Act, the
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Superannuation Act.
Pension benefits will be calculated in the future using the
average of the best five consecutive years of earnings rather
than the best six consecutive years, as in the current plan,
applying a five year average of the year's maximum pensionable
earnings to calculate the CPP/QPP related reduction, rather than
using the current three year average. In short, the government
will increase employee pensions while freezing contributions to
the employee plan for at least four years.
Bill C-78 also includes a series of technical changes to improve
the benefits linked to federal employee pension plans. It will
reduce the contribution rate of the supplementary death benefit
plan, the government's group life insurance program, and increase
the paid-up benefit amount. It will reduce by 25% the
contribution rate of employees who contribute at the rate of five
cents per month for every $250 of coverage. It will double to
$10,000 the benefit to eligible employees having already reached
age 65 and it will extend eligibility for paid-up benefits and
delay the onset of coverage reduction.
All of these improvements will be made possible by a $1 billion
surplus in the supplementary death benefits account, due in part
to increased life expectancies.
[Translation]
Bill C-78 will also award survivor benefits to same-sex spouses
who apply for them. The applicable criteria will be the same as
for common-law spouses.
The bill would do away with Treasury Board's discretionary power
in relation to survivor benefits and will set criteria for
eligibility for benefits.
The Government of Canada would thus be bringing its pension
plans into line with those of the governments of Nova Scotia,
British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan.
We would also be in compliance with a number of recent decisions
by courts favouring the granting of benefits to same sex
partners.
These provisions would also apply to members' pensions. These
changes will increase the number of people entitled to
survivor's benefits under the terms of the three major pension
plans to some 50 new beneficiaries a year.
Bill C-78 will also finally establish a separate pension plan for
Canada Post employees. It makes sense for Canada Post to manage
its own pension plan, as all major employers do.
The plan would come into effect on October 1, 2000 and would
reflect the reform to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
The value of past service for pension purposes will be totally
protected. Employee benefits will be the same as under the
Public Service Superannuation Act.
The terms of the plan would be negotiable under the terms of the
Canada Labour Code after one year of activity. The
negotiations would not affect benefits accumulated to date.
However, in negotiations held after October 1, 2001, Canada Post
and its employees' bargaining agents could negotiate change as
they wish.
1150
For the plan to be self-sufficient, future contributions by
employees and the Corporation would be invested in the market in
accordance with the Pensions Benefits Standards Regulations.
Canada Post could set up an independent investment office to
oversee investments. Under the bill, the Canada Post
Corporation should also establish a life insurance program
similar to the supplementary death benefit plan.
Canada Post retirees will also be happy to learn that Canada
Post intends to established a shared cost voluntary dental plan,
which would cover their survivors and eligible dependants.
[English]
I want to assure members of the House that these measures are in
no way an indication of plans to privatize Canada Post. Separate
pension plans already exist for other crown corporations, such as
the CBC and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These
plans have not been privatized, nor will they be.
I am convinced that our proposed technical amendments to the
three public service pension plans are realistic and fair. They
will be beneficial to all of the stakeholders, namely, our
employees, the government and ultimately Canadian taxpayers.
Some people will blame us for having acted unilaterally in
determining these major changes to our employees' pension plans.
However, we have to remind the House that we have consulted with
our partners over many months on the challenges that I have just
described, but unfortunately we were unable to reach an agreement
on the necessary reforms.
The time to act is long overdue. The action we are taking is
being taken in a spirit of fairness, both toward our employees
and toward all Canadian taxpayers. As I have tried to show in
the past few minutes, this bill will modernize and improve the
public service pension plans.
I am proud of our public servants and the work which they do on
behalf of all Canadians. I am convinced that the majority of
them believe we are acting to protect their future retirement.
Lastly, I hope that all members of the House will support the
government and will vote in favour of Bill C-78.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to take part in this
initial debate on 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.
I listened to the minister's comments with some interest. In
his concluding remarks he mentioned that he felt this legislation
was fair. I suspect it would be most fair for the government in
its administration of the affairs of Canada, and perhaps least
fair for the Canadian taxpayers. On that basis I would like to
focus the majority of my time today speaking to several of the
technical aspects of the bill before us. I am sure that a number
of my Reform colleagues later today will focus on other specific
aspects of the legislation.
The purpose of this bill is to establish an independent public
sector pension investment board with a mandate to invest employee
and employer pension contributions that were made under the
public service, the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police pension plans.
This bill, if passed, will become effective on April 1, 2000.
It would also allow the Canada Post Corporation to establish an
independent pension plan by October of next year.
1155
This bill would amend these present plans so that the employee
contribution rate under each is set independently from those
under the Canada pension plan. It would de-link the CPP from
these plans, as it was originally linked when the CPP was
established. Employee rates under each plan would be frozen
until the year 2003, but would rise from 10% to 40% of the cost
of the plans in the year 2000.
While the government would pay 60% of the cost, it would also
claim all of the surpluses. While the government would be
responsible for all actuarial deficits, and we can expect that
there will be actuarial deficits in the years ahead, the main
benefit to the government would be the ability to claim the
present $30 billion surplus. I will talk about that a bit later.
The three existing pension advisory committees would be changed
so that employees would have some say in the design,
administration and funding of the plans, and there would be
employee representatives on these committees. I try to give
credit where credit is due, but unfortunately this bill does not
go far enough. In the balance of priorities it falls short.
Employee representation is a far cry from the employees
administering the funds, and that is not what we are calling for.
Would the advice they offer be accepted or rejected? What
influence would they really have? Is this mere window dressing?
Other proposed changes include improvements to life insurance
components of the public service plan and the extension of
survivor benefits. This is again on the plus side. This
includes the extension of benefits to same sex partners, but it
does so without any reference to gender. The convoluted wording
and the ambiguity in the bill in this respect is unacceptable.
When reading this section of the bill we do not really know what
the government means at all with respect to who is entitled to
benefits.
The cost of extending survivor benefits is not large, but rather
small, amounting to a quarter of one per cent or approximately $5
million a year. However, as I am sure members are aware, these
changes have been anticipated for some time now and like many of
my colleagues I have received correspondence on this issue from
concerned pensioners who are worried about the proposed changes.
There has also been a significant amount of press coverage on
this issue. I am sure that as we debate this issue over the next
few weeks we will hear even more from people who are concerned
about the proposed changes in Bill C-78. I invite Canadians to
continue to raise their concerns with their members of parliament
and with the government itself.
For those who are unaware of why this is such a volatile issue,
I can sum it up in one word, “surplus”. There is a $30 billion
surplus on which the government is itching to get its hands.
I recently read Paul Polango's book, The Last Guardians: The
Crisis of the RCMP and Canada. He makes an interesting point.
In the funding he shows that in the years 1996-97 the budgeted
costs for the RCMP were $1,925,700,000. The receipts, though,
which do not go to the RCMP but into general revenues, come to
almost three-quarters of a billion dollars. Therefore, instead
of $1.9 billion it comes out to $1.2 billion as the net cost of
the RCMP to the government. This is not really reflected in the
costs of the RCMP because revenue to the RCMP is not balanced off
against its account but goes into general revenues.
In a sense that is what is happening here too. It is estimated
that the surplus for this pension plan hovers at about $30
billion. With the way in which this pension is structured the
money is more like a paper IOU rather than ready cash, but it
still accounts for approximately one-fifth of the government's
massive $6 billion debt.
1200
Over the past decade the government has already raided
approximately $10 billion of the surplus and used that money to
help to reduce some of the huge deficit racked up during the high
spending eighties and nineties while still allowing for the
wasteful spending of taxpayer money on programs such as the great
Canadian flag giveaway.
Like they are doing with the massive employment insurance
surplus that has built up in recent years, government members are
saying this money is theirs and they have a legitimate claim to
take from this fund whenever they need a little extra cash
because they would be responsible for shortcomings in the future.
They fail to take into account, however, the burden the taxpayers
have carried in helping the government overcome the difficulties
it had resulting from its shortsighted and cynical attempts to
decide for Canadians what is best for them.
Organized labour representatives, on the other hand, state that
this is their money as their members have contributed to the plan
in the past and will need the funds in the future. The money
should be theirs, they say. They are calling what the Liberal
government is doing legalized robbery. Some have even taken
legal action or have threatened to take legal action to stop the
government from taking these surplus funds. At this time I note
that the existing legislation Bill C-78 would amend does not
address who has any right to any surplus.
The unions are also upset that the government is not only
raiding the surplus but is at the same time raising premiums.
Under the bill the employee contribution would rise to 40% of the
total contributions to the pension fund. The unions are
supportive of their members paying their fair share of pension
contributions. These changes will bring it more in line with
other pension plans. They are in agreement that with more
benefits the rise in their members' share of the contribution is
acceptable. However, with the government's decision to take the
surplus in the pension fund, the unions feel that the government
has crossed the line of what is acceptable.
It is the position of the official opposition that these
surpluses belong to neither the government nor outright to the
unions. It is the taxpayers who are the forgotten partner in
this debate. It is the taxes they have paid over the years that
give the government the money it has to satisfy its 70%
obligation to these pension contributions. Taxpayers have also
over the past few years helped pay down the federal deficit and
now the debt, with the enormous taxes the government has forced
upon them. In the past taxpayers have covered $13 billion
shortfalls in the pension plans and are on the hook for any
future shortfalls.
The government is wrong to raid this money from the pensioners
who have contributed to this fund over the years, as have
Canadian taxpayers contributed to this fund. We believe that the
fair and smart thing to do with the pension surplus is to leave
it inside the pension plans, not only to guarantee the solvency
of the plans for the members but to cushion taxpayers from any
potential shortfalls in the future.
Although the current surplus is quite substantial, there still
exists a strong possibility that it will be eroded so far that
the pension fund will go into a deficit position. It has
happened before and it will very likely happen again given the
volatility of the global economic environment.
The bill would establish the public sector pension investment
board, a 12 member board situated in the national capital region.
It would be mandated to manage the funds in the best interest of
the recipients, ensuring a maximum rate of return on the money
that would be transferred to the fund, as stated in the bill,
from the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service
Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act. That varies from the current way plans are
managed.
They are currently in long term government bonds, which in
reality provide very little return.
1205
The board would manage or supervise the management of the
business and affairs of the funds administrators including an
annual written statement of investment policies, standards and
procedures for each fund they manage; monitor the officers of the
board to ensure that they meet these standards; prepare both
quarterly and annual financial statements for each fund they
manage; set up conflict management procedures; establish a code
of conduct for officers and employees of the board; and have
someone monitor both the application of this code and any
conflict of interest procedures. These are all described in
considerable detail in the bill.
Members of the board and the officers who are delegated by the
board would have the obligation to act honestly and in good faith
with a view for the best interest of the funds and to act with
care and diligence. They are to bring with them any outside
related knowledge, skill or education that they have and employ
that in the best interest of the board in the application of
their duties. The directors and officers are to abide by all the
bylaws and guidelines that have been established by the board.
If a director, agent, officer, employee or auditor of the board
or subsidiary makes a false statement or gives deceptive
information, he or she would be guilty of an offence and could be
liable on summary conviction for a jail term of less than a year
and/or a fine of $100,000.
Bylaws may be made by the board if they are consistent with the
act in assisting or guiding the conduct and management of the
board's business and affairs. They can deal with the board's
administration, management or control of their property holdings;
the calling of meetings; the functions or duties of directors,
employees or officers; and the establishment of committees.
Bylaws will be in effect when passed unless otherwise stated and
are to be given to the respective ministers and will then be
forwarded to parliament.
The act also sets up the power to delegate certain powers or
duties of the board of directors. However, there are specific
limits as to what cannot be amended such as the adoption,
amendment or repeal of bylaws; the establishment of investment
policies and standards; any vacancy; the remuneration of board
members; or the approval of any financial statements of the
board.
The nominating committee would be established by the President
of the Treasury Board after consulting with the Minister of
National Defence and the Solicitor General of Canada. It would
be chaired by an independent chairperson who has not or is not
entitled to pensions from either the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act or the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Other members of the nominating committee are to be chosen as
representatives from the public service, the Canadian forces or
the RCMP. Nominating committee members could be reappointed
after their five year term expires and removed at any time by the
minister who appointed them. Nominating committee members would
have a variety of influences which would aid in the guidance of
their decision including the disqualifying factors they should
look for in directors.
The act also sets out a formula for the selection of directors
who would be appointed by governor in council on the
recommendation of the minister from a short list submitted by the
nominating committee. Directors would hold their office for a
renewable term of three years and could be removed by an order in
council. There would be staggered terms of office so that no
more than one-third of the board's term would expire in the same
year.
The act also sets out the guidelines for the resignation,
vacancy and remuneration of board members, as well as the
structure for the appointment, duties and removal of the
chairperson who is to be chosen by the responsible minister.
The act is very specific in stating who cannot be considered as
board members, listing several instances in which individuals are
considered disqualified persons. They include individuals who
are under 18 years of age, those found to be of unsound mind by
the court, an agent or employee of the government, an MP, senator
or provincial politician, an individual who may receive or has
received pension benefits that are covered by this act or from
the consolidated revenue fund, an employee or agent of a foreign
country, or a non-resident of Canada.
1210
As we have seen so many times since the government began its
mandate, the opportunity exists with this legislation for the
government to use the board as a patronage reward for those who
have supported the party in one way or another.
The government insists that the board is to be independent and
at arm's length from the government. However, like we have seen
time and again with the government, it does not always honour its
word in this respect. I am hoping that I am being a bit cynical.
However the Liberal past practice in this regard has been most
disappointing. The high degree of cabinet and ministerial
discretion this act allows makes it hard for me to believe that
they will not take advantage of this as another patronage
opportunity.
The fiscal year of this board would be the same date as that for
the government. Bill C-78 would establish the procedures and
parameters for the financial books and systems of the board. They
are to have quarterly and annual financial statements that are to
be approved by the board. There is also to be an auditor chosen
annually by the board of directors to audit the financial
statements of the board in accordance with acceptable accounting
procedures. One wonders what the definition for acceptable
accountable procedures would be considering the debate now going
on between the government and the Auditor General of Canada.
The auditor of the funds could be removed at any time by the
board. The bylaws are to be made public and are available at the
board office. The auditor has access to any documents from
current or former board directors, officers, employees or the
like in the preparation of the audit.
The ease with which the board could change or dismiss auditors
is a concern for me. I am concerned that the board holds the
power to change auditors at its whim, which may not be in the
best interest of pensioners. The manner in which it can appoint
and change auditors also does little to ease my concerns about
the accountability both to parliament and to the pensioners to
whom the board should be ultimately responsible.
The quarterly financial statements are to go to the responsible
minister, as well as to the minister of defence and the solicitor
general, within 45 days of the end of that quarter. Annual
reports are also to go to these ministers within 90 days after
the end of that fiscal year and are to be tabled in parliament no
later than 15 days thereafter.
This annual report is to include the financial statements, the
auditors reports as well as the objectives of the board for the
past year and for the foreseeable future. A summary of its
policies, standards and procedures; its code of conduct for
officers and employees; and the report of any special audit is
also to be included in the annual report.
Other than the annual report there is little reporting to
parliament. I have some difficulties with this especially
considering the high degree of power the minister and the cabinet
have with relation to the establishment and the operation of the
board.
The board in effect is entrusted with the pension funds of some
300,000 retirees and 345,000 members of the federal public
service. I would have liked to have seen more accountability to
parliamentarians in the bill so that we could ensure the best
interest of pensioners affected are indeed being looked after.
With the government priority to raid surplus funds, what is the
government's priority for its retirees? As I mentioned
throughout my speech today I have serious concerns about the
overall lack of accountability to the pensioners covered by the
legislation.
Another area I would like to briefly highlight today and will
elaborate on during later stages of the debate is the exemption
of the legislation from the information sought through the Access
to Information Act. Why is the government so afraid of public
scrutiny? What is being hidden?
1215
What is intended to be kept from public scrutiny? This secrecy
is very disturbing. This does not ensure us that the board
members are totally accountable. By not having access to this
very important tool, the Access to Information Act, this
legislation is not as transparent as it must be. I believe the
government should seriously reconsider this omission and make the
Access to Information Act available through this legislation.
Also in this bill, the minister may appoint an auditor to do a
special audit on the board or subsidiary, or may also cause a
special examination to be carried out to ensure that it has met
the requirements of the act. This special examination must be
carried out at least every six years, and before this takes
place, the minister must consult with the minister of defence and
the solicitor general. The cabinet may also make a variety of
regulations respecting the application of the board and
subsidiaries.
The Reform Party of Canada is opposing the bill. I would like
to outline five significant reasons, among many, why I will be
opposing the bill. I will summarize them.
First, the bill allows the government to raid the fund's
surpluses beginning with the existing $30 billion surplus. This
raid reminds me of the infamous national energy program where the
federal government helped itself to an excess of $60 billion of
petroleum revenues that belonged to the affected provinces,
primarily the province of Alberta. Bill C-78 gives the federal
government authority to claim pension money for its general
revenues and, in effect, another surtax on public service
employees and Canadian taxpayers who are contributing to these
pension funds.
Second, the bill would give the government authority to provide
new same sex benefits without debating family and same sex
relationships that would be affected. I think this is a back
door way of dealing with the issue, and it is not acceptable.
Public policy must be changed in the open and not in the back
door through a bill like this.
Third, the bill provides an open door for the government to make
unchallenged patronage appointments.
Fourth, while the bill would provide parliament with after the
fact reports from the minister responsible, altogether too much
business will be conducted behind closed doors with no provision
to use even the Access to Information Act. Such secrecy is not
acceptable.
Fifth and last, why is the auditor general not the auditor given
the mandate to annually audit this fund and the administration of
these funds? Why is it not in the open for the auditor general
to make his examination and report to parliament?
These are changes that I believe need to be made.
I would, therefore, like to move a motion at this time. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
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, be not now read a second
time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
1220
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
amendment is in order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to express my opinion and that of the
Bloc Quebecois regarding Bill C-78, which was just tabled by the
government, and the amendment that was just moved by the Reform
Party member.
I first want to quote many people who wrote to us to express
their disgust in seeing the government try to get its hands on
the pension fund surplus to which they contributed and still
contribute.
I am asking the ministers to listen carefully.
This is a rare opportunity for them to be in contact with the
reality in this country and to learn first-hand what voters think
of their government.
The letter to which I am referring begins like this:
I should point out that it is the author of that letter who uses
the word “plunder”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is well
aware that quoting from a letter is no excuse for using
unparliamentary language. Therefore, I am asking her to be very
careful.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I will continue quoting
from the letter nonetheless:
Personally, I think this pride has definitely taken a beating
recently. I will go on reading this letter, which was written
by a Quebecker whom I will not name, because I did not have the
time to contact him to ask for permission.
It is not always easy because, as is now the case, the public
service is the target of ambitious but petty politicians, such
as—
He then gives the name of the President of the Treasury Board,
which I obviously will not read. The letter goes on:
Our salaries have been frozen and the government has passed
arbitrary back-to-work legislation instead of negotiating fairly.
What does the writer conclude?
And he goes on to say:
It is no longer any big secret that the Minister of Finance
wants his boss's job. The writer then says the following about
the Minister of Finance:
He has his eye on the pension plan surplus, which he sees as
easy money for lowering the national debt. He wants to make a
name for himself as the one who lowered the debt.
The government should listen to this message. It is an
impassioned plea from a public servant who is fed up with the
government's offhandedness.
1225
He continues:
It is unfair for the government to put its hands on the public
service pension plans in order to reduce the debt.
We cannot do otherwise than to agree with this. The author of
this letter adds:
I wonder: is this prophetic? We shall see.
In the meantime, I would ask you to listen to the way the author
ends his letter—and he has taken the trouble to underline these
words, which goes to show how important he felt that his message
was:
I will repeat this message, so that everyone will understand it
clearly:
It is clear. I want this Quebec public servant to know that he
is not the only one opposed to the government's attempt to get
its hands on his pension fund.
We are vehemently opposed to a number of the reforms proposed by
the government in Bill C-78.
This bill is supposedly designed to ensure the long-term
viability of the public sector pension funds. This is an
in-depth reform of the administration of these funds as we now
know it. The bill is going to modify the way plans established
under the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Pension Act and the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act operate.
The focal point of the legislation is the creation of the Public
Sector Pension Investment Board to be responsible for
administering the pension funds, which will in future be
partially invested in the stock market.
The government is announcing that the bill is improving the
financial management of pension funds and employees' and
retirees' benefits.
Obviously, blinded by its own all too obvious arrogance, this
government was not going to reveal all the unfortunate
consequences of this bill to us. Should everything in this bill
be pitched? No. It even contains some good ideas and some good
initiatives.
The bill in fact contains some things that will improve the
situation of workers in the federal government. Former
employees, now retired, will also enjoy certain benefits.
The first improvement is in the number of years of service used
in calculating the basic benefits a retiring public servant is
entitled to.
At the moment, basic benefits are calculated on the salary of
the six best years of uninterrupted service. The calculation
will now be based on five years, rather than six.
I would also point out the change in the formula for calculating
the public servant's pension benefit to shrink the amount of the
pension benefit reduction when he reaches age 65 and receives as
well his Quebec or Canada pension.
The main positive change involves the investment of
contributions in public markets. For a long time now, a number
of stakeholders, including employers' organizations, have been
suggesting that pension funds be invested on the stock market.
That is already being done in a number of countries, and the
return on this sort of investment is higher than if the money
had remained in government coffers.
In 1994, the Auditor General of Canada examined the connection
between the management of our debt and employees' pension plans.
In his report, he pointed out the following:
Financial managers, actuaries and government officials generally
agree that, in the long term, a diversified market security
portfolio generates higher rates of return than the interest
credited to pension accounts.
The auditor general even retained the services of consulting
actuaries to compare the theoretical return on investment of the
pension fund on the markets to the investment strategy in
notional bonds, which was adopted for pension plans during a 31
year period, from 1959 to 1990.
1230
These consulting actuaries came to the conclusion that a market
investment strategy would have generated higher annual rates of
return, by 1.5% to 2.3%.
That component of the reform should ensure a higher return than
the existing rate for the public service pension plan. This is a
step in the right direction, since the bill will ensure a return
that will more closely match that of private pension plans.
There will be an independent fund with real money in it.
But—and there is always a but—this is by no means the perfect
solution.
Some provisions of the bill must absolutely be amended to avoid
future disputes between the government and its employees.
First, there is the appointment of the directors of the board.
The President of the Treasury Board will appoint eight people
who will form a selection committee. These eight people will
provide a list of names to the President of the Treasury Board,
who will recommend 12 of these people to the governor in council
who, in turn, will appoint them directors of the board.
The problem is that while the bill provides that the employees'
representative is appointed to the selection committee, there is
no requirement for the President of the Treasury Board to then
recommend that person for the position of director.
Let us see who the other members of the committee are.
There is a chairperson appointed by the minister after
consultation with a few other ministers concerned, specifically
the Minister of National Defence and the Solicitor General of
Canada. All signs are that this chairperson will be a friend of
the Liberal Party and not an employee.
As for the other directors, it is more of the same, because
there is only one public servant on the nominating committee.
The government will not saddle itself with such a person on its
board of directors if it does not have to.
I would suggest that the government follow the example of the
Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. In addition to the
director general of the Caisse and the president of the Régie
des rentes du Québec, the Caisse's incorporating statute
provides for nine other individuals to sit on the board of
directors.
Of these, two must be public servants or directors of a
government body, another must be a representative of an employee
association, and another must be a director of a co-operative.
Clearly, the composition of this board of directors is much more
representative of the various stakeholders in the business world
than what the federal government is paving the way for with Bill
C-78.
One of the shortcomings of this bill is the lack of predictable
representation of beneficiaries of the pension plans operated by
the future fund.
Another shortcoming has to do with the use of any future fund
surpluses.
Bill C-78 amends the Public Service Superannuation Act by adding,
among others, clause 44.4, which will leave the government free
to take three possible courses of action in the event of a
surplus.
First, it will be able to reduce employee contributions for the
period that the minister determines. Second, it will be able to
reduce Treasury Board contributions in the same manner.
Finally, the surplus amount the Treasury Board determines may be
paid out of the Public Service Pension Fund and into the
Consolidated Revenue Fund, still on the minister's
recommendation. Our fear is that this way of operating will
turn the future fund into another cash cow for the federal
government.
I am not in any way imputing motives to the government, for it
has already stated its intention to get its hands on the
surpluses in the public service pension plans. Public servants
are continually calling for the government “not to be allowed to
get its hands on our surplus”, while the Treasury Board is busy
manoeuvring in order to be able to do just that.
1235
These surpluses are estimated at more than $30 billion. As at
March 31, 1998, in other words more than one year ago, the
public service pension plan reported a surplus of $14.9 billion,
the RCMP's plan $2.4 billion, and the Armed Forces' plan $12.9
billion, for a total of $30.2 billion.
This is a lot of money, and obviously it could repay part of the
debt, or fund phase II of the millennium scholarship program.
Obviously, getting its hands on such a sum would—as my
correspondent whom I have just quoted pointed out—allow it to
score a lot of points politically.
But the government is wrong. The minister responsible for the
public service is wrong. By getting its hands on its employees'
superannuation funds, the government is trying to score points
politically. This approach did not succeed when it got its
hands on the employment insurance fund.
It is immoral for the government, which happens also to be the
legislator, to take advantage of the fact that there are no
legislative provisions relating to the present surplus to dip
its fingers into it.
At the present time, there are 275,000 people paying into the
fund, 160,000 government retirees, and 52,000 surviving spouses,
who are watching the government meddle with their pension funds.
It is true that there is a legislative vacuum when it comes to
handling the present surplus. The legislation to remedy that
lack ought to call for part of the surplus to go back to the
employees and the pensioners.
The government recently tried to justify its argument that any
surplus belongs to it, because it is the one guaranteeing that
public servants will get a pension. Indeed, the President of the
Treasury Board recently explained that, since the government has
had to shell out money in the past to ensure that public
servants would have a pension when there was a deficit in the
fund, it is only normal that the government should get any
surplus. This is absolutely not true.
The normal thing to do would have been to lower employees'
contributions, particularly when it was realized that a huge
surplus was accumulating.
The argument used by the President of the Treasury Board is also
indicative of inadequate management by this government. Indeed,
there is every reason to think that if, a few years ago, the
government had set up a real retirement fund and had invested
the money on the market, there would have been no deficit, or
hardly any.
