36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 215
CONTENTS
Monday, April 26, 1999
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RELIEF COORDINATION ACT
|
| Bill C-387. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1120
1125
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1130
1135
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1140
1145
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1150
1155
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1200
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1205
1250
(Division 386)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Second reading
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1255
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1315
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1320
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1325
1330
| Mr. John Williams |
1335
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1340
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1345
| Mr. John Williams |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| PUBLIC TRANSIT
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| “THE GIFT”
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| HOSPICE OF WATERLOO REGION
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1400
| SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| ARMENIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| DUSTIN ONERHEIM
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| AMATEUR SPORTS
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1405
| ST. JOHN AMBULANCE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| PARTI QUEBECOIS
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| YOUTH SUICIDE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| 1849 BURNING OF THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1410
| REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| YARMOUTH TOWN AND COUNTRY SPORTS HALL OF FAME
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF CAMBRIDGE
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| YOUTH VIOLENCE
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| POVERTY IN CANADA
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1420
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
1430
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| PENSIONS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PENSIONS
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1435
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PENSIONS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
1440
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1445
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1450
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| AIR TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1455
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| IRVING WHALE
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Member for Provencher
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1505
| The Speaker |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1510
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-500. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-501. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-502. Introduction and first reading
|
1515
| AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONTRAVENTIONS ACT AND THE CONTROLLED
|
| Bill C-503. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1520
1525
1530
1535
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1540
| Motion
|
1545
1625
(Division 387)
| Motion agreed to
|
1630
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| Merchant Navy Veterans
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| MMT
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Grandparents Rights
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Tobacco
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Rights of Grandparents
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1635
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1640
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1645
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1650
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1715
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1720
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1725
1730
1735
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1740
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1745
| Mr. John Bryden |
1750
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1755
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1800
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1805
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1810
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1815
1845
(Division 388)
| Amendment negatived
|
1850
(Division 389)
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1855
| Health
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1900
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 215
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 26, 1999
The House met at 11.00 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RELIEF COORDINATION ACT
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved that Bill
C-387, an act to establish a national committee to develop
policies and procedures to ensure coordination in the delivery of
programs by governments in the case of agricultural losses or
disasters created by weather or pests, the coordination of the
delivery of information, assistance, relief and compensation and
study the compliance of such programs with World Trade
Organization requirements, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to
speak to a private member's Bill C-387 that was submitted.
Unfortunately, it was not deemed to be votable by the committee.
However, I will put the House on notice that I too will
re-submit the bill in a different form, and I will re-submit the
bill in a different form, and I will re-submit the bill in a
different form until it does have the opportunity to have a vote
in the House. I feel very strongly about this issue which
obviously resonates with the farm community across the country.
It certainly resonates with the constituents who I represent in
the constituency of Brandon—Souris and the farmers who produce
the food for Canadians across this great country of ours.
1105
I would like to begin the debate today with an excerpt from a
letter that was sent to the minister of agriculture on February
15 from the national safety nets advisory committee during the
negotiations surrounding the AIDA program. It states:
The majority of the National Safety Nets Advisory Committee
would like to express its disagreement with Agriculture Canada
and provincial governments regarding the changes they intend to
make to the Farm Income Disaster Program. The committee does not
support the program as it is currently designed....We are
seriously concerned about the precedents which these decisions
set on for the next round of Safety Net negotiations. The
program as designed now no longer provides sufficient support to
farmers facing a crisis.
That letter came to the minister from the minister's own
appointed national safety net's advisory committee.
The minister and the department of agriculture decided on their
own to make some substantive changes to the recommendations that
were put forward by the safety nets committee. Those changes
included the aspect of negative margins not being covered under
the new AIDA program. It suggested that NISA had to be drawn
down prior to any access to the AIDA program. It dealt with a
three year averaging as opposed to a five year averaging, or
perhaps even longer as is the case with a lot of provincial
programs. This was done completely without the input of the
national safety nets advisory committee. It was done ad hoc by
the department.
If only the minister of agriculture had actually listened and
acted on the words of the committee, perhaps he would not be
facing the criticism he is now facing with respect to the AIDA
program. The minister dropped the ball on the design and
delivery of the AIDA program so badly that the producers and
producer groups, such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
have completely lost trust and faith in the minister and the
government's commitment to agriculture.
In a move last week, after my party meeting with key industry
stakeholders, the CFA decided that it was going to form its own
advisory committee and take steps in discussions that the
minister has so far failed to do.
This issue is particularly important now given the fact that the
minister of agriculture, in a letter on March 24 to the standing
committee on agriculture, said:
It is the intent that over the course of the calendar year 1999,
we will establish a new direction and enter into new agreements
with the provinces on the longer-term direction for agricultural
safety nets.
It is important that these discussions begin immediately with
the input of all industry stakeholders. It is vital that there
be more transparency and fairness in the process.
That was a quote from the minister asking for transparency,
negotiations and consultation. The very stakeholders who he
wishes to consult with have now said that they will set up their
own program, their own safety nets advisory committee because
they do not trust the agriculture minister to put forward what
they believe are the right, fair and equitable programs.
Furthermore, world trade talks start again in November. The
Americans and the European Union will again beef up their
subsidies on agriculture to strengthen their positions at the
talks. Canadian farmers are going to be caught in the middle and
the need for a long term safety net strategy will again become
readily apparent. The time to put these in place is now.
I want to be perfectly clear. An advisory committee can work in
the future if it includes representation from all three levels of
government. The federal government, the provincial government
and stakeholders must have representation and must be given more
power to make recommendations to the minister. Bill C-387 would
do just that.
Whether it be the ice storm of January 1998, the floods in
Manitoba and the Saguenay or the droughts in Nova Scotia, it is
more often farmers who are hit the hardest financially. When
natural disasters occur through weather and pests, or
agricultural losses through falling commodity prices, the federal
government must take a more proactive than reactive approach and
start developing policies in advance that benefit our producers
in good times and in bad.
1110
The purpose of my private members' bill is to help the
government in doing just that. The bill would create a committee
that would assist the minister of agriculture in developing
policies and procedures to ensure the coordination between
different government authorities with respect to the delivery of
information, assistance, relief and compensation.
The committee would monitor situations on an ongoing basis and
discuss what income protection measures are available to farmers
in the event of disasters or unusual conditions caused by weather
or pests, taking into account such areas as crop insurance, flood
and draught protection programs and NISA.
The committee's mandate could and should be expanded to include
monitoring the effects of the low commodity prices on the
agricultural industry and the primary producer's farm income.
The committee has the power to create subcommittees, much like
our standing committees, to pursue such ideas.
The committee would also investigate and advise the minister on
the compliance of any income assistance program with the WTO
requirements. The act would be cited as the national
agricultural relief coordination act.
The committee would consist of a membership of up to 21 members:
three nominated by the minister of agriculture: one nominated by
each provincial agricultural minister; five should be
representatives of farmers and be nominated by such organizations
representing farmers; and three should be representatives of
industry related to agricultural products and be nominated by
such organizations representing the industry.
The last example of an ad hoc assistance program, the AIDA
program, was done behind closed doors with the bureaucracy of the
department of agriculture. The model was put forward and, after
the fact, the minister of agriculture went out to sell it to the
provinces. As we recognized, a number of those provinces were
not terribly receptive to the program model that was put forward
by the government.
Does it not make sense that the 10 agricultural ministers should
have a say in how agriculture is going to be dealt with in their
own provinces? Does it not make sense that rather than forcing a
program onto the provinces that those provinces should be part of
the negotiating process to put the program together in the first
place?
We had many problems when AIDA was first unveiled. The problems,
quite frankly, were due to a lack of communications and the
ability of the federal and provincial governments to work
together. This speaks to the lack of co-operative federalism that
I see is so very important in trying to work with the provinces.
I was told this did not happen because the provinces would not
work with the federal government. That comment came from a
federal bureaucrat.
