CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 5, 1997
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8649
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 8649
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8651
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8651
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8651
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8652
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8652
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8652
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8653
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8653
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8655
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8655
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8656
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8656
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8657
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8658
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8658
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8659
Bill C-378. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8662
Bill C-379. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8662
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8662
Bill C-380. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8662
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8662
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8663
8647
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 5, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: Every Wednesday we sing our national anthem.
We will be led today by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who have concerns about the
Liberals' proposed endangered species protection act. The
Canadian Cattleman's Association oppose this bill because their
land will be devalued without providing necessary compensation.
The government plans to bring down its own despotic recovery
agenda instead of listening to the individual stakeholders. A
Reform government would have created this legislation from the
ground up by consulting with the individual stakeholders. We
would have spelled out the recovery plan process and provided a
greater understanding of what is expected of the individual
landowner. We would have addressed the issue of compensation for
land devaluation before introducing legislation. A private and
government operated fund would have been set up.
In all areas Canadians need a fresh start, including a meaningful
process in the area of environmental protection. The Liberals have
failed us again and it is Liberal cabinet ministers who will be added
to the endangered species list following the next election.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, delegates who attended the recent Canadian Federation of
Agriculture annual meeting had one important message on cost
recovery to make very clear. From potato growers in Prince
Edward Island through wheat growers on the prairies to apple
growers in British Columbia, the message was the same. The
government has this issue all wrong.
Farmers from coast to coast will have a smaller net income this
year because of other government policy decisions. On top of lower
incomes and higher input costs, the government is heaping
additional increased costs on everything from inspection fees to
marine steerage fees on to the backs of farmers. It seems like this
very unsympathetic Liberal government has decided to turn user
fees into a source of revenue for the government.
It is time to re-evaluate the cumulative effect of what has been
done, and in consultation with the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture and other farm groups, revisit the whole issue of cost
recovery programming.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday the
citizens of six Toronto area municipalities rejected the Ontario
government's proposal for megacity amalgamation. One
understands the results of this vote when one considers the
substance of these proposals and the fundamentally undemocratic
process that accompanied them.
Toronto voters have said no to a proposal which, while
purporting to address problems of governance in the Toronto area,
ignores the best advice of all municipal government experts. They
have said no to a proposal which creates a mega monster, unable to
respond to the real needs of the region and too far removed from its
citizens for local accountability. They have said no to a
fundamentally ill-conceived proposal to finance welfare and
housing from the municipal tax base.
Mike Harris and his government should heed the message. The
best interests of the Toronto region, which represents 25 per cent of
the GDP of this country, is at stake. Now is the time to abandon
political partisanship and to work together to find practical
solutions to this very important issue.
8648
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
year, in January 1996, the City of Châteauguay suffered severe
flooding because the Canadian Coast Guard hovercraft was not
available to clear the mouth of the river, as it was being repaired.
This absurd situation prompted me to ask on several occasions
that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans make sure to change the
maintenance schedule of this craft so that, in future, it would be
available, if needed, during the months of January, February and
March.
This year, when we had this spell of milder weather on February
21, the hovercraft was able to respond. As Bruno Dufour, the
hovercraft captain, indicated, this year, they did not want to take
any chances, and the craft was overhauled in November in order to
be ready to respond to any emergency come January.
I am very happy that the citizens of Châteauguay did not have to
contend with more flooding this year.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Don McKinnon from northwestern Ontario recently
became a member of the Order of Canada. Mr. McKinnon received
this very high honour because he identified, staked and promoted
Hemlo, one of the largest gold deposits in the world. Hemlo is in
northwestern Ontario, about 25 miles east of Marathon. The Hemlo
discovery has led to the Williams, David Bell and Golden Giant
gold mines.
From 1985 to the present, those operations have produced in
excess of $4.5 billion in wealth for the area. This discovery has led
to great economic development in northwestern Ontario. I can
attest to that. When I was a lawyer for the firm of Weiler, Maloney,
Nelson of Thunder Bay, I helped to open the first law office in
Marathon and I saw first hand what a development like this means
to an area.
(1405)
I guess I could tell other stories, but not today, about the opening
of that law office. As the MP for this area all citizens I am sure join
with-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lincoln.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Women's
Institute, a world-wide organization, which was founded in Stoney
Creek, is celebrating its centennial year in 1997.
As the first organization of its kind in rural Ontario, the institute
provided a social and educational forum for rural women at a time
when they had few opportunities to learn about the world that
existed beyond their daily routines.
The institute created opportunities for women to learn about
medicine, architecture and the legislative process, just to name a
few.
One hundred years later the Women's Institute organization is
represented world wide with a membership of over six million
women in more than 80 countries. Dedicating themselves to
community service and leadership, institute members have
generously donated their time to a wide variety of projects and
causes.
Stoney Creek, a community with strong historical roots, has
benefited immensely because of the work of institute members who
acted as volunteers, fund raisers and supporters of Battlefield
House, Erland Lee Home and the Westfield Heritage Centre.
Along with countless other Canadians, I pay tribute to the-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Erie.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1996 Canada's
customs officers seized almost $700 million worth of drugs,
contraband, alcohol and tobacco, as well as more than 2,000
firearms.
Revenue Canada currently employs approximately 3,200
customs officers at border points and ports of entry across our vast
country. These capable and competent public servants do
everything from collecting duties, to enforcing health regulations,
to investigating drug smuggling.
In our war against smuggling and all its adverse ramifications,
Canada's customs officers represent very much the first line of
defence. Working in co-operation with the RCMP and other
domestic and international law enforcement agencies, the men and
women of Revenue Canada's customs operation have contributed
greatly to keeping our communities, our streets and our houses safe
and secure.
8649
I salute these dedicated workers across Canada and especially
those in my riding who work at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie.
Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen, on a job very well done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to salute the agricultural producers of the
riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, who, through their
work, help feed the people of Quebec and Canada.
Like many other workers, agricultural producers of eastern
Canada have seen their working conditions deteriorate and their
income go into a serious dive these past few years.
To maintain their level of production, they have no choice but to
go into debt and work ever harder. Their hard work and
perseverance mean plentiful supplies in our grocery stores. From
our ancestors, these men and women inherited a taste for hard work
and success.
This Liberal government must take the necessary steps to
promote agricultural production, a sector essential to our economy
and population.
We, in the Bloc, want to commend agricultural producers for
their perseverance, hard work and quality products.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
had a hair-raising experience the other day. Yes, indeed, I hear the
Liberals want to win the next election and the Conservatives even
think they have a hope of coming back.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you that just because the upper
echelon of who's who in this country thinks that, I do not believe
the average hard working Canadian, or student or senior citizen can
hear them.
Now hear me out. I am hearing that these old parties are out of
touch. They no longer represent the average Canadian. This could
be just hearsay, but I clearly suspect the truth of the matter is that
these Liberals will be here today and gone tomorrow.
The Speaker: I would remind you, my colleagues, that we do
not allow props in the House. I did not know whether or not this
was going to be a permanent addition to the member's head so I
permitted it this time.
(1410)
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
February when the federal and provincial finance ministers reached
an agreement to modify the Canada pension plan they solved a
problem that should have been tackled 10 years ago.
They responded to the priorities expressed by Canadians during
the consultations and as a result all retired CPP pensioners and
those over 65 as of December 31, 1997 are not affected by any of
the changes. Those currently receiving disability benefits, survivor
benefits or combined benefits also are not affected. All benefits
under the CPP will remain fully indexed to inflation and the age of
retirement remains the same.
Canadians have had their confidence in the CPP restored. Now
all Canadians can count on the CPP to be part of their retirement
income in future. This is another example of a successful
federation at work.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we approach
International Women's Day I look around and see many women
who are practising as physicians when in the past many said that
women could not do that.
I see women who are legislators when in the past many said that
women should not vote. I see women who have become engineers
when the world said that only men were allowed to build bridges.
Indeed, the minister of public works is building the biggest bridge
in the world. I am proud of these women for taking the challenge,
for following their dreams and listening to their hearts.
More than 40 per cent of Canada's small businesses are operated
by women and the number of women entrepreneurs is growing at a
rate far greater than any forecaster had ever dreamed. Women have
raised their voices because of the serious lack of research on
women's health issues and they have been heard. The government
established five centres of excellence for women's health, one in
Halifax at Dalhousie, to address the lack of research on women's
health in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
International Women's Week gives us an opportunity to honour all
those who work to promote equality for Canadian women. It is also
a time to reflect on the challenges that were met in the past, and to
face current ones, such as women's health.
8650
[English]
Breast cancer claims the lives of 5,000 Canadian women each
year. Thousands more are diagnosed with the sickness and have to
endure countless hours of radiation therapy if they are to survive.
Let us not forget the economic and emotional toll on their families.
I wish to salute the Hellenic Friends of the Auxiliary of the
Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal who through donations and
activities, such as their annual tea which I had the pleasure of
attending, are doing their part to ease the suffering of cancer
victims. Through their efforts a patient immobilization system was
purchased for the hospital to help cancer patients with their
radiation treatment, and particularly women with breast cancer.
[Translation]
During International Women's Week, let us show our support to
this cause by wearing a pink ribbon.
* * *
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is said that the road to hell is paved with good
intentions, and the same goes for Bill C-71. Indeed, the
government's intention to fight tobacco use is a good and even
excellent idea.
But what a useless and disastrous mistake it is making by
seeking to essentially prevent tobacco companies, which are the
only ones willing to do so, from sponsoring sports and cultural
events which are part of Quebec's heritage and which are vital to its
economy. The major rallies held yesterday, including in Montreal,
conclusively show that the public is opposed to the bill.
To be sure, the Minister of Health is ill-inspired when he gets it
in his head to protect our health. A few months ago, he wanted to
prevent us from eating camembert cheese. Today, he is targeting
our merchants, our athletes, our artists, and our cities' finances.
What can we do to bring the minister to his senses?
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, beginning next month the RCMP will be
posting its 10 most wanted list on the Internet. But when the
premier edition hits the net, only 2 of the 10 most wanted are
Canadians, with the majority being American. That is not really
surprising, given the government's pathetic record in dealing with
illegal immigrants and bogus refugees with criminal records.
Is there any other country that would allow an escaped
dangerous offender from another country to claim refugee status
and then release him pending his next hearing? Does it really come
as a surprise that this escaped convict failed to show up for his
hearing? No wonder American fugitives want to get into Canada.
(1415)
I suggest that maybe the Minister of Canadian Heritage should
get involved. She cannot be pleased with only 20 per cent Canadian
content. I can assure her that there is no shortage of Canadian
criminals, which requires us to import them from the United States.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Last month the International Fund for Animal Welfare released a
disturbing video depicting incidents alleged to have occurred
during the 1996 Newfoundland seal harvest.
The tape is currently under investigation. Where there is
sufficient evidence, violators will be prosecuted.
Inuit and other responsible seal hunters were shocked and
disgusted by the video. It was repugnant to see animals treated in
such an insensitive and wasteful manner. The Inuit method of seal
harvesting entails complete utilization.
I urge Canadians and the international community to avoid
stereotyping all seal hunters because of the alleged actions of a few.
The great majority of sealers harvest responsibly and humanely.
This video sensationalism of animal rights organizations
threatens Inuit and Newfoundland communities who are just trying
to survive.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
recent days, major earthquakes have hit northwestern Iran. It is
estimated that close to 1,000 people have died, with 2,500 more
injured and 40,000 homeless, and the number of casualties keeps
increasing.
On my behalf and on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to
offer our most sincere sympathies to all the bereaved families. We
cannot remain insensitive to the hurt and confusion of these people,
and to the tragic sights left by these terrible earthquakes.
We deeply sympathize with the Iranian population afflicted by
this tragedy. To make things worse, research operations to help
victims must be conducted in extremely difficult situations, in
snow and intense cold.
8651
We are asking the Canadian government to take the necessary
measures to help the victims of this earthquake.
_____________________________________________
8651
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, all the media in Quebec are commenting on the
government's anti-tobacco bill, and the majority are definitely in
favour of a more flexible approach to sponsorship and the
broadcasting of sports and cultural events associated with tobacco
companies. Every one is amazed at the unnecessarily rigid stand
the government has taken.
Does the Prime Minister not realize he has a perfectly good issue
and that this government, because of its unwillingness to
compromise, is spoiling everything and even alienating thousands
of citizens who are recent recruits to the anti-smoking movement?
Does he not understand?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker
the government's main concern is the health of our young people.
Everyone knows that tobacco advertising has a tremendous
influence on young people who start smoking when they are 13, 14
or 15, and it is worse in Quebec than anywhere else.
When we introduced this bill a few months ago, the Quebec
Minister of Health criticized us for not going far enough. I read one
of Mr. Rochon's draft bills on tobacco, and I want to quote a
passage from clause 22, which goes much further than our
proposal. It says that all funding of sports, cultural or social
activities or facilities, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose
of promoting tobacco in any manner whatsoever, is prohibited.
Perhaps our friends opposite should stop playing politics with this
issue and take a serious look at the problem.
We have shown some flexibility. The companies asked for a
three-year moratorium, and we agreed to a two-year period of
adjustment. However, the problem is still there.
We did not do this because we felt like it, but because it is our
duty to take steps to protect the health of young Quebecers. I know,
the Bloc Quebecois is always more intent on political gain than on
protecting the interests of Quebec's young people.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is not very brave of the Prime Minister to use what other
people are doing as a shield to justify his own actions. This is
hardly a sign of bravery. He is the one on the stand here, not Jean
Rochon in Quebec City. The question was put to the Prime
Minister.
And the question is this: Why is the Prime Minister being so
intransigent, why is he doing such a poor job? Why is he getting
everybody up in arms against him and, in the process, undoing any
progress made in the fight against tobacco? He does not realize he
is sabotaging his own cause.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition tries to please everyone. We
act responsibly, and these are very serious responsibilities. When
the Quebec Minister of Health speaks, he does so as the person
responsible for people who need medical care.
I will read you a letter sent to me by Mario Laurin in Val-d'Or.
Mr. Laurin is fighting lung cancer caused by smoking. Here is his
letter: ``Our children's health is surely the most precious thing in
the world; you must protect it, with legislation if necessary. Mr.
Prime Minister, I urge you to stand up to the tobacco companies
and get Bill C-71, the anti-tobacco bill, through Parliament''.
I could quote other people suffering from cancer caused by
smoking. As I said this morning, we can tolerate advertising
directed at adults who smoke, but not when it goes after young
people in their early teens. Those who represent the tobacco
companies know that if a person has not started to smoke by the age
of 19, he probably never will.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure whether the following term is parliamentary.
May I use the term demagoguery in this House?
Some hon. members: Sure.
The Speaker: No, you may not.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in that case I am at a loss for words
that can express what I think of the Prime Minister. But I can tell
you that everyone in Canada agrees with the need to reduce our
consumption of cigarettes.
However, there are various ways to achieve that objective. Some
are more acceptable than others, and some are less effective.
Does the Prime Minister of Canada realize that a young person
who goes to the Du Maurier tennis open is far more likely to buy a
tennis racket than a package of cigarettes when he goes home?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suppose Du Maurier is spending money to help
Spalding. Come on. A tobacco company spends money on
advertising because it get results.
8652
Like everybody else, we want to keep the Grand Prix and other
events in Canada, but we are not stricter than other countries.
France has similar rules, and Grand Prix events are still being held
there; we see the same in Australia, where a race will be held on
the weekend. They have passed some very strict laws, but the
Grand Prix will be held next Sunday.
We want to keep the competition. In fact, the companies will
have the right to do on-site sponsorship. Furthermore, the bill gives
them another two years to adjust to the new rules. However, we
decided that we would take steps in Canada to prevent tobacco
advertising from affecting young people of 13, 14 and 15, and we
will continue to do so. The tobacco companies can advertise on the
site but no advertising may be directed to young people of 13, 14 or
15.
(1425)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in France they have companies like Renault and Ligier,
and despite the stringent legislation in Australia, they have made an
exception for the Australian Grand Prix. That is why the Grand Prix
will be held. The Prime Minister is barking up the wrong tree with
the wrong strategy.
Does the Prime Minister admit that, in wishing to attack tobacco
consumption, he is placing a number of festivals and sporting
events in real danger, particularly in Montreal, Toronto and
Vancouver?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
through you to the hon. member opposite, the former president of
the Grand Prix organizing committee in Quebec said the following:
``I find the blackmail efforts that are presently occurring
surrounding the Grand Prix very embarrassing. I know what I have
been talking about, since I was the president of the 1991 Grand Prix
organizing committee''.
I can well understand the need for the members of the Bloc
Quebecois to huff and puff on both sides of the issue, but I want to
inform the hon. member that children, les enfants du Québec, are a
lot more important than any of those events that the hon. member
has made reference to.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the children of Quebec are so important that I devoted 35
years of my life to educating, not coercing, them.
Since the Prime Minister refuses to understand, I shall be very
clear. Clause 31 of the bill has three paragraphs: (a) and (c), which
say the same thing, and (b), which contradicts the other two. Can
the Prime Minister make a commitment in this House to do
everything in his power to ensure that paragraph (b) is deleted
from clause 31, so that people like me, who love the Grand Prix,
can watch it on weekends?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted that the hon. member has spent 35 years in the
teaching profession. I hope the hon. member would continue in that
role of teaching young people in the province of Quebec the
hazards of smoking
It should be noted that the National Cancer Institute of Canada
said this about advertising: ``There is substantial evidence that
young people are aware of and respond to cigarette advertising''.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said: ``Image based
advertising is particularly effective with young people in that the
information conveyed by imagery is likely to be more significant to
young people than information conveyed by any other means of
advertising''.
I want to say to the hon. member that members of the Bloc
Quebecois can throw that aside and accuse the government of being
unreasonable, but the hon. member knows full well that this
government has been prudent and has been reasonable. We have
provided an implementation period for all those involved.
Notwithstanding that, we are different from the province of Quebec
because we are not banning sponsorship-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Liberal government brought in medicare in 1965
it promised to pay 50 per cent of the approved cost. That was a
condition on which provinces like Alberta and Ontario joined the
plan.
Thirty-two years later federal funding of medicare has dropped
to 16 per cent. This Prime Minister, who claims to be a defender of
medicare, has cut health care by 40 per cent since coming to power.
(1430)
The Prime Minister can cry crocodile tears about the Montfort
hospital. He can blame Mike Harris. He can pretend it is a national
unity issue. But he is the one who is primarily responsible for
hospital closures across the country.
How can the Prime Minister continue to blame others for
hospital closures and waiting lines when he is the one who has cut
health care funding by 40 per cent?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual, the leader of the third party has the wrong figure.
We
8653
have not cut transfer payments by 40 per cent. The Minister of
Finance can reply to that in detail.
We just had to put the finances of the nation in good order. This
is the same leader of a party who was telling us that we were not
going fast enough. Remember when we said to the Canadian people
we would do that in three years, go to 3 per cent. He wanted to go to
0 per cent in three years. We took three years. Now we have the
lowest interest level that we have known in 35 years. All the
provincial governments are benefiting from the fact that they pay
less on their debts because of the action of this government to put
the finances of this country in good order.
By the way, perhaps the leader of the third party should report on
the success of his campaign in Alberta against Ralph Klein.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government had some choices
to make in the federal budget. They chose to cut health by 40 per
cent since 1993. The Prime Minister can find $2 billion a year in
subsidies for CMHC. He can find $850 million to $1 billion in
subsidies for the CBC. He can find $300 million in subsidies for
Via Rail. He can find over $2 billion in subsidies for corporations
like Bombardier and others that receive corporate subsidies. But
the Prime Minister cuts health care by almost $4 billion a year.