In fact, the Auditor General of Canada came to that conclusion
in one of its reports released in 1994. He wrote, and I quote:
The higher rates of return that the pension accounts could have
earned, had a market investment strategy been followed over the
long term, could have substantially reduced or totally
eliminated these actuarial deficits.
Consequently, the deficit and debt accumulation could have been
lower if a market investment strategy for the pension accounts
had been followed from the start.
Many employees have been asking for a long time that their
superannuation fund be invested on the stock market, something
that the government has so far refused to do. Now, these
employees are being relieved of their fund.
The government should be careful, because it is sending two
negative messages to society. First, it is telling the public
that it does not believe in fairness. In this particular case,
fairness requires that part of the current surplus be applied to
the pensions of current retirees.
The President of the Treasury Board is certainly aware—but are
the other members of his government?—that the average annual
pension benefits paid to former government employees is $9,680.
These pensioners will not get rich on that kind of money.
1240
In addition, the government is telling other employers that it
is alright to use the money in their employees' pension funds.
For instance, a municipality might have a road to build but not
have enough money to finance the project. What could it do? it
could use its employees' pension fund.
A company might wish to eliminate a recent deficit. What could
it do? It could dip into its employees' pension fund. The
federal government is setting a dangerous precedent that may
affect labour relations in Quebec and in Canada.
Starting today, the government must follow the example set by
one of its own backbenchers, the member for Thunder Bay—Atitokan,
who wrote in The Chronicle Journal as recently as March 29 that
the government was again going to meet with public service
employee representatives on the issue of pension fund surpluses
in order to come up with an agreement acceptable to both
parties. The member concluded his letter with the statement
that he was confident that such an agreement would be worked
out.
There is no doubt that the member for Thunder Bay—Atitokan, like
many others in his party who dare not express their views for
fear of being sidelined, will lose their trust in this
government that refuses to negotiate with its employees, the
most basic form of civic-mindedness.
So as not to lose the often too-blind trust of its party members,
and the slowly but surely declining trust of the public, the
government must scrap the provisions in its bill that allow the
unilateral diversion of $30 billion in surplus pension funds.
In addition to helping those who are now retired, future
negotiations between the government and public service employees
would lead to the conclusion that it is a good idea to transfer
the present pension fund surplus into the retirement fund this
bill sets out to create. The new fund would thus have start-up
capital. This is the only way of ensuring the fund's viability
vis-à-vis the many challenges it will have to face.
One of these challenges is the imminent retirement of the many
baby boomers. The pension fund will be hard put to keep up.
We must, however, remember that the current hiring rate in the
public service is fairly low and that, accordingly, fewer
workers will be paying into the fund.
The future fund must have a reserve of its own, in order to
provide for a possible and probable need for money.
Transferring the current surplus would seem appropriate to fill
this role. The surplus will serve as well to cover unavoidable
losses from investments in the stock market.
We will recall that a number of investment firms suffered in the
recent Asian crash, primarily those whose portfolios were not
sufficiently diversified. Even the auditor general's report for
1994 shows that, according to his findings, in certain
periods—from 1970 to 1974 and from 1985 to 1990—a market
investment strategy might not have produced the best results. It
would have been useful to have a little room to manoeuvre, a bit
of a surplus.
For these various reasons, I hope the government will return to
bargaining with its employees rather than try to have this bill
passed. It only partly resolves the current problems of
managing a pension fund. Accordingly, the government can make
off with the money, no doubt causing increased tensions between
the government and its employees.
“Tell these arrogant individuals not to touch my retirement
money”, said the letter I read earlier.
1245
So, I am passing the message along to the President of the
Treasury Board: “Do not unilaterally take over the surplus in
the pension fund. Instead, put your bill on the back burner,
while you reach an agreement with your employees on how to use
the surplus. And, most importantly, stop governing
autocratically”.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are now in the
period of 20 minutes for debate and 10 minutes for questions and
comments.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to speak to the motion and to the amendment to the motion.
I firmly believe that the hoist motion was a very good idea
because six months time may add some measure of reason to what is
going on. I am confident that within six months the two parties
may reach the outcome that there be a negotiated settlement on
what to do with the pension surplus in question.
I believe that the President of the Treasury Board is in for the
fight of his political life if he continues on the road of moving
forward with Bill C-78. In the short time I have been here I
have not seen the firing up of so much interest over an issue.
The idea of taking, clawing back, or whatever we want to call the
grab for the $30 billion surplus is such an emotional flashpoint
with so many people across the country. I predict interest of
the kind we have not really seen since Brian Mulroney tried to
deindex the Canada pension plan.
When Brian Mulroney tried to deindex the Canada pension plan he
started a grey hair revolution, a blue rinse uprising of senior
citizens who demanded that it be stopped. Brian Mulroney and his
government to their credit had the common sense to back off. They
did not want to take on that group of people. They are the most
powerful voting constituency in the country. Senior citizens,
pensioners and retirees are well organized, well informed and
they vote. They do not stay at home and grumble. They get on
their feet, come out and vote at voting time. They are gearing
up around this issue. As I said, I have not seen a level of
interest like this on any issue since I have been here.
Today seniors organizations are on the hill. They are paying
close attention to the first day of debate on Bill C-78. The
Armed Forces Pensioners, the Association of Public Service
Alliance Retirees, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons,
the CLC, the Canadian Pensioners Concerned, the Congress of Union
Retirees of Canada, the Federal Superannuates National
Association are all here. I did a quick tally and they represent
over 1.5 million retirees and pensioners. They are watching this
debate in West Block in a room which I rented for them.
I really believe that the hoist motion is at least the first
glimmer of hope that possibly we can add some voice of reason to
this whole debate.
I did not finish the list. There are others, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Veterans Association, the United Senior Citizens
of Ontario Incorporated, the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens
Organizations, the One Voice Seniors Network, and on and on. Do
the President of the Treasury Board and the government really
want to take on those people? They should think twice.
When the talks broke down it led to the introduction of this
legislation. But the talks were not going that badly. Progress
was being made. Virtually all of the clauses in Bill C-78, in
the hundreds of pages of text, were agreed to by both parties.
Some benefits were increased. Obviously the representatives of
the pensioners were pleased about that.
Virtually everything else was agreed to, with the exception of
this enormous, and I will avoid unparliamentary terms, grab of
$30 billion from the pension fund. I suppose the representation
of the pension investment board was another hot point. But these
were not insurmountable.
The representatives of the pensioners were quite yielding in
their arguments. It is a basic tenet of the trade union movement
that all pension surpluses are the sole property of the employee.
They are not the employers' money to use as they see fit. They
are deferred wages. It is our money, speaking on behalf of
working people.
1250
The representatives of the employees at the table were willing
to move on that. I have heard figures. I will not mention them
here but they were willing to share that $30 billion, some going
to improve benefits and some going back to the employer to use as
they saw fit, but not all of it. That is where the impasse arose
with the $30 billion. There was no hint of increasing benefits
to the retirees.
The previous speaker did a good job of pointing out what these
retirees are really making. There are more women in that
beneficiary group than there are men. The average woman with 20
years of service makes a pension of $9,600 a year. Whoopee. It
is a pension and I am sure they are glad to have a pension but it
is not exactly a fat, lucrative pension.
This $30 billion divided among all the beneficiaries would be
$30,000 a year for each of them spread out over the term of the
period they collect. That could make a significant difference
between living in poverty or living in some kind of financial
security during their senior years.
It is ironic the theme the government chose for international
women's day this year. Because it is the year of older persons
the government chose “going strong, celebrating older women”.
It should be “going wrong, robbing older women” because that is
what the government is doing with this $30 billion grab of the
pension surplus.
Bill C-78 is a history of failures. It is a failure to
negotiate. It is a failure to reach a conclusion by negotiation
which was within reach. It is a failure to manage the workforce
adequately. It is a failure in developing satisfactory
relationships with employees where the government could deal with
an issue like this at the table as civilized people as should be
done. It is a failure of epic proportions to live up to the
promises of former Liberal governments.
Les Barnes, a former PIPS leader, wrote a letter to the editor.
Mr. Barnes was present in 1967 when a firm guarantee was made by
the Pearson government that the terms and conditions of the plan
would never be amended by unilateral government action. Never.
That was the trade-off to keep it off the bargaining table.
Pensions are usually part of the collective bargaining process
but the government wanted it removed and separated. The
government did not want it to be dealt with at the bargaining
table. Okay, it was a deal. It was an arrangement, a pact, a
contract. The government would not talk about pensions at the
bargaining table and the terms and conditions of the plan would
never, ever unilaterally be altered. It is being done today in
Bill C-78 and done very dramatically.
Mr. Barnes also talked about the Minister of Finance at the
time, Walter Gordon, who wrote to the national joint council of
the public service assuring its members that as a result of the
integration of the plans, which is what they were trying to
achieve then, there would be no increase in the rate of
contributions.
Bill C-78 is jacking up the rate of contributions by 33%, from
30% of the total contributions to 40%, one-third of an increase.
The government is jacking up the contributions and taking the
surplus out in one fell swoop. It is no wonder the seniors
movement is mobilizing and building up a good head of steam to
come to Ottawa and tell this Liberal government what they really
think of Bill C-78.
The minister made a very good and revealing speech. One of the
first remarks he made was that Bill C-78 is part of an overall
plan. You are darn right it is part of an overall plan. The
government takes $25 billion out of the EI fund from unemployed
workers and then it takes $30 billion from retired senior
citizens, many of whom are living on an income of $9,600 a year.
It is a plan all right.
The Liberal government is going to pay down the debt on the
backs of the most vulnerable people in the country, unemployed
workers and senior citizen women. My mom is one of those senior
citizen women. She is 82 years old and is living on a public
service pension plan. She is glad to have it but she is not
exactly living well. Who is next? The government will be stealing
pencils from blind men's cups. It is getting ridiculous when we
think of the choices the government is making in terms of the
grabbing it is doing.
I talked about the Pearson years and so on and the current Prime
Minister was part of that cabinet. He was a part of the promise
to not ever unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of the
plan.
In 1991 and 1992 the dialogue really began to amend this plan to
make the changes that everybody agreed were necessary.
At that time the union agreed to the private investment board,
the 12 person board that was talked about earlier. Had we
reached agreement at that time and started investing privately,
God knows where that plan would be now. Those were some very good
high interest years. That $30 billion might be $100 billion and
we could really make some changes to the benefits.
1255
In 1996 the advisory committee made a report and it struck
another committee, a consultation group to start fine tuning
things. This is when the issue of the use of the surplus came to
a head. In the last month of 1998 the consultative group broke
down over the surplus and representation. Then in March 1999,
rather than trying to pull the pieces back together, Bill C-78
was sprung on us. Really, it is an abrogation. It is an
admission of failure or an admission of inability on the part of
government to manage its concerns.
I could talk about all the nuances of the bill and a few of its
good qualities. I will point out the things the retirees are
glad to see in the bill.
There will be a dental plan for the first time ever, albeit a
lousy dental plan because it has a $200 deductible. I have been
dealing with employee benefit plans all my working life as a
manager of these plans and as a negotiator of union agreements.
I have never seen a $200 deductible in a dental plan in my life.
I do not know what kind of deal has been made or who the carrier
of that plan is.
The recognition of same sex couples we applaud fully. We are
extremely critical that the government tried to sneak this in and
wrap it up in a package of things that obviously no working
person can support. It has been rolled in there to make it very
difficult. It is a very cynical way of dealing with the good and
the bad aspects of the bill.
The increase going from six years down to five years with two
years vesting, all these things obviously we can support.
The big problem clearly is the use of the pension surplus and I
will try to limit my remarks to that.
The problem lies in the attitude of senior officials and the
minister himself. Here is a quote from Alain Jolicoeur, the
chief human resources officer of the Treasury Board Secretariat
in 1998. He said “Employees and retirees have no proprietary
interest to the surplus in the superannuation plan”.
Plain and simple, we are that diametrically opposed. We argue
that all pension surpluses are the sole property of the employees
to be used only for the improvements of benefits. That is what
the whole purpose of a pension plan is. The other camp is
diametrically opposed 180 degrees and says there is no
proprietary benefit.
This argument is arrived at through a very convoluted bit of
logic that the minister used again today. I would like to
explain how the government arrived at this position that it
assumes part of the risk. It assumes all of the risk for a
deficit in the plan, ergo if there is any profit in the plan it
is the government's to keep.
I would like to quote from a letter from Bob White to the
President of the Treasury Board which was written in March. He
puts it very well in one simple paragraph:
Typically employers have tried to justify the removal of
surpluses on the grounds that because they take the risks
involved in providing defined benefits, therefore they should get
the reward of the surplus in the form of surplus removal or lower
employer contributions. This commonly articulated relationship
between risks and rewards is far too simplistic for two reasons.
First, the actuarial assumptions that are used to value pension
liabilities are chosen with a deliberate view to making
experience gains and surpluses far more likely events than the
losses and unfunded liabilities. Thus, the risk for which a
surplus is supposedly the reward is limited. Second, if
experience losses occur and employers are stuck with unplanned
amortization payments, it is impossible to prevent the employers
from lowering either the pension benefits of other parts of
employee compensation from the levels they would otherwise have
achieved.
In other words, the downside risks may be shifted to the
employees despite appearances to the contrary. Really, there is
very little downside risk.
The way the actuarial experts deal with plans, especially in a
privately invested fund, it is far more likely that a surplus
will occur than a deficit in the plan. I would say 10:1 and I am
pulling that number out of my hat. If the tradeoff is “I will
keep all the surpluses, but if there is a deficit, I will assume
the risk there too”, that is a very good bet, frankly. In a
gambling hall that would be a very safe bet to undertake.
1300
That is really the issue. That is what is going to fire up the
country. It is only just beginning. This is day one of what
will prove to be a very long debate. We are talking about a huge
amount of money. We are talking about an amount of money that
could make a huge difference in the lives of the beneficiaries of
public service pension plans.
We should put some of the facts on the record. As of March 1998
the public service pension plan had a $14.9 billion surplus, the
RCMP plan had a $2.4 billion surplus and the Canadian forces plan
had a $12.9 billion surplus. We should think about how we
arrived at such huge surpluses. Nobody should be so bad at his
or her actuarial research to arrive at such sloppy work.
The government did some very obvious things which led to very
predictable consequences. The government froze people's wages
for seven years. Obviously, the pension people receive when they
retire is going to be a heck of a lot lower if the wages are that
much lower for that period of time. It is kind of a double
whammy, and even more so for women. When the government refuses
to pay up on pay equity, obviously the women's pension
calculations will be a heck of a lot lower than they would have
been had they been receiving fair wages the whole time. There
has also been a lower than expected rate of inflation. We have
an actuarial anomaly to wind up with this huge pension surplus.
I will talk about the net effect this whole thing is having on
the morale of the public sector. This is a group of workers
which has suffered indignity after indignity. Most people go
into the public sector for a couple of reasons. They are willing
to accept lower wages because they trade it off for job security.
After all the cutting and hacking and slashing and butchering of
the public sector there is not a whole lot of job security left.
The sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads every minute.
Job security is out the window. There is no longer any reason to
work for the public security if job security is what you are
after. Let us face it, everybody is afraid for their jobs.
Public servants are still plugging along. They can expect
reasonable wage increases, but they have had six to seven years
of no wage increases. They are falling way behind the private
sector. Not only do they not have job security, what are they
making? A carpenter makes eight bucks an hour less than an
outside carpenter. I was a union carpenter making $25 an hour
and the guys working for defence or wherever as carpenters were
making $15 an hour. That is not bull. That was the difference.
At least people could take some comfort in the fact they had a
pretty good pension plan. Pretty good? Nine thousand dollars a
year for 20 years of service. That is not a pretty good pension
plan.
Then, when there is an opportunity to sweeten the plan by taking
that $30 billion and giving it to the people who paid for it, it
gets taken away too. It is no wonder there is poor morale in the
public sector. If people are concerned about productivity, or
whatever the buzzwords are these days, that is certainly
something they could look at because public servants are
demoralized and browbeaten. The government is pushing people too
far. That is all there is to it.
I raised the gender issue once before. This is very much a
gender issue. There are more women beneficiaries than there are
men, and for good reason. In the public sector there are a lot
of clerical-type jobs.
We have to win the argument on the whole issue of why that money
is ours. We think it is ours. Obviously the minister thinks the
opposite. Let us look at why we would argue that it is ours.
If there is a surplus in a private sector pension plan, the law
of the province of Ontario is that 90% of employees have to
approve any employer use of the surplus. Clearly that
contemplates that it is the employees' money. Why else would
they be required to vote on giving it away?
The other evidence is that during public sector negotiations, at
the bargaining table, the employer, time and time again, says,
yes, they are getting lower wages and, yes, we will not provide
much of a raise, but look at the great pension plan. It clearly
uses the pension plan as part of the wage package. It uses it
against the employees at the bargaining table and then reverses
the argument when bargaining is over.
There is jurisprudence. Consider CUPE Local 1000 v Ontario
Hydro. CUPE initiated a legal challenge in response to Ontario
Hydro's attempt to take a contribution holiday and it won.
It won fair and square because the employer did not have the
right to use the contributions for anything other than the trust
document dictated, which was to improve the benefits to the
employees. It is there on the books and people should be looking
at it.
1305
Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act,
received royal assent in parliament in June 1998. This
legislation applies to private plans operating under federal
jurisdiction. It requires a two-thirds vote of the employees
before the employer is allowed to use a single penny of the plan
for anything other than improving benefits.
That is some of the more obvious jurisprudence. I am sure there
are many more who would argue that any pension surplus is the
sole property of the employees who paid into the plan, whether
the contributions are from the employer or the employee. It is
part of the wage package. It is deferred wages for the
employees' use and their use only.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the hon. member
give examples that are not relevant and do not have the same
pension plan description.
I am sure the hon. member knows that this is a legislated plan
that is guaranteed by the government so that all employees and
retired persons will receive a pension regardless of the economic
situation.
If there were to be a deficit, the government would have to
guarantee it, as it did at the time of the $8 billion deficit.
Does the hon. member think it should be shared risk? Should the
union participate in the new plan so that, in effect, if there is
a surplus it can benefit by it and if there is a deficit it will
contribute toward it? Right now it is the Canadian taxpayers who
guarantee public service pensions to ensure that people receive
the kind of income that has been guaranteed for 50 years.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks
about shared risk, one cannot help but talk about shared
management. It has always been the goal of any pension plan to
have joint trustees; representatives of the employees and the
employer sitting on the same board, having some control and
direction over investments made or the direction in which the
plan might be going.
I know this was one of the sore points at the table when talks
broke down in December 1998. The government would not allow any
input from employees in terms of ethical investment funds or
control of the types of investments that the new public sector
investment board would make.
What if the investment board wanted to invest in a janitorial
company which had contracted with the federal government to clean
the Wellington Building and, as a result, put public sector plan
members out of work? Frankly, under the board's fiduciary
responsibility, if that janitorial company was paying on the
stock market one quarter of a point higher than the other
investment, it would be its obligation to invest there. There
can be no other consideration than to maximize the profits of the
investment.
Most plans are run that way, but many pension plans qualify the
fiduciary responsibility by saying that there are secondary
objectives which they are trying to achieve. Maybe it is job
creation for the plan members, or rural or regional economic
development. There could be any number of purposes. When
dealing with tens of billions of dollars of investment on the
stock market, it could be directed to achieve secondary and
tertiary objectives other than purely profit objectives. That
fell apart.
The shared risk or responsibility dialogue was taking place at
the same time. There is far greater chance of there being a
surplus than a deficit because of the actuaries who are hired to
run the plan. The way that any well managed pension plan is run
is that premiums are set at a rate which will offset the
liability at the other end. Premiums will go up. In the near
future we will not see deficits, but rather humongous surpluses.
1310
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great intent to the member opposite. I
am a little appalled by some of the statements that the member
made specifically to try to stir up our seniors and to leave the
impression that somehow their pensions are not guaranteed.
That is just not the way it should be done. I think the hon.
member should go on record to correct that fact. We do not want
to stir up people who, in good faith, have paid into the plan,
have done the right thing and are counting on their pensions. He
knows, or he should know full well, that these pensions are
guaranteed.
Does the hon. member think it is appropriate to create this kind
of mischief and fear among our senior population in this regard?
Does he acknowledge that those pensions are in fact guaranteed
and that we need not create this kind of fuss to stir up our
seniors, as he is doing?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, nobody has to agitate or
stir up the most powerful voting constituency in the country.
They are well informed. They are well organized. They can
mobilize well and they can vote. That is what I was pointing
out. This government should be served notice that it should be
very cautious about taking on this particular group of Canadians
because it would do so at its peril.
Frankly, this particular voting constituency could bring the
government to its knees if provoked, and I have every reason to
believe that they are being poked in the eye right now. They are
are being provoked.
At no time in my speech did I ever imply that the current
defined benefit they are enjoying is at risk. What I was
commenting on is that the $30 billion surplus that is going to be
taken out of the plan could be distributed amongst those low
income retirees and their level of benefit would improve.
Frankly, it is a defined benefit and it cannot even be negotiated
at the bargaining table. The tacit agreement between the Pearson
government and the employees at the time was that negotiations
would never involve the pension. The pension would be fixed and
defined by the House of Commons, not at the bargaining table.
There was a trade-off. The promise was that government would
never alter the terms and conditions of the pension plan
unilaterally, as it is doing now by jacking up the premiums and
taking out the surplus. It is a promise broken. It is an an
agreement that has been torn up. That might be where the hon.
member got mixed up, if he was not listening carefully.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the NDP uses
information. I am glad you understood what I was getting at when
I could not find a word for “untrue” because that is not
parliamentary language.
Nevertheless, in the legislation, as the minister stated earlier
in his remarks, 7.5% is the number and it is not changing.
Having said that, I am curious if the hon. member believes that
it is not important to get the best return for seniors, that it
is not important to maximize their numbers. All he cares about
is ensuring that the money is invested on a very “good feel
approach”, as compared to seniors' concerns. Once they have
worked and contributed to a pension plan, they want to be assured
that it is there, and the government continues to assure them
that that is the case.
On the other side of the coin, we want to ensure that we have
the best possible management to get the best rate of return, so
that, in effect, the taxpayers of Canada will not have to invest
as much and will still give the pensioners their guaranteed
amount.
Does the hon. member believe that the rate of return is not
important to seniors and pensioners?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, certainly not. The trustees
of any pension plan have an obligation to bring the best rate of
return possible. That is their fiduciary responsibility.
All I am saying is that there are secondary objectives and that
the beneficiaries should have some input into how that money is
invested because some of the pensioners may not want to be making
money by clearing out the last rain forest in the world, or in a
sweat shop in Nicaragua that is using child labour, or any number
of those things. The seniors deserve to at least be able to say
“Only invest in ethical investment funds”, which may or may not
give a worse rate of return. Frankly, the ethical investment
funds are doing very well.
1315
I would never argue that we could be casual or cavalier about
the investment practices but the employees, as in most private
sector plans, deserve to have some say in the investment strategy
of this huge pool of money.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise on Bill C-78. Let us be clear. The
government suggests that the main objective of this legislation
is to improve the financial management of the three public sector
pension and superannuation plans. The government's intention is
consistent with its intention since 1993 to further concentrate
its power among a very few.
There has been a secular decline in the role of parliament in
the decisions made that affect Canadians. It began actually in
the late 1960s. This continues and in fact has been expedited by
the government. Bill C-78 is a further example of the effort by
the government to concentrate power in the hands of a very few.
Increased management by the government with this legislation is
defined as increased control, increased power and increased
domination. It is a common characteristic of every initiative
undertaken by members of the government. The power that they
want to increase for themselves comes at a direct cost to
parliament and to parliamentarians.
The fact is that prior to this legislation any change in the
contribution rate had to be approved by parliament. After this
legislation that power will rest with the treasury board
president at a time when Canadians are saying they want more
accountability, more input, and parliamentarians need to have
more responsibility.
I believe Mark Twain once said that a bad job is one with lots
of responsibility but no authority. Effectively that is what
parliamentarians are being given these days. We are given lots
of responsibility in many ways but really no authority. This is
one of the areas, the pension plans for public servants, where
Canadians deserve better. Canadians deserve due diligence and
parliamentary participation to ensure that in the long term these
pension plans survive and are there for the future, and that the
interest of all Canadians are represented in this public policy.
The bill effectively provides the mechanism for the government
to withdraw the current $28 billion surplus from the federal
pension plan over a period of 15 years, and any future surpluses
can be withdrawn. The legislation will permit treasury board
ministers without parliament in the future to determine the use
of these surpluses and to set contribution rates.
The projected surpluses starting in the year 2000 will be about
$2 billion to $3 billion per year which is a large sum of money.
To have that money again going directly into the government's
discretionary spending or being put toward whatever pet projects
the government wants to pursue at a particular time, particularly
before an election, is exposing the Liberal government to a
significant temptation.
It is a temptation the Liberals welcome. It is one they are
actually preparing for with this legislation. They will have
access to more money to spend on purposes that are important to
them, to spend on the next election and to spend getting ready by
bribing Canadians with their own money. It will not be spent on
the types of policies that are important for Canadians in the
future and that will provide for a better quality of life and
greater competitiveness in the 21st century. Instead it will be
spent on the types of policies that will try to convince
Canadians in the short term that the government has their best
interest at heart.
This legislation is another example of government contempt and
lack of appreciation for parliament. As I mentioned earlier,
under this legislation there is no provision for parliament to
hold the government accountable for withdrawals and for changes
in the contribution rates.
1320
This is highly analogous to the situation with the EI fund and
what has happened since 1993. The government has taken $19
billion from the EI fund and at the same time has used that money
to pad its books to make its own fiscal numbers look better than
they actually are. It has maintained unnecessarily high EI
premiums. At the same time it has reduced benefits in a
draconian and cruel way in many sectors and in many regions of
the country.
Currently in the EI fund, for instance, only 30% of those people
who are paying into employment insurance actually qualify when
they need to collect employment insurance. The government is
maintaining this unfair practice simply because it wants access
to that steady pool of capital, that influx of capital.
The government has an insatiable thirst for cold hard cash that
it can spend on unrelated programs and policies. The government
has a very circuitous approach to bookkeeping and a number of
times has offended the auditor general with its less than
straightforward bookkeeping. In fact one would need to be a
forensic auditor to understand some of the provisions in the
recent budget.