My answer to that comment is: Does that not cry for leadership?
Should there not be leadership at the federal level that will
bring the provinces together so that they can all agree on a
package, on a program, on a philosophy and on a vision for
agriculture? Or, is it simply best to have a federal government
design the program and then force it on the provinces? It does
not work nor does it speak to the bigger issue as to where we
should be heading in the next decade or two decades and the
philosophy that we should share for agriculture in this country.
As members are aware, there already exits a national safety net
review committee. My bill is an extension of that committee,
expanding the role, power and membership in the committee. This
bill would give an advisory committee more teeth, more power and
more ability to react and act in a positive fashion. It would
create a more permanent committee rather simply an ad hoc
committee that is created at the whim of the minister and
legislates the tabling of its reports before parliament.
No longer can the minister simply strike a committee and then
disband the committee at whim based on the old political optics
of the day. This bill would put into place and legislate the
requirement of this committee with criteria and ground rules and
with the ability to make a difference.
It is clear that the current advisory committee has not been
able to have the desired impact on the safety net process. Farm
organizations spent a significant amount of time developing the
efficient disaster relief program during the farm income crisis
through the current national safety nets advisory committee.
1115
At the end of the day most of the recommendations were not taken
into account when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
designed the AIDA program. What a waste of time when in fact the
people who really understand and know the issues are not listened
to. This has to change. Our industry has told politicians time
and time again that we need to re-evaluate our income protection
system for farmers.
The recent discussion surrounding the agriculture income
disaster assistance program of the minister of agriculture is
just one example of the need for a strong advisory committee with
actual power to help in developing the policies and coordinating
assistance programs.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated in a letter
addressed to me:
The farm community has lost confidence in the process by which
provincial and federal governments negotiate. If the farm
community is to regain its confidence in the safety nets debate
of the future, a more honest, open relationship between industry
and government has to be developed. Therefore, the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture is supporting your proposal to
establish a national committee to develop policies and coordinate
the delivery of federation programs.
Furthermore, in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food dated March 17, 1999, the CFA stated:
—a transparent process should be developed including
consultation with all parties and full disclosure of all
information. Therefore, we encourage you to create a committee
composed of federal and provincial representatives, and farm
organizations that will examine the safety nets package and
identify different options.
That is exactly to what the bill speaks, exactly what not only
the CFA but farm organizations across the country need: open and
honest transparency where in fact we can sit down, share opinions
with others and develop what is necessary for agriculture, not
only for today but for the future.
Bill C-387 speaks to the concerns raised by the CFA for more
transparency and disclosure of information. In fact the bill
specifically calls for all reports to be laid before parliament,
not the situation and certainly not the case right now with the
national advisory safety nets committee.
That being said, it is also important that we emphasize the word
consistency when we talk about coordinating assistance programs.
This committee would work toward alleviating any problems with
achieving consistency in the delivery and co-ordination of
assistance programs.
There must be consistency in determining the level of
assistance. It should not simply be based on the amount of
publicity a disaster gets. Ad hoc programs provide ad hoc
solutions. With the environmental and climatic changes that this
country and the world are undergoing, it is vital now more than
ever to monitor these issues on an ongoing basis and develop
consistent policies which would help farmers deal with these
changes both financially and realistically.
Consistency is the key word here. One of the problems that we
have when we deal with ad hoc programs, whether from a natural
disaster perspective or from a commodity price perspective, is
that we must be consistent among the regions. One region cannot
be pitted against another one. We cannot just simply say that
because there is more publicity for this area there has to be a
difference in program. The programs must be developed so that
they are equal and have some equality within regions. It is
important that this tripartite committee be struck to do just
that.
I thank the House for the time to put forward Bill C-387. I can
also suggest that not being a votable item this time it will be
put forward again in committee. Next time I hope it is votable
so that the House can have a say in what happens.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I remind the
House and the proposer of the bill that there is such a thing as
short term memory and I think quite a few people are suffering
from that.
We have to remember that the AIDA program was put in place
principally by the leadership of the federal government
responding to the crisis in the farm community and with
consultations with the provinces and consultations with the
safety nets committee, co-chaired by the past president of the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
1120
I remember the day we announced our share of $900 million to go
along with the provincial $600 million for a two year $1.5
billion program. The co-chair of the national safety nets
committee, then president of the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, wholeheartedly praised our efforts. He said this
was done in record time, responding to the needs of the farmers
from one end of Canada to the other on a farm by farm basis
regardless of province.
It would be whole farm and viewed as non-controversial by the
World Trade Organization. It fits with the agreements we made
with the World Trade Organization. When we got our $900 million
in place intensive negotiations went on with the provinces. As a
result all provinces with the exception of Nova Scotia joined the
program.
The money has been flowing from the provinces that have disaster
programs of their own. Money has been flowing to the farmers and
provinces that did not have a provincial disaster program in
place. Money will be starting to flow—it has been
accelerated—this Friday, which is four to six weeks earlier than
predicted by everyone involved in the process.
The federal government has responded by setting aside $900
million. In the last budget it was accelerated to $600 million
this year, in response to the needs of the farming community in
the country.
An hon. member: Are you going to spend it?
Mr. Joe McGuire: We certainly intend to spend it. If
there is a disaster on any farm in Canada, through the triggers
that have been negotiated people will get disaster funding.
By this Friday every province will be in receipt of some money.
The money will begin to flow from the federal and provincial
organizations in response to the serious situations on many of
our farms across the country, especially in the province where
the hon. member is from.
The government does not just wait for problems to arise. It
will assist Canada's farmers. We are continually working in
partnership with the provinces and industry to help producers
prepare to meet the challenges of the future.
The classic example of this is whole farm safety nets. The
federal government has signed agreements with all the provinces.
We have a set of safety nets in place that are fully equitable,
will minimize trade and economic distortions, and take provincial
and regional interests into consideration.
The cornerstone of the safety net system is NISA, the net income
stabilization account. This is a volunteer program that provides
a source of money for farmers when their income declines for
whatever reason.
NISA is a well regarded program but the government is also
committed to improving on the system currently in place. The
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, along with the provincial
ministers, are reviewing the current system and considering
carefully how we will deal over the longer term with situations
where exceptional circumstances seriously affect the incomes of
farmers. He has said that he wants to give farmers a whole farm
safety net system that provides security but does not mask the
natural signals of the marketplace.
There are a number of complex issues the ministers are trying to
address, including whether the funding allocated is the right one
and whether the mix of programs meets the intended objectives.
Ministers will continue working on the issues when they meet in
Prince Albert this July.
I also add that the Government of Canada is well aware of the
need to meet our international trading commitments. Our farmer
assisted programs are designed and implemented with these
commitments in mind. We are committed to providing support and
management tools to assist our farmers within the rules of the
WTO, just as we ask other nations to do.
As a medium size trading nation we are committed to a rules
based trading system. Canada is also going to the upcoming WTO
negotiations intending to reduce trade distorting support and
protection measures around the world so that our producers can
compete on a fair and level playing field.
1125
We have been doing everything we can to make sure we hear from
all parts of the agrifood industry about their interests going
into negotiations before we announce an initial negotiation
position for Canada this summer.
Over the past two years there have been regional meetings,
hearings by the House of Commons standing committee and the
Senate agriculture committee, and both the Minister of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food have held extensive meetings with key industry
groups.
Just this past week there was a major conference attended by
some 600 representatives of the agriculture and agrifood sectors
and the provincial and federal governments to pave the way toward
a strong initial WTO position. We are now well on the way to
developing a negotiating position that the provinces and all
sectors of the industry can support. Our aim is to ensure Canada
continues to have economically viable agriculture and food
sectors.
The co-operative approach to farmer safety nets and
international trade that we have been pursuing since the
government took office has proven to be highly successful in the
past and will stand us in good stead for the future.
