36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 44
CONTENTS
Thursday, December 4, 1997
1000
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Industry—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1005
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1010
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Environment and Sustainable Development
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA GRAIN ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-26. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1015
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-27. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-294. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1020
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Retirement Income
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Unity
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1025
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Retirement Income
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1030
1035
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1050
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1155
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1220
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1240
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1245
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1300
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1305
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1320
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1325
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1340
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1345
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1400
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DICK CARRICK
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAPLE LEAF PLANT CLOSURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALEX LING
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LUCIE BROUILLETTE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1405
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALBERTA WINTER GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1410
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND MINES
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEACEKEEPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC CITY COUNCIL
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TEAM CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1415
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SABLE ISLAND NATURAL GAS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE DEBT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1435
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANDU REACTORS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SABLE ISLAND NATURAL GAS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1440
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1445
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUMMA STRATEGIES
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOMALIA
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HAITI
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1450
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1455
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dan McTeague |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DUTY FREE SHOPS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORTATION OF TOXIC MATERIALS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1500
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Member for Okanagan—Shuswap
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1505
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1510
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Private Members' Business
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Energy Board
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1515
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
1520
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1525
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1540
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
1545
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1600
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1615
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1630
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1645
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1700
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1715
1740
(Division 51)
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA MARINE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-9. Report stage
|
1745
(Division 52)
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Motions Nos. 2 and 18 negatived)
|
(Division 53)
(Division 54)
1750
(Division 55)
(Division 56)
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Motion No. 19 agreed to)
|
(Division 57)
1755
(Division 58)
(Division 59)
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Motion No. 8 negatived)
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
(Division 60)
1800
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOY LABELLING
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1805
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1830
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1835
1840
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1845
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1850
1855
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1900
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Privacy
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1905
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1910
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1915
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 44
![](/web/20061116185607im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, December 4, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am now prepared to rule on
the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, November 25, 1997 by
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The hon. member first raised the matter on October 1, 1997, at
which time she contended that a preliminary draft report of the
Standing Committee on Industry was divulged in the last
Parliament. In the ruling which I delivered on October 9, 1997,
I indicated that while this was a matter of considerable
importance, it did not constitute a breach of privilege.
[English]
On Tuesday, November 25 the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre presented a letter from House of Commons legal counsel to
officials at the Department of Industry dated August 25, 1997.
That letter reiterated the principle that pursuant to the law of
parliamentary privilege, the House of Commons and its committees
are masters of their own proceedings.
The hon. member also suggested that rules for the handling of
committee documents might be subject to review by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I would like to thank the hon. member for providing the Chair
with a copy of this document and for her continued concern that
the proprieties of this House and its committees be observed. I
would also like to thank the government House leader and the hon.
member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for their interventions.
1005
First, I will repeat what I stated in my ruling of October 9. It
is clear both from the authorities and from earlier Speakers'
rulings that a breach of privilege in one Parliament may indeed
be punished by another.
I have carefully reviewed the documents submitted by the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre as well as the submissions made
when this issue was first brought before the House. I have also
examined the procedural arguments with some considerable
attention.
[Translation]
The hon. member made reference to citation 57 of Beauchesne's
6th edition. This citation states:
The House has in the past regarded the publication of the
proceedings or reports of committees sitting in camera to be a
breach of privilege. Unless, however, a specific charge is made
against an individual allegedly responsible, the Speaker has
refused to find a prima facie case.
[English]
Parliamentary procedure as set out in this citation and as
reflected in our practice is quite clear. Reports adopted by
committees must be tabled in this House prior to their
divulgation or publication. Similarly, what is said and done at
an in camera meeting must remain confidential.
With respect to the manner in which committees deal with other
aspects of their business, I will refer again to my ruling of
October 9, 1997. Committees have not only the right but also the
responsibility to manage their own affairs. They must be very
clear about how they expect draft reports and other confidential
material to be treated. As well, they must ensure that everyone
present at such meetings, including departmental officials, is
aware of their obligation to respect the confidentiality of the
proceedings.
The fact remains however that these are matters which fall
within the responsibilities of each committee. If irregularities
occur concerning their proceedings or reports, committees may
decide to report to the House on these matters. It is on the
basis of such a report that the House will then give
consideration to the situation.
After careful review, I am convinced that no new material
element is brought forward in the case which the hon. member
presented during her submission of November 25, 1997. I would
like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other
members who contributed to this question.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's responses to 15
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
as chairman of the Canadian group of the Interparliamentary
Union, I have the honour to present to the House in both official
languages the report of the Canadian group of the
Interparliamentary Union which represented Canada at the 98th
interparliamentary conference held in Cairo, Egypt from September
10 to 16, 1997.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the report of the Canadian section of the International
Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians as well as the financial
report of the meetings of the 23rd regular session of the IAFSP and its
executive committee, held in Luxembourg from July 7 to July 10, 1997.
1010
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both
official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association that represented Canada at the meetings regarding the
activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, held
in London, England, on February 17 and 18, 1997.
[English]
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the
honour to present in both official languages the report of the
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the meeting of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of
Europe from June 19 to 25, 1997 in Paris and Strasbourg, France.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the first
report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development.
In accordance with Standing Order 108(2), the committee
undertook an analysis of the harmonization initiative of the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
I have the pleasure of presenting this report to the House.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to make a few comments on the report which was just
tabled and note that our minority report is attached to it.
The Reform Party members on the committee support the
establishment of clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over
environmental matters while upholding national standards.
We would like to emphasize that it is crucial to eliminate
unnecessary duplication and overlap in the most cost effective
manner. The more money saved by streamlining the system, the
more money left to protect the environment.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 14th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of
the Standing Committee on Transport. If the House gives its
consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 14th report later
this day.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an act to amend
the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA GRAIN ACT
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, an
act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and
Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the
Grain Futures Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1015
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, an act to amend
the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act
to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the
Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the
Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries treaties
or arrangements.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-294, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act (victims' rights).
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for
North Vancouver for seconding this bill. I am privileged to
introduce this Private Members' Bill which will amend the
Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
with respect to the rights of victims of crime.
It has been my personal experience that victims of crime do not
seek to control or exert undue influence over due process in our
criminal justice system. They merely seek to be included in that
process and to be accorded the same considerations similar to
those shown to offenders.
Among the most frequent complaints heard are those related to
notification of proceedings and the inability to be heard from
during the process. This bill intends to address those issues
among others. For years now there has been much talk in this
place about issues relating to victims of crime. It is time to
dispense with the rhetoric and actually do something.
I urge all members to give careful consideration and support
these amendments.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1020
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): If the House gives
its consent, I move:
That the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
RETIREMENT INCOME
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased and
honoured to present three petitions on behalf of my constituents
in Winnipeg North Centre and other Manitobans who are deeply
concerned about the future of Canada's retirement system.
They raise concerns about current government plans vis-à-vis
Bill C-2 and about future proposals to change the guaranteed
income supplement and the old age security.
They would like a publicly administered universal pension plan
which ensures that all Canadians, not just the wealthy, can look
forward to a secure retirement.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
from a number of Canadians, including some from my riding of
Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
They also point out an agreement with the National Forum on
Health report on investing in children that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families which choose to provide direct
parental care because it does not recognize the true cost of
raising children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue tax initiatives that would assist parents who choose to
provide care in the home for preschool children.
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is my pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two
petitions to the House.
One petition is signed by 50 Canadians from both British and
Columbia and the province of Quebec. They pray that the
Parliament of Canada will continue to see that this country of
ours is indivisible and that it can only be modified by a free
vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition is from 42 constituents of Nanaimo—Cowichan
and they request that Parliament review and change relevant
provisions of the Criminal Code to ensure that men take
responsibility for their violent behaviour toward women.
I agree with these petitioners.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 34 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Svend Robinson:
With regard to the costs associated with destaffing lighthouses
in British Columbia, could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
please provide for the fiscal years 1994-95, 1995-96,
1996-97, and 1997 up to Octover 27, 1997, a complete accounting
for all financial costs related to developing, putting in place
and servicing the hardware infrastructure for the seven
lighthouses the gouvernment has already destaffed in British
Columbia?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Without compromising safety, eight lightstations in the Pacific
region of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were approved
for destaffing during 1996-97: Active Pass, Ballenas Island,
Discovery Island, Point Atkinson, Porlier Pass, Race Rocks,
Saturna Island, and Sisters Islets.
Summary of Costs ($000s)
1994/95—1995/96—1996/97—1997/98 to Oct. 27th
Capital Cost—Nil—467—426—Nil
Servicing Cost—1,329—1,329—600—50
The above capital figures reflect one time start-up costs.
The projected savings from the modernizing and automating
project for these eight lightstations is $1,243,000 annually.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams:
Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
PETITIONS
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam, Speaker,
I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of in excess of
400 people, pursuant to Standing Order 36, calling on the
government to amend sections 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code
with respect to indecent acts and public nudity.
I have the honour to present that.
1025
RETIREMENT INCOME
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
too, pursuant to Standing Order 36, would like to on behalf of
Canadians table two petitions calling on this Parliament to
rescind Bill C-2 which imposes massive premium hikes and reduces
benefits, and also petitioning the House for a national review on
the retirement income system in Canada.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
Hon. David Anderson (for Minister of Finance, Lib.): moved
that Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board and to amend the Canada pension plan and the Old
Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on
third reading of Bill C-2, the legislation that will secure the
Canada pension plan for Canadians now and in the future.
One of the most important social policy initiatives ever
undertaken in this country, the Canada pension plan has been a
key part of the retirement plans of every Canadians since 1966.
It has also helped our most vulnerable citizens, the disabled,
the widowed and the orphaned. That being said, the Canada pension
plan is now under growing pressure and needs to be changed before
it is too late.
The fact is that when the CPP was created, there were eight
working age people in Canada for every retired person. Today
there are five. In 30 years there will only be three.
The current 5.85% legislated CPP contribution rate was scheduled
to rise to 10.1% by 2016. If nothing is done, CPP contribution
rates will have to increase to over 14% to cover escalating
costs. That is a 140% increase for future generations and
certainly that would be an unacceptable fate for our children and
our grandchildren.
It does not have to be that way if we act today to address the
problems that we anticipate for tomorrow. As joint stewards of
the Canada pension plan, the federal government and the provinces
agreed last February to restore the financial sustainability of
the Canada pension plan and in fact to make it fairer and more
affordable for future generations.
Bill C-2 incorporates the changes proposed in that agreement and
also reflects the views expressed by Canadians during last year's
cross country public consultations. Some have said that these
changes are being rushed but allow me to set the record straight.
It is the continuing delay that threatens the CPP and in fact it
is the delay in facing up to the very real challenges confronting
the Canada pension plan.
In February 1995 the government tabled the fifteenth actuarial
report on the Canada pension plan which showed as I just
mentioned that if changes were not made to the Canada pension
plan the fund would be exhausted by 2015 and the contribution
rate would have to jump to over 14%.
In 1996 the federal government and the provinces released a
paper on the problems facing the Canada pension plan. They held
consultations with Canadians in every province and territory and
released a report on those consultations.
In February 1997 we reached a landmark agreement with the
provinces. There were then two draft bills released and in fact
it is beyond me how anyone can say that we are rushing the Canada
pension plan reforms. Clearly we have ensured that the problems
that face the Canada pension plan as we move into the next
millennium are being addressed and they are being addressed in
consultation with all Canadians.
What I do know is that Canadians were legitimately concerned
that their Canada pension plan would not be there for them when
they retire. They told the federal and provincial governments to
act now. They told us that they want to be able to count on
their Canada pension plan now and in the future and they want it
fixed, not privatized and not scrapped.
1030
They also told us to do this in a way that does not pass on an
insupportable cost burden to younger generations and they clearly
told us to preserve the CPP by strengthening its financing,
improving its investment practices and moderating the growing
cost of benefits.
Canadians want and need the Canada pension plan but they want
changes as well. We have listened and I believe that is what in
fact Bill C-2 is all about.
The Canada pension plan's pay as you go financing may have been
fair and appropriate back in 1966 but not in today's or in
tomorrow's world. Building up a larger fund, fuller funding and
earning a higher rate of return through investment in the market
is now necessary to help to pay for the rapidly growing costs
that will occur once baby boomers begin to retire.
Accordingly, the Canada pension plan will move from a pay as you
go financing with a small contingency reserve to fuller funding
to build a substantially larger reserve. Fuller funding means
that the fund will grow substantially for about two years of
benefits to about four or five years over the next two decades.
Until 2003, CPP contribution rates will increase in steps to
9.9% of contributory earnings and then remain steady. This
steady stated rate is expected to be enough to sustain the Canada
pension plan with no further increases.
During the consultations on CPP, ordinary Canadians and pension
experts alike told us to improve the way CPP funds are invested
and to secure the best possible return for contributors and
beneficiaries.
Under the proposed new investment policy, instead of being
loaned to provinces at preferential rates as they are now, Canada
pension plan funds will be prudently invested in a diversified
portfolio of securities in the best interests of plan members,
like other pension funds.
An independent CPP investment board composed of 12 directors
from a range of backgrounds will oversee investment policy for
the fund. The board will in turn hire qualified investment
professionals to manage the day to day investment decisions at
arm's length from governments. The board will operate under
broadly the same rules as other private and public sector pension
funds and that means responding to market conditions, adopting
investment policies and hiring qualified investment
professionals.
At the same time, the board will be accountable, accountable to
plan members, accountable to government and accountable to
Canadians generally. I am pleased to report that the experts in
pension fund management who testified before the finance
committee agreed that Bill C-2's accountability provisions are
in fact stringent and leading edge.
The same experts told us that the key to good investment
practices and results is good management structures and
that these provisions are in Bill C-2 and are extremely sound.
While this bill was before the House finance committee, a number
of committee members were particularly eager to ensure that the
accountability provisions of the bill were as stringent as
possible. Once again, expert witnesses confirmed that the
legislation was very rigorous in this area.
Moreover, two amendments for which there was support in
committee were made at report stage to clarify the accountability
of the board. The first one clarifies the auditor general's
access to any information he considers necessary from the
investment board to audit the consolidated financial statements
of the Canada pension plan.
The other amendment requires that a special examination of the
Canada pension plan investment board be conducted at least once
every six years.
Through Bill C-2, stewardship of the Canada pension plan is also
improved and its public accountability strengthened. Canadians
will receive regular statements about their pensions.
Federal-provincial reviews will take place every three years
instead of every five years. Annual reports will be published on
the fund and tabled in Parliament and regular public meetings
will be held in each province.
Through consultations with Canadians, some modest changes to
benefits will accompany these financing and investment policy
changes, but let us be clear, some benefits will not change as
well.
1035
For example, anyone currently receiving Canada pension plan
retirement pensions or disability or survivor benefits will not
have their benefits affected in any way. All benefits will
remain fully indexed to inflation, except the one-time death
benefit. The ages of retirement will remain unchanged.
The changes that are being proposed are moderate and balanced.
Indeed their impact on vulnerable Canadians has been minimized
and no one group has been singled out or forced to shoulder an
undue burden.
During the public consultations on the CPP, Canadians told their
governments to go easy on changes to benefits. Again, we have
listened.
The changes to the Canada pension plan keep the contribution
rate from rising to the 14.2% it would have reached had we not
acted.
Seventy-five per cent of the changes that will ensure the
sustainability of the CPP are on the financing side and only 25%
are on the benefit side. Once again, this reflects what
Canadians told their governments during the public consultations.
Let me take a few moments to refute some of the myths being
spread by members of the other side of this House and by some
special interest groups.
Critics claim that youth gets a raw deal from these changes.
Some have actually stated that young Canadians will contribute
one dollar for every fifty cents they will collect. Let us be
absolutely clear. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All
Canada pension plan contributors, both present and future, will
receive more from the Canada pension plan than they pay in.
Young people can expect to receive $1.80 for every dollar of
contributions. The return can only be higher if governments were
prepared to renege on the existing commitments to seniors already
receiving pensions and to working Canadians expecting pensions
when they retire. We will not turn our backs on these Canadians.
We will not renege on these commitments.
Some hon. members have also stated that CPP contributions will
increase by 73% and charge that this is the biggest tax grab in
history. CPP contributions are not taxes and Bill C-2 is not a
tax grab. CPP contributions are savings toward pensions. They go
into a separate fund, not into government coffers, and will be
invested like other pension plans.
Let us get the facts straight. Contributions will increase over
the next six years to 9.9%. However, that is also the end of the
increases. What the critics never mention when they criticize
the increase to 9.9% is that the CPP contribution rates are
already scheduled to reach 10.1% in the year 2016 and without the
changes that we are proposing, the Canada pension plan would soar
to 14.2% in the year 2030.
Is that what the hon. members of the opposition parties prefer,
a 140% increase? It is certainly not what the government
prefers. It is certainly not what Canadians have said during the
consultation period. In fact, it is certainly not what is
contained in Bill C-2.
Other members argue, and the hon. member from the Conservative Party
continues to argue this, that the higher CPP contributions should
be offset by EI premium rate reductions. I know that it takes
some time to communicate and understand these facts for some hon.
members.
Let me again state quite clearly that the EI program and the
Canada pension plan are totally separate programs serving
different purposes. Furthermore, the government has already
announced EI rate reductions for 1998 that more than offset the
Canada pension plan increases. We are committed to bringing down
the EI rate further just as soon as we can afford to do so.
Then there are groups that contend that not only will these
changes take $157 billion out of the economy but that each 1%
increase in payroll taxes will mean the loss of up to 176,000
jobs.
Quite clearly the allegations are wrong and I want to take this
opportunity to ensure that the record states very clearly that
these allegations are wrong.
1040
I reiterate that higher CPP contributions are not payroll taxes.
Canadians have viewed and will continue to view their CPP
contributions as retirement savings. They can see, as members on
this side of the House can see, through the transparent rhetoric
of these special interest groups. The reforms that we are
proposing will generate important and lasting benefits for
Canadians.
Let me continue with the myths. Some hon. members continue to
talk about better returns through privatized pensions. These
members owe it to Canadians to explain exactly what they would do
with the CPP's outstanding obligations to Canadians. There is no
question that registered retirement savings plans are important
and that is why they are one of the three pillars in the
retirement system of Canada. But they cannot replace public
pensions.
Canadians told governments during the public consultations that
they want the security provided by the CPP as a public plan. They
do not want all their retirement savings dependent on their
ability to second guess the fluctuations of the stock market. And
I am sure that members opposite have been watching the
fluctuations in the stock market lately and I am sure that the
recent events have reinforced the priority that Canadians give to
security even though it has not reinforced anything from members
opposite.
Let us look at the costs. The cost to contributors for the
Canada pension plan benefits will be 6.1%. Could mandatory RRSPs
really provide equivalent or better benefits at lower costs than
the CPP? The answer is no. With the new investment policy the
Canada pension plan fund will earn as good returns as anyone
investing privately could expect to earn. Furthermore, the CPP
has the added advantage of having the government stand behind the
benefits.
The administrative costs of the CPP and the cost of investing
the pool of CPP funds will be considerably lower than the cost
associated with administering millions of individual plans. We
had expert after expert come before the committee who continued
to say and reinforce the point that the administrative costs
associated with mandatory RRSPs and administering millions of
individual accounts was far greater than the administrative costs
of the Canada pension plan.
In addition, the CPP protects families when an income earner
becomes disabled or dies, and it protects the pensions of parents
who take time out of the workforce to care for young children. So
when we add it all up the fact is a reformed CPP will cost less
than a retirement saving done exclusively through a mandatory
program of RRSPs, at least one percentage point less.
Let me turn to the extra cost of paying for the burden of the
$600 billion unfunded liability. Members opposite have talked
about scrapping the CPP and moving to mandatory RRSPs, but they
have never clearly explained how they would do that. Let those
who would scrap the CPP explain to Canadians whether they are
going to renege on the promises to Canadians who are now retired.
Let those who are still working and counting on receiving CPP
when they retire have the security that is provided in Bill C-2,
ensuring that the public pension plan is there for them.
Mandatory RRSPs do not do that. Reneging on the Canada pension
plan liability does not do that. That is what members opposite
want.
Let those who would scrap the CPP explain how they will deal
with Canada pension plan's $600 billion in outstanding
obligations. Are they going to deal with this within the CPP? If
not, how will they raise the revenues or make spending cuts to
pay for these obligations? It is time for them to stop their
fiction and fantasy. It is time for them to come clean with
Canadians and give Canadians the straight goods.
1045
The problems facing our pension system are not unique to Canada.
Many countries are making changes so their pension systems will
also be sustainable. Some have recommended moving toward
increased funding of public plans, which is exactly what we are
doing with Bill C-2.
The legislation will make Canada one of the first, if not the
first, major industrialized countries to ensure sustainability of
the public pension system in the next century. It is forward
looking and above all it is fair. I urge hon. members to give
their full support to the bill.
Generations of Canadians, our children and our grandchildren,
need our leadership today to protect their interests tomorrow.
Bill C-2 does that. It does that after consultations with
Canadians.
The Standing Committee on Finance is continuing the
consultations with experts and other groups that come before the
committee. They have overwhelmingly supported Bill C-2 in its
balanced approach. Bill C-2 will continue to monitor the Canada
pension plan. Bill C-2 will continue to provide Canadians with
the security they expect and deserve from their Canada pension
plan.
I ask members not to continue with their rhetoric but to deliver
the facts to Canadians and ensure the bill passes third reading
and becomes legislation so that Canadians have the peace of mind
they deserve.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, today we are at third and final reading of Bill C-2, a
bill to amend the Canada pension plan. I emphasize the
importance to Canadians of the legislation. It will affect
millions of them throughout their working lives and into
retirement. It directly touches over 13 million Canadians today,
millions more who have yet to enter the workforce, and even
millions yet unborn.
We as parliamentarians have a tremendous responsibility when we
look at such far reaching legislation. Unfortunately the Liberal
dictatorship of today has allocated scant hours to debate a bill
that will affect millions of Canadians and their futures.
Retirement security is a key concern of all Canadians. Yet the
Liberal government is making it more and more difficult for
Canadians to have a secure retirement. Changes to seniors
programs like the OAS program will put $7 billion to $8 billion
in the pocket of the government and take it away from retirement
security for Canadians. RRSPs are continually being cut back by
the government. The level of CPP contributions has been frozen.
The finance minister is now taxing RRSPs a full two years earlier
than in the past. How are Canadians supposed to save for
retirement with these shenanigans by the Liberals?
Once a person retires and is able to salvage a little income
from these Liberal measures then taxes keep rising. People on
fixed incomes are hit the hardest by this sort of thing. We are
in a very serious situation today in terms of retirement due to
Liberal measures like the bill.
We need to look closely at the bill to see exactly what it
delivers to Canadians and what it does not. I believe Canadians
care about four things when it comes to measures that affect
them, their money and their future. They care about fairness.
They want a scheme that is fair. They want value for their
money. They want real security. They want things to be done
with integrity.
The Liberals know how much these words mean to Canadians and
that is why they use them repeatedly. The words were used over
and over in the speech of the parliamentary secretary.
What is the reality behind this Liberal rhetoric?
1050
First let us talk about fairness. The Liberals use this word a
lot when talking about the bill but here is the reality. Due to
shockingly disastrous mismanagement by past Liberal and Tory
governments the Canada pension plan has an incredible $600
billion unfunded liability. That is the reality. That is where
we are today yet these people are asking us to trust them to do
the right thing. For the last 30 years they have put us almost
$600 billion in the hole.
The Liberals say there is no problem, that they will lay the
burden on our kids, make them pay nearly twice as much and give
them less in benefits. What could be simpler? However it does
not fit with any definition of fairness I have ever heard. One
of our members called it legalized mugging. That about sums it
up.
The young people of our country have already inherited a $600
billion national debt. It has been shoved on their credit card.
They face increased health and other costs due to the aging
population. Is it fair to put the second CPP national debt
largely on their shoulders? Most Canadians would agree the
answer is no.
Interestingly enough—and this has not escaped Liberal
notice—this is the same group of Canadians which is least likely
to be old enough to be politically active. They are not yet old
enough to vote in many cases or they have not yet been born. What
this amounts to is taxation without representation. Is that
fair? Only for a Liberal.
Low income Canadians are forced to pay a larger proportion of
their income into the scheme than those with higher incomes.
Therefore the burden of the unfunded liability will fall most
heavily on lower income Canadians. It is no wonder there is a
problem with child poverty. The Liberals make families poor and
then ask to be elected so they can fight child poverty. Go
figure. Only a Liberal could find fairness in forcing those
least able to pay, to pay the most.
The new CPP scheme is unfair in at least three major ways. It
places the burden of past mismanagement on those already
disproportionately burdened. It places the burden of past
mismanagement on those least able to object. It places the
burden of past mismanagement on those least able to pay.
I have a letter written by grandparents which reads in part:
While we appreciate something has to be done about the shortfall
looming ahead, we don't think this is the answer. I have always
believed that we should have been able to invest our own
contributions for a much greater return, perhaps as high as
fourfold estimated by some.
While I am already collecting my CPP payments, and Jeanne will
be in about two years, between us we have seven children, 16
grandchildren and one great-grandchild expected next week.
We have great concerns as to the potential impact this Liberal
tax grab will have on them.
Furthermore, this legislation is being pushed through the House
by the Liberal majority without proper and sufficient democratic
debate before the Canadian people. Shame on them.
That letter is from Canadian citizens. Sadly these changes fail
the test of fairness.
Let us turn to the question of value. Canadians have a heritage
of thrift and of getting value for their money. They are prudent
people. How wisely and well does this plan give us value for
hard earned dollars contributed? In a nutshell this Liberal
scheme extracts massive amounts of dollars from the young and
then pays a return that is far less than the real value of their
contributions.
Self-employment is the fastest growing sector in our labour
market. A self-employed person entering the labour force today
and earning the average industrial wage will pay over $3,200 a
year into the CPP. These contributions, paid until age 65, will
total between $1.6 million and $2 million over a working
lifetime. Let us split the difference and say that it is $1.8
million. That assumes an inflation rate averaging about 3.5% and
a very modest real return on investment of between 3% and 4%.
Assuming that this person will then draw the full CPP for 20
years, he or she would collect in total just over $900,000.
1055
Let us review that. It cost $1.8 million and the return was
$900,000. A good deal for whom, the contributor? No. For the
government trying to cover its tracks? Yes, and that is the
whole point of the scheme. It is little more than legalized
theft from today's young.
The chief actuary for the CPP and others have looked at the
investment return to contributors in another way. They have
calculated the rate of return per year on the value of the
contributions. The chief actuary, in his 16th report in
September, showed that the return to the youngest contributors to
the plan would be 1.8%. Can anyone imagine this? That is about
one-half of the real rate of return offered by Canada savings
bonds and about one-third of the real rate of return one could
expect from long term, high quality corporate bonds.
Members opposite would have us believe this is a fair deal, that
this investment represents good value for young Canadians. A
graph shows that the value of these contributions for young
Canadians goes beyond the break even line in about 2011, a few
years from now. Yet the Liberals would have us believe that this
is good value for our money. I do not think so and I do not
think our young people think so.
Members opposite need to get it through their heads that this is
not value for money and it will not take Canadians very long to
figure that out. The impact of the bill must also strike
Canadians as mean spirited and unfair in another way.
What we have is regulation that leads to disguised or hidden tax
increases. Nickels and dimes to start with but eventually
totalling millions and then billions. A leading social policy
analyst calls it taxation by stealth. The CPP bill is a good
example.
The Liberals inserted a sentence of 14 words which reads:
For each year after 1997 the amount of a year's basic exemption
is $3,500.
This $3,500 exemption used to be tied to inflation and it would
rise as inflation rose. No more. It will be $3,500 period.
Instantly we have a small payroll tax increase on small
businesses and workers in Canada without media or public
recognition, let alone any debate on the increase.
Freezing the year's basic exemption at $3,500 means that each
year the value of this deduction decreases by the amount of
inflation. Perhaps it is only 2% or 3% a year, but over time the
value of the deduction is seriously eroded. As a consequence,
the amount of earnings subject to CPP increases slightly each
year. Everyone, workers and employers, pay extra dollars each
year in addition to the premium increases for the same pension
benefit.
The burden is heaviest on those with the lowest incomes because
the exempted amount accounts for less and less in real value
every year. They steadily pay more of an already small income
and this hits them harder than if the exemption protected a
larger percentage of their total earnings. They need that
protection which is why the exemption was put there in the first
place. The Liberals are allowing it to be stealthfully eroded
away. No wonder families are getting poorer all the time. No
wonder there is growing concern about child poverty.
What is so repugnant is that the same Liberals who loudly
protest that child poverty is their highest priority are creating
the very poverty they claim to be so concerned about. They say
they will cure child poverty. It is like hiring a mugger to get
out of debt.
Another interesting letter states:
We are two young, hard working people struggling to make ends
meet. One of us works two eight-hour jobs full time just so we
can catch up to our bills and maybe get an apartment before
December. We are living in a truck.
We are not irresponsible. We just got suddenly relocated and
brought a lot of responsibilities with us, but it is hard to
catch up for those of us who are counting every penny. This
would kill us. If we end up giving more money to the government
it will inevitably destroy us. Besides, we would rather manage
our money in our own way and in our own name than dump it into
some mysterious fund that may not exist when we retire.
This is what young Canadians are saying.
1100
If there is value in this plan, it is certainly not going to
workers and businesses which pay most of the freight. If this
scheme is clearly unfair and does not provide good value for
money investment, does it at least have the virtue of providing
security? Will the dollars being extracted from us be worth it
in the end because they will go toward the good cause of
guaranteeing every Canadian an $8,700 a year pension after they
retire?
Will the fact that some investors will get a low return be
justified because government management pools the risk and no one
has to worry about not getting the $8,700 a year? It will be
there for sure. No worries, count on it. Is that the situation?
First of all, the future security of this Liberal CPP scheme
rests on the assumptions that the young will willingly continue
to pay into the plan when they know that less than half the real
value of their substantial investment will be returned to them
personally.
Do we honestly believe our children and grandchildren will, let
alone should, make a large investment out of their earnings and
accept a small return so that the rest can be used to pay for
promises made to those who came before them, promises not backed
up by the money to make good on them?
The security of our expected CPP benefit rests largely on our
belief that younger generations will willingly shoulder the
lion's share of what amounts to a second national debt once they
are old enough to take political power. I suggest we think long
and hard about the likelihood of that happening.
The future security of this Liberal CPP scheme rests on the
reliability of the assumptions that led to its construction. The
government assumes that 9.9% in contribution rates over the next
century will deliver the promised benefits. How reliable are
those assumptions? Are they any more reliable than the
assumption in 1967 that contribution rates would never have to
rise above 5.5%? That is what we were told at that time.
Now, in less than a generation, our contribution rate has soared to
nearly twice that and the benefits we were promised then have
already been cut back. Benefits are being cut in this bill
by Liberals who, in the same breath, are trying to maintain that
promises of government are reliable while they are demonstrating
that they clearly are not. This very bill is exhibit A of the
fact that the CPP is not a sure thing. It reneges on the
promises that were made to us when we started working and paying
30 years ago. Now we are suddenly told we will get less. Who
can honestly believe this will be the last time the Liberals will
say oops, we cannot give you quite as much as we said we would?
Just like they said oops, we cannot get rid of the GST like we
said we would.
The fact is the CPP is not a pension plan. It is a political
promise backed up by only government's ability to tax from
citizens the funds needed to pay for the promises. Political
promises change with changes in power. They change with changing
reality. They change with circumstances and with shifts in voter
support.
No one disputes that political promises are not something to go
to the bank with and they are certainly not something to retire
on.
I have a letter from a family that says this: “We are a young
family who are struggling to make it from month to month. Losing
more of our earnings through an increase in CPP is only going to
make it more difficult for us to meet our financial
responsibilities which include repaying student loans and raising
two preschool children.
“We have worked very hard to ensure that we are responsible for
our decisions by paying our student loans off at a faster rate
and raising our children the best we can. Things like owning our
own home, contributing to an education fund for our children or
taking family vacations once seemed to be attainable, but they
are fast becoming more a dream than a reality.
“Young Canadians like myself are angry that we are being told
to pay for our government's poor financial planning, especially
when we have no hope of receiving anything from the CPP in our
senior years. Governing one of the greatest countries in the
world does not excuse nor give licence to making faulty decisions
that adversely affect our country's citizens. Our politicians
may not notice the increased CPP deduction on their paycheque,
but my family certain will”.
1105
That is how real Canadians feel about how secure this plan is.
Third, the future security of the Liberal CPP scheme rests
on the assumption that the new billions of dollars that the
Liberals are going to extract from Canadians with this bill will
be managed to earn the best possible rate of return. Once again,
the Liberals have set up in this bill a huge fund which will
extract billions of dollars of our CPP contributions into it.
Who is going to manage all this loot? It is going to be 12 hand
picked Liberal appointees. Once again the Liberals try to fool
us by saying all the right words. It will be arm's length. It
will be transparent. There will be prudent management. But the
reality makes their feel good rhetoric ring hollow.
The reality is that the Liberals voted down every amendment
brought forward by the opposition parties that would really make
the fund management even moderately arm's length from political
interference. One of the measures turned down would have the
minister taking advice from an advisory committee on who would
sit on it. That was turned down. The auditor is going to be
appointed from year to year. There was an amendment to make that
appointment for a longer period of time. That was turned down.
There was an amendment that the chairperson be elected by the
majority of the members of the board. That was turned down. It
will be the minister's hand picked appointee. I could go on and
on. There were so many amendments brought forward that the
Liberal majority just went thumbs down on.
In fact, only significant pressure even made the Liberals
acknowledge that Canadians' own auditor general should have
unrestricted access to fund information. Of course regular
Canadians are out of luck. The fund's operations are not even
subject to access to information.
Yet this fund will soon have a massive proportion of Canada's
total equity pool. The implications are staggering for its
impact on the total economic structure of our country. But we
have 12 hand picked Liberal appointees who will wield enormous
influence in our economy. The government says it will be happy
if the fund earns a real rate of return of 3.8%. The potential
for unfair and unintended uses of such economic clout are
staggering.
In fact even before the bill passes other parties in this House
are already arguing that the fund should be open to be used for
political objectives. We can imagine how such pressures will
mount once the fund actually contains all those lovely billions
of dollars. Our retirement dollars will draw political and social
engineers like a loadstone.
Canadians are by nature not risk takers. They prefer stability
and security. I am sure members opposite are wanting to hear
what I have to say and so I would appreciate it if they would
keep their remarks for later.
Canadians by nature are not risk takers. They prefer stability
and security. Yet what the Liberals are giving us in their new
CPP scheme is risk and more risk. There is a risk that our
children will refuse to bear so much cost for so little benefit.
There is the risk that government assumptions and projections
will, as usual, prove to be unreliable after only a few years.
In fact, after only two months the projected amount in the fund
had to be revised downward by $41 billion. That is just how
badly the assumptions are off already.
There is the risk that political considerations will compromise
the returns needed to pay the promised pensions. There is the
risk that further future political decisions will change what the
plan last promised.
There is no security for Canadians in this scheme. Canadians
recognize that. Here is a letter from a Canadian that says: “I
am completely opposed to increases in CPP contributions,
especially in consideration of the low level of faith I have in
our past, present and future governments to manage and return the
increased revenue properly. The monthly CPP `contribution' my
family makes exceeds the cost of my son's education. Quite
frankly, I would rather invest my earned income in his future
since it is a virtual guarantee my country will not”. That is
how real Canadians feel.