The fact that the government would use the EI fund to facilitate
spending in other programs is clearly unethical and regressive.
The amount of EI premiums paid by a Canadian making $39,000 will
be the same as the amount of premiums being paid by a Canadian
making $300,000. It is an inordinately unfair tax on lower and
middle income Canadians.
The government is comfortable with its practice because it is a
pool of capital. It can try to hide behind the guise of having
an employment insurance program with an EI premium which in fact
is an EI tax.
The reason I am discussing government treatment of the EI
program is that it is completely analogous with its proposed
treatment through Bill C-78 of the superannuation funds. As I
mentioned, the government has an insatiable appetite for money.
It has a questionable approach to financial and bookkeeping
practices. In this case we are not arguing with the government's
legal ability to do this. The Federal Superannuates National
Association has actually sought legal advice and has agreed that
the government has the legal ability to do this.
The question is one of what is right, what is correct, from an
ethical perspective. Traditionally 40% of the contributions have
been made by the employers and 60% by the employees. If the
government is proposing to take a withdrawal from this fund there
should be a requirement that a commensurate reinvestment be made
in improved benefits. For instance, if the contribution rate
were 60:40 and the government were to choose to withdraw $6
billion from the surplus, there should be a requirement that $4
billion be reinvested in better benefits for those people who
have paid in, the members of these plans. That is clearly fair.
That the government would not even engage in a dialogue on
splitting the surplus with its partner, the employees who have
paid into the program over the course of their careers, is
actually appalling.
There are some improved benefits. The dental benefit has been
improved in the programs, and we commend that. We also see
recognition of same sex survivor benefits. This is one case
where the government has acted pre-emptively to avoid court
action.
Numerous court precedents have been set recently in the
interpretation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms which
demonstrate quite clearly that the government is not in a
position to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
1325
The government in this case is moving, I guess one could say,
one step ahead of the sheriff. That is better than being one
step behind the sheriff or being dragged kicking and screaming
into the 21st century, as we have seen governments in Canada in
recent months and years effectively waiting for the judiciary to
force them to take these actions.
This action is consistent with the realities of Canada in 1999.
Governments have to lead on these issues, have to take positions
such as this one and have to recognize same sex benefits as
opposed to being dragged kicking and screaming by the court
system.
The issue of the proposed investment board is one that on the
surface looks very positive. We are pleased to see that the
pension funds will be invested in external financial markets to
maximize returns on behalf of superannuates.
It is laughable sometimes, though, when the government proposes
an arm's length operation of these boards from the government. I
would suggest that with the government arm's length relationships
have very short arms.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, for instance, has 12
members, 6 of whom are major contributors to the Liberal Party of
Canada. If one works it out statistically, only 0.2% of
Canadians are contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada.
Perhaps it is even fewer for my party, but I am not bitter. It
is no coincidence that so many members of the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board are Liberal supporters and contributors.
I expect when we see this investment board announced we will see
a similar consistency in terms of Liberal political interference
in the appointment process to these boards that will be making
investment decisions for the future retirement funds of
Canadians.
If there is political interference in the decisions applying to
the appointment of the boards in these cases, Canadians should be
concerned about political interference in the decisions and the
investments made by these boards. That is a very significant
concern to Canadians. I hope we consider it very carefully in
the House because it is a significant risk.
Although the government purports to be trying to maximize the
returns for superannuates through these changes, the fund will
still be limited by the foreign content rule so that only 20% of
the fund can be invested in foreign markets. The fact is that
the Canadian equities markets have grossly underperformed
competitive equities markets in other countries.
Since 1993 the Dow Jones industrial average has grown in value
by 180%. The S&P; 500 has grown by 172%. During the same period
of time the Toronto Stock Exchange has grown in value by 60%.
Wealth is relative and if we deny Canadians an opportunity to
achieve geographic diversification by investing as many global
mutual funds do around the world to maximize the returns and to
spread out their risks, we are denying Canadians the ability to
build maximum wealth and retirement income in the next century.
Another issue is one we have with government policy on RRSPs.
We are increasingly saying to Canadians that they must plan
ahead, that they must invest for their own retirements and that
they must take responsibility. At the same time we are not
giving Canadians the means and freedom by which to make the best
possible decisions.
1330
The superannuation fund will again be denied the opportunity to
have a maximum level of growth and a reduction in the level of
risk through geographic diversification.
It is estimated that the foreign content rule costs .2% of
Canadian pension funds and mutual funds based in RRSP assets. In
the long term that means a 3% to 4% reduction in pension benefits
for Canadians.
Some people have argued against eliminating or reducing the
foreign content rule saying it would take money out of the
Canadian equities market, the capital that we need in Canada. I
would argue that with the Canada pension plan reform, the Canada
pension plan investment fund and the superannuation investment
fund, which will be invested privately, it is a perfect
opportunity to invest capital from these huge, copious quantities
of quid coming out of these programs into the domestic equities
market.
This is the perfect time for the government to take this step.
It will help provide an ameliorative step to prevent any negative
impact on the Canadian equities market. There will be more
capital available for both the Canadian equities market and the
foreign equities market. It can be phased in over a period of
time.
If we are serious about improving the quality of life and
standard of living for Canadians, the government should not be
forcing Canadians to invest the bulk of their retirement savings
into Canadian markets, which represents 1.5% of the global
equities markets. It clearly defies the logic of good portfolio
management. I have some concerns about that.
The legislation at hand will make available through a surplus
about $2.5 billion per year starting April 1, 2000. It will
provide significantly more freedom in the future to a government
to use this money for whatever purposes it wants. These pension
funds were developed to provide for the long term security in
retirement for the superannuates. They were not designed to
provide slush funds for governing parties.
The government will say that this is a defined benefit and,
since it is responsible for the payments of the pensions
regardless, it has a right to do whatever it wants. We are not
arguing with its legal ability to do this. We are arguing with
the ethics of doing it. When the members pay a contribution rate
of 40%, there should at least be an acknowledgement that there
should be a significant improvement in the benefits paid out
prior to a significant reduction or withdrawal of the surplus.
The other thing I noted was that the CPP actuary will be making
the recommendations relative to the setting of the premiums. I
remember a chap by the name of Bernard Dussault who was a CPP
actuary. If I remember correctly, the government fired him. The
smoking gun that the government had, indicated that he was fired
because of his inability or lack of desire to hide the truth
about the future of the Canada pension plan.
The last thing we need is a system that creates more potential
for abuse of power, more Bernard Dussault situations where good
civil servants are fired for telling the truth, and situations
where there are reductions in the power of parliamentarians in
designing the type of public policy Canadians need and a
commensurate increase in the power of the government to do
whatever it wants with money because of its insatiable appetite
for spending in any area.
1335
We look forward to debating this issue over the next few weeks.
I would hope that members of parliament take very seriously the
potential wrath of seniors in the next federal election. I
believe seniors are the people who deserve to be listened to, and
in the next federal election they will make their case very
clear.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
part way through the member's speech, I think he said that we, on
the governing side, had a questionable approach to finances and
bookkeeping.
I find it odd that the member would talk about questionable
bookkeeping. This country was faced with a massive deficit of
$42 billion in 1993 because of the mess left by this member's
party. For him to talk along those lines is outrageous at best
and ridiculous at most.
I also listened with intent while he was talking about EI. I
noted that it was in 1986 when the then auditor general indicated
that in fact that money was to be part of the consolidated
revenue. That, again, was during the tenure of the member's
party. I am not sure what point the member was trying to make,
but he knows full well that the rules we operate under are the
rules that have been set out by the auditor general.
When it comes to appointments to boards and commissions, there
was no one in the history of this country who was better than his
party leader, Mr. Mulroney, when it came to appointments and
patronage. I can tell members that Canadians still look fondly
upon Mr. Mulroney as the king of patronage, bar none, when it
comes to those kinds of issues.
This is an excellent piece of legislation despite what the hon.
member says about trying to stir up and upset seniors over
whether or not their pensions are guaranteed. The member knows
full well that they are. It is important for us to indicate to
our pensioners and senior population that they are not going to
get any more, but they are also not going to get any less. We
have that guarantee for them in place.
I was interested in the member's comments on the foreign content
rule. Could he perhaps elaborate a little further on why he
thinks there should not be at least some portion of investment
here in Canada? Does he think it should be wide open and go far
beyond other jurisdictions? I thought I heard him say that. What
does he have against investments in Canada? I would be
interested in his comments.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last
question first, relative to the foreign content issue. I guess
the member did not hear what I was saying. Canada's equities
markets have grossly underperformed those of other countries, but
Canadians are not to blame for that.
I think Canadians, with the right type of leadership, could
excel and create economic growth, jobs and so on but they need
lower taxes. That is one of the reasons why in Canada our TSE,
the Toronto Stock Exchange, has grown in value by only 60% since
1993 when this government got elected. During the same period of
time, the Dow Jones industrial average has grown by 180% in the
U.S. The Standard & Poor's 500 has grown by 172%.
During the same period of time, Americans growth and wealth, for
those who participated in the market because of their mutual
funds and pension funds, have become three times wealthier in
terms of growth in economic wealth compared to Canadians. Wealth
is a relative thing.
The hon. member opposite may be satisfied that Canadians are
getting poorer while Americans are getting richer, but I and
members of my party are not.
In terms of his comments relating to dubious bookkeeping, my
comments reflected those of the auditor general a number of times
over the past few budgets of the government.
1340
The fact is that in 1984 the Conservative government of Brian
Mulroney inherited a $38 billion deficit, in 1984 dollars, from
the previous government. At that time, that represented 9% of
GDP. By the time the government left office in 1993, that had
been reduced to around 5% of GDP, almost halved as a per cent of
GDP. During that time that government implemented free trade,
the GST and deregulated financial services, transportation and
energy.
I wonder what impact those policies had on this government's
ability to eliminate the deficit. It was summed up very well in
an article in The Economist last January. It said that the
credit for deficit reduction in Canada belongs largely to the
passage of time and economic structural reforms made by the
previous government, including free trade, the GST, deregulation
of financial services, transportation and energy, all those
policies which were vociferously opposed by this member's party.
I heard one of the members from the other side of the House
earlier today accusing the opposition of fearmongering. I see
the hon. member has left the House he is so ashamed of his
mistakes and his intervention.
During the free trade debate, I remember Roy MacLaren, the
current high commissioner in London and past Liberal member of
this House, actually saying that the Liberals would blame the
Conservative government for every sparrow that falls. Well, it
is because of those initiatives that a lot of sparrows have
soared in Canada. It is this government's high tax policies
since 1993 that have basically caused a lot of fallen sparrows
and a lot of falling incomes, personal disposable incomes and
standards of living for Canadians.
I would add that the member for Waterloo—Wellington has come
back and has regained his composure.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to
questions and comments, it is appropriate to admonish members
that we do not refer to the absence or to the presence of
members. Specifically, we do not impute motive for a members
leaving the Chamber at any particular time.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the
member knows, the debate today has to do with pension funds for
civil servants. The debate is all about who owns the money.
There are people who say that it belongs to the taxpayers since
all of the money comes from the taxpayers.
As members of parliament, we could quite rightly concede that
all of our income and pension, those members who have a pension,
comes from the taxpayers since that is where the money
originates. One could argue that we earned it, in which case it
belongs to us, but it did originate with the taxpayers.
One of the debates raging in the country between the unions, the
taxpayers and the government is about who gets the money. Whose
$30 million is it? Even for you, Mr. Speaker, that would be more
than just your average weekend spending money. That is a lot of
money.
Exactly where does the member stand on who gets the money? Is
it fair for the government to claim that on behalf of taxpayers
it is taking it? Does it all belong to the unions? Is there a
split somewhere? What is his view on this?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the
contribution rates and the fact that 40% of the contributions to
this plan are made by the members.
I believe quite strongly, particularly with the investment
policies promoted by and provided for in the new legislation,
that the returns for this fund should actually improve over a
period of time. If the government were to withdraw 60% of the
fund, 40% should go back into improved benefits.
I recognize the government's arguments relative to defined
benefits, that there is a guarantee the government has, but the
government is grossly overestimating and exaggerating that
argument to deny reasonable benefits.
There was a small improvement in benefits in this legislation.
But the fact is that the improvements sought by the Federal
Superannuates National Association go a lot further in terms of
survivor benefits for instance and in a number of areas create a
much more comprehensively fair package of benefits for its
members.
1345
I would suggest, before the government delves into this plan for
general spending purposes, that it should look more seriously at
improving benefits within the plan.
The other thing we should keep in mind as well, in response
finally to the hon. member's question, is that over the period of
time, particularly with investments in the equities markets, it
is not a bad thing to have a reasonable surplus within the plan
from a security perspective. We should always be cautious about
withdrawing that surplus and then in the future asking the
taxpayer to kick back in.
The correct answer frankly is some combination of what he has
suggested. I do believe we need to call in some of the best
pension experts and benefits experts in the country if not in the
world to help design the most optimal combination. It is not one
that we should define in parliament solely on a debate type
format without reasonable diligence and research.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have before us Bill C-78, an act to amend the Public Service
Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
The proposed amendments touch the full range of pension
operations: benefits, contributions and plan administration.
The underlying thrust of all of these proposed amendments is to
ensure the long term sustainability of the Canadian public
service pension plans.
I propose to direct my remarks today to one particular aspect of
these amendments, the proposed changes to employee contribution
rates. Before I discuss the proposed changes, I think it is
important that I give a brief overview of the existing
contribution rate provisions.
A review of the existing legislative provisions will provide a
rationale and context for the proposed amendments. Under the
existing legislative provisions, employee contributions to the
Canada pension plan, CPP, and the public service pension plans
are integrated. But what does integrated mean?
The existing integration feature is such that the total
contribution rate for an employee is 7.5% of pay composed of both
the contributions to the CPP and the public service pension
plans. For an employee earning the average wage, the
contribution to the public service pension plans would be 7.5%
minus the CPP contribution rate, currently at 3.5% of pay, which
equals 4% of pay. To the extent that the CPP contribution rates
increase, there is an equivalent decline in the public service
pension plan contribution rate to preserve the constraint that
the maximum pension contribution equals 7.5% of pay.
In the past, with periods of relative stability in contribution
rates, this integrated approach has served the public service
pension plans well. However, under the integrated contribution
rate structure, the increase in CPP contribution rates beginning
in 1987 has distorted the distribution of employee contributions
going to the CPP and the public service pension plans.
Under the integrated structure, the impact of the increases in
CPP rates has been such that for employees earning the average
wage, contributions to the public service pension plans have
declined from 5.7% of pay in 1986 to 4% of pay in 1999. To
reiterate, over the past decade, individual employee contribution
rates for the CPP have gone up, while those for the public
service pension plans have declined. What are the implications of
this shift in the distribution of employee contributions between
the CPP and the public service pension plans?
To this point I have discussed only employee contribution rates.
The other side of the coin of course is the employer
contributions, that is the contribution of the federal government
in its role as employer.
1350
Existing legislation for the public service pension plans is
such that the employer must ensure that the various accounts for
the public service pension plans are credited with an amount
equal to the total cost of entitlements accrued by employees in
that year.
In other words, the federal government is responsible for the
total costs of the plan in a given year, less the employee
contributions. As a consequence of the declining employee
contribution rates, the federal government, and by extension
taxpayers, has had to shoulder an ever increasing share of the
cost of employee pension plans.
Let me use the pension plan under the Public Service
Superannuation Act as an example. Over the last three decades
the financing of that plan has averaged approximately 60%
employer funding and 40% employee funding. More recently that
distribution has shifted rather dramatically. For 1999 the
distribution is approximately 70% employer and 30% employee. Next
year in the absence of any changes to the legislation it is
projected that the distribution of the financing of the PSSA plan
will shift to approximately 75%-25% and by 2003 it will be
80%-20% in favour of the employee.
This ongoing shift in the cost of the pension plan to the
employer is not sustainable. It clearly puts the viability of
the existing plan at risk unless changes are made. It is our
intention to introduce the necessary changes to the contribution
rate structure in order to preserve the long term sustainability
of the public service pension plans.
With the amendments proposed in Bill C-78, contribution rates
for the public service plans and the Canada pension plan will no
longer be integrated. In other words, the public service
contribution rates will henceforth be set independently and there
will be no overall maximum contribution rate. In addition, there
will be a two tier contribution rate structure to more directly
match contribution rates with the different benefit accruals
below and above the average wage as defined by the CPP.
This government recognizes that there will be a financial impact
on employees as a result of these changes. In order to
facilitate the movement to a long term sustainable pension plan
environment, the government is proposing to freeze employee
contribution rates to public service pension plans over the
period 2000 to 2003 inclusive. Over this period, employee
contributions on earnings below the average wage as defined by
the CPP will continue at the present 1999 rate of 4%.
Contributions on earnings above that average will continue at the
present rate of 7.5%.
It must be understood however, that even though federal
employees will thus be spared any increases in contribution rates
for their public service pensions from 2000 through to 2003, they
will nevertheless be subject to Canada pension plan rate
increases scheduled for that period, the same CPP rate increases
to which all working Canadians alike will be subject. Through
integration of contributions, federal employees in effect have
been sheltered from such increases in the past. Now they will
have to pay for them like the rest of us.
Fortunately the CPP rate is scheduled to stabilize in the year
2004. What of the public service rates then? Will they rise in
2004 after being frozen for four years? Possibly, but not
necessarily.
For the year 2004 and beyond, Treasury Board will set the
contribution rate structure with the ability to return the cost
sharing ratio gradually to the historical average of
approximately 60%-40% between the employer and employees. The
employer would continue to assume the larger share.
Employee contribution rate increases may or may not be necessary
from 2004 on, depending on a number of variables. However, any
necessary increases would be gradual. For example, the members
of the pension plan under the Public Service Superannuation Act
can rest assured that no increase in their public service pension
contribution rate will be greater than an additional .4%, not 4%,
but .4% in any single year after 2003.
1355
If an increase proves necessary in 2004, the contribution rate
will still not be more than 4.4% of salary up to the average wage
and 7.9% of the employee's salary over that average, that is, the
previous rate of 7.5% plus the maximum possible increase of .4%.
PSSA plan members can also rest assured under the amended
legislation that their employee share of current service cost for
their pension plan will never exceed 40%. In other words, their
contribution rates will not be increased beyond the point where
they are paying their historical average cost of 40%. The
historical average therefore will also be a limit under the
amended legislation.
As for members of the other two public service plans, that is
those under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the legislation will
provide that their contribution rates will not exceed those of
PSSA members.
Amendments to the contribution rate structure are one component
of the package of changes required to ensure the long term
sustainability of public service pension plans. This bill
provides as part of a comprehensive package of amendments the
required changes in the contribution rate structure to ensure
that the public service pension plans will be sustainable over
the longer term.
The Speaker: The member is about halfway
through. He still has some time and we will return to him
right after question period. We will now go to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE BALKANS
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today and am pleased to inform the House and all
Canadians a delegation of Serbian Canadians visited me in
parliament last Friday to discuss peace in the Balkans.
During this visit the delegation was given the opportunity to
express its views to the Prime Minister. The delegates spoke
about their concerns with regard to the ongoing crisis in
Yugoslavia. They put forth their view that Canada should stop
its bombing of Yugoslavia and convince its NATO allies to do the
same. They believe that only through diplomatic effort can true
peace be achieved.
The Prime Minister assured the delegates he has taken the
initiative to bring a stop to the conflict and will continue to
do so. He also said that he would raise the matter with the
Chinese premier, which he later did. The Prime Minister
concluded by saying that he shares their fears for the lives of
the innocent population stuck in the conflict.
I and I am sure all Canadians are hoping that a peaceful
solution to this grave crisis will be arrived at soon.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last year
a 61 year old lady in my riding earned a total income of just
over $11,000. This is less than the accommodation allowance
granted members of parliament. In addition to paying her Canada
pension and employment insurance premiums, this lady had to pay
over $650 in federal income tax. The government also took
another $9.77 in surtax charges, leaving my constituent with just
over $10,000 to live on.
Why is the government taking over $660 in taxes from a citizen
whose income is dramatically below the poverty line? Why is this
person paying any income tax at all? Is the government in such
desperate need of money that it is willing to do this kind of
thing to low income earners?
Is it any wonder that Canadians and Canadian businesses are on
the verge of a tax revolt.
* * *
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, due to
the work of my colleague the member for Brampton Centre three
years ago, April 20th to 27th is officially the week of
remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another.
[Translation]
Today I would like to greet all those who are of Armenian
heritage, and all members of the Armenian community in Montreal.
My congratulations for their exceptional efforts to raise a
monument in my riding of Ahuntsic.
[English]
This monument is dedicated to 1.5 million Armenians who were
victims as well as to all the martyrs of crimes against humanity.
It is a fine example, especially under today's events, of what
can be achieved in remembrance and in reconciliation. It is also
symbolic of the tolerance and social harmony that we all wish to
achieve.
I call upon all Canadians to remember the legacy of this past
century, especially in these times of the Kosovo crisis. In
doing so, we must work together to write a new legacy which will
be marked by reconciliation, peace and co-operation.
* * *
1400
ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF CANADA
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Ottawa is host to the 21st National Conference and Annual General
Meeting of the Alzheimer Society of Canada. More than 300 men
and women dedicated to finding a cure for this terrible disease
are in attendance.
Over 300,000 Canadians suffer from Alzheimer's and related
dementia. One in thirteen Canadians over the age of 65 are
afflicted, as are one in three over the age of 85.
More than 50% of people suffering from Alzheimer's live outside
of care facilities. Still the cost to medicare averages some
$15,000 per person per year, or some $4.5 billion annually.
Early in the next century, Canada's 8.5 million baby boomers
will be moving into the age group with the highest risk of
contracting Alzheimer's disease. There will be unprecedented
demands for health services in Canada as a result.
Today, conference delegates will be calling MPs to discuss the
society's goals and the roles that legislators can play in their
realization. I encourage all colleagues to meet with them.
* * *
EARTH DAY
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, April 22, is Earth Day.
It is a day to remind us that we are stewards of this beautiful
planet.
The environment significantly affects our quality of life. Every
human being needs clean air and water, and safe food to live. We
need a biodiversity of species to help the earth, itself, sustain
life.
Earth's wealth of resources are vast, with energy and raw
materials to fuel our economies. However, in 100 short years we
have learned the hard lesson that these resources are also
finite. Today, 86% of Canadians think cleaning up the
environment is good for the economy.
Rural Canadians know the value of a healthy, natural
environment. From the coastal communities who harvest sea life,
to the 1.9 million Canadians employed in agriculture and
agri-food, our food supply relies on a renewable, healthy
environment.
With grassroots-oriented programs like the Millennium
Eco-Communities and the Natural Legacy 2000 initiative, the
federal government wants the 20 million-plus Canadians who
annually participate in nature related activities to continue
growing.
On Earth Day, let all Canadians renew our commitment to a
healthy earth. By example, let us teach our children to value
and respect it.
* * *
BALL HOCKEY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the media will never again beat up on Reform. Last night the
official opposition defeated the best ball hockey players the
Parliamentary Press Gallery could provide, not once, but twice.
The Reform Right Wings downed the Giants of Journalism 6-4 in a
ball hockey challenge. The Stornoway stars beat the media by the
same 6-4 score. One would think they would improve after the
first thrashing.
Star media players like Eric Sorensen, Vincent Marisal, Jim
Munson and Sheldon Alberts; defencemen like Daniel Leblanc,
Gilles Toupin and Feschuk; and goalie Joel-Denis Bellavance, just
could not beat Reformers.
In the final, the Reform Right Wings, playing with a 50-year old
wonder kid named White, nicknamed “flash” for athletic reasons
only, won the championship. If the Press Gallery can get
prepared for a rematch, Reformers are ready to devastate them
again.
However, the media should understand, we want no whining and we
in turn will report the events accurately, as they sometimes do.
* * *
[Translation]
EARTH DAY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, by planting trees, cleaning up water courses, saving
energy and learning more about ecology, Canadians are today
celebrating Earth Day, along with millions of others throughout
the world. This is a symbolic moment uniting all those
concerned about protecting the health and integrity of species
and human communities.
A century ago, North America was in the throes of industrial
expansion. Concerns about the environment were pretty much an
unknown concept at that time.
Now we know that human activity that is not controlled can
destroy ecosystems, render whole species extinct, and do harm to
the climate and to health.
The new millennium is fast approaching. People are giving
serious thought to the future, and to means of keeping the
planet safe. Earth Day reminds us that, if we all work
together, great things can be accomplished, and we can leave
behind a healthy environment for the children of the next
millennium.
* * *
ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the ethnic
cleansing taking place in Kosovo at the present time is one more
reminder that the 20th century will go down in history as a
century of bloodshed, a century of atrocities, a century of
genocides.
If such atrocities, such genocides, are to be avoided, humankind
must acknowledge its responsibility, for each time crimes
against humanity are committed, they are committed against each
and every one of us, and by each and every one of us.
It is therefore unforgivable that this parliament has not yet
acknowledged the Armenian genocide, the first genocide to take
place in this century.
1405
The Liberal Party's obstinate refusal to acknowledge this crime
is shameful, but still worse, it puts a heavy responsibility on
our shoulders, for refusing to acknowledge the first genocide of
this century makes us bear part of the burden of, and
responsibility for, those that followed.
The Bloc Quebecois recognizes the Armenian genocide, as does the
Quebec National Assembly. The memory of this tragedy is a
painful one, but it must be kept constantly in mind. Today,
with the Armenians of Quebec, of Canada, and of the entire world—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches—East York.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR WEEK
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday statements were read from both sides of the floor
recognizing this week as Organ Donation Week and stressing the
need for an improvement in Canada's organ donation rate.
The statistics clearly demonstrate the need for such
improvements. Nevertheless, Organ Donation Week in 1999 offers a
great deal of hope to Canadians that this situation can change
for the better.
This morning, I and my colleagues on the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Health released our report on the state of
organ donation and transplantation in Canada. Our
recommendations highlight ways in which the federal government
can work in concert with the provinces and hospitals to improve
organ retrieval systems, information systems, and increase public
and professional awareness.
Similar changes were implemented in Spain just 10 years ago and
resulted in a radical increase in their organ donation rate. It
is my sincere hope that our recommendations will lead to similar,
perhaps better, success for our great country.