Bill C-387 would not improve our ability to plan for the future,
either in the development of farmer support programs or in
dealing with the requirements of the WTO. For these reasons, and
those outlined by my hon. colleagues, the government does not
support the passage of this bill.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk to
Bill C-387.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris has a lot of good points in
the bill, but many of these issues have already been addressed.
There is legislation in place to enforce some of these issues but
governments in the past have failed to listen.
The safety net review committee and advisory committee are there
to suggest to governments what should be happening as far as the
three lines of defence are concerned.
The first line of defence is the crop insurance program, of
which every farmer is aware and is making use. The second line
of defence is the NISA program, which is very valuable to older
farmers especially who are in a profit position. NISA does not
help address the issue of young farmers who have just started out
and whose revenue has not been such that they could make use of
NISA.
The Liberals claim that in record time they set up the third
line of defence. The AIDA program is probably a joke, as far as
I am concerned. I was in my constituency for the last couple of
weeks during the Easter break and did not find one farmer who
would qualify for any aid from this program at all.
When I talked to farmers, they asked me whether I could at least
tell the banker that something is coming. This is not bankable.
The Liberal government promised before Christmas that the AIDA
program would be bankable. No banks will look at it today.
Everyone with whom I talked in my riding had looked into the
AIDA program, had gone to accountants who did a summary. They
are wasting their money. It will cost from $500 to $1,000 to
fill out the forms for this AIDA package. After that they
probably will not recoup the costs of the accountants doing the
job. People are not even filing them because they are so
ridiculous.
The AIDA program has been designed for a few corporate hog
farmers. If the Liberal government does not realize that, it
better go to western Canada and find out. It has been invited a
number of times by Saskatchewan farmers to come clean and come to
talk to them about the AIDA program. Nothing has happened. Not
even the parliamentary secretary has agreed to come to talk to
them.
If the AIDA program is the third line of defence, God help those
farmers. They will die before they ever get a dollar out of the
AIDA program.
The government has been warned about this for the last five
years by Reform. We told the government in 1993 that all the
subsidies on the rail transportation system when done away with
should go into some kind of trade distortion program with which
farmers could fight the huge subsidies thrown at them by the
Americans and the Europeans. This program will do absolutely
nothing to resolve that problem.
We need a long term fix for farmers in which they can
participate. We must design it so it is useful to them, so that
in good years they can build up an account on which they can draw
in later years when there are poor crops or when prices drop to
the point where it is not profitable to farm.
1130
I will touch a bit on the Canadian Wheat Board. For the past
four or five years I have tried to bring in a private member's
bill to have the auditor general audit the Canadian Wheat Board
and to make sure farmers get a proper price for their grain. I
must thank and congratulate the auditor general. A week ago
Saturday the wheat board announced that the auditor general would
have a look at the books, that he would do a value-added audit,
more or less, to see whether farmers are getting a fair price.
The auditor general has finally heard the cries of western
farmers that we need something done with the auditing of the
board so that we can respect the board and have confidence in it.
About 100 farmers are willing to go to jail and this government
is prosecuting them and putting them in jail because they have
sold a few bushels of their own wheat, in some cases as little as
five bags. And the government is talking about providing a
safety net program? Maybe being behind bars is a better
livelihood than being on the farm today. At least there they get
food and clothing.
I do not know what the government is trying to do by prosecuting
these farmers for selling their own product while we have sex
offenders and robbers running loose on the streets. Are these
farmers violent criminals because they have taken four or five
bags of grain across the border to demonstrate that they want
some accountability in the wheat board? Is that such a criminal
act? If that is a criminal act, we should probably all be behind
bars. I am sure that every member of this House has objected to
some type of mechanism that is set out and that we have to abide
by. Income tax is one of them. When I hear of the amount of
income tax that is funnelled out through loopholes in the tax
system, maybe every government and opposition member should be
behind bars because they are objecting to overtaxation in the
country.
I do not know what is going to be accomplished by Bill C-387.
The idea is good. I can support it and I know this type of idea
has been floating in the agriculture community for the past 10
years. I have talked to people who sat on the advisory board who
were designing the third line of defence. The AIDA program does
not have the character which people want in a third line of
defence. They want a line of defence in which they can be
participants in terms of designing it and establishing a fund.
The AIDA program is really doing nothing. I have held nine town
hall meetings in my constituency. People have been phoning me,
telling me that they do not qualify. What kind of line of
defence is it if they cannot qualify when grain prices have gone
from $5 a bushel to barely $3 a bushel? That is almost half the
price, while input costs are still rising. Every year there are
input costs for fertilizer and machinery. We hear again that
there has been an increase of three to four cents a litre in fuel
prices.
How are farmers supposed to continue when they have no marketing
power? They cannot add one single cent of their costs to their
product. They have to accept what the market will offer them.
This is very discouraging for farmers. I see more young farmers
having auction sales this spring than I have ever seen before. It
is not the older farmers who are debt free and who can work on
their savings for another year or two; it is the young farmers
who over the past four or five years have risked everything and
who are now at the point where they cannot dig themselves out,
even if they have three or four good crops and good prices. They
are disillusioned with the whole agriculture sector and with the
income their families receive, so they are throwing in the towel.
The government better realize that.
If we lose this generation of young farmers there is going to be
a real problem in the country. It will not only affect the
farming industry, it will affect any one of the agri-processors
or agri-businesses: machine dealers, fuel dealers, pasta plants,
millers, whatever.
1135
When $1 is taken out of a farmer's pocket the community loses at
least $5 or $6 of economic value. That is why the farming
industry in western Canada has shrunk. We have about half the
farmers now that we had two decades ago. If we want to continue
this, let us simply follow the former Conservative and Liberal
governments with their safety nets and we will have the situation
very quickly where there will be no farmers.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today on Bill C-387, at the request of my
colleague for Louis-Hébert.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a national committee
to administer government programs relating to disasters, or in
other words any agricultural losses created by weather or pests.
The intention of my colleague for Brandon—Souris is praiseworthy
and understandable, since it reflects the experiences of the
farmers of his province as a result of natural catastrophes.
As well, the Canadian west has suffered greatly from application
of the agricultural income disaster assistance program, commonly
called AIDA, which was recently introduced to compensate farmers
who experienced drastic drops in income in 1998.
It is therefore obvious that our colleague's bill is a cry of
alarm triggered by the government's inefficiency. For a number
of farmers, it is a real tragedy to see a new growing season
approaching when they are already deep in debt and now have to
lay out sizeable amounts for fertilizers and seed.
No one in this House with any familiarity with agriculture is
insensitive to the crises experienced by farmers who have
unfortunately not yet received any compensation. The complexity
of the AIDA program, based in part on the farmers' income tax
returns, ends up doing more harm than good, in the short term.
Will the Bloc Quebecois be moved by this sad state of affairs to
support the bill introduced by the member for Brandon—Souris?
No, because we do not think that the solutions put forward in
this bill will help Quebec farmers, and our reasons are twofold.
First, there is the income security aspect. Quebec has its own
program, which differs from that of Canada's other provinces,
and it is not about to switch, because it wants to hang on to
its autonomy in this area.
We have worked to improve our income security system. We are
continuing to do so in accordance with our own needs and model.
During our farm crisis, we did not wait for the federal
government to take action, particularly when hog farmers were
having trouble last fall.
We were proactive and advanced the funds required to save
Quebec's hog industry.
For us, the AIDA program ended up being an account to account
reimbursement between the federal and provincial governments.
Rather than introducing another bill, a look should perhaps be
taken at what Quebec has done and its lead followed.
1140
We have some experience of the disaster program. The flooding
in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and the ice storm are still
very unpleasant memories, and compensation is still not
complete. The bill introduced by the member for Brandon—Souris
offers no tangible solution to the problems people are
experiencing.
One of the major problems is that the bill does not make it
sufficiently clear who qualifies for compensation, and who is a
full time and who a part time farmer. Through experience,
Quebec has acquired expertise in acting quickly and effectively
in disasters and does not want a slow acting federal committee
to slow down its response time.