1110
Does this plan deliver integrity? Is it based on honesty? Is
it sound and well considered? The Liberals promised to restore
integrity to government. Does this bill with the single most
profound implications for the retirement security of retired,
working and future generations of Canadians meet the test of
integrity?
First, how can we say a piece of legislation delivers integrity
when it is so cavalier about the interests of the young and the
politically powerless? Is that not exploitation of the
defenceless? Will Liberals be able to look their children and
grandchildren in the eye 10 or 20 years from now and say we did
what was right and good for you, we acted in your best interests?
How will they defend forcing young workers to pay more for less?
Second, not all Liberals can be blind to the fact that the time
bomb is still ticking. The cracks are being papered over for a
few more years but the long term funding crisis has not been
solved.
Where is the integrity there? The Liberals have not been honest
on the issue of transparency and accountability. For all their
nice words, they voted down measure after measure that would have
made it so.
This plan incorporates the Liberal policy of taxation by
stealth. Threshold exemption levels desperately needed by poor
working families to meet their children's needs year by year are
less protected as inflation creeps up.
Year by year the average industrial wage rises, capturing more
CPP taxes from businesses and workers. These effective increases
will never be debated or discussed and this bill says that future
additional premium increases—it already acknowledges there will
have to be some over 9.9%—can simply be mandated with no further
legislation or debate. King John never had it so good.
A Canadian from Edmonton writes: “I am one of thousands of
single mothers who are desperately trying to be self-sufficient
and support myself and my daughter on my own without the aid of
welfare or other government agencies. I am frustrated beyond
words that the government wants to take more of my hard earned
money away from the mouth of my child when I have come to the
realization that by the time I reach the age to collect, there
will be nothing.
“I hope the government is ready to reap the consequences that
this will cause. I just may find it more beneficial and in my
best interests to quit working and collect welfare because it may
be the only way I can make money”.
This is an important debate and one that will be reopened every
two or three years as required by legislation and as those
exploited by this scheme gain political awareness and power.
It is important therefore to put a couple more points on the
record. The government never considered other options or
arrangements to complement or replace the CPP. It set out in its
consultations to sustain the CPP in essentially the same form.
It asked Canadians to a series of limited consultations, a few
general questions concerning contribution rates, changes to
benefits and the investment of CPP funds. It did not ask
questions that would invite consideration of other alternatives
such as a defined contribution, individually owned and privately
managed accounts.
It did not study or explore developments in the many countries
in the world that have experienced the same difficulty we are in
the pay as you go schemes and have moved to mandatory privately
managed accounts. Examples are Australia, Great Britain, New
Zealand, Chile, Mexico, Hungary and some 15 others.
The government did not want to consider other options. It did
not want the standing committee to invite experts from outside
Canada to testify about other options. Notably, the committee
refused to invite the world expert on pension reform, Dr. Jose
Pinera, born in Chile and educated at Harvard.
The committee developed some theory about human rights abuses
despite much evidence in support of Dr. Pinera and his worldwide
reputation.
At the same time, and this is Liberal hypocrisy for you, only
four blocks away, a senior official from the department of
finance in Chile and a good friend of Dr. Pinera was delivering a
seminar on pensions. This gentleman along with two experts from
Mexico was speaking on “Pension systems in crisis: What can we
learn from Latin America?” Of course the Liberal committee did
not want to learn anything.
When it comes to our pension reform, our international
development research centre that sponsored that seminar is more
creative and more open to new ideas and shows more common sense
than does our finance department or the government members of the
committee.
The point is just be open. If the government is unwilling to go
beyond the Canadian border for advice, just say so, but do not
smear the reputation of an international scholar to hide its
intent.
1115
The hypocrisy becomes even more flagrant and exposed when within
a month our Prime Minister is rolling out the red carpet and
wining and dining the Chinese president who is internationally
labelled as responsible for massive human rights abuses in his
country.
The government has not considered any other means of financing
the CPP debt other than dumping the burden on the backs of young
Canadians. The government must realize that a portion of this
unfunded liability should be spread across all members of
society. Take a few billion of the fiscal dividend for the next
40 or 50 years and see what could be done to lighten the burden
on the young, the low income worker and small businesses. But
no, the Liberals have big plans for the fiscal dividend. They
want to buy some votes with it. They do not really care about
using it for good purposes.
When the minister has been challenged about the flaws in his
thinking and in the plan, he reacts with feigned outrage and
extravagant fabrications. He sets up straw men and then beats
away to the cheers of his backbench cronies.
He claims for example that income taxes would rise 25% should he
provide support to the CPP unfunded liability. What balderdash.
Net personal income taxes this year are likely to approach $70
billion and 25% of that is $17.5 billion. But the CPP premiums
this year are already bringing in $14 billion. This is an example
of one of the finance minister's fabrications.
Government has a duty to Canadians to look at saving and
changing the CPP in more rational and secure ways to deliver
better value for Canadians. It needs to give real security to
Canadians. It needs to encourage thrift rather than penalize it.
It needs to expand opportunities for Canadians especially those
of modest means to save, rather than taxing away every spare
nickel.
The government needs to ensure that public pensions move toward
being a real funded asset, safe from political changes or
mismanagement. It needs to make sure that there is a real safety
net for needy seniors when personal resources are absent. It
needs to give tax relief and safety from its continual tax
increases which erode the fixed income of people who are retired.
It needs to be committed to smaller, more efficient government
that spends and taxes less. Instead the Liberals fight to see who
can spend the most.
There needs to be liability for unfunded benefits right across
society, not mostly loaded on the backs of our young. The
government needs to lighten the burden on the business sector and
on job producers so that people can earn incomes and can save for
their retirement. It needs to give real value and allow younger
Canadians to opt out of a bad plan into mandatory pension
investment accounts that would deliver a fully funded
individually owned pension with better investment returns and
higher more secure benefits.
Other countries are doing this but not in Canada. We have to be
stuck with some vague political promise from the government
because only it can manage our money for us. What nonsense. We
need management of a fund which is much less vulnerable to
political interference. We just cannot put future generations in
the position of having to pay a lot for a little or further
eroding the retirement security of older Canadians.
We urge government members to make courageous spending and
allocation choices now instead of fighting over some of their pet
programs. Make choices now with the money we have to clean up
this mess, rather than just transferring it onto our children.
The government needs to take every reasonable step to make this
fund management fully accountable and untainted by political
interference. It needs to stop the tactic of attributing monster
scenarios to the opposition and work constructively, all of us
together, in the best interests of Canadians with measures we can
all have confidence in.
A talk show host who is well respected in Alberta, Dave
Rutherford of QR-77 in Calgary, asked Canadians to let him and
the opposition in this country know what they thought about these
changes to the CPP. Four thousand faxes were sent in over a
period of a few weeks. I would like to have the consent of the
House to table these so that all members can look through them
and see what real Canadians feel about the measures that are
being proposed today.
1120
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to table those papers?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, thank you and I thank
my colleagues. I hope that members from all parties will take
the opportunity to look at these heartfelt writings of Canadians
who will be affected both now and in the future by what we are
debating today. Just look at what the people we represent really
think about what is happening.
In conclusion, and I know we all love that word when politicians
are speaking. If we truly believed, not just we in the Reform
Party but many members of this House, that these proposals we are
debating today were fair, were economically sound, that they made
the best use of Canadians' valuable earnings, that they delivered
real security to Canadians for retirement and were in the long
term best interests of Canadians, we would be happy to support
them. We would be happy and relieved that something right was
being done. However after careful study, after listening to
expert witnesses on this, we cannot honestly conclude this to be
the case and because of that we will not support this bill.
We urge the government to adopt constructive alternatives which
not only Reform but many other countries have proposed. On
behalf of our children we appeal to the government to abandon
this flawed and unfair legislation. There is a better way that
would provide more personal choice and better security on
retirement. Canadians deserve no less.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise at third reading of Bill C-2 to
establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
I think it is important to remember that this bill fits into
the retirement income system available to Quebeckers and Canadians,
a system with three components, the Canada pension plan, the public
pension plans—old age security and the guaranteed income
supplement—and the tax incentives for private savings, commonly
known as RRSPs.
Thus, the policy at the present time focuses on three elements:
private pension plans, public pension plans, and supplements.
The Canada pension plan has been much debated here, and this
was legislation tabled after consultation with all the provinces.
As we know, Quebec has its own pension plan, the equivalent of the
Canada pension plan. The consultations held both in Quebec and in
the rest of Canada led to eight provinces agreeing with the general
recommendations. The two opposing provinces disagreed with a
specific aspect, not the reform as a whole.
It is important, however, to assess this bill in relation to
the second component, old age security and the guaranteed income
supplement. The federal government announced that there would be
an in-depth reform of this sector. It will be replaced by the
seniors benefit. We have already known for two years what the
federal government's initial parameters are for this, but extensive
consultations will have to be held over the next few months on what
the seniors benefit will be like, since it represents a fundamental
change.
Basically, the decision has been made to do away with certain
aspects, such as the principle of universality. It is being
replaced by a principle under which people yet to retire, those who
are 55 years old now, but also those aged 45 or 20, will see their
entire retirement preparation profile changed by the seniors
benefit.
1125
Today, the legislation on the Canada pension plan does not
deal with the issue of benefits to seniors, but everyone preparing
for their retirement must look at it in terms of the Canada pension
plan or its Quebec equivalent, the Quebec pension plan, and of the
issue of old age pensions and the third pillar, which is the whole
issue of private retirement plans, such as RRSPs or supplemental
pension plans.
These things must be taken into account and, regarding this
third pillar, the RRSPs, you will remember that the Bloc Quebecois
proposed replacing the RRSP deduction with a tax credit of $268 for
everyone.
We think this is the only fair and equitable way to encourage all
taxpayers to save for their retirement.
We should note that the bill before us today is of interest
not just to those who are already retired. We must remember that
the Canada pension plan was created in the 1960s in an attempt to
ensure Canadians could count on an adequate retirement income. We
have noted a number of shortcomings in the legislation over the
years. The aim of the bill we are considering today is to correct
them.
The main shortcoming of the fund was that it failed to grow
sufficiently. There is a deficit, and we are faced with a choice.
Either we increase contributions substantially or we have to reduce
services. So we will try to find a reasonable compromise.
It is very revealing that, finally, the solution was found in
Quebec. When Quebec created the Régie des rentes du Québec, the Caisse
de dépôt et placement was created at the same time. This is a powerful
investment fund that allowed Quebeckers to obtain a greater yield on
their money than with the old Canada pension plan because, with that
plan, nothing had been done to ensure maximum return on investments.
Nothing was done to ensure maximum revenues and the result was that the
fund was never self-sufficient.
It is interesting to note that in an area where Quebec was given
adequate flexibility during the Pearson years, when two different plans
were able to exist side by side, it is Quebec that was more successful.
So much so that when federal government officials began developing the
bill we have before us today, they came to Quebec, they met Quebec
officials, and what is found in this bill under the investment component
is based mostly on the model developed by the Caisse de dépôt et
placement du Québec.
There is a difference—Canadians will be able to judge in due time
its importance—and it is that in the case of the investment board, the
only criterion to maximize return on investment is market profitability,
whereas in Quebec, with the Caisse de dépôt et placement, the
responsibility to contribute to the economic development of Quebec was
included in its mandate.
It should be noted that when this fund was created, funnelling of
savings by Quebeckers had not begun, and they did not have the economic
development capacity enjoyed by the English speaking provinces, and I
would say also by the English speaking establishment in Canada. There
was a lot of capital in a great number of companies.
At the beginning of the sixties, English Canada had almost complete
ownership of the capital. So Quebec, with the Caisse de dépôt et
placement, developed this investment capacity so that it could compete
and so that people would stop saying that it knew nothing about
business. Then, during the following 25 or 30 years, we showed that we
were also capable of looking after these things. We have an institution
that we can be proud of, especially in view of the fact that the federal
government has decided with its bill to copy it almost completely.
The first important area to remedy is the plan's profitability, and
it should be possible to partly succeed in this with the investment
board.
We must understand also that when the minister iintroduced his bill
in the House on September 25 last, he had two other major issues to deal
with: the increase in capitalization that I mentioned, the increase in
the rate of return in the plan, and tightening the requirements for
certain benefits, especially disability benefits.
The auditor general stated in his report that there was some
permissiveness in the application of the Canada pension plan because of
the way the current legislation is framed.
1130
Again, this is not the case with the Quebec pension plan. Our
province was used as an example because, over the past 30 years, it has
passed social laws that allow us to deal with disability cases through
means other than the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan.
Thanks to these other means, Quebec did not have to twist the
legislation the way the federal government did to dip into the CPP fund
to pay for disability claims.
So, these are the objectives of the bill. Consultations were held.
Eight provinces approved the proposed changes. British Columbia and
Saskatchewan are the only ones that did not support all the proposed
changes.
The end result is pretty good, given the situation that had to be dealt
with.
Why did we have to question certain aspects of the plan? For one
thing, at the rate things were going, the fund would have been empty by
the year 2015, at which time the rate would have had to jump from 6% to
14% for the Canada pension plan, and from 6% to 13% for the Quebec
Pension Plan.
As I explained earlier, the Quebec government has its own plan.
Some people have contributed to both plans, over the years. The Canada
pension plan concerns primarily Canadians living in the nine provinces
other than Quebec.
Still, 12,000 Quebeckers are affected, and it is with them in mind that
we carefully reviewed each clause of the bill, to make sure that it puts
them in the best possible position, given the current context. A little
less than 1% of Quebec's population is affected.
Quebeckers affected by this legislation are those who live in
Quebec, but who worked all their lives in another province and who only
contributed to the Canada pension plan. An example of this would be a
Hull resident who worked in Ottawa throughout his or her active life.
Therefore, the bill is of particular interest to Quebeckers who live in
the national capital region.
Other Quebeckers affected are members of the Canadian armed forces
and the RCMP who live in Quebec but must contribute to the Canada
pension plan.
Having contributed only to the CPP, those are the benefits they
receive, even though they live in Quebec. This is the second
category of Quebeckers affected by the CPP. And the third category
consists of those receiving CPP benefits who have moved to Quebec.
So 12,000 people is not a large percentage, but this issue
looms very large for each of them as they get ready to retire.
That is why this bill warranted considerable attention.
The reform was intended to ensure the viability of the plan
for generations to come, because intergenerational equity has to be
introduced.
If we did not have to take the action we are now taking, if we had
not decided to raise the premium rate as we are now doing, the
youngest generations would have been forced to pay an even larger
share to fund the plan, to the benefit of baby boomers who will
have retired and who have contributed less to the plan.
If the legislation were not changed, there would be an
imbalance in the contributions made by the various generations.
And it is clear that those who are now 20, 25 or 30 years old, with
all the fairly widespread unemployment problems we are seeing,
already have their plate full just trying to start a family, get
settled, and launch their career properly. The job situation is
much more difficult now than it was 15 or 20 years ago. That is
obvious.
I worked for 20 years in Quebec's public sector. When my
generation came on the job market, there were jobs. Today, young
people beginning in the job market have to struggle. We live in a
society where individual entrepreneurship is highly valued. It is
not easy, and we should not further burden young people with having
to fund the plan for those who date from the system's golden era,
the baby boomer period. A number of members of Parliament fall
into this category, in fact.
We should point out, however, that as the bill now stands this
has been taken into account and there will be intergenerational
equity. It is included.
That does not mean it will not be painful, that there is not a very
significant increase in the contribution rate.
1135
The government has, moreover, accepted a measure proposed to
it by the Bloc Quebecois on the first day in committee, namely to
reduce employment insurance contributions to at least the
equivalent of the Canada pension plan increase. It has done this
for 1998, effective January 1, 1998, in response to our
representations.
I can recall the committee work. It was the committee's first
meeting. When I arrived, all the party leaders were there, as well
as the two ministers responsible, Mr. Martin and Mr. Pettigrew.
When the time for questions came, the Reform Party's questions were
far more about why the whole thing could not be privatized and why
there could not be a plan similar to what Chile has. I think it
was demonstrated, in examining the entire bill, that it would be a
fundamental mistake to go that route, within the Quebec system, the
Canadian system, given our social values. It would create a major
imbalance in society and would not respect the entire tradition we
have built up. In particular, it would mean creating a system
which would bring terrific pressure to bear on investment
mechanisms and would not, in our opinion, be viable.
When our turn to intervene came, I asked whether the
government would be prepared to decrease these contributions.
We did not get any immediate response in committee, but an
announcement was made later in response to a question I asked in
the House of the Minister of Human Resource Development. They have
indeed decided to decrease employment insurance premiums by 20
cents per $100 of income, effective January 1, 1998, in line with
part of what we were asking.
What we were asking with respect to the investment board bill
was to ensure that there is no increase in January 1998 in the
deductions from people's paycheques. The minister has neglected to
tell us that the bill contains a little bit of retroactivity for
employers back to January 1, 1997. That will not be covered by the
minister's decision. We would have preferred it to be covered in
its entirety, but at least part of the measure is there in a
satisfactory manner.
That does not stop or weaken our demand that employment
insurance premiums be significantly reduced, because—as the
chief employment insurance actuary revealed last week—the
employment insurance plan could level off and have enough surplus
to permit premiums of $2 per $100 of insurable income. The figure
will be $2.78 as of January 1, 1998. There is 70 cents to play
with once the entire plan is balanced.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are saying there ought to be a way to
do two interesting things with the 70 cents. We could
significantly reduce employment insurance premiums and return the
money to the pockets of employers and employees. A significant
part of the money could be invested to correct the imbalances in
the unemployment insurance reform.
People in our regions—seasonal workers, young people, women
joining the labour market—have had to deal with a lot in the
past year that is unacceptable to our society with the fight
against the deficit having been won with contributions by employers
and employees.
The government should make more effort, and I hope there is
some sensitivity there, especially since December is the month the
Minister of Human Resources Development will be receiving the
report of the employment insurance commission to assess what
changes need to be made. I hope that the government will be
sensitive to these situations and will correct them. In any case,
the political message was delivered very clearly in the June 2
elections.
Many of the members from the maritimes were good MPs, but they were
defeated because the government did not respond to the
recriminations made during consultations on the employment
insurance reform.
Now, back to the Canada pension plan investment board bill.
We have to increase contributions to ensure the survival of the
plan and and we have to create the investment board so that we can
ensure sufficient funding. That will create a fantastic investment
fund in terms of dollars, and the government set itself an initial
foreign investment limit of 20%.
1140
This limit may be reasonable for the time being, particularly if it
is the same as for RRSPs and other similar plans. I think that when the
government is allowed, through the investment board, to exceed the 20%
limit for foreign investment, the same will have to be done for other
plans. We cannot allow the government to exceed this limit, but not
private plans. This would create an unacceptable imbalance.
The bill includes a series of measures to ensure the plan's
sustainability. It also seeks to ensure fairness for the various
generations of contributors, while maintaining a contribution rate
compatible with economic growth.
This is why I believe it is acceptable to increase contributions to the
plan. However, employers and employees must get some break regarding
payroll taxes. I explained this earlier, and I hope the government will
take action accordingly in other areas of activities.
I would like to make some comparisons between the Canada pension
plan and the Quebec pension plan. The increase in the contribution rate
will be the same for both plans, reaching 9.9% by the year 2003, and
then levelling off. Indeed, Quebec will impose the same increase. We did
not really have any choice.
A review of the plan will be conducted on a regular basis. This is
interesting. Reviews will be conducted more often. We realize now how
previous federal governments turned a blind eye on the situation. A
solution had to be found and, more importantly, applied.
Had reviews been done on a more regular basis in the past, that is in
the last 25 or 30 years, the situation would not be as catastrophic as
it is, and it would not be necessary to increase contribution rates so
drastically. The basic exemption will remain the same, at its current
level. This also true for the Quebec pension plan.
Then there is the disability issue. As I explained at the beginning
of my speech, Quebec has some experience when it comes to using other
means of financial assistance for those who, unfortunately, are
disabled. These other forms of help include, for example, health
insurance or other types of assistance in the case of an automobile
accident. This avoids putting undue pressure on the Quebec pension plan.
It is not so in the case of the Canada pension plan, since no such
alternatives exist in the nine other Canadian provinces.
When disabled, people need an income. All they did was try to find
a form of income that was available. The pressure was too great, because
these people do need an income. However, this caused an imbalance in the
plan.
This is similar to the situation with TAGS, the Atlantic groundfish
strategy. The federal government implemented a program intended to
promote regional economic diversification but it ended up being used as
a safety net program. Everyone agrees that there is a need to ensure
that people have something to live on and can eat three meals a day. But
that was not the purpose of the plan.
As for the Canada pension plan, it was not designed to make up for
the shortcomings in other disability plans, but nothing was being done
on that front.
In the other provinces, there was not the same kind of sensitivity and
the Canada pension plan picked up the slack.
This reminds me of the overall social vision in Canada. The
minister responsible for the Canadian social union is always going on
about this. I have nothing against the nine other Canadian provinces
wanting a basically standardized social program system across Canada.
That is their choice.
But the choices made by Quebec over the past 35 years—examples such
as the Quebec pension plan and the Caisse de dépôt et placement were
mentioned and we might add the separate loans and bursaries program we
have for students, all these examples—clearly show that, in areas
where it has full power, the Government of Quebec is closer to the
people and able to implement programs that meet the needs of the public,
whereas the Government of Canada was not able to achieve the same level
of sophistication.
1145
Canadians may want their government to be involved in these areas,
but all we want is to have the right to opt out, the right to perform as
well, in other social areas, as we did with the Régime de rentes du
Québec, and in the way we ensure a return on this money. Basically, what
we are saying again is “Give us a chance, trust us, in other words, show
us the same attitude as was shown under Mr. Pearson”. In this way, at
least, we will have the options required to act and we will be able to
take original initiatives.
However, there is no such attitude, and this is another reason why
Quebeckers can no longer tolerate the straightjacket that the Canadian
federal system is for them, because we are different at the social
level. We see things differently. We want things to be administered
differently, and we especially want our social programs to reflect our
social values, so that our people can have a decent standard of living.
I would like to give an example. It is true that, in the past,
there have been interesting systems developed in Canada. The CCF and the
NDP developed programs that were even adopted by the Liberals.
But we see the prevailing social trends in Canada. We see, for example,
that the Reform Party wanted to privatize the whole system, to do away
with the values of equality and to implement a system based strictly on
individual profitability where everyone would be responsible for
providing for his or her own retirement, when we all know that in our
society, people do not all have the same opportunities. People do not
all start off with the same opportunities for training and education.
They do not all start off with the same opportunities for employment,
and, in the final analysis, we have sort of a responsibility as a
government to ensure that wealth is shared.
The new trends on values in English Canada, that is in the nine
other provinces, seem very dangerous to us.
If there have to be Canada-wide standards in social areas, imagine if,
in a few years, we were unfortunately still part of Canada and,
moreover, the Reform Party was in power, you can rest assured that
Quebeckers would no longer feel at all welcome in Canada. We do not want
to go through that and we have the solution. But in the meantime, we
want to ensure that the system that we presently have will offer the
best possible conditions for the people concerned.
So the act to establish the investment board in order to modernize
the Canada pension plan based on the lessons learned in the past is
basically a good bill and the Bloc supports the general objective of
this reform, which is to ensure the sustainability of a public pension
system.
This bill has gone through several stages. There have been
consultations at all levels, and, today, we are at the final stage for
its passage.
I hope that it will not meet with problems in the Senate. Although the
senators can perhaps provide a different outlook on these issues, they
are not in exactly the same financial circumstances as the majority of
Quebeckers and Canadians. There are senators who can live both in Mexico
and in Canada at the same time. It is rather singular. It is a very
revealing example of how politics are in Canada. I am strongly against
such a situation. So let us hope that this bill will not meet with any
major hurdles in the Senate and that it can be passed, because we have
to act now.
The new system has to be operational in January 1998, and by then
we have to have taken steps to ensure that in 2010, 2015, 2020, we will
not be faced with a system that is no longer sustainable. This bill
provides for the proper control mechanisms.
There was much debate on who should be auditing the system. It was
decided that the board would have an external auditor to ensure its
efficiency, but there were a number of amendments to require that
certain situations be reported to the House.
1150
We will have to watch very closely what happens, because the
objectives of the board's directors are purely financial.
Amendments that would have enabled people from the unions, for
example, to make a social contribution were rejected. They will
have to do it some other way. The role of watchdog will have to be
established some other way.
Even if it is not in the legislation as a specific mandate, I
think Parliament will, at regular intervals, have to ensure that
the plan meets its objectives by ensuring that private audits or
special, as well as audits by the auditor general, are done at the
request of the minister.
Today, finally, we are making commitments for future
generations of Canadians, for the next 20, 30, 40 and 50 years. In
assessing the bill, I wondered whether, if my children were covered
by the Canada pension plan today, I would want them to live in this
environment in the future. Would I want them to contribute the
same way to the plan and would I want them to have the same type of
benefits?
I think that they have done the best they could with a
situation that had deteriorated over a number of years, and we can
tell our young people there is at least an intergenerational
balance in it. We have tried to make their contribution lower than
it would have been if we had waited for the catastrophe to worsen.
We can, I think, reassure our seniors, the people who are already
in the plan, that they can keep the previous one. So there is some
protection on that side.
However, and this will be my concluding point, we will have to
give the same attention and show particular sensitivity to what is
coming with the senior benefit. In this connection, the government
does not seem to have done its homework as well as for the
investment board.
As things stand now, only those aged 59 or over will be able
to choose between the two plans replacing old age security.
This means that people aged 52, 53, 54 or 55, who have planned
their entire careers and their retirements according to known
standards and rules, will see their entire futures turned topsy
turvey. I think that some thought will have to be given to
allowing opting for the seniors benefit at a much younger age. We
might consider something around age 50 to ensure that people have
the opportunity to plan their choices for later.
It will also have to be accepted that consultation will need
to be very open, and not just involve today's seniors. They are
protected. The ones who already have old age pensions will be
keeping the same program. But the ones who have to be asked are
the 50 and 40 years olds, and the young people, in order to see
which plan they want for themselves and for future generations.
I ask the government to focus the same attention on old age
pension reform as they have on the Canada pension plan and to have
more empathy for the situation these people are experiencing
because during 1997-98 we, as lawmakers here in Parliament, are
going to define the frame of reference for social programs for all
those who will retire in the next 10, 15 or 25 years, and I believe
we cannot afford to make a mistake.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker, with
your permission, I would like to split my time with the
illustrious member for Palliser.
This morning we have the third reading on the debate on the
Canada pension plan. This is a chance to wind up, to sum up what
has been happening in the last while.
The Canada pension plan is a plan that we as a party have
supported since its inception in 1966. We believe it was a great
piece of social legislation that has had a profound impact on
reducing the poverty of seniors in this country.
Any way that you look at the statistics from 1966 to 1995, you
will notice that the number of seniors living in poverty has
dropped rather radically. That is the only segment where the
poverty statistics have changed in the last 30 years to any
significant degree.
1155
If we look at child poverty, for example, there has not been an
improvement. Conditions on Indian reserves have shown no
improvement and in the inner cities there are the same problems.
However, there has been a vast improvement in the living
conditions and the incidence of poverty among seniors in this
country. That is why we are so concerned about protecting and
enhancing the Canada pension plan in future years.
It is a pay as you go scheme. In other words, people who are
working today contribute to the fund so that people who are
retired can draw a pension in recognition of the work they did in
the past and the contributions they made. I believe this is a
good plan, a good way to go.
I believe in this country and in the people of this country and
I believe that we could have the strongest economy of any country
in the world. If that was the case we could have a very strong
and healthy Canada pension plan which would be funded for years
and generations to come. When I look at this and the economy of
this country, I am optimistic that we can and will do better.
My concern and the concern of our party about the changes to the
Canada pension plan is that it has become more regressive. It
should be more progressive and based more on the ability of
people to pay and receive benefits in accordance with their
needs. However, with these amendments it has been made more
regressive. I will get to that in a minute or two.
In summarizing the debate of the last couple of months, the
second concern I have is the position of the Reform Party. It
wants to abolish the Canada pension plan, get rid of this plan,
tear it apart, privatize it and bring in super RRSPs. But
members of the Reform Party cannot answer the fundamental
questions of how that could be done and what we would do with a
$600 billion unfunded liability.
That is going to be a very important issue as they try to push
this right wing, neo-conservative agenda of theirs to privatize,
abolish, get rid of the Canada pension plan and set up a private
scheme which would be good for the wealthy, the bankers and their
friends who have money. That is a big issue, one we are going to
face when this thing is reviewed again in the year 2000.
The Reform members are talking about tax grabs and all the
negative things about the Canada pension plan. That does not
reflect what the Canadian people want. They want a strong,
public plan like the Canada pension plan, but a more progressive
plan.
An hon. member: It is $600 billion in the hole.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The Reform Party wants the Chilean
example, the right wing, neo-conservative, Neanderthal examples,
just as they want people to opt out of the Canadian Wheat Board
and destroy it. Well, that does not reflect what the people in
their constituencies are saying or what the Canadian people want.
The Canadian people want a strong, strong public plan, but a more
progressive one.
As I said, we do have some problems with the plan. First, we
believe that the contributions are going up too quickly and too
steeply, 73% over the next six years. The economy of this
country is not as strong as it should be. If we had a stronger
economy and more people working and higher wages in this country,
there would not be the need to raise the premiums so fast. That
is why it is so important to concentrate on a job strategy,
putting more money into research and development, more money into
education and training and putting more people to work and
looking at a better wage policy so that people will have a decent
wage and a decent standard of living.
If that was the case, the increase in the Canada pension plan
would not to be a steep as it is going to be under this bill.
There will be a 73% increase in six years. In terms of our
pocketbooks, it means that someone who is earning $35,800 a year
or more will see an increase of $450 per year in premiums. For
the self-employed it will be doubled because they will have to
pay both the employee and the employer's premium which for a
person in that income range would be a $900 per year increase for
a self-employed person making $35,800 a year or more.
Those are some of the real problems we have with the plan.
1200
The government has taken a very pessimistic scenario in terms of
income growth in the future. It has taken a very pessimistic
scenario in terms of unemployment and employment growth in the
future. It has based its projections on an actuary report that
gives numbers which increase the premiums by 73% over six year.
We maintain that we have more optimism in the future of Canada
and in the economy. The increase does not have to be that steep
or that regressive.
While this is happening the government is cutting back on
benefits by about 10%. My main concern is that a cutback in the
benefits of about 10% will hit those who can afford it the least,
low income people.
A preponderance of those people are women, survivors and people
obtaining the death benefit. All those things will be cut back
and made more difficult to obtain. That is a real shame.
The NDP governments of B.C. and Saskatchewan are not supporting
the initiative of the government as supported by the other
provinces because of the cutback to low income people and because
disability pensions will be more difficult to obtain and when
obtained will be cutback. That is a shame. It is something that
does not have to occur if we have a stronger economy and a more
progressive way of paying into the Canada pension plan by raising
that ceiling of $35,800 per year as a maximum.
These are some of my concerns. We should have a more
progressive arrangement in terms of contributions and the
reception of benefits from the Canada pension plan. If we do
that there would be massive support right across the country.
That is the progressive way. That is what witnesses said before
the committee. They did not want to privatize the plan. They
did not want to get into super RRSPs. They did not want to go
totally into the marketplace. They wanted a more progressive
public pension plan. That is the argument we will make as we go
into the next review in the year 2000.
There will be a partial privatization of the plan through the
eventual accumulation of a fund of over $100 million and a
private investment board. This will be pretty good for stock
brokers, brokerage houses and banks because the fees for the fund
will be about $500 million. That is being greeted with a great
deal of glee by them.
We are concerned that the mandate of the pension board is only
to maximize returns. It is important to maximize returns but
like the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Quebec, the Quebec
pension plan, there should also be a balance of maximizing
returns, maximizing employment and maximizing income benefits so
we have investment in accordance with public policy objectives as
well. That is not part of the plan.
We are also concerned that all these changes were made before
the government tabled the seniors benefits. It is difficult to
consider one pension plan when we do not know when the other shoe
will fall or what it will be when it does fall. The seniors
benefit will end the universality of old age pensions. It is
important to consider that in conjunction with the CPP.
My last comment is on the whole issue of democracy. I agree
with the member of the Reform Party who said there were many
amendments at committee stage. They were supported by all four
opposition parties. Yet the government did not accept any of the
amendments.
It is a rather sad commentary on the parliamentary system when
the four opposition parties represent 62% of the Canadian people
and the government represents 38% of the Canadian people but
would not accept even two or three credible opposition amendments
supported by all four political parties.
The next review is in the year 2000. We want a more progressive
Canada pension plan. We want to maintain a public pension plan
that is more progressive, with the talk now about how we make the
economy stronger, how we put more people to work, and how we
provide more decent wages so people can contribute to the plan
and make sure it is a healthy plan.
I wave a flag of warning. We must not privatize the Canada
pension plan and get into the scheme of super RRSPs. They would
be good for the wealthy and the privileged, the people the Reform
Party speaks for. It is no wonder that party speaks for them.
Its tax critic said in the House a while ago that Conrad Black
and millionaires were paying too much in taxes.
That is not the way to go. The way to go is to have a public
plan that is strong and healthy.
1205
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I listened carefully to the hon. member's statements. I
certainly agree that the alternatives proposed by the Reform
Party were poorly thought out and ill conceived when the needs
and wishes of Canadians were taken into account.
I refer to one of the hon. member's last statements about
process, democracy and amendments that were proposed, many by the
member himself. He brought one report stage motion before the
House insisting that the schedule of rates proposed under Bill
C-2 be eliminated.
The effect of that would be to keep the rate structure the same
as it is under the current Canada pension plan system.
Effectively it appears that the member decided to abandon
Canadian youth and the pensioners of the future and to make them
pay more rather than support a schedule which smoothes out the
burden of funding the Canada pension plan for all workers without
touching today's seniors.
Could the member explain to Canadians why he wants today's youth
to pay more?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not. That
is why I said we needed a stronger economy. If the Liberals had
kept their basic promises in the red book of jobs, jobs, jobs,
building a strong economy, putting Canadians to work, bringing
down the unemployment rate and increasing salaries, the rates
would not need to be as high as the government is proposing in
Bill C-2.
That is a trick in terms of a pay as you go plan, a plan which
means that workers of today pay into the fund to pay pensions to
the workers of yesterday. That is what the plan is all about.
As long as unemployment is sitting at 9%, 9.5% or 10% year after
year after year, fewer people are contributing to the plan and
fewer people are contributing a good sum to the plan. That is
the main way of getting the rates down.
We also moved an amendment to lift the ceiling of $35,800 that
is there today. The reason is twofold. The first reason is that
someone making $35,800 a year pays the maximum amount into the
plan. A lot of people are making that kind of salary. Senators
and MPs make more than that but we subject to that cap. We pay
as much into that plan as somebody making $35,800, or someone
making $200,000 or $300,000 pays the same amount into the Canada
pension plan as someone making $35,800. That is unfair and
should be changed. We are flagging that for the next review.
The Minister of Finance agreed that some of these matters would
be looked at. I say to the member opposite that we should make
this more progressive, along the lines we have been talking about
in the debate.
He also talked about democracy. The Canadian Union of Public
Employees was not allowed to make a presentation to the
committee. It represents 500,000 workers. The Council of
Canadians, by the way, circulated a petition and got back over
500,000 petitions which I personally brought to the office of the
Minister of Finance. Its was not allowed to make a presentation
to the committee. That might have been the largest petition in
the history of Canada. There were 11 mail bags full. The member
from Calgary was very impressive carrying 4,000 faxes. That was
very positive, but 500,000 petitions is extremely progressive.
Yet the council was not allowed to make a presentation before the
committee.