* * *
MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH—WESTON
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House to pay tribute
to the hon. member from York South—Weston on his third
anniversary as an independent member of the House.
When the Liberal government broke its promise to scrap, kill and
abolish the GST, it was this man who refused to be another
Liberal sheep, bleating on cue.
When the Liberal whips forced their members to vote against the
wishes of their constituents on the dreaded tax, it was this man
who stood alone in the Liberal caucus and said “no way”.
When the Liberals decided they had no room in their party for a
man of integrity, it was this man who successfully convinced his
constituents that they no longer need the tired Liberal label.
That is why tonight I am proud to join the hon. member from York
South—Weston and the hon member from Markham at the united
alternative town hall meeting.
Tonight, we will mark the end of unaccountable, one-party
dominance in the country and mark the beginning of a united
alternative to an arrogant, out of touch Liberal government.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning, the head of the Saint-Jean Baptiste
society, Guy Bouthillier, and a former active separatist, Denis
Minière, proposed to the Premier of Quebec that he start a new
round of constitutional negotiations with the federal
government.
They are looking for ways to get people to swallow the pill of
Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada, an option twice
rejected by a majority of Quebeckers. The separatists have
understood that Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada will
not go down easily. And the year 2000 is approaching rapidly.
They are getting restless. We wonder whether there is not a
separatist agenda hidden away somewhere in the boxes of Parti
Quebecois organizers.
The separatist movement is a thing of the past. It is a concept
that will lead to division, scorn and the loss of real benefits
for Quebec in economic, cultural and social terms.
* * *
[English]
BILL C-78
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, maybe
the government got away with taking $25 billion from the
employment insurance fund and unemployed workers, but with Bill
C-78, it is taking on the most powerful voting constituency in
the country, senior citizens and retired pensioners.
If the government thinks seniors will sit idly by and let it
take the $30 billion surplus from the public service pension
plan, it would be well advised to remember what happened to Brian
Mulroney when he tried to de-index the Canada pension plan.
Dozens of seniors groups are on the Hill today to show their
opposition to Bill C-78: the Armed Forces Pensioners
Association, the Association of Public Service Alliance Retirees,
the Canadian Association of Union Retirees, the Ontario Coalition
of Senior Citizens Organizations, the RCMP Veterans Association
and many more representing millions of Canadian retirees.
All pension surpluses are the sole property of the employee.
They are deferred wages to be used for nothing else than
improving benefits. The message that these groups bring to
Ottawa is simple, “Get your hands off our pension plan”.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
EARTH DAY
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to signal Earth Day today.
First celebrated on April 22, 1970, this day has today become
the most important popular environmental event worldwide.
In over 100 countries, Earth Day helps promote projects to
provide an awareness of the issues involved in the environment
in conjunction with communities, organizations, business and
individuals.
I encourage people to find out about ways of using energy,
natural resources and chemicals in order to transform used
material into new and to sign the reuse pledge campaign.
Let us use this day to help make people aware that the resources
of this planet are very valuable so we may keep them and pass on
a healthy environment to our children and to generations to
come.
By doing just one thing for the environment on Earth Day, we
will be contributing to world change.
* * *
[English]
WOMEN IN THE WORKFORCE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the message is clear. Women are gaining ground in the
workforce. Statistics show that since 1980 the number of women
in the workforce has increased, their job tenure is longer and
their salaries have risen.
The main reason for this change is that women are becoming
better educated. More than ever, education is a prerequisite for
success in the workplace.
Recent statistics show that the gap between men and women is
closing, even in the upper ranks of corporate Canada. While the
glass ceiling is still there, it is more permeable than ever. It
is not unusual to see women in executive roles. Today, over
700,000 businesses are owned by women.
Through education, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a change in
society's attitude, women are aspiring to and achieving greater
career heights.
To all young Canadian women, especially to my daughter, Lara
Treiber, and her classmates from Bishop Strachan School, “I
encourage you to make the most of your education and soar to
great heights in whatever career path you may choose”.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the government on so promptly agreeing
to my motion in committee on April 15, and in answering my letter
of that same date to the Minister of National Defence which
requested that the government brief the SCONDVA committee members
several times a week on a regular basis with regard to the Kosovo
conflict.
It is appreciated that the Liberal government has decided to
consult with parliamentarians about this ever-escalating war. We
would have much preferred separate committee briefings because of
the technical nature of the information, but any movement by the
government is appreciated.
Once again, I would like to remind the government of the Somalia
Commission of Inquiry report that called for a vigilant
parliament. The importance of parliamentary oversight of the
department of defence is a vital aspect of Canadian democracy. It
also gives committee members an insight into the military
profession, and an opportunity to show our unwavering support for
our Canadian forces in this time of conflict as NATO stands on
the precipice of further action.
* * *
DAVID MILGAARD
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, David Milgaard served 23 years in
Canadian prisons for a murder he did not commit.
To compensate Milgaard for that terrible injustice, the
Saskatchewan government has made interim payments of $350,000,
which is to be deducted from the final settlement.
David Milgaard has waited nearly two years for the final
settlement but the Saskatchewan government continues to drag its
feet.
Forcing Mr. Milgaard to wait for the compensation due to him is
just more injustice for a man who is already deeply scarred by a
criminal justice system that went terribly wrong.
“Waiting for compensation”, says Milgaard, “is like another
prison sentence”.
I urge and implore the Saskatchewan government to do the right
thing, pay the compensation, close this issue once and for all
and let David Milgaard get on with his life.
* * *
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today marks
the 84th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
As a result of forced relocations and massacres, up to 1.5
million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire fell victim to the first
genocide of this century. Such policies today are often called
“ethnic cleansing”. However, the fact that these atrocities
are still taking place should not detract from the horror of the
Armenian experience.
Sadly, we know all too well that what happened to the Armenians
was not the last time such things would occur and we should take
a moment to condemn all crimes against humanity.
1415
Some say perhaps people will no longer commit such atrocities
and we must strive for this. The Armenian ethnic cleansing
reminds us of the consequences of ethnic hatred. We must always
guard against the forces that yield such evil.
I know the House will join me in remembering the victims of the
Armenian genocide.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR BOURASSA
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again, the member for Bourassa has jumped at an opportunity to
feign indignation at our party.
This time, he is incensed that last weekend the general council
of the Bloc Quebecois defined a Quebecker as anyone living in
Quebec. Hardly something to get all hot and bothered about, is
it?
The member for Bourassa has provided me with an opportunity to
remind this House of a statement he made in May, 1996, about Mr.
Nunez, a member of Chilean origin.
He said that sometimes he felt like restoring the deportation
act and sending back to their country those who spit on the
Canadian flag. Such is the intolerance of this holier-than-thou
member.
My colleague might like to know that I too should be sent back
to my native land. I was born in Belgium. But, like Mr. Nunez,
I have never spit on the Canadian flag, which I respect as the
flag of a country with which a sovereign Quebec will want to be
friends.
Until that wonderful day comes, I say to my colleague that I am
a Quebecker through and through and proud of it.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Americans are now talking about committing more than $25
billion to the war effort in Yugoslavia. Our allies are planning
and budgeting for an escalation of the war in Kosovo. Yet the
government does not seem to have a specific plan. We want to
make sure that our troops have the resources to be able to do
their job over there.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister
have an estimate of what the costs will be, or is he waiting for
NATO to tell him how much to spend?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the costs so
far for the deployment into Aviano and for the other involvements
of the Canadian forces have been a total of $32.4 million to
date. This started when the first six CF-18s were deployed into
Aviano last June.
Since the air campaign began the total cost for the Canadian
forces has been $11.9 million. We are in the throes of putting
together the figures of other costs. As soon as we have those
costs and projections we will be happy to make them available.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been some weeks now since we have been asking this
question and there is still nothing coming from the government
side.
Canada is on the verge of going into a ground war. Yet we still
do not know how much it has cost just to involve ourselves in the
air strikes. The defence budget has been cut by $7.8 billion
since 1993. The current budget leaves no room for air strikes.
It leaves no room for ground defence. Our troops, and the Prime
Minister will recall, were given axe handles to protect
themselves in Macedonia.
What assurances can the Prime Minister give our troops that they
will have the right equipment to go to war?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Canadian forces do have the right
equipment and will have the right equipment to use in this air
campaign and in any other involvement they have with respect to
Yugoslavia, including our peacekeepers who are being prepared for
a peacekeeping mission when that time should come.
I have indicated quite clearly what the costs are to this point
in time. I do not understand what part of $32 million or what
part of $12 million the hon. member does not understand. Those
are our costs.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are not talking about incremental costs. We are talking about
a total cost besides incremental.
The government budgeted $103 million for the procurement of
smart bombs. Our fighters have flown well over 100 sorties into
that region. Obviously supplies are getting rather thin.
Would the defence minister inform the House as to what the
supply situation is with regard to the smart weapons, what steps
the government will take to replenish those supplies, and how
much it will cost?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have the equipment that is necessary
to do the job. I was just in Aviano. I have seen our equipment
and our planes there.
Our Canadian forces personnel are doing a terrific job. They
have the supplies that are necessary. The government is
providing the funds that are necessary to make sure we do the job
that needs to be done to try to give the people of Kosovo back
their homeland.
1420
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no one in
the House is more concerned about the Canadian armed forces than
the official opposition. For years we have urged that additional
funds be devoted to those forces. Now we are on the verge of
entering the first ground war in 46 years.
When will the government put forward a spending plan to ensure,
as Churchill said, that these troops will have the tools to do
the job?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they do have the tools that are needed to
do the job.
We have made no decision. NATO has made no decision with
respect to ground troops. We are sticking to the course on the
air campaign. We are staying with that course. We are
ultimately preparing when there is a ceasefire, when there is
peace in Kosovo, to be able to move peacekeepers into that area.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we all know
that the Canadian forces have been starved for funds for years.
Now we are at war. In fact we have been at war for a month now.
Will the government assure the House that the costs of the war
in Kosovo will not have to be absorbed by the already inadequate
defence budget?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind hon. members that we had in fact
an increase in the defence department budget this year. We had
an increase because the government wanted to make sure that we
treated our people properly and that they had a decent quality of
life.
If we go back to the last election, it was not that long ago
that party over there was advocating a further billion dollar cut
to the budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
24 hours away from the meeting of leaders of NATO countries in
Washington.
We know that the United States and Great Britain are giving
increasingly serious thought to sending ground troops into
Kosovo. At noon today, NATO's secretary general said that no
decision would be taken in Washington.
Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of NATO's secretary
general?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
will hold three days of talks, and all topics will be covered.
If NATO's secretary general says that a decision will not be
made by Monday, we shall see. At this point, we are all on the
same wavelength. We want to make sure that the massacres, the
murders and the rapes are stopped, that peace is restored by
removing Serbian troops from Kosovo and sending them back to
Belgrade, and that the Kosovars can return to their homes.
That is why we are continuing with the air strikes. We intend
to keep on. If there is any change, I will so advise the House,
as I promised to do.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
sounds a bit like something Yogi Berra would have said “There is
no change as long as there is no change”.
I would like him to be more serious and tell us whether he is
going to stick to the position he is now taking. If he is, will
he promise us not to change that position until it has been
debated and approved by a vote in this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there will be 19 government leaders with responsibilities to
fulfil.
Whatever the circumstances, I am going to assume the
responsibilities one would hope a Prime Minister of Canada could
assume. There has been a debate in this House. The House of
Commons supports the government's position. In my speech last
Monday, I clearly set out all the conditions of our current
participation in what NATO is doing.
I have the support of this House and I intend to speak on its
behalf and on behalf of all Canadians.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the decision to send in
Canadian ground troops had not been taken and did not need to be
taken as long as NATO itself has not made a decision.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Are we to understand that
the decision to send Canadian troops to Kosovo will not be made
by the executive branch of the government, by the Prime Minister
or by this parliament, but by the other NATO members, which
would explain why the Prime Minister is refusing to hold a vote
in the House on this issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the decision to send in Canadian combat troops will be made by
the Government of Canada. There is doubt about that.
I said that no troops would be sent in without another debate in
the House of Commons. My position is very clear.
As for a vote, this week they had an opportunity to move a
motion on that, and we would have had to vote, but they did not
have the courage to do so.
1425
The Speaker: Once again, I remind members that they must not
question the courage of other members.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
1991, the Prime Minister was asking for moral authority.
Now, he seems to find it easy to do without such moral
authority. The House can vote on all sorts of issues, but not on
the most important one, that is our participation in a war.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to hold a vote, if not
because he would be embarrassed to have a definite position that
would prevent him, at the NATO meeting, from blindly following
what the others will tell him to do?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will meet with 19 other heads of government, and we will
discuss like adults.
On Monday of last week, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
supported the government's position. On Monday of this week, he
had the opportunity to ask for a vote and force members to
either support or reject the government's position, but he did
not do it.
The Government of Canada, through its prime minister, will
defend Canada's interests in Washington this weekend, and we
will find a joint solution with the 19 other—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is on tomorrow's NATO
summit. Russia has made it very clear that it will not join in a
NATO led peacekeeping force in Kosovo.
NATO and the United States, however, continue to insist on this
condition, which will mean more bombing, more deaths, more
refugees and more environmental disaster.
Will the Prime Minister finally show leadership, not just follow
Bill Clinton, and tell our NATO allies tomorrow that Canada
supports a UN led peacekeeping force in Kosovo, not a NATO led
peacekeeping force?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no such thing possible at this moment as a UN
led force in Kosovo. We have worked on that and it is not
possible. I talked with Mr. Chernomyrdin about working with the
Russians and I talked with the Prime Minister of China but there
is no such proposition at this time.
What we are faced with at the moment is that the murders, rapes
and cleansing are going on. With the NATO forces we will keep
bombarding until Milosevic stops that and brings his people back
to Belgrade.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
This week the Prime Minister announced that Canada will send
ground troops to Kosovo if our NATO allies all agree.
Since the Prime Minister has already made this decision and
announced it to our allies, what is the point of a debate in the
House? Why is the Prime Minister telling Canadians that he will
listen to Washington, Bonn and Luxembourg but to hell with the
elected representatives—
The Speaker: Please, my colleagues, be very judicious in
your choice of words.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those are the people who supported the government 10
days ago. They said we were doing the right thing 10 days ago.
Do they believe we should let Milosevic rape and kill the
people, do nothing and hope that some day the UN might have the
troops? We will keep doing what we are doing because it is the
right thing to do for Canadians and all 19 countries in NATO.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, BBC World
News reported that some British soldiers serving in the Balkans
suffered a $10 a day pay cut and German troops are getting an
extra $100 per day.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Will he
assure the House that Canadian forces personnel are getting the
pay they deserve for combat operations?
1430
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we just gave, as of April 1 of this year,
the highest pay increases in decades to the Canadian forces. We
gave it to people primarily in the lower ranks. We also
increased the allowances for foreign duty. We increased the
allowances for the very people who are over there now in
connection with our campaign in Kosovo.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, that is
very interesting, but there is a little more the minister has to
do. Our Canadian forces personnel have been active in the skies
over Yugoslavia for almost a month, but to date cabinet has not
made them or their families eligible for veterans benefits
through an order in council. When is this government going to do
the right thing and initiate an order in council that would
support these brave men and women serving in the Balkans?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we just had an excellent piece of work
done by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs. It came up with a report on how to improve the quality
of life for our troops and for our veterans.
In fact the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I just opened a new
centre that will provide one reference point for veterans and for
troops who are injured or troops who are looking for additional
information on how they can improve the quality of life for
themselves and their families. We have some 89 recommendations
that we are in the throes of implementing to improve the quality
of life for all.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
the record, Reformers have long advocated increasing the budget
for national defence by a billion dollars a year.
I want to wish the Prime Minister a very happy anniversary.
Because the MP for York South—Weston expected his government to
keep its campaign promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST,
three years ago today the Prime Minister kicked him out of the
Liberal caucus.
What is the Prime Minister more proud of, the fact that he broke
his promise to scrap the GST or the fact that he kicked out the
one Liberal MP who had the character—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I am proud of is that we eliminated the deficit in
Canada in three years. We had a deficit of $42 billion and it
went to zero. We have had a 1% inflation rate for the past three
years. We have created 1.6 million new jobs since we formed the
government. Never have Canadians felt so good about their
government than they do today. I know why the hon. member on the
other side is so desperate.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is that Liberal arrogance again. I should remind the Prime
Minister that he got 38% of the vote, which is hardly a huge
mandate.
Not only has the government not scrapped, killed and abolished
the GST, it is now using it to wring even more money out of
taxpayers' pockets. The government now taxes $6 billion more a
year through the GST than when it promised to scrap it.
How can the minister deny that his broken GST promise is
anything more than a Liberal tax grab? I would like him to
answer the question instead of getting into this trading of
comments, back and forth, about national defence.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he is the one who tried to set the record straight.
With respect to defence, I have the Reform 1997 election
platform, which calls for reduced spending for the Department of
National Defence on page eight of a book called A Fresh Start
for Canadians.
It is the same thing in The Taxpayers' Budget of February
21, 1995 which the Reform Party gave to the public. It was the
same thing on November 24. A $1 billion reduction in—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
CANADIAN ADAPTATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
Adaptation and Rural Development Fund has just been approved for
the next four years.
The $240 million envelope and the objective remain unchanged.
The shocking difference is that Ontario will continue to receive
the same amount, Quebec will get $16 billion less, and western
Canada is the lucky winner in this lottery.
How can the minister justify this loss for Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to the
press release put out last week by the minister of agriculture
for the province of Quebec, the Hon. Rémy Trudel, who
complimented and congratulated the government for following the
equitable formula on which to base the allocations to the
provinces that was recommended by Quebec.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
Adaptation and Rural Development Fund has been a development
tool managed tightly by the Conseil pour le développement de
l'agriculture du Québec in line with the fund's six priorities.
The Conseil's management is the best in the country.
Why did the minister not look at the effectiveness of past
management in approving new funds so as not to jeopardize
ongoing projects?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian adaptation and rural
development fund that was put in place four years ago was done at
a different time, when some adjustments were made in different
parts of Canada for different reasons.
It was felt, primarily because of the urging of the ministry of
agriculture of the province of Quebec, that we should go to an
equitable formula and treat all provinces the same across the
country, and that is exactly what we are doing.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, B.C. Liberal
leader, Gordon Campbell, has accused Glen Clark's provincial NDP
of “dropping the guillotine on democracy” by cutting off debate
on the Nisga'a treaty. He has said “It is wrong to slam the
door on the public”.
Does the government agree with Gordon Campbell, a Liberal, that
Glen Clark's NDP has trashed the democratic process? Will it
commit here and now not to table vitally important Nisga'a
legislation until the people of British Columbia have had their
full and democratic say on this treaty?
The Speaker: I rule the first part of the question out of
order, but the second part is in order.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would point out to the hon. member and to the House, and I find
this quite interesting, that only a couple of weeks ago he was
scolding the Government of Canada for moving too quickly ahead of
the B.C. government.
Only two weeks ago at the standing committee the hon. member
wanted us to increase the budget threefold to study the Nisga'a
bill. He keeps changing his story. Every two weeks it is one
way or the other. What does the hon. member want us to do? Let
him clarify his question and not this side of the House.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it sure
would be nice if we got an answer to a question once around here.
The people of British Columbia have been denied their democratic
say on this treaty. Mr. Campbell, a Liberal, has said that the
NDP have “dropped the guillotine on democracy”.
Frank Calder, a respected Nisga'a elder, has said “Don't cut
off the debate”.
Will the government commit now not to table the Nisga'a
legislation until the people of British Columbia have had their
full and democratic say?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have never purported to interfere with the democratic process
of the people of British Columbia and the due process that has to
take place with respect to that legislation in their House.
What we have promised, through the Prime Minister and through my
minister, is that when our time comes to do what we have to do in
this House, we will do it, do it thoroughly, do it properly and
live up to our obligations.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development is announcing, in conjunction
with the Canadian Labour Congress, the striking of joint
committee to address the problems caused by the employment
insurance system.
When that committee has finished its work, the minister claims
that there might possibly be no changes, because of a lack of
political will.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Is the minister referring to his own lack of political will, or
his inability to sell the cabinet on the necessity of improving
the system?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing the Bloc
Quebecois members have no aspirations of forming a government
some day, and are happy to form a perpetual opposition in this
House, because I feel that they do not understand fully how
government operates.
1440
The Minister of Finance and I met with the Canadian Labour
Congress yesterday, and they did indeed indicated their interest
in taking part in a working group, along with employees of human
resources development, as well as some from finance, in order to
measure the impact of employment insurance reform on individuals
and communities in Canada. I have every hope that this will be
of use to all here.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Human Resources Development share the opinion of the
Minister of Finance who stated, upon leaving that meeting with
the CLC, that in his opinion the employment insurance fund is
nothing but an accounting mechanism.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would invite the
hon. member for Québec to reread the Toronto Star article,
because the Minister of Finance made no comment when he left
yesterday's meeting. The comment was reported by others who
were in attendance. She should, therefore, reread the article.
What I can say is that, rising above all the petty gossip and
the petty politicking, there is a will within our government to
serve the workers of our country well.
I am very pleased with the working group we are setting up in
conjunction with the Canadian Labour Congress, and it is
entirely up to the Bloc Quebecois if they wish to prefer to
stick with their pointless oppositional attitude.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, despite the historical significance of
the Nisga'a treaty, the NDP government of British Columbia has
cut off debate with over a third of the treaty still not
examined.
The B.C. Liberal House leader accused the B.C. government of
trying to ram the treaty down the throats of the people without
debate.
Will the minister commit to British Columbians that the federal
government will not introduce the Nisga'a bill in this House
until the people of British Columbia have had a full debate?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
here we go again.
I would only say to the hon. member that she may want to ask her
lead critic why he stands in the House of Commons complaining and
fearful that we might be acting ahead of the people of British
Columbia, when in the standing committee he was arguing to have
the budget tripled and to move quickly on the Nisga'a treaty.
Which is it?
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to make the situation clear—
Mr. Randy White: That is a lie.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I heard the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford use the word “lie”. I would ask him to
withdraw it, please.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I believe that to be a lie.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We will settle it at the end of question
period. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, Chief Stewart Philipp, the
president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, described the B.C.
government's action as “very aggressive, what we call the
jackboot approach”.
It is clear that all British Columbians, including B.C. Liberals
and aboriginal leaders, want a full debate on the Nisga'a
agreement.
Will this government commit to British Columbians that it will
not introduce the Nisga'a bill until B.C. has had a full debate?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I said that the Government of Canada has made a commitment to the
Nisga'a people and as a tripartite signatory to that agreement we
will be introducing that particular legislation in the House at
the appropriate time. We will have a debate on it, as we
promised.
I reiterate that the member for Skeena asked for a tripling or a
doubling of the budget of the standing committee on Indian
affairs to bring in people and to hear witnesses on this
particular issue.
We will do it when the time comes and it will be done.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois did not start just yesterday to criticize the
cost-benefit approach of Nav Canada and the lack of
conscientiousness on the part of Transport Canada in closing
regional flight information stations.
1445
In December, seven people died in Baie-Comeau, and last week a
plane crashed in Gaspé tragically killing four people in the
middle of a snow storm.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Does he not think
that a flight information station in Gaspé would have been able
to describe the weather conditions to the pilot more accurately
and thus save four lives?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada regrets the accidents in
Baie-Comeau and in the Gaspé.
As members know, Nav Canada is a not for profit corporation
directing air navigation operations. It has a process for
deciding whether navigational equipment is needed. The
transport safety board is investigating the situation, and I
will respond after the investigation.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week while in Brussels, world parliamentarians from 136
countries addressed the horrendous events unfolding in
Yugoslavia. Here in Canada the debate continues on military
options in Kosovo while the ongoing humanitarian crisis
destabilizes the countries in the region.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. What is
Canada doing to promote stability in the area and to assist
refugees already in those countries?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair say that the refugee crisis
really represents the heart of what we are trying to address in
the Balkan region.
In addition to the humanitarian aid, I am pleased to announce
that the Government of Canada has established missions in both
Skopje and Tirana which include representatives of defence,
foreign affairs and immigration. Their specific task is to work
with the refugees coming across the border, to work with the
countries that are accepting them and to see how they can provide
assistance, stability and support in this very difficult time.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government was aware for quite some time that Canada's favoured
nation status as a defence partner with the U.S.A. was at risk.
With over 50,000 jobs in Canada potentially affected in every
region of the country and $5 billion in trade at risk, why did
the foreign affairs minister wait until things collapsed before
getting personally involved?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the U.S. congress has been applying a
number of very severe restrictions on the administration
concerning the release of information and technology transfer. We
have had serious negotiations going on over the last three or
four months. In fact we have had previous discussions.
Last Friday it tabled some new regulations which applied the
requirement for an export permit for which we have had exemptions
up to now. We think that is not the right step to take. We
think it will have an impact on both industries. That is why
when I am in Washington I will have a discussion with Secretary
of State Albright. I think that is the proper response.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fact of the matter is the government had ample time to head off
this potentially explosive situation.
Frontec, an Alberta firm, risks losing over $100 million worth
of U.S. defence contracts over the next 60 days. This is just
one example of over 1,500 companies that are affected. Will the
foreign affairs minister tell Frontec's workers why he failed to
act before the status was removed?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I will tell them is that there was
nothing in those regulations that prevents trade of defence
products between the two countries. There are some new
regulations being applied to govern the nature of those trades.
We think they restrict against the exemptions that have been
established for many years. The kind of fearmongering by the
hon. member that all these contracts being lost is simply not the
reality.
We will talk to the Americans to see if we can restore things to
the status quo.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has used the team metaphor to describe his
understanding of NATO. We understand that. We also understand
that teams have captains, water boys and everybody in between.
We want to know from the Prime Minister what he is taking to the
huddle. We want to know that he is in the huddle. When he is in
the huddle will he be saying that he approves of the growing
range of targets being bombed in Yugoslavia, homes, offices and
whatnot? These are not the selective military targets that were
talked about at the beginning of this episode.
1450
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the position of the government is very clear. We want
Milosevic to make sure that his troops and his goons are no
longer in Kosovo and that they will permit the return of the
Kosovars to their homes. When Milosevic accepts these conditions,
that will stop the bombing. Our position is very clear. We have
to be effective as well. If we cannot use bombing it is better
to stop. We want to use bombs to make sure Milosevic understands
that we cannot tolerate what is going on in Yugoslavia at this
time.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister seems unwilling to acknowledge that
the bombing has gone far beyond the selective military targets
that were talked about at the beginning of the air strike
campaign.