It must remain a prerogative of the provincial government,
within the framework of a partnership.
Quebec has no interest in supporting this bill, because it does
not see the relevance of a committee comprised, unfortunately,
primarily of the representatives of industry. It would mean
that Quebec would be a minority member of the committee, whereas
now it is totally autonomous.
We might ask ourselves why a national committee would come to
the aid of farmers in the event of a catastrophe in addition to
managing income security programs. Finally, the committee
members would be appointed by the agriculture minister—another
danger—directly or indirectly on the basis of choices made by
the representative bodies. We oppose this sort of practice.
My eminent colleague from Brandon—Souris mentions in his
statement, and I quote “In providing aid to victims, the accent
must be on consistency. A lack of consistency in assistance
programs for farmers can only create division among the farmers
of this great country”.
Here again, we do not share his opinion. There must be clear
and uniform rules in the application of legislation on
catastrophes, and fairness. There is no consistency in
agriculture. The value of land varies as does the value of the
different crops. However, that the rules of the game must be
the same for all, I agree with the member, who is skeptical of
the scope of the publicity that often follows natural
catastrophes.
In conclusion, we realize farm producers face problems, which
must be resolved. And in this regard, the member for
Brandon—Souris has shown his sensitivity towards farmers.
It is also true that, as pointed out by the president of the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Bob Friesen, “the farming
community no longer has confidence in federal-provincial
negotiations. To restore its confidence in the debate on the
protection of farm income, there must be more honest and open
relations between the industry and the government”.
For the Bloc Quebecois, the solutions proposed in Bill C-387 are
not the most appropriate ones, since they would result in
Quebec, and its farm producers, losing ground on the long road
to autonomy and income security.
This reminds me of the scholarships that allow our students to
pursue a post-secondary and university education. Quebec
developed a system that is the envy of the other Canadian
provinces.
The federal government has found a way, in the context of the
new millennium, to try to torpedo a program that works very well
in Quebec.
1145
When it comes to income security, three provinces have well
defined rules in the event of a major disaster: Alberta, Ontario
and Quebec. Quebec is ahead of the other provinces regarding
this issue, because the Quebec government believes in income
security for its farmers.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris might consider putting
pressure in that regard on the Government of Manitoba.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to take part in this debate today on Bill C-387. I
congratulate the shy, quiet and soft-spoken member for
Brandon—Souris for his initiative. I only wish as well that
this were a votable motion.
This is a very good initiative. It calls for the co-ordination
and delivery of programs by governments in the case of
agricultural losses or disasters created by weather or pests, the
co-ordination of the delivery of information, assistance, relief
and compensation and to study the compliance of such programs
with the World Trade Organization.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture president has stated in
response to this that it supports the initiative on Bill C-387.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture feels that the farm
community has lost confidence in the safety nets debate both now
and in the future and it requires a more honest and open
relationship between industry and government.
I am sure part of the initiative for this bill comes out of the
meeting 26 in Regina that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
had back on February 26. It talked about the need to identify
principles that are essential to initiate discussion for
federal-provincial agreement on safety nets. This document is
not a policy study but it suggests fair and transparent
guidelines which are essential to establish a long term and
predictable safety nets package.
I listened very carefully to the member for Brandon—Souris. It
would not be my intention to be as hard on the minister of
agriculture as the member was. I note last fall when we were
discussing this program the minister of agriculture said a number
of things publicly and privately. He said that it had to be a
bankable program. He said it had to be a whole farm program. He
said it had to be a long term program and that the application
forms had to be easy to fill out.
By my calculations we have come out of this with one out of four
of those. We have a whole farm program. But as my colleague from
Manitoba has said, it is not a bankable program. The credit
union manager in Dodsland is on the record as having said that.
This is certainly not a long term program. It is a two year
program which certainly is no one's definition of long term.
Despite the minister standing in this place last week and saying
that only six forms have to be filled out, people that are in the
accounting business for a livelihood say it is not just farmers
who are dazed and confused by the rules governing the
federal-provincial farm aid program. Professional accountants
are saying that it is extremely complicated. It is so
complicated a lot of producers may decide it is not worth the
trouble and expense of applying for assistance under AIDA. One
accountant also said that he hoped not but he thought it was
probably going to happen.
I do not blame particularly the minister of agriculture for what
has happened. I think that after December 10 the minister of
agriculture was snookered by other members around the cabinet
table, probably by the Minister of Finance. They wiggled and
squirmed and dealt so that NISA was included and negative margins
were excluded.
1150
I remind the parliamentary secretary, who I am pleased to see
here today, of the meeting we had at the Agricore Founding
Convention in Calgary last year. He along with the mover of this
bill, the member for Brandon—Souris, were present. The Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food predicted that the Government of
Canada would be “very generous” when it came time to revealing
the AIDA package. There are no farmers whom I have spoken with
in the constituency of Palliser or in Saskatchewan who think this
program is generous in any way shape of form.
As an aside, I met with the organizers of the rally in Bengough,
the same group that organized the rally in Regina, on March 6.
They were in my office on Friday. According to one of the
organizers, he had found one individual who qualifies for some
assistance. The amount is less than $500, or less than the bill
that he will receive from his accountant for this work.
That is why the Canadian Federation of Agriculture came out on
December 10 or 11 and said that it was very pleased with this
program. This was before it realized that the devil was very
much in the details. On April 6 it went on to say:
The AIDA program...is a labyrinth so complex that very few
farmers will be able to reach the financial assistance at its
centre. CFA continues to find new twists in how eligibility for
coverage is calculated that only serve to exclude an increasing
number of farmers and reduce the 70 per cent of support promised.
After the math is done, the effective support may be as low as 40
per cent for some farmers.
The former president, Mr. Wilkinson, has said that it is not the
third line of defence that they requested. The current
president, Mr. Friesen, said that this program is more about
saving money than saving farmers. It is not what they wanted and
not how they wanted to work with the federal government.
The farm stress line in Saskatchewan is overwhelmed with the
number of calls that are coming in from farmers. I want to read
into the record a couple of extracts from the farm stress line as
of February 4. There is an update that I will get to in a
moment. It says:
We have noted an increase in the number of calls beginning in the
fall of 1998. The Farm Stress Line has received 1,581 (calls) in
1998, representing the second highest number of calls in a year
since the Line began in Feb. of 1992. Thirty percent of the
calls received in 1998 related to farm financial issues. These
calls may be considered as indicators of the crisis, but should
not be considered as reliable statistical data.
Callers are bringing forward a wide variety of problems and
issues, but it is apparent that financial issues dominate.
Callers speak of cash flow problems, operating loans being at
maximum with no ability to pay them down, and not being able to
make land and equipment payments. Others speak of an inability
to pay their utility bills, and worry about services being cut
off. They also worry about how they will put in crop this
spring. We receive calls from families who are being pressed by
collection agents, and others have noted little tolerance or
leniency from lenders. Many of our callers feel that they have no
control of their situation, whether it is commodity prices or
input costs. This situation makes it very difficult for people
to be proactive and to find solutions.
There was an update on April 5. It said that the farm stress
line received 430 calls from January 1 to March 31. Of those
calls, 37%, almost 160, were on farm finance issues. Callers
spoke again of no money to put in the crop, inability to gain
operating money or refusal of a loan.
Earlier in the year some callers made inquiries on the soon to
be announced support payments. In February and early March as
people became aware of AIDA they inquired about how the
application form might be accessed. In March some called to
express their anger at the complexity of the form and the need to
spend $300 or more to have an accountant determine if they
qualified for AIDA.
In the majority of financial and/or insolvency calls, many said
that they did not see a future in agriculture and were searching
for other options. Options discussed have been either off farm
income to support the farm operation or exiting farming all
together. Some callers expressed the view that their employment
options were limited and they required retraining, and it goes on
from there.