Are crown corporation subsidies and business subsidies a higher
priority with the Prime Minister's government than the health care
of Canadians?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is such a thing in politics as the flip-flopper of all time. This
is the same member who in March 1995 stood in his place and
condemned the Minister of Finance who gave notice, gave
predictable funding to the provinces with the cash floor for the
purposes of health care, thereby providing $25.1 billion.
The leader of that party in March 1995, in an amendment to a
non-confidence motion, condemned the government for its failure
to eliminate the deficit quickly and decisively within one year.
This is the flip-flopper of all time. He says one thing on Monday
and another thing on Friday.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in Reform Party proposals, our fresh start, we proposed
cutting in virtually everything else in order to increase federal
health care funding by over $4 billion a year. There are some
ministers in this House who are experts on cutting health care.
They are the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the
Minister of Health.
Look at their record. Here is what they have cut in health care:
Newfoundland, $85 million; little P.E.I., $20 million; slashing
health care expenditures in New Brunswick by $103 million;
Quebec, $1.2 billion; Ontario $1.3 billion.
(1435 )
How can the government possibly maintain that it is the defender
of medicare when the Prime Minister and the finance minister have
hacked, gouged and slashed health care by almost $4 billion a year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the time we took office, transfers to the provinces had been
declining for nearly a decade. When we took office we put in place
a series of cuts in our own spending that allowed us in the last
budget to commit to the provinces that not only were the transfer
cuts at an end but that the transfers were now put on a formula that
would allow them to increase in the years ahead.
The leader of the Reform Party used words like gouge, scrape
and cut. Let me quote from ``A Fresh Start for Canadians'',
Reform's most recent program. The Reform Party has said: ``On
top of the existing reductions in transfers, the Reform Party, on
taking office, will immediately cut three and a half billion dollars
from the Canadian health and social transfer''. What do you call
that?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, in Washington, the Minister of Foreign Affairs met
for the first time with the new U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright. One purpose of the minister's visit was to make
preparations for the next meeting between the Prime Minister and
the President of the United States.
Could the minister report on the discussions he had with his
American counterpart concerning the Helms-Burton law?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had a good exchange on a number of topics. We
reached agreement on numerous matters involving co-operation,
such as on Haiti, the expansion of NATO, and other issues.
But we certainly had an opportunity to express once again our
opposition to the Helms-Burton law and we will continue to lobby
against this legislation.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
months now, the government has talked, expressed its point of view
and taken various steps, but it has done little of a concrete nature.
I will address my supplementary to the Minister for International
Trade. Late last week, in order to comply with the U.S. anti-Cuban
legislation, Wal-Mart withdrew Cuban-made pyjamas from its
Canadian shelves.
8654
Does the minister agree that the credibility of the government's
action is seriously compromised and that the only way to restore
it is to rigorously enforce Canadian law?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the matter concerning
Wal-Mart, it is being looked at by justice officials. We expect that
Canadian companies will abide by Canadian law. That was the
intention of our amendments under the Foreign Extraterritorial
Measures Act.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has indicated, we are
continuing in our opposition to the Helms-Burton law and its
extraterritorial application of American law. We believe it is
fundamentally wrong in terms of international trading law.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, hospital closures
are hanging like an albatross around the Liberal government's
neck.
I would like to go into health minister's backyard real close. In
Nova Scotia over the past year hospital bed closures have totalled
25 per cent. It is interesting to note that waiting lists in the province
of Nova Scotia in the same period have climbed 25 per cent. They
are longer.
Will the health minister simply stand up and admit that his
government's policies of cutting health care transfers by 40 per
cent are directly responsible for the increasing waiting lists in his
home province?
(1440 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as many reputable organizations have said with regard to health
care spending, no less than the National Forum, Canada has the
second most expensive system of the OECD countries.
The hon. member, in his selective memory with reference to the
facts, forgets to inform the House that under this government and
this Minister of Finance in this fiscal year alone we are providing to
the provinces in terms of equalization payments in excess of $8.6
billion. In addition, the interest reductions we have been able to do
on our fiscal side provide an additional $1.6 billion for the
provinces.
The issue is not one of funding. The issue in provinces across the
country has to do with the management of the health care system.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is the second
time we have heard it is just a management problem that is at heart
here.
What did the Liberals do with the money that should be going to
the hospitals? The first thing is the health minister tried to divert
funds in his own province. The second thing he has done is he gave
$33,000 to the Cape Breton Yacht Association.
Reform would simply take those funds and put them into the
hospitals, which is quite a contrast, I should think.
Will the health minister simply stand and admit that his
government policies are responsible for longer waiting lines in his
own province?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what an interesting day it is. The hon. member on October 17, 1995
said: ``Medicare is bad for everyone''. On November 23 he
changed his mind. He said that medicare was important to all
Canadians. Then in March 1996 the very distinguished, the
eloquent, the very colourful leader of that party said: ``There is
going to have to be continued reductions in social transfers''.
I know the Bloc Quebecois is huffing and puffing, but I did not
think the Reform Party would be puffing and huffing too.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for the Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec.
For over a year now, the federal government has refused to
renew the framework agreement on regional economic
development with Quebec. In the meantime, sectoral agreements
have expired, and the regions of Quebec are now suffering as a
result.
Is the federal government prepared now to show its good
intentions and conclude agreements on regional development with
Quebec, as it did recently in ratifying agreements with New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
predecessor at the Federal Office of Regional Development wrote
on two or three occasions to the Government of Quebec precisely
to conclude a harmonization agreement on intervention in regional
development in the province.
Unfortunately, at the time, the two or three attempts were
declined by the Government of Quebec, which was not interested in
reaching a harmonization agreement. This was in the period before
the referendum, and the provincial government certainly did not
want to show that the federal system worked well.
8655
What we did then was to set up a new program under which
the Federal Office of Regional Development intervenes where it
can do the most within its areas of jurisdiction.
We are now prepared to go ahead and discuss harmonization
with the Province of Quebec, even if harmonization is a fact,
because we were farsighted and wanted to look after the public's
interest.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know if that is profitable federalism, effective federalism, but
when the Liberals formed the government in 1993, nearly two
thirds of the money spent by the federal government in Quebec on
regional development passed through the economic and regional
development agreement. Today, three years later, it is less than a
third. The federal government prefers to operate directly, over the
heads of Quebec and the regions.
Is the Secretary of State prepared to put a stop immediately to his
circuitous strategies and to negotiate in good faith with Quebec in
the best interest of the regions of Quebec?
(1445)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as regards
the investment of money in regional development, the funds
invested in Quebec compare favourably with those invested in all
the other regions of Canada.
What upsets the members of the opposition is that, because they
refused a year and a half ago to sign a harmonization agreement
with the Government of Canada, we set up a regional development
structure, which suits the public and meets their needs. There are
13 regional offices within the federal office, and there are 55
community futures development corporations. Why are they so
upset that we have understood and that the public is now beginning
to understand? Because even if the Government of Quebec is not
interested in it, the process of harmonization is being carried out by
the organizations themselves locally. That is what profitable
federalism is all about.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party
has received some interesting documents and I would be prepared
to table them.
An hon. member: They finally got some mail after three and a
half years.
The Speaker: I would prefer if we did not wave papers around.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was just doing
what some of the ministers do.
The document I have proves the Prime Minister's friend and
political appointee, Bob Fowler, broke the Privacy Act when he
improperly issued documents in an attempt to destroy the
reputation of Colonel Michel Drapeau. Unbelievably he did this to
try to prevent Colonel Drapeau from legally submitting access to
information requests at the Department of National Defence.
Will the Prime Minister finally hold Mr. Fowler accountable for
his actions and recall him immediately to Ottawa?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman has indicated that he is prepared to make the documents
to which he refers available to members of the House.
We will be very pleased to look at them and to consider what is
actually in them, because I have learned from experience that what
they wave in the House and refer to is often quite different from
what we find if they get around to tabling anything.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my goodness it is
hard to believe that minister about waving documents around when
he fails even to put them up the same day he waves them.
Submitting information requests is the legal right of every
Canadian but Colonel Drapeau got too close to the truth. That is
when Mr. Fowler decided to take him down. Mr. Fowler even sent
his illegal poison pen letter about Colonel Drapeau to CSIS, the
Department of Justice, and the Department of National Revenue.
He broke the Privacy Act by issuing this illegal letter and that is
unacceptable.
How could the government justify a person like this representing
Canada to the international community at the UN?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has made a number of comments in his question including
illegal poison pen letters.
The hon. member is well aware of the rules of the House.
Making allegations that people have committed illegal acts is
something members who are often considered honourable can do in
the House. I have again learned from experience. They have great
reluctance expressing those kind of views outside where the
protection of the House does not prevail.
8656
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Agriculture Canada recently notified the meat and poultry
industry, as well as the processed fruit and vegetable industry, of its
intention of doing away with the mandatory registration and
approval of labels and recipes for these products.
Since the industry is prepared to pay a fair and equitable share of
the costs to continue to have access to the services his department
has been providing since 1959, will the minister maintain these
services and not eliminate them anytime soon?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows,
under the business alignment plan of our food production and
protection branch we are pursuing a five-part approach to the issue
of cost recovery and user fees. The notion of imposing a user fee is
the last of the options after we have explored and exhausted the
four previous alternatives.
The hon. gentleman makes an interesting suggestion with
respect to certain fees for certain services. Our department has
always been willing to be flexible and reasonable in considering
these suggestions. I will examine the proposal the hon. gentleman
makes to see if it is viable.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the Minister of Agriculture that the industry is prepared to
pay a fair price for the services currently provided.
Does the minister recognize that he is off beam with this
recommendation to abolish these services in the short term, when a
study commissioned by his own department concluded that it
would result in reduced compliance with the standards respecting
labelling and recipes for the products in question and, in addition,
may jeopardize the health of our fellow citizens, and of young
people in particular?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House, the hon.
gentleman and all Canadians that as we work our way through any
changes that pertain to the Canadian food inspection system the
health and safety of Canadians is, has always been and will always
be the number one priority.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for housing.
Social housing is important to thousands of Canadians. In
Ontario the Harris government plans to pass responsibility for
housing down to the municipalities. This has left many families
living with fear and insecurity.
What assurance could the minister give residents of social
housing in Ontario that the Government of Canada will not
abandon them and that they will continue to have the access to
affordable homes they deserve? Will the minister put their fears to
rest?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the
honour of signing the first agreement with one of the provinces on
the transfer of the administration of social housing. I invite
everyone to look very closely at the agreement and to recognize
there are six principles and a very strict accountability framework.
We want to have the provinces do more with the money we spend
by combining their administration with ours.
As for Ontario, I have written to the minister responsible
advising him that the onus is on the province to show us how its
proposed plan would fit with these principles and with our
accountability framework. If it does not fit we will not transfer it.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, less than two weeks ago when the government
tabled its part III estimates, the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration indicated that it would be spending $40 million less
than last year.
However efforts of fiscal responsibility appear to have only a
two-week life span with the government as the minister is now
requesting an additional $88 million in the supplementary
estimates.
Could the minister explain to the House why she has increased
her department's spending by more than 15 per cent in less than
two weeks?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department
is responsible for the settlement of immigrants as they come to this
country.
For some time there have been a great deal of discussions back
and forth with the provinces with respect to settlement programs.
That is where the majority of the increase has been coming from
with respect to provincial allocations on settlement programs.
8657
(1455)
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this discussion has been going on for a number
of years. While this pre-election goodie is nothing more than an
effort by the government to buy its re-election with taxpayers'
money it still does not treat the provinces equally.
For example, Quebec receives $3,294 per immigrant from the
government for settlement. Even with a $20 million increase in
federal spending British Columbia will only receive $1,035 per
immigrant.
If the minister is not prepared to fund all the provinces equally, is
she at least prepared to give B.C., Ontario and Alberta the same
guarantees found in the Canada-Quebec accord?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has been requesting this kind of assistance for quite some
time. There have been all kinds of requests.
All provinces have settlement programs. If the hon. member is
suggesting we should not be increasing the settlement program to
halt immigrants who come to this country to settle that is not
acceptable.
The government is basically acceding to the demands of the
provinces over the last several years. This is a positive thing for
immigrants. The programs are needed and they will be
implemented.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last week, the minister released the results of his most recent
spring exercise in improvisation, the snow crab plan. Indeed, for
the third consecutive year, the minister reduced the harvest rates
allocated to Quebec fishers. In total, the minister reduced the
quotas for snow crab by 928 tons, which amounts to a loss of $15
million for the industry.
In order to put a stop to the constant transfer of jobs and
resources from one province to another, will the minister pledge
that Quebec will get its usual share, instead of reducing its quotas
as he has been doing for the last three years?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about the most lucrative
fishing industry in Atlantic Canada on the east coast.
He is talking about an industry that contains one resource and
two main factions: the traditional crabbers and the non-crabbers.
We are also dealing with the maritime provinces and the province
of Quebec. Each year the negotiations start and go on for a long
time.
Since June 19, 1996 negotiations have been ongoing with the
various industries, with the various unions, with the traditional
crabbers, with the non-traditional crabbers and with the provinces.
Two weeks ago there was an agreement by all parties, each side
compromising to do as much as possible to come up with a crab
plan that satisfied as many as possible in the case that each party
had to put water in their wine.
As the plan pertains to Quebec, every accommodation was made
for the province of Quebec, the province of New Brunswick, the
province of Prince Edward Island and all fishermen involved to
come up with the best possible plan.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister said in the House about 45 minutes ago that his
government had not cut health care.
Let me quote from the government's own document ``Getting
Government Right'' dated February 20, 1997. On major transfers to
other levels of government, the actual Canada health and social
transfer for 1993-94 was $16.8 billion, down to $12.5 billion in
1997-98 and going down again next year to $11.8 billion.
In light of that irrefutable evidence, will the Prime Minister
withdraw his assertion that he has not cut health care and admit that
he has misled the House?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1500 )
The Speaker: I am going to permit that question if the right hon.
Prime Minister wants to answer it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said yes. I admitted that we have cut, but I said that we
have not cut by 40 per cent. Of course we have cut.
The Reform Party is telling us that we are not cutting enough. As
the Minister of Finance said a few minutes ago, the Reform Party
would cut $3.5 billion if it ever formed the government. But I can
assure the people of Canada: don't worry, it will not form the
government.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
8658
The Minister of Health said yesterday that the 20 year drug
patent protection under Bill C-91 cannot be changed because of
Canada's international trade obligations. Afterward, international
law exports said that Canada can change Bill C-91 to allow for
cheaper prescription drugs for Canadians under the NAFTA article
``ordre public, section 1709(2) and article 27(2) of the WTO code.
Can the minister tell us if there are any public interest exceptions
permitted under these or any articles of the NAFTA and the WTO
as they pertain to drug patents or any other intellectual property?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our reading of section 1709(2) of the NAFTA
and the WTO intellectual property clauses is that there are very
limited provisions in terms of changing our present laws in any
respect. It covers very urgent types of circumstances and does not
allow for us to return to the pre-1993 compulsory licensing
provisions.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of the Environment.
Vehicle emissions are a major source of air pollution. Canadians
do not want to put their lives into danger every time they leave the
house. What has been done to ensure that in future Canadians will
breathe more safely, and has the minister been able to secure the
co-operation of the provinces in this effort?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me thank my hon. friend and colleague for raising that
question.
The number one culprit, when we speak of air pollution in our
cities, is caused by car emissions. That is why the government has
announced, starting with next year's car models, that the standard
emissions in Canada will be the tightest anywhere in the world.
Along with the new generation of car emission standards, we
need to usher in a new generation of cleaner fuels. That is why the
government has moved boldly on MMT, on benzene and on
sulphur.
When the cars hit the road, that is provincial jurisdiction. Older
cars pollute 10 times more than new cars. That is why the province
of Ontario, for instance, should stop paying lip service to this issue
and begin to walk the talk by putting an inspection and
maintenance program for cars in place so that all of us can breathe
a sigh of relief.
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of the House the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Hennadii Udovenko,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
The Speaker: First I am going to deal with a point of order of
which I have received notice. It arises from question period. Then I
will go on to a response to the question of privilege that was raised
yesterday.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, during oral question period, when the leader of the
opposition used the word demagoguery, you rose and said you did
not want him to use that term again. I would like you to take a look
at the blues, because at the end of his speech the health minister
probably got carried away by calling me a hypocrite.
The Speaker: I will look at the blues, as we call them. I will
check to see what was said and I will get back to the House if
necessary.
[English]
I have another point of order. Does this come from question
period today?
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I referred to a
document during my question. I would like to table that document
now.
The Speaker: This request can be granted if the House agrees
unanimously. Does the hon. member have permission to put the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to table
the document to which he referred?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: Yesterday, the hon, member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie raised the question of privilege. He has
been notified that we
8659
shall be getting, if not a response, at least an explanation or a brief
speech explaining what occurred. I therefore give the floor to our
friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Bloc House leader, the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, rose on a question of privilege. I would
like to reply to some of the points he raised, as they referred to a
document he tabled in the House yesterday.
In the course of his intervention the hon. member referred to an
advertisement in a Quebec newspaper and said that it was similar to
the GST advertising in 1989. By analogy he claimed that it was
inappropriate, just as the advertising was in 1989, because it
implied that specific legislation was in place, that it referred to
specific provisions it purported were already law when the bill still
was not passed. That was the reference the hon. member gave the
House when he raised his question of privilege.
While I acknowledge the precedent exists, the matter before us
today is in clear and stark contrast because the advertisement now
in question does not refer to any provisions of any law or any
proposed law.
The advertisements that were placed in the Canadian media
present a number of facts about conditions that relate to the use of
tobacco. The advertisements do not claim that the provisions of any
bill are already enacted. Mr. Speaker, on careful reflection of both
the English and the French versions you will see that is the case.
The French version of the advertisements call on the readers to
support la loi anti-tabac. In English it refers to anti-tobacco
legislation. If one wanted to be an absolute purist one might argue
that the French Translation ought to say ``le projet de loi'' and in
English it ought to say ``bill''.
(1510)
However, one must bear in mind that we are dealing with
advertisements. It is common in such cases to use colloquialisms
that may not, in the strictest sense, be precise. To the layman,
however, the meaning is very clear. In French one frequently hears
the phrase ``le projet de loi'' referred to merely as ``la loi'' even
though it has not yet passed, just as in English one often refers to a
bill as legislation, even though in the strict sense of the word it is
not legislation until enacted.
There is very substantial proof that these advertisements do not
in any way represent Bill C-71, which is still before the House, as
having been enacted.
Clause 1 of the bill gives us some very important information on
this matter of privilege. Clause 1 of the bill gives it a short title,
namely the tobacco law, or in French la loi sur le tabac. The
advertisements refer to anti-tobacco legislation, la loi anti-tabac,
which is not the short title, the long title or in fact any title of the
bill before the House.
In conclusion, the advertisements do not in any way interfere
with the ability of the House to consider the legislation before it.