I go back to the question the member asked about democracy. It
is real democracy when committees start hearing from groups that
represent Canadians in such large numbers.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to
pick up where the member for Qu'Appelle left off in his earlier
remarks. I congratulate him at the same time for the work he has
done on this important piece of legislation.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle said there should have been an
overall look at pensions. Rather than that the government has
endeavoured to do it with a piecemeal approach.
1210
The government took the attitude that the sky was falling and
that we had to move immediately. Our caucus would have preferred
to have looked at the entire pension plan, including the old age
security plan, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada
pension plan. Apparently those other reviews are being held over
for another day. As a result this is a piecemeal approach which
greatly concerns us.
At the end of the day the Canada pension plan will be less than
what it was before. We are very concerned that when the
government gets around to introducing the seniors benefit it will
have a negative effect on the pension plan of seniors and their
overall level of income.
Bill C-2 has failed people in just about every way imaginable.
The government has failed to look at the plans overall. It has
failed to allow the chief actuary to look at the projections of
incomes and outflows and determine what he or she thinks will be
the future of the pension plan.
As the member of Qu'Appelle said, the government failed to
expand the earning base. The cutoff is $35,800. It does not
matter whether one earns $100,000, $200,000 or perhaps a couple
of million dollars a year. If one pays taxes in Canada the
maximum cutoff on CPP is $35,800. It is clearly an unfair
program contrasted with that of the United States where the
cutoff works out, in Canadian dollars, to be about $88,000. It
is clear what we are trying to get at. There would be a
different level of fairness.
The minister is apparently saying that he will be prepared to
look at the issue when it is reviewed in two or three years. We
will certainly try to hold him to that commitment but one wonders
why we could not have looked at it in this round of pension
reform.
Bill C-2 is failing the people of Canada with the 10% cut to
which my colleague referred earlier. Another area that could
have been easily fixed is the dropout years for women who
remained home a short number of years ago to raise their
children. We see less and less of that today, but in the not so
distant past families were able to survive on one income. That
is not the way it is done any more. Many women took time out
from the workforce to raise their families and then returned to
work. These reforms, to use the polite term, will impact on
those folks significantly and most unfairly.
An anomaly was pointed out to me by a lawyer in the Moose Jaw
area concerned about couples who separated or divorced prior to
1978. As I was advised, after 1978 pensions were split equitably
between the male and the female of a dissolved marriage but
before then there was no retroactivity. Women who are reaching
their retirement years are suddenly learning to their shock and
chagrin that the money they thought they were entitled to is in
fact not there. This is another area that could have been fixed
during the CPP review but such was not the case.
Living conditions have improved significantly for seniors in the
not too distant past for many different reasons.
We certainly welcome that and want to see those living conditions
continue to improve.
1215
Child poverty groups which are concerned about the elimination
of that unfortunate social condition have noted that seniors'
conditions have benefited in the past. I think that this bill
will show quite quickly that these benefits are not going to
continue for very long. It is an unfortunate program and it will
not enhance the living conditions of our seniors who deserve a
lot better.
I will conclude my remarks by remembering the work done on
social programs by the father of the current Minister of Finance.
Paul Martin Sr. worked with folks like the late Stanley Knowles,
Tommy Douglas and others to improve the retirement benefits so
that our seniors who had worked hard all their lives for this
country could retire with a degree of comfort, security and
dignity. I believe that he would be appalled at what is being
brought forth by the current Liberal government.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made reference
to actually doing nothing with the plan and hoping that greater
economic growth would take care of the challenges which the
Canada pension plan faces. I would submit that is what past
governments have done. For the first time we have a government
which is responding to what Canadians have said they want through
consultations. Canadians want changes to be made to the plan to
ensure its sustainability.
Going further, the chief actuary has actually made the
calculation that with the inclusion of 150,000 more Canadians
being employed, the effect would be to reduce the steady state
rate from 9.9% to 9.856%. Effectively the increase in the growth
in the economy is still not sufficient to achieve the
sustainability of the plan. That is why the changes were made,
to ensure that the plan will be there for Canadians in the
future.
The member referred to the U.S. plan and how effective it is. Is
the NDP member saying that he wants to increase the age of
retirement which is the case in the United States of America?
We require a made in Canada solution. We have done that by
going to Canadians and ensuring that Canadians had an opportunity
to be heard on the Canada pension plan. The suggestions made by
Canadians in consultations are reflected in Bill C-2.
Should we mirror the U.S. plan, as the hon. member has stated in
his comments?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Palliser did not state what is being alleged by the parliamentary
secretary.
To deal with his points, he suggests that I favour the American
plan. What I was trying to get at, and I thought I had
indicated, was that the American plan has a higher threshold than
the Canadian plan. Under the American plan the cutoff rate would
be in the neighbourhood of $88,000 Canadian as opposed to
$35,800.
To suggest that I want a higher age of retirement, the answer is
no. But do I want a fairer system in this country? Absolutely.
That takes me back to the first point which was made by the
parliamentary secretary, which was that we are not suggesting any
increases. That is obviously incorrect. We want to have a
broader based amount of earnings going into the plan. If we had
a cutoff rate higher than $35,800 we would have more money in the
plan and it would provide a better return for people at the lower
end.
1220
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in the debate on a bill which will have an impact
not only in the coming months or years, but for a long time.
First, I want to stress how important it is for each party sitting
in the House to propose clear and understandable alternatives to
Canadians. This is a good example of an issue concerning which it is not
enough to oppose for the sake of opposing, to merely say “I am opposed
to this or that provision”. The impact of this legislation on the lives
of Canadians is such that we must clearly say where we stand regarding
this bill.
NDP members have expressed views which, I think, are rather clear.
I do not agree with a number of their ideas, but I give them credit for
being clear. The same goes for the Liberal government. Today, I will
talk about our own choices and those of all the parties.
First, I want to thank two members of this House for making an
exceptional contribution to this debate. They did so with great rigour
and honesty. The first one is the hon. member for Markham, our finance
and Treasury Board critic, whom I sincerely thank for his contribution.
The second one is the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, our human
resources development critic, who also did an exceptional job regarding
this issue.
[English]
When this piece of legislation came before the House, we
consented in good faith that it go to second reading and to
committee so that in committee we could have a real debate about
the impact of this legislation. We did it assuming that the
government would be listening. Assuming. We were wrong. Very
wrong. The government did not listen. It did not listen, it did
not pay attention.
It is important to point out to Canadians that this Liberal
government is ramming this through Parliament now. It is the
steamroller approach. There is a reason for this. It has to do
with the fact that it is trying to get this done before Canadians
actually find out what hit them and what has happened to them.
I see the parliamentary secretary smiling and smirking on the
other side of the House. What the government is going to say is,
“We concocted a deal with the provinces. We have to make this
happen now”. I can hear it now. That is wrong.
We have talked to provincial governments and provincial
governments have told us very clearly that there is a lot of time
to get this through and there are a number of disagreements that
they have with the federal government on this. But no, this has
to be done now.
In this House of Commons, and the election only happened six
months ago, this government has imposed closure on this bill
twice. So much for democracy. So much for openness. So much
for accountability. Let me speak briefly on why that is the case.
For Canadians this is an $11 billion bite out of our economy. In
six years this government is literally going to go out and suck
$11 billion out of the Canadian economy through nothing less than
added payroll taxes by increasing premiums 73%. It is already
sucking $12 billion to $13 billion out of our economy through
payroll taxes and employment insurance premiums that it need not
do for the purpose of bringing down the deficit. Why is the
government doing it? It must be because we have 9.1%
unemployment and it is not high enough. The government wants it
to actually go higher. This is the choice it has made.
This is why the government is trying to ram it through. This is
why this debate is happening at this point in time as opposed to
having the debate we should have had so that Canadians would be
allowed to know what is happening.
I mentioned a little earlier about the importance of every
political party putting forward their position. I cannot allow
this debate to happen without talking frankly and honestly to
Canadians about the failure of the Reform Party to deal with this
issue.
We would think that the Reform Party as the official opposition
would have the obligation not only to oppose but to present a
view. What we have instead is the $600 billion hole. The Reform
Party said that it would like to have some sort of recognition
bond.
However, there are $600 billion worth of liabilities now taken in
the CPP. The Reform Party's position is that we should just
scrap it, forget it and forget those Canadians who are old and
sick and although they gave money into the system let us just cut
them off.
1225
That is a pretty good example of ideology gone haywire. It is
similar to the position the Reform Party took on Kyoto, the
climate change debate, where there is apparently no science. We
soon expect the Reform Party to announce to us that cigarette
smoke is good for our health.
In that spirit, the Reform's position on the CPP is one that has
weakened the debate because we would have expected the official
opposition to play its role and offer a position. I think the
Liberals would agree with us on that failure. I see them nodding
on the other side. I think the NDP and the Bloc would agree as
well.
We have a few problems with this legislation. We agree that the
CPP should be made sustainable. We need to help Canadians and
ensure that this fund is put on a very solid footing. In order
to allow this to happen, yes, we agree that regrettably there has
to be an increase in premiums.
We then take a very different position from that of the
government in that this increase in premiums cannot be allowed to
happen without offsetting this increase with tax reductions, in
particular with reductions in other payroll taxes such as
employment insurance premiums. By the way, so that we are clear
on where the government stands on this, this was exactly the
position taken by the Government of Ontario in regard to changes
to the CPP. This is exactly the position it took.
An hon. member: What did your government do under
Mulroney?
Hon. Jean J. Charest: This is exactly the position we
took.
An hon. member: You guys failed the Canadian people.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to try
to talk over the members of the Reform Party and listen to the
sounds from the other side. I do not know whether they intend to
just stand there and heckle.
An hon. member: You want to see courtesy? What about
during the election when someone called our leader a bigot on
four occasions? That was courtesy?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, if we
cannot comport ourselves here, how can we possibly be expected to
lead the rest of the country. Let us leave this kind of thing to
some other venue. Let us leave this kind of debate for another
time and another place.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it
has to be clear that physical threats in this place are not going
to silence any of its members and certainly not me.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Sherbrooke is a practised, very capable, very confident and very
experienced parliamentarian and will certainly keep the remarks
to the point and to the debate at hand.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the first point of
divergence we have with this legislation the government is
putting forward is that there should be offsetting tax reductions
to avoid $11 billion being literally sucked out of our economy
for the purpose of sustaining this fund, when in fact there
should be a reduction in payroll taxes to allow jobs to be
created.
Let me add a very important element which we need to keep in
mind in regard to these payroll taxes.
These are the most damaging taxes with regard to employment, in
particular for the most vulnerable in our society: women,
lower-income Canadians and young Canadians. They are the ones
who are the most affected when we increase payroll taxes in our
economy, whether it is through CPP or whether it is through EI.
1230
Another change that we would like to see happening, that we
propose, is the change in the yearly basic exemption. The
government is freezing that exemption at $3,500 and again by
doing that is targeting the most vulnerable people in our
society. Who are the people that this freeze affects the most?
Part-time workers, students, women, low-income earners. These are
the people who will be the most affected by this freeze.
We wanted to be constructive in committee. The member for
Markham tried and we certainly felt as a political party,
contrary to others, that we should propose some amendments, make
some suggestions.
In that respect we proposed a revision of this exemption 10
years after the legislation would have been enacted. Did the
government listen to this suggestion? The answer is “no”.
There is a very constructive change that could have allowed
low-income Canadians a break rather than being left out in the
cold by this government.
The other change I mentioned was with regard to payroll taxes. I
want to speak specifically to the suggestion that we made through
an amendment. We suggested to the government that it could
offset in the next three years the increase in CPP premiums with
reductions in EI premiums. It could have included that in the
legislation to guarantee Canadians that they would not be hurt by
these changes.
The member for Markham, our critic, made that suggestion. He
did it in good faith. Yet, the government turned it down. At
the same time, what do we learn from the chief actuary of the
employment insurance fund of Canada? The fund could very well
sustain itself with a premium level of $2 instead of $2.70. The
government is actually using the employment insurance fund again
to reduce its deficit, to try to balance its books. On whose
backs is it doing it? On the backs of the unemployed at a time
when we have unemployment above 9%. Again, this was rejected.
We presented another amendment that would have forced the
government to return to Parliament, to the House of Commons, if
premiums went to 10.25%. They are now scheduled to go to 9.9%.
Did it listen to that? Is debate something that it wants? No.
The answer again was “no”.
Another change that our party proposed to try to add to this
legislation was to get rid of the foreign investment rule. Canada
in the global equity market represents about 3% of that market.
Yet, the Government of Canada, the Liberal government still
thinks it knows best and it imposes a foreign investment rule of
20%. More money keeps pouring into the equity markets. Whose
money is this, by the way? It is the Canadian taxpayers' money.
They should be allowed to get the best benefit from that
investment. They should be allowed to have access to the best
investors so that this money can grow so that their retirement
money can actually benefit them.
To tell you how embarrassed the government is, I even see
Liberal members on the other side nodding. They want to nod.
They are embarrassed by this, and they should be.
Mr. Stan Keyes: They are nodding off.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: The member from Hamilton recognizes
that they are sleeping again. I concur with his view. They are
nodding off. Nodding off actually explains why they stick to
this rule on foreign investment for no good reason.
Think of what is going to happen in a very short period of time.
This fund will have close to a hundred billion dollars in it to
be invested in Canada's marketplace. How are we to expect a
return on this investment if the investors are not allowed to
invest where they can get the most on that return?
That is one of the changes we propose. There are also very
important changes with regard to accountability and transparency.
[Translation]
As regards transparency, there are some very important issues.
These issues are not new, since the Caisse de dépôt et placement du
Québec has had to deal with them for quite a while. Year after year, the
Quebec auditor general complains about not being allowed to audit the
accounts.
Mr. André Harvey: So it is not the perfect example.
1235
Hon. Jean J. Charest: One might have expected that the government,
which wanted to borrow a good idea from Quebec by taking the structures
of the Caisse de dépôt et placement as a model, would also have paid
attention to the Quebec auditor general, who is complaining about it.
No, instead they seem to have got it backward. They told themselves
“Hey, in Quebec, it looks like the Caisse de dépôt et placement was able
to hide behind that screen. Let us follow that lead and hide behind the
same screen”. While the normal thing to do would have been to designate
the auditor general as the auditor of the new board of directors
responsible for investing funds, they did not do so.
In fairness to the government, I must say that it opened a door by
providing that the auditor general may conduct an audit. Granted, it has
come some way on this issue, but the responsibility should have been
assigned directly to the auditor general so that he could look after the
financial auditing.
The same goes for the Access to Information Act. Whenever we raise
this issue, we are told “But there are investment decisions to
make.”
Let us be clear. The Access to Information Act itself provides for
exceptions that would easily allow the board to protect itself against
the disclosure of sensitive information while making the operation of
the fund transparent.
This is not a secondary issue. I submit to the House that, to
enhance credibility, to ensure that those in charge of administering the
fund enjoy credibility with the Canadian public, it is important, very
important indeed to make this fund transparent.
My conclusion is somewhat bleak. Personally, I wish the government
had listened more carefully to what we had to say. We clearly stated our
positions during the election campaign. It is in black and white in our
election platform. I can even tell you on what page: pages 19 through to
22, for those who are interested.
What does it provide for? To increase rates, yes, but to reduce
taxes and employment insurance premiums accordingly so that income tax
does not increase. Second, to create an investment fund at arm's length
from the government similar to those found elsewhere.
Take for instance the Ontario teachers' pension fund, which is a model
to follow and from which a few ideas could be borrowed.
[English]
Among the things that we suggested in our platform, as I said,
can be read on pages 19, 20, 21 and 22. It is there in black and
white, numbers included, everything from A to Z on our position.
To increase premiums, offset them with tax reductions for
employment insurance and tax reductions. Create an independent
board for investment, independent in the true sense. Make it
transparent. Most of all, do not create a new $11 billion tax
grab from Canadians that is going to kill jobs in our economy
because this government has lost sight of the fact that 9.1% of
Canadians are unemployed, a large number of whom are young
Canadians suffering in this labour market. It is about time that
we also give them a break.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I see that there are
a number of questions and comments. I would ask hon. members to
keep their questions and responses short.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be brief.
I listened very carefully to the member for Sherbrooke. I was
puzzled because he was a member of the cabinet under the Mulroney
government and he has the audacity to stand in the House and talk
about EI premium reductions. I am confused because sometimes he
refers to them as premiums and sometimes as taxes.
I would like to ask him what decrease they made during their
mandate when he was a cabinet minister, contrary to when this
government took office in 1993 and reduced the EI premiums to the
tune of $1.4 billion.
He talks about unemployment today being at 9.1% when under the
Conservative administration it was almost 11.5%. However, we
have created over a million jobs. He also talks about making the
system sustainable.
He calls the EI contributions taxes, but I call them premiums.
However, they kept raising the premiums because there was no
reserve to fall back on in difficult times when there was high
unemployment.
1240
He talked about offsetting them with payroll deductions. He
talked about them in terms of deductions, in terms of payroll
taxes. He talks about sustainability. We are looking toward an
era of sustainability.
He talked about an independent investment fund. That has
already been put in place. I do not know where the member has
been. I know he is in the House today. He is often in the
House. We have already brought forward an independent investment
fund.
I am more confused when he talks about an $11 billion tax bite.
That is just not true. I say to the member, through you, Mr.
Speaker, that is being intellectually dishonest because this is
money put aside for pensions for the future.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised
that the member for Scarborough Centre would be confused. He
should be. I want to use his own words. He says he is confused.
How else could he be confused?
Like the member for Mount Royal, they ran in 1993 on a red book
that said that they were opposed to free trade and now we
implemented free trade.
An hon. member: Against the GST.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: This is the same member for
Scarborough Centre if I understand correctly, like the member for
Mount Royal, who said they were opposed to the GST.
An hon. member: —gonna resign.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: The member is shaking his head. Is
he for or against the GST? Of course, his prime minister said
they had created the GST, right?
Is the member confused? Yes, he should be confused. Is he
thoroughly confused? Yes, he is thoroughly confused, and I can
see why. This is the same group of parliamentarians who fought
tooth and nail any idea of deficit and debt reduction and now
this has become the new mantra.
[Translation]
As we say in French, if there is one thing that we can say about
this Liberal government—and my colleague, the hon. member for
Chicoutimi, is well aware of this—it is that they have been very
consistent in acting on our ideas, not their own but our ideas.
The hon. member is confused. Let me enlighten him. He said we
increased employment insurance premiums—
[English]
When the member for Scarborough Centre said we increased
employment insurance premiums, what he forgets to add is that we
did it also in a period of recession when there was a need for
money in the fund.
The difference with this government is that it is creating
unnecessarily a $12 billion to $13 billion surplus for the
purpose of paying down the deficit for which this fund was never
created.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can
hardly contain my enthusiasm to go after the hon. leader of the
Conservative Party.
There is no confusion on the part of this hon. member because I
sat on that side of the House from 1988 to 1993 in opposition
when this hon. member of the Conservative Party sat on this side
of the House, first as secretary of state for fitness and amateur
sport and then he moved on—I will not say how. I do not want to
get into that today—to become the minister of the environment.
That was six months later.
That member sat at a cabinet table, a Conservative cabinet table
with his good friend, Brian, at the helm. That hon. member
watched as EI premiums went up to $3.20 on their way to $3.30.
This hon. member has the unmitigated gall to stand in his place
and start accusing this government when that member was in in the
best of times, from 1984 to 1993. He sat in this House when the
economy was booming, when people were working.
He had the opportunity to do something about the deficit, about
the debt, about EI, about CPP and he did nothing, not a damn
thing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask all hon.
members to address their comments, even their vociferous comments
to each other, through the Chair and we will try to get through
the day.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there
is any amount of huffing and puffing coming from the hon. member
that will change the tax.
As I was saying a little earlier, if there is some confusion in
his mind on where they stood, there rightfully should be some.
This is the same member who in 1993 guaranteed Canadians health
care. He stood in his place and voted for a 35%—
An hon. member: Good job.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: He denounced NAFTA and the FTA and
then he went on to implement that.
1245
Personal taxes and income taxes have gone up under the
government relative to the GDP. There are more poor children in
Canada today than since this member was elected as a member of
the government in 1993. That is his record. At one point I hope
he will grow up and face his responsibilities and stop blaming
others and stop saying—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the Investment Board, it
should be remembered that we are faced with this issue because of the
inaction of previous governments. I would like the leader of the
Conservative Party to explain briefly to us why today, in 1997, we are
considering such a bill, when we knew 10 or 15 years ago that there were
major problems.
From 1984 to 1993, there was a Conservative government. During
those years, the Conservatives' approach was to maximize economic
development, or at least to implement measures to do so. Consider, for
example, the idea of an investment board.
Why did the Conservative Party not come up with this idea in 1985, 1986,
1987, say at the end of the first mandate, having had time to become
acquainted with the issues? Today, we are faced with a situation where
future generations will pay for 15 years of inaction. We are doing our
utmost to avoid being unfair to the younger generations, but there will
nevertheless be an intergenerational equity problem.
It seems to me that the reason for this is that action was not
taken quickly enough in the past, with the Canada pension plan, to
create a body that would ensure that there is enough money in the fund
to provide for the future.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the
hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques
for his question, which is a good question, an honest question. In fact,
I asked myself the same question, I talked about it with colleagues, and
this is what I can tell him.
First of all, amending the Canada pension plan legislation requires
the approval of a number of provincial governments. You are no doubt
aware that this, fortunately, cannot be done unilaterally by the federal
government. It requires the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces
representing at least two-thirds of the Canadian population, which
explains why the federal government has limited scope for action in
making such amendments.
We discussed such changes with the provincial governments as openly
as we could.
I must admit to the member today that we did not succeed in convincing
them of the need we saw to bring about a number of changes.
However, and I want to add this so that it is clear to him and also
because the other members will be interested to know this, they were
determined to stop going around in circles. How could they break this
logjam? Since they could not arrive at an agreement, they included in
the last series of statutory amendments a clause providing for an
automatic increase in contributions, so that the provincial governments
were faced with an alternative that was even less attractive than a
potential agreement. And then there was a change of government.
What I am telling my colleague for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is that, if
there is an agreement today, it will be due in large part to the
fact that, as we expected a deadlock, we included in the bill a
provision for a mechanism that was going to force the parties—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but the hon.
member has run out of time. Resuming debate. The hon. member for
Mississauga South.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on Bill C-2 to establish the Canada pension
plan investment board and to make other amendments to the Canada
Pension Plan Act.
It is important to get some principles down very quickly for
members so that we can put the bill in its context. Members will
know that the Canada pension plan came in 1966 in response to a
very serious need to address our retirees in Canada.
The plan came in in 1966 and seniors who were retiring, who had
come through two wars as well as the depressions of the thirties
and the forties, were faced with real poverty.
It was important that Canadians made the decision that it was
time for us to have a universal pension plan that could help
Canadians enjoy the dignity of their retirement.
1250
The current seniors who first came into the plan did not
contribute very much to the Canada pension plan but they started
to receive benefits a year later. Full benefits were received by
pensioners as early as 1970. That raises the issue of who is
paying for those benefits. The important issue was that we had
to provide retirement benefits for our seniors. Therefore the
plan was established on a pay as you go basis.
That means today's workers are paying premiums into a plan. The
accumulated premiums are then used to fund and to pay benefits to
today's seniors. Members will know that today's seniors paid no
more than $10,000 in total into the Canada pension plan. Yet the
annual benefits today from the plan are some $8,800 per year. It
is a very generous plan. It is so generous that the chief
actuary indicated in his report that we can no longer sustain
that level of benefits with the current premium structure. This
is not a mistake. It is simply a function of the changes that
were made.
Members should be aware that important changes were made. When
the plan was first introduced it was a clear pension plan. Since
that time there have been some very significant and important
changes for the benefit of all Canadians. The survivor's benefit
was introduced. It is a very important income component for
retirees who have lost a spouse. It targets the needs of single
women in retirement. It is a very important factor in dealing
with seniors, in particular with women who live a little longer
according to the mortality tables, that we care for them. That is
why gender analysis was necessary in the preparation of this and
other legislation, to ensure that we are caring for our seniors
and those in most need, in this case senior women in particular.
The disability element of the Canada pension plan was brought in
to ensure that Canadians who were unable to work because of
disabilities would not fall through the cracks, that they would
have benefits that were just as rich as the retirement benefit.
This would make sure they had the assistance they need in their
time of need.
When the Canada pension plan was conceived, it was contemplated
that the premium rates in the original Canada pension plan would
be in the range of about 5.5%. Today the rate is 5.85%. When
the disability and survivor benefits were introduced no changes
were made to increase the premiums. The benefits received by
Canadian beneficiaries rose substantially whereas the premiums
did not track those increased benefits.
We must also take into account the aging of our society. When
the plan started there were eight workers for every one retiree.
Today there are five workers for every one retiree. With the
baby boom generation moving through the system it is projected
that we will have three workers for every retiree.
I want to confirm with the Chair that I am splitting my time
with the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Bill C-2 is unique in the sense that it is not a bill that has
come forward as a result of a party platform or some initiative
of the government. Its uniqueness lies in what resulted from the
mandatory consultations with the provinces and the territories,
which are jointly responsible for the Canada pension plan system,
and in what resulted from the exhaustive cross-Canada
consultations with Canadians and groups representing every vested
interest group across the country.
1255
Certain principles were laid down to guide the enactment of Bill
C-2. One of the most important has to do with the principle of
intergenerational equity. One of the most important elements has
to do with whether today's seniors who are receiving a
substantial benefit, much more substantial than future seniors
would ever receive, should be responsible for dealing with any
portion of the accrued benefits sitting with the Canada pension
plan today.
I want Canadians and all members to know that with consultations
with Canadians and the consensus of the provinces the decision
was taken that Bill C-2 should not impact today's beneficiaries
under the CPP plan. That means that today's pensioners as a
result of Bill C-2 will not be impacted by the changes being
contemplated by the House.
It means that today's Canadians receiving disability or survivor
benefits, regardless of age, will not be impacted by the changes
contemplated by Bill C-2. That is a very important principle and
it is a very important message so that we do not alarm current
seniors as to whether there is any impact on their retirement
income.
The decision made in consultation with Canadians and with the
approval of two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds
of the population of the country was that the planned increase to
10.1% in the year 2010 which would keep the Canada pension plan
sustainable was not a sufficient approach to dealing with the
realities of the day.
The decision was taken that rather than waiting until the year
2010 to increase the premiums, the increases should start in
1998. Today's rate is 5.85%. In consultations with Canadians
they wanted the Canada pension plan to remain, they wanted it to
be there for their retirement, that we should start making those
increases in the premiums today, not in the year 2010.
If we take those increases today and introduce them gradually
over the next six years up to 9.9%, that would mean that we would
be spreading the burden more equitably across the generations,
excluding today's seniors. That is fair. It is equitable and it
is the right thing to do. I think that is our job, to do the
right thing.
The 9.9% is very important to understand. It is called a steady
state rate. It is the premiums rate that has to be charged on
insurable earnings that will ensure that the plan is sustainable,
indexed, secure and available.
But it is not just a pension plan. I believe the Canada pension
plan is misnamed. It should be the Canada pension and insurance
plan because we do have survivor benefits, we do have death
benefits, we do have other insurance components. The 9.9% is
made up of four elements: 4.3% is the cost associated with
providing pensions; 1.7% is the cost associated with the
insurance benefits, the survivor, disability and death
benefits; .1% is for the administration of the plan; 3.8% is the
collective sharing of the accrued benefits all remaining and
future workers will pay to ensure that current seniors continue
to receive their benefits and that this plan remains on a sustainable basis.
Every day during prayers the Speaker reads out a line that we
hope that we will be here to make good legislation and wise
decisions. In my view Bill C-2 meets those criteria.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the member who just spoke was privileged, as I was, to
be in committee to listen to the evidence and the experts so that
we could evaluate and judge this legislation well.
One of the things we heard from the chief actuary of the fund
and from others is there are of course no guarantees at all that
the contribution rate of 9.9% will not continue to rise.
1300
First, I would ask the member what he says to Canadians who are
very concerned about this escalating and almost sure to continue
escalating mandatory contribution which many Canadians find to be
a real hardship.
I read some letters today in my speech. I wish I could have
read more. I received 4,000 of them, but I had to pick and
choose. Those letters contained heartfelt pleas from young,
struggling, single parents, parents of young children as well as
a young couple who are living in their truck. They all said that
they cannot afford these continued costs.
What does the hon. member say to these Canadians? Can we afford
to continue to pay more and more for less and less?
The chief actuary and other witnesses confirmed that although
people are making very substantial contributions to the CPP, they
will only receive a 1.8% return on their investment over their
lifetime.
Canadians are struggling. They are being mandated to pay a very
substantial amount of money every year into this plan and they
will receive far less than the value of their contributions. How
does the member justify this to Canadians? How can he look
Canadians in the eye and say “Pay this. You are not going to
get much back, but we are going to make you pay it anyway”? What
does he have to say to Canadians who are struggling?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, that is the heart of the
reason why I feel that the Reform Party has not done a service to
the House by suggesting such nonsense.
The fact remains that under the prescribed rates in Bill C-2,
Canadians will not receive less than they put in.
The member has failed to mention that the 1.8% return to which
she has referred is the real rate of return. It is the return
which one would get after allowing for inflation. She knows very
well that the inflation assumption in Bill C-2 and in the
actuary's report was 3.5%. That means that Canadians will
receive a return of over 5%. In fact, it will be 5.3%.
The parliamentary secretary said it correctly. A worker who
starts today and pays through their lifetime at the prescribed
rates will receive $1.80 for every $1 put in.
The other fact which the member failed to recognize is that
under the Income Tax Act, Canada pension plan premiums paid are
eligible for a non-refundable income tax credit. In Canada, on
average, that means there is a 26% reduction in taxes payable as
a result of having paid Canada pension plan premiums. That means
that each and every one of her calculations are in error because
she has failed to recognize the real calculations in income tax
returns. She has misled Canadians. She has put on the table
fearmongering.
I flatly reject the premise of the Reform Party that moving to
an RRSP system would be better because it totally ignores two
things. Number one, it ignores the current accrued benefits
which today's workers receive. Number two, it ignores the fact
that the pensioners have insurance benefits as well. She gives
no credit whatsoever to survivor benefits, to the death benefit,
to disability benefits or to children's benefits. That is the
reason they can put these terrible numbers on the floor in an
effort to scare Canadians.
Canadians should have nothing to do with the Reform Party.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-2. It is one of the most
important social policy initiatives of the last several years.
Since a Liberal government established the Canada pension plan a
generation ago, it has become a cornerstone of our retirement
income system.
The CPP has contributed greatly to seniors' dignity and
independence and has helped us drastically reduce poverty among
seniors.
1305
The CPP is also symbolic of the kind of society we as Canadians
have built, a society where we encourage individual effort but
strive to use our national wealth to ensure a basic standard of
living for all.
The legislation before us today represents values, not just the
values of the Liberal government which introduced the bill, but
more important, the values that Canadians from coast to coast to
coast embrace. It is about protecting today's seniors. It is
about ensuring that we in the baby boom generation pay our fair
share toward the Canada pension plan. It is about handing down a
viable public pension system to our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I want to bring to your
attention the comments made by the member for Mississauga when he
accused the member from Calgary—Nose Hill and the Reform Party
of having, and he used the words, misled and deliberately. I am
sure Madam Speaker, that you will find these are not
parliamentary terms to be used in the House. I would ask that
the member for Mississauga retract those words.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this time I would
like to advise the hon. member that we will look at the blues and
will come back to him after verification.
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, the member for
Mississauga is in the House. Perhaps the hon. Speaker would like
to direct the query directly to him and give him the opportunity
to withdraw those words.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the member for
Mississauga South have any comment at this time?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member is quite right. I used those words and I withdraw
those words, uncategorically. I should have said “she is
mistaken.”
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Madam Speaker, now that we have that
cleared up, as I was saying, the Canada pension plan is about
protecting today's seniors and about ensuring that we in the baby
boom generation pay our fair share toward the Canada pension
plan.
It is about handing down a viable public pension system to our
children and grandchildren. It is about a society that believes
we have an obligation to use our national wealth to look after
one another and ensure the dignity of each and every citizen.
I am proud to be part of a government that shares those values
and I am proud to support this incredibly important piece of
legislation.
While the Canada pension plan has been a major success story, we
recognize that changes are necessary in order to keep up with the
changing world. We are well aware of the challenges facing the
Canada pension plan. I think it is obvious to Canadians, but let
me reiterate what they are; an aging society and the prospect of
telling our children to pay almost three times as much as we do
for the same benefits. Obviously, the demographic problems have
been there for a number of years.
We just heard the leader of the fifth party speak of what a
nasty government the Liberal government is for bringing forward
these changes. Well, the reason we are bringing these changes is
because the Conservative government in previous Parliaments, and
one that I sat in 1988 to 1993, knew of the issues and the
problems we were facing and yet nothing was done.
As members of the House and as a government, we decided that it
was time to engage and consult with Canadians, and that is
exactly what we have done. The message that Canadians gave us
was loud and clear. Canadians told us to preserve the Canada
pension plan as a public and universal retirement income plan.
1310
They told us to leave the standard retirement age at 65. They
told us to preserve disability benefits. They told us not to
penalize people who leave the workforce for a time to care for
their families or to upgrade their education. They told us to
make better investment decisions and increase the return on the
CPP fund. They also told us to protect people already in the
system.
I am proud to stand here today and tell my constituents that we
have delivered. The legislation before us today meets the
priorities expressed by Canadians and the agreement on the Canada
pension plan means that the public pension plan will be preserved
for future generations. It means that seniors will continue to
benefit from a secure and guaranteed source of income. It also
means that as a baby boomer, I am not telling my young children
to pay more and more to support me in my retirement.
This is the emphasis that we wanted to make in the House today
and this is the emphasis that was placed in the negotiations and
discussions that we had with the provinces.
It is important that the people at home are aware that these
changes that are being made to the Canada pension plan are not
being made by the Government of Canada alone. It is in fact an
agreement with all of the provinces. In order to achieve a major
agreement of this kind, the Canada pension plan requires the
agreement of at least seven provinces.
In order to be able to stand here and talk about the Canada
pension plan changes today, we were able to obtain the agreement
of eight provinces as well as one territory. As members know
about federal-provincial relations, that in itself shows the
tremendous support that Canadians have for their public pension
plan and the tremendous support that all levels of government of
various political stripes place on preserving the Canada pension
plan.
In other words, most representatives of the people believe in
and are committed to the Canada pension plan. I realize that some
of my colleagues across the floor are ignoring their constituents
on this, but I will come back to that.
Beyond the historic achievement of reaching an agreement between
us and so many levels of government, what have we accomplished?
We have ensured stable and secure funding for the CPP. Yes,
contributions will rise to 9.9%. However, that is a lot better
than the 14% that we would have to pay to make this pension plan
and the rate stable over the long period.
Increased contributions will allow us to build a large reserve
fund and instead of lending it to the provinces at a bargain
basement rate, a professional and independent management board
will invest the funds in order to maximize returns.
I want to return a little bit to what the opposition is saying
in the House. It is important to note, if I can, that the Tories
did nothing. In fact, if they would have done something between
1984 and 1993, we would not be standing here having to talk about
it. As a matter of fact, I sat on one of those committees
between 1988 and 1993 where we reviewed what the Canada pension
plan needed to have done to it and the Tories basically decided
to do nothing because they were afraid of the political
consequences.