1155
These hit home. These are the very real issues that are of
concern.
Just let me conclude by saying that we note the difference
between what has happened south of the border and what has
happened here in Canada. I want to read into the record the
statement that the secretary of agriculture, Dan Glickman, made
last fall, November 16 to be precise:
Factors beyond farmers' control, record worldwide production,
weak Asian markets and merciless treatment from Mother Nature
combined to depress prices and threaten the livelihoods of the
very people we count on—
That is why this administration was resolute in its
determination to get immediate emergency assistance to America's
farm families.
We are asking where is that immediate emergency assistance for
Canadian farm families?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
Will I get an opportunity to rebut and have a bit of time at the
end?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes, you will have
your five minutes reply at one minute to 12.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this time to talk about Bill
C-387 and how our government is already working to help our
farmers who face difficulties.
It is rather interesting to notice the member for
Brandon—Souris who, in his rather expansive way that seems to
match his ample girth, will say if only the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food of Canada would listen to the people.
Let me tell the entire House of Commons that the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food visited my riding, the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke last Thursday evening and spoke to
the Lions Club. It was farmers night for Renfrew county. During
that time he listened to each and every concern that the farmers
in Renfrew county had. He listened to them. They got their
point of view across. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
spoke rather eloquently and most passionately about farmers and
the farming situation for over 25 minutes. After that 25 minutes
when he opened it up for Q and A, there were no questions because
he had answered each and every one of their questions.
The Government of Canada and all provinces have co-ordinated
systems in place which are designed to help farmers—
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I am absolutely dumbfounded,
speechless.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: I might add that we should on
occasion try to help the opposition too. Perhaps we should muzzle
them on occasion.
The systems are designed to deal with weather related
disasters—I might say that the hon. member from the fifth party
on occasion can be an unmitigated disaster; that is why he is
sitting in the fifth party—and financial setbacks that are
beyond their control. It is not their fault that they are in the
position they are. In recent years the effectiveness of those
systems has been amply demonstrated on several occasions.
For example, working in close partnership with the provinces,
the Government of Canada gave badly needed assistance to farmers
who were affected by the flooding in the Saguenay area of Quebec
and in Manitoba's Red River Valley, as well as those who suffered
losses due to the ice storm here in central Canada. We have also
lent extensive expertise to farmers through Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada and organizations like the Prairie Farm
Rehabilitation Administration.
Personally I do not believe that Bill C-387 would add anything
to the government's ability to respond to the needs of Canadian
producers.
We have a colleague in the House, the member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, who is our residential chicken
expert. I notice the member for Brandon—Souris was talking
about laying plans. The member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey would know only too well that
the member for Brandon—Souris is laying one big egg when he
makes these nonsensical remarks about Bill C-387. He is just a
big yokel on occasion.
We will continue to look after one of the most cherished
segments of our society, our farmers.
We know what farmers mean to this country. The Liberal Party
will continue to do everything it possibly can to ameliorate the
situation for farmers and will not indulge in scurrilous rhetoric
in which the member for Brandon—Souris indulges.
1200
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank members who spoke to this proposed
legislation, with one exception. Everyone spoke in a very
professional manner and certainly understood the issues, with
perhaps the exception of the last speaker. The diminutive member
obviously does not have a real handle on what is going on in
agriculture today in Canada.
The parliamentary secretary spoke about short memories. Perhaps
we could refresh his memory just a little, as the member for
Palliser just did. The program that was originally proposed and
supported by a number of people on the national safety net
advisory committee suggested that there should have been negative
margins brought into the equation. There should have been an
opportunity not to have to take the NISA.
Maybe short memory is something the Liberal government
recognizes. Its members have short memories as well. The
parliamentary secretary stands to take credit for the NISA
program, which he said was a great program. However, the hon.
member does not recognize that the NISA program was brought in by
another government and certainly not his party.
The hon. member has a short memory with respect to the GRIP
program, which was a good revenue program. Unfortunately the
government decided in its infinite wisdom to take some short term
gain for some long term pain and it got rid of the GRIP program.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Palliser, once again,
for putting forward what I thought was a very interesting twist
on this issue. He understands the issues very well, certainly
more so than the government. We know that the current program
will not affect any more than probably 5% or 7% of producers. It
is not working. The whole gist of the bill that I put forward
concerns the fact that it is not working.
We need an organization, a safety net committee, that has the
ability to bring all levels together so that we can look at the
issues before us in a logical manner. That is not happening.
Unfortunately, behind closed doors the programs are being
developed. They are very shortsighted programs. They do not
resolve the issues. There is no equity and consistency in these
programs.
Why is the government so insistent on continuing in this foolish
direction? Why would it not want to have some input from other
people? Why would it not want to sit down to co-operatively
develop a program and a philosophy for agriculture? I do not
know why it will not do so. Perhaps it does not know how to work
with other people and other parties. Perhaps it does not know
how to work with other organizations. Perhaps it is the
autocratic way in which the Liberals have formed this government.
This bill will come back and eventually perhaps even the
department itself will have the ability to bring forward
legislation to deal with this and make sure that we have some
logical, well thought out policies.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
BILL C-78—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public
Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service
Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence
Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and
to make a consequential amendment to another act, not more than
one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of
the second reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes
before the expiry of the time provided for government business on
the day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage
of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in
turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of
the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment.
1205
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1250
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wilfert
| Wood – 119
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gauthier
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Guimond
| Harris
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 60
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Asselin
| Beaumier
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Carroll
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
| Folco
|
Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
|
Iftody
| Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Leung
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Murray
|
Normand
| Perron
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Whelan
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
SECOND READING
The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension
Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act,
the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension
Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension
Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a
consequential amendment to another act be read the second time
and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, you
caught me a bit off guard. I felt that this was a debate of
interest to a great many people in this parliament, especially
since Bill C-78 is an important bill.
This is definitely a highly technical bill. It addresses the
various pension plans administered by the federal government, as
well as creating some institutions of future importance. It is
a bill on which, as we have just seen, the government is very
anxious to pass a gag order, or in other words to take away the
right of the members of this House to speak, because it has seen
how things are heating up.
It seemed just now that we were dealing with what, in criminal
circles, would be called a return to the scene of the crime.
When a criminal is interrupted while committing a theft, he
takes off, but he always returns. And that is what this
government is doing.
This bill has major consequences for the future of relations
between the federal government and the employee contributors to
the various pension funds.
Bill C-78 creates the public sector pension investment board.
The mandate of this board will be to do exactly what we have
been doing for more than 30 years in Quebec with the Caisse de
dépôt et placement, which is to say managing various pension
funds.
There are three major funds, including the one for government
employees.
1255
The bill amends the Public Service Superannuation Act, the
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
The board will manage the billions of dollars in these funds
annually. As I mentioned, the board's mandate resembles that of
the Caisse de dépôt et de placement. Over 30 years ago we had
the bright idea to set up this caisse, which now manages several
tens of billions of dollars of Quebeckers' retirement savings.
On the strength of its more than 30-year track record, I can say
that we did well to introduce this caisse, just as the
government is doing well to establish a public sector pension
investment board.
Where it falls apart and where we disagree violently with the
government has to do with the fact that there is a danger that
the main players will not be represented on the board's board of
directors.
Right now, these various funds have 275,000 members. A total of
160,000 retirees and 52,000 survivors receive payments from one
of the three plans.
None of these will, if we look at the probabilities, be
represented on the board of directors of the Public Sector
Pension Investment Board.
It involves the management of the contributions they made as
employees and making the most prudent decisions possible so
these funds will grow, remain viable and provide a good pension
income on their retirement. However, employees contributing
currently will not be represented on the board of the pension
investment board.
Neither will those who are retired, who contributed in the past.