They do not refer to the number or the title of any bill before the
House and they do not describe the provisions of any bill before the
House. They describe a reprehensible public problem and urge
citizens to support unspecified legislation to deal with these
problems. This does not in any way impair the ability of the House
to do its duty. Respectfully, I would submit, it is not a breach of
privilege. It does not encroach on the privileges of the members of
the House.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to speak in support of the question of privilege raised by the hon.
member for Laurier-Saint Marie. There is certainly a violation
here that should be noted.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take you back to a decision and
comments made by Mr. Speaker Fraser in this assembly with
regard to the debate on the GST, the goods and services tax, and a
debate that went on at that time. As I understand it, prior to the
passing of the GST legislation, the government of the day put
advertisements in the paper to the effect that the legislation had
been passed by Parliament and was the law of the country.
Certainly on that basis that was a violation.
The advertisement we have before us today does that again. It
says: ``I support the anti-tobacco law,'' which is not on the books as
of this moment in time. Again, that is the same violation which was
noted by the hon. member, the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
I would like to refresh your mind, Mr. Speaker, of comments
made by the hon. member who is now the House leader for the
government, Mr. Herb Gray, who said at that time with regard-
(1515)
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to refrain from using
names. The title of the minister is enough.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
recognize that. I was making an attempt to be clear in my definition
of which House leader I was referring to and I understand the ruling
as such.
The then House leader of the opposition party is now the House
leader of the Liberal Party which is in government. Referencing the
GST advertisement of the day he said that in effect there would be a
new tax on January 1, 1991. The advertisement was intended to
convey the idea that Parliament had acted on it because that was the
ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this one
was finally adopted and put into effect. That being the case, it was
8660
clearly a contempt of Parliament because it amounted to a
misrepresentation of the role of the House.
Speaker Fraser of the day said the following with regard to those
comments and the advertisement:
This advertisement may not be a contempt of this House in the narrow confines of
a procedural definition, but it is in my opinion ill-conceived and it does a great
disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great
traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery of
modern and responsible members on both sides of the House. That ad is
objectionable and should never be repeated.
That was said clearly to members who are now sitting in the
House and were present for Speaker Fraser's comments at that
time.
It has happened again. It is unacceptable. It has been a violation
of privilege and I recommend, Mr. Speaker, that you rule
accordingly.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
here during that time. Those ads were very different from what
appeared in publications yesterday.
In the substance of the ad there is nothing that says the
legislation is passed or that it would become effective on a certain
date. It does not refer to the result or the consequences of the
legislation as the GST ads did.
There is no point even considering the content of these ads
compared to the GST ads that caused the ruling by Speaker Fraser,
which was a good ruling and one I supported.
In terms of this question of privilege I see nothing in the ads that
violates the privilege of any member vis-à-vis the piece of
legislation which was before the House yesterday and will be back
in the not too distant future.
I simply leave for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that in
comparing the two issues you find there is no question of privilege.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Health makes a very persuasive argument about the
devastating impact of cigarette smoking. I noticed an ad in a
newspaper today entitled ``Let's Sponsor the Health of Our Kid''
which went on to state a number of facts.
It said that in Canada each year 256,000 young people start
smoking on average at age 14. Half of these young people will
smoke all their lives. One in every five deaths is caused by
smoking. Smoking related diseases cost the Canadian health care
system $3.5 billion. As many as three million Canadians alive
today will die from tobacco related causes.
If that in fact is the case, if that is the impact of cigarette
smoking in Canada and if the minister is being sincere, surely
cigarettes ought to be banned. The importation and sale of
cigarettes should be illegal.
The ad goes on to ask the reader to support anti-tobacco
legislation. That is misleading. Bill C-71 is not anti-tobacco. It
does not ban or prohibit the importation and sale of cigarettes,
cigars or any other form of tobacco.
(1520)
If the government and the Minister of Health were making this
case in terms of the devastating impact of cigarette smoking, if one
in every five deaths is caused by smoking and smoking related
diseases cost the Canadian health care system $3.5 billion, to be
consistent they have a legal and moral responsibility to ban
tobacco. By simply banning advertising on sport cars and at
cultural events is not good enough.
The Minister of Health is either sincere or, as he said earlier
today, he should go all the way as opposed to huffing and puffing.
The Speaker: We are getting more into debate. I would like you
to speak to the particular question of privilege.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
the matter is fairly simple. In the question of privilege which we
raised, we did not accuse government representatives responsible
for placing this advertising message of any malicious intent. We
are not saying that they were trying to make any false
representations, not in the least.
Today, instead of just admitting the mistake, the parliamentary
secretary is trying to argue that a document can be referred to as
both a bill and an act.
If it is true that the same document can be called both an act and
a bill, in future the two expressions could be used interchangeably
all the time, and we will never know where we stand. No one is
saying that the government had wrong intentions, we are saying
that the government made a mistake. Please acknowledge your
mistake and make the necessary apologies.
[English]
The Speaker: I will hear one more intervention on this question
of privilege.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I refute the
arguments put forth by the government whip who suggests the
matter is not that relevant. He would lead us to think that the vote in
the House was assumed by the government. If we ever find that the
government of day can assume the outcome of a vote in the House,
democracy in this country is in extreme peril.
I draw attention to page 4460 of Debates when the Speaker ruled
regarding the GST issue on October 9, 1989. He said:
Under these conditions, the Chair feels it must exercise extreme caution against
unduly restricting the authority of the House to deal with a perceived contempt,
especially given the arguments which have been presented.
He went on to say:
8661
I must confess that I have certain doubts regarding this case. Normally in cases of
doubt, it has been the practice for Speakers to allow an appropriate motion to go
forward for a decision of the House.
Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider in your ruling the
fact that democracy is assumed by the government and to allow this
motion to go forward.
The Speaker: This question of privilege was raised yesterday by
the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. Today I received
opinions from eminent colleagues in the House, opinions which I
am sure you will give me some time to consider.
I do not know at this point if I have the documents in English and
in French. I saw the hon. parliamentary secretary referring to a
document in English. I would ask him to table it so that I can see it.
I will take all the representations of today including the
precedence of my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Frazer, a very highly
regarded Speaker of the House, and other Speakers who have ruled
on matters such as these. As we know, no two matters are virtually
always alike. It is for that reason I will take my time in making a
decision. I will get back to the House if it is necessary.
_____________________________________________
8661
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1525)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 9 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table the eighth report of the Standing Committee on
Finance.
It deals with Bill C-70 which does two things. It makes a number
of changes, clarifications and amendments to the GST. Much more
important, it is the first step in creating a national harmonized sales
tax replacing all 10 existing sales taxes with one. This is a first step
in that direction.
I thank the many witnesses who appeared before us and made
presentations. I thank members of all three parties, including the
member of Beaver River who is giving me all her attention right
now, who worked in an assiduous and constructive way with us. I
thank, as always, the staff of the House of Commons who again
has been exemplary. I have the honour to table this report, in both
official languages.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During his
submissions the hon. member said that this report represented the
beginning of a harmonized GST across the country.
That is a misstatement of fact, given that several provinces have
made it very clear they do not intend to harmonize their provincial
tax with the GST.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that is debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to
the comments by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I
would like to add a few comments on the Bloc Quebecois'
dissenting opinion.
I would like to add that the Bloc Quebecois supports the concept
of harmonizing sales taxes, but cannot support the Liberal
government's wasting everybody's time and energy with a
half-baked and unfair scheme.
In the current state of affairs, there is no proof that Bill C-70
simplifies and improves things. On the contrary, as regards the
rules governing the display of prices, consumers may find an item
bearing four different prices in a catalogue or on a retailer's
shelves.
Bill C-70 will considerably complicate the lives of individuals
and businesses. So the big questions remained unanswered,
because the Liberals are putting their electoral interests before the
interests of the taxpayers. We also think that the government
should redo its homework and go over Bill C-70.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, October 7, 1996
the committee has considered Bill C-55, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons
and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General
Act. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.
Thanks to all the witnesses who provided some excellent
testimony that enabled us to make these terrific amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I wonder if we could revert to
tabling of documents. I would like to file a report on behalf of the
Speaker.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8662
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to table, pursuant to the
Standing Orders concerning the auditor general, the report of the
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
to the House of Commons for the year 1997.
[English]
The report is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Lib. Dem.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-378, an act to
amend the Immigration Act (permanent resident status).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to have the
opportunity today to introduce my private member's bill. I want to
thank the hon. member for York South-Weston for seconding this
bill.
The intent of the bill is to amend section 24 of the Immigration
Act, which would allow a person seeking to come into and remain
permanently in Canada to be deemed a permanent resident if he or
she lived in Canada for 25 years or more prior to 1970 before
leaving Canada.
This amendment would address the concerns of many Canadians
who have reallocated outside Canada for a period of time and are
now faced with having to reapply for permanent resident status
with of course the appropriate security checks. This has resulted in
numerous bureaucratic delays and in many cases the process can be
quite cumbersome.
My bill would eliminate a time consuming delay and also allow
an immigration officer to make the decision to grant automatic
permanent resident status if they are satisfied with the individual's
prior resident status.
I look forward to the unanimous consent of the House on this.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-379, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest
of those in breach of condition of parole or statutory or temporary
release).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to table in this House a
private member's bill which will amend the Criminal Code to
provide for the arrest of those in breach of condition of parole or
statutory or temporary release.
I must acknowledge the dedication and commitment of the
Abbotsford city police, particularly Constable Mike Novakowski
who provided the incentive and foresight to put this bill in force.
Because of police officers like Mike Novakowski throughout
Canada we will eventually have safer streets in our community.
This enactment makes a breach of a condition of parole or
statutory or temporary release an indictable or summary condition
offence, as is the case for breach of a probation order.
Paragraph 495.(1)(a) of the Criminal Code allows a peace officer
to arrest a person who has committed an indictable offence or
whom he finds committing a criminal offence. Therefore this
amendment enables a peace officer to arrest a person who is in
breach of a condition of parole or release.
The amendment to section 497 provides for such a person to be
held to give the board that granted the parole or release, if the board
considers it advisable, an opportunity to apply to keep the person in
custody until it is able to issue a warrant of apprehension to
facilitate a review of the parole or release under the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-380, entitled an act respecting
the designation of a Louis Riel Day and revoking his conviction of
August 1, 1885.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to table once again a
bill to quash the conviction of Louis Riel and to try to honour his
memory.
(1535)
If this bill had a chance of passing second and third reading and
being voted on by this House, we could honour the memory of
Louis Riel annually on November 16, because this bill would
create a Louis Riel Day for all of Canada.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
8663
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions which I wish to present to the House
today.
In the first the petitioners call on Parliament to urge the
government to join with the provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible beginning in 1997.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second calls on Parliament to demonstrate the
government's sincere regard for the public good and enact and
bring into law the tobacco control legislation as promised, such
legislation to include, in so far as possible, measures outlined in the
blueprints.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by 500 people in
my riding calling on Parliament to pass legislation imposing a
ceiling on interest rates on credit cards issued to consumers by
banks and major retailers that would be tied to the Bank of Canada
rate.
[English]
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
brief petitions which I will summarize with your permission.
The first petition is signed by a number of constituents from the
community of Lac Brochet. Very briefly, the petitioners pray and
request that the House not amend the Criminal Code or the charter
of rights and freedoms to in any way indicate societal approval of
same sex marriages.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition I would like to present today is signed by a number of
constituents from the Blumenort, Morris and Rosenort area of
Provencher. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the
negative impact of pornography on men, women and children.
They pray that the current laws are protected and upheld for all
Canadians.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the third,
the petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
The petition is signed by a number of my constituents from
Morris and the Niverville area.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
present a petition signed by a number of my constituents and
constituents from surrounding counties. The petitioners call upon
Parliament to urge the federal government to join with the
provincial governments to make the national highway system
upgrading possible.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to table a
petition today. The petition contains over 100 signatures from the
St. Stephen area of New Brunswick. The petitioners request
Parliament to support an immediate initiation and conclusion by
the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a
binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table a petition from 27
Albertans from central Alberta.
The undersigned residents of Canada allege that 38 per cent of
the national highway system is substandard and that Mexico and
the United States are upgrading their national highway systems.
The petitioners say that it would save lives, avoid injury and lower
congestion, among other things. Therefore the petitioners call on
Parliament to urge the federal government to join with the
provincial governments to make the national highway system
upgrading possible.
(1540 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have yet another petition from the good and concerned citizens of
the province of Nova Scotia. In June of 1996 the Prime Minister of
Canada announced that he would work toward diverting the Sable
Island gas pipeline to Quebec City. It is unacceptable for the Prime
Minister to decide the destination of Nova Scotia's natural gas
without consulting Nova Scotians. Nova Scotians assert their right
to control the destination of Sable Island gas and demand the
federal cease tampering with this issue.
8664
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Chairman: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8664
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemn the government for requiring Canadians to pay over 70
per cent more in CPP premiums, thus increasing payroll taxes that are a cancer on
job creation, while refusing to eliminate the huge subsidy that those same Canadians
must pay to maintain the gold-plated MP pension plan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion which
pertains to the government's 70 per cent hike in CPP premiums. I
will begin with a brief review of the Liberal-Tory record on the
Canada pension plan.
The plan was established in 1966 under the Liberal government
of Lester B. Pearson. The plan was originally established as a pay
as you go plan. It has been described critically by Bill Robson of
the C.D. Howe Institute as a pyramid type scheme in which income
for early investors is provided not from investment in real assets
but from the capital of later investors.
During its 31 years of existence the CPP has never been
administered by anyone other than Liberal and Tory
administrations. Over the years various observers have pointed out
that the CPP was headed for trouble and that it would require a
significant increase in contributions to deliver the benefits
promised, particularly to the aging baby boom generation.
Successive governments ignored this problem and the situation
was allowed to deteriorate to the point where drastic action was
required. On February 14, four days before the federal budget was
brought down, the finance minister therefore announced that
Canada pension plan premiums would be increased from 5.8 per
cent of earnings to 9.9 per cent of earnings over six years, a
whopping 73 per cent increase in payroll taxes, the greatest single
increase in payroll taxes in the history of the country.
He also announced that despite the increase in premiums there
would be no increase in benefits. Thus the average worker will end
up paying a total of $1,635 per year matched by another $1,635
from the employer. Self-employed people will pay both shares just
to receive a pension of less than $9,000 per year, in 1997 dollars.
What was most conspicuous about the government's
announcement was what it did not contain. First, there was no
acknowledgement of the mismanagement by both Liberal and Tory
administrations which allowed the CPP to get into this situation in
the first place. As has been pointed out, if the CPP had been a
private plan and had been mismanaged in this way, its managers
would now be making licence plates in some penitentiary.
Second, there is no honest assessment of the negative impacts of
the 70 per cent hike in payroll taxes, in particular the negative
impacts on jobs, even though the finance minister on previous
occasions has acknowledged that payroll taxes are a cancer on jobs.
Third, there is no serious assessment of alternative approaches to
securing retirement income for Canadians at a lower cost such as
those proposed by the Reform Party of Canada. What the
government has neglected to do, my colleagues and I now propose
to do in this debate, starting with an assessment of the negative job
impact of a 70 per cent increase in CPP premiums. We want the
finance minister to frankly admit, first of all, that the 70 per cent
hike in CPP premiums is a payroll tax hike and to table in the
House his department's assessment of how many jobs this payroll
tax hike will kill so that we can propose counter measures.
(1545)
In his presentation to the finance committee on October 17,
1994, the finance minister clearly referred to CPP and QPP
contributions as payroll taxes and acknowledged their negative
impact on jobs. But now that he has had to increase them, the
finance minister is living in denial and says exactly the opposite.
He now says that CPP premiums are not a payroll tax.
The finance minister refuses to acknowledge, for example, the
position of the Minister of Industry, who ought to know about such
things, and who said in the House as far back as 1991: ``When you
look at the burden of payroll taxes on small firms you have to
include, of course, the Canada pension plan employer
contributions. The combination of all these payroll taxes imposes
an onerous burden, especially on small and medium sized
businesses''.
Perhaps most importantly, the finance minister is flatly
contradicting the published views of the forecasting division of his
department. I refer to a paper by Mr. Joe Italiano of that division
published on April 25, 1995, entitled ``Growth in CPP and QPP
8665
contributions: Implications for employment and participation''. In
that paper Mr. Italiano clearly defines compulsory CPP and QPP
contributions as payroll taxes. He also studied the employment
impact of the Tory increases in these payroll taxes from 1986 to
1993 and showed how they had killed 26,000 jobs.
We therefore call on the finance minister to frankly and honestly
admit that the 70 per cent hike in CPP premiums is a payroll tax
hike of unprecedented proportions and to table in the House his
department's assessments, and we know that they run these
assessments, of how many jobs this payroll tax hike will kill so that
we can propose counter measures.
In criticizing the government's ill-conceived approach to
rescuing CPP, Reformers are not saying that nothing should be
done, far from it. But what we propose in our fresh start platform is
a more comprehensive reform than what the government proposes.
Our fresh start proposals to secure retirement income for
Canadians are a combination of Canada pension plan reform, of
expanding the RRSP system and of providing tax relief for lower
and middle income seniors. Our proposals-we will argue this
during the election campaign-deliver more retirement income per
dollar invested than anything that the government has proposed to
date.
I hope that MPs will ask me about this superior alternative in our
question and answer time because it is worth the House
considering.
Finally, I want to conclude with some observations on the
government's moral authority to lead pension reform. To gain the
trust of Canadian seniors, Canadian youth and the aging baby
boomers, the government must be seen to be acting fairly and
ethically on the issue of pension reform.
The Liberal government abandoned its responsibility to act
fairly and ethically on this issue when it adopted, as its first pension
reform priority, not the improvement of CPP, not the improvement
of pensions for the Canadian people, but when it adopted as its first
and highest pension priority the provision of the gold plated
pensions for its own MPs and other MPs willing to receive them.
What does the average Canadian worker get at age 65 after
contributing to CPP at 9.9 per cent of earnings? A lousy $9,000 a
year. But what do Liberal, Tory, NDP and Bloc MPs get who
accepted the gold plated MP pension plan at age 55? If they live to
age 75, pension benefits amounting to: for the Conservative
member for Sherbrooke, $4.3 million; for the Liberal member for
Cape Breton-East Richmond, $3.9 million; and the NDP member
for Winnipeg Transcona, $2.7 million. And the list goes on and on.
(1550 )
When it comes to issues of integrity, a moral authority to lead,
we have observed that the government has a blind spot and perhaps
a fatal blind spot.
On February 5 I asked both the Prime Minister in the House and
later in the day his ethics counsellor in committee whether they did
not see an ethical dimension, an integrity dimension, issues of right
and wrong with respect to the political interference with the
Somalia inquiry, the stonewalling of the Krever inquiry, the use of
the justice department to go on a political witch hunt and the Prime
Minister's broken GST promise.
The Prime Minister professed not to understand what I was
talking about but the answer of his ethics counsellor was more
revealing. I was asking about ethical matters, matters of public
trust and integrity and right and wrong. On February 5, 1997 at the
Special Joint Committee on A Code of Conduct he said: ``I think
you are speaking about policy questions, questions in which there
is a difference between opposition parties and that of the
government. It is the essence of our democratic system. I do not
believe I can go and take your question''-questions about the
ethics of those situations-``any further than that''.
In other words, political interference and cover-up in the
investigation of a murder, stonewalling an inquiry into tainted
blood from which Canadians died, misuse of the powers of the
justice department, breaking a key campaign promise and denying
you broke it-I would add to that list giving yourself a gold plated
pension while giving Canadians tin plated pensions-by the ethics
of the Prime Minister and his ethics counsellor are simply
differences of opinion on policy matters, not matters of trust or
integrity or right and wrong.