With respect to the team huddle that the Prime Minister is going
to in Washington in a day or so, or perhaps even today, will it
be the position of the Canadian government that the five points
of NATO have to be adhered to? Will the Canadian government be
going into the huddle with the position that some flexibility has
to be shown with respect to those five points? What is the
Canadian position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one element of the position is it is desirable that the
peacekeepers not only be from NATO but from many other countries,
including Russia. I said that last week and I repeat it today. I
believe the Russians are to be involved. They know my position.
I will make the point again. It is important to involve the
Russians to make sure it is not only the NATO countries that are
involved. We would like the other countries to help us make sure
that the murdering, the raping and the killing by the Milosevic
goons stop. We have to do what is needed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.
* * *
NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada
has a long term nuclear waste disposal problem. The material is
currently stored at temporary sites at Canada's 22 nuclear
reactor stations. According to the Seaborn panel, Canadians
still need to be convinced that the solution is to bury it deep
in the Canadian shield. Despite all of this, the government is
looking at importing weapons grade plutonium from the U.S. and
Russia to burn at Canadian reactors.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Does the
minister have any plans to ensure that this imported plutonium
will not compound Canada's nuclear waste disposal problems?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess this is now the 19th time I have responded to
the details of this question.
If there were to be a commercial MOX proposal, that would go
forward. In addition to a number of other conditions that would
need to be satisfied, all relevant environmental, health and
safety regulations in Canada, whether federal or provincial,
would have to be fully satisfied. On a scientific basis the waste
that would be created by this MOX product is less than the more
conventional product.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, we do
not have to be asked to participate in the program. The Prime
Minister is practically writing letters to the President of the
United States perhaps even demanding to participate in the MOX
program. For something that we do not have to be asked to
participate in, the government is spending an awful lot of money
on it. The feasibility study performed by the government
indicated that the plan to burn Russian and American weapons
grade plutonium would cost Canadian taxpayers $2.2 billion. The
study itself has already cost Canadians $1.5 million.
How much does the government have to spend before getting the
support of the Canadian parliament? Is this really a spending
priority of the Canadian people?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are now on to number 20.
The fact is that the testing that may be undertaken later this
year is fully within the regulatory authority and the regulatory
licence afforded to AECL. It is covered within the financial
arrangements provided to AECL. If there were to be a commercial
program pursued after that, one of the conditions that I referred
to generically in my first answer is that it would have to be on
a commercial basis with no subsidization by the Government of
Canada.
* * *
NATIONAL PARKS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Secretary of State for Parks.
The national parks act which is presently before the House
indicates that the primary mandate of Parks Canada is the
protection of the ecological integrity of our national parks.
Can the Secretary of State for Parks tell the House what Parks
Canada is doing to fulfill this mandate?
1455
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, maintaining the ecological integrity of our national
parks is a priority for the government and I believe for all
Canadians.
Just last year we put a new set of environmentally sensitive
principles in place to govern commercial activity within our
national parks. It has as its fundamental premise that any
activity cannot have any negative net environmental impact.
We placed in front of this House legislation to create marine
conservation areas. We have placed in front of the House
legislation to create a new agency with better economic,
financial and organizational tools. In the last budget we
committed an additional $35 million to create new sites within
our national parks system.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is clear that negotiations with the United States over Bill C-55
are going nowhere. We know the Minister of Canadian Heritage
hopes a Liberal appointed majority in the Senate will rubber
stamp her bill.
In the meantime the U.S. has stripped Canada of most favoured
nation status on defence contracts as the first shot across the
bow in a potential trade war. Canadians are wondering why is the
Minister for International Trade promoting the heritage
minister's narrow agenda instead of standing up and doing his job
for 30 million Canadians and $177 billion of exports to the
United States?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada not only is
standing up for all that amount in trade, it also believes in its
Canadian culture. That culture is also part of our exports.
It is also not correct to say that the discussions with our
friends from the United States are going badly. We have completed
seven meetings. There is one next week. If the truth be known,
on both sides there is good faith and a good attempt to try to
avoid what we believe are unnecessary trade slippery slope
threats. We will continue to defend—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.
* * *
[Translation]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, “requests for
access processed at a snail's pace, more and more files revealed
only partially, exceptions increasingly cited, more requests
ending in justified complaints”, this is the picture painted by
the Canadian Association of Journalists of the administration of
the federal access to information legislation in the public
sector.
My question is for the Minister of Justice.
Does this very strong statement not confirm that power is
increasingly concentrated in the office of the Prime Minister,
subject to the whim of his office, and less and less under the
control of Cabinet and Parliament?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. This government
is extremely concerned about these files. In 1998, we
established new procedures to expedite requests for access to
information. We have cut the time involved by some 12%. We
increased the percentage of responses given those applying, and
the number of exemptions and exclusions has decreased since
then.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear Canada has a critical shortage of organ
donations. It is also clear that Canadians want action and they
want safety.
Under the government they get neither, no commitment to a
national donor registry and a complete abdication of health
protection by ignoring the Krever report and treating organs as
if they were toasters.
Will the minister today commit to doing what Canadians want?
Will he stand up for a national donor registry and will he commit
to the strongest possible system of safety for organs and tissue?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question provides me with an opportunity to express thanks to
the members of the committee who worked so hard on this issue.
They delivered a report today with constructive recommendations.
I also thank Canadians, members of families who have been touched
by this issue, who had the courage to come before the committee,
sometimes with difficulty, to tell their stories.
I can assure the House that I will consider with great care the
recommendations made today. I will be responding to the report
later this year.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Recently the Government of Nova Scotia and Transport Canada
arranged a meeting to discuss the emergency measures aspects of
hazardous transportation of radioactive materials through Nova
Scotia. The material provided said that the sample of radioactive
material which comes from Russia by ship will enter Canada in
Halifax and be moved by road to Chalk River, Ontario early this
summer.
1500
First, will the minister confirm that approval has been granted
for this shipment? Second, will he indicate whether this meeting
scheduled for tomorrow in Truro, Nova Scotia—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are some 800,000 shipments each year of
radioactive material in Canada. It is not unusual for Transport
Canada officials to liaise with local authorities and emergency
response organizations to ensure that these shipments are carried
out in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Act.
With respect to the planned meeting tomorrow it is obvious that
some alarm had been raised. As my colleague the Minister of
Natural Resources has said, there has been no request to
transport this particular material and there has been no route
decided so such a meeting was premature.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Minister of Health mentioned that he would
respond to the committee's report by the end of this year.
Today there is a little boy waiting in the intensive care unit
in Toronto on death's doorstep. His name is Robbie Thompson and
he needs a new heart.
Will the Minister of Health respond to the committee report
sooner? What is his position on the creation of a national
registry of intended organ donors and potential organ recipients?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I know the member will recall that it is this minister and this
government that referred this issue to the committee for
examination. It is this government that asked the committee to
listen to witnesses, to find out why Canada is so far behind
other countries in the rate of organ donation.
We must do better. The greatest responsibility we have to that
child waiting in that hospital for an organ transplant is to make
sure we get the right solution, a durable solution that will
provide opportunities not only for that child but for generations
to come.
That is our commitment. This government will consider the
report that the member and others worked so hard on. We will
look at all the recommendations. We will bring forward the best,
most effective—
The Speaker: That would bring to a conclusion our question
period today.
1505
Today in question period we had the use of a word which in my
judgment was unparliamentary. I did not want to stop question
period when I heard the hon. member, who incidentally was not
really involved in the question and answer but was an adjunct to
it.
Many times in the House we use facts to support an argument and
words sometimes come out that are not always intended that way
but are used that way.
The hon. member who used the word is an officer of the House. In
many ways that brings about certain responsibilities that we
otherwise would not have. That is not to say any member should
use words such as lie in the course of debate. After we have
reflected on it for a little while we might reconsider.
I am going to direct my words directly to the House leader of
the opposition who, as I have said, is an officer of the House.
In that sense now that the question period is over, I would ask
him respectfully to withdraw the word lie. All I want from the
hon. House leader is yes, he will withdraw. Hopefully he will
not say no, he will not withdraw.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with due respect to the Chair, I do withdraw the word.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. House leader of the
opposition and the matter is closed.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. During question period the Prime
Minister quoted from a document. I would like the government to
confirm that was a Liberal document and I would like him to table
the document in the House.
On the same point, I would seek consent of the House to table a
Reform document which confirms that we are in fact calling for an
increase in defence spending of $1 billion.
The Speaker: The hon. member has raised two points. In
looking at the Prime Minister and listening to him today, he did
quote from a document. We would ask that this document be
tabled.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will verify and have it tabled
within a few minutes. It is a summary prepared by our own party
of quotations from the Reform Party. I will gladly table the
resumé of Reform quotes that we have.
The Speaker: That was the first part. We will have that
document tabled.
The second part was that the hon. member wishes to table a
document in the House. Does the hon. member have permission to
put a motion to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
1510
PRIVILEGE
COMMENTS IN CHAMBER
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): In five and a half years
of being in this place I have never risen on a question of
privilege before and I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
When a member of the House actually states that another member
said things the member did not say in any way, shape or form, it
has huge ramifications on the positions we take on issues in
various parts of the country. Because these proceedings are
televised, it has the effect of leaving the public with an
impression that is very wrong.
I need to know how we can end these kinds of untruthful or wrong
impressions—
The Speaker: I am always reluctant to tell hon.
members how to go about their business in the House.
When a statement is made that one hon. member does not agree
with, one side or the other, usually the hon. member will rise in
his place at the end and say that he did not say such and such.
It is not really a point of order but it gets on the record. In
that way it is dealt with because it is an interpretation of what
one person or the other person used as facts.
If after reflection, after the hon. member has had a look at the
blues, he wishes to do something like that then for a half a
minute or a minute the House can take that kind of time.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
given that we expect the Nisga'a agreement to come into the
House, I would like the government House leader to advise the
House of the nature of the business for the remainder of this
week and next week, and whether or not the Nisga'a agreement will
come into the House and whether or not his members will speak
accurately about the—
The Speaker: The first three comments were not bad and
the fourth one we will disregard.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
question asked by the hon. opposition House leader.
This afternoon we will continue with Bill C-78, the public
service superannuation legislation. Unfortunately, as a result
of a delaying motion that was introduced today, I think we might
require an additional day on Monday to return to Bill C-78 as a
result of this obstruction.
On Friday we will call the expositions bill, Bill C-64. Next
Tuesday shall be an allotted day and next Wednesday we will
debate the report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-66,
the housing legislation.
Given the interest of the hon. House leader of the opposition to
know the business for a slightly longer term, I will take this
opportunity to inform the House that next Thursday morning there
will be a special joint meeting of the Senate and the House of
Commons to hear an address by His Excellency President Václav
Havel of the Czech Republic.
This is the business of the House until Thursday of next week.
Of course there will be the ongoing consultation and progress we
always have with our colleagues across the way.
* * *
1515
THE LATE FRANK MCGEE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today the House pauses for a moment to recall the
parliamentary career of the Hon. Frank McGee who served as a
Conservative member of the House from 1957 until 1963. Mr. McGee
represented York—Scarborough, which in 1957 was an area of
tremendous growth. I believe this riding is now comprised of
seven seats.
In an age before members had offices or large staffs, Frank
McGee had a quarter of a million constituents to represent, an
awesome task. He did so on his own. He did research in the
library. He did a lot of the legwork. His speeches remain a
testament to his elegant speaking style and his Irish heritage of
which he was so proud.
It is well known that he vigorously opposed capital punishment
and worked for the repeal of provisions of the Criminal Code that
allowed for corporal punishment and the use of the
cat-o'-nine-tails, a practice like capital punishment, which he
felt was based far too much on revenge.
Looking back at the Diefenbaker years it is difficult to
recognize that Canada today. Mr. Diefenbaker introduced
legislation to authorize the use of English and French on cheques
and other financial instruments, which is difficult to believe in
a time like today. In speaking to the bill Mr. McGee had this to
say:
This measure touches on a larger issue, the issue of brotherhood,
tolerance and understanding. That is an issue which cuts across
many of the inheritances with which the pages of Canadian history
unfortunately are soiled.
Frank McGee was a grand nephew of Thomas D'Arcy McGee, a Father
of Confederation who was assassinated for his outspokenness.
Frank McGee knew all too well of the diversities and the
challenges posed by public life.
Mr. McGee was a vigilant and hardworking member of the House. To
the qualities of brotherhood, tolerance and understanding Frank
McGee added public service and political participation.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, we
express our sympathies to his family for his loss and we send our
gratitude that Frank McGee was willing to continue the great
tradition that was started by his family.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, today I pay tribute to a late colleague, the Hon. Frank
McGee. Through his distinguished career in public life Frank
McGee helped guide Canada through the political and intellectual
challenges of the late 1950s and 1960s.
Frank became involved in federal politics in 1957 when he was
elected as the Conservative member of parliament for the riding
of York—Scarborough. At that time the riding was predominantly
rural and was the third most populous riding in the country.
Frank served as a member under the leadership of John
Diefenbaker for seven years, being re-elected in 1958 and 1962.
In 1963 he was made a minister without portfolio.
During his political career Frank advocated reforms in a number
of legislative areas, including those affecting the role of women
in Canadian society and divorce law. He was also an activist in
the reform of our death penalty laws.
Frank McGee was a man whose abilities allowed him to serve in
capacities going beyond those of a member of parliament. Frank
easily assumed roles of leadership in his local community,
nationally, and in the media. Although he would not be a member
of parliament after 1963, Frank's ability to provide leadership
on public interest issues continued to place him in public life.
After electoral defeat in 1963 Frank worked as a political
reporter for the Toronto Star. Although he no longer sat
in the House, Frank was broadcast into Canadian living rooms as
the host of the CBC television program The Sixties.
Unable to stay away from politics for long, Mr. McGee ran again
for his party in the general election of 1965. One of Frank's
very valuable contributions to public life came in 1984 when he
was appointed to the newly created Security Intelligence Review
Committee which reviews the work of CSIS. Through his five years
as a member of this committee Frank was one of the initiators of
guidelines and procedures put in place to monitor the sometimes
delicate work of our domestic security agency at the end of the
cold war era.
After his term on SIRC, Frank continued to work in public life
as a citizenship judge after being appointed in 1990. It was
during this period that Frank and I shared views on the evolving
fields of national security and the citizenship portfolio. I
would also say that Frank looked pretty good in those citizenship
judge robes.
1520
I pay tribute to this exceptional figure in Canadian political
and public life. As the member of parliament for the riding of
York—Scarborough, Frank McGee had a grasp of the evolving
Canadian urban landscape that enabled him to play a leadership
role in the demographic development of the Toronto suburbs of
that time.
To his family and friends, my Liberal party colleagues and I
extend our condolences in this loss. In keeping with his
contribution here, we thank Frank and them for what he brought to
Canadians through his service to the House and beyond.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's Official
Opposition to pay tribute to Frank McGee.
I am moved to have this opportunity to pay respects to Mr. Frank
McGee and his family because Frank McGee played a role in my
early years as a member of parliament. In fact, Frank McGee
played a very important and deciding role in the lives of a lot
of Progressive Conservative MPs in the 1972 general election.
I will elaborate. On the evening of the 1972 general election
Conservative Leader Robert Stanfield went to sleep confident he
was the prime minister elect of Canada with a seat count of 109
for the Tories and 107 for the Liberals. By morning the seat
count was 108 to 108. The governor general could have asked Mr.
Stanfield to form the government but was unable.
A judicial recount in Frank McGee's riding of York—Scarborough
two weeks after the election determined that Mr. McGee had lost
his seat by four votes. Pierre Trudeau stayed on as prime
minister in a minority government, supported by David Lewis and
the NDP.
Frank McGee was born in Ottawa in 1926 and was destined for
politics from birth. Both his grandfathers were members of
parliament, something very unique: John McGee had been a member
of Sir John A. Macdonald's government and his maternal
grandfather, Charles McCool, was also an MP. His great uncle was
Thomas D'Arcy McGee, a Father of Confederation who was
assassinated in Ottawa in 1868. Talk about a political pedigree.
It showed. Frank McGee was a determined, enlightened and
effective member of parliament.
His political career started in 1957 after completing university
at St. Patrick's College in Ottawa, signing up for the air force
and then marrying Moira O'Leary in 1951 and moving to Toronto. He
was elected in 1957 in York—Scarborough, then Canada's third
largest riding. Mr. McGee won in 1957 by 18,946 votes, a
handsome victory to an individual widely acknowledged as a
diligent and dedicated person who had been called to public life.
His majority was the largest ever recorded up to that time for a
Conservative member of parliament. He had to go back to the
polls in 1958 and won that time by 35,877 votes in the huge
riding of York—Scarborough. In fact Frank's riding was bigger
than the province of P.E.I.
Frank McGee is remembered by many for his private member's Bill
C-6 which he introduced in 1960, calling for the abolition of
capital punishment. This seminal work by Frank McGee resulted in
changes to the Criminal Code of Canada that ended the death
penalty for almost all crimes. It was a statement of the
tenacity of Frank McGee who faced much derision by his own
colleagues that were opposed to abolition. In fact, Frank
McGee's family faced death threats during the debate of that
bill. He stood tall, devoted and constant in his belief during
those very difficult times.
In the 1962 general election Frank won again. It was a minority
government and Frank was sworn in as a minister in recognition of
his ability and contribution to parliament and to his country.
In 1963 Mr. Diefenbaker and his Tories were defeated and Frank
lost his seat. Frank moved to journalism and worked for the
Toronto Star and hosted a CBC television series call The
Sixties. He ran again in 1965 but lost. Frank went on in his
contribution to public service by serving on the Security
Intelligence Review Committee from 1984 to 1989 and in 1990
became a citizenship court judge. Frank McGee was a very
accomplished man with a lifetime spent in the pursuit of public
service in one form or another.
At the outset I referred to how Frank McGee touched the lives of
many of us in the 1972 election and for that matter the role he
played in the destiny of this nation. In the course of political
life four votes can change the course of history.
Frank McGee is spoken of with warmth in these precincts. While
determined, he was never dictatorial. While enlightened, he was
never egocentric. While successful, he never lost his connection
with his roots and with his values.
1525
On behalf of the Reform Party I extend our deepest sympathy to
his wife Moira and to his children Maureen, Owen and Sheilagh.
They have lost a good father and this country has lost a genuine
example of a gifted politician and a man with a sense of duty.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise
today on behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues following the
passing of Frank McGee, a former member of parliament and
federal Conservative minister who died on Sunday, April 4, at
the age of 73.
Mr. McGee was born in Ottawa on March 3, 1926 and studied
journalism at Carleton College, as the university was called in
those days. He enlisted at the age of 17 and served during World
War II from 1943 to 1945.
In the fifties Mr. McGee settled in Toronto. He worked for a
while at Sears as a purchasing manager.
His political career began in 1957 when he was elected for the
first time in the riding of York—Scarborough, which was
essentially a rural constituency and the third largest riding in
the country. Politics was probably in his blood because his
grandfathers were both federal members of parliament.
Mr. McGee was re-elected in 1958 with a majority of 35,377 votes,
then the largest majority in a federal election. He represented
the riding of York—Scarborough again in 1962, in a minority
government, and was appointed minister.
Mr. McGee's greatest contribution as a parliamentarian was
undoubtedly the private member's bill he tabled in 1960 to
abolish the death penalty.
Private member's bills rarely become law in Canada, but that
bill led to amendments to the Criminal Code that abolished the
death penalty for all but a few crimes. The only people still
facing the death penalty were those guilty of homicide when the
victim was either a police officer or a prison guard.
Mr. McGee later joined the Toronto Star as a reporter
specializing in political issues, and he hosted a television
series called The Sixties on the CBC network.
Later on, he worked in public relations. He was appointed to the
Security Intelligence Review Committee on which he sat from
1984 to 1989. Appointed judge at Toronto's citizenship court in
1990, he held this position until 1996.
On behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues I wish to offer my
most sincere condolences to his family, his relatives and his
many friends.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus I would like to join my
colleagues in the House of Commons who have already spoken in
paying tribute to Mr. Frank McGee and honouring his memory, the
work he did in this place for his community and in other
positions as well.
I particularly want to recognize the historic work that we know
he did in respect of the abolition of capital punishment. It was
work which he began and others finished in the 1970s. There was
a movement to overturn this work in the late 1980s but it was not
overturned. We still have a country in which we do not have the
spectacle of capital punishment. That fact is a lasting tribute
to the work of Mr. Frank McGee.
I also recognize the historic work that he did with others in
seeking to change the divorce laws of Canada which were quite
archaic at the time he entered parliament. We know that he
collaborated with others at that time in exposing just how
archaic they were and in bringing about changes.
Much biographical detail has been put on the record by others.
I do not see any point in repeating it. On behalf of the NDP I
join with other colleagues in extending our sincere condolences
to the family of Mr. Frank McGee and our own appreciation for his
life and work in this place and in his community.
* * *
1530
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I undertook a few minutes ago
to verify the request made by an hon. member of the official
opposition that a document from which the Prime Minister quoted
during question period be tabled.
I have carefully reviewed the relevant citation in Beauchesne's
and the rule of Beauchesne is quite clear. A public document, in
other words a government document, that is quoted must be tabled.
The document in question from which the Prime Minister quoted is
not a public document. In fact, it is an internal document, not
a government document.
If hon. members are interested, I can certainly indicate to them
the sources from which the material came. One is known as A
Fresh Start for Canadians, at page 8. I believe that document
comes from the Reform Party. Another is entitled The
Taxpayers' Budget, of February 21, 1995, at page 43. I am
sure that is a Reform Party document, if people are interested.
The third document about reducing the budget of the Department of
National Defence, referred to in the zero in three budget
proposal, comes from a document which was apparently published
November 24, 1994 and the relevant section is found at page 6.
I think that will assist hon. members in finding the information
about the proposed cuts to the Department of National Defence
that the Reform Party wanted to inflict upon that particular
government department.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I was present during the earlier exchanges when we
requested that this document be tabled. I think if we review the
record of the proceedings from that time we will find that the
government House leader offered to table that document,
recognizing fully that it was a Liberal document. We took that
assurance for what it was worth. Now we find ourselves in the
position where the government House leader is suggesting that he
does not want to table it, but is offering us other assurances.
We would like that document to be tabled, as we were assured that
it would be by the government House leader.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, here is the difficulty the official opposition gets into
in this House. We have somebody quoting from a document that is,
in essence, a party document from their side, telling the whole
country that this is a document from the official opposition.
The country buys it. The government is deliberately misleading
people. It is no different than the statements that are made
over there on other issues. It either has to stop or we will
start using the word that the Chair does not like.
I think the government has an obligation to table all documents.
I want to see them. We are not going to stop until we get them.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will take the
matter under advisement until we have had a chance to look
carefully at the blues.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I do not mind seeking
unanimous consent to table the document if the member thinks it
is that important. However, I want the record to indicate that
it does not meet the criteria found under citation 495 of
Beauchesne's. However, if the House is willing to give me
unanimous consent, I am willing to table the document. It will
not create a precedent because I will be doing so with unanimous
consent. This is not a document which satisfies the rule, but I
am willing to do it nonetheless.
1535
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I understand that the
document was promised, in any event.
If he wants unanimous consent, we will give unanimous consent
for him to table it. However, I can assure the government House
leader that this will be raised in a question of privilege, along
with the other false statements that were made in the House today
during question period relating to the Nisga'a, and he had better
understand that very clearly.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. House leader
has asked for unanimous consent. Is
there unanimous consent to proceed as the House leader has
requested?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I am requesting
clarification on my point of order as to whether the original
document will be tabled. You said earlier that you
would review the blues.
Hon. Don Boudria: We did it anyway.
Mr. John Duncan: That is not the original document. That
is your set of interpretations that you just entered, is it not?
Hon. Don Boudria: It is a moot point.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, debating this piece of legislation reminds me of the
question that we were just dealing with. It reminds me of our
questions during question period about the Nisga'a debate that is
going on in the British Columbia legislature, that the government
would just as soon not have going on in that province because it
does not like that kind of scrutiny and it wants to control the
agenda.
If it is a piece of legislation that it would just as soon not
see the light of day, and if it does not want much attention to
be paid to it, then it minimizes the time it is in this
parliament. This bill fits that category. The government wants
to have this $30 billion fraudulent exercise, this tax grab, this
attempt to take money from the workers' pockets buried as deeply
as possible.
Whenever the government says it is taking a balanced approach to
an issue we should hang on to our hats, hold on to our watches
and grab our wallets because that is Liberal codespeak for taking
measures that will either rob our pocketbooks, defer an issue
until hopefully there is less attention being paid to it, or it
signals other intentions of government that will take people
where they really would rather not go.
One recent example of Liberal-speak is the changes to the
employment insurance program. The so-called balanced approach
taken by the Liberal government changed the eligibility criteria,
which was promoted on the basis that more people, particularly
part time workers, would be eligible for benefits. In reality,
eligibility was cut in half so that people who unavoidably lost
their jobs had only a 35% chance of qualifying for benefits under
the new rules, where previously the figure was closer to 70%.
We are now going to have a surplus in the employment insurance
program this year of $26 billion, money taken out of workers' and
employers' pockets by government misrepresentation. The
government is still trying to justify the fact because it is
trying to make its books appear better for the workers. The cold
hearts over there are trying to make themselves sound warm.
1540
We also have the example of the balanced Liberal approach to
taxation. That translates into the government creating so-called
tax reductions which are more than offset by tax increases in
previous budgets that suddenly kick in and are not announced this
year because they were announced last year or the year before.
We have things like bracket creep that occur insidiously with
inflation. All of this makes government revenues go up while the
government claims that tax revenues are going down. That is
logically impossible, but Liberals continue to ignore the
contradictory reality in their public utterances.
The issue of Bill C-78 is public sector pension funds. The
government mandates that private sector pension plans must be
actuarially sound and must protect the contributions from being
raided by the managers of the plans. What it is planning to do
with the public service pension plan would be fraudulent if done
by others. So now we are talking about the so-called Liberal
balanced approach codespeak to public service pension funds.