We now go to the Reform Party. The Reform Party calls our CPP
proposal a tax grab. What it does not tell Canadians is that its
scheme would cost individuals even more. What it does not tell
Canadians is that its scheme would eliminate disability benefits
and that it would penalize people who temporarily leave the
workplace to care for their children.
The opposition does not tell us that its system would leave each
and every Canadian completely at the mercy of the stock market.
One bad year at the age of 64 and all of a sudden your savings
are all gone.
Most shameful of all of the opposition's rhetoric on this is
that it has not told us how it would cover the cost of benefits
of current seniors as well as the outstanding liabilities for
contributions people have already made. That is the problem we
have with the opposition. If the opposition wants to criticize
that is perfectly legitimate. That is what oppositions are
intended to do.
1315
However, it is not to suggest that what we are offering
Canadians is a lot worse than what they are suggesting when in
fact we know the opposite is totally unacceptable.
This change and improvement in the Canada pension plan in making
the contribution rates stable for years to come is going to be
one of the most defining moments in this government's mandate. It
is also going to be one of the most defining moments for young
Canadians. As a young parent myself, I think it is important for
us to realize, if we look at the billions of dollars that we are
going to be saving young people in the long run by fast tracking
the premium increases now, we are doing the future generations a
big favour by what we are doing today.
I want to emphasize again in closing that we on this side of the
House take this very seriously and we are very pleased to see
that this issue is finally behind us and we can carry on with
other improvements to the values that we so cherish.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member opposite as usual from the government
side scaremongering about proposals to have more of an RRSP style
of a plan for Canada pension. He scaremongers without
justification because there are many countries throughout the
world, as we have told the government over and over again and
which it knows very well, that have already fully or partially
introduced this type of system.
Perhaps the member saw a program on television last Friday
night, 20/20 on ABC. There was an entire segment dedicated
to the Chilean experience which is now close to 20 years old.
What the program did first was interview all the scaremongers in
North America, the unions, the liberals who are opposed to this
program. They say you will lose all your savings. The world has
ended. Because it is not government, it will not work. Then the
program went down to Chile and interviewed people on the streets
and in the centres for the pension plans. Every person said what
a significant change it was and how good that had been for the
pension plans of Chile.
With that plan now almost 20 years old, the benefits to
pensioners have been phenomenal. To scaremonger by saying that
people are going to lose their investment is ridiculous.
The member knows very well that the government can set in place
regulations about what sort of investments can be made, the
security of those investments.
I would like to ask the member whether he saw the program
W5 on Friday night and, if not, whether he will commit to
get a copy to at least see the other side of the story.
The second question is whether he attended the conference that
was held right here in Ottawa by finance department officials
where Chilean representatives were there to tell how well their
program works. Did he attend that conference or see the program
on television?
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Madam Speaker, I am quite aware of
the Chilean experience. I want to relate to the House and to
people at home a bit about the Chilean experience. The member
opposite keeps using it. He should do his party a favour and
stop doing that because if Canadians knew the Chilean experience,
they would be amazed that the Reform Party cannot find a better
solution or a better example than that. Let me give some facts
about the Chilean experience.
Chile privatized its public pension some time ago, about 20
years ago. The original plan was in complete disarray. There
were over 30 plans in place when it went to its super RRSP kind
of system. There was little similarity between ours and Chile's.
That is why I am confused as to why the member would even want
to use it as an example because we cannot compare the two.
High inflation was seriously eroding the value of the benefits.
Only a few groups with political and economic power received
generous benefits. By contrast, the CPP is portable and nearly
universal. Everyone receives a fair pension. It includes
disability and survivor benefits and is fully indexed. There is
a big difference between ours and Chile's.
The following is the really interesting part. When the new
pension regime came in in Chile, Chile passed a government decree
making all employers raise their wages by 18% to soften the
impact of higher contributions.
1320
I do not know why this member continues to suggest that this is
a good example of why Canada should go to Chile's example.
Please, on behalf of the Reform Party and a few members in my
riding who would like the member to represent them properly, find
a better example. He is hurting his chances of ever getting
elected by using a silly argument like that when we know Canada
pension plans and universal pension plans are much better. I
hate to see Reform drop to zero in my riding because we would
like to keep it alive just a bit.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has obviously not taken the time
to look into the rescue plan that the Chilean government put into
place when its public pension system was on the brink of
disaster.
Before the hon. member from the government criticizes a program
that is working very well today, is self-sustaining and is
returning a good investment income to all the Chileans who are
retiring, I would strongly suggest that he read it and
understand it.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party does
not tell Canadians that on top of the 10% contribution rate that
Chileans pay, they must pay another 3% points for administration
fees and other benefits. Reformers also do not tell Canadians
that a private pension system such as Chile's has a much higher
cost than public pensions.
Investment costs will be much lower under CPP, one-tenth of one
per cent compared to two per cent for RRSPs. That is the real
issue.
The other one that really concerns me the most about this is
that they do not tell present day seniors in Canada, if they were
to wrap up our pension plan how they would deal with the millions
of people who are already on pensions. I think we have a right
to know that before they go any further.
As I said, Chile is the worst example could use. There is not
one solid G-7 country that would even consider this plan, never
mind Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have to rise and rebut some of the things my friend across the
way has said.
First, I would point out that in Chile at least people have a
choice. When they had a choice 90% chose the privatized plan.
They are enlightened enough in Chile, because they are a
democracy, to offer people a choice. When they had a choice 90%
got out of the corrupt public system and went into a private
system because it provides better returns.
We argue that people should have a choice. We believe that
people ultimately know a lot better than a big bureaucratic
government how to invest their own money. We believe in choice.
I also point out that in Chile when people did start to invest
in this plan, this private plan, it did wonderful things for
their economy. In the years after they started to do that their
economy grew at something like an annual rate of 7% a year. There
was this huge flow of new capital going into the market that
allowed their economy expand to the point where they had too much
money in the economy and had to open up their pension fund to
investors from around the world. Would that not be a nice
problem to have?
I point out to my hon. friend, who was misleading people by
suggesting that other G-7 countries would not look at this plan,
that the U.S. is seriously looking at this type of plan. I point
out that the U.K. has already gone to that plan. In fact, it is
going to go further in that direction according to Labour Prime
Minister Tony Blair.
Let us not scare people. Let us not allow the member across the
way to scare people. I do not think that will go over very well
with the people in his riding. In fact, after the pitiful speech
he just gave we will see the Reform members in that riding
increase. That is why all those young people, as revealed in a
poll yesterday, are coming over to the Reform Party. They do not
have any faith in a government that has run up a debt of $600
billion, not only in public debt, but $600 billion liability in
the Canada pension plan.
1325
I ask my friend in a rhetorical way what has that done for young
people? What has that done for people who are just starting out?
This plan really has not worked all that well, I would argue.
What we have seen in the last 30 years are successive Liberal
and Tory governments coming in, deceiving people, telling them
that there is not a problem, that everybody is going to be better
off.
What has happened? Of course, we have seen premiums not creep
up—
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. I do not mind a bit of rhetoric here and there
but I do not think it is politically acceptable or parliamentary
language to say that members on this side are being deceitful.
That is not parliamentary language, nor is it acceptable.
I have never used that kind of language, nor do I think it is
acceptable for the member to do that. I would appreciate if he
would withdraw.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, if I said that the hon.
member was deceitful, I apologize and I withdraw. If I said it
about his government and about the Tory government before, I
absolutely do not withdraw. In fact, I will say it again.
I think successive governments over the years were very
deceitful, because they knew full well that eventually this plan
would go broke. The people who are paying the price for that
today are all the young people who are just coming into the
system and who are going to end up getting a 1.8% return on all
the money they put into that system for 35 years.
This is according to the actuary. My friend is saying that it
is not true. The federal government's own actuary says it is a
1.8% return for those people coming into the system now.
That does not even take into account the foregone returns that
they would get if they had that money to put into their own
plans. In other words, they will get a negative return.
That is not the least of it. All the young people in the hon.
gentleman's riding across the way who he must think probably
support his government are going to end up feeling a double
whammy because we have a situation where this government will
raise CPP premiums by 73%.
How does that affect young people? According to the finance
department itself, we have a paper from Joe Italiano in the
finance department saying higher payroll taxes are going to kill
tens of thousands of jobs. That is what the Liberal government
is going to do for young people.
It is going to kill jobs on the one hand so that young people
who have the most trouble getting jobs never do get a decent
paying job to begin with and then they are going to feel the full
weight of the government's CPP hike, 73%, for the entire time
they are in the workforce. Ultimately they will get a measly
$8,800 pension at the end of it all.
I point out that the government likes to talk about the three
pillars of retirement income, CPP, old age security and RRSPs.
How has it done in those three areas?
We know that CPP is a complete disaster thanks to the management
or the lack of management by the Liberal government and the
Tories before.
We know that the way they dealt with seniors incomes under old
age security is to propose a plan that will claw back up to 80%
of seniors incomes.
My friend just spoke here a minute ago about how the Chileans
were doing such a bad job because of the way they were going to
impose higher taxes and all that kind of thing on the population
there.
What about his own government? An 80% clawback, how is that
fair? What about RRSPs? How have the Liberals done there? They
have done very poorly as a matter of fact. They have frozen and
rolled back the contribution levels that can be contributed to
RRSPs to save for retirement.
On the one hand, they are penalizing people through the new
seniors benefit for saving. On the other hand, they are rolling
back contributions for RRSPs. They rolled back the age of
contribution to RRSPs from 71 to 69. It has been made more
difficult for everybody who wants to save for their own
retirement.
The Reform Party believes that there is a fourth pillar in the
retirement system. We believe that tax relief should be the
fourth pillar. We have argued and presented a plan in the last
election campaign to provide the average family of four with
$2,000 of tax relief by the year 2000.
What has the government done? Let us relate the story of the
government's record on taxation. The Liberals along with the
Conservatives have given us the highest personal income taxes in
the G-7 as a percentage of our economy. It is 54% higher than
the G-7 average.
That is unbelievable to me.
1330
Government members wonder why we have families living in
poverty. It is a big mystery to them. Maybe the government
should look at its tax record. Maybe it should take into account
that since it came to power in 1993 we have seen the total
revenues in this country go up by about $25 billion, somewhere in
that range.
How much of that has come back to Canadians? Precious little
because as a matter of fact we have seen interest on the debt
continue to climb. We now see it at $45 billion a year, $7
billion more than when the Liberals came in, which is exactly the
amount they have cut out of the health and social transfer.
This government has a terrible record on taxation. It is why we
have not seen disposable incomes rise since the 1980s, not at
all. They have not gone up one bit. In fact since 1984 they
have gone down 6%. That is the record of the Liberal and Tory
governments.
If I were a Liberal member I do not think I would be boasting
about CPP or OAS, the seniors benefit, or the RRSPs, or their tax
record. I think on every score the Liberals have let Canadians
down. They have hurt young people. The government has deceived
all these people who are operating under the impression that
somehow the government will be there for them when they retire.
Let me simply sum up by saying we think it is time the
government dropped the scales from its eyes for a moment and
stopped to consider that other countries around the world have
had some success, more than a little success, with the type of
plan we are talking about. Look at the U.K. Look at Australia.
Look at the United States which is seriously considering this
type of proposal.
My friend across the way can focus on Chile only. He thinks he
can make fun of a plan just because it comes from a developing
country. We say that the Liberal government is not the only one
with a good idea. We think that he speaks in arrogance that
befits the Liberals and the Tories before them. But we say there
are other ways.
We chastise the government because when it was considering what
to do with CPP it did not look at any other plans. This was
revealed to us when we brought officials before the finance
committee not long ago. We found out that when they considered
going around the country with the provinces they did not look at
any other plans. Their only option was to see what they could do
to fix the CPP.
We say it is time to start looking around. In fact one thing we
found out when we talked to the officials is that when they
consulted people across the country, their consultations amounted
to meeting with 290 people. Two hundred and ninety people for a
country of 30 million people, not over this generation but over
several generations. They are proposing to make their decision,
to raise CPP premiums by 73% on consultations with 290 people.
Who comprised those 290 people? I think 40 of them were
individuals. All the rest were people who represented vested
interests. Among the people who appeared I noted looking at the
interveners list there was a group from the NDP youth, obviously
an unbiased group. We saw all of the trade unions represented
and we know where they were coming from. We saw the interest of
big business. But we did not see ordinary Canadians at these
hearings. We know where this government is coming from. The fix
was in right from the beginning.
The government should look around and decide for a second that
perhaps it does not have the only good ideas. In fact I think
its record speaks for itself. It does not have any good ideas.
It should perhaps consider for a moment that around the world
other people do have good ideas. Let me just say briefly how we
think the government should be going.
We think it should consider a mandatory RRSP plan. Give people
a choice. Let them choose the Liberal 9.9% plan or let them opt
in to a mandatory RRSP. We think many young people would
appreciate the chance not to be hamstrung and handcuffed by a
government when they begin their work career.
We also believe we should target the seniors benefit to low
income people and have a much more gradual clawback than what the
government is proposing, which is 80% in some cases. That is
absolutely ridiculous. We believe that RRSPs should be enhanced.
We believe that people should be allowed to put more money into
RRSPs.
1335
It is time for tax relief in this country. Canadians have
spoken on this issue. I sit on the finance committee, as do
members opposite. They know that people want debt reduction
first and tax relief second. Let us give them some tax relief.
I encourage my friends opposite to consider what we have said.
Consider what Canadians are saying across the country and wake up
and deliver the tax relief and debt reductions which Canadians
are asking for.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I very
much enjoyed the member's speech because it verified what I have
been saying in the House all along. The Reform's program is
pretty general. It does not get into specifics. I want to ask
the member one specific question to see if he can answer it.
If the Reform Party removed the Canada pension plan and replaced
it with a super RRSP, I want to know what the member proposes to
do with the $600 billion liability that exists today. What does
he intend to do with the disability benefits which would not be
there under a super RRSP? What will he do with the death
benefit?
There is a social component to the Canada pension plan which is
different from what my friend is advocating. He is advocating an
RRSP system which would be based on income replacement but would
have no social component in it.
I would like him to answer those two questions. So far all he
has given us is the Chile example. I do not want to talk about
the Chile example because quite frankly it is not a good one. It
is not our system.
I was referring to countries which have a public pension plan.
Not one of those countries has gone from a public pension plan to
a private pension plan. When the two plans are put together side
by side, it is obvious that the public pension plan is better for
Canadians.
The member says that we are increasing the clawback by 80%, but
that will only affect one out of ten people. Nine out of ten
people will benefit from the seniors benefit. One in ten will
see a reduction.
I do not know who the people are who the member is looking at.
They must be those in the $100,000 to $200,000 range. They
certainly are not the people in the $15,000 to $25,000 range.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, it is probably a little
late to say it but I should mention that I am splitting my time
with the hon. member for Surrey Central.
I want to point out that the World Bank in 1994 told us that pay
as you go systems have a predictable three stage life cycle. The
systems begin in young countries where the proportion of retired
people is small. They go through the windfall stage where people
who are just getting into the system get far more out of it than
they put in. There is the expanding coverage stage where the
population is aging and the founding generation receives even
higher benefits and more groups are covered. Then there is the
final stage, which is the stage we are in in this country, which
is where the system starts to collapse.
That is why there are 20 countries in the world which have
already gone to a mandatory private savings plan. Chile is one
of them. The U.S. is moving in that direction. The U.K. is now
doing it. Australia is now doing it. Switzerland, Finland,
Greece and Japan all have variations on the theme. Let us not
let the hon. member opposite suggest there are no other countries
going to this plan.
The hon. member asked me about the liability. We know that the
government's plan is to raise CPP premiums by 73%. That is the
one option which Canadians have. We say that one of the better
options is to get a better rate of return. It is so simple that
it has eluded our friends across the way. They think that by
giving the money to the provinces at below market rates of
interest that somehow we have done seniors a great favour.
Obviously we have not.
The government plan until now has earned 2.5%. That is
ridiculous.
We say it is time to start investing that money in the stock
market and allow people to get the returns they can. Over the
last 30 years I think the real rate of return is pretty close to
6%. If people get better rates of return, rather obviously the
premiums do not have to be as high and the liability actually
begins to come down. That is the answer to my friend.
1340
With respect to old age security, I would also point out that
when the member talks about the one in ten, which I think is a
little hyperbole, he should really point out that it is not low
income people who end up $120 better off under the government's
plan. The ultimate result of the plan is that it is able to save
$6 billion in payouts to seniors.
The people who get it right in the neck are the middle income
earners. High income people will not feel any pain because they
already have the money clawed back anyway. It is middle income
seniors who will be taking it in the neck by the government's
plan. Out of fairness, that should be pointed out.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
during the member's speech he referred to the consultation
process which as all members and all Canadians know was very
exhaustive over a two year period.
The member looked at the report which stated that there were 270
interventions before the travelling panel which was chaired by
former member of Parliament David Walker. The member referred to
this as 270 persons having appeared before the panel. In fact,
the interveners included organizations such as the Canadian
Labour Congress, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, the
Canadian Association of Pension Consultants, et cetera. These are
not individuals. The member is not only mistaken, he is mistaken
in the extreme.
My question for the member has to do with the very serious issue
of disability benefits for Canadians which are provided under the
current Canada pension plan system and will be continued under
Bill C-2.
If the member's party is sticking to its position that the
Canada pension plan should be scrapped, abolished, thrown out,
does he have any words for Canadians who receive disability
benefits today as to how his program will satisfy the need for
disability pensions for Canadians?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, at the risk of
repeating myself, I really believe that my colleagues across the
way are doing their level best to scare Canadians. There is no
reason in the world why we cannot have a separate disability
program. No one says it has to be linked to the old Canada
pension plan. Why can there not be a separate plan?
As my friend knows, people came forward from the pension
industry and said that we can have a separate disability plan.
They pointed out that we should be doing that because there is
great confusion now among people who think that the money that
goes to the Canada pension plan goes just for their pensions.
Obviously that is not true. So why not separate it out?
Another point I would make is that under the current regime, the
government plan pays out a whopping $465 in survivors benefits to
people who are widowed. Under a mandatory RRSP the whole amount
of the annuity would be paid to a surviving spouse. If the
pension which was coming in was $30,000 that is how much the
spouse would get. Under the government's plan they get a CPP
pension of $8,800 and the survivor gets $465 a month. I do not
think this plan serves widows very well in this country. In
fact, I think it is an abomination.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I would like to remind the member for Medicine Hat that he does
not represent people across the country. The last time I looked
we did not have any Reform Party members of Parliament here from
Atlantic Canada.
I come from a part of the country that has one of the highest
rates of unemployment. People are having difficulty feeding their
children.
There are no prospects for future employment.
1345
How does the member propose that these Atlantic Canadians can
invest in RRSPs when they are not able to feed their children?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, the short answer is the
money they currently pay into the CPP would go into the mandatory
RRSP. It would be the same way it works now.
I point out to my hon. colleague that if premiums go up by 73%
there will never be any jobs in Atlantic Canada. I am surprised
the NDP supported a plan that kills jobs for Atlantic Canadians.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise to speak to an issue about which I heard a lot of
nonsense this morning from members on the opposite side,
particularly from the member from Chile. I found that rather
interesting.
An hon. member: Very funny.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I do not care if the member thinks it
is funny. Is it not interesting that the Reform Party has to get
its policies by watching ABC television reporting on the Chilean
experience? We want a made in Canada solution. We do not need
to go to the states.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I am teasing the bears and they are
apparently getting a little agitated. Since they stopped
listening to Newt Gingrich they have had to go farther afield to
get their marching orders. Where the policies come from is
really quite telling.
I will be splitting my time with Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Reformers talk about the fact that there has been no
consultation. The tactics that are used are interesting. My
colleague from Mississauga South pointed out that a former
speaker of the Reform Party said that only 270 people were
consulted. The fact of the matter is the committee travelled
across the country and received 270 deputations or presentations
literally representing millions of Canadians.
They know that, but it is convenient to describe the Canadian
Labour Congress as a person rather than to say that it is a group
representing millions of people who have a lot at stake. It is a
neat little way to twist the facts around to get out a message
that is very misleading.
We did consult. As for ramming Bill C-2 through this place, as
members opposite know we have consulted across the country. It
has been debated in committee. Members opposite have spoken
about it. It has been debated at second reading. It has been
debated in committee of the whole and at third reading. I
suppose the Chilean experience would simply see polarization of
parliamentary democracy. We do not operate that way and members
opposite know that we have to deal with reform to the CPP.
An hon. member: Don't use that word disrespectfully.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't talk about disrespectful. We
almost had one of the Reform Party fellows going into fisticuffs,
climbing over a chair this morning. That is the mentality we see
on that side of the House. They should be ashamed of themselves
and embarrassed.
Canadians watch television and see the kind of behaviour we saw
here this morning. A member actually had to be restrained
physically from climbing over chairs to attack another member of
Parliament. That is the mentality. That was the Reform Party.
Canadians are fed up with that kind of nonsense.
Canadians want leadership.
1350
Several years ago another very important pension fund members
opposite might be familiar with, the teachers' pension fund of
the province of Ontario, was in some difficulty for very similar
types of problem.
The contributions had been too low from both the teachers and
the employer, the Government of Ontario. The investment
procedures used by that pension fund were inadequate and unfair.
Many of the roads, bridges, schools and other parts of the
infrastructure in our province were paid for from that pension
fund at interest rates as low as 3% when market interest rates
were in the double digit area. It was a fund from which to
borrow cheaply to build public infrastructure.
As a result we wound up with a pension fund the actuarial people
said was in serious trouble. The Liberal government in office at
the time decided we had to bite the bullet. We increased the
contributions of teachers and we matched that with an increase to
the employer, the Ontario government. We set up an independent
body for investments and today the teachers' fund is one of the
strongest financial vehicles in the entire country, perhaps in
North America.
The teachers were not happy when we did that. They
demonstrated. They came to Queen's Park. They were very
unhappy. Today the fund owns the Toronto Maple Leafs, although
there are days when I am not sure it would want to. The fund has
substantial investments such as investments in newspapers.
Teachers have a financially strong pension fund because the
government of the day had the courage to make those changes.
I give that example because it relates. The CPP must change
from being simply a pay as you go fund, which in a sense is
exactly what the super RRSP fund would be. If one has the money
to invest and has a job then under the Reform plan one would be
able to invest in an RRSP. A lot of Canadians simply do not fall
into that category.
This is not rocket science. If we split them out and tell
people they will be given the option of opting out of the plan,
obviously the financial integrity of the CPP will be jeopardized.
We are not prepared to do that. Canadians have investment
options for their retirement. They have options to invest in
RRSPs. We believe there should be a publicly funded, solid,
government backed Canadian pension plan for all Canadians and for
future generations.
What do we do? We either increase the contributions, reduce the
benefits or change the procedures. Frankly we are doing all of
that in an effort to put the CPP in a sustainable format. Yes,
there will be an increase.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I do not expect the member to
understand. I am really not talking to him. I am talking to the
Speaker and to the Canadian people. They understand that some
people might benefit from the simple black and white solution
that everybody gets to invest in an RRSP fund for their
retirement.
I think my colleague was right on. We are talking about who
will benefit from a wide open RRSP fund and the elimination of
the CPP. Is it the average working Canadian? Is it the working
poor? Is it families and young people who need some leadership
and some strong financial backing from government?
I think it will be big business. The oil barons out west may
benefit from it, and God bless them. That is why we have a system
for everyone to invest in their own retirement savings plan.
There are rules that guide the investment.
1355
What is the Royal Bank's profit up to today? It is $1.6
billion. That is absolutely unbelievable. Why is that? It is
probably in large measure because of the amount of money
Canadians have been putting into RRSPs and the banks. Whether it
is through RoyFund, investment procedures or whatever, the banks
are benefiting.
Reformers simply care more about the banks, the oil companies
and rich Canadians than taking care of all Canadians in a
universally funded system that will accrue to the benefit of our
children and in spite of their rhetoric will accrue to the
benefit of their children.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, we have just had a classic example of greenhouse gas.
The member made absolutely weird comments. He does not seem to
understand a very simple principle.
The principle is that people in the workforce today are having
CPP premiums extracted from their paycheques. That extraction
will increase by 73%. Under the Reform super RRSP or a plan like
it, they would continue to have premiums extracted but not at the
73% increase.
The member misrepresents the Reform position. It is really a
scandal that he just does not understand. We cannot get blood
from a stone. We cannot give the opportunity for super RRSPs to
people who are not working, who are not deriving an income, but
those same people are not paying CPP premiums.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Oh, that is going to help.
Mr. Art Hanger: Do you have it all figured out now?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Unbelievable.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Now he understands. That is wonderful.
During the election campaign the Liberal candidate accused me of
scaring seniors at a seniors' home in Revelstoke. He said
“Before the election the member went into the seniors' home in
Revelstoke. He took in a so-called expert who was explaining the
new seniors benefits program to them. He scared them so much
that they would not talk to me, the Liberal”. Guess what? The
so-called expert I took in was an official from HRD who explained
the Liberal policy to the seniors. That is what made them
scared.
The point is that the CPP is just the first shoe. The second
shoe is the seniors benefits program the government has not told
Canadians about. These people hide behind the cloak of we are
going to protect you. They are dropping both shoes on the heads
of seniors and people who will become seniors. At the same time,
just for good measure, they are doing an intergenerational
transfer of wealth from 25 year old people who will never see
their CPP premiums again.
Has the member learned anything here? Has he learned that only
people who work pay CPP premiums and only people who work would
pay super RRSP premiums? Does he understand that simple concept?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I have learned quite a
bit, actually. The member mentioned in his opening remarks that
this was an example of greenhouse gas. This is proof that if we
were to collect all the flatulence from the cattle industry and
from what I just heard across the way, we could probably reduce
greenhouse gases dramatically beyond our wildest dreams.
The nonsense. Can we imagine? I just heard that people who are
not working do not pay CPP premiums, therefore they will be okay
if we go to a wide open RRSP plan for their retirement. That is
what I heard. I would ask the member to check Hansard
because that is what he said and he does not know what he is
talking about.
The fact of the matter is that the Reform Party's simplistic
solution to long term sustainable pension funds is to throw them
wide open so that the banks can make more money by playing with
Canadians' money.
1400
Let me tell you. It was just announced today that the Royal
Bank made $1.6 billion. They do not need your help. They are
doing just fine. They do not need you to pass pension
legislation.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I just caught the tail end of
the remarks. Please, I ask all hon. members to address the
Chair. Do not address each other directly.
We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
DICK CARRICK
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many people gathered in Rockwood, Ontario on November
15, 1997 to say goodbye to Dick Carrick.
Dick was a member of the executive of the Guelph—Wellington
Federal Liberal Association, a veteran of World War II and a man
who volunteered for a number of charities. Above all Dick was a
friend to many, including me.
In various election campaigns and other projects, Dick kept us
in good spirits with his wonderful sense of humour as well as his
commitment to always doing what was right.
He is survived by his wife Olive and several children and
grandchildren. He will be missed by them and by all who are made
better because he was a part of our lives.
* * *
MAPLE LEAF PLANT CLOSURE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
1,000 jobs lost forever. One thousand families face a bleak new
year.
In Edmonton a 90 year old plant was struck and then closed.
Michael McCain was true to his word. The legacy is shattered
lives that will exist long after labour brass and Maple Leaf have
left town.
Must labour always wield a primordial club of strike? Must
management always sit resolute awaiting the blow? Must our
community always suffer in silence?
Can we do no better than repeat the past? Workers and their
families want to know. Have we not learned at last? Sadly I fear
the answer is no.
* * *
ALEX LING
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today an outstanding member of my constituency, Mr. Alex
Ling, received the Award of Merit from the city of Toronto. This
award is given to people who have helped to improve the quality
of life in Toronto through endeavours outside of their chosen
vocation.
Mr. Ling, a small business owner in Bloor West Village, has been
integral to the development of the Bloor West Business
Improvement Area. Most recently Mr. Ling and the BIA were
successful in implementing the construction of a fountain at the
intersection of Bloor and Jane Streets in partnership with
federal infrastructure moneys.
Mr. Ling has shared his knowledge and experience with other BIAs
in the Toronto area. As founding member and current chairman of
the Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas, he has
championed the cause of small business in Toronto.
I congratulate Mr. Ling on his Award of Merit. I draw
inspiration from his contribution. I encourage all Canadians to
follow his example of tireless volunteerism.
* * *
[Translation]
LUCIE BROUILLETTE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on February 11,
1996, while vacationing in Costa Rica, Lucie Brouillette, a
resident of Le Gardeur in the riding of Joliette, saved a man from
drowning in the Pacific Ocean.
Caught in a current that was carrying him out to sea, the man
had given up and was bobbing in the waves to save his strength in
the hope that someone would rescue him. As soon as Ms. Brouillette
realized what was happening, she quickly swam out, battling a
strong current for almost 200 metres before reaching the victim.
Somehow, she made it back through the waves to shore with the man.
Tomorrow, in recognition of her courage, Ms. Brouillette will
be presented with the Medal of Bravery by the Governor General of
Canada.
I wish to pay tribute to this individual for her heroic action
in very dangerous circumstances.
* * *
1405
[English]
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate members of
the Canadian forces search and rescue team along with coast guard
members as they were recognized this week for brave efforts at
sea.
Two of them, Ken Power and Greg Smit, were awarded the Star of
Courage, our second highest honour for bravery in peacetime. In
September 1996 they and other members risked their lives to hoist
four people off a sinking sailboat in the stormy seas off Sable
Island.
Most recently the heroism of search and rescue teams was
demonstrated during the rescue off St. John's, Newfoundland of
the Vanessa where 10 lives were saved.
Two members of the Canadian forces team, Darryl Cronin and
Marques Reeves, received the search and rescue commander
commendation for their contribution to that rescue. They
parachuted into the north Atlantic to provide medical treatment
to the survivors.
The dedication and selfless commitment of these individuals is a
reflection of all the men and women who provide on a day to day
basis search and rescue.
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Paul's.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in honour and remembrance of the 14 young women who were
brutally murdered in Montreal on December 6, 1989.
In Toronto at Women's College Hospital we have an annual
remembrance ceremony in their honour. This year the Hon. Margaret
Norrie McCain, the former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick,
will be the keynote speaker. Her talk will raise the issue, what
have we learned from the Montreal massacre?
As we remember the sad events of eight years ago, I am reminded
of the courageous stand taken by our former minister of justice
in bringing about comprehensive gun control in our country. It
is clear that we have indeed learned from the Montreal massacre
and that we have tangible evidence that this government is
committed to ensuring that this type of horror never happens
again.
I know I am joined by the women's caucus and all members of the
House in remembering the victims of the Montreal massacre,
including those who have chosen to act to end violence against
women.
* * *
ALBERTA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the spirit
of youth will be celebrated in Red Deer from February 19 to 22
during the 1998 Alberta winter games. More than 3,000 athletes
and coaches, more than 3,000 volunteers, as well as parents and
spectators will fill the city.
Alberta is divided into eight zones. Participants in the 21
sports must qualify to represent their zone at this premier
provincial sporting event. Provincial success could be the
beginning of national and international achievement.
The games are more than a biannual sporting event. They started
in 1974 as a provincial movement to provide opportunities for
amateur sports. They also motivate Albertans to aim for a higher
level of physical fitness.
While winning is important, sometimes achieving a personal best
or fulfilling a dream is an even more important achievement.
We welcome everyone to come to Red Deer, the Alberta capital of
volunteerism, to watch these young athletes achieve their goals.
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Saturday, December 6 will mark the National Day of Remembrance and
Action on Violence Against Women.
Eight years ago, Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie
Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick,
Barbara Maria Klucznik, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair,
Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie
Turcotte and Annie St-Arneault were assassinated at the École
Polytechnique de Montréal.
The pain of this day is still with us.
We mourn their deaths, as we mourn all women who have died through
violence.
I urge all members to work with women's groups, communities,
businesses and individual citizens to end violence against women.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for 13
hours on December 1, 13 women held a vigil to commemorate the 13
years women in the federal public service have fought for pay
equity.
On December 8, Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance
are scheduled to resume negotiations.
The government is sending a mixed message. In a note to
public servants, the Treasury Board President warns them that
unless they accept his reduced offer of $1.3 billion, negotiations
will be long and painful. Quite a threat.
For her part, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women
told us that the Treasury Board President had some leeway.
The government must put a stop to the injustice which has
dragged on from one government to the next. The Liberals must take
another look at what they said when they formed the official
opposition. The Minister of Finance must cut the Treasury Board
President enough slack to resolve this issue once and for all.
* * *
1410
[English]
LAND MINES
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as hon. members are aware, history is being made in Ottawa this
week. More than 120 nations have signed a treaty to ban land
mines.
Joining us in the gallery today are several land mine survivors.
Judy and Bruce Isfeld from Courtney, B.C. lost their son Mark, a
Canadian peacekeeper, to a land mine. They are here representing
Canadian survivors. Mines Action Canada has brought here for this
conference people from around the world who have been disabled by
land mines. In the gallery are Song Kosal, Tun Chunarreth and
Sokeng, all from Cambodia.
I invite my colleagues to join in paying tribute to the courage
and the remarkable will demonstrated by these land mine survivors
here in our gallery, and to come to Room 200 West Block to meet
them after question period and to bring their staff. They
deserve our support.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PEACEKEEPERS
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
our first group of peacekeepers returns from Haiti.
For the past two and a half years these troops and others have
worked to build stability and democracy in a state which has for
too long been ruled by a brutal dictatorship. They also helped
to train a national police force so the Haitian people could walk
the streets free from fear.
We sent our peacekeepers into a volatile situation that few
people could handle. They not only handled it but they performed
extremely well.
They earned the respect of the Haitian people and the world with
their hard work, their kindness and their dedication. They did
not solve Haiti's problems but no one could reasonably have
expected them to.
On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to thank our
peacekeepers for their good work and congratulate them on a job
well done. I would also like to thank their families for their
sacrifice and their crucial support.
And so I say to our peacekeepers, thank you and welcome home.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC CITY COUNCIL
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
City council finally has decided to set up a working group to
determine the criteria governing the occasional or permanent
raising of flags in front of city hall.
We do not need any criteria or committees to find out whether
we love the Canadian flag. Pride in our country is not occasional
or temporary. It is permanent.
[English]
The pride of our country is not a temporary or transitory thing,
but it is a permanent pride.
[Translation]
We think the Canadian flag represents the value of belonging
to a nation that is growing in the spirit of tolerance and openness
to others and to the world. Another ridiculous decision forced by
the mayor of Quebec City.
We would never agree to criteria for occasional support for
our country. We should ask the separatists if they want to break
up our country occasionally.
* * *
[English]
HIGHWAYS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, thanks to the federal government's declining commitment
to rail service, our roads are under more pressure than ever.
A well maintained system of roads and highways is the basic
transportation backbone and economic diversification tool of
rural communities and provincial economies. That is why in this
year's Saskatchewan budget the NDP government announced a 10 year
$2.5 billion program to improve the province's roads and
highways. But they cannot do it alone.
Canada is the only one of 28 OECD countries not to have a
national highways program. The federal government collects $4
billion in fuel tax from Canadians but spends less than 12% of
these tax revenues on road transportation and not one dime of it
in western Canada. As a matter of fact, if a car stopped on a
dime in western Canada, you can bet that dime did not come from
Ottawa.
It is time the Liberal government established a national
highways program to help build a strong economic future for all
western Canadians. It is time for the government to put some cash
on the dash for its national highway system.
* * *
[Translation]
TEAM CANADA
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are delighted by the decision of the premier of Quebec,
Lucien Bouchard, to join Team Canada on its trip to Latin America
from January 10 to 28.