If these are the ethical standards of the government, I believe it
will never be trusted by Canadians to bring fairness and integrity to
the pension issue. By its own actions and blindness it has forfeited
that right to others.
To conclude, I am reminded of a study on integrity and 19th
century British politics by the historian D.C. Somervell. He
focused his study on two British statesmen, William Gladstone, the
moralist who if he did not see right and wrong in an issue was
uninterested in it, and Benjamin Disraeli, the pragmatist at the
other end of the scale who never saw right or wrong in any issue,
only differences of opinion.
What was Somervell's conclusion? He concluded that while it is
an error to discover moral issues where none are in fact at stake, it
is a greater error to be blind to them when moral issues really arise.
When the government put the old age security of MPs ahead of
the old age security of Canadians, it committed that greater error,
which is why I urge hon. members to support the motion before the
House.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
worthwhile noting that while given 20 minutes to speak on this
subject matter, the member for Calgary Southwest devoted barely
half of his speech to the subject matter on the Order Paper which
reads in part: ``This House condemn the government for requiring
8666
Canadians to pay over 70 per cent more in CPP premiums-,'' and
so on.
It is a fully misleading statement. The fact that the hon. member
would devote half of his time speaking about tainted blood, misuse
of justice, integrity of government, ethical standards rather than
addressing the subject matter of the Canada pension plan
demonstrates how thin and how poorly researched his subject and
his speech are by the people who prepared it for him.
(1555 )
Obviously the member from Calgary does not know his subject
and the people who prepared his speech for him today ran out of
steam in dealing with it, so much so that he had to fill up the time
available to him with other subjects which are not contemplated in
the motion.
The member from Calgary is trying to mislead Canadians by
convincing them that there is a 70 per cent hike in the Canada
pension plan contributions. I would like to ask the member for
Calgary Southwest whether he would use his ability to go through
the proposal that has been approved by the 10 provinces and the
Government of Canada and verify for himself that the 70 per cent
figure is totally wrong. The reality is that the increase for the
employee goes from 2.9 per cent of pensionable earnings in this
year to 3.5 per cent in 1999 and gradually to 4.9 per cent by the year
2003.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. member's
points by making three of my own. First, in not using all the time
allocated to me, I am of the belief that if you want to practice
economy in government it starts with economy of speech.
Second, I found the member's comments interesting because
they illustrate the last point I was trying to make. The member
obviously sees no connection between getting the moral authority
from people to reform pensions and the fact that the government
lost that moral authority when it gave its party the MP pension. The
very fact that the member sees no connection between that issue
and the MP pension precisely illustrates the blind spot of the
government.
With respect to his substantive point, Reform has gone through
the proposals that the minister and the provinces agreed to with
respect to the reform of CPP. It is our conviction that the CPP
cannot be fixed simply by working on it. We have to look more
broadly at all the contributing factors to retirement income. That is
why our proposal includes the following elements which I will take
just a couple of minutes to explain.
First, a guarantee that existing seniors, every Canadian aged 60
and above, will receive all the benefits promised to them by CPP.
Second, a proposal to shift younger Canadians on to an expanded
RRSP system, mandatory, tax sheltered retirement savings
accounts like RRSPs and these deliver, of course, greater pension
benefits per dollar invested than anything that has ever been
proposed for CPP.
Third, for older workers not young enough to accumulate an
adequate retirement income by expanded RRSPs alone, we propose
a transition combination of CPP and expanded RRSPs to ensure
pension benefits at least on a par with CPP if not better.
Finally, through our fresh start tax relief proposals, we propose
to lift 1.2 million Canadians, including 300,000 seniors, off the
federal income tax rolls altogether, thus improving their retirement
income.
If one takes the collection of those things, the modified CPP, the
expanded RRSPs and the tax relief afforded to seniors, our
argument is that the package delivers greater retirement income per
dollar than anything we have seen from the finance minister or
from the government.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, hopefully I will be brief and the leader of the Reform
Party will be brief in his answer.
I listened very carefully to the presentation this afternoon. My
understanding is, along with some other things, he wants to expand
the RRSP system.
(1600)
I would like to pose a question to the leader of the Reform Party
stemming from his presentation this afternoon. Does he realize and
is he considering in his Reform program, the fresh start program,
that the CPP which came into being in 1966 actually has several
aspects? It includes not only the retirement benefit plan but a
disability option, a death benefit, and a benefit for spouses and
children in the unfortunate or untimely death of the contributor.
Are these not important aspects to the Reform Party?
I note with regard to his comments that in comparison the
members' pension program was changed a year and a half ago.
There are three important aspects of that program. The minimum
retirement age was reduced to age 55 or increased to age 55. There
had never been an age limit before. The reduction in benefits of
over 20 per cent saved over $3 million in one year alone. It also
eliminated double dipping which is something the Reform Party
could check its members on.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear these
members defend the MP pension plan. I invite the hon. member to
join me in any place in the country. We will round up 1,000 people.
The hon. member can defend the MP pension plan and I will argue
against it. At the end of the day I do not think there will be much
question about where the Canadian public stands.
With respect to the member's substantive question at the
beginning, when I say we propose to guarantee the CPP benefits to
the existing generation of seniors and make provisions for others,
we
8667
intend to guarantee the entire range of benefits. We are not just
speaking about retirement income.
With respect to survivor benefits, under this expanded RRSP
program we propose a substantial improvement over CPP. We
propose to improve the retirement incomes of surviving spouses,
particularly elderly widows, by proposing that 100 per cent of the
funds of a deceased individual's RRSP would be transferable to a
surviving spouse tax free. Nobody would have to go hat in hand.
That is a far superior survivor benefit to that offered by CPP.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I
point out to my hon. friend across the way in terms of members'
pensions that 400 of the 600 living ex-members of the House get no
pension whatsoever.
Second, I have a young constituent who was permanently
disabled at the age of about 31. If it was not for the CPP disability
clause he would have nothing. He has no family. He has no other
means of support.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I repeat. We made clear that we are
continuing to support the benefits of the CPP program to the
existing generation of seniors. Therefore the member is going
down the wrong path by implying that we will cut that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. In his intervention the member for
Davenport on two or three occasions used the word mislead with
reference to the Reform Party and to the Leader of the Reform
Party.
At citation 49 of Beauchesne's that is considered
unparliamentary language. I wonder why, Mr. Speaker, you
allowed him to use that phrase not once but repeatedly.
The Deputy Speaker: The point was not raised at the time.
There did not appear to be an uproar in the House. As I am sure
hon. members realize, unless there is an uproar in the House almost
immediately no word as such becomes unparliamentary, except the
one word we all know.
If the hon. member wishes, I will look at the blues and come
back if necessary. The normal test is that people get very excited
when such a word is used. I hate to tell the member that is the case.
(1605 )
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to reply to and passionately oppose the
Reform motion before the House.
The motion clearly stakes out the opposition position that it
interprets the changes to the Canada pension plan as business
bashing and fiscal foolishness. That position is based on partisan
politics, not fact or logic.
Let me be blunt. We had to make some tough decisions about the
CPP. The changes are not painless or pleasant, but that happens
when we try to fix something that should have been reformed years
ago, in fact decades ago. These changes are not based on decisions
made in isolation and imposed without consultation.
One of the many realities ignored by the opposition motion is
that these are reforms agreed upon by the federal government and
eight provinces representing the significant majority of Canadians.
These are reforms based on a year long process of public
consultation and intense discussion and negotiation between the
two levels of government. Most of all, these are changes to the CPP
with an overriding and concrete goal: to preserve and secure one of
the key pillars of our national pension system.
The third party can play games with phoney mathematics and
hidden agendas, but the federal and provincial governments had to
address a real problem and find a workable solution. That is what
we have done, to the benefit of Canadians today and for generations
to come.
Let me remind the House that the Canada pension plan affects all
working Canadians and their families. It is the compulsory
earnings based plan that forms one pillar of Canada's public
pension system. The proposed changes are a strong and balanced
package of reforms that will ensure the Canada pension plan is
there for Canadians today and in the future. There for Canadians
means not just for workers when they retire but equally to help
Canadian workers and their families should they become disabled
or die.
This is something the third party ignores in its public proposals.
The fact is that about 30 per cent of CPP benefits go to disabled
persons and for survivors' benefits, but for the Reform Party these
Canadians do not seem to exist.
[Translation]
That is why I find the assumptions underlying today's motion by
the Reform Party so disgraceful. These assumptions shamelessly
dismiss contributions paid by workers and their employers as little
more than common payroll taxes. They completely ignore the real
issue, which is that CPP contributions guarantee every Canadian
worker a pension. In this sense, CPP contributions constitute an
investment, ensuring workers a secure retirement and adequate
benefits both for disabled workers and families of deceased
contributors.
CPP contributions will not swell the government's coffers and
the government cannot use this money for its expenditures. On the
contrary, contributions go into a separate fund used to pay pension,
disability and survivor benefits. Under the proposed amendments
to the Canada Pension Plan, money collected in future will be
invested so as to obtain a greater return for contributors. Not only
8668
will Canadians get back all the money they contributed but, in
addition, they will see increases in their pensions and other
benefits.
(1610)
These are not just empty words. Allow me to remind the House
that the tax system treats CPP contributions as pension benefits. In
the calculation of income tax payable, contributions qualify as tax
credits for workers and tax deductions for employers.
Unlike the situation that arises when taxes are increased,
increases in CPP contributions result in decreased tax revenue and
a tangible drop in government revenue.
[English]
Today's motion prefers to ignore these facts. It is the type of
self-serving argument and attitude that prefers to drive wedges
between Canadians, between generations, between regions, rather
than build for a fair and shared future. It is a motion that suggests
we are imposing harsh hikes in CPP contributions and that ignores
the much heavier increases that would otherwise have had to take
place. It does so because it is a motion that ignores the very real
problems we have had to address with the CPP.
The plan's chief actuary reported that the plan was simply not
financially sustainable under the current contribution schedule.
This is why firm, forward looking action had to be taken. The only
fair way to deal with the problems facing the CPP is to increase
contributions now so that Canadians can begin to pay enough to
cover the costs of their own pensions plus a fair and uniform
portion of the unfunded liability that has built up over the past 30
years.
There is no mystery about the problem. Basically the costs of
CPP benefits have grown faster than originally expected when the
plan was first instituted in 1966 and will escalate dramatically
when the baby boom generation reaches age 65 around 2011.
I remind the House that under the existing legislation, as a matter
of statute, contribution rates were already scheduled to rise to more
than 10.1 per cent in 2016. In other words they were to virtually
double. Even then the chief actuary of the plan has shown that
without changes the CPP fund would still run out of money in less
than 20 years. Without additional changes, contribution rates
would have to increase from that 10.1 per cent to over 14 per cent
of pensionable earnings to cover escalating costs.
It is essential to recognize that by acting now to fix the CPP we
are limiting contribution rates to a maximum of 9.9 per cent. Then
they can be frozen and remain steady thereafter while providing the
same benefits.
[Translation]
The increase in CPP contribution rates that we announced is not
the first in a series of increases. I repeat, the contribution rate of
9.9 per cent to be borne equally by workers and employers is a
maximum that should never be exceeded. The rates will not
increase again. This increase is lower than the 10.1 per cent already
projected under the existing legislation, and is well below the 14.2
per cent that would have been required if we had not acted now.
It is true that the contribution rate in 2003 will be about 40 per
cent higher than the rate foreseen under the existing legislation,
but, at the same time, thanks to the amendments we are proposing,
the contribution rate in 2030 will be much lower than projected. It
will in fact be approximately 30 per cent.
(1615)
This means that future generations, our children and
grandchildren, will not be weighed down by an incredible financial
burden. It also means that people in their middle years whose
contributions had been less than the amount required to pay future
benefits will now pay contributions that are more equitable in that
respect. Younger Canadian workers and young people entering the
labour force will pay contributions that are not as high as
previously planned. Also in the interests of fairness.
What about present CPP beneficiaries? Why are these people not
affected? There is no doubt that many are drawing pensions that are
far more generous than they would be on the basis of the
contributions they paid. That is true, but it is not their fault. If
anyone is to blame, it is the plan itself which was not adjusted in
the past as it should have been, because previous governments did
not have the political will to make these decisions.
That is why our proposal is accompanied by measures to make
the Canada pension plan more accountable and provides for more
frequent review. Furthermore, any new initiatives under the plan
must have full financing before they can go ahead. However, it
would not be fair to make our seniors, who made their retirement
plans of the basis on the existing plan, pay their costs retroactively.
We signed a contract with our seniors and for the sake of fairness,
we must honour that contract.
As you can see, the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan
are not an affront to business or the taxpayer. They do not involve
an additional tax or some new trick in our tax system. In fact, these
are prudent and basic measures that are entirely in line with our
record for sound management of public moneys and reflect our
commitment to be fair in every respect.
If we had failed to make the difficult decisions that were
necessary, younger generations would have had to pay twice as
much as they will now, without receiving a penny more in benefits.
This would have been neither fair nor affordable, and indeed it
8669
would have been excessively costly. To put such a burden on future
contributors would, in all probability, have led to the collapse of
the plan. We could not afford to let this happen.
[English]
Acting now will ensure the Canada pension plan is on a secure
and stable financial footing for the foreseeable future. As I said
before, the CPP changes were not decided in isolation. They reflect
a truly national consensus based on public consultations and a
decision making process that involved the provinces as full
partners.
Believe me, no government at any level likes to ask its people to
pay more for the same services. But it is a price many Canadians
have told governments they are willing to pay in order to preserve
the plan they believe in and want to be able to depend on. They told
us so during the public consultations which were held in every
province and territory last spring as part of the federal-provincial
review of the plan. Canadians clearly said that they valued the CPP.
They told us they wanted it fixed, not scrapped.
During the review, we and the provinces examined a number of
options and heard opinions from both ends of the spectrum. We
considered many alternatives, but narrowed our choices to those
which would ensure that no one's benefits were jeopardized; not
those of today's beneficiaries, nor those of future generations. We
listened when Canadians everywhere said the Canada pension plan
is important to them. They want it preserved, and preserved in a
way that does not pass on an unfair burden to younger generations.
It is worth remembering that the debate currently taking place is
not about choosing to increase contribution rates. It is about
choosing to preserve the Canada pension plan.
(1620)
Canadians asked their governments to make the CPP sustainable
by strengthening its financing, improving the funds' investment
practices and reducing costs. The changes proposed do exactly that.
Before concluding, let me briefly talk of another element of
today's motion, an example of the political game playing that
demonstrates the desperation of the third party. Reform members
have attempted to create a link between the proposed Canada
pension plan changes and the current pension arrangements for
MPs. This is not just a comparison of apples and oranges. It is more
in the realm of sour grapes.
I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that many Canadians belong
to a pension plan, not only members of Parliament. For any pension
plan member, pension income represents deferred compensation
and thus an earned benefit. We must also remember that the terms
of the MP's plan were designed to take into account an MP's
unpredictable career pattern-as I think most Reform members
will see within the next few months-lack of job security and the
fact that many members take a substantial salary cut in undertaking
parliamentary service. The MP's pension plan, like other employer
sponsored pension plans, provides a pension arrangement for a
targeted plan member population and therefore is adapted to their
needs.
For the record, MP's pension contributions are higher than the
norm for employer sponsored pension plans and are significantly
higher than the contributions required under the Canada pension
plan. I should also note that under the MP's plan members of the
House of Commons contribute 9 per cent of all salaries. By
comparison, in 1997, employee contributions under the CPP will
be equal to 3 per cent of pensionable earnings. This rate is
projected to increase to 4.45 per cent over the next six years.
I would also like to remind the House that in July 1995 and in the
context of a freeze on parliamentary salaries, the government
amended the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
Under the new arrangements age 55 has become the minimum
pensionable age. As well, benefits for MPs in respect of service on
or after July 13, 1995 have been reduced by 20 per cent. Also, the
practice of double dipping has been curtailed within the federal
public sector, which is the only sector over which the federal
government has jurisdiction.
These changes went beyond the government's red book
commitment to reform MP's pensions and have significantly
reduced the related costs to taxpayers. In fact, savings over the past
year have been in excess of $3 million. Also, as with any pension
plan, the MP's plan is regularly examined with a view to balancing
the needs of retiring MPs and the related costs.
The real issue, of course, is not a comparison between the CPP
and the MP's plan. This is just electoral grandstanding. What
today's motion tries to dismiss and discredit is the very real and
historic reforms that the provincial and federal governments are
bringing to the national workers' pension plan, reforms that will
affect many millions of Canadians today and in years to come. By
our work, these Canadians can plan for their retirement in greater
security without having to wonder if the CPP will be there for
them. It will because we have acted. This is the type of action that
sustains our great country and that Canadians expect and demand
of a government committed to their future.
(1625 )
I am proud of what we have done and confident that the vast
majority of Canadians see it as the major achievement it is, one
firmly and fully committed to their best interests.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with great respect, as far as the comments of the President
of the Treasury Board regarding the MP pension plan and its equity
vis-à-vis other Canadians' pension plans are concerned, Canadians
know full well that members of Parliament through their pension
8670
plan got the gold mine and Canadians got the shaft. Of that there is
no doubt. People know it and they know it for what it is.
In his comments the President of the Treasury Board pointed out
that the provinces went along with the changes to the Canada
pension plan. They went along with it obviously because they have
been partners in this rip-off of Canadians for 30 years.
What the President of the Treasury Board did not say was that
one of the features of this renewed Canada pension plan at 9.9 per
cent of earnings is that the provinces will have the privilege of
rolling over their debt for another 20 years. Therefore, this plan is
not going to start getting better right away. They are going to
postpone making it healthy or healthier for another 20 years.
My question relates to the equity of the CPP. The President of the
Treasury Board indicated during his comments that Canadians need
to be fair in sharing the future. It is incumbent on the President of
the Treasury Board, in representing the Liberal Party of Canada,
which has been in power for at least 20 of the 30 odd years that this
plan has been in force, to account for the mismanagement of the
plan that got us into this mess in the first place.
Actuaries and demographers did not just wake up overnight. The
plan was flawed right from the beginning, but the Liberals did not
have the strength to keep their hands off the honey pot. What
politician does? The changes to this plan have not made it safe
from the honey pot.
Based on the average industrial wage of $36,000, if a young
Canadian were to place 3 per cent of earnings over the lifespan of
their work into an investment vehicle that has a return of a typical
average over the last 40 years, would that Canadian have more
money from a 3 per cent investment than they would for their
almost 10 per cent investment in the Canada pension plan?
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to underline that the
important and real question being discussed is the reforms that
have been made to the Canada pension plan. I understand that the
third party, knowing that it has no real arguments about the reforms
made and that it should instead congratulate us, has come to the
conclusion that it should try some other subject in order to try and
get some interest generated.
It is clear now that after days and days of the third party trying to
find fault with the reforms to the CPP, public opinion is saying that
the reforms are necessary. They are saying that the reforms
introduced by the government are excellent and taken in
co-operation and partnership with eight of the provinces and a large
majority of the Canadian population. They fit the bill, remove the
imperfections and now ensure that all Canadians will have access
to a proper pension plan that is now properly funded. That is what
is important.
However, we also have to take into consideration that some of
the colleagues of the hon. gentleman have proposed other plans for
MPs. One of these is to double the salaries of MPs. What is the best
route to follow?
(1630)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad I
am in the House today. This gentleman keeps referring to salary
and I was speaking about compensation when we were debated the
bill in the first place.