The paper value of the pension plan is $126 billion. The
current obligations are $96 billion. The surpluses in the
accounts are: the public service plan, $14.9 billion; the RCMP
plan, $2.4 billion; and the Canadian forces plan, $12.9 billion,
for a total of $30.1 billion. This surplus is not guaranteed
into the future. In fact this plan has been in a deficit
situation before. The people who are potentially on the hook in
this whole exercise are the taxpayers. This government wants to
scoop the $30 billion to make its books look better. It is
Liberal optics. The Liberals are putting the future taxpayer at
risk as they have done in the past.
There is nothing wrong with a surplus, particularly when the
surplus is there because of some recent circumstances and not
through the good management of this government. The government
should leave the surplus where it is. There is no guarantee and
there are several indicators that this surplus will not remain a
surplus over time, given such critical factors as interest rates
and salary increases.
The government wants to seize the $30 billion surplus. It wants
to rob Peter to pay Paul. The Minister of Finance is trying to
make his government's books look better by raiding the federal
public service pension plan. The surplus belongs to and is meant
to benefit current and future retirees. The surplus can and
should shield the taxpayer from having to contribute extra money
to the fund should it go into a deficit position as it has in the
past. Taxpayers pumped $13 billion beyond their yearly
contributions into the plan to cover shortfalls over the past 30
years of the plan's existence.
There are some strong indicators that the pension plan will not
necessarily be running an annual surplus in the future. One
reason the plan is in a surplus situation now is that the fund is
currently benefiting from the higher interest rates of the 1980s
on the 20 year government bonds in which the fund is invested.
Those 1980 interest rates were much higher than 1990 rates.
The government plans to move from low risk, long term bonds to
higher risk market funds. That is a double-edged sword.
That can lead to a very nice situation or it can lead to a very
ugly situation, depending on what happens. It is not a low risk
enterprise like government bonds.
1545
I am not saying we should not go into higher risk, higher
potential benefit plans, but in order to do so, one must do it
with a running surplus for protection on the downside. The
government is doing everything it can to increase the risk to
taxpayers. It is not doing this on an actuarially sound basis.
This is wrong.
I want to talk more about the way the government is dealing with
people. We are talking about 300,000 retirees, plus 345,000
members of the public service, including military personnel and
the RCMP. That is whom we are talking about. We are talking
about 645,000 Canadians, plus their dependants, who are affected
by this piece of legislation.
I heard the government House leader on the Thursday question on
House business earlier today say that the government would like
to have this all done by Friday. It is not going to have this
all done by Friday if I have anything to do with it.
The government has refused to properly fund or even bargain in
good faith with our public service. I am talking about the RCMP.
There is a 10% vacancy rate in the RCMP in British Columbia and
it was planned by this government. We have one-third of the
country's RCMP officers in the British Columbia jurisdiction. The
Regina training centre is basically out of commission because of
this government.
We are looking at potentially a 50% plus turnover and attrition
in the RCMP over the next several years because of the
demographics of its workforce. Already it is planning not to
fill positions in British Columbia. What on earth is the
government trying to do to the RCMP? This is going contrary to
the wishes of Canadians.
We have statements from within Canadian policing organizations
that organized crime is more entrenched in British Columbia than
in any other jurisdiction in the country. With a full slate of
RCMP we did not have enough resources to address all of that and
now we are going to run with a 10% vacancy rate in filling those
positions.
I am sorry, but I have a great deal of problem in understanding
why the government not only refuses to fund the RCMP properly,
but now it wants to raid its pension plan as well. Talk about a
morale destroyer.
One of the other sectors involved here is the armed forces. We
have had great debate about that today. In order to do the
minimum the government is requesting, we know that the military
is overtasked and underfunded as it is. We know that it needs a
billion dollars a year to get up to speed. That is not
forthcoming. We have not seen it. All we have seen are some
quality of life changes. We are happy to see quality of life
changes for the military, but it needs to be equipped.
The military should not have to cannibalize the air force in
order to equip the CF-18s to do the job they are doing today.
Essentially that is what had to be done in order to do its job
for the last 30 days in Kosovo.
1550
The operations in Kosovo should not be coming out of the
national defence budget. It requires a separate budget. We are
trying to get the government to address that issue and it is
fudging it over. That is not appropriate in order to achieve
what we need which is to ensure that we have a Department of
National Defence that can function in Canada's best interests.
For the third sector, our public service just went through a
government imposed settlement. We had an all-night session in
the House of Commons. At 10 p.m. on the night of the all-night
session there was a negotiated settlement. We still went through
that whole exercise.
What has become very clear is that the government refuses to go
after final offer selection negotiations even at a time when the
unions are agreeable. Those kinds of negotiations have a track
record of success. The government mentality is to rely
completely on back to work legislation in its labour
negotiations. I call that bad faith negotiations.
Now the government wants to add insult to injury by going after
the pension surplus. It has already nibbled at that pension
surplus to the tune of $10 billion. Now it wants the whole pie.
Will this never end? This is the Liberal agenda, or is it the
Liberal leadership agenda? Is this optics for the finance
minister? Do we want to get that out of the way well ahead of
the next election? I think so.
Let us talk about that $10 billion, that nibbling around the
edges. That is a pretty heavy nibble I understand, but there is
$30 billion at risk here. The government first started dipping
into the surplus in 1996. Since then the federal government has
taken $10.1 billion by not making interest payments on the
actuarial surplus.
We know that the auditor general has not accepted the
questionable accounting practices of the government, I think in
the last three budgets. We also know there is an opinion out
there. I am not attributing it to the auditor general but there
is an opinion shared by many that the actions taken on the $10.1
billion are also a questionable accounting practice.
The civil servants have a valid argument. They are saying that
a significant part of the surplus results from the fact that they
were into a six year pay freeze. In some cases that is more like
an eight year pay freeze. This freeze did several things, one of
which meant that new retirees from that timeframe start out
receiving little more than pensioners who had retired years
earlier received. That was not what was predicated by the plan.
The union is basically telling its membership they have had six
plus years of wage freezes, they have had job cuts through direct
layoffs or privatization and they have had delays on issues like
pay equity.
On top of all that, now their public service pension plan is
under attack.
1555
I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view given
what I see in this bill. There is an expectation by the
government that we all have short memories, that this bill will
go through, that the next election is two years away and in the
meantime we will all have forgotten about this raid on the public
service pension plan.
The government has been balancing its books not by cutting
spending but by raiding surpluses and taxing Canadians higher and
higher year after year. The taxpayer is the odd man out along
with the public service for any future shortfalls and any future
deficits in this plan.
The surplus in the plan should be left alone. Plain and simple,
the government should not be using it for any other purpose than
to ensure that the plan remains solvent now and in the future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill C-78 is
a technical bill.
In fact, it is the basis for another federal government attack
on its employees. It is, I would say, a new manifestation of
its refusal to deal with its public service, in the broadest
sense, since the Public Sector Pension Investment Board
administers the pensions of several groups of Crown employees
who are not, strictly speaking, public servants.
Once again, the government is showing that it does not want to
negotiate, be involved in joint administration or create the
partnership of which it has spoken in the past.
It would be terrible if we had to admit that the government is
not capable of considering a joint administration of pension
funds, discussed and negotiated with, and agreed to by, the
unions, as there is in Quebec for example. That is my first
point.
The second, and one I wish to stress, is that the federal
government is taking advantage of a lack of clearness in the
first act, in order to get its hands on all the surpluses.
These are already beyond what is necessary, beyond what was
recommended by actuaries to ensure that there will be enough
money to pay pensions. The federal government is not the only
one to contribute, but it decides that it will be the one who
can dispose of this surplus.
In this case, public servants have, on several occasions, had to
face layoffs and offers of early retirement, and this has had an
important part to play in the feelings of discouragement among
those who were left.
When I was on the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, we heard repeatedly from experts that, when the
remaining staff see their colleagues offered early retirement,
they wonder “When will it be my turn?” This does a great deal
to discourage them, and no doubt undermines to some extent their
loyalty, a loyalty that is so essential if the state is to serve
its people well.
1600
These employees are already working under extremely difficult
conditions in a context of diminished resources and conflict.
We need only think of the last settlement and the last special
law, the knife at the throat for a major group of employees.
We need only recall this to realize that once again, with the
wounds barely closed and not properly healed, the government is
using its absolute power—it is not only the employer but the
legislator—to decide it will use the surplus over and above what
is needed to make sure pension funds are paid out well according
to current regulations.
This is the interpretation given this bill, and I have seen
nothing that would lead me to say otherwise. That means that
this decision deprives those already retired of increases.
I would like to make an aside. We are beginning to see the
negative side of what appeared to be golden handshakes, the
package offered those who agreed, under what seemed to be
extraordinary conditions, to terminate their employment.
The money given them in exchange for their giving up their job
security looked to be significant. However, we are beginning to
see that a number of these employees, who were tempted to start
up a small business or become self-employed have found themselves
in difficult straits at an age where finding a job is infinitely
harder.
So they have added to the number of people in society looking
for work and having a hard time finding it.
There are a number of other issues, and perhaps I will have time
to address them, but I want to mention that the government wants
nothing to do with treating its employees as managers who are
involved in the security that must surround the management of
pension funds.
In 1996, a joint committee was struck to try to make
recommendations to guide the government, which, at that time,
seemed to be of an excellent disposition. It is interesting to
see that the committee had proposed that a board of directors
comprise six members representing the employers and six members
representing the workers and one retiree without voting
privilege. This is what the advisory committee recommended in
December 1996.
1605
A little while later, the President of the Treasury Board said
in a release that the government had accepted a certain number
of these recommendations. He said:
A report, the result of four years of conscientious work by
union representatives, retired public servants, and public
servants who are still working.
Yet none of the recommendations made by this committee—which the
minister said did its work conscientiously—was followed up on in
any way.
And yet, that is possible.
A long time ago, I was on a negotiating committee that agreed
with the Government of Quebec that the public sector employees'
pension fund—and this was the case in the various unions and
departments—would be co-managed, that we would agree on investment
rules. In other words, unionized employees and workers would
have a say in how their money was invested.
Sometimes, the maximum rate of return is sought, but at other
times the goal might be a vehicle that not only has an excellent
a rate of return but that has a more social goal, that
emphasizes job creation.
Having a joint management committee for a pension fund puts the
onus on both parties. Quebec has operated this way for a long
time. During the public finance crisis, the parties jointly
negotiated how surpluses would be used.
It was not the government's first idea, but it finally realized
that it was advisable to make it easier for those employees
wishing to retire to do so under advantageous conditions. The
unions were involved, and were in fact the first to come up with
the proposal. A comment could be made, but the point is that
this was the result of joint negotiations.
Why is it not possible federally to reach an agreement with
employees, with pensioners represented, on how their retirement
money is going to be managed, on improvements where possible,
and on the sharing of risks? The committee agreed on how the
risks and the surpluses would be shared.
I have gone through this bill, which creates a public sector
pension investment board. There is the word board again.
Not only is it not a body with equal representation, but a
committee of eight members must first be appointed and then make
recommendations to appoint a board of 12 directors.
Do unions enjoy equal representation on that board? Are they
fully represented? No, and this is very unfortunate. The
government is creating a board, which it claims will be
operating at arm's length from the minister. That is what it
claims.
1610
The government claims that the board is not an agent of Her
Majesty and is therefore not accountable. In fact, that board is
appointed if not directly, at least indirectly, by the minister.
It will be the minister who will choose the committee members
who, in turn, will select directors. This is particularly true
in the case of the chairperson.
One thing, among others, that struck me is how the investing
will be done. The board's objects are defined as follows:
(b) to invest its assets with a view to achieving a maximum rate
of return, without undue risk of loss, having regard to the
funding, policies and requirements of the pension plans
established under the Acts referred to in paragraph (a) and the
ability of those plans to meet their financial obligations.
Then the bill provides that the governor in council may
determine what percentage of funds is to be set aside to buy
Government of Canada bonds, and what rules should be used to
calculate that percentage.
Not only is the government using the surpluses already
accumulated, which total approximately $30 billion and are
beyond what is necessary to maintain the pension plans, but it
will also use that $30 billion to pay its share of
contributions. The government is giving itself 15 years.
In addition, it decides on the rules governing the investment,
in addition to giving a very specific mandate to the board to
“invest its assets with a view to achieving a maximum rate of
return, without undue risk of loss”.
We are living in a period where workers and social organizations
are becoming increasingly aware that investments can affect the
economy we live in.
The only mandate here is a maximum rate of return, “without
undue risk of loss”. What does “undue” mean? If we take a big
risk that could bring a significant return, is the risk undue?
In this current period, this provision bothers me quite a bit.
I am sure many people in the unions will wonder why they have no
say and why they too cannot make choices.
All that looks a lot like this government's approach to managing
transfer payments, where the government reduced its deficit by
transferring it through significant cuts to health care,
education and social welfare up to the latest budget. In this
budget, it is far from returning the situation in these fields
to what it had been, even though it has guaranteed investments
over five years of $11.5 billion. We are a long way from where
we were before.
This is the same government that made major cuts to unemployment
insurance programs. It reduced accessibility. It reduced
benefits and the length of their payment.
This is also the same government that is now equipping itself to
take the surpluses in the pension funds.
Instead of agreeing to share the administration with the unions,
it makes decisions by equipping itself with mechanisms which
appear to put it at a distance.
1615
Anyone reading this with care will see that the government is
accomplishing indirectly what it does not want to do directly.
It is hobbling the board to such an extent that it has no
leeway, moreover I would not want it to.
I would be tempted to make use of a word that is
unparliamentary. It means to try to appear to be doing
something other than what one is actually doing. I trust that
is clear. Saying that one is doing one thing, while doing
another.
The government is not keeping its distance, but instead of
managing jointly with employees, it creates a body to serve its
interests, which is most regrettable.
We have had a number of opportunities in this House to speak of
the government's relationship with the public sector, and I
would like in closing to make a comparison. The federal
government's inability to deal properly with public sector
employees in something as natural as the pension funds, an area
in which agreement should be reachable, reminds me of the way it
treats the Quebec people.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for Mercier, who has left her mark
as a remarkable unionist. She speaks of workers with the voice
of experience.
We are talking about $30 billion in surpluses: $14.9 billion in
the public service superannuation plan, $2.4 billion in the RCMP
plan and $12.9 billion in the Canadian Forces plan. That is a
lot of money.
When we buy life insurance, we do not like it if, at some point,
the company changes the rules. This is money taken from the
pockets of these people. My colleague put it very well: the
government is indirectly setting up—it is even sneakier in a
way—some kind of committee that will not be independent.
Money was taken from the employment insurance fund, and the
minister opposite must have some regrets about that.
He could at least make amends by putting some money back in the
workers' pockets. In my riding of Matapédia—Matane, workers come
to my office and say “What is going on? In the spring, we are
three or four weeks short”.
Can we draw a comparison between this and the theft in the
employment insurance—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask the hon. member
to choose his words carefully. He is well aware that the word he
just used is unparliamentary.
Mr. René Canuel: I withdraw the word “theft”, Madam Speaker. I
will use “spirited out” instead.
Can we not draw a comparison between what the government is
going to do to public servants and what it did to other workers
with the EI fund?
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I closed my speech with a
similar comparison. It is indeed sad to see the government
using the surpluses instead of improving the pensions of those
who will be retiring or are already retired.
1620
Instead, the government is taking this money and using it. In
any event, it is possible, through a complicated mechanism, to
put it into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, since the latter will
pay its premiums. But we know that the Consolidated Revenue
Fund will be able to get its hands on this money.
That is why I said it brought to mind the federal government's
whole management approach, which is to take everything it can
get from workers. This is what it does with employment
insurance, transfer payments and now this pension fund bill.
I would like to read part of a release issued by employees and
pensioners. It said basically the following:
After a six-year salary freeze, massive job reductions through
direct layoffs or privatization, and continual foot-dragging on
pay equity rulings, the position adopted by the Treasury Board
during the 1998 consultation on public service pension reform is
of great concern.
They were right to be concerned, because I think that the bill
as it now stands goes much further than they were worried about
at the time.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, does the
member of the Bloc see this a larger pattern of the current
government taking public money away from the public good and
putting it into private hands rather than back into communities?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, actually, I believe we do
not know what this money is going to be used for. What we know,
though, is that it will not be used to improve the lot of
present and future public service pensioners, even though the
surplus is the result of their work.
We are seeing fights of this kind in the private sector. Private
sector workers are extremely concerned by what is happening in
the federal government. There is a close relationship between
this federal policy and the policy non-unionized companies or
companies where the unions are not strong enough will keep on
following. I am talking about the private sector of course.
This is what concerns me because we know that people who had
well paid jobs will have a relatively comfortable pension. But
there are a lot of workers who are close to retirement and who
will not have a very high income.
In the private sector, it is even worse. Workers who have worked
all their lives will have a very meagre income, which makes no
sense when we know all the efforts they made.
The government's action cannot be disassociated from a signal
given to managers of pension funds in the private sector.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member for Mercier speaking
of older workers in the private sector. This is, of course, not
completely on topic, but since the hon. minister is with us in
the House, I would like to point out that there used to be a
fine program that provided assistance to the older workers, one
that no longer exists.
1625
Does my colleague believe that the minister will some day do
something to help older workers, whether this is POWA or
something else?
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the older workers'
situation is often a dramatic one.
When people have a decent pension, they may still have problems,
but what happens when the pension is a pittance, or nothing at
all, when a person has not reached retirement age, and can no
longer work? This is what happens to women over the age of 50.
We have all gone door to door campaigning. How many times were
we told “At my age, I can no longer find work”? There is also
the plight of older workers who have been laid off.
Increasingly, people will no longer have had job permanency.
They will have had short term work, little McJobs. The problem
of older workers will be raised more and more, and will become
acute.
At some point there will certainly be a wide gap between those
who can draw fairly decent pensions and those who will find
themselves in dramatically reduced circumstances.
I could end by referring to all those whose health has been
affected by their work. From my work in occupational health and
safety, I know that there is no compensation for having been
worn down by work.
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in
support of Bill C-78, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board
Act.
Pensions are a complicated business and this is a very
complicated bill. Much of it is about putting the pension plan
for federal employees, the public service, Canadian forces and
the RCMP on a solid financial footing. We know how important
pensions are to all Canadians, but we also know that how we
provide pensions for these federal public sector employees has to
be fair to all taxpayers.
Other people will be talking in more detail about the financial
arrangements that are being proposed in the bill. I want to take
some time today to talk about the Canada Post section of it and
how the bill affects the corporation and its employees.
What the bill says is clear and fairly straightforward. By
October 1, 2000 Canada Post Corporation will establish a pension
plan for its employees that are now covered by the Public Service
Superannuation Act, the PSSA.
The plan that Canada Post establishes has to meet the
requirements of the Pension Benefits Standard Act and the Income
Tax Act. Once the plan is established the PSSA will cease to
cover Canada Post employees. On the day it is established the
Canada Post plan has to provide the same benefits as the PSSA at
the same cost to employees.
The funds now in the PSSA are there to provide the benefits that
Canada Post employees have already earned and will be transferred
to the new plan. I am told and I understand that the transfer of
funds will be about $6 billion. The benefits for the past will
be exactly what they would have been under the PSSA and they
cannot be reduced in the future.
A year after the new plan is established on October 1, 2001 it
will become subject to collective bargaining, except those parts
of the plan that deal with the service and benefits coming from
the PSSA.
There are some other features in the bill that are important to
employees, opportunities to count past service and a life
insurance plan that is a mirror of the one employees are leaving,
and some that are important to the corporation such as the right
to determine how any plan surplus will be used and the right to
establish more than one plan. These are the main features.
Why is this all being done? For Canada Post this is a decision
based on business because of a number of factors. First, like
all other corporations under the PSSA the employer costs for the
pension plan will increase.
For a corporation with a commercial mandate, the bottom line
impact has to be looked at very seriously.
1630
Canada Post operates under the Canada Labour Code. Under the
code all terms and conditions of employment are subject to
collective bargaining. As long as it was under the PSSA, though,
it could not bargain pensions which are a significant part of
total compensation. There is a real opportunity here for Canada
Post to assume total responsibility for all aspects of its
operation and its management but, and this is very important, the
legislation is good for employees too.
First, it promises the same level of pension benefits as they
would have under the PSSA. The guarantees in the bill about the
benefits employees have already earned are very strong. Second,
it makes pensions bargainable.
Some people will wonder why Canada Post employees will be able
to bargain pensions when public service employees cannot and why
they should be able to affect the design and management of their
pension plan when public servants under the PSSA cannot.
As the President of the Treasury Board outlined in his speech, a
consultation process took place over a number of months last
year. That process was intended to lead to a joint management
structure for the PSSA so that employees could have shared in all
the decisions around their pension plans. Those talks did not
lead to a deal, but the government is still ready to talk to the
unions about joint management.
For Canada Post and its employees, not being able to include
pensions in bargaining is an unusual restriction for an
organization that functions under the Canada Labour Code.
There may also be people who wonder why pensions are not subject
to the labour code right away. Some people will say this is an
exceptional treatment under the labour code, and they are right.
However this is an exceptional case.
Some 50,000 employees are affected by the decision on the part
of Canada Post to withdraw from the PSSA. These employees are
located all across the country. The government is interested in
the concerns of Canada Post and in helping the corporation to
create a business environment where it can succeed.
It is also very interested in making sure employees can feel
secure about their pensions. Employees can know by this
legislation what their new pension will look like, what kind of
benefits it will provide and how much it will cost. Employees
need not have any uncertainty about these things. They are very
strong guarantees.
The provisions of the bill affecting Canada Post Corporation and
its employees do not look like a big part of the bill, some two
or three pages, but they will help Canada Post move forward in
its efforts to provide good service to all Canadians and will
give it another piece of the framework for managing the people
part of its business.
These same provisions give employees guarantees about pensions,
a very important part of compensation, and give them the
opportunity to influence how their pensions will evolve in the
future.
Speaking from my very limited experience when I negotiated
contracts as chairman of the Peel board back in another life in
another time, the actual salary compensation was oftentimes less
important than everything else negotiated in the contract. I
found that people, particularly as the population of Canada is
aging, were very concerned about their pensions and their pension
rights. They wanted to have a say in how the money was being
distributed and how it would affect their pensions.
I wholeheartedly agree with this legislation. It is giving
power to the people and responsibility to the government.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, we have noticed that the Liberal government has been
slowly liquidating the surplus over the last few years.
When we talk about Bill C-78, we are talking about the
government's intentions to take over or raid the surplus of this
fund, which is about $31 billion. That is how it has been able
to balance the budget.
The last time we debated this issue in the House was when the
government tried to put its hands on the surplus in employment
insurance.
It has not been balancing the budget by cutting spending or
eliminating waste. Year after year taxes are increasing to
balance the budget, and now the Liberal government is trying to
put its hands on various surpluses in various departments.
1635
Why does the government think it has to put its hands on
surpluses which belong to corporations or the public? Why is the
government trying to put its hands in the cookie jar?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Madam Speaker, I think this is a
very fundamental issue when we refer to the EI plan and the
pension plan.
One of the things all members of the opposition seem to forget
is that during bad times the Government of Canada and Canadian
taxpayers built up all the deficits in both the EI fund and the
pension plan funds. The government is at the point where it has
invested the money wisely and the surpluses being generated now
are in fact the property of the Canadian taxpayer.
We are here to invest the money appropriately and to do what we
can to keep this country healthy and a good global competitor. We
cannot do that with deficits. We cannot do that by artificially
pouring money into areas where it does not belong.
I have no problem with the member's question except to the point
where the opposition always seem to start its questioning when we
hit a surplus. It never goes back in history to when the
government was topping up the deficits.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member. In her speech
she was talking about the pensions of Canada Post employees.
Why should we be tampering with their pensions? In October and
November 1997 we were in a contract dispute with Canada Post and
the Liberal government legislated its employees back to work. It
has been almost two years since the employees were legislated
back to work and there is still no settlement in sight. I would
like the hon. member to comment on that.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Madam Speaker, I do not want to
comment on contract disputes with Canada Post. We are here to
deal with the pension plan.
The remarks I made today very definitely indicate that the
bargaining unit for Canada Post will be discussing pensions and
upgrading pensions. In the bargaining situation that will come
up in the year 2001 those pensions will be looked at and
readjusted according to the membership and according to the
government.
I believe this is empowering the unions to have a say in how
they would like their pensions upgraded or altered as part of the
bargaining unit. I believe it is a very fair proposal,
particularly for Canada Post.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, Bill C-78 proposes to
establish an investment board. The proposed investment board
will not include any provisions for the auditor general to take
an indepth look at the books of the proposed investment board.
Nor will the board fall under the provisions of the Access to
Information Act.
To whom will the board be accountable? Who will ensure that the
board will operate in a fair manner?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Madam Speaker, I will have to go
back on my own limited experience at functioning on boards. Some
boards have duly elected members from the public, such as the
school board that I served on. Some have appointed members who
are well respected members of the community.
Whenever a board is appointed its position has to remain neutral
and fair. It has to listen to labour, to management, to the
government and to the employees.
I have a lot more faith in publicly appointed boards than the
member opposite seems to have. I think they are very limited. As
a matter of fact I know of no boards that have been held up as
gangs that are there to lean one way or the other. Publicly
appointed boards serve publicly and have to account to the
members they are serving.
1640
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I just wanted to make a comment on the member opposite's
question of the parliamentary secretary.
I think the problem he is alluding to with respect to the
transparency and accountability of this investment board is
really a matter for the Access to Information Act. I think what
we have to look at is not changing this legislation but making
sure, when the time does come forward and when we have a chance
to look at the Access to Information Act, it provides for
accountability and certainly transparency for the type of arm's
length board we have in this legislation.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Madam Speaker, I always agree with
my hon. colleague from Hamilton. I will bow to his wisdom on
this one and let his remarks stand.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would simply, in the spirit of my other questions,
ask the parliamentary secretary if she is not bothered by the
idea of taking pension funds belonging to those who contributed
to it. Finally, what will the money the government is going to
recover be used for?
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Madam Speaker, again I would like to
reiterate my position. Because the minister happens to be
sitting here, I would like to draw in the EI plan as well as the
pension plans. We must remember in the bad times the government
paid and paid and topped it up and built up a deficit and a debt
which the whole country paid for. When careful management has
built these funds up, in the good times it is time these funds
were paid back to all taxpayers of Canada.