Some decisions, including those involving unforeseen surpluses
generated by the various pension funds, require those who have
previously contributed and who are now receiving their pension
to have a say and be involved in decisions. But no, the 160,000
retired individuals who have paid in and who are responsible for
past surpluses have no right in this regard. They will not be
represented on the board of the pension board.
Why, we ask, will they not be represented? For the following
reason. The members of the board of the Public Sector Pension
Investment Board will be appointed under the following process.
The President of the Treasury Board, in his usual dictatorial
wisdom, establishes an advisory committee of eight persons under
Bill C-78.
It is him who appoints the eight members of the nominating
committee. These eight people will submit to the President of
the Treasury Board a list of potential candidates for
appointment as directors of the pension investment board.
This nominating committee will ultimately, with the approval of
the President of the Treasury Board and the governor in council,
determine who will sit on the board of directors and decide how
the pension plans that I mentioned earlier will be managed.
The President of the Treasury Board will appoint the chair of
the nominating committee. He is the only one making that
appointment. He will also directly appoint two members to
represent him on the nominating committee, one of whom must be a
public service employee.
1300
He will appoint a member among people who are in receipt of a
pension. He will also appoint two members after consulting with
the Minister of National Defence, and two members after
consulting with the Solicitor General of Canada.
These are the eight people who will make up the nominating
committee. Only two of them will represent pensioners and
employees making contributions.
When you are making a 50% contribution to a pension plan and the
government—your employer—is contributing the other 50%, you expect
equal representation from the beginning of the process.
So, two out of the eight members of the nominating committee
will provide the President of Treasury Board with a list of
candidates for seats on the board of a body which will
administer billions of dollars of present and future employer
and employee contributions.
Are we to believe that the majority of those suggested will be
representatives of pensioners and workers? Logically, using
simple mathematics, if these members are two out of the eight
contributing to a discussion within the advisory board on a list
of candidates to be submitted for positions on the Public Sector
Pension Investment Board as directors, then their propositions
will be in a minority from the start.
Then, once the list has been determined by the nominating
committee, it is submitted to the President of Treasury Board,
who will have every prerogative.
He is the one who will determine which people on the nominating
committee list will be submitted to the governor in council, or
in other words the Cabinet, to constitute the 12 directors of
the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, who will have a
3-year mandate.
When the President of Treasury Board receives this list from the
nominating committee, if he does not feel like having any
members representing pensioners or workers contributing to the
plans, he will just do what is commonly called “cherry-picking”.
He will just choose from the list the people whom he wants to
submit to the Cabinet for approval.
The chances of any worker or pensioner representatives being on
the executive of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board are
about as unlikely as the chances of skating safely on the Rideau
Canal this time of year.
There is no logic in this, particularly since the committee
struck by the President of Treasury Board a year or two ago,
which tabled its report in December 1996, proposed, based on how
things are done elsewhere, that there be equal representation of
workers and pensioners and of government on the executive of the
Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
When the committee made this recommendation on representation,
the government seemed fairly open to it, but last December its
attitude changed and it decided this was no longer the way
things would be.
It decided to do as it does in its day-to-day management, which is
to make quasi unilateral decisions, fill in the gap with unions
and pensioners, act as it has usually done in its relations with
unionized employees, and that is to proceed with special
legislation and riot sticks. When it is not the riot stick, it
is cayenne pepper. So, that is what it does.
It is a dictatorship. It is an abuse of power and the denial of
the rights of contributors to be part of the decisions that
concern their money.
I would remind members that 50% of the contributions in each of
the three funds come from workers. The other 50% comes from the
government. Could you not, when you have contributed 50% from
your pay cheque, have some say when it comes time to make a
decision? No.
The President of the Treasury Board, on the example of the
Minister of Finance, who dips into the employment insurance fund
surpluses, decided to continue the tradition of this Liberal
government of royally ignoring employees and pensioners and make
unilateral decisions. That is unacceptable.
1305
According to actuarial forecasts, there will be a surplus in the
three main funds that could exceed $30 billion. In Bill C-78,
the government appropriates the right to use what it calls
unforeseen surpluses, including that of $30 billion, as it sees
fit.
No question of discussions with the unions or those who
contribute to the fund, no. Unilaterally, he decided he would
follow the government's practice of taking money from others,
without warning, without speaking to anyone. Bill C-78 enshrines
the practice by providing that the government will use the
actuarial surplus as it sees fit.
For example, the government could use part of that surplus to
reduce contributions or eliminate them temporarily. But on this
side of the House, when we look at what happened to the
employment insurance fund, we are convinced that the government
will use that $30 billion in a manner that totally ignores the
fact that it should benefit public service employees, and
particularly pensioners and surviving spouses.
In his usual wisdom—which is selective when the time comes to
present his case—the President of the Treasury Board says “Yes,
but in the past, when there was a deficit in the various pension
plans, it is the government that put up the money to eliminate
such a deficit”. Indeed.
But let him show the actual figures indicating what amount the
federal government had to provide in recent years to eliminate
such deficits in the pension plans. Is it $4 billion, $5 billion
or $6 billion? Could the President of the Treasury Board commit
to table the figures on the federal government's contribution,
which is estimated to be around $5 billion?
If the federal government did indeed provide $5 billion to
absorb the deficits in the three pension plans, could it be
that, out of the anticipated surplus of $30 billion, there is
$25 billion that do not belong to it, or that only half of that
amount belong to it since the government and the workers both
equally contribute to these plans?
Could it be that the President of the Treasury Board is very
selective in his arguments? He is using closure precisely
because he does not want to hear the whole truth.
We are prepared to consider that if, in recent years, the
federal government contributed $5 billion to absorb any pension
deficits related to an economic downturn, that leaves a surplus
of $25 billion for which we could agree on a management
structure. Decisions should be made in a collegial fashion. But
the government does not know about that concept. There is an
amount of $25 billion that does not belong to the government.
The government may be entitled to half of it, but the other half
belongs to contributors.
The consultation and management process for contributions and
surpluses that is found in the legislation is a breach of
democracy and it goes against what is done elsewhere.
Let us take a look at what is done elsewhere. It is not just
government pensioners, federal public servants contributing to
pension plans who find themselves with greater actuarial
surpluses than anticipated four or five years ago.
This has happened everywhere because of low interest rates,
higher rates of return and, perhaps, managers' talent. The
result is almost generalized surpluses that were not forecast by
actuaries in almost all pension funds throughout the country.
What have others done with the unexpected surpluses? They have
agreed to a collegial system with plan members, pensioners and
managers. The federal government will not consider such an
approach.
I will give the example of the Government of Quebec, with which
I am very familiar. The Government of Quebec has two pension
fund management committees, one representing unionized workers
and one representing managers. There are two pension plans, one
for unionized workers and one for managers. Each of these plans
has a management committee.
The unions and the government are represented on each management
committee in equal numbers. There is real collegiality. It is
a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Last December, the way the President of the Treasury Board was
talking, it sounded as though the government had seen the light,
had remembered what democracy was and how to behave in a
civilized manner, and would introduce a structure in which
contributors and management would have equal representation.
But no.
1310
In Quebec, there is a collegial approach to deciding how
surpluses are handled. Decisions are taken as well. This
committee, composed of equal numbers of unionized workers and
representatives of the Government of Quebec, also decides what
will be done with surpluses and what management directions
should be taken. In co-operation with the Caisse de dépôt et de
placement du Québec, it decides on the best growth vehicles for
contributions and for part of the surplus of workers and
managers.
It would have been so easy to get it right for once. All the
elements were there. But instead this government's cynicism has
prevailed.
This government is thick. I have said so often, but not often
enough, in my opinion. The government is close-minded. We try
to get it to understand some common sense, we try to tell it
that it might be a good idea at some point to look calmly at the
possibility of collaboration with the public servants and public
service pensioners, rather than confrontation. But with the
government, it is always confrontation.
It is trampling on the most fundamental right, a minimal right I
would call it, to have representation. It makes no sense.