I think a member of Parliament deserves proper compensation,
but it should be above board where it is visible, taxable and clear.
When I threw a number out as to what an MP should receive it
included taking care of all travel expenses.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Silye: Yes, it did. Go back and look at the speech.
It included a suggestion that MPs look after their own pensions,
which is no better than the private sector. Five per cent of that
money should go into a pension if they choose to and five per cent
matched by the government. It should be no better than the private
sector. That is the pension portion of my compensation package for
MPs. The Liberals can twist and bend all they want. If it is a choice
it would be an investment.
The finance minister and this minister argue that the CPP
increase to 10 per cent is an investment. If it is compulsory by the
government it is a tax. If the rate is set by the government it is a tax.
In opposition they called it a payroll tax. Now they are calling it an
investment.
The government is very hypocritical. I question its logic on
raising the CPP. There are concerns with the CPP. People are
worried that money will not be there for them, but the logic is that
the fund is $39 billion now. The deficit annually is about $1 billion
and could go to $2 billion in any given year so the premium has to
be raised.
Why did they overreact? Why did they not just raise the
premium to 7 per cent? At the same time, because payroll taxes
cost jobs, why did they not lower the unemployment insurance
premium from the high lofty numbers? That fund has a fat $5
billion sitting in it which is soon to grow to $10 billion. They
should lower the unemployment insurance premium, raise this
other one if it is in jeopardy and keep the same two-year fund that is
required instead of increasing it to five.
They have overreacted. They have increased the taxes too much.
It is too great a burden on the economy to increase the taxes by that
much. By not reducing the unemployment fund which they are
8671
using to lower the deficit they will actually kill jobs. Their strategy
of creating jobs is sadly lacking.
[Translation]
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon.
colleague, who has just mentioned certain facts that unfortunately
do not correspond to reality. I would like to remind him what he
said in April 1995 during the debate on Bill C-85. He said:
[English]
We should get fair compensation, fair remuneration. It is at the
senior executive level. Pay us $150,000 a year and we will look
after our own pensions.
Not all Reform MPs opted out of their pensions, notwithstanding
what they said. We have excluded double dipping. I must say a
number of Reform MPs from Kootenay West,
Nanaimo-Cowichan, Saanich-Gulf Islands and Lethbridge-
Mr. Culbert: Are they double dippers?
Mr. Massé: They are collecting pensions while collecting their
salaries as MPs.
Mr. Culbert: Never.
Mr. Massé: I am shocked. I cannot believe that people who are
arguing against double dipping which we have removed from the
act are still unfortunately continuing these practices.
I understand why the Reform Party opts out of MPs pensions. It
is because they have no chance of ever collecting.
The Deputy Speaker: When there are members from another
party wishing to question a member the Speaker normally goes to
the other side.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to bring the President of the Treasury Board
back to the fiduciary responsibility of the government to handle
citizen's money in the best possible manner. I draw his attention the
Quebec pension plan, the disability payments and the way in which
the Quebec pension plan has been administered vis-à-vis the
Canada pension plan.
Would the minister advise the House and Canadians generally
why under the Quebec pension plan for disability take-up between
1986 and 1994 there was a 2 per cent increase while at the same
time in the Canada pension plan there was a 92 per cent increase?
(1635 )
Would the minister also tell the House why in 1976 when there
were 55,000 people involved in the Canada pension plan 1,219
people came off disability, but in 1995 with 300,000 people on
disability only 2,000 people came off disability? Is this the
minister's indication of sound management?
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately a practice the third party
uses is to try to confuse people with figures and with questions
unrelated to the main subject.
What is really important is that we have made a reform that
Canadians want. We have made it with the support of eight
provinces representing the vast majority of Canadians. We have
made it after public consultations that permitted all Canadians to
express their points of view. We have finally reformed the Canada
pension plan. We have made sure that young people like those who
are in the gallery will be able to collect these pensions when the
time comes.
That is what good government is about.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before discussing the pertinence of the Reform Party
motion, it might be worthwhile to point out that the Canada
Pension Plan does not apply in Quebec, which has a parallel plan,
the Régime des rentes du Québec. It compares very favourably
with the Canada Pension Plan. Moreover, the current
recommendations by the federal government take into account the
way the Quebec plan has been administered, and the way it ought to
be administered in future.
The Reform Party motion makes what seems to be a rather
demagogic association between the Canada Pension Plan and the
MP pension plan. If we must debate the matter of the MPs'
pensions, fine, but these are two very different matters. What needs
to be done in connection with the Canada Pension Plan is to assess
whether the recommendations made by the government that are to
be implemented are indeed necessary, pertinent and essential.
This pension plan has not been modified for some years, and
today it differs greatly from what it was like initially. For one thing,
the modifications to the plan must reflect our changing
demographics.
Care must also be taken to ensure equity in the way the pension
fund operates. At the moment, the plan covers the entire baby
boom generation, those between 35 and 50 years old, like myself,
and if nothing is done to change the plan, they will benefit from a
far better plan than the one they have contributed to. Corrections
are necessary. The people who are between 35 and 50 and who will
be retiring in 10, 15 or 20 years will have to have contributed
enough and we have to ensure, through increased contributions,
that this is indeed the case.
On the other hand, an aspect of the government's position should
perhaps be corrected and it will be perhaps at the stage bills are
considered. We could have contemplated a significant reduction in
unemployment insurance premiums and permitted a quicker short
term increase in Canada pension plan contributions. As the result,
today's young people would not have to bear the burden of the need
to refloat the plan for so long.
8672
Any reduction in unemployment insurance premiums would
allow for an equivalent increase in Canada pension plan
contributions. This approach would not create a negative impact
on the total payroll or on payroll taxes, which can, as we know,
have an effect on jobs. This morning, I read that a study by the
Department of Finance estimates the cost at 26,000 jobs. There
is a whole question of balance and common sense involved here.
Demagoguery must be avoided.
Such a pension plan must provide for intergenerational
continuity, that is, over time, as people contribute, each generation
must pay its fair share to avoid having the younger generation
paying excessively for the older one.
(1640)
As you know, it is now much harder than in the past to join the
labour force, to find a steady and well paid job. A number of
considerations must be taken into account and, in my opinion, one
way to make the system more equitable and to ensure that every
age group contributes its fair share would have been to make up, in
part or in whole, for the increase in CPP contributions by
significantly reducing UI premiums.
We must also determine whether the rate of return of this fund,
the Canada Pension Plan, is adequate. The government's proposal
seems to be a step in the right direction, because it is patterned on
the model developed in Quebec, where the fund is invested in
options involving various degrees of risk, making for an diversified
portfolio and an attractive rate of return.
By contrast, the Canada Pension Plan has been used to provide
financial assistance to the provinces, which may be a good thing,
but the plan's rate of return is totally unsatisfactory and partly
explains why we currently have an inadequate reserve and why
contributions must now be increased.
With a better rate of return, like that of the Régie des rentes du
Québec, the increase in contributions might have been lower,
although the demographics would still have had to be taken into
account. So, one cannot say that, from that perspective, the
government did something that was inadequate or inappropriate.
The Régie des rentes du Québec is an example which shows that,
when Quebecers have control over their money, their investments
and the management of their finances, they can do as well, if not
better, than anyone else in Canada, North America or the world.
Quebec's expertise is such that several of the amendments being
proposed by the federal government are already implemented in the
Quebec plan, or are the result of suggestions made during the
consultations with Quebec regarding its Régime des rentes.
It must be remembered that, in the 1960s, the Government of
Quebec, which was then headed by Jean Lesage, had a certain
expertise in economics. Experts like Jacques Parizeau and Bernard
Landry were there at the time to advise the government. All these
people helped develop a system whereby Quebec was able to
accumulate a fairly large amount of money and, more importantly,
a system Quebecers can now be proud of, in spite of a few minor
flaws. With this system, a number of Quebecers start receiving a
pension at a time when they are not yet eligible for an old age
pension, so that Quebecers in general, at the exception of women at
home unfortunately, receive directly a decent pension.
Quebec does have a reason to be proud. This is one system that
can be held up as a model, and it is not the only one. The Caisse de
dépôt et de placement, which manages these pension funds, and the
Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs are other examples of various
economic initiatives taken by Quebec that enable us to manage our
money in a reasonable fashion.
These remarks are an indication that, were the Reform motion
votable, the Bloc Quebecois would be voting against it. It says in
part ``that this House condemn the government for requiring
Canadians to pay over 70 percent more in CPP premiums''. Let us
look at the reasons for this increase. Can we afford to ignore the
problem and not to bail out this program, if this means the program
will run out of money 10, 15 or 20 years from now?
(1645)
I think this would be one way to go for Canadians affected by the
plan because, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, Quebec is
not covered by the CPP. It has its own plan, the Quebec pension
plan. I think that, if the amount in the CPP dropped and was not
replenished, Canadians would think that their government had
acted irresponsibly and for this reason the measures tabled must be
considered.
When people say it increases the impact on payroll taxes, and I
mentioned this earlier, yes, it is true that it will have an effect. Care
must be taken to ensure that this effect is minimal. My proposal to
decrease UI premiums by a corresponding amount is perhaps
something that could be considered and included as an amendment
to the initial government proposal, so that the negative effects of
the plan on employment could be kept to a minimum.
Comparing it to the MPs' pension plan begins to sound more like
grandstanding, in my view. There is not necessarily any connection
between the two. I think the CPP has to be looked at separately and
care taken to ensure that it is an effective plan. In this regard, there
are a number of points to consider.
Let us look, for example, at the proposed measures. They say
that none of those now in receipt of survivors' and disability
benefits or both, nor those aged 65 and older as of December 31,
1997 will be affected by the proposed changes. This is to protect
the elderly. Is it being done with an eye to the upcoming federal
election? The government may have had this in mind, but at least it
8673
ensures some security for seniors and does not change the plan to
which they contributed. I think this is acceptable.
In addition, they say that all CPP benefits will continue to be
fully indexed to inflation. This is good news, because the federal
government is following in the steps of the Quebec pension plan.
The same is true for age of retirement. Whether it is the usual age,
earlier or later, things will remain unchanged. Here again, they
have followed the lead of the Quebec pension plan.
There is another similarity with Quebec. The fund now consists
of two years of benefits owing. They want to increase this to a
reserve of five years. That seems reasonable to us. Contribution or
premium levels will also rise over the next six years, to 9.9 per cent
in 2003, after which they will remain stable. This insures the
viability of the plan. Certainly, it is never a big thrill to have to pay
into a plan, but when people see the advantages it can have for them
in future, in Quebec at any rate, this is something on which there is
going to be a consensus, I believe, and something which people are
quite prepared to live with.
There is, however, one aspect that is bad news and ought to be
looked at by the government. It ought to try to find a new approach
to this aspect, which is the new way of calculating to be applied to
the combined pensions of people receiving both disability and
survivor's benefits, or retirement and survivor's benefits. This is
very bad news indeed, and I invite the government to examine it
closely. This situation here is more or less the same as with the
American pensions at the moment.
I will give you the example of a lady who receives a survivor's
benefit because her husband is deceased. She becomes disabled,
and is eligible for disability benefits. Under the present plan, this
lady receives two full benefits, which is understandable, since a
person who is experiencing such difficult circumstances does not
deserve to have them made more difficult economically. Yet the
new rules will place a ceiling on the amount this person can
receive. That could mean receiving benefits of $800 a month,
instead of $1,200.
I think this is a point on which we ought to do battle, in order to
ensure that such an unfair situation is not created by the bill. It is
unfair to penalize people who are victims of such misfortune in this
way. If a person has lost his or her spouse, and then becomes
disabled as well, I believe that he or she is entitled to a minimum of
financial security, and cutting that person's income is not the way
to go, in our view.
We are also told that eligibility for disability benefits will
require greater participation in the work force. The person will
need to have contributed for four of the six years preceding
application for benefits.
(1650)
In Quebec the plan is a little more generous: its requirements are
for two of the last three years or five of the last ten. I think we will
have to wait and see what the witnesses who appear before the
finance committee will have to say about the consequences of this
measure. It would seem to eliminate a number of contributors who
will get nothing in return for what they paid. We must look into
this.
For instance, someone who paid contributions for three years of
the last six before his application for benefits is not eligible, which
means he paid contributions but is not eligible for the plan's
benefits. I think that is intolerable, and the same applies to the
employment insurance reform the Liberals introduced.
This reform means that people who regularly pay their
employment insurance premiums, especially those entering the
labour market who have worked less than 910 hours, these people,
after paying 600, 700 or 800 hours worth of employment insurance
premiums will not be eligible for employment insurance.
This is intolerable, and I think that as far as the Canada pension
plan is concerned, the government would do well to avoid making
the same mistake.
A good thing about the Canada pension plan is the fact that
Canadians will receive an annual statement of their Canada pension
plan account. I think this is a way to make people responsible. They
can see how much money they put in, they can plan for their
retirement and ask how much they will get in benefits, how many
years they still have to contribute and what impact this will have on
their budget. I think this kind of specific information will be very
useful to the various users of the plan.
It seems there will also be a federal-provincial review every
three years instead of every five. This is a good thing. In fact, the
Quebec government agrees. It means we will be able to keep a
close watch on how the plan evolves and make adjustments as
problems arise.
What we learn from the history of these funds-the Quebec
pension plan and the Canada pension plan-over the past 20 years,
is that from year to year, from one government to the next, there
has been a tendency to postpone any decision making. Today, we
are forced to accept a major increase in premiums. If there had
been the same obligation in the past to review the plan every three
years, we might have had a chance to make adjustments more
regularly and it might not have been necessary to make such drastic
changes. I think it would be useful to be able to operate this way.
The Reform Party's motion may have its merits as an attention
getter, but it should be examined in greater detail. This is not about
minor details. We are talking about some very important issues,
about a pension plan that has existed for many years and will have a
future for many more decades, about important decisions, and to
8674
associate this directly with the way members of Parliament are
treated smacks of grandstanding, in my opinion.
We need to turn a critical eye on the Canada pension plan.
Among other things, we must ensure that performance is improved
and that, if performance is improved and if the funds created
perform well, the plan contributors benefit.
In this regard, even though the minister assured us earlier that
this plan accrued separately, we cannot have a surplus of billions
and billions of dollars accumulating as in the unemployment
insurance fund. We will end up with $12 billion, $18 billion or $20
billion in an insurance plan where people contribute and employers
and employees have no control over the surplus. What happens to
the surplus? Will premiums be reduced?
The same thing must not happen in this plan, if its economic
situation is improved.
In conclusion, the Canadian retirement income system has three
pillars: the Canada pension plan, the old age security and the
guaranteed income supplement. We have no strong reason for
opposing the proposed reform, on the contrary, except for the
points I mentioned earlier, including the benefits for persons on
disability and survivors. It must complement the other pillars, like
the guaranteed income supplement and the tax incentives for
retirement savings.
(1655)
A person earning $100,000 and paying into an RRSP will save
$313 in federal tax, whereas a person earning $30,000 will receive
$175, which we do not consider much of an incentive. We proposed
a standard tax credit of $268.
In conclusion, the motion is not votable, but we do not think it is
acceptable as it stands. If there had been a vote, the Bloc would
have voted against the motion, because it lacks the sense of
responsibility needed in the development of a plan like the Canada
pension plan.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the opinion of the member. He twigged something for
me when he made a statement about ensuring that various groups
do their fair share in contributing to a plan.
I read one statistic in the Financial Post which indicated that
today's pensioners are receiving $8 benefit for every $1 they put
into the plan. Clearly this raises questions about what is fair and for
whom. I will leave that very simple question and ask the member if
he could put it in the context of his speech.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, with a pension plan such as the one
before us, in order to see if it is fair we must consider two main
criteria, one of which is fairness, based on the type of people who
benefit from that plan, because all kinds of situations must be
anticipated. Some people will receive their pension benefit simply
because they have reached pensionable age, while others will
receive benefits because they are in a particular situation, including
people with disabilities and surviving spouses.
For example, when one member of a couple dies and the
surviving member keeps the house, the costs involved are the same
as before, even though there is only one occupant. So, there is an
issue of fairness that must be taken into account, based on the
social values of a country such as Canada, in Quebec or any other
province.
The other criterion regarding the fairness in the rate of return is
whether or not the plan grew adequately. If people contributed to
the plan, but the government did not manage to get optimum
benefits from such contributions, it will not be in a position to pay
an adequate amount. This is why sending statements to each
contributor to the plan, so they know what is going on, and
receiving progress reports on efficiency and profitability are part of
the assessment process of the rate of return. The $1 to $8 ratio does
not automatically mean the gain is satisfactory.
It may be that better management of the plan would have
resulted in $10 being paid to the member, instead of $8. Or was $8
the maximum achievable? We must look at these factors.
Fairness and efficiency are definitely the two criteria that must
be taken into account when determining whether the plan is
satisfactory.
A major consideration for 1997, and for future years, is the issue
of intergenerational fairness, of fairness of treatment between
young people and older people. This issue involves many aspects. I
discussed it with the hon. member for Témiscamingue, who is
lucky enough to be part of the first group, the young people. He
told me that, as things stand, a 25 year-old person will have to
contribute during all his productive years at a rather high rate. That
person will always pay a rather significant amount. However, if the
government had reduced UI premium rates, while rapidly
increasing contributions to the Canada pension plan, people who
currently contribute to the plan, but who are 40, 45, 50 or 55 years
old, would have shouldered a greater burden, because they would
have contributed more than young people.
So, these considerations must be looked into. We must not forget
that those who already receive benefits under the plan will not be
adversely affected. They are entitled to the plan, and this is fine.
However, we could do more for young people.
8675
(1700)
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am always touched by the irony when members of the
Bloc stand up in the House of Commons and defend the right to
take a pension from Canada, ``but by the way we want to take the
province of Quebec out of Canada''. It may escape members of the
Bloc but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it does not escape the people
where I come from.
The point I want to make to my colleague from the Bloc is that in
order to have the moral authority to ask other Canadians to tighten
their belts, we as Members of Parliament must first tighten ours.
We are asking Canadians to pay twice as much for less. Yet we
think it is quite all right for us to go along merrily as we have in the
past.
My question relates to the different vision that we have of
Canada. This does not make one right or another one wrong. It is
just different; the collective nature of Quebec and the fact that
Canada pension plan premium increases have not struck a resonant
chord in Quebec. I would ask my colleague to think about the 45
per cent of Canadian businesses, as reported by the Canadian
Federation of Independent Businesses, that say payroll taxes are a
major disincentive to hiring. Unemployment, particularly among
young people, in Quebec is a disaster. What affect will this payroll
tax increase have on employment in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I must say I have no problem with
members of the Bloc Quebecois receiving a pension from Canada,
because I was elected by the people, by 54 per cent of the voters in
my riding. They voted for me thinking that sending me here was
the best way to have a voice in the Parliament of Canada.
As far as I know, Quebec is a part of Canada and I have an
employer in Canada. The plan does allow members who wish to do
so to opt out of the plan. This is an optional plan. Therefore, I do
not think this should be challenged.
My first allegiance is to those who elected me, who chose to be
represented by a member of the Bloc Quebecois. The fact that 53 or
54 of us were elected to this place seems to indicate that things are
not all going well in Canada. I think that it will be up to the people
to tell us, in the next election, whether they are still happy with the
job we are doing here. Everything is out in the open, and they will
decide accordingly.