We will recall Mr. Bouchard's praises for the work done by the
Canadian embassy in China during a similar trade mission.
We can assure the Quebec premier that the Government of Canada
will do an equally effective job for the Latin American mission so
that the members of the Canadian delegation may return home with
maximum economic benefits for Canada and Quebec.
Obviously, Mr. Bouchard will not come home a federalist
following a Team Canada trip. Let us hope that he will at least
appreciate certain benefits of Canadian federalism when he sees
that Canada's economic strength benefits Quebec in such
circumstances.
Who knows, one day Mr. Bouchard may find some goal other than
to break up Canada.
* * *
1415
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I met with the minister of agriculture regarding
assistance for Nova Scotia farmers who have been severely
impacted by the extended drought. Feed costs have risen
dramatically while production has been substantially reduced,
threatening their livelihood.
The minister committed to work with companion programs already
in place which may make funds available to the Nova Scotia
agricultural industry in this emergency. Funds already committed
to other programs might be shifted to provide assistance needed,
while not requiring any new money.
The minister has committed to negotiate with the province of
Nova Scotia in an effort to reach a federal-provincial agreement
to make this assistance available as soon as possible.
I thank the minister for his attention to this problem and look
forward to the much needed assistance for Nova Scotia farmers.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we asked the government to face up to Canada's
crushing debt load and high tax load. The response from the
government was pathetic. In essence it said that it did not have
to answer for high debt and high taxes.
Today a major public opinion poll shows that 89% of Canadians
say that the government had better start answering debt questions
now.
What precisely is the government's debt reduction target?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our target is to have a balanced budget. This year for
the first time the debt decreased by a couple of billion dollars.
The next budget will tell us by exactly how much.
The government has a policy that is clear. I note that Reform's
program does not talk about debt reduction; it talks about tax
reduction. We have a balanced approach. We know that we will
reduce the debt and taxes—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government knows nothing about balance when it comes
to debt and taxes.
Under Liberal governments personal income taxes have risen to
the highest levels in the G-7. Under the government the debt has
risen in total to close to $600 billion and Canada's youth are
stuck with the tab.
In today's poll it was significant that it was Canadians under
30 years of age who were most insistent that the government
address the debt.
Why is the government considering more spending when young
Canadians are demanding that it address the balance sheet first?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we realize that there are problems in society, like
child poverty, which are the responsibility of the government.
The government realizes that there are some people in some parts
of Canada who need help from the government.
That is why in the same poll Canadians said they believed those
on this side of the House are best able to manage the economy of
Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government thinks that helping people and cutting
debt and taxes are opposites. What Canadians are telling the
government is that these things go hand in hand.
The government taxes the poor more heavily than either the
Americans or the British, so broad based tax relief helps the
poor, including poor children.
The $45 billion a year the government is paying on interest eats
the heart out of social programs, so debt reduction helps social
programs.
How long will it take the government to understand that debt
reduction and tax relief are—
The Speaker: The hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we were the first. We have done it. We did not only
talk about it. We did it.
I have the terrible task of being the first prime minister in 40
years to deal with the very difficult problem of what to do now
that we are balancing the budget.
1420
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to today's poll 89% of Canadians are demanding debt
reduction but the government is so out of touch. To paraphrase
Ernie Eves, the cabinet is hovering like vultures waiting to
spend away the surplus.
My question is for the prime minister. When will the government
get the message that Canadians want the backroom buzzards to buzz
off, to start to address the problem of the debt and to start to
relieve them from the high, staggering burden of taxation? When
will this get through to the government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of finance of Ontario and the socialist
minister of finance of Saskatchewan are asking us not to spend
money. I took note of that. I hope when they come to town next
week that they will remember that.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously they touched a nerve.
Not only does the government ignore Canadians, the cabinet can
hardly wait to try out its new American Express card, because
with an American Express card there is no pre-set spending limit.
Instead of showing complete disdain for the priorities of
Canadians, the people they are supposed to serve, when will the
government cut up its credit card? When will it leave home
without it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I inform the hon. member that we on this side of the
House of Commons make decisions that are in the best interest of
Canadians. We do not get up in the morning asking pollsters what
to do. We take our responsibilities seriously.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Prime Minister and his colleague, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, have elevated the leader of the official
opposition to the status of champion of the Calgary declaration. Today,
the leader of the Reform Party made public his plan to consult
Quebeckers on the Calgary declaration.
Are we to understand that, because the leader of the Reform Party
is his champion and partner, the minister agrees with the Reform
leader's initiative to hold mock consultations in Quebec on the Calgary
declaration?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada welcomes any initiative, any effort made by the
members of this Parliament who want to have a positive dialogue with
Quebeckers, and I am sure that the Reform Party will learn a great deal
from Quebeckers in the process.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
recently stated in this House that “unique character” means the same
thing as “distinct society” and that there is not a single serious
jurist who would say otherwise. But the leader of the Reform Party has
been saying from the very beginning that he is totally opposed to the
concept of distinct society or anything of the sort.
Does the minister not realize that he and his partner are
contradicting each other and that the Reform consultation will take
place amid this confusion?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think that the hon. member is the champion of confusion.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: However, we disagreed with the Reform Party on
this issue because the Reform Party regarded distinct society as a
special status while we did not see it that way.
In the Calgary declaration, this misunderstanding has been
eliminated. Anything that is available to one province will also be
available to the others. There will be no special status. And we are
very pleased and confident that all Canadians will recognize Quebec
society as a fundamental component—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the leader of
the Reform Party invites his friends and colleagues to fight the
notion of distinct society or any other related concept, while the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is trying to convince
Quebeckers that what is in the Calgary declaration is the exact
equivalent of distinct society. Surprisingly, both claim they
approve of the Calgary declaration. Both have associated
themselves with the Reform initiative.
How can the minister accuse the sovereignists of sowing
confusion when he and his Reform associate—
The Speaker: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
1425
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the hon. member has a hearing problem.
We have just said that there is no special status; there is a
recognition of a fundamental dimension of Canada. Rather than
letting its leader make inept statements on Canada in Alberta, the
Reform Party is certainly welcome to go to Quebec to talk about the
Calgary declaration.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand from the responses of the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs that he adopts the phoney initiative of the Reform leader
as his own, that it is now government property, that they all agree
to go and supposedly consult Quebeckers on an agreement on which no
one else in Canada agrees?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, national unity is not a partisan matter. We have serious
differences with the Reform Party, as the hon. member can see every
day, but we share one and the same country, one that needs to be
preserved, and preserve it we will, regardless of our
disagreements.
* * *
SABLE ISLAND NATURAL GAS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the prime minister.
The natural gas on Sable Island is a Canadian resource that must
benefit the largest possible number of Canadians. Yet, the federal
cabinet just approved the gas pipeline proposed by Maritime and
Northeast. The cabinet did not even bother to determine which project
was the most beneficial to the economy of Atlantic Canada and of Quebec.
Why did the prime minister refuse to ask the natural resources
committee to conduct such an assessment, as requested by the hon. member
for Halifax? Does he really want certain regions—
The Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources.
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know that the regulatory
process is not yet complete. There are some stages yet to go.
The Government of Canada is being absolutely meticulous in
adhering to the spirit and the letter of the regulatory process,
its integrity and its independence. When the final process is
completed the appropriate decision will be taken. It is not done
yet.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
prime minister did not even answer the November 6 letter from our
leader from Halifax.
The prime minister knows that the hasty decision by cabinet to
endorse the maritimes and northeast pipelines project has left
northern New Brunswick, Cape Breton and Quebec excluded from most
of the potential industrial benefits of the project which would
have created jobs.
Once again, why has the prime minister failed to insist that a
more detailed study into the potential benefits to Atlantic
Canadians be carried out by the natural resources committee of
parliament?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a joint independent panel was established by the
Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia to conduct
a review. That panel worked for 10 months. It held 20
information meetings and 56 days of public hearings. It heard
from 125 different intervenors. It was open, transparent,
balanced and fair, and I believe it did a very thorough job.
* * *
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I wrote to the prime minister asking him whether his
government would not see it appropriate to extend to the end of
the month of January 1998 the period for charitable donations, to
allow all charities in Canada a chance to solicit funds for the
cause they defend given the postal strike we have just
experienced.
Could the prime minister give us an answer today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have received the letter from the leader of the
Conservative Party and have received representation from
charitable organizations. I asked the ministries of revenue and
finance if it would be possible to extend the period until the
end of January, and it will be extended.
1430
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the majority of members in this House I would like to
thank his government for that decision. It is certainly the
right decision.
[Translation]
My question is for the prime minister and concerns the first
ministers conference which will take place in one week. I was intrigued
by the comment made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who
said that “unique society” and “distinct society” basically mean the
same thing. The minister says yes, thank you.
Why is the agenda of the first ministers conference still not
known, barely one week before the conference.
The Speaker: The prime minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
because I am still discussing the agenda with the Saskatchewan premier,
who is the premiers' spokesperson. We had a telephone conversation on
Sunday, and I must send him the agenda today or tomorrow.
However, the premiers are well aware that I am including their
suggestions on the agenda. This is not a unilateral decision, it is a is
made jointly by the federal and provincial governments. Again, the
agenda will be included in a letter which I hope to send to the premier
today.
* * *
[English]
THE DEBT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government spends more on interest payments on the national
debt than it does on health care, education, welfare, old age
security and the army combined. That is a terrible chunk of
change. Canadians are telling this government that they want to
reduce the debt, they want tax relief and they want to know when
they are going to get it.
The prime minister has given us a specific deadline for when he
is going to cut his gas emissions. When is he going to give us a
deadline for reducing Canada's deadly debt?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be a budget in February.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians do not think this is very funny anymore, the huge
amount of money they give to the government being used to pay off
interest on the debt. They know they simply cannot be paying
that in their personal lives. Every single taxpayer who makes
less than $70,000 a year pays every penny of their tax in
interest payments on the debt.
My question on behalf of every one of those taxpayers who earns
$70,000 or less is when will the government get this deadly debt
under control? It is killing us.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have managed to control the deficit. Not only that,
last week we reduced the EI premium by 20 cents. When we formed
the government it was supposed to be at $3.30. Now it will be at
$2.70.
We have managed to balance the books and reduce taxes. The
member has only to wait a few months and there will be other good
news, as usual, from this government.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since Statistics Canada released its figures on the state of
francophonie in Canada, all observers and journalists are saying
that francophone communities outside Quebec are experiencing
serious difficulties.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given Statistics
Canada's figures, will the Prime Minister admit that francophonie
outside Quebec is seriously threatened?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, francophones outside Quebec are fed up
to the teeth with the Bloc Quebecois' crocodile tears. These are
the same people who talk about francophones disappearing and about
second class French Canadians. This comes from the same member who
asked me the question.
I am a francophone from outside Quebec and I am not a second
class Canadian, nor are my children or my grandchildren. We will
never be second class citizens in our country, whatever the Bloc
Quebecois might wish.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the government in the House of Commons would do well to
read Le Droit. The only way not to resolve a problem is not to
admit that it exists.
How does he think he is helping francophones outside Quebec by
closing his eyes to what is going on and spouting nonsense day
after day as he is doing now?
1435
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois recently published
a document, in September I believe. According to Le Droit, there
was not one word of concern in the Bloc Quebecois' document about
francophones in the rest of the country.
They want to quote from Le Droit. That is what Le Droit says
about the Bloc Quebecois' position on francophones outside Quebec.
* * *
[English]
CANDU REACTORS
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just
yesterday the top story in the New York Times slammed
Canadian officials for selling unsafe Candu reactors to countries
with despicable human rights records. The reactor we sold to
India was used to explode a nuclear device. The reactor we sold
to Argentina is frequently shut down for leaks. The reactor we
sold to South Korea leaks heavy water.
Given these embarrassing revelations front and centre in the New
York Times, will the prime minister reconsider his shady
deals to China and Turkey and say “no Candu”?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, rather than repeating the erroneous assertions of people
in the United States who may be on sales missions in an effort to
discredit the Canadian competition, the member might like to know
that the Candu technology is robust, sound and secure. That is a
finding not only by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada but
also in fact by American consultants who examined Candu and found
it to be just fine.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
1980s the prime minister was energy minister. Back then he tried
to sell Candus to Turkey, but concerns about the use of nuclear
weapons scrubbed that deal.
My question is to the prime minister again. What would his friends
at the land mines conference say if they knew he was selling
Candus to countries that want them to make bombs?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, any country with which Canada does business must of
course adhere to all the international rules pertaining to
nuclear power and the use of uranium.
In addition to that, AECL is meticulous in doing its own
prestudy of any situation to ensure that the facility can be
constructed safely and it must of course be constructed not only
to the standards that exist in the foreign country but to
Canadian standards and international energy standards as well.
* * *
[Translation]
SABLE ISLAND NATURAL GAS
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at their
meeting on June 7, 1996, the Prime Minister of Canada and the
Premier of Quebec agreed to support the Gazoduc Trans-Québec et
Maritimes project for the transportation of Sable Island natural
gas.
We learn, however, that the National Energy Board recommends
that the government give the go-ahead to a competing project, the
purpose of which is to service the American market directly.
Is the minister aware that, at the rate things are going, the
Gazoduc Trans-Québec et Maritimes project will not be able to be
studied on its own merits by the appropriate authorities?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every application before the National Energy Board is
examined according to the same standards to make sure that every
one of those applications complies with all the applicable rules
and regulations.
In fact, that is a request that is made not only by the energy
industry in this country but by all the premiers of all the
provinces, including explicitly and specifically Premier Bouchard
of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in order to
have an informed judgment on the entire question, is the minister
prepared to ask cabinet to stay the final decision for the time
it takes to have a fair and equitable evaluation of the Gazoduc
Trans-Québec et Maritimes project?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to be very specific let me quote Premier Bouchard of
Quebec:
[Translation]
“It is preferable to leave it up to the market and the
regulatory bodies to look after matters relating to natural gas
transmission”.
[English]
That is what we are doing. If there are parties in the private
sector who feel aggrieved by any technical aspect of the process,
they are perfectly at liberty to appeal to the courts, which
indeed some of them have done.
* * *
1440
HELICOPTERS
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the helicopter saga continues.
Let us look at the government's record to date: four years of
stalling, $500 million in cancellation contracts for penalties,
helicopters grounded because they are too dangerous to fly, and
now suspicion of a rigged tendering process, all the consequences
of a cynical election ploy back in 1993.
When will this helicopter saga end and when will the minister
hand the military what it needs to do the job?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, all of the preamble is
wrong. Second, what the government is attempting to do is make
sure we get the best value for the taxpayers, that we get a
helicopter that meets our operational needs.
This is no small expenditure but it is an important one. Search
and rescue is an important function in this country, important in
saving lives. We continue to provide that kind of service and the
men and women who provide it do an excellent job.
We will soon be announcing a new helicopter purchase.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder how much more it is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer.
This minister is an expert at stalling.
I know why his government is stalling. In fact, we all know why
his government is stalling. It is worried about a campaign
flip-flop it made on the contract back in 1993 and it is trying
to save political face.
This government has had four years to make this decision. We
want the helicopters, the military wants the helicopters, all the
opposition parties want the helicopters, and the money is in the
bank.
When will the minister set aside his own—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to tell us which
one he wants. Everybody else has an opinion.
The opinion of the government is to take a responsible approach
to this to make sure we get the best helicopters to meet our
operational needs. That is the kind of decision we are going to
make and soon.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
We recognize that the Canadian government has played a
positive role in the development of the anti-personnel land mines
treaty. It must not be forgotten, however, that Canada continues to
be a significant player in international arms sales.
How can the government square its efforts to ban anti-personnel land
mines with its foreign arms sales?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy because in fact we have about the
toughest export controls in arms of any country in the western
world.
* * *
BANKS
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again
record profits are being reported by the banks and yet service
charges appear to be popping up everywhere.
Is the Minister of Industry prepared today to tell Canadian
consumers how he is going to assist them, because they believe
they are being overcharged by their banks?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, we believe that the most effective way to ensure
that all charges that are rendered to consumers are lowest is by
having the best level of competition and the best level of
awareness among consumers.
Therefore I am very pleased to indicate to the member that
within the next couple of weeks we will make available a service
charge calculator free of charge on our website, Strategis, that
will enable consumers to compare the charges levied against them
by a variety of financial institutions and see in a very
transparent and rapid way where the best services charges can be
obtained.
* * *
TAXATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): A web page
calculator certainly helps those people living in poverty, does
it not, Mr. Speaker.
In light of the record bank profits of $7.5 billion, the highest
ever in this country, and record student debts of around $25,000
per student, and in spite of a commitment made by this government
to tax these banks, it collected only a paltry $85 million in
surtax in the last two years, I am sure the prime minister will
agree this is peanuts.
What steps is he going to take to raise the surtax to help
offset student debts in this country?
1445
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our banks are
one of the most heavily taxed industries in Canada. It is this
Liberal government that increased the corporate surtax, that
increased the large corporation tax and imposed a temporary
surtax which has raised well over $200 million.
I am glad, from the press conference that the hon. member held
today, that he actually supports the use of that surtax. Bank
taxes have gone up 45% since we took office.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 160 CBC
employees were given their pink slips yesterday. Most government
departments have been cut by 19%. The CBC has lost one third of
its funding. The latest $30 million cut will hit the local and
regional operations the hardest, especially in the west.
This government claims we need the CBC to bind Canadians from
coast to coast. Is the minister of heritage in fact endorsing
the CBC plan to centralize and further target jobs in local and
regional operations?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this round of cuts is the
final one that the CBC is making. It was predicted. Everyone
knew that it was going to happen, but I am pleased to say that in
fact there are fewer cuts than there were planned to be purely
because we have put in $10 million into RCI and that has lowered
the number of cuts.
These are the last cuts. CBC is now restructuring to look at
how it meets its mandate more effectively.
* * *
SUMMA STRATEGIES
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, Summa
Strategies is a lobby company owned and controlled by two former
Liberal members of Parliament, Paul Zed and Doug Young.
Mr. Young, being the former minister of transport, has been
hired by an American syndicate to expedite the control and
ownership of the port of Bayside.
Does the government support lobbying efforts on the part of the
former minister who, in fact, wrote the port's privatization act?
Does this fit in with the prime minister's definition of ethical
behaviour?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that
Transport Canada's port divestiture program is going extremely
well right across the country, including in New Brunswick where
we have signed a letter of intent with a local authority and have
advanced them some funds to develop their concept further.
Certainly, with respect to the individuals who he raised in his
question, these people are private citizens and they are able to
conduct their business in whichever way they wish.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, think
about it. To accept that statement from the minister, we would
have to believe in the tooth fairy. These people are the highest
paid lobbyists in the country working on behalf of an American
company to take control of a Canadian port.
Does the minister find something wrong with the system when the
former minister of transport can lobby the government, in fact,
the ministry to do such a thing?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue is have the individuals met the requirements
of the conflict of interest rules. As far as I am aware, they
have met the requirements of the rules and I think that speaks
for itself.
* * *
SOMALIA
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Cooperation. Over 1,000 Somalis have already died in the worst
flooding that country has ever seen. Thousands more are in
danger of starvation and disease.
Has Canada done anything to respond to the UN appeal for
humanitarian aid to Somalia?
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will be
contributing $250,000 to the International Committee of the Red
Cross for emergency assistance to the victims of flooding in
Somalia.
Canada provided more than $40 million in food and other
humanitarian assistance to Somalia since 1991. We are also very
concerned about the ongoing violence in Somalia.
Canada is working with the international community to determine
what role we can play in support of the regional peace process
which is essential to Somalia's long-term development.
* * *
HAITI
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian armed forces personnel are due to be withdrawn
from Haiti. Unarmed RCMP officers will be left in Haiti without
Canadian military support. This will significantly increase the
chances that they will be attacked and injured or killed.
RCMP staff relations officers have told me that there is a much
greater danger now that the military is gone.
1450
My question is for the prime minister. Why is this minister
courting disaster and disregarding the safety of the RCMP left in
Haiti?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the
men and women who did a fine piece of work in Haiti on behalf of
Canada and on behalf of Haiti.
The United Nations mandate came to an end as of November 30. We
have not been requested to remain. There will be policing
operations that will be taken over by the Haitian national police
and there will be some assistance which we will provide.
There will continue to be the provision of assistance with
respect to training coming from Canadian police, but in no way
will their safety be in jeopardy.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was in the RCMP for over 30 years and I know that
there is no way that policing in Haiti is like normal policing in
Canada. As a result, I am very concerned about the safety of the
RCMP in Haiti.
I would ask the minister again what specifically will he do to
ensure their safety?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had bothered to look at the
United Nations decision, he would know that the reality is that
the new mandate established by the security council is to provide
police for technical assistance, backed up by a rapid response
team which will be supplied by the Argentinians, which will have
the full capacity to ensure the security of all the police forces
in Haiti.
It would help to read, once in a while, what decisions have been
made by the United Nations.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
November 5, the Sept-Îles chamber of commerce complained to the
Minister of Transport about the attitude of the Quebec North Shore
and Labrador Railway company, which had decided to privatize its
depot for goods destined for northern cities. This decision will
cost Sept-Îles merchants several million dollars.
What does the Minister of Transport intend to do to restore
the business of transporting goods to northern cities such as
Fermont and Shefferville to normal?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is obviously concerned about the
state of Canada's highways. The federal government has been
involved in assisting the provinces since 1919 in highway
construction.
We have about $2.3 billion in existing commitments, some of
which will have to be renewed over the next few years.
The hon. member makes a good point about the need in remote
communities, but those priorities are set by provincial
governments. The federal government then matches funds in any
particular agreement.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec has
now agreed to cut a cheque for the victims of hepatitis C. Will
the health minister admit that the real reason he is not ready to
give them compensation before Christmas is that his leadership
rival down here in finance will not show him the money?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has been reading science fiction again. He
really should stick to the facts. The facts of this matter are
very clear.
This is the minister and this is the government which have been
signalling for months that hepatitis C victims should not have to
spend a lifetime in court in order to get some kind of redress.
Mr. Justice Krever's recommendation helps in that regard. The
development in Quebec is very welcome.
As the hon. member knows, I will be meeting with my counterparts
in the next little while to discuss where we go from here in the
face of that recommendation.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address my question to the prime minister.
The federal government has up to 5,000 contaminated sites across
Canada and it has no plan to clean them up.
The auditor general estimates a minimum price tag of $2.8
billion and further inaction will only increase these costs.
PCBs, military sites, ports and harbours, government lands, old
bases and dumps need to be cleaned up and the government has no
idea where most of these sites are.
When will the government stop dragging its feet and
stonewalling, clean up these sites and get Canadians back to work
restoring our environment?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question.
This issue was raised in the auditor general's report. It was a
very important report.
The minister is appreciative of this report because it brings to
light a number of concerns. When she returns from Kyoto, she
will be following up with officials on many of these important
issues.
* * *
1455
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I need a little help from the Minister of Transport today.
An hon. member: You need a lot of help.
Mr. Bill Casey: A lot of help is right.
I have in my hand the strategic highway improvement program
agreement which manages $55 million of taxpayers' money and it
states that it will be managed by two members, one member to be
appointed by the federal minister and one by the provincial
minister, and all decisions must be unanimous.
However, when I ask the minister a question about the 104
highway toll fiasco in Nova Scotia, which is already the most
frequently closed highway in Canada, he says it is a provincial
problem.
Can the minister please explain why the agreement in my hand
states that it is the federal government?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the hon. member before, this
is a highway which was built, designed and operated under the
auspices of and for the province of Nova Scotia. The federal
government contributed $27 million toward that highway
construction and that was the extent of its involvement. We feel
that there have been no other problems associated with the
highway from our point of view.
If he has a problem, he should address it to the government of
Nova Scotia.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
[English]
The government keeps telling industries and individuals to do
something about the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
I would like to know if the government is prepared to put its
money where its mouth is and specifically tell Canadians here and
now what we are prepared to do as far as reducing those
dangerous, noxious gases?
An hon. member: Whose money?
An hon. member: It is the taxpayers' money.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House that the Government of
Canada is fully on track, not only to meet but likely to beat its
commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions from its own
government operations. That commitment was to get to 20% below
1990 levels by the year 2005.
Based on our progress to date, total greenhouse gas emissions
from federal facilities will be down 18% by the year 2000 and 27%
by 2005.
* * *
DUTY FREE SHOPS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the auditor general confirmed that the duty free shop
that by-passed the tender process is located in Windsor, Ontario.
Will the Minister of National Revenue please tell the House why
there was no national tender call and why the licence was given
to a front for a foreign national, all contrary to Treasury Board
guidelines.
An hon. member: What is happening here?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
I want to inform him that the decision made in 1995 was based on
the fact that there were unique circumstances with regard to this.
I want to emphasize to the member that Revenue Canada fully
complied with the law and with all the regulations that exist.
This decision was very much supported by the community.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSPORTATION OF TOXIC MATERIALS
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we have learned that Transport Canada has just limited the
products that may be transported on type 111-A wagons because they
are not safe.
Yet 35,000 such wagons are still in use in North America and
it will be recalled that there was a spill of 80,000 litres of
sulphuric acid because of a derailment involving this kind of wagon
on November 24.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. In the interest
of public safety, will the minister undertake to order an immediate
moratorium on the transportation of toxic materials in 111-A
wagons?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that these types of wagons were involved
in the accident that happened the other week in terms of the
chemical sulphuric acid coming out of the air. We have been
assured that by and large, overall most of these wagons are in
good shape, although some of them have to be inspected.
I will take the hon. member's suggestion under advisement and
get back to him at an early opportunity.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government has been dithering for months and even years on the
helicopter question and endangering people's lives in the
process.
The latest example was at Hibernia last Sunday when 107 folks
had to be evacuated off the rig.
They could not use the search and rescue planes out of Halifax.
They used leased helicopters.
1500
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. When is
the minister and the government going to make an announcement
about replacement helicopters? Can he assure us that the process
he is using will be both fair and transparent?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course it will be fair and
transparent. It is a decision that is going to be made soon. It
is one though that is far better than the decision that might
have been made by another government a few years ago which would
have cost the government far more money than what a helicopter
purchase will cost us today.
The Speaker: That would bring to a close our question
period today. I am going to go immediately to the question for
Thursday.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the government House leader to inform the
House of the nation's business for the next week.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a leaked document from Santa's
office apparently. This document that we have our hands on seems
to indicate that next Friday, December 12 this House will not be
sitting. I would like the government House leader to tell us
whether this information is in fact true or a rumour.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak about Santa Claus
because that would be out of order.
I can inform the House that tomorrow we will deal with the third
reading of Bill C-9, the marine legislation.
On Monday the House will debate the motion with reference to the
terms of union with Newfoundland. I understand that there is a
will in the House to sit late if necessary to debate this motion
with any division bell being deferred until Tuesday afternoon.
On Tuesday we hope to deal with Bill C-17, the Teleglobe bill
and Bill C-5, the co-operatives bill if the House is willing to
do so.
On Wednesday and Thursday the House will debate the second
report of the finance committee which constitutes the annual
prebudget debate.
Next Friday remains to be scheduled.
The Speaker: I have notice of two points of privilege. I
will hear those in just one moment.
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and
means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, as well as an
explanatory note. I ask that an order of the day be designated
for consideration of the motion.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR OKANAGAN—SHUSWAP
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on a question of privilege. I have sent you the
required notice of my intention to do so today. I have also
informed the House leader of the Reform Party.
Earlier today during debate on Bill C-2, my leader was
interrupted by out of order remarks by the member for
Okanagan—Shuswap. Following an admonition by the Chair, the
member failed to come to order and left his seat making
threatening gestures inviting the member for Sherbrooke to engage
in a brawl.
The member had to be restrained by the member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley who is his colleague.
1505
With great regret, I feel this must be formally brought to the
attention of the Chair. It is not the first time that the member
has engaged in this kind of activity. On February 4, 1997 the
member for Okanagan—Shuswap created a spectacle in this Chamber
when he used threatening gestures and profane language to another
member.
Mr. Speaker, it clearly constitutes disorderly conduct, but it
also constitutes contempt of the entire House. Threats against
members and intimidation are well-known breaches of privilege and
they have been found to be in contempt by the House. It is
conduct which is clearly meant to interfere with the rights of
members to speak freely and within the rules of the House.
The member for Okanagan—Shuswap, not only does he owe the House
an apology, but it is time that the House was given the
opportunity to judge his continued misconduct. It is not a
matter which should be dealt with solely by you, Sir. The House
as well should be permitted to judge the matter in the light of
parliamentary law on contempt for the House.
Should you find, Your Honour, that a prima facie case of
privilege is clear, I would be prepared to move a motion
referring the member's conduct to the standing committee.
The Speaker: Let us hear what the House leader for the
opposition has to say.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not sure whether this is a point of privilege. I suppose a
member of this House if he is particularly offended by something
should look at what happens if the member himself introduces some
bad language in the House.
I think to try to get some media attention for the leader of the
Conservatives and for himself is inappropriate in this House in
this manner by making such accusations on our member.
The Speaker: The hon. member in question is here in the
House now. His name has been mentioned. Perhaps he could
clarify the situation.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not in my chair at the time this took place. There
were some words exchanged. I left the seat over there to come
over here.
I cannot raise a point of order until I sit in my proper seat.
Is that not the rule of the House? So I came across here to
raise a point of order on what was being said because the
language that was being used was not acceptable in this House.
This is when it all happened, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: My colleagues, from what I have heard
now I am not sure whether we have a point of privilege. Surely
there was some disorder in the House. I spoke very briefly with
my colleague who was in the Chair at the time.
It is always regrettable when anything like this happens in the
House. We are getting close to the end of the session. Sometimes
in the heat of debate words are exchanged. I plead with you that
this type of conduct among our members is not acceptable for us
here in the House of Commons. I would hope that all hon. members
would take this to heart.
I would encourage that this type of thing not happen again in
the House of Commons, and surely not happen at any time in the
midst of debate.
My colleagues, what I will undertake to do is I will look at the
blues and I will look at what was on the tape.
If it is necessary, I will come back to the House. But please
take my admonition to heart for all of you that this type of
thing should never occur again in the House. This point is
closed.
1510
I am going to go to a question of privilege. I had notice from
the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege generally relating to Standing
Order 94.
This morning I received at my office a notice with respect to a
private members' draw that will be held tomorrow, December 5. A
draw was held on November 25 at which time I believe six bills
and three motions were drawn.
As members are aware, the normal way of doing this in the House
is to allow the private members items on the order of precedence
to decrease to 15 at which time a draw is held. A draw was held
a week ago and the committee is within the 10-day time period as
specified by the standing orders to determine which bills and
motions will be votable and which bills and motions will not be
votable.
In response to an inquiry I made to the Private Members'
Business Office this morning, I was advised that there was an
irregularity with respect to motions and for that reason it was
having another draw. My point is that if there was an
irregularity with respect to motions, then perhaps the correct
measure would fall with respect to the draw of motions. I am not
certain what that irregularity is.
There are presently four votable bills listed on the Order
Paper. The committee is seized with the consideration of six
others at the moment. A decision for that must be made by
midnight next Monday. By adding three more bills to the order,
those people who will be drawn tomorrow with bills, if one of the
six is selected from the draw of November 25, it will preclude
those who will be drawn tomorrow, December 5, from ever having a
votable bill. Alternatively, it will change the odds for those
who had a bill drawn on November 25 in terms of going from one to
six to one to nine.
Having had a bill drawn on November 25 I would like to know if
the odds have changed for me.
The Speaker: My colleague, I do not know that you
have a question of privilege but you surely have a point of
grievance. I will look into that and I will get back to the House
before noon tomorrow. I will let the House know what my findings
are at that time.
I have a point of order from the hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my point of order arises from a question I asked in the House
yesterday in regard to Mr. Ken Vollman, the vice-chair of the
NEB. Upon further examination it has been determined that Mr.
Vollman's expenditures were within appropriate guidelines. I
called Mr. Vollman today and apologized to him for any damage
caused to his good reputation by my comments in this House
yesterday.
Mr. Vollman did indicate that I should mention in this House the
way the information was disclosed so that this does not happen
again in the spending of public moneys. Again I apologize to the
House and to Mr. Vollman.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question from yesterday to which the hon. gentleman
has just referred was a question directed to me in the House.
On that same point of order, let me say that I am very pleased
to hear the member's apology in respect of Mr. Vollman. I am
certain that Mr. Vollman is even more pleased that the record has
been corrected and that there is no slur against his character or
his reputation. I thank the hon. gentleman for having the
courage to recant on this point.
I hope that all hon. members will be very cautious when dealing
with the reputations of people in this House.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1515
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an
act to establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to
amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer
my comments on Bill C-2 as we take part in this very colourful
and hotly debated third reading today.
In my remarks I want to emphasize how we are earning the
confidence of Canadians in the Canada pension plan that will be
there for them. I want to talk about how this bill is a
comprehensive package that will maintain the security of our
citizens.
First, it should be made clear to all of us that the Canada
pension plan is a defining feature of the quality of life in
Canada. In the three decades since the plan was introduced by
the Liberal government of the day, the Canada pension plan has
become firmly established as a the cornerstone of our social
policy.
This is not just some monument to enlightened thinking in our
past. It is a key part of the planning for tomorrow's retirement
for virtually all Canadians outside of Quebec and with its Quebec
counterpart provides a very uniform portable protection from
coast to coast.
In the last few years, however, concerns have been expressed
about the viability of the Canada pension plan. A leading
magazine, Maclean's, put this in sharp perspective a few
months ago. It polled Canadians and found that two-thirds of our
fellow citizens were not confident that the Canada pension plan
would be around when they needed it.
Canadians heard statements like the one made by the Canada
pension plan's chief actuary and they were concerned. I believe
we all know that he projected that at current ratios of
contributions to benefits paid, the Canada pension plan would be
exhausted by the year 2015. Their concerns were rooted in more
than finances.
Expert analysis showed us that the rules of the plan had to be
updated to reflect the realities of today's world as well as
tomorrow's. The facts were clear, the need for action obvious.
This government has acted to preserve the Canada pension plan
for all Canadians. The changes to the plan that are before this
House in Bill C-2 are not the product of tinkering in Ottawa.
They are the result of a long and wide-ranging process of public
consultation that began during our last term in office. They
represent a complete and balanced package.
This process of consultation was jointly conducted with our
counterparts in the provincial and territorial governments and
professionals in Canada's actuarial and insurance professions.
The consultations reached out to the representatives of social
planning organizations, seniors, youth and persons with
disabilities as well as interested private individuals.
In short, these consultations involved a large number of
Canadians who had views and concerns about building a stronger
Canada pension plan. One of the clearest messages that Canada's
governments heard during the consultations was that Canadians
want and need the Canada pension plan.
To hear some people talk, you would swear that the Canada
pension plan was an anachronism, a throwback to the sixties.
Those people should get out of their ivory towers and listen to
Canadians. People on the streets of this country would tell them
something quite different.
Canadians told us in no uncertain terms to preserve the Canada
pension plan, change it if necessary, but preserve it. We heard
them. We listened and the result is this Bill C-2.
This bill is more than an effort to address today's valid
concerns. It launches a plan for the future. Bill C-2
recognizes how different our economy and our society have become
since the year when the plan began. It makes the changes
necessary to sustain the Canada pension plan.
Three-quarters of those changes are on the financing side of the
ledger.
They respond to the gap between the contribution rates and the
benefit payouts. In fact, I am sure that members recall that the
chief actuary in the Canada pension plan projected that
contribution rates would have to increase to 14.2% of income
covered by the plan by the year 2030, that is unless changes were
made.