Contributors to a fund would like to take part in the decisions
on how that fund is managed, particularly since later on,
depending on what decisions are made, and on whether or not
there is contributor participation, they are the ones who will
benefit, or not benefit, from the administrators' decisions.
Here we are faced with a structure in which contributors are
completely pushed aside.
This is not normal.
As members know, here is how things work
elsewhere when there is a surplus: a joint decision is made on
what to do with the unexpected surplus. Judging by a sampling
of some thirty funds over the past three or four decades, often
it has been agreed to improve the plan and its benefits, and
also to improve survivor's benefits. Often, survivor benefits
are less than the worker's pension was during his or her
lifetime.
The plan has been improved, and now even includes certain
provisions for part time workers, but it has always moved in the
direction of improving people's lot.
This government's only motivation is the general improvement of
the state of the surpluses, with the Minister of Finance
shamelessly dipping into surpluses in the employment insurance
fund.
The President of the Treasury Board has just got into the habit,
unless the two are one and the same, unless the Minister of
Finance is ordering the President of the Treasury Board, as the
future leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, who is preparing
his race for the leadership and who wants an extraordinary
performance to be able to announce this race where he succeeded
while others failed spectacularly. But he is doing this on the
backs of others. Everyone is going to remember that.
[English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.
Is the Quebec government pension plan a shared risk, shared
management plan?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, I do not understand the hon.
member's question. There are two major pension plans in
Quebec's public service, plans that are entirely usual. There
are risks in investing just as there are benefits in it.
What I mean is that it is the contributions of employers and
employees that are paid in part into the Caisse de dépôt et
placement, which manages the surplus on behalf of these two
funds. What the committees keep is what they need to pay the
pensioners' benefits. So the plan is not more risky than any
other. The risk is shared, because the employer's and the
employees' contributions are pooled and managed.
1315
The Caisse de dépôt et placement has the mandate, trough two
management committees, to manage part of those assets, so as to
generate enough money to pay pensioners. There is not much
difference between the three major federal pension plans and the
ones in Quebec. They are essentially similar, except that Quebec
has been doing for about 30 years what the federal government
wants to do with the pension investment board, and we are very
proud of that.
It should be noted that my presentation did not include any
negative comments about the pension investment board. It is a
great idea. What we disagree with is how the funds will be
managed and the inadequate representation. Normally, the main
stakeholders are involved in managing the funds. Our second
point is that the government is once again making off with the
contents of the till, like a thief.
I did not mention any names. I just said that the government was
acting like a thief. This is not unparliamentary. Nothing
prevents me from saying that this government is acting like a
thief when it keeps helping itself to the EI fund, for instance,
and its $25 billion surplus. Very few Canadians and Quebeckers
agree with this approach.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
comment and a question for the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
First, it is terrible that debate is so limited on a bill that
is almost one inch thick. It is a very important bill in our
country, which has a public sector pension plan. The government
wants to help itself to $30 billion of the surpluses and pull
the same stunt it pulled with EI. This year, the surplus in the
EI fund will reach $27 billion.
As I have already said in the House, there are still people in
this country who open their fridge in the morning and find
nothing in it. They have nothing to feed their children before
sending them off the school. Workers have been robbed; there is
no other word for it.
I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me.
Is a precedent not being set with this bill in the House of
Commons? The government is going to help itself to surpluses
without workers' consent. It is opening the door for
corporations, which have long wanted to get their hands on
pension fund surpluses. Workers have always been opposed, as
have governments.
Today, the government is setting a precedent. It will no longer
have any argument against big corporations that want to dip into
their workers' pension funds.
It will no longer have any argument when big corporations tell
it they want access to surpluses in order to invest them
elsewhere. Employees are going to have to pay higher and higher
premiums, because there will not be enough money in these
depleted pension funds, as the corporations will have got their
hands on the money.
This is an unacceptable precedent. The government ought not to
be taking the country in that direction.
I would like to hear the comments of my colleague from
Saint—Hyacinthe—Bagot on how important it is for the government
not to act in this way, and particularly on how little time we
have to debate this bill. We parliamentarians are not even
being given the opportunity to say what we think. We cannot
come to the House to express our opinions, to explain our point
of view on behalf of the Canadians who sent us here.
It makes no difference whether one is on the left or on the
right. We no longer know which way this House is going to go.
Every time the Liberals want to pass a bill, they stop us from
speaking in this House. They take away our rights as
parliamentarians to defend Canadians. This is unacceptable.
I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the two
questions I have asked, because the Liberals are not doing their
job in this country at the present time.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right.
In dealing with a problem, a dispute in a large firm, for
example, because there are surpluses in the workers' pension
fund, we will no longer have any valid arguments. It can no
longer be said that this is not how it works, when the federal
government allows itself under Bill C-78 to do everything it is
not supposed to do, namely go off with the money.
1320
We will no longer have any valid arguments. My colleague is
right on that. I recall a time not so far off when one of
Conrad Black's businesses was at issue, and Conrad Black said
“The surpluses do not belong to the employees anymore, they
belong to me”. How can we argue that he is wrong.
In this case, given that contributions are made by both sides
and the future of the pensions of today's workers is at stake,
how can we say “You should sit down and discuss this”? We have
reached a point where we no longer have any valid arguments.
The other thing I would like to point out, in connection with
what the hon. member mentioned about the employment insurance
fund, is that the government has just legitimized a fraudulent
practice—that of going off with the money.
We recall the Minister of Finance saying last November “I
foresee the possibility of introducing a bill on the management
of the employment insurance fund surplus”. He had a bill like
this one in mind. However, faced with popular opposition—that
of the Bloc Quebecois and the other opposition parties in the
House—he backed away.
However, the Minister of Finance dreamt of having this
legitimacy, since at the moment, it is not yet certain that he
is within the law when he dips into the employment insurance
fund, and there are cases before the courts at the moment.
Among others, the CSN is making representations on this issue,
on the grounds that the finance minister's interpretation of the
Employment Insurance Act is stretching the point somewhat. It
might snap, because the Employment Insurance Act includes pretty
clear provisions on the use of surpluses, and reducing the
deficit and paying off the debt are not options. The EI
surpluses must not be used for such purposes.
The Minister of Finance dreamed about tabling a bill like that,
but he does not have the same agenda as his colleague, the
President of the Treasury Board. He has a different and more
secret agenda, but everyone knows about it. I am referring to
the leadership race. It would have been terrible for a
politician to table a bill legitimizing the use of funds that do
not belong to the government.
[English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is nice to see the amalgamation and
the marriage of the united left. The Bloc and the NDP have sort
of the same mindset.
I have a question for the hon. member. He did not understand
the difference between shared risk and shared management. Taking
into account the $30 billion surplus, the government is
responsible for the deficit or the surplus. It is unfortunate
that in his whole presentation we were not able to understand the
premise of his argument.
Would he like to try to explain to the House what he meant,
taking into account he was not aware of the shared risk
management concept?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is
suggesting that I do not grasp the concept of risk, he is badly
mistaken. In fact, one of my main arguments is that, if he
claims that past pension deficits were absorbed by the federal
government, then the President of the Treasury Board should
table the figures. According to our calculations, the federal
government's contribution in that respect is around $5 billion.
So, given a contribution of $5 billion and an anticipated
actuarial surplus of $30 billion, this leaves some $25 billion
that does not fully belong to the government; this amount
belongs equally to taxpayers and the government.
This is why we are advocating a collegial approach to managing
the funds and related risk, instead of the dictatorial approach
proposed by the President of the Treasury Board through Bill
C-78.
I clearly understand the concept of sharing risk. In fact, when
I did my masters in university, part of my thesis dealt with
that issue.
[English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, last week the government tabled
legislation that set out the first major improvements to the
public service pension plans in more than 30 years. The
legislation aims to ensure the long term sustainability of
Canadian public service pension plans, improve the financial
management of the pension funds, and upgrade the benefits
currently offered to government employees.