To answer the second part of the question, about unemployment,
I would like to point out to the hon. member that, in my remarks, I
suggested that UI premiums could be reduced very quickly and this
reduction compensated in whole or in part by an increase in CPP
premiums. In Quebec, choices will have to be made in that regard
and there is a need to be able to assess the actual impact of such a
measure, whether it will be 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent.
In both Quebec and Canada, one thing is sure: when people grow
older, they want to know that they will have a decent pension and
so will the younger generations. Younger people too want to be able
to count on getting a pension. A balance will be struck through
appropriate consultation. More work remains to be done, and I do
not think it would be appropriate, at this time, to condemn the
proposed changes. Close scrutiny is required to ensure the plan is
the best it can be, so that 15 or 20 years down the road, we can look
back and say that the governments acted responsibly on this issue.
The Deputy Chairman: Before turning the floor over to the
member for Edmonton Southwest, 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: the hon. member for
South Shore, the economy of Atlantic Canada; the hon. member for
St-Boniface, the CBC; the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex,
the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a particularly important debate for all Canadians,
particularly younger Canadians. During the course of the debate, I
hope I will be able to make five points. The first point would be
that the Canada pension plan, even as it has been restructured,
which admittedly is better than it was, is a poor investment for all
contributors but it is particularly poor for younger Canadians.
(1705)
I would also like to make the point that payroll taxes are, in the
words of the current Minister of Finance, a cancer on job creation.
They are a cancer on job creation to the most vulnerable people in
our society, the last hired and the first fired. It is a cumulative effect
of payroll taxes. I do not care what name we use to disguise it, if it
is a contribution or a mandatory payroll deduction it is a tax and it
is a cancer on job creation. It is something that we, as members of
Parliament in this legislature and all legislatures across the country,
have to mitigate. It is our responsibility.
I would also like to make the point that the plan continues to be
irresponsible. It continues to be a pay as you go plan. It is a defined
benefit plan that defines the benefit that contributors will receive
but the benefit does not have a direct relationship to the amount
that is paid into it.
I would also like to make the point that unless the contributions
to the Canada pension plan receive a substantially higher return,
and in view of the changes to pension planning for all seniors
brought about by the change to the seniors benefit, the change to
OAS and GIS, old age security and the guaranteed annual income
8676
supplement, which will now be the seniors benefit, virtually
everyone will see half of their Canada pension plan taxed back.
In the year 2001 when the seniors benefit takes effect all single
seniors in our country turning age 65 will receive $11,420 per year
tax free. However, any additional income, including pension
income and the Canada pension plan, will be taxed back at 50 per
cent. That means that unless pension income over the working life
of the taxpayer generates a much better return on investment, it is
going to be virtually totally taxed back anyway.
The last point I want to make is there is a direct relationship
between the pension plan for members of Parliament and the
Canada pension plan and the increases to the Canada pension plan.
I thought long and hard before I opted out of the MP pension
plan. It is a very lucrative pension plan. My being here is going to
cost me and my family down the road. However, I thought we as
members of Parliament were in a particularly difficult time. We all
knew it and everybody in the country knew it. It was only way that
we could have the moral authority to say to Canadians that it is
necessary for all of us, every single Canadian, young and old, to
make a sacrifice because we must leave our country in better shape
for our grandchildren than we found it.
The only way that we could have the moral authority to do that
would be to be the first people to take a hit. We had to demonstrate
that we were not going to ask people to do as we say. We were
going to demonstrate that we would ask people to do what we have
done and to show leadership. That is what this is all about. It is not
a question of being holier than thou and wearing a hair shirt. It is a
question of having the moral authority to ask Canadians to tighten
their belts because we have a responsibility in our generation to
leave our country in better shape for our grandchildren than we
found it.
When our children and grandchildren have the opportunity to
pay a Canada pension plan tax of 10 per cent of their income, they
will at the same time, as we all know, also have the opportunity to
pay taxes to support a $600 billion national debt.
(1710 )
This is the legacy that we leave our children and our
grandchildren. We leave an unfunded tax liability on the Canada
pension plan of $600 billion, and the very generations of Canadians
that put that responsibility on the shoulders of their children and
grandchildren are also leaving future generations of Canadians
with a $600 billion debt.
Unemployment in our country is at historic high levels. We have
had the highest sustained levels of unemployment since the
depression. At the same time we are greatly increasing payroll
taxes. Payroll taxes, by every objective standard and by every
commentator, are acknowledged to be killers of jobs and
employment.
If we were to collapse the Canada pension plan today, current
and future taxpayers would still have to pay approximately $600
billion in accrued pension benefits which we are liable for that have
not yet been paid. That unfunded liability is equivalent to our $600
billion national debt. It is something that parliamentarians for the
past 30 years have been very uncomfortable in addressing. Instead,
we have increased the contribution rate to build up a fund over five
years instead of two, while maintaining a pay as you go dimension
to the plan. Pay as you go means that each succeeding generation
will pay the benefits of the generation which preceded it.
Somewhere down the line, at some time, someone is going to
have to make good on these pension promises.
We overlook the fact that in Canada, if the pension plan were to
collapse tomorrow, annual premiums would still be required to pay
for the $600 billion of accrued benefits. When we view a proposed
6 per cent premium in 1997, 6.4 per cent in 1998, 7 per cent in 1999
and 9.9 per cent in 2003, we should be aware that the promise that
premiums will be frozen at 9.9 per cent must be considered suspect.
After all, if full funding of the benefits of a completely collapsed
plan would cost 8 per cent or 7 per cent annually, how can 9.9 per
cent be viewed as stable when the unfunded liabilities will continue
to increase?
During question period over the last couple of weeks I have put
that question directly to cabinet ministers. Of course the question
has not been answered. I have asked cabinet ministers when the
CPP premiums hit 9.9 per cent, will the government guarantee that
there will be no further increases in pension plan premiums or
decreases in benefits. The reason that question was not answered is
they cannot answer it. They have no idea. I suspect, however, that
we will see that happen.
When the plan started in the mid-sixties the contribution rate
was 3.5 per cent. Then it went to 5.65 per cent and it will go to 9.9
per cent. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that rates will
continue to increase.
Also at issue is the timing of the increase. Is our economy
sufficiently healthy that employers will be able to pay the increased
premium of $1,300 and continue to increase employment? At the
same time, the employment insurance fund has a great surplus.
This is the link between the payroll taxes of employment insurance
and the Canada pension plan premiums that kept Ontario out of the
mix for so long.
8677
(1715 )
I know the government says Ontario came on board because it
managed to wrestle from the government a 10 cent decrease in
unemployment insurance premiums for a corresponding $4
increase in Canada pension plan premiums. I doubt very much
whether that is a victory people will hear the Ontario government
crowing about very long.
I point out once again that this is being done at a time when one
in 10 Canadians are unemployed, when many are under employed
and 17 per cent of young Canadians are unemployed. They are the
people who will be hurt most.
Whether people call the increase in the Canada pension plan
premiums a tax or a pension contribution, it is still a compulsory
cost to the employer which raises the cost of creating a job.
The government insists that the 9.9 per cent tax is not a tax but
an investment. Therefore, the government believes it is not
reasonable to speak of the disastrous effects the Canada pension
plan rate increase will have on employment. I submit that it is a
false argument.
Unless we, as members of Parliament from all sides, are able to
look at the problems that face the country honestly, unless we are
able to deal with things as they are and not as we would wish them
to be, how can we ever make them right? How can we possibly fool
ourselves into thinking that a mandatory deduction that must be
taken and paid by every working Canadian is not a tax?
Only two people in the whole country believe it is not a tax.
Unfortunately, those two people are the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Finance. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance who has worked so hard at putting the changes
to this Canada pension plan together, does not believe it is a tax
either. I hope history will judge him fairly and with considerable
compassion.
Mr. Benoit: He will need the compassion.
Mr. McClelland: He will need it. Much of the political and
social disagreement concerning the Canada pension plan could be
addressed through creating options. This is the area where the
Liberal government has let us down. The government has the
responsibility of leadership, not just patching over the cracks.
If it took over 30 years to get where we are on this road with the
Canada pension plan, with the $600 billion deficiency, why in the
name of heaven would we spend another day going down that road?
Why would we want to patch over a plan that was flawed right from
the beginning? People knew it was flawed. Why would we not use
our best efforts to make this plan work much better for succeeding
generations? That has to be the elemental question. Why put a
band-aid on it? Why not do what needs to be done to fix it
properly?
I mentioned earlier in questions and comments to other speakers
that the Canada pension plan became a honey pot of money and
entitlement that politicians found irresistible, rather like flies to
honey.
The disability take up on the Canada pension plan has been
surprisingly high over recent years. That is not terribly surprising
because the take up rate on Canada pension plan disability has a
direct correlation to the job market. When jobs are scarce people do
what they have to do to survive.
(1720)
One of the things that people have done, and that is why the take
up rate on the disability side of the Canada pension plan is so high,
has been to use it to provide an alternate source of income. Once
this availability was established, government cannot turn on a dime
and tell people it is sorry but the plan is no longer available.
Since the auditor general's report identified this as a particularly
difficult problem for the Canada pension plan, the policing of the
disability entitlement has been much more severe. As I mentioned
earlier, over a 10-year period the Canada pension plan had a 92 per
cent increase compared with the Quebec pension plan which had
only a 2 per cent increase.
The disability community, persons who have long term,
systemic disability, did not want the Canada pension plan disability
tampered with because, quite rightly, it said that it has problems
enough protecting itself from the ravages of the cuts to the Canada
health and social transfer. To the credit of the government, the
report on persons with disabilities by the member from Fredericton
addresses some of the concerns very well.
There is a very real difference between Canadians who are in
systemic, long term disability into which they are born or have
suffered a tragic accident and people who take up disability
because it is part of the pension plan privileges. We have combined
the two. In hearings with persons with disabilities they would
prefer not to be combined but they do not want to rock the boat
now.
In my view, it is our responsibility to protect persons with
disabilities. That is part of our common wealth. That is part of our
responsibility one to another. That is how through our own
independence our interdependence is strengthened. However, the
two should not be confused. Insurance is insurance. The Canada
pension plan is a pension plan. By allowing the Canada pension
plan to become something that it was never designed to be puts
increasing stress on its ability to fund what it was supposed to do in
the first place, which is to be a pension plan.
8678
If, as a society, we need to look at funding persons with
disabilities, then let us also deal with that honestly. Let us put it on
the table and see how it can best be done economically and ensure
that people who must take up the provisions of disability insurance
get into and out of the program.
That has been duplicated already because every province has a
workers' compensation board. The provincial and federal
governments need to work together to ensure that every single
citizen gets the best return on the common investment. However,
they should not trickle down responsibilities from one order of
government to another. Citizens should not have to shop to see
where they can get support. They should not have to make a
disability premium payment to an insurance company only to find
that the insurance company will not pay until after they have been
able to collect from the federal program.
I anticipate some well thought and well founded questions from
members opposite. I hope that when they ask the questions they
will keep in mind that this is a particularly poor return on
investment for young Canadians who must bear the burden of the
debt that they will inherit also.
I would ask members opposite to get their calculators out and tell
Canadians what return would come on a 40-year investment of
$1,000 per year at an average rate of return of the equity markets in
Canada and tell me that is not better than the CPP deal.
(1725 )
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join this debate. I have never
seen an opposition party so willing to open up its weakest flank by
declaring a day to debate an idea that does not actually exist. That
is one of the great travesties in this debate.
This is a very serious debate. Members are very concerned about
it. One of the core issues facing our society is that of economic
insecurity. The eight provincial governments and the federal
government have finally answered the question of economic
security in the Canada pension plan. It is a great achievement. Only
three political leaders in the country would not join in: the premier
of Saskatchewan, the premier of British Columbia and the leader of
the third party. What a group of scoundrels. None of them are
willing to live up to his responsibilities. What do they have in
common? Their unwillingness to deal with the arithmetic reality
that is involved in the reform of the Canada pension plan.
People have begged us from the outset to please do something
about this plan.
Mr. Epp: Starting in 1966 they did.
Mr. Walker: Yes. Guess who was the proudest defender of the
plan? Guess who wrote to the famous John Kroeker, who the
member brought up in the House of Commons yesterday, to say
this is the best thing for Canadians? Ernest Manning wrote a
private letter to him which said that this plan should be defended by
Canadians, that this is the best way to protect workers in a modern
society. It was the father of the member's leader. He should go back
to his papers to find out where he was in 1965-66. The member
should do his research and he will understand how this plan works.
He should start telling Canadians that at 7 per cent, what will
happen to that $600 billion if we do not have a Canada pension
plan. What will they do, raise income tax? Will they put their hands
over their eyes? What will happen to that?
Canadians will have money for their Canada pension plan by
keeping their contributions down to 9.9 per cent, by sharing the
cost between the employers and the employees. Do Reformers
mention employer contributions in their superfund? Of course they
do not. The great travesty in this whole thing is that the workers
pay the 10 per cent plus they pay 7 per cent for the outstanding
obligation. For 17 per cent, what do they get? A high risk mutual
fund run by the Reform Party. Is the member crazy? Is he nuts? I
would like to hear a response.
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, allowances must be made for
the hon. member opposite because he has had this file for the past
year and surely must be weary of it. You can tell because of the
cobbled together package he has brought to Canadians.
The member opposite makes great political capital of the fact
that the provincial premiers have joined them. Jesse James and his
gang have come together to rob taxpayers by foisting this
despicable, expensive program on the younger generation of
Canadians. It is a darn good thing the Liberals foisted off the gun
control first because there is no defence against the Liberals when
they come charging up and start putting their hands in your
pockets, you know they will go deep and it will hurt.
The government has known for 30 years that the Canada pension
plan would not work. Circumstances finally forced it to cobble
together the unholy alliance with the provincial governments to
continue the funding for another 20 years of moneys at the long
bond rate, which is what it came to us with. The government
members should be hanging their heads in well deserved shame.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the
motion have expired. The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
8679
8679
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue and enhance
its efforts to address the underground economy, which costs Canadians anywhere
from $23 billion to $156 billion in lost revenue and wages, by working with other
levels of government, industry and unions in developing a plan of action, which
includes a national education campaign and increased enforcement.
She said: Madam Speaker, Reformers came to this place stating
that they would do things differently, but as we see you have to
keep order and I thank you for it. When we do go to the trouble of
making speeches and working hard it is nice to be able to make
them and for our constituents to hear.
I am pleased to speak to my Motion No. 243 calling on the
government to enhance its efforts to combat the underground
economy. My motion asks that the government consider a plan of
action which includes a national education campaign and increased
enforcement.
As part of my work as chair of the national Liberal caucus
committee on economic development I recently chaired a
subcommittee which studied the issue. I was pleased to have the
opportunity to work with the hon. member for Brampton, the hon.
member for Vaudreuil, the hon. member for St. Catharines and the
hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex who is here and will speak
later to the motion.
We made a number of recommendations to the Minister of
Finance prior to the 1997 federal budget and we entitled our report
``Our Future at Risk''. The effects of the underground economy
truly place our future at risk. What is perceived by some as an
anti-GST activity is in fact costing every Canadian in lost revenues
for social programs, deficit reduction and worker benefits.
What is attractive to some because of what they perceive as an
unfair tax system is unfair to the honest tax paying Canadian. The
underground economy places our social services, our deficit
reduction efforts and our very future at risk. It is easy therefore to
complain about taxes and to try to avoid them. Certainly our taxes
are high. However it is important to remember that taxes support
health care, education, social services and public pensions.
When we participate in the underground economy we are not
taking money away from government. We are taking services away
from the sick. We are taking education away from our children. We
are taking pensions away from our elderly. Revenue Canada
believes that the causes of the underground economy includes high
taxation, the perception that government does not spend its money
and efficiently, the GST, and the perception of unfairness in the
taxation system.
No one really knows how much the underground economy
actually costs Canadians, although it is estimated somewhere
between 2.9 per cent and 3.5 per cent of GDP to anywhere around
10 per cent to 20 per cent of GDP. Whether we accept the low end
or the high end, government must take a more active role in
combating the underground economy.
One of the most important efforts that can be accomplished
immediately is education. Canadians are unaware of the actual
costs of the underground economy. Many do not appreciate that it
places our future at risk. Certainly no one enjoys paying taxes.
However government must work to ensure all the money owed to
it is collected. We could only imagine the benefit that would be
accomplished if suddenly the money lost in the underground
economy were used to pay down the deficit, used to fund hospitals,
used to support post-secondary education, used for our police and
used to support our infrastructure. That money rather than the
irresponsible promise of tax cuts could do what we need to do
much faster.
(1735 )
Combating the underground economy will ensure tax fairness.
By offering support to the honest taxpayer it will ensure the
preservation of our social programs. It will speed the deficit and
debt reduction demanded by Canadians in Guelph-Wellington
and in every other part of this great land.
A number of federal government departments are actively
working on the problem. I commend the work currently being
accomplished by the Department of National Revenue under the
leadership of the current minister and the former minister, the hon.
member for Victoria. Eight hundred additional auditors were
announced in the 1996 federal budget. The work of the department
has yielded more than $1.7 billion in additional revenue for the
government since November 1993, revenue that would have been
lost without these efforts.
Human Resources Development Canada has undertaken a study
and the Department of Finance continues to look for ways to
protect the integrity of the tax system.
One of the most important ways we can combat the underground
economy is through partnerships. I am fortunate to have in
Guelph-Wellington a number of concerned individuals and
groups, especially the building trades that are ready and able to
work with government and others to help reduce the effects of the
underground economy.
8680
The federal government must work with all levels of
government, industry, labour and others to find new and
innovative solutions. There are, for example, a number of key
associations that are directly affected, including the Canadian
Jewellery Association, the Canadian Dealers Association, the trade
unions, chambers of commerce, the Canadian Automobile Dealers
Association, local construction associations and tourist
associations.
To anyone who says that the underground economy does not
affect individuals, let them speak to people like Joe Maloney and
Phil Benson of the building and trades department. They know that
some of their members are unemployed as a direct result of
underground economic activity. In these cases the underground
economy hurts us two ways. It takes away legitimate government
taxes and contributions for the Canada pension plan, workers'
compensation, income taxes and employment insurance. It also
places the worker, someone willing and able to work, on
employment insurance, adding burden to the EI system.
There is also the toll that a monetary value can never replace. It
takes away the dignity of work that the individual feels when he or
she is contributing to supporting themselves or their families.
Every time someone paves a driveway, installs new windows,
repairs the car or gets their hair cut through the underground
economy they may very well be taking a job away from a friend, a
family member or a neighbour, and a job necessary to provide
support for a family.
There is a human face to the underground economy and there are
no simple solutions to ending the underground economy. No one
has the answer that would solve this problem. Any effort requires
teamwork. That is why I am suggesting a Team Canada approach to
solving the problem.
Like my community of Guelph-Wellington we have to work
together in order to seek solutions and, most important, to find
answers. In Guelph-Wellington our problems are solved through
co-operation. Recently, for example, we needed a CT scanner for
the General Hospital. It was purchased because hundreds of
Guelph-Wellington residents, supported by the generosity of our
corporate community, worked together to raise the necessary funds
for equipment that will save lives.
In Guelph-Wellington solutions are found when labour,
industry, politicians and citizens work together to find them. There
is no doubt that the underground economy is fuelled by a lack of
trust for the way that governments spend money. Certainly there
was some justification in the lack of confidence in the way
taxpayers' dollars were managed.