1520
This government and our provincial partners agreed that 14.2% of
income was too high. We knew that it would be more than
Canadians would be willing to pay. Therefore, we went to work.
We looked at what experts and at what ordinary citizens alike
told us as we set out to rebalance the relationship between the
Canada pension plan income and expenses.
One key part of the response is addressed in Bill C-2 through
the proposals that would increase contribution rates over a
seven-year period.
In this way, contributions will increase each year and reach
9.9% of covered income by the year 2003. Then, we will hold the
contributions at this rate indefinitely.
Some hon. members have been quick to leap to their feet with
shouts of tax grab. The reality is quite different, and I want
to set them straight.
Canada pension plan contributions are not a tax. They are
contributions toward pensions. They are an investment by
Canadians in their own future. That is hardly a tax. It is
planning prudently for tomorrow.
Let me add more information on this point. Canada pension plan
contributions will not go into the government's general revenues.
Canada pension plan contributions will not go to anything other
than the Canada pension plan.
Let me make another point to show how hollow tax grab claims
are. Are contributions to company plans taxes? Of course not.
In fact, both the Canada pension plan premiums and company
pension plan contributions reduce the taxes we pay.
The simple fact is this. Both are investments in the future and
I think it is important that Canadians understand that. Bill C-2
is very, very clear. These contributions will not get mixed into
some government coffers. They will become part of a separate
investment fund. An independent body will manage and will invest
this money on behalf of a plan and its contributors.
Those investments will go into a diversified securities
portfolio and should earn higher rates of return than the status
quo. That improved investment performance should help us lower
the long term contribution rate by providing more income to help
pay the benefits for future generations.
Opposition parties in this House have consistently avoided
providing a comprehensive alternative. Each is unable to say how
they would meet our obligations to people receiving benefits
today, those who expect to do so soon and those who have many
years to go in their working lives.
This government and our counterparts in the eight provincial
capitals have a plan. It is called Bill C-2 and it is right on
the agenda. Bill C-2 is about ensuring a sustainable, affordable
and fairer Canada pension plan. It is about giving peace of mind
to Canadians who are getting pensions now and for those who are
looking ahead to receiving pensions in the future.
This bill is about ensuring fairness between the generations in
our country so that our children and grandchildren do not have to
pay as high as 14% of their earnings.
As I hear the comments about this or that aspect of Bill C-2, I
find nothing that shakes my conviction that this is a sound piece
of legislation. It is balanced. It is fair. It is the right
direction for us to go. It represents the complete package that
Canadians told us they want.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments of the member. I think the member well
appreciates the importance of a secure, guaranteed, indexed plan
for Canadians to help our seniors to enjoy in dignity their
retirement.
I would like to ask the member his opinion about the Reform
Party's suggestion that we should abandon the CPP and move to
some sort of RRSP scheme in which individual Canadians would have
to manage their own pension affairs in lieu of having the
benefits of the current plan and whether or not the member feels
that that kind of plan would provide the same kind of protection
and security for Canadians.
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his question.
Everybody has their own opinion on what would do for a pension
plan. Let us look at the realities of this. The reality is that
this Canada pension plan was brought into being because of the
fact that a lot of people cannot or do not contribute to their
own pension plan. A lot of them cannot for various reasons and
it is not their fault.
1525
Therefore, back in the 1960s this plan was devised to take care
of those people at the end of their working time when the company
did not provide a pension, or maybe they were self-employed and
there was no pension plan available and they had nothing but the
old age security.
This was a terrible situation for people to be in. I have seen
that happen to people on the street where I lived. To make
matters worse, when the person who received the old age security
passed away, the spouse was left with nothing. This is why this
type of plan is necessary. I believe it is necessary and
obviously the majority of Canadians believe this type of plan is
necessary.
There is a large segment of society that for one reason or
another do not contribute to RRSPs. That is a fact. There are
RRSPs and they will be there in the future. I think they are a
tremendous thing for people who have the ability to contribute to
them. However, I also believe that there has to be some kind of
social safety net that we are always talking about. This is a
social safety net. This is a big part of it and Canadians want
it. I believe it is very necessary, along with RRSPs.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member just mentioned how important it is to have a social
safety net and completely ignores the fact that this so-called
social safety net has an unfunded liability of something like
$600 billion. It will be in total collapse if we do not deal
with the problem right away.
I remember in the previous Parliament to this one, at the
beginning when the Reform was asking questions about the CPP and
pointing out that it was in danger of collapse, the finance
minister and members on that side constantly said “There is no
problem. It's a wonderful program.” It was one of these Liberal
gifts to mankind. Now, in this Parliament I heard the finance
minister just weeks ago in question period say that everyone
knows that the CPP is in trouble and needs to be fixed.
While I am pleased to see the Liberals realizing that there is a
problem after denying in the last Parliament that there was a
problem, I would like the member to explain to me how he can
promote this as a good program, a good social safety net when it
has an unfunded liability of close to $600 billion and everybody
admits that it is in hopeless disarray. There is evidence that
similar programs around the world have gone under and have had to
be replaced with contributory programs like RRSP style programs.
Why does he keep defending something that is indefensible?
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my
colleague across the way for his questions.
The hon. member referred to what the finance minister said.
However, I for one, along with everybody in Canada knew that over
the last number of years that the plan was having problems. We
stabilized the problem with Bill C-2 in consultation with
Canadians who told us clearly, without any question, that they
wanted this Canada pension plan and that they wanted it brought
into line so that they, their children and grandchildren would
have pension benefits.
We can use all kinds of ways to skirt around this. The fact of
the matter remains that Canadians believe in this Canada pension
plan. Yes, it has to be managed in such a way that there will be
money there for people in the future. I am convinced that we are
doing this today with Bill C-2. I am not only convinced, but the
people of Canada are convinced because they have demanded that we
do this.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform you first off and thus let our
competent clerks know that I will be sharing my time with the
member for Laval East.
Bill C-2 to reform the Canada pension plan now before the
House has arrived four years late. It is however vital for
Quebeckers contributing to the CPP.
1530
Few Quebeckers are actually affected by this plan; fewer that
one half of one per cent of the residents of Quebec receive CPP
benefits. The statistics may not perhaps be accurate, but we are
talking about some 12,000 Quebeckers. However, they and the people
of Canada have not all had the opportunity to set up a private
pension plan, and we must ensure they have an income when they
decide to retire.
I said the bill is four years late. When the Liberals took
over the government in 1993, they knew then that the plan was in
trouble.
Instead of assuming its responsibilities, the government focused on
improving the retirement fund, but did not change the rules for
disability benefits or contributions.
Had the current Liberal government assumed its
responsibilities, the increase in contributions would be minimal,
and the ordinary worker would not be penalized in the contributions
he makes.
Even though our party agrees with the bill, and we are in
favour of the current reform, I still have some remarks, which,
should the government take them into consideration, would
significantly improve benefits and provide a much more comfortable
retirement to recipients, the people we represent, the people who
sent us here.
Let us take a look at death benefits. Low income workers are often
not protected by life insurance. Still, their families have a right,
just like any other Quebecker or Canadian, to plan a decent funeral. The
proposed reform provides for death benefits equivalent to six times the
actual retirement benefits, up to a maximum of $2,500. The plan that we
have in Quebec is much more generous, since the maximum allowed is
$3,350. Yet, the premiums paid are the same.
I now come to the issue of disability benefits. The federal
government is experiencing a lot of problems with the disability benefit
program.
In September, the Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels,
blamed the government for the unjustified escalation of the costs
relating to disability benefits. He said the increase was the result of
regulations that are too lax as regards disability benefits.
Disability benefits should be paid only to people who cannot perform any
remunerative work and for whom there is absolutely no possibility of
being cured, given current medical knowledge. If the federal government
adopted such a position, it would make the auditor general happy and the
plan would be in better shape.
My purpose is not to penalize workers when they get sick. However,
there are other social programs in Canada, and also private insurance
programs, that cover disability. The purpose of a pension plan is to
allow a contributor to retire or get financial support if he or she is
incapable of performing any type of work.
Let us now look at premiums.
The current contribution rate is 5.85%. The bill proposes to raise the
rate to 6% in 1997, which will then reach a maximum of 9.9% by the year
2003, and remain at that level until the year 2010.
As I pointed out at the beginning, if the government had taken its
responsibilities in 1993, the increase would not be so drastic and the
plan would be in better shape. However, under the circumstances, we have
no choice but to increase contributions, if we want to reduce the
intergenerational unfairness by making baby boomers who, on average,
will work for another 20 years or so, pay contributions that are more in
line with the benefits they will get when they retire.
1535
I have a warning for the government about the public pension plan.
Millions of provincial government employees have agreed to receive
reduced benefits from their private pension plan when they turn 65 and
start receiving CPP or CPQ benefits. They agreed to such a cut because,
at age 65, old age security was expected to make up for it.
But there is a snag: the current Minister of Finance plans to
change the rules of the game by turning the existing old age security
into a seniors' benefit by the year 2001.
I am aware that this remark concerns neither the existing nor the
proposed Canada pension plan.
But when dealing with the issue of retirement, we must make sure that
the various plans are consistent. Count on me to remind the government
of this fact when the time comes to calculate old age security based on
family income.
The fourth point I would like to address concerns the auditor of
the board. All these contributions collected and invested will have to
be kept safe. The auditor should be appointed for five years and only be
removed for just cause. In addition, the minister should cause a special
examination to be carried out in respect of the operations of the board
or any of its subsidiaries every six years. It would also be important
that the governor in council be able to make regulations respecting the
investments the board or its subsidiaries may make by ensuring that the
end result is the maximum return for the pension fund.
To conclude, the bill currently before us is a good bill for the
citizens of Canada and Quebec.
However, some amendments are absolutely essential and I hope that the
amendments proposed by my party, the Bloc Quebecois, will be accepted
when the bill is reviewed clause by clause.
What the Bloc Quebecois wants is simply that there be better
distributive justice, that there be concern for the underprivileged, for
the people who have fears, for the elderly who are alone in their
kitchens and worry that the fund might not always be there for them.
What the Bloc Quebecois wants is more fairness. We want to ensure
that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes and that there will not
be two social classes in Canada. The rich are getting richer and driving
bigger cars, while the poor are getting poorer.
We should ask ourselves whether there would be enough money available to
improve Canada's social programs if the 62,000 profitable companies that
paid no taxes had paid their fair share.
One after the other, our big banks are announcing record profits.
This is outrageous. If banks paid their fair share in taxes on their
profits and stopped crushing poor workers by pulling the plug when they
can no longer pay their mortgage or by repossessing their cars when they
cannot make their payments, perhaps there would be better distributive
justice and we would be able to avoid the contribution rate increases we
are seeing today in Canada's social programs.
So this is what our party is calling for and I hope that our
amendments will be seriously considered by this government if it really
has a heart and soul.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a comment and a question for the member. The member
mentioned a few items, all of which have to do with the issue of
what has been called intergenerational equity.
All members will know that under the current system pensioners
today receive approximately $7 for every $1 they put in. This
occurs because pensioners presently receiving pensions did not
have full working careers. The plan came into effect in 1966.
Benefits started to be paid in 1967. In fact full benefits
started to be paid by 1970.
The member will also know that if one worked from 1966 to 1996,
made the maximum amount and paid the maximum premiums each and
every year, the accumulative premiums that any pensioner would
have put in would accumulate to about $10,200, even though the
annual payout was $8,800.
1540
Clearly this is the reason the chief actuary found that we could
no longer continue to pay the low premium rates that we are
paying and still have those kinds of benefits.
The member raised an interesting point. Canadians said that
they wanted to insulate today's seniors to make sure their
benefits were not affected. Under Bill C-2 Canadian seniors,
pensioners and those receiving disability benefits should be
assured that their benefits will not be impacted by the changes
in Bill C-2.
The question I have for the member concerns the aspect of how to
make it fairer for those who have already worked some part of
their career and perhaps are approaching retirement as opposed to
those who are younger. The member knows that currently the rates
are planned to go up to 10.1% in the year 2010. Bill C-2 is
introducing a higher rate earlier so that we smooth the benefit
out.
Does the member disagree with advancing the schedule of rates to
begin in 1998, or is he in fact saying that somehow today's
seniors should have to pay more for the benefits they currently
enjoy?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member has understood what
I said. First of all, our party has announced that it agrees with
the bill.
Our party will be proposing improvements to the bill, through
our critic, the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. What we
do hold against this government, to which the hon. member who has
just asked the question belongs, since he is a Liberal MP with
several mandates under his belt—to go back to the catechism we
had to learn when we were a little younger, in which there were
different kinds of sins—is a sin, not of commission, but of
omission.
It has done nothing. It has been lax ever since 1993. As
soon as the Liberals came to power in 1993, when they became aware
of the state this plan was in, they ought to have acted, got
something accomplished. Why, now that we are nearly in 1998, has
nothing been done since 1993?
I know that if the hon. member had a second chance to speak,
he would say “Yes, but nothing was done during the two mandates of
the Conservative government”. That is true, yes, nothing was done
in 1984, and in 1988, but that just confirms what the Bloc
Quebecois has always said “Liberal or Conservative, it is six of
one and half a dozen of the other. They are all alike”.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend in the bloc party.
He mentioned the fact that the death benefit under the Quebec
pension plan was higher than that in the rest of Canada.
I heard of a problem recently. When human resources were
handling a death benefit out of Regina, from the time of death
until the payment was made used to be six weeks. Last October,
before the move, the average time for those constituents to
obtain the death benefit settlement was five months.
Under the minister's plan does it take five months for someone
to get a death benefit settlement?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): I am
pleased that my Reform colleague, who sits with me on the transport
committee, has given me a promotion. I have moved up to being a
minister in the Government of Quebec.
I would be delighted to be a minister in the government of a
sovereign Quebec, but having decided to stay here for a time, I
would like to tell him that I am not in a position to confirm or
deny his five months figure.
I am convinced that some Liberal colleagues will want to
respond that the Quebec pension plan is the envy of all Canadians.
It is an effective plan that has proven itself. I hope that in
Quebec we do not just do wrong things.
1545
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2,
which we have been considering for several days, proposes a reform
of the Canada pension plan and the establishment of the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board, and it is not a moment too soon, as
my colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans pointed out.
These changes had become essential in order to ensure the long
term financial viability of the Canada pension plan. The
amendments are justified by demographic and intergenerational
equity concerns.
In the next 35 years, the percentage of people over 65 years
of age will almost double, reaching 23% in 2030. When the plan was
set up, there were eight contributors for every retiree.
Unless something is done, by 2030, the ratio will be three workers
for every retiree.
More specifically, this bill serves to increase the
capitalization of the plan, improve investments and reduce
administrative costs. The government needs the approval of two-
thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the population
in order to effect these changes. Consultations have given the
federal government the support of eight provinces and enabled it to
get on with reforming its pension plan.
As you know, Quebec is not affected by this reform, because,
since 1965, it has administered its own pension plan, the Quebec
pension plan.
But it gave its support for the amendments proposed by the federal
government. In fact, the Government of Quebec is also undertaking
a series of improvements to its pension plan, through Bill 149, in
order to ensure intergenerational equity.
The CPP is funded by means of obligatory contributions from
employees, employers and the self-employed. All Canadian workers
between the ages of 18 and 70 will be affected by this important
and necessary effort since, last year, 10 million people paid into
the plan. Last year as well, close to 3.5 million Canadians drew
CPP benefits.
In Quebec, the situation is different because, as I mentioned
earlier, the Caisse de dépôt et placement administers our plan.
There are 12,882 Quebeckers receiving pension benefits from the
federal government, however, and the Bloc Quebecois feels that
these benefits should be adequate.
These people fall into three groups: the first consists of
members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP living in Quebec;
the second of individuals now living in Quebec and already drawing
CPP; and, finally, individuals living in Quebec who have worked all
their life in another province.
Right now, the plan is undercapitalized. To put it more
simply, the plan is underfunded and will run out of money by 2015.
If the federal government had not done something, the fund would
have become depleted and coming generations would have paid a heavy
price.
It is not too late to take action.
This bill will ensure that there is a reserve of five years'
worth of benefits, instead of two, meaning that the fund, which now
stands at $39 billion, would have to reach $135 billion by 2007.
1550
I feel like saying that the federal government is showing good
sense in the bill we are looking at, even if it comes a bit late,
as I have said. That has not always been the case in the past, for
example with the employment insurance fund. Under the pretext of
wanting to be prepared for the eventuality of dramatic rises in
unemployment, and therefore in the number of claims for benefits,
the federal government instituted employment insurance, with a fund
which will reach $13 billion by the end of 1997, and $19 billion by
1998.
Although the government has given workers and employers a
little break with employment insurance premiums, the employment
insurance fund surplus is still indecent and, as we all know, is
being used only for the government's accounting purposes. But that
is another problem, and another debate.
In order to increase the funding or capitalization of the
plan, the bill creates a Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, a
sort of Canadian version of the Caisse de dépôt. The mandate of
this new institution differs somewhat from that of the Caisse de
dépôt et placement. Its mandate will be to earn the best possible
rates of return. As for the Quebec fund, it also has an economic
mandate we must not forget, namely to invest the money in the
pension fund wisely and to use it as a tool of economic
development.
It should be mentioned that, at the present time, the CPP policy
takes the form of assets placed by the provinces in non-negotiable
bonds. Those provinces so wishing may borrow this money at the
rate of federal government bonds. As we can see, this is not a
very good way to make the money of future Canadian pensioners grow.
I would like to say a few words about Quebec's Caisse de dépôt
et placement in the hope that the new Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board might one day take a page from its book. The
Caisse de dépôt et placement manages the savings of all Quebeckers,
but it should be emphasized that its mandate includes the important
requirement that it serve as an economic lever, something not found
in the CPP's mandate. This measure has allowed Quebec to develop
and become competitive over the past 32 years.
For example, the Caisse put up $16 billion to fund the James Bay
project, thus helping create tens of thousands of jobs for
Quebeckers.
Under the terms of its economic mandate, the Caisse de dépôt
et placement must meet the financial needs of businesses as
effectively as possible, invest profitably, provide support for the
growth of Quebec businesses abroad, promote exports, and maximize
use of the international network of financial and industrial
partners.
Quebeckers are proud of their Caisse de dépôt et placement.
They are leaders in the field and have supported hundreds of
projects that contribute to the economic development of Quebec and
the creation of jobs. The Caisse de dépôt et placement is also the
largest fund manager in Canada and ranks among the top 100 in North
America, investing in North American, European and Asian markets.
It also has the largest real estate portfolio in Canada's
commercial, residential and office sectors. This flagship of
Quebec's innovation now has close to $62.4 billion in assets and
has generated investment income of over $47 billion since it was
first created.
It was a decision by the people of Quebec that gave the Caisse
de dépôt et placement its mandate. In creating the investment
board, the federal government has preferred to stick to improving
the plan's performance and protecting Canadians against premium
increases.
That is its decision.
As we mentioned, the major changes introduced by this bill are
vital if the plan is to be viable, affordable and equitable.
1555
It should be remembered that the plan will be subject to a review
by the federal government every three years and that the ministers of
finance will be meeting every five years to set the contribution rates—
The Deputy Speaker: You only have a few seconds left.
Mrs. Maud Debien: I will therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, the Canada pension plan is one of the essential
elements of the Canadian social safety net. It is therefore important to
protect this public pension plan for the people who have worked all
their lives and to provide for their retirement. The sustainability of
the plan is also essential for future generations.
For these reasons and despite the numerous improvements that should
be made to this bill, the Bloc Quebecois will support it.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member on her comments. She shows good
knowledge of the bill and its intent. The support of her party
is very much appreciated. It is the right thing to do for all
Canadians.
She referred to investment. The member will know that an
important element of Bill C-2 is that it creates what is called
the Canada pension plan investment board. Under the current plan
the two years of funding held in reserve has been invested in
provincial bonds and earning nominal rates.
Investment under the CPP investment board will be made in a
broader balanced investment portfolio, managed by investment
professionals who are fully accountable. The member will also
know that the auditor general will continue to be the auditor of
the Canada pension plan. We will have full access to that.
I am pleased the member raised the issue. It is an important
element to the extent the investment portfolio earns the best
possible return without being disruptive in the marketplace. It
means that overall rates which have to be charged as premiums
will be cast at their lowest possible amount.
My question for the member concerns the investment activity of
the Caisse de dépôt. There is no question that the Caisse de
dépôt has been a very successful investment fund and has invested
in a number of regional economic and job creating initiatives.
Is the member suggesting, just to make it absolutely clear, that
the five year funding of the Canada pension plan investment fund
should somehow be used for other purposes such as regional
economic development, which is what the NDP has been proposing,
or is she suggesting that in Quebec, in concert with other
things, there is a better place to do regional economic
development rather than with the public pension fund?
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague,
the member for Mississauga-South, for his question.
I am glad that the member has emphasized like I did in my speech
the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and recognized that this fund
has produced important economic spinoffs for Quebec, especially in the
area of job creation.
He also clearly outlined the procedures that the board would have
to follow for making investments under this bill. And he said that the
investment fund would be managed by professionals whose mandate will be
to produce the best possible return while ensuring the lowest possible
rate of contribution. This is a process that we fully support. Except
that I feel that this bill does not go far enough.
1600
And as I pointed out in my speech, the accumulated funds in the
plan should provide the opportunity to go further by allowing major
investments in regional economic development.
In this respect, and I think the Bloc Quebecois has reiterated this
many times when it spoke, we believe that having professionals manage
the investment board is a good thing in itself and indeed is an
excellent step; it is important we ensure that this fund is managed
professionally.
Except that, when considering the types of investments that the board
could make, what the Bloc Quebecois pointed out about Bill C-2 is that
it does not go far enough to promote economic development and job
creation. This is how I interpreted the member's question and I hope
that I answered it.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
Today we are speaking of a renewed Canada pension plan. I
consider it an honour to have the opportunity to address the
House on this very important piece of legislation.
A renewed Canada pension plan is one of the pillars in a
national pension plan and it is has been a priority of this
government from the beginning. Now, as announced in the Speech
from the Throne, the government has introduced legislation to
implement the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan to
ensure Canada's pension plan is sustainable into the 21st century
and for future generations.
I would like to point out to the House that the Canada pension
plan concerns Canadians of all ages and in all walks of life.
National consultations that preceded these proposed changes
showed that the Canada pension plan concerns not only seniors but
Canada's youth. This government is a government that listens to
youth. That is why the government called on young people to take
part in the consultations that preceded the development of these
proposals. Beyond that, they were invited to specific
consultation sessions held here in Ottawa.
They have made their views very clear. Our young people want to
be able to count on the Canada pension plan to help them not only
plan for their retirement but also to help support them after
retirement. They made it clear that they want to fix the Canada
pension plan, not eliminate it.
It has become clear that the current plan needs fixing. In its
current condition it is not viable. Changes are needed to ensure
that the Canada pension plan can meet the income security needs
of Canadians now and in the future.
The chief actuary has forecast that with the current ratio of
contributions to benefits paid with this current rate, the Canada
pension plan's fund will be exhausted by the year 2015. Changes
must be made.
Further, he has projected that to sustain the plan,
contributions would have to increase from the current 5.8% of
eligible earnings to 14.2% by the year 2030 if no changes are
made. This is a burden too large to place on the shoulders of
the next generation of income earners. Canada's young people are
facing challenges of career development and meaningful
employment. They do not need the additional taxation or to have
to support in addition the Canada pension plan. They are planning
for their retirement and they have to have contribution rates
that they can afford.
The proposed changes to the Canada pension plan avoid the burden
of a plan that drains the resources of our young people to
sustain the retirement income of those who have already retired.
Contributions must increase, of course, and have been scheduled
to rise to 10.1% by the year 2016.
1605
However, to ensure that the costs of sustaining the plan are
shared fairly across all age groups, a strategy has been devised
to increase the contribution rates to 9.9% by the year 2003 and
then to retain that rate indefinitely. This is in sharp contrast
to the long term rate of 14.2% forecasted by the chief actuary.
This requirement is necessary if this plan is to be sustained.
As with the present Canada pension plan, employers and employees
will continue to contribute equally. Contributions will go into
an investment fund building on a larger fund which will be
prudently invested and will allow stable benefits in the future.
The fund will be managed at arm's length from the government and
managed to ensure a maximum rate of return consistent with the
security of the contributor's investment.
Through freezing the year's basic exemption, reforming future
benefits paid and providing new investment and management
methods, the proposed contribution rates add up to a sustainable
plan for the future and the future of our young.
Persons begin contributing to the Canada pension plan when they
reach the age of 18 as long as their earnings are above the
year's basic exemption. Freezing the year's basic exemption at
its current level of $3,500 means that now more low income
earners will be able to contribute to the Canada pension plan,
increasing their eligibility for future benefits.
Another tough choice was to sustain an affordable and equitable
plan. We had to curtail the growth of paid benefit expenditures.
Once again, following the concerns Canadians had expressed during
consultation, the proposed changes ensure fair treatment across
all age groups.
The new benefit provisions will not affect current benefit
recipients, nor will the changes affect disability or survivor
benefits of anyone who is currently receiving them.
The impact of the changes will be shared among future retirees,
future survivors and future recipients of disability benefits. A
new formula is proposed for calculating average yearly earnings
for pensionable purposes.
Average earnings for pension purposes will be updated based on
the average of five years of the year's maximum pensionable
earnings instead of three. There are also some limited proposed
changes to Canada pension plan provisions such as disability and
survivor benefits.
That brings me to two points that I would like to emphasize
which I think are often forgotten when discussing the Canada
pension plan. Providing disability and survivor benefits, the
Canada pension plan is more than just a retirement pension
scheme. It may also be seen as a partial insurance.
For example, Canada pension plan provides survivor benefits to
widowed spouses and disability benefits to contributors with
severe and prolonged disability. Furthermore, the plan provides
child benefits to the dependent children of deceased or disabled
contributors. These facts should be kept in mind when
considering changes or, more to the point, when contemplating
replacing the plan, which has been suggested by some critics.
A second related point to the Canada pension plan is that it was
not designed and should never be considered to be the sole or
primary source of retirement income. Its original goal was and
continues to be to provide 25% of earnings up to the average wage
of Canadians. This principle also extends to the survivor and
disability benefits under the plan.
By all means, Canadians and particularly young Canadians should
be encouraged to invest as much as they can in alternative
retirement income plans such as registered retirement savings
plans and to consider extra insurance for death or disability.
The Canada pension plan was introduced because it was
demonstrated that Canadians, particularly those at the lower end
of the earning scale, cannot save for their retirement and
therefore run the risk of spending their senior years in poverty.
For many it has become that they cannot afford to make
investments.
The Canada pension plan pools both resources and risks. Since
the plan includes virtually all Canadian income earners under its
umbrella, the pool is much larger than any private plan.
1610
It is clear that the government's measures to renew and
revitalize the Canada pension plan are based on the expressed
wishes of the people of Canada, in partnership with most of the
provinces.
The renewed plan will be fairer, more affordable and
sustainable. The new Canada pension plan will provide a
reliable, secure basis for retirement planning for Canadians of
all walks of life well into the future.
That is what Canadians want. That is what young Canadians have
told us they want. That is what the government has provided.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, some
members of Parliament, almost exclusively Reform members, gave up
any entitlement to a member of Parliament pension during the last
Parliament. Most other members, mostly Liberals, NDP and the
leader of the fifth party, retained their pensions. They will
get out as much as six dollars for every dollar they contribute.
I would like to know how the member who just spoke can justify
and support this Liberal boondoggle of a CPP where members
contributing today, new members, young people, will get out less
than they put in. How can she continue to support a member of
Parliament pension plan in which she could get out as much as six
dollars for every dollar put in, paid for by those same
taxpayers who are going to get out less than they contributed
because of the failure of the Liberal CPP?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the member opposite.
When the Canada pension plan came into existence there were
eight workers for every recipient. Currently there are five
workers for every recipient and in the future, with the
demographic aging of the population, that number will decrease to
three workers for every recipient.
This government is acting in a very even handed, far reaching,
responsible manner in revising the pension plan. We hear over
and over again from young people that they do not expect it to be
there for them. We have made the necessary revisions which will
allow young people to have a pension plan that they will be able
to count on when they reach the age of retirement.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member spoke very well in support of the new
Canada pension plan. However, I polled young people and the
results of that poll showed that young people are entirely in
opposition to her way of thinking. I asked them to take their
contribution, put it together with the employer's contribution,
take the money to a credit union, bank or investment office, tell
them how long the money is going to be invested and compare that
to the CPP. I did not get one reply saying they would like to
contribute to the Canada pension plan. They would rather go into
a different plan.
I do not know where the Liberals are coming from. Of all the
replies I got, I did not get one single response saying they
wanted to join the Canada pension plan.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer
that question.
It is interesting to hear that the hon. member surveyed his
constituents. I believe that a fellow Reform member brought
forward a letter which was full of a lot of hardship and concern
from a young mother of two children who had a husband who was
working six days a week. I suggest those are exactly the kinds
of Canadians who will need to rely on the Canada pension plan
because they do not have the money to invest in an RRSP.
This plan is more than just a retirement plan. A very large
component, one which Canadians have said they value and want
protected, is made up of disability and survivor benefits. This
government has ensured that those benefits will continue to be
there for people who need them in the future.
1615
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to
congratulate the member for Kitchener Centre for the very lucid
presentation that she gave. I wish the members of the Reform
Party would have listened attentively with an open mind.
One member of the Reform Party was talking about speaking for
the common people. If the Reform Party offered only the super
RRSP, only the very rich could afford to make those kinds of
contributions. In fact, such a plan would have no benefits for
people who may be left behind by a deceased husband and father,
the women and children.
I ask the member for Kitchener Centre what she thinks will be
one of the greatest benefits of the CPP for the women of Canada.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question.
Women are often the main caregivers of children and aging family
members, as well as when they take time out of the workforce to
rear their children they are exactly the people who will need a
Canada pension plan because they have interrupted employment so
they do not have the benefit of private pension plans nor the
disposable income. They are exactly the group that we are
looking at to benefit from this.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 Vancouver Island North, Fisheries; the hon.
member for Waterloo—Wellington, Canadian Heritage; the hon.
member for Sarnia—Lambton, Privacy; and the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment
Insurance.
[English]
The hon. member for North Vancouver, on a point of
clarification.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
what you just read, you said the member for Vancouver North and I
wonder if that was Vancouver Island North.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Yes, thank you. It
is the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. The Chair stands
corrected. Thank you.
Resuming debate. While I am on my feet, when one member stands
when I ask for questions and comments, we will keep an eye to see
how many stand. If there are a number of members, then I will
point to who is going to get a chance. I am going to ask members
to keep their questions brief. When I say brief, I am talking 45
seconds and the response as brief as well. In that way we will
get more activity in the debate.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity to speak today on on this bill
before us and in particular on those elements that affect
Canadians with disabilities.
The Canada pension plan is one of the most important elements in
the social fabric of this country. Most of us will use it at
some point in our lives, when we retire or become disabled by
serious illness or accident or if we lose a spouse or parent who
was a contributor.
Consequently Canadians have come to rely on the security that
the Canada pension plan provides. It has proved worthy of our
trust over the years. However, even the best of plans must
change with the times. The Canada pension plan is no exception.
In recent years a number of social, economic and demographic
trends have developed a threat to the continuity and viability of
the plan. To address this challenge we held public consultations
on the Canada pension plan to discover what role Canadians wanted
the plan to take and what action they felt was needed. The chief
actuary also provided input.
We began a series of in depth meetings and negotiations with our
provincial and territorial government partners. At the end of
this process, we and our partners put together a blueprint for
renewal.
The resulting bill before us represents a balanced package of
measures aimed at ensuring the sustainability and fairness of the
Canada pension plan. It adjusts contribution rates and benefits.
It improves the way in which funds are invested. Once
implemented, this bill will ensure the future of the plan and
keep contribution rate increases as low as possible.
1620
Of course, this cannot be done solely by adjusting contribution
rates and investment strategies. We had to address the benefit
side of the equation as well, but as we did this, we rejected
calls by some for deep cuts in survivor or disability benefits.
Instead, we tried to minimize benefit changes and to make them
fair across all groups and all generations.
To do this we have tried to spread the responsibility for change
across all benefit categories while keeping the fundamental
characteristics unchanged. We recognize that today's senior
citizens have already made their financial planning decisions for
their retirement and could not be expected to respond to changes
in the plan.
That is why the new measures will not affect the benefits
current seniors are receiving. That same principle applies to
the so-called “near seniors”, individuals between the ages of
60 and 64 who have chosen to take early retirement. Their
existing pensions will also be protected. If they are receiving
benefits now, the amount will be unaffected.
As members will see, some small benefit adjustments have to be
made which will affect future pensioners, including some changes
to the Canada pension plan disability program. These proposed
changes respond in part to concerns raised by the auditor general
who said that disability administration costs need to be brought
under control. Again, I want to clarify that the new measures
will not affect current Canada pension plan disability benefits.
Under this bill, workers will be expected to demonstrate a
slightly stronger attachment to the workforce to be eligible for
disability benefits. Currently, individuals can work for as
little as a few months over the course of two years to receive a
Canada pension plan disability benefit. Under the proposed
amendments, workers must have made contributions in four of the
previous six years. Even so, the new coverage rules are still
more generous than the original rules of the plan.
Before 1987 workers had to contribute in five of the previous 10
years and at least one-third of the years from their 18th
birthday to be eligible for disability benefits. There are also
changes to the requirement benefit formula for disabled
beneficiaries.
Pensionable earnings will be updated based on the average wage
at the time of disablement rather than adjusted for wage levels
when the recipient turns 65. Like retirement and survivor
benefits, Canada pension plan disability pensions will be fully
price indexed from the time they are put in play.
The Government of Canada is helping Canadians with disabilities
to participate more fully in the economic and social life of this
country with an investment of some $280 million per year in tax
measures, employment and vocational support, as well as support
to organizations and for people with disabilities.
Let me also assure the House that we are committed to responding
positively to the recommendations of the Scott task force. We
have already acted on some of these recommendations and will act
on others in the near future. However, I also want to emphasize
that the Canada pension plan should not be confused with programs
specific to the needs of people with disabilities. The Canada
pension plan disability benefit was designed as a wage loss
insurance for workers. It was never intended to provide benefits
to all persons with disabilities.
The changes contained in this bill will ensure that benefits go
to those for whom the program was originally intended. They will
enable us to continue to provide disability benefits in a fair,
consistent and responsible manner. They reaffirm the Government
of Canada's concern for people with disabilities, while
maintaining benefits at sustainable levels.
Canadians from all regions and walks of life have told us they
expect us to act decisively to preserve the Canada pension plan.
They have told us that they want us to make it sustainable, but
they want to do so in a fair and consistent manner.
[Translation]
Significant elements of the CPP remain unchanged. First,
benefits have not been changed in the case of all those currently
receiving CPP pensions, disability benefits, survivor benefits or
combined benefits.
1625
Second, all CPP benefits, with the exception of the death
benefit, which is paid only once, remain fully indexed to
inflation.
Third, the age of early, normal or late retirement remains
unchanged.
[English]
This bill responds to this call for action from Canadians. Once
implemented, it will ensure that the Canada pension plan will be
able to serve Canadians as well in the future as it does today.
It will do so in a way that is fair to all.
For these reasons, I intend to vote for this bill and urge other
members to do likewise.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
indicate to this House in my comment that I think it is so
unfortunate that what we do is we emphasize messaging.
The Liberals are saying over and over again “We want to
preserve the Canada pension plan because it is so wonderful. If
we don't, all these poor people are going to suffer”.