As long as the pension payouts are fair we are not doing it at
the expense of the recipients. We are doing it because it is the
proper and appropriate thing to do at this time in the economy.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I feel it
is very important to speak to this debate because it is such a
change in public policy and a change that is done unilaterally,
without the support of the unions involved, the public or other
members of parliament.
As in most legislation Bill C-78 has much that is good and much
that is bad. The bad far outweighs the good in this legislation
which is part of a larger pattern of the government to take
public money and transfer it into private hands. Once that
happens the public good is not at the top of priorities to turn
that money around and serve our communities through building
roads, hospitals or schools.
I will deal with the good in the legislation first because, as I
said, there is not that much of it. The good is that there is a
dental plan for beneficiaries. Because we are thinking of people
who are retired, this is a particularly important element. It is
important to have and would be a very important change. The
benefits will be calculated on the last five years rather than
the last six, which would result in a slight increase.
It recognizes benefits for same sex couples. That section is a
very dramatic change. It is long awaited and is indeed
necessary.
It would increase the supplementary death benefit. Initially
this was being negotiated, but unfortunately it broke down over
what to do with the $30 billion surplus, over representation on
the new investment board and joint management of the fund or some
input from labour and plan members.
The government then decided to proceed with the legislation
rather than continue to pursue a negotiated settlement. That is
incredibly unfortunate because it means that it is not possible
for the New Democrats to support the legislation.
1645
There are two really important points. The investment board
will be a 12 member board charged with the responsibility of
investing funds on the open market. We are speaking about $30
billion, an unbelievable and incredible amount of money, that
will be put on the open market. These members would be appointed
by the minister through a nominating committee of other members
who might be retirees.
We need to be concerned that appointments to the investment
board might be for purely patronage reasons. Who benefits from
these changes? It will not be the pensioners because their
actual pensions will not increase. They will not get any more,
but they will not get any less. The employees will be paying
more.
We have to question the rationale of these changes when the very
essence of a pension plan is to deduct money from the employees
and save it for them so it will be there when they retire.
However, they will not benefit from the changes in this
legislation.
There is a benefit for those who will be investing it and for
those who will be receiving it. The flipping of capital will
cost millions in brokerage fees. Bay Street will enjoy a
windfall when shares and stocks are bought and sold but the
employees and the pensioners will not.
Labour has always argued that pension surpluses are the
exclusive property of the employees and retired plan members and
should be used for nothing other than their benefit. This is a
key issue. It is paramount and must reinforced. As this surplus
is all from deferred wages and part of the pay package, it should
be returned to the employees.
The other change is that any surplus above $9 billion will
trigger either the cessation of employer-employee contributions
for a period of time, a premium holiday, or government could
simply take the surplus and use it for whatever it wants without
any consultation with the employees or pensioners. This means it
could be a very important source of revenue for the government
when in fact it is the property of the employees.
Currently there is no provision to increase benefits other than
by an act of parliament. It is a defined benefit plan that has
an obligation to pay each recipient a fixed amount regardless of
the condition of the fund.
I heard over and over today that the government takes all the
risk so it should be able to do whatever it wants with the money
when there is a surplus. It feels that because it has to assume
the risk of providing a defined benefit, even if the plan was in
a deficit, it deserves to keep the surplus when the plan is
healthy. This is convoluted logic that we cannot accept.
The pension is part of the wage package. Proof of this is that
the government uses the fact that there is a pension plan to
justify relatively low wages. Even though the pension is not
negotiated at the bargaining table, both parties refer to it and
acknowledge it.
Additional proof that employees own the pension moneys lies in
the fact that in a company under federal jurisdiction, workers
have to vote by a two-third majority to let the employer take out
any of the surplus. This law recognizes the surplus is the
property of the employees who must vote on whether to release it.
Obviously that is not happening here.
The government is acting unilaterally. It does not even want to
share in the decisions. No agreement has been reached with the
union, nor does the government have any plans to include the
union on a joint union-management board. Instead, the government
intends to appoint directors to the board. These actions
reinforce the misleading view of who bears the risks and rewards
of pension plans.
Employers have typically justified their grab on pension
surpluses on the grounds that they take the risks so they should
get the rewards. However, pension plan management makes it more
likely that surpluses will accrue, so there are very few risks.
If we are going to think of it in those terms, let us imagine an
individual who has saved money throughout his or her life in
preparation for retirement, and a bank says “I want that money to
pay my debts. You have kept it in my bank all these years and I
have had the risk of storing it. It is my money and I will use
it however I want. You have no say in it”. What we are facing
is our government telling us “What is yours is mine and what is
mine is my own business, so you can just take a hike. We will do
what we think is best ”. I have never seen democracy work like
that.
What we are facing is a raid or just plain piracy of a pension
plan. That $30 billion is an incredible amount of money, and the
decisions made about it belong with the people who pay into it
and the pensioners who will be receiving it.
1650
I listened to a debate earlier on the Liberal side where a
member said that the New Democratic Party should not be agitating
and getting the seniors and elders all upset over this.
I found this incredibly patronizing because the seniors and
elders I know can certainly read, write, think and analyse, and
they do lobby and vote. They have come here and lobbied. They
have made decisions and have analysed that this is not a good way
to deal with pensions. They are not even doing this for
themselves because their pensions will not change. They will not
get any more out of this. However, they have the wisdom and
strength to know that these changes will have an effect on those
who come after them. I always believed it was our job as members
of parliament to be thinking of those who come after us, not of
our own smaller interests but the greater interests of our
country.
Another point that bothered me was when a Liberal member stood
up and said that we had these crazy ideas about wanting to invest
pension money in maybe ethical stocks or bonds, or that it should
even be a consideration of what is done with the money.
I know a heck of a lot of people who do not want one cent of
their money being invested in nuclear arms, in small arms, in
factories where children are forced into labour and women are
locked in for 14 to 16 hours a day to produce cheap goods, or in
situations where the money they are saving for their retirement
could be used to undermine their own jobs.
Consideration should be given to using the money saved in this
country to build our own roads, hospitals, schools and
universities and to do it at a good rate of return so that we can
educate our children. Maybe we could help those in the far
corners of the country who normally would not have any access to
schools, roads or hospitals. That is a very good use of money
and should always be a consideration when pooled money within a
country is being distributed for whatever reason. We should be
looking after our own people first.
The changes in the pension plan will disproportionately affect
women. The average pension will be $9,600 per year which is not
a lot to live on. However, women have borne the brunt of a lot
of changes that have happened through the Liberal government.
They have borne the cost of our health cuts and the sexual abuse
in our military. The government has denied them pay equity and,
in many cases, they are denied unemployment insurance premiums.
What is it for? It is not for the common good of our country.
It is not for the betterment of living conditions anywhere. These
changes are indeed changes that would please the corporate titans
of the country to move money away from those who need it and put
it into the hands of those who do not.
Even though there are good changes proposed in Bill C-78, the
bad far outweigh anything that the legislation would bring
forward. It is very disappointing not to be able to support
pension plan changes just because they will not benefit those who
need them most.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great attention to the member's comments
and I would like to make a couple of observations.
One of the key points she made was that the surplus, to use her
own words, was the exclusive property of the employees who
contributed to the pension plan. I have to give her my
perspective on this because I come from a riding where there are
very few unions.
I do not think there are unions of any size in my riding. In my
riding it is mostly small entrepreneurs, farmers, people who are
self-employed. They will have contributed to this surplus.
1655
As I understand it, the government has been paying 70% toward
this pension plan and the employees 30%. When the government pays
money to anything, it comes from taxpayers. Every person in my
riding who has been paying taxes and who does not belong to a
union has been contributing to that 70% that has been going to
this pension plan. In other words, the people in my riding would
feel that they do have a stake and as a matter of fact they might
even claim ownership of the $30 billion of which we are speaking.
The member also said that the benefits in this whole $30 billion
is part of the wage packet of the employees. I point out she
also said that the payout of benefits is determined by an act of
parliament. We have a situation where the benefits are already
determined and we have a surplus that is exceeding by far the
amount of benefits that can be obtained by the employees.
Finally, it would appear to me, using that logic, that indeed
that $30 billion actually belongs to the ordinary citizens of
Canada and not to the union, as long as the union is guaranteed
that it does indeed receive the benefits that are part of the
contract.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, those who are involved in
private pensions get to have a say. Over three-quarters of them
would have to vote to have a say on what that surplus is used
for. The changes that are being made would not give the
taxpayers that the hon. member mentioned any say in where the
surplus is going. In fact, the federal government is using it
however it pleases without the consent of either the taxpayers or
the people paying directly into it.
Whatever the surplus may be or however or wherever it is
invested should not be done just in terms of what the greatest
return on that money would be. I think it is important that the
money is spent first in Canada to benefit Canadians rather than
outside the country in very risky endeavours. We have already
seen what the market can do, what unregulated, totally
catastrophic situations can arise with unbridled use of capital.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-78 amends various acts, essentially replacing words such
as spouse, wife, wives, widow, et cetera with survivor or
survivors. In this 200 page bill which has about 231 clauses, the
word survivor is mentioned 249 times. Of course it is defined in
clauses 53 and 75.
The government's backgrounder on Bill C-78 states: “To ensure
that the government's pension package for its employees is in
keeping with the opinion of the courts, survivors benefits will
be amended to extend survivors benefits to same sex partners”.
However, in 1995 the supreme court ruled in the Egan case that an
opposite sex definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act
relating to spousal benefits was reasonable.
In the hon. member's opinion, why is the government ignoring
this supreme court decision?
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
determining who the beneficiary for a pension should be, I think
it is important to allow every individual to determine who their
beneficiaries are, whether they are their children, their
parents, their partner, their wife, their husband, their son or
their daughter.
The Liberal motives for, as the hon. member says, ignoring a
supreme court decision I would have to leave to the Liberals to
answer.
1700
Providing benefits for same sex partners is an important step.
The government should do it straight out in the open and not try
to sneak it through any back door because we have an obligation
not to discriminate against anyone.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unlike
the Liberal member who spoke before me, I come from a riding 90%
of which is unionized.
What gets to me in this bill is the make-up of the advisory
committee. I think the management of this committee will not
always be joint. Who will represent the unions on this
committee? Where are the workers? Where are the former
workers?
Only one person will represent the pensioners. If that means
jointly with the workers, they should look again.
I would ask the member to explain her viewpoint and give her
opinion on this.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, the whole appointment
process is particularly troubling. When I was first elected I
sat on the aboriginal affairs committee and we had a paper
whisked in front of us telling us who the interim commissioner
would be for Nunavut. To leave the appointment of a board to one
person, our minister, with the input of a nominating committee of
eight is quite wrong. Representation should be built in for the
employees and the pensioners.
The whole idea of appointments and how we deal with them in our
parliament is worthy of a debate. We could talk about how our
senators are appointed and how judges to the supreme court are
appointed.
This process continues the very exclusive nature of allowing
power to be focused at the very top of the pyramid, rather than
giving any say or power to, or investing any responsibility with,
the people who were elected. The government has the most seats
and it will make its decisions as it sees fit. The whole
appointment process needs a lot of scrutiny and I do not agree
with the process which is being put forward. I do not think it
will benefit us in the long run.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member
for Yukon quite understood my earlier question. It is my fault I
am sure for not explaining it very well. I will try again.
I have a great deal of difficulty, coming from a riding in which
there are a few unions, understanding the logic that the union is
claiming ownership of this $30 billion of alleged surplus, even
though it cannot increase its benefits because its benefits are
fixed and even though this $30 billion surplus has actually come
from the taxpayers. It has come from the ordinary small people,
the barbers and the grocery clerks and these small people in my
riding who do not have the protection of a union and do not have
a circumstance where they can put in $30 and get $70 from the
government. However, that money from the government is coming
from those grocery clerks and those small people in my riding.
That money could be invested more wisely and get a better
return. We see the same kind of conflict we had with the Quebec
pension plan which invested wisely and aggressively and is a much
healthier plan than the Canadian pension plan which invested only
in safe instruments. Is it not better for the small people, the
ordinary taxpayers, that we try to use this money in a way that
actually reduces taxes for ordinary Canadians?
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not agree
with the member opposite. What I understand him to be saying is
that the Canadian forces, the RCMP and the public service should
not have any say in the changes proposed in this bill, and I do
not agree with that at all. Sure, everyone else should have a
say as well, but this does not give them that say.
1705
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to take a few minutes to talk about the RCMP. As you
know, I have a very strong interest in policing matters. I was a
former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police. I think we need
to ensure that all things are done in every way for our police
services across Canada, wherever they may be, and I think it is
important to highlight this fact.
I want to begin by pointing out that the government is aware
that some members of the RCMP have expressed concern over the
lack of RCMP input into the pension amendment package. It is
true that the same degree of consultation did not take place with
RCMP representatives as it was the case with public service
employee representatives.
I think it is fair to say that the government would have
preferred to consult more widely with the RCMP on its future
pension arrangements. I think that is clear. Most of the
proposed changes, however, will address pressing financial issues
facing all of the public sector pension plans, including the RCMP
plan. I think we need to note that the superannuation plan in
that sense will be fully taken into account.
For example, because of the way the RCMPSA is harmonized with
the Canada Pension Plan, RCMP members have been protected from
CPP contribution increases since 1987, while the government's
costs have been increasing. The urgency of addressing these
financial pressures was a major reason for the government's
decision to proceed as quickly as possible with the pension
changes, including benefit improvements included in Bill C-71,
the budget implementation act. The change to base the pension
calculation on a five year instead of a six year average is an
important change.
The government recognizes the fact that the RCMP is a unique
organization and that consultation with members around plan
changes is highly desirable. For these reasons, Bill C-78
contains a number of areas in which consultation can take place
in the future. It should be noted that the solicitor general has
ensured that the proposed amendments to the RCMPSA contain
flexibility to adjust the pension plan to meet the future needs
of the RCMP. The areas where change will be possible are
vesting, portability of pension credits, both in and out of the
RCMPSA, expanded elective service provisions and plan provisions
for members working part time.
Present vesting periods are set at 10 years for regular members
and 5 years for civilian members. The bill will allow these
periods to be shortened by regulations if, after extensive study
and consultation, such changes are indeed desirable.
Under the current provisions of the RCMPSA, members wishing to
increase their pensionable service can only do so if they have
prior public service, or service in the Canadian forces, or
service as a member of a provincial or municipal police force
absorbed by the RCMP. The bill provides for greater pension
portability for members joining or leaving the RCMP. The bill
will make it possible to transfer pension credits from a previous
employer, which is an important provision for police personnel.
It is one that we should note and indicate that we are prepared
to support.
For members leaving the RCMP in the future, a new option will be
available to improve pension portability under conditions to be
determined in new regulations. Members will be able to transfer
the actuarially calculated value of their pension benefits to
locked-in financial vehicles or to another employer's pension
plan.
Currently, there are a number of RCMP members who are working on
a part time basis. This bill will make it possible to
accommodate such members through the making of new regulations.
Again that is an important provision and one that is important to
police personnel.
Another area in which future consultation between the solicitor
general and the RCMP will take place is on the member
contribution rates which will be in effect beginning in the year
2004. For the period beginning January 1, 2004, the Treasury
Board will set the member contribution rates on the joint
recommendation of the solicitor general and the President of the
Treasury Board. Although the bill specifically states that
RCMPSA member contribution increases cannot be greater than those
of the public service, because of the unique nature of the force
the contribution increases could in fact be less.
1710
Finally, the solicitor general will be given increased powers
under the new bill for the financing and funding of the RCMP
superannuation plan. In addition, the solicitor general's
pension advisory committee created under the RCMPSA is being
given a strengthened mandate in Bill C-78. That is an important
implementation provision and one that all members of the House
should be prepared to support.
This strengthened mandate will ensure that members and
pensioners will be able to use their pension advisory committee
for the purposes of making recommendations to the solicitor
general on the administration, design and funding of the pension
plan. That too is an important area in which personnel will have
valued input.
The solicitor general will rely on his pension advisory
committee to assist him in carrying out his increased
responsibilities. In addition, a stronger pension advisory
committee will lead to greater opportunities for meaningful
consultation with RCMP plan members in the future.
I think these are important areas that need to have the
legislative background which will ensure that our police services
and the RCMP in particular have the kind of provisions that are
necessary. Bill C-78 does that. Therefore, I would urge all
members of the House to support it because it is an important
initiative and one that benefits RCMP, wherever they may be in
Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
two short questions for the hon. member opposite.
Currently, there is no provision concerning the surplus of over
$30 billion in the funds' current accounts. With this bill, is
the government trying to do exactly what it did with the
surpluses accumulated in the employment insurance fund?
Does the government want to repeat what it did and use the
surplus in the public service pension plan for the same
purposes?
I would like to hear the hon. member opposite on this and I may
then have other questions for him.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member
opposite for her question. Of course there is no real analogy to
the EI fund as it exists. As members know, it was a decision of
the auditor general back in 1986 to have that fund put into the
consolidated revenue fund of the Government of Canada.
I think it is important to note that Bill C-78 is a strengthened
bill that will enable us to move forward as a government in a
very positive and meaningful way. It will ensure that pensioners
and people looking forward to that income will be able to enjoy
it in a way that is in their best interests and those of their
families. I think it is important to note that they will not
have to pay any more, nor will they have to pay any less.
It is important that we proceed with Bill C-78. It is an
important piece of legislation which will ensure that Canadians
on pensions will find the resources necessary to carry on with
the quality of life necessary for their circumstances.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Speaker, I want to go back to
the membership of the committee.
I do not know if the hon. member comes from a riding where there
are many union members, but I want to ask him how he feels about
the membership of that committee, on which unions members would
not truly be represented, and on which pensioners would not be
represented by a majority.
I find that the membership of that committee is tantamount to
the minister telling people “I will do as I have always done. I
will strike committees and appoint people who are on my side
through a bogus process”.
I would like to hear the hon. member on this point.
1715
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I think it is important to
keep in mind and keep in perspective that the pension advisory
committee and board, as the hon. member refers to it, will in
fact be a much strengthened committee. It will underscore the
commitment of the government to ensure that men and women from
across Canada are placed in that position, to listen to all sides
and make recommendations which are important to people who need
that kind of advice and who are looking forward to that ability
to give it.
I say to the hon. member that as usual, we on the government
side will ensure that qualified people will be sitting on that
committee and will offer the kind of assistance that is necessary
for Canadians wherever they may live to ensure that their voices
are heard and that the right thing at the end of the day is done
on behalf of those people.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-78, what an incredible piece of legislation brought
forward by the Liberal government. I could not believe it when I
first saw it. It seemed more like a page out of MAD
magazine rather than serious legislation.
This bill will allow the tax and spend Liberal government to
seize the money for more government spending which is currently
held by public sector pension plans both now and in the future. A
new government appointed—not necessarily qualified, just
appointed—pension board with no employee representation will get
to manage the funds. The board will operate without the scrutiny
of the auditor general or parliament and will be exempt from
access to information laws.
In addition to seizing the surpluses in the employee pension
plans, this bill will also see the government increasing the
employee contributions. If these pension plans have a shortfall
in the future when the surplus has been spent or when the funds
have been mismanaged, the good old Canadian taxpayer gets to make
up the shortfall.
All this is crazy enough, but there is more. In order to
appease the justifiably upset pension plan members, the
government's bill states that “survivor benefits are extended to
an expanded class of beneficiaries”. It looks good from a
distance, Madam Speaker, but before you trade in your old
reliable car on the new improved model, take a closer look. Look
past the flashy paint job and you will find that on the new model
the tires are flat, the engine will not even idle and it is full
of electrical shorts. The new improved model does not even run.
Bill C-78 proposes to extend pension survivor benefits not only
to married couples but also to include couples who cohabit in a
relationship of a conjugal nature. The words survivor or
survivors replace all 249 references to spouse, wives, widow in
the current legislation.
In Bill C-78, pension benefits of the contributor will be paid
to the survivor. The definition of a survivor depends on the
term “a relationship of a conjugal nature”, that is, the
survivor must be in a relationship of a conjugal nature with the
contributor to qualify as a survivor. This is where it starts to
get strange. Nowhere is this critical term “a relationship of a
conjugal nature” defined in the bill. Yet other than married,
survivor eligibility depends on it.
Without defining this term, Bill C-78 survivor benefit
provisions will be subject to claims from individuals in all
manner of relationships which they deem to be of a conjugal
nature. If any two roommates regardless of gender who have lived
together for at least a year qualify for survivor benefits, the
cost of the plan could greatly increase and the good old Canadian
taxpayer will be picking up the tab.
What does conjugal mean? I looked it up. The Canadian Law
Dictionary, third edition states that conjugal rights are
“the rights of married persons, which include the intimacies of
domestic relations”.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, ninth edition, states that
conjugate means to unite sexually. To the extent that conjugal
means having sexual relations, one wonders how the government
intends to verify that the relationship is indeed conjugal in
nature.
1720
The profound irony here is that the party of Pierre Trudeau who
was famous for stating that the government had no business in the
bedrooms of the nation would now put forward a bill that seems to
call for the establishment of some sort of government conjugality
or sexual activity test or inspectors.
Perhaps it is proposing that some report be filed or a sign-off
by both people. Maybe it could just be added to the Statistics
Canada questions. Lord knows, they ask for every other kind of
personal information. No doubt, someone would get the bright
idea not only to report frequency but maybe quality. We could
compare ourselves with the Swedes. We could boost Viagra sales.
The mind boggles at the possibilities.
Interestingly, we do not have this problem with married couples,
because there is a legal recognition of their life commitment. No
conjugality assessment is required. This is probably a good
thing, particularly for MPs with the hours we keep and the time
away from home. I do not know about all of the other members,
but I am sure this lifestyle does not necessarily have a positive
effect on the conjugality component of our marriages.
How do these other relationships gain recognition as conjugal?
Is it just because they say so? How many roommates will claim
conjugality in order to get survivor benefits? What will the
cost be? If taxpayers are backstopping the entire plan, should
they not be informed?
There appears to be nothing stopping one from being in a
conjugal relationship with more than one person. If a person
cohabits with more than one person and they are “conjugal” with
them all, it appears they would qualify for survivor benefits
under Bill C-78. They all would. Conversely two roommates, the
same sex or otherwise, who are close and maybe share expenses,
but do not have intimate physical relations, do they qualify for
survivor benefits? If not, why not?
Are people included or excluded based on private physical
intimacy? Is this the new policy of the party that said the
government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation? The more
one thinks about it, the goofier it gets to tie survivor pension
eligibility for relationships outside of marriage on the
conjugality of the relationship.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would appreciate it if the hon. member addressed the bill. Right
now he is all over the map.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion this is not
a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, certainly this is Bill C-78 and I am
quoting directly from the bill. I do not understand the hon.
member's comments.
The more one thinks about this as I said, the goofier it gets.
To tie survivor pension eligibility for relationships outside of
marriage to the conjugality of the relationship without defining
what that means or how conjugality will be assessed, who is
included or excluded and on what basis, makes the whole terms and
the whole test meaningless. Essentially anything goes.
There was one little ray of light. Somebody was thinking and
there is one thing they did pick up on. The only thing they seem
to have limited for survivor benefits is when the survivor is
found to be criminally responsible for the death of the
contributor. No survivor benefits will be paid in that
situation.
I have seen some strange things done in the land of the Ottawa
sun, but this bill is a blatant grab for unaccountable control of
the surplus of the public sector pension fund. It is increasing
employee contributions and extending survivor benefits using
inappropriate and undefined terms and then placing all this mess
on the back of the Canadian taxpayer to bankroll.
The eventual screw-ups will be a wonder to behold.
1725
The capper will be when every Liberal member, many of whom I
respect in other circumstances, will dutifully vote in support of
such an outrageous blank cheque on the taxpayers' account.
I can see that you, Madam Speaker, are as awestruck as I am. It
is in that condition that I will take my seat.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
liked the beginning of my reform colleague's speech. He said we
had to ensure the long term viability of the system and that it
could be done while respecting the thousands of Canadian and
Quebec workers who paid into the plan. I agree. He also said he
found it suspicious that this act will not be audited by the
Auditor General of Canada.
I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.
I would also ask him if he could draw a parallel between the
treatment of the EI fund by the federal government and what it
intends to do with the public service pension plan.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, certainly I did say in
my speech that we do not know if this board that is intended to
be appointed is qualified for managing funds. They are just
appointed.
It will be required to have an auditor but that auditor is in no
way connected to the auditor general. These funds that now have
the scrutiny of the auditor general, that have public reporting
on how they are managed, will be hidden from public view and the
view of the pensioners perhaps. This is tragic. This is similar
to the EI scenario we saw this government use earlier to remove
accountability from the public arena. It is wrong and it is part
of the lunacy of this bill.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, if we dress up a thief in a three-piece suit and tie and
put him behind a desk and elect him to office and give him a
fancy title, is he still not a thief?
We have seen the unemployment insurance fund being raided by
government. It should be an insurance fund, but the government
has turned it into another tax to go into its general revenues.
The surplus in that EI fund is supposed to be $20 billion but
there is no fund. The money is not in the fund. It has been
spent.
Now with Bill C-78 we have the government looking to raid the
public service pensions, take the money in the fund and use it
just like all other tax revenues. This is robbery.
Just because the Liberal government ministers are confiscating
the money, taking the money that has been collected from civil
servants and using it like any other tax money collected by
government does not change the fact that it is theft. And we
know what someone who commits a theft is called.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I cannot agree more with
the intent of the question. Absolutely correct. This bill as I
said in my opening comments was more like a page out of MAD
magazine than a serious piece of legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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
1730
[Translation]
ISSUE OF CEREMONIAL STATEMENTS OF SERVICE ACT
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-453, an act to regulate the issue of ceremonial statements of
service and recognition of duty, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the member
for London—Fanshawe for seconding my bill and for believing in
what I am about to say.
This bill proposes that a certificate of service and duty be
issued to all war veterans who, for one reason or another, do
not carry tangible evidence of their service in war time for
their country. This is a bit of an aberration.
The reason I am saying this is that for the 20 years I have been
actively involved in federal politics, I have, on many
occasions, encountered veterans who were frustrated to see that
those who fought on the front or took a direct part in a
conflict are carrying a health card that they cherish.
The reason they do is because they have something tangible that
they can show, that they can leave to their descendants, proving
that they risked their life so that we, their juniors, would
always have our freedom and all our democratic rights.