In the nine years prior to the election of the Liberal government
Canadians watched Conservative finance ministers make 33
projections of deficits. We also watched them be wrong 33 out of
33 times. Canadians watched the debt nearly triple in those nine
years. All of that has changed. Confidence has returned. There is
still much work to do but sanity has returned to the management of
the federal government treasury. Canadians can be confident that
their money is being spent on their priorities and that we are no
longer sacrificing our future by overspending.
(1740)
The present finance minister has listened and we are now
spending within our means. A balanced budget is in sight and the
debate will soon change from how much is the annual deficit to
where do we apply the surplus.
I ask those who participate in the underground economy because
of mismanagement to reconsider. We have turned our finances
around. We have listened. Their money is being spent building the
greatest country on earth.
Combating the underground economy will require building on
partnerships. Once Canadians realize it is in our best interest-and
I mean each and every Canadian-to ensure tax fairness we can
begin to eliminate the problem. Partnerships must include all levels
of government, industry, labour, community associations and
individual citizens.
The industries most affected such as the building trades are the
first to want to volunteer for any effort that will be successful in
reducing not only the underground economy but also
unemployment and underemployment among their members.
Ultimately the underground economy has a human face. It
causes hardship among hard working, able workers whose jobs are
taken away because some Canadians choose to avoid paying taxes.
All honest taxpayers must participate in any effort to end the
underground economy.
As our colleague from Hillsborough, Prince Edward Island, said
to me in a letter as we were preparing the report of the
subcommittee on this issue, ``we should not just increase
enforcement but we should address the underlying causes of the
underground economic activity''.
The underground economy is caused by attitude as much as
anything else. We all remember when drunk driving was either
accepted or we chose to close our eyes to the problem. It was a slow
process to change attitudes. Groups like Mothers Against Drunk
Driving that has a chapter in Wellington county helped to raise
awareness to the level where drunk driving is no longer acceptable.
None of this happened overnight. These efforts took time but we
are now living in a society where driving drunk is not tolerated.
8681
So it is with the underground economy. Ending the problem will
not be done overnight. Vigilance must prevail. A long term
strategy is required. Patience is necessary.
One of the more successful tools we have to reach out and
inform is education. Some people may offer simple solutions.
Certainly any promise of across the board tax cuts may be
attractive in the short term but tremendously unrealistic in the long
run.
I have urged both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance
in their roles as leaders to speak on the issue. Many Canadians are
simply unaware of the size of the problem. Some believe their
participation in the underground economy does not really make a
difference because they are only one person. They fail to
understand that when their participation is joined with that of
others the problem becomes compounded. Others see the whole
issue as too complex and too overwhelming to comprehend.
Recently the government of the province of Quebec undertook a
major education campaign. The campaign focused on the fact that
participation in the underground economy took away from our
children's future. In one of the television ads we see a number of
people hunched under a table making financial transactions. At the
end of this long table we see a child sitting alone. The message is
simple. The child receives none of the benefits of underground
economic activity. Simply put, it is another message that our future
is at risk.
As I said earlier, we need a Team Canada approach to the
problem. Nothing could be more positive than a poster at a building
supply depot from the Canadian Construction Association. A
message sponsored by a local chamber of commerce or a reminder
at a company bulletin board would have a positive effect.
(1745)
Again, I ask that we remember the example I gave about drunk
driving. It took persistence on behalf of a few to change the minds
of many.
I want to touch briefly on the issue of the cashless society. There
is no doubt that our system of paying for goods and services is
changing.
Shop at most stores in my community and someone can probably
pay by cash, credit card, cheque or perhaps Interac. Guelph is also
home to Mondex, a fascinating cashless experiment. Certainly this
will have an impact on the underground economy. Debit cards like
Interac are traceable like a cheque. Transactions can be followed.
There is no doubt that the cashless society, whether it be a
Mondex system or something even more fascinating will in the
next few years change the way we purchase goods and services. I
urge the federal government to monitor this situation closely.
The cashless society should benefit any effort to reduce the
underground economy. I hope we work with those implementing
this future technology for efforts that will discourage underground
economic activities.
This issue is complex. We argue over the size of the underground
economy and we can debate over which sectors are most affected.
We can search for solutions. However, one thing is clear. As long as
Canadians participate in the underground economy, they place our
future at risk. It is easy to believe that we are avoiding the GST or
simply not giving the government more money to mismanage.
However, participation in the underground economy does not
hurt the government. It has a negative impact on government
services and it increases the deficit and the debt. Participation in
the underground economy takes beds out of hospitals, teachers out
of schools and puts veterans' benefits in jeopardy.
It further burdens our children whose share of the debt increases
each time someone avoids paying taxes. It prevents governments at
all levels from offering all the services to taxpayers that they can
and it puts honest, hardworking men and women on the
unemployment line or makes them turn to social assistance in order
to feed themselves and their families.
We must all work together to end this problem. A lack of
confidence in government and its ability to spend money wisely
and efficiently was perhaps a reason. We have turned the corner.
Participation in the underground economy only makes the
situation worse. It hurts every single Canadian, particularly those
most vulnerable.
Governments must reach out further to find partners, work on
solutions and end this problem which clearly places our future at
risk.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
member for Guelph-Wellington has tabled Motion M-243, which
reads as follows, and I quote:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue and enhance
its efforts to address the underground economy, which costs Canadians anywhere
from $23 billion to $156 billion dollars in lost revenue and wages, by working with
other levels of government, industry, and unions in developing a plan of action,
which includes a national education campaign and increased enforcement.
I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. member on her
initiative in calling on the federal government to step up its fight
against the underground economy, even if it must be pointed out
that this initiative has come on the heels of numerous requests by
the Bloc Quebecois and of action undertaken by the Government of
Quebec in this connection.
8682
Quebec has once again been a step ahead of the federal
government. An education campaign is already under way in
Quebec. Viewers will recall the television ad showing a young
child sitting on a table while adults exchange money underneath
it.
The Bloc Quebecois has often asked the federal government to
step up its fight against the underground economy, in its analysis of
the auditor general's reports for instance, and again quite recently
in the paper setting out our expectations with respect to the finance
minister's last budget.
(1750)
In this paper, we estimated that, for the federal government
alone, the underground economy represents annual tax losses as
high as $6 billion; this figure comes from a Statistics Canada
estimate, and we argued that the government could easily recover
at least $500 million by hiring more inspectors.
The auditor general has already pointed out that his inspectors
cost an average of $35,000 each in salary, and that each one brings
in on average almost half a million dollars in additional tax revenue
annually.
Economists would advise the government that it should hire
these workers as long as their training and salary costs are offset by
what they bring in in additional tax revenue.
Right now, they are bringing in ten times more than they cost,
which suggests that the revenue minister would do well to hire
more of them.
It goes without saying that concerted action by the provinces,
industry and unions has a better chance of succeeding than
unilateral action by the federal government. We think that Quebec
will very likely co-operate with the federal government in this
endeavour, because this is a phenomenon that has a negative impact
on the tax revenue of all levels of government, while there is only
one level of taxpayer. If the federal government indeed acts along
with the others involved, instead of harshly imposing its views and
interests in this area, we consider this plan to be extremely viable
and highly desirable.
The underground economy has two components: there are
activities which are fundamentally legal but not reported for
taxation, like moonlighting, and then there are illegal and criminal
activities, like drug dealing and fencing stolen cars.
We believe that an education campaign ought to focus
particularly on people liable to get involved in the first category of
activities, and that increased enforcement-stricter legislation and
inspection, for instance-need to be looked at for both categories,
with particular attention given to controlling and eliminating the
second category of activity.
We fully subscribe to the notion that, in a country where the
community decides to provide public services, crooks and
deadbeats who deliberately avoid paying taxes, who will do
anything to avoid paying their fare share of tax, are guilty of
antisocial behaviour. That is why we must first of all make people
aware of the social significance of underground activities, while at
the same time setting up active control measures in areas where
such activities are more frequent.
We must, however, avoid going too far and considering everyone
a potential crook and deadbeat. We live in a system where people
are presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and this must
continue. Ways must be found, however, to get at those who are
knowingly behaving as bad citizens.
The public must be educated and informed about what their taxes
are used for, so that they do not get the impression that they are
paying them for no purpose. This implies that the government must
first and foremost set an example, and prove that this is true. The
public needs to be convinced that the rich, and the big corporations,
are paying their fair share of taxes.
Our young people do not need the auditor general telling them
that stock mismanagement costs them $1.25 billion, that the
federal government spent $30,000 to move a ship in order to save
$71 on a repair bill, that the RCMP ordered 4,000 too many hats.
The federal government still has a lot to do in this connection.
There are two types of approaches to eradicating moonlighting and
tax evasion: deterrents and incentives. The main deterrents are to
increase controls and monitoring and to increase fines and
penalties. We believe that the federal government should stress
incentive measures including lower taxes, deregulation,
simplifying the task of taxpayers and government officials faced
with the complexities of the tax system, continued improvements
in public administration and finally, tax amnesties, which,
however, remain an exceptional measure.
In concluding, I believe that education is also helpful, as is the
degree of visibility of consumer taxes and increased employment,
which might reduce the pressure on taxpayers.
(1755)
All these measures should be part of a comprehensive plan to
fight the underground economy. Unfortunately, from what we have
seen in recent months, including latest budget brought down by the
Minister of Finance, there can be no doubt at all that the Liberal
government is not really interested in fighting the underground
economy, in spite of the efforts of the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington.
8683
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for
Guelph-Wellington and her colleagues for engaging in a serious
effort to understand the nature and the size of the underground
economy and come up with some suggestions on how we could
reduce the size of this unfortunate development in our economy.
As an academic economist I have a long tradition of studying
this subject. I have attended a number of international conferences.
I was first attracted to it when I met a professor from the University
of Wisconsin, Ed Feige, telling of his experience when he stayed
with a relative who came home one evening with a brown paper
bag. He asked him naively what was in the bag. He opened it up and
inside was cash. That person had a small retail store and he had
taken a lot of his profits that day home in cash. They did not go
through the banks.
It also brought back my own memory from childhood in
Germany where my father had a grocery store. In the evenings he
would draw all the shades and make sure that nobody could see in
when he punched on the cash register a new tape reflecting a much
lower cash receipt of the day that went into the official books. I
know, and everybody seems to know, that these kinds of practices
are very widespread. However, I found out at these conferences
there is a very wide range. There was a very wide range of
estimates of the size of the underground economy. It all depended
on the methodology that was used by the people who studied it. On
the one hand there was Ed Feige who said we have so much more
cash floating around in the economy than we did before for a given
national income that it must be used for the financing of the
underground economy. He was driven by this example of his
relative bringing in a brown paper bag full of cash. He estimates
that it may be as high 15 per cent of national income, if not higher.
However, to me the most impressive and persuasive argument
was made by people from Statistics Canada and other national data
keeping organizations. Let me have a quick taxonomy. There is the
underground economy that exists of barter where a dentist in a
small town might accept a supply of chicken for 10 weeks, one a
week, in payment for dental services. That kind of a barter
undoubtedly takes place. Every once in a while I run into people
who say ``you are so naive that you did not know we were doing
this''. But the estimate of the importance of this kind of activity,
given the size of the economy, is trivially small.
The second source of underground economy activity arises in the
context of smuggling. Here the most outstanding example relates to
goldsmith jewellery which is burdened not only with GST and PST
but also a very unfair 10 per cent luxury surtax which is totally
inappropriate for this age. It has created a huge underground
economy. In the finance committee we heard regularly pleas from
the industry for the government to abandon this absurd tax. I hope
the government, as soon as it has breathing room, will follow this
advice. It might produce more revenue than is being lost because
the return to smuggling is destroyed.
(1800 )
The persuasive argument as to size came to me from national
income accountants who said they knew from episodal evidence
that the biggest cheating takes place in the construction industry,
car repair, tailoring, barbers and a few other such industries.
We have statistics on the size of those industries. They may be
important to individuals but given the size of the economy, a
refinery or an automobile manufacturing plant those industries are
very small. They make up no more than 2 per cent of national
income.
A large proportion of those activities is undertaken by a large
firm and a large firm that engages in car repair cannot cheat.
Furthermore, let us look at home repairs where they might give a
deal if they do not have to pay GST on building an addition to a
house. Let us remember the person has to buy windows, doors and
all materials that go into it. The addition may cost $10,000 but the
value added by the person who does the work is probably about
$1,500 or $2,000. GST is paid on all the inputs because the person
cannot claim back a rebate on the input.
I am persuaded that it is a relatively minor problem. I believe the
hon. member for Guelph-Wellington was overstating the case
when she said that Canada's future was in danger because we had
an underground economy. That is a vast exaggeration of the
problem.
In the moments remaining to me I will talk about some possible
solutions. The first solution would be more education. How can
anyone be against education? How far can we go when the message
being sent goes against individual self-interest? We know that in
the end self-interest pays and dominates.
We should also remember especially in those cases that it is a
victimless crime. The victimless crime morality is very hard to
argue. The hon. member might say that other people will have to
pay more taxes and services are down. That is remote. The amount
of money being cheated is so small that the average person can
rationalize very well the effect on society as a whole of minute
actions. Nevertheless, let us have more education by all means but
let us not spend too much money.
The next thing is to have more enforcement by the Department
of National Revenue: more audits, more rat lines and all those
kinds of things. Surely they will produce some benefit. Not only
am I worried about the cost. I am also worried about the other side
of the coin, that we are increasing the power of the state. We are
letting human beings who are imperfect, who could fail and who
8684
could abuse power go out and chase down a few individuals. This
involves a great deal of risk.
Let us build partnerships. It is like education but I doubt that it
will go very far. The conclusion I reached having looked at the
subject is that the only sure way to do it is to lower the returns from
cheating. How do we do it? It is by lowering taxes. There is a risk
of being caught and a risk of social disapproval. The higher the rate
of return from engaging in illegitimate activities and carrying the
risks, the more will be undertaken. The converse is the lower the
rate of return, the less will take place.
(1805 )
That is just another argument in a long line of arguments in
favour of lower taxes which can only be brought about by
Canadians accepting somewhat smaller government and going
back to self-reliance rather than on any occasion possible
screaming ``Ottawa help me''. That is the way to deal with the
problem the hon. member has addressed in her resolution.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I begin by recognizing my hon.
colleague from Guelph-Wellington for her work as chair of the
subcommittee of the national Liberal caucus committee on
economic development. In late December 1996 the subcommittee
held hearings to examine the underground economy, taking the first
of many important steps in the government's efforts to address the
underground economy.
I welcome the opportunity the motion presents to review the
government's continuing efforts to address the underground
economy. The issue is fundamental to the integrity of the tax
system. The government must ensure that taxes owed are taxes paid
so that Canadians have faith in the fundamental fairness of our tax
system.
The Canadian tax system is based on the principles of
self-assessment and voluntary compliance. Most Canadians are
honest and pay the taxes they owe. In fact about 95 per cent of tax
revenues are collected without any direct enforcement action.
There are areas of the economy where there is lower compliance
and where the government has had to focus its efforts. The
underground economy is one of those areas.
The underground economy we are talking about are those
transactions, often cash transactions, on which income is not
reported or is only partially reported for tax purposes.
There is nothing romantic or harmless about the underground
economy. The simple fact is that all of us benefit from the
economic and social programs funded by our governments. When
some individuals do not pay their fair share of taxes to support
those programs it is the rest of us who have to pay more.
[Translation]
The underground economy comprises business competing
unfairly with honest firms, because they can offer consumers lower
prices, as they pay no income tax and do not contribute to the
Canada pension plan, the employment insurance plan or to
workmen's compensation.
In this context, the honest firms paying their fair share of taxes
may be forced to accept smaller revenues, indeed to lay off
employees and even, in some cases, to close their doors.
Consumers themselves become part of the problem of the
underground economy when they agree to pay cash in exchange for
a better price, which enables the business or the tradesperson to
hide the operation and avoid all taxes. This sort of behaviour hurts
all consumers and all members of our society.
In fact, lost government revenues cannot be used for essential
services benefitting all Canadians, such as health care, education
and other social programs.
[English]
The problem of the underground economy is one we cannot and
do not ignore. Let me expand on what our government and Revenue
Canada have done and the progress we have made since 1993.
The action plan the government has developed and implemented
puts heavy emphasis on voluntary compliance and the things that
support it. It is a plan that balances partnership, education and
service activities with enhanced enforcement. Let me emphasize
that our strategy to deal with the underground economy is designed
to promote the principle our tax system is based on, voluntary
compliance.
From an economic point of view that is a smart strategy. It costs
the government less to obtain taxes that are paid voluntarily than it
does for Revenue Canada to go out looking for, auditing and
investigating those who do not comply.
Given this context, education is a major tool in battling the
underground economy. Through its education efforts Revenue
Canada has raised public awareness of the consequences of the
underground economy and tax evasion. Presentations have been
made to local community and business organizations. Information
sessions have been held at universities, colleges and high schools.
Revenue Canada staff visits business people in communities across
the country to inform them about their efforts to combat this
problem and to encourage a level playing field for honest
businesses.
During these visits they provide information on departmental
services, answer questions and provide assistance to make it easier
for businesses to comply with the various tax regimes. Overall I am
glad to report that during the past two years Revenue Canada staff
8685
has visited over 100 communities and met with more than 21,000
businesses.
(1810)
Another important element of Revenue Canada's action plan is
to inform individuals what happens if they have not reported all
their income and they want to come clean.
[Translation]
Revenue Canada's voluntary disclosure policy enables all those
who take part in the underground economy and those who have not
complied with the law to correct any omissions in the income they
declare to the department.
This policy is based on a simple principle: if a disclosure is made
voluntarily, that is, before the department has begun an audit or
taken other enforcement action, no penalty or sanction, such as
prosecution for tax evasion, will be imposed. The individual will
simply be required to pay the tax due plus interest.
[English]
It is has sometimes been suggested that a temporary tax amnesty
would be useful in addressing the underground economy. The state
of New York experienced some success recently with just such a
program.
Revenue Canada's voluntary disclosure policy is better than any
temporary amnesty program because it is permanent. Individuals
who are drawn into the underground economy do not have to stay in
hiding for several years hoping and waiting for an opportunity to
change their ways without fear of criminal prosecution for
monetary penalties. Revenue Canada's voluntary disclosure policy
is a responsible approach to collecting the taxes rightfully owing to
the government and has proven to be successful in recent years,
borne out by the fact that voluntary disclosures have tripled since
1993. People can make voluntary disclosures by contacting any
Revenue Canada office.
There is no question that enforcement has to be a fundamental
element of our fight against the underground economy. That is why
Revenue Canada has currently dedicated over 1,200 auditors to
strengthen its efforts to identify non-filers and GST non-registrants
and to conduct audits of small businesses in sectors of high
non-compliance. Special audit teams have been established to
focus on the construction, home renovation, jewellery, auto sales
and repairs, hospitality and other service sectors, areas that can
lend themselves to underground tax evasion.
Revenue Canada makes extensive use of state of the art
technology to cross match data from numerous sources including
municipal and provincial databanks to identify non-filers and GST
non-residents. Last year this helped identify over 500,000
non-filers and GST non-registrants.
To enhance these activities the Minister of Finance announced in
the 1996 budget that 800 more auditors would be devoted to
Revenue Canada's audit program for unincorporated businesses
and self-employed individuals. This will increase the audit
coverage rate for these groups and bring it more in line with the
continued growth in this sector.
[Translation]
I would add that this co-operative effort is not limited to audits
for provinces that have concluded tax collection agreements.