Here is the brutal fact. No one who has a low income or no
income or who is poor is paying into Canada pension. Therefore,
they are not eligible for benefits. That is a fact. The
government keeps passing it on as if that is not true. It keeps
trying to connect this. The fact is that anyone who has an
income, who has a job and has deductions for the Canada pension
plan would have that same amount of money available for RRSPs or
other investments which he or she could choose, get a much better
rate and end up with more money.
While the government is saying it is protecting the poor, what
it is in fact doing is taking from particularly the middle income
and the lower income people who are paying into the Canada
pension plan, and it is giving them a tremendously poor return on
their investment. It is somehow trying to message and image that
as being the great heroes, the Liberal Party, saving the country
from all these woes.
I would like a response to that.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question.
I was recently interested in listening to a group which
represents poor people in this country. They genuinely supported
what the government was doing with respect to the Canada pension
plan. They reiterated something I had forgotten. That was that
this is a great pillar of our society and our economy. It
represents social justice in this great nation of ours, rather
than going off on a half-baked, hare-brained scheme like super
RRSPs which no one understands, and I think only the rich would
be involved with, which is what the Reform would have us do
without knowing where that is going. It seems important that we
stand firm and stand solid with the scheme that CPP is and
represents to all Canadians something which poor Canadians,
middle-income Canadians and all Canadians want and need and will
benefit from as a result.
I think this is very important and is worthy of note.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a question for the hon. member opposite.
We recognize, as most Canadians do, that up until this point the
investment of the government with the clients' funds has a
deplorable record. What guarantee can this government give that
the new CPP investment board is going to have one thing in mind
and one thing only, to maximize every dollar put into the plan to
the benefit of the clientele? What guarantee can the member give
me of that?.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question. It is an important one.
It seems to me that when the various provincial and territorial
leaders signed on to this very important change, they too were
concerned with the kind of question which the member is asking.
What they said and said unanimously was that we would be
proceeding in a fair and equitable manner. The same rules that
apply to the public CPP would be similar to what the private
people have done.
We have to remember that the same kind of common sense approach
would be taken in both private and public. The board that has
been put in place would make sure that that is done in a fair,
consistent and equitable manner.
It is important for Canadians to know that that kind of process
will be taking place by men and women who know what they are
doing, by men and women who have the best interests of Canadians
at heart, by men and women who will progress and proceed in a
manner consistent with the great values of this country.
1630
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is a rare opportunity to be able to speak to a bill
of major consequence. In my last opportunity to speak in the
Chamber on Bill C-2 respecting changes to the Canada pension plan
I begin by expressing a great deal of regret and disappointment.
One can only be left with the conclusion that the government is
profoundly undemocratic.
I had some experience in the political arena before I came to
the Chamber. It came as a real shock and surprise to learn that
the government was willing to bypass the democratic process, to
bring in closure on debate after only seven hours at second
reading and to deny many of us in the Chamber the opportunity to
speak on behalf of constituents.
Citizens everywhere in Canada want to have their voices heard.
They believe in the democratic process. They believe members were
elected to speak in their behalf and to bring their concerns to
the Chamber. Now they are left feeling more cynical and more
sceptical about the democratic process because the government
could not even allow a reasonable amount of time for proper
debate on a major topic.
Many of us on this side of the Chamber did not have a chance to
speak at all. Certainly we did not engage in the kind of debate
we expected to happen, given the seriousness of the issue.
Equally disturbing has been the government's treatment of the
committee process and of the thoughtful amendments proposed at
report stage. The government ploughed straight ahead from day
one with no intention of consulting with other Canadians or
members of Parliament, of listening to the views of organizations
that have developed some expertise in this area, or of taking
seriously any thoughtful amendments on the whole process.
Here we are at third reading with hardly any debate, no serious
treatment of our amendments, and the government wants us to
rubber stamp its bill. It wants to get the bill through before
anybody wakes up and realizes the devastating impact it will have
on Canadians. It is appalling on the basis of the democratic
process alone.
Our concerns are raised in the Chamber by very serious
substantive inclusions in the bill. In my last opportunity to
speak on the bill I remind the House of the work of Stanley
Knowles for years and years and years.
An hon. member: Move on to this century.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: A member across the way
suggested that we get into this century. Is the member
suggesting that the work of Stanley Knowles in helping to shape
and create a universal pension plan is not significant, is not
worthy of note or is not there to guide us in the future?
1635
Stanley Knowles worked from 1942 on trying to make changes to
ensure we had an adequate income retirement system. He started
back when the old age pension act allowed Canadians $20 a month
and was means tested. He stood up to fight that meagre, mean
program and made some difference. He kept fighting until 1963
when the Canada pension plan was first introduced. He fought to
see that benefits were indexed. He kept his fight going until
1967 when we were able to see come to fruition some semblance of
a guaranteed income supplement program. He kept fighting through
to 1975 to try to change the spousal allowance which only
guaranteed women between the ages of 60 and 65 years, if they
were single or widowed, some measure of security.
After that long struggle I would like to quote what Stanley
Knowles said:
I sometimes think that if our party or if I had done nothing else
in this country but play a part in getting this kind of
improvement, it has been worth all the effort and all the
struggle. We have done well and I am proud of having been
involved in it but we are just getting started.
If only he were here today to see what it means to be just
getting started. If only he knew just how much of what he fought
for will be taken away by a single move on the part of the
Liberal government by way of Bill C-2.
We can do nothing less than try to carry on the struggle and try
to fight for the values that guided him throughout his life and
helped make the income retirement system one of value.
Members can comment all they want about getting into the next
century, but I suggest the values of decency, security and living
with some semblance of quality of life are as good today as they
were back in 1942 when Stanley Knowles started his struggle.
Stanley would have been shocked by the mean-spirited provisions
of the legislation that target the weakest members of society and
that imposes a 10% cutback across the board, having a
particularly disproportionate impact on women and persons with
disabilities.
We will continue the work Stanley Knowles began in 1942, much of
which has to be started all over again. We are acutely aware of
the fact that this is just the first shoe to drop. The
government has a bigger agenda that would do precisely what
Stanley Knowles said was abhorrent when he started in 1942, a
plan that is means tested and mean spirited.
Maybe members on the Liberal side are not aware of what the
seniors' benefit as being proposed by the Minister of Finance and
his colleagues will do. It will do away with everything we have
fought for long and hard and that must guide us in the future.
I conclude by saying the work of Stanley Knowles is not over.
We are talking about the meaning of human life. It is the value
we attach to quality of life in society. It is about ensuring
that everyone in society, regardless of income, sex, ability
and—
1640
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening very
carefully to my colleague opposite. Could you ask her not to
continue to use a prop. We do not believe in using props in this
place and she has waved that book about Stanley Knowles around
quite long enough.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair has been
following the dissertation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre and has found no such implication in her use of the book
from which she was quoting.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has one minute to sum
up her remarks.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I would heartily
recommend that all members of the government read the book
entitled “Stanley Knowles: The Man from Winnipeg North
Centre”, written by Susan Mann Trofimenkoff.
Let me conclude by saying that the concerns we have brought to
the debate are serious. They are based on the values of dignity
and security. The debate is about ensuring that everyone who
reaches their retirement years will live with some feeling of
economic security and some sense of dignity about who they are
and what they have contributed to the country. It is about our
sense of being a civilized country. It is the least we can do.
The fight will continue.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the
comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre whose
riding is close to my riding of Winnipeg North. I certainly
share her passion for social dignity, as the hon. member for
Winnipeg North—St. Paul equally professes. I am sure she will
agree with me that the CPP reflects the soul of Canada.
In beginning her debate she alluded to the profoundly
undemocratic process used by the government in reforming the CPP.
Is it undemocratic for the government to follow the CPP rule
which says that it can only be amended with the consent of
two-thirds of the provinces reflecting two-thirds of the Canadian
population? That was done. Two-thirds of the Canadian
population agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre in response.
We have five minutes remaining and two other members have
interventions.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear
there is not unanimous support or even two-thirds support for the
kinds of changes the Liberal government is introducing by way of
Bill C-2. There was a huge outcry on the part of Canadians when
they learned about this piece of legislation.
The problem is the government is busy forcing it through so
quickly that there has not been ample time and ample opportunity
to ensure that Canadians are well informed enough to raise their
concerns.
We as members of Parliament have had the opportunity to send out
questionnaires and to seek opinions. We know that Canadians are
deeply concerned about these changes and would like us to do
whatever possible to slow down the process and to have a thorough
review of the national retirement—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member
opposite when she spoke of Stanley Knowles. I want her to know
that I too knew Stanley Knowles. In fact to this day I have a
picture of him in my office with a mutual friend. I very much
admire who he was and what he represented.
I also want to say that while I do not know how Mr. Knowles
would have voted on this issue, it is fair to say that he would
have respected the government's position in keeping the
universality of the CPP in place for all Canadians. I knew him
well enough that I think I can say that. While he might not have
voted with us, he would have respected the government for what it
has done.
I remind the hon. member that we have had considerable debate on
this issue. We debated the bill for nine and a half hours at
second reading. Consultations have been held across the country.
When the member says we are ramming the legislation through,
does she dismiss the hours and hours of consultation which have
taken place?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, we had seven hours
of debate at second reading, which was hardly time enough for but
a handful of members in this place to participate.
1645
We had the government refusing to allow for full representation
at the committee hearings. Many groups were excluded. There was
a built in bias for friends of the Liberal government, the BCNI,
the Fraser Institute, all of those organizations, while excluding
the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Union of Public Employees
and other groups. The government refused to address any of our
amendments—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance so I am interested to
hear the concern of the hon. member opposite for the consultation
process.
I am going on memory but I believe that we held at least 22
meetings to listen to a vast variety of both special interest
groups as well as members of private pension plans, and I think
of a teachers pension plan. We had them comment on the
legislation and whether they felt it was a balanced and
sustainable direction to head in and the fact that we had
legislation in place to give the kind of arm's length integrity
that we needed in this process.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In response, the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
fact that many organizations were able to appear before the
committee, but many were not. In fact the Canadian Union of
Public Employees representing 500,000 workers was not able to
appear. It was turned down. The Council of Canadians, which had
a petition with 500,000 signatures, was not able to appear. Many
other concerned Canadians were not able to be before this
committee because it was located here and there was no
opportunity to go to the expense and the time to get here.
Let me just conclude by saying that not only were groups refused
in terms of participation but in fact those that were able to be
here were not listened to. The Council—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me say first of all, that all the members from my
area, three of us, got to speak on this particular bill this
afternoon.
Let me also mention Stanley Knowles. I have nothing but respect
for Stanley Knowles. A couple of years ago I hosted an event on
the Hill—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me, if the
hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo and other hon. members would
forgive me, I was not paying attention. When debate resumed it
should have gone to the hon. member for Dartmouth. Please
forgive me. We will get back to the member for
Kitchener—Waterloo.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hour is
late on this bill although it has been an indecently short debate
that has occurred on this important legislation.
It is important to read into the record some excerpts from a
report by Eric Norman, the president of the Council of Canadians
with Disabilities, and Harry Beatty, the director of policy and
research for ARCH: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with
Disabilities. At the same time I would like to comment on some of
the more chilling aspects of this report.
The disability component of the Canada pension plan has been
targeted for billions of dollars in cutbacks in the recent
legislative amendments announced by the finance minister and by
the Minister of Human Resources Development. The impact of these
changes on Canadians with disabilities has been consistently
understated or totally ignored by both politicians and the media.
To a great many disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals however
the new rules will be devastating.
The sixteenth CPP actuarial report prepared by federal chief
actuary Bernard Dussault projects a total cumulative reduction in
CPP spending on disability pensions by the year 2005 of over $1
billion—
I would like to repeat that, $1 billion.
I find it astounding that what we are doing is cutting the
benefits of the most vulnerable members of our society.
The depth of this reduction in CPP disability has been carefully
hidden from the public by the federal government and the eight
provincial governments which support the cutbacks.
Those already receiving CPP disability pensions will not have
them taken away or reduced. The persons who will be adversely
affected by the “reforms” are now working, often blissfully
unaware of the career-ending disability which will affect them in
future. The government has adopted the same strategy for persons
with disabilities as for seniors: “grandfather” those now
eligible, to blunt criticism, and apply the cuts to those whose
needs will arise in the future.
The finance minister has recently indicated a willingness to
rethink the seniors benefit—he should look again at the
disability proposals as well. It is unjust to do otherwise.
1650
But that is an unjust government we are facing right now across
the floor from us.
The new CPP plan, scheduled to come into effect on January 1,
1998, has the support not only of the federal government but of
eight provincial governments. Only B.C. and Saskatchewan are
opposed. Under the amending formula, which requires CPP
amendments to be supported by two-thirds of the provinces
representing two-thirds of Canada's population, there is
sufficient provincial support to have the changes apply across
Canada—. Quebec participates fully under the amending formula,
although it has its own Quebec pension plan. The PQ government
is co-operating with the federal government in making the
disability program cuts.
As of 1998, the new rules will require CPP disability pension
applicants to have earned more than a specified amount in four of
the last six years prior to being determined to be disabled.
Current rules require contributions in either two of the last
three years or five of the last 10 years. Who will be excluded
from eligibility? Young people in the first three years of
employment will not qualify.
For example, if a young person who is 21 and has an accident in
the first year of his job and he is not covered by workers
compensation or he has no private pension plan, which very few
people do, that young person will in fact go straight on welfare
for the rest of his life.
In another example perhaps a young person with a disability such
as Down's syndrome lives with his family and has modest means
with no other pension plan. That person may have no labour force
attachment—that very strange phrase we use today meaning a job.
And the chances as we know are very limited that people with
disabilities have jobs unless there is enormous support available
for them to get those jobs to begin with. We also know that
those supports are disappearing at a great rate. The future for
that person without labour force attachment will be either
institutionalization or welfare.
It is a cruel irony that this government spends so much time
talking about youth when in fact what it is doing is setting them
up for a very bitter harvest in the future. That is what we are
doing now for our youth.
Others who will be affected very negatively by these changes
will be those with recent attachments to the workforce who have
for reasons beyond their control such as unemployment or
caregiving responsibilities somehow been unable to be eligible.
Of particular concern to us are those who have tried to keep
working despite the onset of a disability—multiple sclerosis, or
psychiatric disability, cancer, amongst many others. They will be
“rewarded” for their determined efforts in many cases by
complete disentitlement to a CPP disability pension, which in
turn will greatly reduce their eventual retirement pensions. To
top it all off—pensions will now start to rise above the
minimum contribution level, so someone with low earnings may have
to pay CPP contributions to the government in a year, only to be
told later that the contributions do not help in qualifying for a
disability pension.
Those currently receiving CPP disability will not be affected.
Those who apply before the end of 1997 will also have their cases
determined under the present rules, so if you believe you may
qualify, you should apply as soon as possible. But thousands who
become disabled in the future will be disentitled, especially as
they reach their fifties and sixties, where the likelihood of
disability is much greater.
1655
I guess we should say baby boomers wherever we are in this
crowd, beware because it could happen to us.
The cutbacks under the new CPP disability program do not end
there. Those who do qualify for CPP pensions will have their
eventual retirement pensions lowered by the new rules. Widows
and widowers who are themselves disabled will have their combined
survivor disability benefits reduced.
Worse still, the federal government states it will continue its
administrative changes to the CPP disability program which it
describes as “improvements”. What Human Resources Development
Canada has really achieved through its administrative
“improvements” has been a restricted approach to determining
who is disabled, which has disentitled thousands of Canadians
unfairly. Older workers in particular, in their fifties and
sixties, are being found “capable of working” despite
significant health problems leading to physical and mental
limitations. The “jobs” they are supposedly able to do may
exist in a bureaucrat's CPP manual but they do not exist in
Canadian communities in 1997. CPP continues as well to penalize
those who attempt training, education, rehabilitation programs or
a part time or time limited return to work by finding them
“employable” as well, in spite of a supposed policy which says
this should not happen.
You do not get rich on CPP disability. Monthly disability
pensions in 1997 range from a minimum of $330 to a maximum of
$883. Payments are taxable so they are reduced in value for
those with higher incomes. But for many who have a limited
attachment to the workforce—
There is that great phrase again.
—because of unemployment, caregiving, home making or the onset of
disability, the CPP pension benefit is desperately needed. It
may be the only benefit a disabled person qualifies for, for
example, if his or her spouse is working or if there is a modest
income from savings. It is unfair to take the CPP disability
pension away from those who need it the most.
Completely unnoticed in the debate is the cost impact of
reductions in the CPP disability program on other disability
income programs, including provincial social assistance, workers
compensation and long term disability insurance. Those other
programs top up CPP where a person qualifies for both. So if CPP
is cut—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, the hon.
member's time has expired. It is time now for questions and
comments.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, being mindful of the earlier
ruling that you made of 45 seconds, I will be very brief.
I just want to make the comment, after hearing this speech, that
I guess the NDP is the only party in this House that really feels
there is no problem with the Canada pension plan. It ignores the
fact that changes were required to the Canada pension plan. The
NDP thinks that just sitting back and hoping things will get
better will deal with the challenges the plan is faced with.
When the NDP members continue to talk about the disability side
of the benefit, they need to understand that as a reflection of
what Canadians have said, 75% of the changes to CPP are on the
financing side and 25% are on the benefit side. We went easy on
the benefits and that is a reflection of what Canadians said
throughout the consultation period.
We had a year and a half of consultations. Members from the
CFL, United Steelworkers, CUPE, CAW, Canadian Labour Congress,
all made interventions with respect to the consultations. Unions
had representation.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, $1 billion by the year 2005
is not going easy on benefits. Although the CPP disability
program has its weaknesses, nevertheless it has been an important
cornerstone in Canada's safety net for those who have become
disabled. The CPP disability cuts will save a few pennies from
everyone's paycheques but thousands who become disabled will
suffer the consequences.
Shame on this government for the legacy that we are leaving our
young people now and in the future.
1700
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate the member on her sincerity in terms of the
plight of the disabled in Canada. There are many people in
Canada who are in circumstances that do not allow them to
participate in the Canada pension plan. I know that the member
is very sensitive to the plight of the stay at home mom who
spends a great part of the income earning years managing the
family home and caring for preschool children and who does not
get any benefits. I am sure that the member would agree that
consideration should be given to dealing with the issue of unpaid
work.
I would like to ask the member a question. She is probably aware
that the history of the disability benefit in the Canada pension
plan is such that the number of claimants has been substantially
larger than was ever anticipated and that the duration of
disability benefits has been over a much longer protracted
period.
I wonder if the member would concede that notwithstanding the
need for disability benefits, the important issue is the pension
benefits. The provinces and the federal government agreed in
consultations that we should not do anything that would impinge
on the security of the pension. Would she agree that it is
important to secure the pension benefits first and deal with the
disabilities with the best efforts possible?
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to the
astounding figure of $1 billion being taken out of disability
payments by the year 2005. I have to go back to the fact that we
are looking at young people who in the future will grow older and
who will possibly become disabled. We have to make sure there is
enough money available to allow them a decent quality of life in
the future. That is the bottom line. We find the money wherever
we can, but find it. That is all there is to it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate with
the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, who will not be interrupted.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me begin by paying tribute to Stanley Knowles and
letting the members of the New Democratic Party know that a
couple of years ago I hosted a reception on Parliament Hill to
help launch the Stanley Knowles chair at St. Paul's College at
the University of Waterloo. We are involved in raising money for
the project and I really hope that the New Democratic Party will
help us make sure that wonderful chair continues.
Besides paying tribute to Stanley Knowles, let me pay tribute to
Paul Martin, Sr. who was the minister who brought in the Canada
pension plan along with Lester B. Pearson. I think it is
important and we all owe a debt to those Canadians for their
forward thinking in making the issue a reality in Canada which
has greatly improved the lives of seniors.
People have been talking about slowing down the process. The
fact is if Canada pension is to be sustainable, we have to deal
with the changes and with the issue.
I have my householder here from December 1994, in which I
consulted the constituents of my riding about changes to the
Canada pension plan. It had a much better response than any
other survey I have done. We have been dealing with these changes
for a long time.
Almost 50% of my constituents are under the age of 30. It is
imperative to their future that this Liberal government do
something now to fix the Canada pension plan and to ensure that
it is fair, sustainable and viable for the future. The government
has done just that. The changes contained in this bill represent
one more element in the larger policy agenda that the government
has pursued since its first day in office, an agenda aimed at
ensuring the well-being now and in future of our young people.
That policy agenda includes encouraging economic growth and job
creation by getting our fiscal house in order and ensuring
affordable, sustainable and fair social programs capable of
serving Canadians both today and in the future. As part of this,
we have undertaken a number of initiatives to promote the
well-being of all Canadians.
1705
For instance, we introduced EI reform. In addition to being
fairer and more effective it has allowed many part time workers
to be eligible for benefits for the first time. We also
introduced the youth employment strategy to give young Canadians
the training and work experience they need to make the transition
from school to work a little easier. We recently announced our
intention to introduce a national child benefit to fight child
poverty.
The bill before us today represents one more element in this
strategy. It is a balanced package of measures that will
establish a new investment strategy and adjust contribution rates
and benefits so the Canada pension plan can continue to serve
Canadians well in the future as it does today.
There are those who complain because rates will increase
slightly and benefits will decrease slightly. Yes, this is true.
However, it is also true that the chief actuary has projected
that if the status quo were maintained, premiums would have to go
to over 14% in order to preserve the Canada pension plan. This
situation would threaten future prospects of young Canadians.
It is because this Liberal government has looked ahead to the
future and is taking action now that premiums will increase
incrementally over the next five years to a ceiling of 9.9%. This
increase will be shared by employers and employees equally. This
is substantially lower than the 14% increase we would have if we
sat on our duffs and did nothing, as the previous Conservative
government did.
These modest increases teamed with small adjustments to benefits
and improved management of the plan's assets will sustain the
plan for future generations of Canadians. The proposed changes in
this legislation reflect the ideas expressed during Canada
pension plan public consultations.
I consulted with my constituents on the future of the Canada
pension plan in the winter of 1994-95. Sixty-three per cent of
the respondents said they supported an increased rate of
contribution. Almost 70% were opposed to privatization, which is
what the Reform Party is proposing.
We have listened to our constituents. The proposed changes also
reflect negotiations with our provincial and territorial partners
and the recent work of the House of Commons committee that
studied the bill.
Ensuring an affordable, sustainable and credible plan also means
looking at the benefit side of the Canada pension plan. However,
during consultations Canadians told us to go easy on changes to
benefits. Eighty per cent of my constituents were against the
elimination of survivor and death benefits. Seventy-five per
cent were opposed to increasing the benefit age.
We have listened to them. The proposed changes are moderate and
they will be shared among all groups and be fair across
generations so that no one is unduly burdened. Moreover, current
retirees who are not able to adjust their retirement plans will
not have their current benefits affected by the changes.
Those changes that will affect future retirees are modest. For
instance, there is a new formula for adjusting previous earnings
and calculating retirement pensions. This change will only
affect benefits payable to future retirees. For example,
retirement pensions will be based on the year's maximum
pensionable earnings of the last five years instead of the last
three years.
The changes resulting from Bill C-2 in terms of benefits will be
small. For example, the maximum monthly pension based on this
year's figures would be $724 instead of the current $736. The
eligibility criteria for disability pensions will be updated.
Future applicants will have to have contributed to the plan in
four of the last six years. This is a reasonable requirement
given that Canada pension plan disability is not designed to be a
lifetime income replacement. Currently, recipients must have
contributed in two of the last three years or five of the last
ten years.
There are also changes to the retirement benefit formula for
disabled beneficiaries. Like retirement and survivor benefits,
Canada pension plan disability pensions will be fully indexed
from the time they are put in play.
During the public consultations Canadians, including persons
with disabilities, told us that people should have to work longer
to qualify for disability benefits. So this bill requires a
stronger workforce attachment. It also brings disability
pensioner benefits in line with other Canada pension plan
benefits. Effective administration measures have already been
taken to strengthen the administration of the disability program.
As a result the disability caseload has been substantially
reduced. There are new guidelines for determining disability. We
are doing more follow-up work to ensure continuing eligibility
and we are using new technology to manage cases.
We have launched a pilot project to enhance rehabilitation
efforts.
1710
Another change affecting the future benefits payable involves
combined benefits. Some beneficiaries can currently stack
disability and survivor benefits, or survival and retirement
benefits.
Under the current rules combining disability plus survivor
benefits, beneficiaries can receive up to $185 more per month
than other disability beneficiaries. Under this bill the
combined total would not exceed the maximum disability pension.
As well, the rules for calculating combined survivor retirement
benefits will change. These changes would bring the rules closer
to those which existed before 1987 when the rules governing
stacking provisions were relaxed. Like other benefit changes,
these reforms do not affect people already receiving benefits
under these provisions.
This bill would also adjust the death benefit. Currently the
benefit equals six months of the contributor's retirement benefit
or 10% of the year's maximum pensionable earnings, which is
$3,580 in 1997. The formula would reduce the ceiling to $2,500
and freeze it at that level.
About one half of Canadian workers already have similar coverage
through private sector insurance. It is important to remember
that the death benefit was never intended to cover 100% of the
cost. It was designed to be combined with other financial
planning efforts to meet individual needs.
The changes in this bill will ensure fairness and sustainability
of the Canada pension plan. That is what Canadians have asked us
to do, fix the CPP where it needs to fixed so that it will always
be there, Canada's legacy to our future generations. The plan
will ensure our seniors are always taken care of. That is the KW
way, that is the Liberal way and that is the Canadian way.
Administration of the plan will be improved, funds will be
invested and managed professionally and the plan will be able to
serve our children and grandchildren when they need it. For this
reason I urge all members to support this legislation before us
today.
I also pay tribute to the Minister of Finance who is continuing
the legacy of his father by bringing the financial affairs of
this country in order so we are able to have social programs like
the Canada pension plan.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
wondering if the member for Kitchener—Waterloo would be able to
give me some comfort at this point with some of my concerns about
a young person. A young person who has just entered the
workforce gets injured on the job. They have not been working
for three years, maybe for three months, and does not have a
wealthy family. Their family is not labour force attached and has
no facilities whatsoever. What is the future of that person at
that point in their ability to make their way through the world?
Does he have some real comfort that he can give me now given the
new changes in the plan that is being instituted?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for her question.
First, injuries on the job are covered by compensation programs
at the provincial level. The disability benefit was not meant to
be there for everybody. It was meant to be there for people who
have had a reasonable attachment to the workforce.
In the case the member refers to it would have to be a case of
going with the compensation program at the provincial level.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made on Monday, December 1, 1997, it is my duty
to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now
before the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1715
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
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1740
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burlington, you were
recorded as voting nay. I put the question to you: Were you
here when the vote started?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to
stand up on a point of order to vote with the government.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The member for Burlington will not vote at
this time.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 167
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mancini
| Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Power
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 73
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
several deferred recorded divisions at report stage of Bill C-9.
* * *
CANADA MARINE ACT
The House resumed from December 3 consideration of Bill C-9, an
act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive,
efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the
establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain
harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence
Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime
trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending
and repealing other acts as a consequence, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker: The first question is on Motion No. 1.
1745
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
I would ask the Table to add the member for Burlington and
delete the Minister of Finance.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is right
to delete the finance minister, but Reform Party members present
will vote nay on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this amendment.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on
this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members will be voting no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Wasylycia - Leis
– 49
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
– 191
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being deleted
myself, I believe you would find consent to apply the results of
the vote just taken to the following: report stage Motion No. 2
and report stage Motion No. 18.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 52]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 2 and 18 lost. The
next question is on Motion No. 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
for the members who voted on the preceding motion to be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will
vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
Party members will be voting yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Mancini
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis – 60
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
– 180
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 12.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
for the members who voted on the preceding motion to be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes on this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members will be voting no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wood – 183
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Doyle
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Power
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 57
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 carried.
1750
The next question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 10 and 11.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Wood
– 213
|
NAYS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Casey
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Power
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 27
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 carried and I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 10 and 11 also carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 20.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on
this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members vote yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood – 207
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp – 33
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 20 carried.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the Motion
No. 19.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have it
applied?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 56]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 19 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 21.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present are
voting yes on this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progress Conservative
members are voting yes on this motion.
(The House divided on the Motion No. 21, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood – 240
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 6, 13 and 14.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
1755
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no on
this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Conservative members are
voting yes on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 90
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wood – 150
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 6, 13 and 14 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 9, 15 and 17.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present support the motion wholeheartedly.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no on
this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Conservative members will
be voting no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 79
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wood – 161
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 9, 15 and 17 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to report
stage Motion No. 8.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 8. A vote on
Motion No. 8 one way or the other will apply to Motion No. 16.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 59]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 lost. Therefore
Motion No. 16 is defeated.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will support this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Conservative members will
be voting yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
– 191
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Wasylycia - Leis
– 49
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Godfrey
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Normand
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
1800
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It being 6 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
TOY LABELLING
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
enact legislation mandating toy manufacturers to label toys
containing phthalates in order to allow parents to make an
informed decision when buying products for their children.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today on an issue that
is of great importance at this time of the year, children's toys.
While we are discussing this issue, thousands of parents are in shopping
centres buying toys for their children, but some of these toys can be
dangerous.
The motion I am moving today proposes that all toys containing
phthalates be labelled so that parents can make an informed decision
when buying products for their children. Phthalates are chemical agents
that soften plastics. They are used in many items, including plastic
covers for containers, cellophane tissue and children's toys.
With this motion, I ask the government to take action in the case
of plastic toys, because studies have shown that this material can cause
cancer, damage the liver, and cause infertility. These studies also show
that children are more vulnerable to these toxic effects, especially
during the growing years.
What is of even greater concern to me is the fact that these
phthalates can be found in pacifiers, in teething rings and in a variety
of other toys. Imagine, our children are biting into toys that release
chemical agents that can cause cancer. Soft plastic toys containing
phthalates are like a sponge. When a child bites into a teething ring,
these phthalates are released into his digestive system, in the same way
that water is released when a sponge is squeezed. Once in the system,
these phthalates apparently alter the normal development of the
reproductive organs, for example, and they could cause health problems
like cancer, infertility and damage to the liver.
So here are these parents in shopping centres probably buying
without knowing it toys that can harm their children. That is why
labelling is required to allow parents to make informed decisions.
It was Greenpeace that brought the issue of phthalates to the
attention of Canadians.
Greenpeace did research on toys bought here in Canada to determine the
percentage of toys containing phthalates. This research revealed that
phthalates made up a rather important part of the product, and often
accounted for 10 to 40% of the weight of a toy.
1805
After Greenpeace released its findings, Health Canada conducted its
own study, which confirmed Greenpeace's findings.
If our children put in their mouths toys with a 40% toxic content,
it is imperative that we take immediate action to protect them. In
September, Health Canada started studying the effects of ingesting
phthalates contained in toys. This study is still at the preliminary
stages but, so far, no action has been taken by the government to
increase the visibility of this very serious concern. The department's
attitude seems to be: let us wait for the results of our study; too bad
if children get sick in the meantime.
You may recall the time we learned about the serious health hazard
posed by the mini-blinds that everyone had in their windows. Only after
several cases of poisoning were reported in the United States did the
government act. Putting the lives of our children at risk because
science cannot answer all our questions quickly enough is unacceptable.
In Denmark, tests conducted on rats showed that phthalates cause
cancer, liver damage and infertility. These new findings prompted some
store chains in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Argentina, Spain,
Belgium and Italy to take a large number of phthalate containing toys
off the market.
These stores were responding to a request from the government of
their country for the voluntary withdrawal of phthalate containing toys.
These stores incurred losses as a result, but they felt that protecting
the health of children was more important than making profits.
The Netherlands, Austria and Denmark have put in motion the
necessary process to regulate the use of phthalates not only in toys but
also in other plastic products.
Just this week, Denmark's environment minister asked the
Environmental Protection Agency to develop a proposal to ban all
phthalate containing toys for small children. This is what he had to say
about phthalates.
[English]
When it comes to phthalates in toys for smaller children, I have
already had the Environmental Protection Agency prepare proposals
for a ban. Ever since the problem with phthalates has shown up,
the industry has made enormous effort in trying to dismiss all
problems instead of developing more health and environmental
friendly material. It is time to act.
[Translation]
Again, that was what Danish environment minister Svend Auken said.
The Belgian minister of public health also encouraged toy
distributors in his country to take some toys off the market.
He had this to say to the Belgian federation of distributors:
“Given the results of analyses in certain countries of the European
Union, which indicate that toys and other common objects made of
plastic style PVC intended for chewing by young children release
significant quantities of phthalates that could represent a health
hazard, I appeal to the sense of responsibility of the Belgian
federation of distributors and ask you to intervene with members of
your federation and have them take voluntary action against the
marketing of such products”.
The Belgian minister continued: “I would also stress that you
do urgently whatever is necessary to withdraw these plastic style
PVC products containing phthalates from sale and thus maintain
consumer confidence in the safety of these toys”.
I have just quoted the remarks of two European ministers. If
they considered it necessary to act on the matter of phthalates,
should Canada not do the same? If these countries, in the light of
new information, thought it necessary to withdraw plastic toys from
the market, we should obtain the information parents need to know
what they are buying.
This is a matter of protecting our children and of consumer
rights. In Canada today, parents concerned by what children put in
their mouths cannot know that the toys contain phthalates.
The labels of toys containing phthalates provide the
information parents need to make a considered decision.
1810
At the moment, Canadian parents have to guess. That is not
acceptable. It is also a public information issue. I talk with
parents all over the country, and they are alarmed at not being
able to get this information. They tell me that their priority is
their children's health and that they are entitled to access to
information as vital as this.
This morning I did a test with our press colleagues. I gave
them a series of plastic toys and asked them which ones contained
phthalates. Of course, nobody could tell me.
The problem with phthalates is that they cannot detect it. We
have to test for it in the lab or have the manufacturer's list of
materials that went into the toy.
This is why we need labels, in order to know which toys might be
dangerous.
At the present time, Health Canada is starting to do testing
on certain toys, but any parent knows that there are a number of
toys made out of soft plastic. Before Health Canada can test all
those toys, we might well be in the next millenium. Action must be
taken now to protect our children's health.
As well, Health Canada has not yet determined what
concentration of phthalates is considered dangerous. Even if the
toy testing is done, then, they do not have the tools to determine
what is acceptable and what is not.
We all know how much time it takes to get standards approved.
In this case, as well, Canada is seeking to get an international
standard set, which means that once our position has been
determined, we will have to get it accepted by the European
countries, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, as well as
by our colleagues in this undertaking.
I respect what Health Canada is doing, but I believe that, if
our European counterparts have acted in a definitive manner on
this, the least we can do is to label these toys. Too often in
this House we hear of cases where the government has not acted fast
enough to deal with a situation, out of lack of information or
neglect. This week we received the Krever report, which
underscores the shortcomings in government action on tainted blood.
In ten years, do we want to realize that we did not act fast
enough on phthalates? I want to be very clear here, a ban on the
use of phthalates is not what I want.
I understand that science has its merits and must be allowed to play its
role.
That is why I am only asking that toys be labelled. This way,
Health Canada could take whatever steps are necessary and the public
could make informed decisions. In the meantime, I ask toy manufacturers
to do what the Danish environment minister asked. Many other substances
can be used to make plastic soft. Why risk it? Why not just use other
plasticisers?
We often overlook the financial factor in health issues. By taking
preventative steps now, we will not need to use an already overburdened
health system later. We are talking about diseases for which treatment
is expensive. Cancer, infertility and liver damage are expensive to
treat. Prevention always pays off.