The purpose of this certificate, which would take the form of a
laminated card, like a credit card, would simply be to
acknowledge that the bearer participated in a conflict.
Who would be eligible? First of all, veterans who went to the
front, obviously; then, members of civilian groups that
supported the Canadian armed forces, such as the Red Cross.
Also eligible would be members of the merchant marine, who were
recognized last year for their military participation during
World War II. Other candidates would include members of UN
peacekeeping missions and any other civilians who participated
directly in a war or armed conflict.
I introduced this bill for the specific purpose of letting our
veterans know that we greatly appreciate what they did during
these extremely difficult times. Just like those with health
cards, these persons were thirsty, afraid, hungry, cold, and
just as courageous as those who were wounded, except that they
were not fortunate enough, as it were, to earn that distinction
and be able to carry this small card.
This is a non-partisan and apolitical private member's bill. I
appeal to the common sense of all members of the House to pass
this bill.
In my discussions with them, I made it clear that there was no
question of any compensation. This was a concern for the great
majority of them. There is no compensation involved; this is
simply a certificate recognizing participation.
It is not the policy of the federal government, the Department
of Veteran Affairs or the Department of National Defence to give
compensation to those who were not injured during these
conflicts.
1735
How many people are we talking about? All in all, we are talking
about approximately 600,000 people who had some form of
involvement in these conflicts, including 450,000 veterans,
between 120,000 and 130,000 peacekeepers who served with units
dispatched to maintain peace in various countries, and about
5,000 others, including nurses and Red Cross staff, who would be
eligible for this card.
Who would issue these certificates? The Department of Veteran
Affairs, obviously. It would approve the application made by the
person who took part in the conflict or by a descendant in cases
where the person is deceased.
That is how the certificates would be issued.
In conclusion, Bill C-453 is relatively simple, non-partisan and
apolitical. I am proud to introduce this bill in the House today
so that I can promote it and ensure that all those who took part
in a conflict on behalf of Canada are recognized, and not just a
chosen few.
Such recognition is long overdue, and I sincerely hope the
opposition parties will support this bill at second reading
stage.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to contribute to this debate and commend the
hon. member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing this issue to the
House.
This is a non-votable matter, illustrating yet once again how it
may be preferable that all business in the House be votable. The
reason that all House business should be votable is that many
important legislative initiatives come from individual members
rather than from the government of the day.
We know from recent media commentary on House business that well
thought out legislative initiatives may be procedurally scuttled
by the government of the day based simply on the fact that it is
the private member rather than the government or its ministers
who is credited.
If the efforts of individual members are non-votable, what
transpires in the House is more of a discussion than a debate
with the advantage that there is no need for position
entrenchment. We are able despite our differences in political
outlook to arrive at a consensus as to a direction that is
generally positive and of benefit to Canadians. We may also air
our differences without the rancour and partisanship that often
accompany political posturing.
In the end the Hansard record acts as a permanent
reference to a moment in Canadian history when a particular issue
of merit was debated by members. It is up to us to make
Canadians aware of the importance of what goes on in this place.
Much is discussed that becomes fertile ground for historians 20
and 50 years hence but goes largely unnoticed by the contemporary
Canadian populace.
The issues before us today go to the heart of respect for our
history, the need to acknowledge service to Canada and the need
to counter historical revisionism which denies that war is an
imperative to historical progress. I wish we had a vote on
today's issue although I would have to oppose it.
Why should the bill introduced by the hon. member for
Timmins—James Bay be votable? It is because it raises the issue
of ceremonial recognition of veteran and civilian contributions
to Canada's war efforts. I would argue that any such recognition
should not be generally given but rather limited to those who
actually served in war.
In terms of recent developments in the House concerning our
merchant navy, even those who served in war had to wait some 50
years before being accorded ceremonial recognition simply because
they were not enlisted members of Canada's armed forces during
World War II.
1740
It may be said that during the two world wars some Canadians who
contributed to Canada's war effort were not ceremonially
recognized. In terms of subsequent conflicts it may be said that
many Canadians have contributed to our peacekeeping efforts and
that not all are ceremonially recognized.
In introducing this legislation last November, the member for
Timmins—James Bay described his motivation as having to do with the
fact that over the years he had met veterans on numerous
occasions who had nothing to show for their participation in
world conflicts. They may have been awarded service medals but
one does not carry medals on a day to day basis. They may have
been given lapel pins but some regard such pins as ostentatious regalia.
As I understand it, what the hon. member proposes is a
certificate comparable to a wallet size health card that wounded
veterans are now able to show to interested persons, much like a
wallet snapshot. In the case of the health card, it becomes a
snapshot of past life of valour. For those who were not wounded
in conflict there is no comparable snapshot to show someone and
say “I was a veteran of this conflict and stand before you today
as someone who has personally contributed to the defence of
Canada's interest”.
The bill however is flawed. First it is out of date. If the
member would take a look at subsection 2(c) he would notice that
it refers to the merchant navy under the old legislation. With
the passing of Bill C-61 they will now be full status war
veterans.
The idea of giving ceremonial recognition to those who
contributed to Canada's war efforts is a noble one and worth
exploring, but we must not be in too much of a hurry. The bill
as it currently stands is too broad and will diminish the
contribution of those who gave the most while elevating those who
played a less important role.
At this moment the war in Kosovo is expanding in what many would
regard as disturbing directions. Some have argued that Kosovo
should more properly provide NATO with an opportunity to reassess
its purposes and objectives. Yet a few short years ago our
soldiers were addressing peacekeeping issues in Bosnia, Rwanda
and Somalia. Many of these soldiers are no longer in active
service.
It was only in the last parliament that the creation of a medal
for service in Somalia was accepted by the House based on a
private member's initiative, that of Mr. Jack Frazer, the former
hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the predecessor to
current veterans affairs critic of Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition.
Would it not enhance our sense of history and military service
to Canada and the world if all such persons were able to carry a
wallet size certificate acknowledging their service? In this
regard I am pleased to report to the House that subsequent to
inquiries by my office of the War Amputations Canada, Mr.
Clifford Chadderton, chief executive officer, communicated to me
as follows:
The proposal to issue a ceremonial statement recognizing
individual contributions to Canada's war effort should have far-
reaching effect. Traditionally, veterans have been reluctant to
speak about their military service. The issuance of a ceremonial
statement of service may well serve as encouragement, so that
future generations will know what veterans and other members of
the military have done to preserve our freedom. However, as has
been noted, the legislation is inclusive, rather than exclusive,
through also permitting the ceremonial recognition of civilian
contributions to Canada's war and peacekeeping efforts. I feel
this is too broad a stroke to make.
Mr. Chadderton supports recognizing veterans and members of the
military, but the bill has much more in mind. In section 3 it
would allow any person who believes he or she helped Canada in a
significant way in a war or armed conflict in which Canada took
part or a veteran received recognition.
Does an armed conflict mean journalists covering the Oka crisis
can get a statement of service? Under this piece of legislation
it indicates that. All it would require is the individuals'
belief and they would get the recognition. They do not even have
to be on the conflict side of the ocean.
Would members of the House who stood to speak about the Kosovo
crisis believe they are worthy of official recognition for their
contributions to peacekeeping?
1745
Imagine how insignificant its true meaning would be. Under
clause 3(2) any spouse or descendant can apply for a deceased
person. Technically somebody could get certificates for their
great-grandparents with respect to the war of 1812.
We can easily see there are some flaws. I have some serious
questions as an individual. This has helped to formulate my
opinion on this. I am sure we could think of other examples that
are worth asking about.
One last analogy which came to mind on reviewing this bill is my
own family. My elderly father who just passed away operated a
factory in Toronto which supplied war materials during World War
II. Was that a contribution to the war effort? Should he
receive a certificate on my mother making application? Is this
the same certificate that somebody would have who was actually
engaged in the fighting?
With this in mind, I have to decline my support. I realize and
respect the initiative. I believe this would be a much more
commendable and worthwhile initiative if it focused on Canada's
military. I want to thank the member for his initiative, but
unfortunately I have to decline my support.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is also a
pleasure for me to take part in this debate and I hope that the
few comments I will make will be a positive contribution.
It is a very good idea to propose to reward or even only to
recognize the service of certain persons during an armed
conflict.
Of course I agree with the hon. member from the Reform Party
that this would not make a big difference for our veterans,
whose service is already recognized under the act, which,
incidentally, now gives merchant sailors the same privileges as
them.
But, many other persons distinguished themselves by their battle
exploits or simple acts of courage or voluntary work. These are
recognized with medals like the governor general medals, but for
various reasons, there are other anonymous persons who would not
qualify for such medals.
I think for example of a person who, during a war, would have
taken a group of soldiers in for a few days to hide them from
the enemy, protect them, feed them or treat their wounds. We
know that many people did that during world wars.
They are not necessarily Canadians. They could be foreigners. In
World War II, for example, Canadian soldiers on campaign in
Normandy were taken in by French men and women who fed them and
tended to their wounds. We should recognize not only Canadians,
but extend that recognition to other persons as well.
What is more important in life than being recognized by one's
peers? Those who work as volunteers never do it for money or
other financial considerations, but rather for the love of the
cause they believe in or for the sake of those they love.
Usually, these people do not ask for recognition, but when they
do get it, they are both pleased and honoured. It is a bit like
an honorary degree. When a university or a school decides to
recognize, on the basis of merit, the action, experience,
know-how, dedication or expertise of a person who is not one of
its graduates, it awards this person an honorary degree.
Many people would deserve the same kind of recognition for their
service at war or in humanitarian causes.
1750
People are not asking for any kind of compensation, and the bill
says so. Those who would receive a ceremonial statement could
not expect any compensation, benefit, or financial
consideration. The only purpose of the statement would be simply
to recognize people for their effort, work, dedication,
volunteer work or outstanding feats during a conflict in which
Canada was taking part.
This does not entail any financial commitment. We not need pass
any financial motion and the finance minister does not have to
figure out how much it would cost.
My understanding is that the bill introduced by the hon. member
for Timmins—Baie-James is simply intended to provide some official
recognition to those who deserve it because they served their
country and their fellow citizens.
I am happy to support this bill. Although it is not votable, I
hope that the comments and thoughts shared during the debate
will bring the government to reflect on this and come back later
with a votable bill this time.
As regards the concerns of the hon. member of the Reform Party
about the bill being too broad, not addressing such and such
point, or about the form this recognition would take, we can see
that the bill grants the minister enough discretion.
Like any other good bill, this bill could be followed by
regulations established by the minister. These regulations could
define more precisely in what circumstances and according to
what criteria the government could recognize that the actions of
a citizen entitle this person to a ceremonial certificate of
service.
This certificate should not be a mere piece of paper. It should
not be the kind that anyone can get. Otherwise, it would not
mean anything. This certificate would be proof that the actions
of a veteran were really extraordinary and special. It should be
a document that is not easily obtainable.
The specifics could be covered in regulations. I do not believe
it is necessary to put everything in the bill. The more you put
in a bill, the higher the risks of making a mistake and leaving
out certain circumstances.
This bill deserves support in order to show these people who are
still living quiet lives, unnoticed, that Canada, the country to
which they have made a great contribution, Canadians, Quebeckers,
are all grateful to them and acknowledge their contribution and
their work.
We would like the world to know about it. We would like to see
an official gesture showing that these persons have earned
recognition of their fellow citizens, not just a few lines in a
weekend newspaper or a little thank you when we happen to meet
them. We would like to say that they deserve our gratitude and
that we are pleased to set this recognition out in an official
document called a ceremonial statement.
Once again, I congratulate the Hon member for Timmins—James Bay
for preparing a bill like this. I trust that it will receive
the greatest possible support in the days and weeks to come.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House wish
to thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing this
bill to the House for debate. Any time we talk about veterans it
is very good.
I rise in support of this bill which would provide ceremonial
statements of recognition to those who have helped Canada in a
significant way in a war or armed conflict in which Canada took
part. There are many veterans and civilians who have contributed
much to this country through their efforts during wartime who are
owed a debt of gratitude from all Canadians. It would provide
one opportunity to show our respect to so many Canadians, many of
whom still fight for the recognition they deserve from this
government.
1755
I think of those who served with the Mackenzie—Papineau
Battalion fighting fascism in Spain. Those brave Canadians have
fought long and hard to get the recognition they deserve from a
Liberal government that would rather act as though they did not
even exist.
Recognition should also be given to the many who served with the
segregated No. 2 Construction Battalion in World War I. There are
also many aboriginal veterans who have been terribly mistreated
by the Canadian government who deserve recognition for their
efforts in the two world wars and in the Korean war.
I am pleased that my New Democratic colleague, the hon. member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle, is working to right this historical
wrong. I do wish there was capacity in this bill to right a
couple of terrible misdeeds of the Liberal government.
While this bill speaks of issuing ceremonial statements, it is
sometimes essential to go beyond statements of recognition.
The Liberal government has turned its back on the Canadian
veterans condemned by the Gestapo in the Buchenwald Nazi
concentration camp. The issue at hand is the seeking of
reparations by Canadian veterans who are members of the
Koncentration-Lager-Buchenwald Club. Out of 15 countries with
veterans condemned to Nazi concentration camps instead of POW
camps, Canada sits alone in not having reached a proper
resolution. We on this side of the House believe that is
absolutely shameful.
After years of presenting their case for compensation to deaf
ears in Ottawa, these veterans were presented cheques of barely
over $1,000 each. This compensation is nothing short of a
disgrace. One of the veterans, Mr. Bill Gibson, wrote “refused”
across the cheque and sent it back.
I just wish there were some way in this bill to force the
government to do the right thing and provide just compensation
for these veterans and successfully complete negotiations with
the German government to ensure a proper resolution is reached.
As well, I wish this legislation could redress the enormous
injustice done to Canada's merchant mariners. On November 24,
1998 in the House of Commons my hon. colleague from Halifax West
asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs to finally commit to a
just settlement with Canada's merchant marine.
The government has seen fit to provide an ex gratia payment to
Hong Kong veterans who were Japanese prisoners of war of $23,940
each. This payment was promised just last December and strikes
me as at least an effort to achieve a just settlement.
It is simply a disgrace that the government has betrayed
Canada's merchant mariners by refusing to compensate them for the
discrimination the merchant mariners faced upon their return home
from serving in Canada's war effort.
There are a great many Canadians who have done so much for our
country and who have not had the recognition they deserve. I
trust the government will support the bill, allowing for all of
them some of the recognition that is due.
If I may also say on a more personal note, on behalf of my
mother and father and my oldest brother Arnold who were rescued
and liberated by the Canadian veterans, who are here with us
today, and the many others who have already passed on, thank you.
To all the veterans of that time, to all the current military
personnel who are fighting for freedom of our country and for
liberation of free people around the world, my entire family will
forever honour the statement, lest we forget.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
it is with great pleasure that I speak on Private Member's Bill
C-453, entitled an act to regulate the issue of ceremonial
statements of service and recognition of duty.
It is a fitting tribute to the unsung heroes of Canada's past
wars. The member should be applauded for bringing this bill
forward.
The purpose of the bill is to enable the Minister of Veterans
Affairs to issue a ceremonial certificate of service to any
veteran or person who in the opinion of the minister helped
Canada in a significant way in a war or armed conflict in which
Canada took part.
It is important for the Government of Canada to say thank you to
Canadians. In our hearts we honour you for your service to this
country and your fellow Canadians at a time of peril.
I am also pleased to see that the merchant navy war veterans
were included. My colleagues, the hon. member for Saint John and
Senator J. Michael Forrestall and Senator Jack Marshall, have
worked long and hard to help these brave Canadians.
Sadly, during the second world war 80 merchant ships were lost.
There were 1,509 merchant mariners killed and 198 captured. The
merchant navy suffered a higher rate of casualty than any other
service.
The Government of Canada on May 19, 1941 by order in council
P.C. 14/3550 stated: “The merchant marine on which our seaborne
commerce depends, is, under present conditions, virtually an arm
of our fighting services, and the provision of merchant seamen,
their training, care and protection is essential to the proper
conduct of the war, and vitally necessary to keeping open of the
sea lanes on which the successful outcome of the present conflict
so largely depends”.
1800
After November 1942 merchant seamen were officially called the
Canadian Merchant Navy. Merchant mariners were treated as
prisoners of war by the multinational agreement after 1942.
Merchant mariners were subject to military law under admiralty
orders and discipline by the navy JAG. Merchant seamen were
subject to the “sail or jail” order by order in council P.C.
4751, the merchant seaman order of 1941, and P.C. 4312, the
merchant seamen foreign jurisdiction order of 1944.
There are an estimated 2,400 merchant navy veterans left and
that number is rapidly declining. They must be recognized for
their war service. My party and I are hoping for compensation
for these men and their families after years of neglect.
We hope that the government will move forward immediately with
compensation. The recognition of their services and other
services to Canada in time of war has been limited. This bill
would give further recognition to war veterans who have been
marginalized and forgotten. I think it is important recognition
for all of our veterans.
I have to say that the government has made another good move
just recently. I had the pleasure of attending a ceremony two
weeks ago for the John McCrae Medal, a medal brought out this
year for veterans of the first world war, recognizing that it has
been 80 years since that war.
In my riding there is a gentleman who is 102 years old who
received this medal. He fought in both the first world war and
the second world war. Also on hand for the ceremony was the
Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec who read a letter from the Queen.
Recognition like this is important, not just for the veterans
themselves, but for all of their families who attend these
ceremonies.
In summary, this is a very simple bill. Thus, on behalf of my
party, I support the bill.
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
always pleased to have an opportunity to speak about the
contributions that are made by the men and women of this country,
who since Confederation have answered the call to service
whenever their nation has asked.
Except for Veterans Week or perhaps during debate on a bill, we
do not often get the opportunity to speak to the sacrifices made
by our forefathers and mothers in time of need and in time of
war. Therefore, I thank the hon. member for presenting us with
such an opportunity today.
This bill suggests ceremonial certificates for those who
contributed significantly to Canada in a time of war or armed
conflict. Although the bill presents several logistical and
other concerns, it seems to me that its intent is all about
remembrance and acknowledgement of sacrifice.
We who live in Ottawa and work on Parliament Hill are reminded
of that sacrifice every day as we walk past the magnificent war
memorial on the way to work. On May 21 this year it will be the
60th anniversary of its unveiling by His Majesty King George VI.
One hundred thousand people showed up on that day, six decades
ago, to witness the dedication. His opening words were “The
memorial speaks to her world of Canada's heart”.
Surely that is what this nation has done in two world wars, in
Korea and in peacekeeping missions around the world. We spoke
with our hearts and said no to tyranny and enslavement.
We who live in Ottawa and work on Parliament Hill are fortunate
to be able to visit the memorial chamber in the Peace Tower to
see the magnificent books of remembrance, books that contain the
names of Canadians who fought in wars and died either during or
after them. They commemorate the lives of the 114,710 Canadians
who died since Confederation because of service to their country
in battle outside Canada. They remain testaments to our past,
for by their very title the books remind us never to forget the
foundations of courage on which Canada is built.
Now, through the wonders of technology, Canadians can log on to
the Internet to see for themselves the same pages which members
of the House have the privilege of accessing in person.
1805
We who live in Ottawa and work on Parliament Hill are reminded
that it was not just the soldier, the sailor, or the pilot who
risked their lives and shed blood; we are also reminded every
time we walk by the nursing sisters' memorial located in the Hall
of Honour in the Centre Block on Parliament Hill.
It tells the story of unyielding women who braved all the
hardships of war to do their duty and serve their patients, and
of those who nursed the casualties left in the wake of war. Every
soldier who fell wounded by bullet or bayonet would often wake
and the first person he would see would be the face of a nursing
sister who bound up his wounds and soothed his fears. They truly
were angels of mercy that no veteran would ever forget.
Of course, people do not have to live and work in Ottawa or on
Parliament Hill to see memorials and reminders of sacrifice. In
towns and cities across the nation are statues and monuments
raised in praise and remembrance of those who paid with their
very lives to uphold the values we hold so very dear in this
country.
Of course, not all monuments are of steel and stone. We have a
wonderful tradition in the provinces to name many of our
mountains, rivers and lakes in honour of individuals who made the
ultimate sacrifice. So in the natural beauty of this nation
their names and our history are memorialized in perpetuity.
Canadians are also well recognized overseas. Unlike our
American cousins, we have a tradition, like many of our
Commonwealth neighbours, of burying our war dead near where they
fell. To follow the contributions of Canada's veterans we need
only to visit the cemeteries that are filled with simple
headstones, laid out row on row across the landscape of Europe
and the Far East.
We need only to see the great monuments at Vimy or Beaumont
Hamel, at Cassino in Italy, Sai Wan Bay in Hong Kong, or Naechon
in Korea to appreciate that our war dead are not forgotten. We
need only to talk to the people and to the children and the
grandchildren of those nations we helped liberate to understand
that these Canadians will never be forgotten.
Those of us who have been fortunate enough to travel with
veterans overseas on a pilgrimage have only to watch the
expression in the eyes of a veteran when a child approaches. A
flower, a kiss on the cheek and a thank you from a little one
brings a tear to the eye and a true understanding of the notion
of gratitude to anyone who witnesses such a scene, and the
knowledge that these Canadians live on in the hearts and minds of
generations of grateful citizens the world over.
At the dedication of the war memorial 60 years ago, His Majesty
concluded with the following:
This memorial, however, does more than commemorate a great event
in the past. It has a message for all generations and for all
countries—the message which called for Canada's response. Not
by chance both the crowning figures of peace and freedom appear
side by side. Peace and freedom cannot be long separated. It is
well that we have, in one of the world capitals, a visible
reminder of so great a truth. Without freedom there can be no
enduring peace, and without peace no enduring freedom.
We will always remember those who have gone on before, and as we
pray today for the safety of our service men and women in
Yugoslavia and for freedom for those who have none, we would do
well to remember those words.
As I said earlier, Bill C-453 is all about remembrance and I
applaud the member for Timmins—James Bay for his efforts on
behalf of Canada's veterans.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to say that I have accomplished a lot here
today in the sense that four parties out of five recognize that
indeed this is a very good initiative. There have been comments
both positive and negative. I recognize also that in some
instances the bill may be too vague and too open to
interpretation.
1810
Nothing says that in the future I will not bring it back. I
repeat that this is a non-partisan bill. It is apolitical. Next
time around I will ensure that individual members of parliament
are given a second chance to reflect upon the value of the bill
in order to recognize once and for all those from near or far who
participated in world armed conflicts.
It should be a votable item. As all the members have mentioned
one after another, it is not often enough that in this country we
recognize the merits of those who went overseas to participate in
war on our behalf, to preserve our liberties and our democracy,
and not those who participated in a support manner and, as the
parliamentary secretary has said, in many different ways. These
people feel extremely important. They are proud of what they
have done for this country and somehow they need to be
recognized.
It is in this sense that some time in the future, maybe next
parliament if there is a prorogation, I will bring the bill back.
I am deeply convinced that good sense will prevail and that
individual members of parliament will recognize its merits and
will vote for it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): As no other member wishes to
participate in the debate and the motion was not selected as a
votable item, the time provided for consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, on March 11 of this year, I asked the secretary of
state responsible for agriculture a question regarding
shipbuilding, but I got an answer from the Minister of Industry
instead.
I remind members that the Secretary of State for Agriculture and
Agri-Food and Fisheries and Oceans is also the member for
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet and that his riding is next
to mine.
When there were 3,000 workers at the Lévis shipyard, 500 of them
came from his riding. A lot of people from his riding have
individually or collectively reminded him of that. I honestly
think that the secretary of state responsible for agriculture,
who is also a cabinet member, has tried to convince his cabinet
colleagues to adopt a new shipbuilding policy.
I have noticed that other members in the House have tried to do
certain things too, including the Minister of Labour who,
recently, commissioned a study on the status of shipyards in
Atlantic Canada.
Recently, I have seen a certain openness on the part of these
two people. Being a member of the industry committee, I have
also noticed recently a certain openness on the part of the
Liberal majority, which accepted to include shipbuilding in a
productivity study, and I am very happy about that.
I obviously would have liked something more specific, broader,
but it is an opening.
1815
However, the Minister of Industry failed to be as open. Yet
recently, he said “If the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière
has something to propose, other than grants, I will agree to
examine it”.
That is exactly what I did on April 15 when I introduced, like
my colleague opposite did a while ago, a private member's bill,
which may come up for debate.
People are mobilizing all over, and support has come from the
Liberal Premier of New Brunswick, Camille Thériault, who has
asked to meet the Prime Minister of Canada.
This follows on the fact that his predecessor, Mr. McKenna, had
put the same issue on the agenda of a first ministers'
conference two years ago. Even activists in the Liberal Party
of Canada, people from the Atlantic, managed to have a similar
position approved.
When, once again, will there be real policy on shipbuilding with
additional measures that will make Canadian shipyards more
competitive?
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon.
member from Lévis has given me the opportunity once again to
speak to the subject of shipbuilding.
The federal government acknowledges the important contribution
the marine industry makes to our national economy. The hon.
member is well aware of the generous package of measures the
federal government provides, which in conjunction with provincial
policies and sound industrial practices benefits shipbuilders.
This package includes an accelerated capital cost allowance
which many industries would like to have, a duty on ship imports,
a domestic procurement for all government shipbuilding and ship
repair needs, Export Development Corporation financing, and a
very favourable research and development tax credit system.
Despite this support the industry continues to face considerable
challenges in international markets. For instance, at the
December 1997 OECD workshop on shipbuilding policies it was
reported that a substantial overcapacity exists. In fact the
estimate for 2005 is 40%.
The Canadian shipbuilding sector went through a voluntary
industry led rationalization process in which the government
participated by contributing nearly $200 million. Through the
reorganization and streamlining of its operations over the past
decade, the Canadian industry has been able to improve its
productivity levels.
Concerning shipbuilding in Quebec, the federal government
invested almost $1.6 billion in Davey Industries during the
period of 1983 to 1996 in the form of contracts, contributions
and loan guarantees. Moreover, commercial arrangements by the
Export Development Corporation are currently moving forward to
provide additional support to this company through a loan
guarantee on the Spirit of Columbus.
In summary, substantial support has been provided to the
shipbuilding industry in the past and we continue to support it
through a variety of initiatives. If provinces wish to
supplement our initiatives, as has been done by Quebec and Nova
Scotia, they are free to do so.
[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 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.)