Quebec, for example, collects its own taxes, but we co-operate
closely with officials in joint strategies and we co-ordinate our
activities with their own business audit activities in the fight
against the underground economy.
I would also point out that Quebec has invested significant
resources in this problem and taken a very focused approach in the
fight against tax evasion and the underground economy. These are
positive measures that will add to our strategy in the fight against
the underground economy.
[English]
What about the bottom line of our enforcement initiatives? I am
glad to report that since 1993 our enforcement efforts have yielded
more than $1.7 billion of additional revenue for the government.
Another important facet of Revenue Canada's audit activities is
the information it gets from other federal departments and from the
provinces and territories. Statistics Canada, Transport Canada,
Public Works and Government Services Canada provide important
information that facilitates audit selection and enforcement.
Human Resources Development Canada works closely with
Revenue Canada to identify links between employment insurance
fraud and tax evasion. Revenue Canada also has an extensive
network of provincial co-operation agreements that provide for
information exchanges, joint enforcement action, shared
experience and compliance.
These co-operative agreements are not limited to the public
sector. During the past few years Revenue Canada has consulted
with over 400 national and local industry groups and professional
associations. These consultations are extremely effective in
providing a common understanding of issues and obtaining private
sector co-operation. These groups and associations include
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian
Construction Association, the Canadian Home Builders
Association, the Canadian Jewellers Association and others. Each
industry has its own unique character and issues. For that reason
Revenue Canada is not applying blanket solutions. Instead, the
department is working with industries on an individual basis to
develop workable solutions.
8686
(1815)
One result of these partnerships was the announcement by the
Minister of Finance in the 1996 budget of a new contract payment
reporting system for the construction and home building industry.
Key industry groups and various trade unions are working in
partnership with Revenue Canada to encourage these businesses to
voluntarily report all payments made to contractors and to
subcontractors.
For the small percentage of Canadians who feel they are above
the law, Revenue Canada uses another effective tool, the
widespread publication of successful prosecutions.
Bringing this information to the general public's attention has a
major impact on the number of leads of potential tax fraud that the
department has received. Since 1993, these have increased
substantially to more than $28,000 annually.
Revenue Canada is taking an analytical approach to identifying
and addressing non-compliance issues to ensure enforcement
resources are used efficiently and effectively. The department is
using technology to analyse data and assess the risk of
non-compliance in specific sectors. Audits are then directed to
those areas.
[Translation]
We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go.
Revenue Canada has developed a long term strategy for the fight
against the underground economy, which strikes a fair balance
between measures promoting voluntary compliance and
enforcement action.
Certain elements are essential to the success of this strategy. We
must make the public aware. We must work with industry and other
levels of government. We must take effective enforcement action.
[English]
We must ensure that every Canadian understands the
underground economy threatens government services and
programs. It imposes an unfair burden on honest taxpayers.
In conclusion, I commend the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington for bringing this matter once again to the
floor of this House, supporting the government in its efforts to
address the underground economy.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to take part in today's debate on Motion
No. 243, sponsored by my friend and hardworking colleague, the
member for Guelph-Wellington, which calls on the government
to develop a plan of action to counter the underground economy in
Canada.
Participation in the underground economy and tax evasion
represent significant loss of revenues to both federal and provincial
governments. A precise estimate of the underground economy is
not possible.
However, the most commonly accepted estimates of the size of
the underground economy place it in a range of 10 per cent to 20
per cent of the GDP. That implies an economy of illegally hidden
activities that is larger than the entire economy of Alberta and
places the size of Canada's underground economy in a range of $75
billion to more than $150 billion.
Since taxes of all types represent nearly half of Canada's
reported economy, this could represent a loss of anywhere from
$35 billion to $75 billion every year. It also poses a serious threat to
Canada's tax system which is based on self-assessment and
voluntary compliance. This is not a victimless crime.
According to Revenue Canada, some of the causes of
underground activity are recession, high tax levels, perception that
government squanders tax dollars, perception of unfairness, high
regulatory burdens, particularly for small business, perception that
there is a low risk of being cause, perceived high cost of
compliance and declining real incomes.
While too many Canadians will continue to view any of the
above as legitimate reasons to continue operating in the
underground economy, the fact remains we all need to be reminded
of the implications of the underground economy to the country and
to the Canadian way of live.
Huge revenue losses have many long reaching effects on the
systems and programs that we take for granted. For example,
essential programs and services are at risk. An unfair burden is
placed on honest Canadians. Unfair competition occurs. Unfair
access to tax credits and other social programs takes place and we
are left with a legacy of higher deficit and a larger debt.
In November 1993 Revenue Canada concluded that the problem
of the underground economy was so severe that its approach to
solving the problem at hand must be different from the methods
that have been historically employed.
(1820 )
In launching its underground economy initiative, the department
chose to concentrate on the following three strategies:
encouragement through education efforts of the underground
economy to rejoin the legitimate economy, promoting voluntary
compliance, and taking responsible enforcement action.
Under this strategy the department has been conducting a risk
assessment to target its enforcement activities on identified areas
of non-compliance and on files that are identified as high risk.
8687
The department has also entered into co-operation agreements
with all the provinces to exchange information, share audit
strategies and co-ordinate audit and enforcement activities.
As part of its efforts to rehabilitate sectors that it has targeted as
prone to non-compliance, Revenue Canada has consulted with
more than 240 industry and professional groups to seek input from
those concerned about underground economic activity.
While no single action is likely to markedly reduce the size of
the underground economy in Canada, a series of actions to
accompany Revenue Canada's initiative might prove to be more
helpful.
For example, I believe we must attempt to link taxes more
closely with the actual benefits enjoyed by taxpayers, who are more
likely to comply when they can readily identify the direct benefit to
them of the tax.
There is also much evidence that compliance, particularly for the
small business sector, needs to be kept as simple as possible. This
is a major issue for the GST and is related in part to a narrower base
for the tax, a base which excludes some items and includes others.
This issue is even more important in provinces which have
maintained a PST base that differs from that of the GST. The April
23, 1996 harmonization memorandum of understanding between
the federal government and New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland suggests that we can make real progress in this area,
but there still is work ahead before we can ever claim to have a
truly harmonized tax system in Canada from coast to coast.
There is fairly good evidence that the underground economy in
Canada has grown considerably in absolute size and relative to
total economic activity. With this in mind, there is also a very good
argument to devote more resources to the task of obtaining a better
understanding of the underground economy's role in this country
and the factors contributing to its growth.
I believe it is crucial that we not expend all our energies in
merely attacking the symptoms of this very serious problem. To
ensure success we must use creativity in addressing its underlying
causes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There being no
further members rising for debate and the motion not being
designated a votable item, the time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper.
Does the House give its unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8687
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to rise again in the House to speak
about cost recovery as it affects the fishing, fish processing and
aquaculture industries of Nova Scotia.
On every possible occasion I have drawn attention to the vital
role of the fishery in the region's economy and especially in my
riding of South Shore. In Shelburne County, for example, the
fishery directly or indirectly employs 80 per cent of the workforce.
I meet regularly with the fishing industry leaders and their
organizations. Cost recovery has been a recurring topic for nearly
two years. We have worked hard to document the impact of new
and increased fees charged by government departments and
agencies for different industry services. We have identified 14
categories of fees which directly affect the bottom line of fishing
enterprises.
I have been asking for a cumulative impact study to analyse the
combined and overall effects of these fees.
(1825 )
We have a fairly comprehensive picture of the impact of cost
recovery at enterprise levels but we lack information about the
combined or cumulative impact of fees at community or regional
levels.
Last month the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
heard testimony about cost recovery from fish harvesters and fish
processors. Representatives from Treasury Board attended these
sessions and we understood they took a very strong message back
to the minister that cost recovery, if allowed to proceed unchecked
and without a cap or ceiling, will have significant impacts on
business competitiveness and the entire economy of Atlantic
Canada.
I am confident the fisheries committee will be recommending, as
I have, that a detailed study of the cumulative impact of cost
recovery on the fishing industry be carried out and that no new fees
or any increases to existing fees be imposed.
I also hope that serious consideration be given to scaling back
fees in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that they
represent an excessive burden on either the fishing enterprise or the
community.
I commend the paper tabled in this House on February 20, 1997
called ``Getting Government Right: Governing for Canadians''.
8688
This document states unequivocally that those who pay for
services must have an effective voice in service design and
delivery.
To date information sessions and consultations between fisheries
and oceans and its principal clients have taken place, but
opportunities to roll up the sleeves and work together to decide on
essential services and program delivery have not materialized.
``Getting Government Right'' also talks about a process which is
available to mediate in situations where clients believe
departments and agencies have not followed the mandate to work
in co-operation with stakeholders. It has become increasingly clear
that mediation between the fishing industry and the federal
government is a real and very urgent requirement.
I hope and request that the new guidelines to be announced by
the President of the Treasury Board will recognize the concerns
that I have been expressing over the last number of months:
requiring the department to hold meaningful consultations with
industry; adopting the user pay, user say concept; providing a
process which would allow industry to appeal the imposition of any
new fees; requiring government departments to disclose their own
costs to those who are being asked to contribute to those costs.
We need the commitment. We need the guidelines. We need the
assurances that the guidelines will be followed and that what
industry has endured over the last two years will not be repeated.
On behalf of my South Shore constituents and their counterparts
from every other region of Nova Scotia and of Canada, I am today
asking the President of the Treasury Board to say ``yes, we
recognize a problem with cost recovery and action must be taken to
ensure the long term sustainability of Canada's fishing industry''.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Treasury Board is responsible for
establishing the overall policy and for providing general guidance
to departments in its implementation. This includes the need for
them to be sensitive to the cumulative impact of fees on their
clients.
We view the assessment of cumulative impacts as a very
important issue with respect to the introduction or amendment of
user charges. Officials of the Treasury Board secretariat assemble
an advisory committee of businesses and consumer groups to help
them draft a revised set of cost recovery policy guidelines. We see
this policy development as a first and important step toward
ensuring that all departments and agencies work toward the same
goals when they introduce or amend fees.
Program review has changed the way government conducts
business. Many activities are being totally re-engineered to ensure
Canadians get the best value for money spent. Scarce tax dollars
cannot continue to be used to fund programs that provide specific
benefits to clients which are over and above those provided to the
general taxpayer.
In our efforts to improve the focus of government spending we
are paying more attention to who receives benefits from
government activities. Unfortunately shifting such costs to those
who benefit will necessary involve fee introductions or increases in
those areas which seem large when viewed outside this context. We
all know nobody objects to paying their fair share, but those
impacted by these changes want and deserve a voice in what
happens. Departments and agencies must give clients an
opportunity to provide input as to how services for which they have
to pay can be improved.
However, this is not a one way street. Departments and agencies
must keep an eye on their overriding policy objectives as they work
with suggestions for change. The Treasury Board will not impose a
ceiling on charges. However, it wants to ensure that departments
carefully assess how such fees affect clients before they are put in
place. Ministers of line departments are responsible for
implementing cost recovery for programs under their area of
responsibility and for assessing the economic impacts of specific
initiatives.
(1830)
I cannot over-emphasize the role that clients will have to play in
any such exercise. The specific impact of user charges will vary
greatly across clients, depending on their particular circumstances.
Therefore, open dialogue between clients and departments is
crucial to understanding and resolving inequitable situations which
may arise.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
again, the question I asked on February 11 was the following:
What will the Minister of Canadian Heritage do to counteract budget cuts such as
those made at Radio-Canada and more specifically those affecting the news program
Ce soir. Could she expand on that?
The minister's response was, and I quote:
-Radio-Canada has decided to reconsider its decision to terminate programming
of Ce soir. In fact, programming in Saskatchewan and Alberta would be maintained.
I hope that, after the government, or Radio-Canada in this case,
has been persuaded to change its mind, the principle will have been
established that, when a decision is made by an organization, this
decision can always be overturned, reviewed, reconsidered if
necessary.
This point of principle I just raised is an important point because
the decision in question has widespread implications in terms of
the services provided to francophone minorities outside Quebec
and particularly in western Canada. In spite of the protection they
8689
are afforded, these communities always have to fight for their
basic rights, in this case, access to news in French. That is unfair.
I am very happy for francophone communities in western
Canada that Radio-Canada decided not to terminate programming
of Ce Soir. There is a need, however, for the government and
Radio-Canada to understand their respective role, which is
essential to Canadian unity. Radio-Canada is essential to the
continued existence of the French language as a living language,
spoken and written in western Canada and, to this end, it must do
everything in its power to provide local programming and access to
news programming to francophones across the country.
Does the federal government have a role to play in ensuring that
Radio-Canada can go on producing quality programs in French? I
think so. In fact, I am convinced that it does. I might add that, in my
view, the government should provide the necessary financial
support to its minorities, be it for television or radio programming,
education, or whatever else is required to improve their well-being.
I do not want the government to save money at the expense of
our French language institutions any more, those institutions that
provide us with the infrastructure we need in order to be able to live
and prosper in French. The government has a duty to make sure the
necessary tools are in place so that our communities can not only
live in French but also improve their quality of life. That is what I
expect from the government this evening.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Canadian
Heritage mentioned, the CBC makes all the decisions concerning
its programming and its daily operations. This includes the
decisions concerning French language television programming.
That having been said, I am pleased to provide details to the hon.
member regarding the measures announced by the CBC on January
30, regarding its French language radio and television. These
initiatives will improve services provided by Radio-Canada to
French speaking communities outside Quebec.
According to the CBC news release:
The half-hour French language news bulletin Ce soir, which is aired at dinner
time, will be maintained in the four western provinces, and will have a new format as
of this spring.
As for other programs from western stations, services will remain essentially the
same and regional teams will continue to produce news stories and information
programs that will be broadcasted by Radio-Canada and RDI.
The French language radio will provide $500,000 in additional support to the
stations most affected, namely Regina, Edmonton, Vancouver and Windsor, to focus
on regional and local programming.
Except in Vancouver, there will be at least 36 hours per week of French language
radio programs. Regional programming on the national network will be maintained
and, in some cases, increased.
In Acadia, special arrangements will allow the Moncton station to maintain
infrastructures to preserve regional and network programming. These infrastructures
will also be made available to independent producers.
(1835)
Radio-Canada has been present for a long time in Canada's
regions, and it is an integral part of the communities that it serves.
These measures reflect the public broadcaster's determination to
provide regional programming and, particularly, to meet the needs
of minority French language communities outside Quebec.
On February 11, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced
that, as of April, annual additional funding of $10 million would be
provided to CBC's French and English language radio, as well as
stable multiyear funding.
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in the January 11 edition of the
Canada Gazette, Part I, the
Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, of Health Canada
published its proposals on cost recovery which are part of the
current review of Canada's pesticide registration system.
Since that time, I have received at least 50 copies of responses to
the PMRA proposals by individual farmers and agricultural
organizations. Not one of these responses has been favourable.
On February 21 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Health if the minister was prepared to revisit the many
concerns voiced by Canada's farmers and farm organizations and
make further changes to cost recovery and the PMRA proposals.
By and large, the main concern which has been conveyed to me
is that the PMRA is not taking into consideration the cumulative
effect its proposals will have on producers.
A constructive environment where there is a will to collaborate,
revise and improve must prevail by all participants before any
progress can be made on PMRA efficiencies. Regardless of the
particular suggestions put forward, it must be understood that such
advice is given by Canada's farm organizations in the spirit of
making things better.
For years now, farm organizations have been telling the PMRA
that it has overestimated the number of product registrations. This
means that the overall budget is still too high. The PMRA's budget
forecast for five years does not reflect the full potential for
efficiency gains, including international harmonization and tech-
8690
nological innovation. In other words, the PMRA's proposed budget
contradicts federal government policies such as program review to
do more with less.
Because Canada is not normally the first market for pesticide
products, the PMRA could have substantially reduced costs and
speeded up approval times by better utilizing information gained
through the approval process in other countries. Despite repeated
urging from farm organizations across the country, the PMRA
chose not to follow this route.
Despite Health Canada's 40 per cent reduction in the original fee
structure, the current cost recovery target of $12.3 million still puts
the international competitiveness of Canada's pesticide producers
and users, who are primarily Canada's farmers, at stake. This is
because the proposed fees are still not substantial, given the high
level of fees and the relatively small size of the Canadian market.
Canada's farmers and farm organizations predict that these fees
will lead to significant product withdrawals and will reduce the
ability of Canada's farmers to compete internationally.
When PMRA's cost recovery target is compared with other
Health Canada initiatives, it becomes readily apparent that this
target is still too high. For example, the drugs directorate cost
recovers is 28 per cent of its total budget and the medical devices
program cost recovers only 14 per cent of its total budget. Yet the
PMRA is asking industry to pay 45 per cent of its total budget.
Obviously this places the international competitiveness of the
Canadian farmer at risk.
According to the PMRA proposals industry will be charged
$2,690 a year to maintain each product registration on file. Even at
this point in time it is still unclear what services industry is actually
paying for here.
I have seen studies which show a high level of price sensitivity to
maintenance levels, particularly for pesticides with low volume
sales that cater to what is commonly referred to as the niche
markets.
These studies suggest that the proposed maintenance fee would
lead to a 71 per cent withdrawal rate of products with sales of less
than $5,000. That would be a terrible blow to the niche markets I
was referring to.
It has also been brought to my attention that the PMRA has not
set performance standards for other submissions such as new
pesticide use or formulation changes. This is contrary to Treasury
Board policy which stipulates that performance measures should be
set and agreed to by stakeholders. This is in contrast to other
international agencies committed to developing their performance
times on an ongoing basis.
The PMRA must commit to developing and meeting
performance standards that are competitive with the best in the
world on an ongoing basis.
I conclude with one further observation. Unless there are
changes to the PMRA's proposal the Canadian farming community
will suffer enormous consequences in the global marketplace. It is
time for the agency to move forward for the good of Canadian
farmers and consumers.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on this
matter. I know the member will be delighted to hear me repeat
some positions.
The member for Lambton-Middlesex has a concern regarding
the PMRA. As I stated in my response to her on February 21, the
Minister of Health has been reviewing the various proposals of
groups interested in the matter.
The member will no doubt be happy to learn that on February 27,
a mere six days after my response to her query, the Minister of
Health wrote to the president of the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture. In that letter he addressed a number of issues. I will be
happy to table a copy of the letter for the member and for the
House.
The member will see from the letter that the PMRA will be
co-operating with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on a
post-implementation impact analysis. This would monitor prices
and product withdrawals and assess the impact of the two factors
on competitiveness.
The PMRA has actively participated in the pesticide program of
the OECD which is working toward global harmonization of test
protocols and data requirements leading to reduction in industry
costs.
The minister also indicated in his letter that the PMRA has no
intention of re-evaluating all the products every three to five years,
nor of re-evaluating products that have acceptable data bases to
support their safety and effectiveness. The purpose of re-evaluation
is to bring older databases up to modern standards, identify and
examine human safety and environmental concerns, and ensure
continued efficacy. I am certain the member will and does support
these goals.
It is also important to note that the PMRA has made significant
improvements to the review process for new submissions. Based on
these improvements the PMRA has projected a 40 per cent
reduction in costs for reviewing new product submissions over the
next six years and has already built this into its proposed fee
schedule.
There are other issues addressed in the letter. The member for
Lambton-Middlesex has been aggressive, insistent and persistent
on the matter. Others who like her have an interest in the issue
should review the correspondence. I think they will find it to their
satisfaction.
8691
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.43.)