And, of course, there is the human cost. How can you not act when
there are small children who are growing and who, 20, 30 or 40 years
from now, could develop cancer or be unable to have children of their
own because they chewed on soft plastic toys when they were toddlers.
Why take such a risk?
[English]
Canada is a sensible country where the well-being of its
citizens dominates. When other countries take firm action on
a health issue such as this one, should we not act as soon as
possible to ensure that Canadians are protected? Of late this
government has been more preoccupied with the bottom line than
the best interests of Canadians.
What I am asking is not much, a label on toys to ensure that
Canadian parents can make an informed decision. Why would we be
afraid of an informed public? The human cost of ingesting
phthalates is enormous. We are talking about kids with
vulnerable bodies who are shaping themselves.
1815
As parents, we all know how quickly they grow, how last month's
shirt or pants are too small. Imagine that while their little
organs are developing our children are taking a chemical which
will alter the normal development process. This means that their
little hearts and their little brains do not develop normally.
That is the bottom line. That is what we are talking about.
Put in those terms, putting a label on the toys does not seem
like much, does it?
[Translation]
I stressed the risks associated with phtalates. I listed the
immediate steps various countries took to take toys off the shelves in
stores. I am not asking that we reinvent the wheel. I just want
Canadians to have all the information they need to make the right
decision. Everyone benefits from toy labelling. Let us act now to
protect our children's health. I am asking my hon. colleagues to make
this their Christmas present to all Canadian children.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House
is being asked today to support a motion requiring toy manufacturers to
label toys containing phthalates. It is claimed that such a measure
would enable parents to make an informed decision when they buy toys for
their children.
While the motion clearly seeks to protect children against
potentially dangerous phthalates, it is not the best solution to the
problem. Why? Because merely indicating on a label that a toy contains
phthalates does not tell parents anything about the potential risk and
is therefore of little help in making an informed decision.
The label can only be of some use if it specifies the type of
phthalate, its concentration in the toy, and the concentrations which
could potentially be harmful to a child. Moreover, if a particular toy
was found to contain potentially dangerous phthalates, even in high
enough concentrations to be harmful to children, it would not be
necessary to issue a warning on the label, since that toy would simply
not be sold. Indeed, the government would already have taken steps to
have such a product taken off the market.
The second problem concerning the motion is the legislation. Should
the motion be adopted, the Hazardous Products (Toys) Regulations under
the Hazardous Products Act would have to be amended to make it
compulsory to indicate the presence of phthalates in toys made with PVC
plastic.
Again, this would be an unnecessary measure. As it now stands, the
Hazardous Products Act already gives the government effective and
powerful instruments to deal with potential threats to children's
health. The act formally prohibits certain toxic solvents and
substances. If it was found that some toys contain unacceptable levels
of potentially harmful substances, the government would take appropriate
measures to have these toys taken off the market.
1820
I would like, if I may, to draw attention to an apparent
oversight in this motion. The mere presence of phthalates in a
given product does not necessarily constitute a health hazard.
Health Canada officials are now looking at studies in order to
determine whether the phthalates in question are in fact hazardous.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to the third problem
with this motion, which is that the labelling it proposes for the
products in question would not constitute a reliable or effective
method in the event of an actual hazard.
Labelling cannot take the place of energetic and decisive action,
should such action ever be necessary.
In closing, I wish to stress that the Hazardous Products Act,
together with Health Canada's ongoing monitoring, analysis and
evaluation activities, provides the government with all the tools
it needs to deal with any potential health hazard caused by the
presence of phthalates in plastic PVC products.
[English]
In the motion, the hon. member asserts that the government
should enact legislation mandating toy manufacturers to label
toys containing phthalates in order to allow parents to make an
informed decision when buying products for their children. The
motion is well intentioned, but the fact is that there is no
conclusive evidence linking all, and I stress the word all,
phthalates in toys to health risks for children. In fact there
has never been a reported case of a child experiencing ill
effects from phthalates in this country or anywhere else. For
this reason, it is difficult for us to support the motion at this
time.
This does not mean however that the government is taking the
matter lightly. Quite the contrary. As I indicated a moment
ago, officials within the department are currently investigating
the potential health risks of phthalates in polyvinyl chloride or
PVC plastic toys. In other words, we are being proactive rather
than reactive.
My minister, the minister responsible for the health and
well-being of Canadian children, has already assured this House,
and I repeat that assurance, that if at any time clear evidence
of health risks from phthalates are established, appropriate
action will be taken to protect the health of children and I dare
say with alacrity.
Health Canada's investigation of potential health risks from
phthalates includes ongoing information exchange with the
department's counterparts in the United States and in Europe,
with industry, advocacy groups and health associations, as well
as a comprehensive literature assessment on the potential
toxicity of phthalates.
As part of this investigation, Health Canada officials are
undertaking a scientific risk assessment on phthalates in various
PVC plastic products. This risk assessment involves two key
elements: an evaluation to determine the presence of potentially
toxic substances, and testing to see if these substances can in
fact be absorbed by children.
I am confident that Health Canada's sound research combined with
ongoing dialogue and consultation with government, industry and
NGOs, stakeholders and players will result in a clear assessment
of this issue, an assessment I am confident that will form a
solid, well-informed basis for any possible future action on this
matter by the Government of Canada. This approach focuses on
solid evidence-based risk assessment as a means of understanding
and acting on complex health issues, particularly as they relate
to children.
Permit me to suggest that the thorough and comprehensive nature
of our response to this potential health threat is also a
reflection of the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring the
health and safety of all of Canada's children.
1825
Under the circumstances while it is well intentioned, the motion
goes beyond what is already in place. In fact it becomes
unnecessary. We have all the mechanisms already in place. They
are already being utilized and they are being employed in a
proactive and aggressive fashion.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak on Motion No. M-85 which has been brought
forward by the hon. member Acadie—Bathurst. I must say to the
hon. member I support the motion before us. In doing so I must
add that I have a number of questions and some concerns which we
will investigate.
What is truly unfortunate in the way in which we do things in
the House of Commons is that my concerns and questions will not
be answered because the format for debate of a private member's
motion does not allow for a question and answer session. In view
of this I am hopeful that the sponsor of the motion might address
in his closing remarks some of the questions that I raise.
For instance, I am curious as to whether or not any regulatory
impact studies will be done in order to give manufacturers an
idea of how they will be expected to comply. It is clear the
effort to label toys with phthalates will rest with the
manufacturers. In this regard it would also be nice if they
could have some idea of the costs that would be associated with
doing this. This is not to say that the labelling costs should
in any way shape or form be placed ahead of consumer safety,
especially where the safety of children is concerned, far from
it. However in fairness to an industry which will be expected to
comply with any new regulations some idea of costs must be given.
The other consideration has to do with the study performed by
Greenpeace. I wonder if there have been any other studies done.
Have toy manufacturers in Europe responded only to this study?
Have they directly responded at all?
I am not calling into question Greenpeace's objectivity or
scientific analysis, but its disdain for corporations of all
kinds is no secret. Indeed we only have to look at the way in
which in Europe it has misrepresented the British Columbia
forestry practices to understand what I am saying.
In any event I and my Reform colleagues are in favour of what
the member is proposing regardless of whether the issue is one of
safety, particularly that of children, or manufacturing
compliance.
In this regard I am particularly impressed that the motion
places the responsibility of whether or not to purchase a toy
containing phthalates with the consumer. This is a good thing as
we should not underestimate the ability of consumers to decide
what is in their or in this case their children's interests.
All too often in this House we see members put forward
legislation which seeks to ban or to remove or otherwise restrict
a product based on tentative findings. This applies to members
on both sides of the House so I hope that my friends in the
government will not feel like I am singling them out.
None of these questions or concerns imply that phthalates are
not toxic. We know that they are. But even Greenpeace will
concede that the leaching of phthalates from a toy into a child
is not an absolute certainty. However, in cases like this I
think we must always err on the side of caution especially
because it involves the safety of our children.
In this regard I agree with the principal intent of this motion
which is to inform consumers of a potential hazard.
I note that the effort in Europe has gone beyond alerting
consumers to the presence of phthalates in toys to one of
actually removing them from shelves. With this in mind, perhaps
the hon. member from the NDP could comment on whether this extra
step was indeed warranted or whether it was an over-reaction to a
situation.
1830
If it was not an over-reaction by European governments, then I
commend the hon. member for not blindly following their lead in
this matter. If removal was necessary, then are we not placing
Canadian consumers at some form of risk? Again, the comments of
the hon. member for the NDP would be useful.
Lastly, I would like to know if Canadian manufacturers are aware
of the problems that are associated with phthalates. If they
are, what is their position on the matter?
This is important because they should be given a chance to
voluntarily sort this thing out for themselves. This is a more
effective route, instead of being ambushed by regulations which
they would be forced to comply with on short notice.
I want to again commend the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for
his foresight in this matter. Indeed, given the time of the year
which we are now celebrating, highlighting this concern for
parents who will be buying toys of all kinds is a very worthwhile
endeavour.
In closing, I appreciate having had this opportunity to speak on
this matter to the House today. I look forward to seeing the
motion passed by the House and I trust that the hon. member
sponsoring the motion will consider some of what I have said here
today.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today on the motion by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Motion M-85 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
enact legislation mandating toy manufacturers to label toys
containing phthalates in order to allow parents to make an
informed decision when buying products for their children.
People need to know what phthalates are. For the good of the
public, I will point out that they are chemical agents containing
concentrations of lead and cadmium.
They are used in certain products made of polyvinyl chloride and
vinyl, what we call PVCs.
These chemicals, the phthalates, have the property of making
plastics softer, which is necessary for manufacturing such baby
items as toys, pacifiers and teething rings. They are also used in
manufacturing various plastic toys. Of all the chemicals used in
plastics manufacturing, phthalates are the most common.
The problem with these chemicals is that they do not bind with
the PVCs. They remain in a freely mobile phase and are leachable,
which means that they are released in washing or percolation.
Contact and pressure, whether by biting into the object or playing
with it, can accelerate the leaching process of these items, for
example, the pacifiers that babies put in their mouths.
As they soften plastics, they are ideal for all sorts of
plastic covers, cellophane and children's toys such as teething
rings and soothers, as I mentioned earlier. Given that children of
a certain age tend to put everything in their mouth, the knowledge
that a toy contains phthalates is not reassuring. Worse yet is the
fact that phthalates are used in the manufacture of toys intended
to go into children's mouths.
Prolonged exposure to phthalates can cause all sorts of
problems. However the presence of a toxic substance in a toy is
not the only problem. The greatest concern is that certain toxic
substances, as I have said, may be released from the toys the
children put in their mouth. These substances, including
phthalates, are ingested and go directly into the system, causing
irreversible harm to a child playing normally.
It has been shown that repeated exposure to phthalates can
cause such health problems as liver and kidney damage, certain
forms of cancer and may even cause infertility.
1835
Since children are in constant development, they are particularly
sensitive to exposure to phthalates, as are older people and those whose
immune system is deficient.
In September, Greenpeace, the well-known environmental group,
released a scientific study that identified large concentrations of
toxic products in several commonly used objects easily accessible to
children. Indeed, tests have shown that certain products contain
phthalates in various proportions, anywhere from 10% to 40%, with no
indication of that fact on the label.
Yet, as the authors of the study pointed out, phthalates bought for
laboratory work are accompanied by warnings such as “harmful if inhaled,
if in contact with water or if swallowed”, “possible risk of
irreversible effects” and “may cause cancer”. However, once phthalates
are incorporated into toys, even in proportions of up to 40%, there is
no mention of or warning about these harmful products. This is quite a
paradox.
Following these findings, Health Canada conducted a series of tests
on 19 selected products, to see if certain chemical agents used to make
toys could actually be absorbed by children and endanger their health.
Strangely enough, although the findings showed significant levels of
toxic substances in most of the products tested, including two
containing liberal amounts which can be ingested by a child, Health
Canada concluded that there were no serious risks associated with the
presence of toxic substances and, therefore, that no special action was
necessary.
Environmental groups like Greenpeace fiercely criticized Health
Canada's attitude, accusing it of having conducted biased tests
jeopardizing the health of children. Among other criticism, Health
Canada is condemned for not having conducted heat and light exposure
tests on the products, when several of them were designed to be used
outdoors. The fact that, on the basis of a risk analysis on two
products, it was concluded that, while they containing an excessive
level of toxic chemicals, there was no need to take the toys off the
market was also decried.
Canada is not the only country where there are concerns about
dangerous substances contained in toys and their potential effects on
health. In Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Argentina, several tests
were conducted, as a result of which several products containing
phtalates were take off the market. In Denmark and the Netherlands, they
went as far as banning the use of phtalates in all plastic products,
including toys.
So why Motion M-85? If a number of studies, including the one
done by Health Canada, show that the presence of toxic products can
represent a health hazard, if it is known that they can separate
from the product and be ingested directly by a child, when we know
that many other countries have also done similar research and
arrived at similar conclusions, and when we know that many of these
countries have already taken preventive action by withdrawing
certain products or putting an outright ban on the use of
phthalates in plastics, we might well wonder.
Finally, Health Canada has recognized the presence of chemical
agents in vinyl products but, for the department, that did not
represent a significant health hazard. Even so, why refuse to
indicate this on these products? I think it is important that
parents know what they are buying and that they be aware of the
presence of chemical products that are potentially hazardous to the
health of their children.
I think it is a question of protecting our children, of
protecting consumers. In my view, when we have just come through
the tainted blood scandal, I think it is always better to be safe
than sorry.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of labelling as
proposed in Motion M-85.
1840
[English]
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to speak a few moments on this very proactive piece of
legislation.
I commend the NDP member from Acadie—Bathurst for bringing in a
piece of legislation which is very proactive and tries to protect
the most innocent in our communities, young infants that may be
susceptible to disease when they are exposed to some of these
chemicals. So I say I commend the member for bringing it in. If
nothing else today, we are discussing and informing certain
parents of new children, babies and infants, that there may be a
health threat.
One of my workers and his wife have a new baby. I am sure
anybody would want to know of any possible health threats to
their new child. I am glad the member brought it to my attention
and I am glad we are discussing it in the House of Commons.
I am a little surprised at the government's approach. I cannot
believe that the government would not be proactive as well and
want to give this advice to anyone who may be at risk. We are
not asking for any new huge piece of legislation. We are not
asking the government to cause the manufacturers to invest huge
amounts of money to change machinery and that type of thing. We
are simply asking for legislation that would force companies to
put on their packaging that something contains a chemical that
may be dangerous to a child.
The government approach reminds me almost with what we did on
the smoking ban. We could never convince the tobacco companies
or convince governments that smoking was hazardous to people's
health. Eventually when there were enough conclusive studies
done, we used to put on the packages that smoking might cause
cancer and other illnesses. We have long passed that stage now.
We say yes, it does cause cancer. It is proven that if you use
cigarettes as directed, they will most certainly kill you. It is
a known fact and now it is accepted.
Why would the government not want to support labelling these
toys so that maybe somewhere down the road some family does not
have to go through a tragedy simply because we did not have all
the studies on time.?
As I say, I commend the member and I am a little bit surprised
at the government's approach to this. Much has been said about
the studies that have been done throughout Europe, so I will not
bother to repeat it. Albeit they may not be conclusive, but
there certainly is an element of risk. There is an element that
these things can cause problems, otherwise they would not have
banned these chemicals in certain parts of Europe.
Even in Canada I understand under our Canadian Environmental
Health Protection Act that phthalates are still registered as a
toxic or carcinogenic substance. If in one part of Canadian law
we have it registered because it is toxic and carcinogenic, why
can we then not make sure that manufacturers put it on children's
toys so it can be seen?
Those are my comments. There is no need to repeat what has been
said. I think it is an excellent piece of legislation. Anything
that we can do which is not going to cost taxpayers a lot of
money or not going to cause any great deal to the manufacturers
and will give some added protection to parents of newborn
children I strongly support. We in the Conservative caucus will
very strongly support this proactive legislation.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with
the debate here today. I appreciate the words of the hon. member
who introduced this bill. His heart is on the side of child
protection which is something where we all are on the same side.
The debate raises more questions than it answers. It raises the
question of the research that was conducted which would lead the
hon. member to introduce this bill and what were the methods
used. Phthalates themselves may very well be toxic in a
particular form but where is the evidence to show that phthalates
migrate out of plastics and are ingested.?
Actually the word that is used in all these debates is the word
“may”. It does not say it does it. It says it may do it.
That is a weasel word because it is just as easy to say it may
not. Therefore some of the more serious questions that are
raised about the research must be answered before such a
pronouncement can be made.
1845
I appreciate that the hon. member is talking about labelling
toys to say they contain phthalates, but what does it mean if
such a label goes on to a toy? If an organization can stir up
enough emotional response to say that phthalates are a terrible
thing to be in toys, then parents may respond. But as a
government we have a responsibility to make absolutely certain of
the evidence before a decision is made. It would be absolutely
irresponsible to simply accept a particular claim from a study
that was done by an organization whose credibility is in question
in the first place. I refer to Greenpeace and the misleading
activities it has taken part in with regard to the forest
industry in Canada. I suggest to my hon. friend that the
credibility of Greenpeace today is zero.
Therefore I suggest to him that we should depend on the Ministry
of Health in Canada to continue to conduct studies which have
already begun. If Health Canada can find conclusive evidence of
any kind we can be sure this government will act and act very
quickly.
I have no question of the hon. member's intent. We all believe
in the protection of children. From a government's perspective
it would be irresponsible to actively campaign to ban something
before the difficulty with it has been truly established.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
a member of the New Democratic Party and as a mother I am very
proud to stand and second this motion brought before the House
today by my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.
This motion simply asks that the government introduce
legislation to require manufacturers to indicate on the label
when a toy contains phthalates so parents can make informed
decisions when buying playthings for their youngsters. It asks
for labelling because recent studies have shown that phthalates,
which are invisible chemical agents commonly put into plastics to
make them flexible, have been found to cause cancer, infertility
and liver damage, and are particularly damaging to children.
Examples include teething rings, soothers and plastic toys.
The studies have recently prompted chain stores in at least
seven countries, all with large and highly developed modern
economies like Canada, to remove toys polluted by phthalates from
store shelves. The Netherlands and Denmark have banned outright
the use of phthalates in plastics. The Austrian government has
banned phthalates in toys. In what is a clearly growing
international momentum on this issue, the Government of Denmark
just this week approached the European Commission for a
continent-wide ban on phthalates in products.
However, in Canada millions of children are undoubtedly playing
with these chemicals right now and their well intentioned parents
will bring even more into the home this holiday season and put
them under the Christmas tree.
An official from Health Canada told my office that as of this
week the department is standing behind all studies that show toys
with phthalates are safe. Health Canada is not joining the
growing international movement against these toxins. Health
Canada has not asked for labels to identify these dangerous toys.
Health Canada has only said that it will begin what may be a
lengthy process of its own testing which has the very real
possibility of being inconclusive.
1850
I have to ask why this minister will not err on the side of the
safety of our children. Has the Minister of Health not learned
anything from Justice Krever and the ways in which early danger
signs were sadly ignored in that shameful episode? The same
thing that happened with blood products appears to be happening
with plastic toys.
The minister's department says that these deadly toys are safe
and will stay on the market and nothing will be done to raise
public awareness about the problem. The government's position
appears to be that it is okay to poison children for Christmas.
The action by Denmark creates an interesting dilemma for the
minister. Denmark is a nation whose people are considered
thoughtful and prudent. They have added much to the evolution of
modern civilization. The Danish and other governments have
decided that these nasty products, sold for profit, specifically
to children, have not met the community standard of health and
safety and, indeed, morality and will be banned outright.
Protecting the public good is done elsewhere, yet when New
Democrats suggest the same business and the government react as
if the sky is falling and the mountains are tumbling into the
sea. It is like we were taking away the cookie jar.
The Danes and the others are banning these toys and other
phthalate ridden products because they know that businesses will
not pack up and leave the country and take along every last job
when the government makes a common sense decision in the interest
of public health.
Holding such a threat over the head of a nation is nothing short
of economic terrorism, yet this government thinks that regulation
is a dirty word, a word the Minister of Health is afraid to say.
Thankfully the Danish and other governments will ensure that
corporations make their profits in a way which enhances the
public good, and if killer toys have to come off the market, then
so be it.
We in this party applaud Denmark's integrity. This government
is always talking about international trade. Perhaps we could
import some Danish integrity to this government.
I would like to point out to the minister that these types of
common sense health policies currently in place in other
countries like Denmark are commonly referred to by Canadians as
having backbone and principle.
The New Democratic Party knows that there are ways of regulating
rogue business without causing economic chaos. It is an accepted
part of national life in most countries, and yet this government
has abandoned its responsibility in this area. The government
should be aggressively protecting the public good and especially
the public health of our children with stronger health and
consumer regulations.
Canadians used to rely on something called consumer and
corporate affairs. The corporate affairs part has changed its
name to the Government of Canada, while we can find the consumer
part in a matchbox in the basement of Industry Canada.
Millions of polluted toys are being bought this Christmas season
by unsuspecting Canadian parents and the official policy of the
Minister of Health appears to be toxic toys for girls and boys
and a very scary Christmas for all, or perhaps toxic toys r
us.
The minister is lost in toyland, like his cabinet colleagues.
They only seem interested in hearing the prime minister announce
his best before date.
I cannot understand how on earth the people in this government
can spoon feed poison to our children, my eight year old daughter
included. The studies are there. I urge the minister to act
quickly in the interest of all Canadians.
The reason we need labels is that phthalates are not a danger a
parent can see coming. It is not like a car in the street, a
vicious dog or a sharp object. Phthalates are not something a
parent can recognize. They are unseen, hidden inside toys that
children are often desperate to get their hands on or put in
their mouths, and yet the government refuses to even warn parents
of the dangers, preferring to please itself by putting these
deadly chemicals into Canadian babies through things like
soothers. It is absolutely shameful.
We at least need labels so parents can make an informed decision
to protect their children while the machinery of government
grinds through its own testing process. Not even Health Canada
can tell us how long that will take.
It is important for a government such as this, sitting as it is
in the hip pocket of big business, to realize that the word is
going to get out about phthalates, whether CEOs and comfy
bureaucrats at Health Canada like it or not.
1855
When that happens, and it is happening right now, all toy
manufacturers, including those who refused to use phthalates,
will suffer an exodus from toy stores.
Not acting on my colleague's motion will cause economic harm,
confusion and fear among parents. The Minister of Health can
take the blame for that one too when the CEOs call him on the
carpet for it.
How can Canadians continue to have faith in these products that
are improperly studied before allowing them into our homes?
Perhaps that is why earlier this year it fell upon two workers at
an Ikea store to notice that the eyes on 11 models of stuffed
toys posed a danger to children. Somehow these 11 toys were
approved for sale by the manufacturers and Health Canada but were
pulled off the shelves by the large retail chain itself.
It should not be the responsibility of store clerks to protect
the nation from dangerous products. It is the responsibility of
Health Canada and the Minister of Health.
I call on this government to properly fund departments
responsible for public health and safety. Perhaps if this
funding had not been cut, we would not be here today imploring
the government to take notice of what is happening over this
issue.
The economic costs associated with health problems from these
polluted toys are obvious. By taking preventive measures we can
save some Canadian children from liver disease and cancer. For
all these reasons, the safety of our children, the health of the
economy, it is important for the government to recognize this
problem and accept my hon. colleague's suggestion and place
labels on toys polluted by phthalates as soon as possible.
I cannot think of a better Christmas gift for my child and all
Canadian children.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have only been in the House four years, but in that
time I have never heard the use of such extreme language and such
unfair language as I have just heard from the member who spoke
previously.
We abuse our privilege as parliamentarians when we make
exaggerated statements that we cannot make outside the House
without being sued.
This talk of killer toys, polluted toys, when she knows full
well that she has the protection of the Chamber to use that
language, I do not think is something that is very admirable.
In fact, this whole thing springs from a Greenpeace report which
says that there is a possibility of danger with phthalates, which
are actually ethylhexylphthalate, a chemical softener used in
polyvinyl chlorides, plastics, and in baby's soothers and that
type of product.
Greenpeace raised a legitimate concern when it pointed out that
there may be some possibility that this type of material existing
in these toys could be leeched out when the child sucks on the
toy.
However, the Greenpeace report goes into no detail whatsoever
about the alleged toxic qualities of these phthalates. If the
member opposite had taken the time to look up the various reports
that have been done by Environment Canada and Health Canada, she
would have discovered that there is little evidence found by the
government that phthalates are a serious problem in the
environment.
It is very easy to condemn a product when it gets headlines. But
we have to take a responsible attitude to this problem. There is
no evidence that these phthalates have any effect except over a
very long term. Greenpeace has not supplied the evidence of its
laboratory studies and the member opposite is obviously is not
prepared to supply the evidence either.
The Deputy Speaker: I have to interrupt the hon. member's
remarks because the time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business is now expired. But he will have eight
minutes remaining the next time this matter comes up for
discussion.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1900
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
PRIVACY
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on November 18 I posed a question regarding the actions taken by
the Toronto-Dominion Bank. On October 31 at the stroke of
midnight, Halloween night, the computers at the Toronto-Dominion
Bank whirled and downloaded every piece of personal information
it has on each and every customer.
This information went to the Toronto-Dominion mortgage
corporation, securities corporation and insurance corporations
and it went free of charge. The only way a TD customer could
avoid their own information from being sent was if, and only if,
first they read the eight-page brochure that was sent by the TD
to all of its customers in June of this year.
Second, they would have to understand just what was being
proposed in this brochure and the implications of that.
Third, they would have to phone or write to their
Toronto-Dominion Bank and tell them, no, they did not want these
separate corporations to have this information.
This is what is called negative option marketing; that is,
placing the onus on the consumer to read, understand and respond
to a demand that favours only the Toronto-Dominion Bank. This is
a bold faced attempt by the Toronto-Dominion Bank to take
advantage of its customers. It is also a gross invasion of
privacy because there is no consent.
Is it any wonder or surprise that Canadians have no faith, in
fact despise the banks and bankers of this country when they
actively and purposely take advantage of the little people, the
average consumer, the average TD Bank customer?
I know that the parliamentary secretary is going to say that the
Canadian Banking Association has a privacy code approved by the
Canadian Standards Association. However, I would suggest that we
are not talking about wrenches or screwdrivers and how good they
are. We are talking about the details of a person's personal
financial life, what they own and what they owe. This is a
privacy code—and we have to remember this—made by the banks for
the banks and enforceable only by the banks. The only entity it
helps is the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
What does this mean? It means that consumers of the
Toronto-Dominion Bank can at least expect more and more annoying
junk mail. It means more and more annoying phone calls at lunch
and dinner for the telemarketer trying to sell TD insurance or
some other TD product over the phone.
However, what it really means—and the parliamentary secretary
does not want to mention this—is that when someone goes into the
TD Bank for a loan, that bank or loans manager is going to take
out a hammer and that hammer is going to be something like this:
the Toronto-Dominion Bank will approve the loan if—and this is a
big if—you, the customer, will move your registered retirement
savings plan or your car insurance or your home mortgage. There
are endless possibilities here.
This is what is called tied selling and it is based on an
intimate knowledge of the customer across a very broad segment of
their personal financial details.
It is obvious that Canadians need more protection from big
banks. Big banks do not need more power. The Canadian Standards
Association cannot protect Canadians from the banks. Only the
government can and the government should be passing legislation
to prohibit this gross invasion of privacy.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, privacy is certainly a major
concern to Canadian consumers of financial services and rightly
so. Consumers do not want confidential and personal information
given to outsiders or used for the purposes other than which it
was given or authorized.
The government certainly appreciates these concerns and is
planning to build on actions already undertaken by financial
institutions. I emphasize that the government is planning to
build on these actions.
Earlier this year changes were introduced to the financial
institution legislation that strengthens privacy protection for
consumers of financial services. Regulations are under
discussion that will require all federally regulated financial
institutions to establish procedures governing the collection,
retention, use and disclosure of customer information, to
implement complaints handling procedures, to inform customers of
these procedures and to report annually on privacy related
complaints.
The banks and property casualty insurers have already adopted
codes of conduct on privacy that are modelled on and consistent
with the privacy code established by the Canadian Standards
Association. The banks' code was audited by Price Waterhouse and
the Insurance Bureau of Canada's code was examined by the Quality
Management Institute to ensure that the codes were in compliance
with the CSA model.
The CSA financial institution codes allow organizations to obtain
customer consent to use their shared personal information in a
number of ways.
1905
The banks do not provide customer information to parties outside
their corporate group, with the exception of information released
for legal, income tax and credit reporting purposes.
The government will continue to monitor the privacy practices of
financial institutions, both to ensure their effectiveness and to
assess whether more needs to be done to ensure the protection of
customer information.
The task force on the future of financial services sector may
also be examining privacy issues in its work. We certainly look
forward to seeing what the task force has to say when it reports
back to the government next fall.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island
North. I apologize to him. I got mixed up in my reading of the
sheet.
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the returns of Atlantic salmon are at historically very
low levels. This is why, for conservation reasons, anglers have
been practising only catch and release on the Saint John River in
New Brunswick.
My question to the minister on November 17 asked why the DFO
closed the Saint John River to catch and release fishing and then
proceeded to kill fish and give them to the local native
aboriginal communities for ceremonial purposes when these
communities never asked for those fish, they were not surplus and
were not required for science.
The minister's answer displayed a profound lack of knowledge of
the spawning behaviour of Atlantic salmon. He stated that male
fish were double the number of female fish, and therefore it was
important to reduce the imbalance by killing male fish as well as
to protect genetic stocks of salmon by making sure that the
numbers of hatchery fish are reduced.
When the head of DFO science appeared before the Standing
Committee on Fisheries in November, he also justified the killing
of these fish based on the female ratio. This is bogus and DFO
has no supporting evidence for these actions.
Once again, DFO has managed to politicize fish science. First,
for the record, the fish stock from the hatchery are all of Saint
John River origin and there is a competent breeding program to
prevent in-breeding. Thus, there should be no reason to kill
fish to protect genetic stocks of salmon, contrary to what the
minister stated.
Second, a biased male to female ratio is not something
inherently wrong which requires correction by killing off the
offending males. So far, no one has found a nightclub where
eligible Atlantic salmon meet to pair up prior to joining in
their journey to the spawning grounds.
Salmon are schooling fish and behave more normally when they are
in groups. When returns to rivers are low, such as this year,
the number of fish available to form schools is low.
These fish may alter their behaviour and become hesitant to move
upstream to spawning areas because they do not have companions.
Killing off any fish, male or female, when numbers are so low is
unjustified.
The hatchery on the Saint John River was built to compensate for
fish losses caused by the construction of the Mactaquac dam.
However, even with these hatchery contributions, the river is not
meeting its egg conservation thresholds. Every fish counts.
The scientific rationale for killing these fish makes no sense.
The explanations by the minister and by DFO have not abated the
concerns of the Saint John River anglers nor of the local
population.
Locally, DFO appears to be embarrassed. The department and the
minister both stated that part or all of the rationale was to
harvest these 40 fish to fulfil native requests. We believe this
is an attempt to cover all bases by DFO and certainly does not
explain why there are some fish still in a DFO freezer.
The statutory authority for this action is dubious at best and,
in my opinion, exceeds the authority of DFO. It is important
that the department have the support of the community at large to
conserve and protect habitat and Atlantic salmon.
The statements and actions by DFO defy logic and have turned off
the people normally most involved in stewardship of the river.
The community wants reassurance that these actions will not be
repeated.
Will the minister assure the community and the fish that this
action will not occur again?
1910
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is time
to clear up some facts.
The salmon fishery on the Saint John River was closed earlier
this year in August because conservation requirements were not
going to be met. DFO had to ensure that the maximum possible
number of female salmon were present in the river to spawn. The
closure affected all salmon fisheries including the aboriginal
fisheries.
The requirement for the most successful spawning is one male per
female. The ratio of males to females present in the river, as
the hon. member admitted, was in the order of two males to every
female. With this number of males salmon surplus to spawning
requirements in the Saint John River a decision was made to take
40 hatchery grilse.
Removing the salmon from the fish collection facility was the
safest way to do that particular test. Other methods would have
resulted in a higher risk of mortality and could have had an
impact on the number of females left to spawn.
I should also point out that they were hatchery males and
therefore less important for spawning purposes than male wild
salmon. There is nothing bogus about this decision. In fact
conservation and science were paramount in that decision.
The facts of the matter are that DFO has the authority to
undertake these types of activities under written permissions and
licences granted in the Fisheries Act and the fishery general
regulations.
These permissions and licences permit the specified activities
to proceed in spite of closures. In removing the surplus grilse,
DFO first gathered specific scientific information from each
fish. Following such scientific scrutiny they were then provided
to the first nations, which I am told had expressed an interest
in receiving them.
Surplus grilse in the Saint John River were allocated to first
nations in their 1997 communal fisheries licences. However, as a
result of the early closure, the first nations were unable to
reach their allocations for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
Some first nations did not receive a single fish.
These fish were justifiably provided to first nations as a
partial means to address the food fish shortfall without
jeopardizing conservation objectives.
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a recent survey found that nearly one in two Canadians would fail
the citizenship examine given to immigrants. This suggests that
a large number of Canadians lack the basic civic knowledge
required to understand and participate in Canada's public life.
I must confess that as a former history teacher at the secondary
school level, I was surprised by some of the findings. For
example, the title of the national anthem was named by 95% of
Canadians but only 63% got the first two lines right.
Just 22% of the respondents could name the four provinces,
Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, that formed
Canada in 1867 and 8% cited Newfoundland which joined
Confederation in 1949. Again only 8% correctly named the Queen
as Canada's head of state; 57% believed the prime minister filled
the role.
Fewer than one-third of those surveyed were able to name the
Charter of Rights and Freedom as part of the constitution that
protects the civil rights of Canadians.
The federal government should play a role in ensuring that
history and civics are taught in schools across Canada and should
develop national standards in these areas.
I join with those who are calling for a federal-provincial
council of ministers of education to develop a new approach to
civic education. Like many Canadians I believe that not enough
history and civics are being taught in our schools. I believe,
as do many Canadians, that we as a national government need to
develop Canada-wide standards in these very important areas.
I would be interested in hearing the secretary of state outline
whether or not she shares these concerns.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statistics and the results
of that survey are a great concern to all of us.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is convinced that the key to a
strong Canadian identity is a sound knowledge of Canada.
The role of the federal government and in particular that of the
Department of Canadian Heritage is to provide support to enable
all Canadians to learn about each other, about our diversity,
about our heritage, history, symbols, traditions and shared
values, so that we can all participate fully in and appreciate
the society and country we have built together.
1915
We recognize that formal education is a provincial
responsibility, but the federal government can provide innovative
high quality learning materials on Canada that are complementary
to school curricula. The Canadian studies program of the
Department of Canadian Heritage has been supporting the
development of Canadian learning materials about Canada's rich
and diverse history since 1984. The department's successful
“With Flying Colours” educational kit is a model of what we can
do in this area.
In much the same way, the federal government highlights Canadian
history through our museums, our galleries, our parks and our
historic sites. So that young Canadians can learn to understand
and participate in our society, we also support youth exchanges
that give Canadian youth the opportunity to develop long term
citizenship skills. Multiculturalism programs highlight not only
our history but the diversity of our history.
Through key partnerships for instance with the Charles R.
Bronfman Foundation which produced our heritage minutes on CBC,
the department has shown a flexible and effective approach to
supporting the teaching of history outside the classroom.
I recognize that this is not enough. We are working with the
Council of Ministers of Education and provincial governments to
have a concrete proposal that will benefit all Canadian students.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.)