I rise today to express my support for Bill C-78 and to
underline more particularly its beneficial provisions on the
management of public pension plan surpluses and deficits.
Under existing legislation the government assumes responsibility
for deficits in the pension accounts but is not entitled to
manage existing surpluses. Obviously this is an anomaly that
must be corrected.
1325
Also under the present system when projections show an account
to be holding more than necessary to meet the future obligations,
both the employer and the employees must nevertheless continue to
contribute to the accounts as legislated. This provision means
that surpluses can thus continue to exist and even grow
indefinitely.
For private pension plans, however, the Income Tax Act sets a
limit at which a growing surplus must be managed according to
specified terms; but this is not the case for public service
pension plans. This has become an issue of very real importance
since 1991. In 1991 surpluses started to accumulate in the three
federal government superannuation plans. They now total some $30
billion.
These surpluses show the difference between the balances of the
accounts and the amounts estimated by the actuaries needed to
actually pay for all future benefits earned to date by plan
members. It makes no sense to keep forcing the Canadian taxpayer
to credit ever growing employer contributions to pension plans
that continue to generate a surplus far in excess of the needs of
plan members and what the Income Tax Act allows for other plans.
As the President of the Treasury Board said earlier the
government wants to be fair to government employees, but we would
not be acting fairly toward other Canadians if we were to give
federal public servants financial advantages that were not
available to all. Bill C-78 will provide the government with the
authority and mechanism for managing pension surpluses in a
manner consistent with the rules for registered pension plans as
set out by the Income Tax Act.
The management of the surpluses raises another issue. Who has
the ownership of the $30 billion surplus? Canadian taxpayers
have always assumed the risk of the public service pension plans
since their creation in 1964, and these are not empty words.
Since 1964 Canadian taxpayers have poured into the government
employee pension plans $13 billion to cover for deficits. Since
the government has carried the full load of the risks in all
those years, it is only fair that we would also be responsible
for any surplus.
The present surpluses would gradually be reduced to the
allowable level over a period of up to 15 years. The amounts
will be debited over the chosen period so that at the end of the
period the remaining surplus or excesses is at most no greater
than 10% of the estimated liabilities. This 10% cushion is in
line with Income Tax Act maximums that apply to all pension plans
in Canada.
Bill C-78 will also permit Treasury Board ministers to determine
the use of any future surpluses. They could decide to institute
a contribution holiday for plan members, the employer or both, or
to withdraw all or part of the surplus. Surpluses could also be
used to improve benefits though this would require special
legislation.
It should be noted that the government would continue to assume
all financial risks for the public service pension plans and to
be solely responsible for making extra contributions to cover any
future account deficit. This is a further argument in favour of
giving the government responsibility for managing an eventual
surplus.
Under the legislation now before us, before deciding what to do
with an eventual surplus the Treasury Board would consult with
the ministers responsible for the three pension plans and with
those responsible for the financial management of the plans. As
the President of the Treasury Board noted, the same principle
will be applied in the case of the new Canada Post pension plan
structure which will also take effect on October 1, 2000.
Any future surplus in the CPC pension plan will be managed by
Canada Post which has responsibility for all the risks and
management of the fund.
1330
This surplus could be used to reduce contributions or to further
enhance benefits, or a combination of the two. As previously
announced, Canada Post will be meeting and discussing the pension
plan with all bargaining agents over the coming weeks and months.
Since the government first announced its intention to take
responsibility for future pension plan surpluses it has been
accused in some quarters of acting unilaterally without due
regard for the opinion and interests of pension plan holders. In
fact the government did not move earlier on this issue precisely
because it was hoping to reach agreement with plan members on a
new joint management framework for the future of pensions.
Thorough consultations have been held in the seven years since
1992 on this subject between the Treasury Board and employee
representatives.
In November 1992 the President of the Treasury Board asked his
advisory committee for the public service pension plan to conduct
a review of the fundamental elements of the plan, including its
management and financing. The committee reported to the
president in December 1996.
After studying the report in February 1998, the President of
the Treasury Board announced the start of a consultative process
with employees and pensioners aimed at developing a package to
reform the public service plan. Among other things this
consultative committee was offered to negotiate an agreement on
sharing the risks of the pension plans that would allow our
employees to share surpluses in the future.
The committee met from February to December 1998 and, though
significant progress was made on the issue of future deficit and
surplus sharing, discussions broke down last December. Despite
the fact that employees have not shared the cost of past
deficits, their representatives insisted on receiving a
significant share of the accumulated surplus.
As I explained previously, since the government has carried the
full load of the risks in the past, it is our view that we would
also be responsible for any surplus. Even though the employer
offered joint management and significant improvements to our
employee pension plans, the offer was deemed insufficient by
employee representatives.
Faced with this impasse, after having consulted for several
years with employee and pensioner representatives, the government
decided to move ahead simply because it could not afford to wait
any longer. By delaying indefinitely the necessary changes that
are being proposed today the government would have in fact
created an even more intractable position for all concerned.
I believe it would have also shirked its responsibility to all
Canadian taxpayers if it did not act to put public service
pension plans on a better financial footing, as well as
modernizing and improving their administration.
Hon. members should recall, however, that the President of the
Treasury Board, on behalf of the government, stated on more than
one occasion that the door remained open for future negotiations
on the management of pension plan deficits and surpluses. So
far, far from being insensitive to the preoccupation of public
service pension holders, I think the minister has shown himself
to be very open-minded in his approach to this question. We
should applaud his willingness to reopen discussions at the
opportune time in the best interests of all parties.
I too hope very much that employee representatives will soon
resume discussions on a joint management plan for our public
pension plans.
I urge all hon. members of the House to support the proposed
amendments to the public service superannuation acts. I believe
they are fair to our employees and fair to the Canadian taxpayer
and that they will bring about much needed and overdue changes to
government pension plans.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary.
First we have to acknowledge that the government is no longer
paying interest on the surplus, saving about $2.5 billion a year.
Now it wants to take this surplus and bring it into its income.
1335
What benefit will this give to the pensioners and to the
employees, if any? I cannot see any. Apart from the Minister of
Finance being able to brag about finding extra revenue, what
benefit will this be to the taxpayers of Canada? Canadian
taxpayers are not going to see the cash. Presumably the money is
going to end up reducing the government's debt, which has been
run up over the last 30 years. That is downright criminal, but
nonetheless it is there. What is the benefit for the taxpayers
of Canada? What is the benefit for the employees? Is the
benefit to make the Liberal government look good?
Mr. Tony Ianno: Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the
Reform Party complaining about a debt or a deficit going down.
It is an interesting reversal.
As we have stated many times, and I know the hon. member agrees,
the surplus was created by the government putting into the
legislated plan the amount of money which an actuarial evaluator
determined was required each year to ensure that enough money was
available to pay for the service. Unfortunately, because of the
way the legislation was written, we cannot take the whole plan
into account even when there is a surplus and determine that the
government put in less money.
Also, taking into account that CPP premiums have been going up
and the percentage of employee contributions was maximized at
7.5%, which became less of a percentage overall, that meant that
the government had to continue putting more money in to satisfy
the needs of the pension plan on a current year basis.
It is important that the government correct this difference so
that all Canadians are treated fairly. I know that the hon.
member would want that. Taking into account what this would do
for Canadians at large is an important step. We take into
account the added moneys the government put into the plan to
ensure that the actuarial evaluator was satisfied. Even though
it was more than the government needed to put in, it will allow
the government to deal with its finances and to ensure that the
needs of Canadians with respect to health care and all other
needs are met. We have to ensure that we are not paying the $42
billion interest payments per year solely for that, which I know
my hon. colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc are concerned about.
The hon. member is correct in stating that the $2.5 billion will
be a benefit to Canadian taxpayers. That money will be available
to put into the programs that we all care about, such as child
poverty and homelessness. Unfortunately the NDP is making sure
that its union friends are protected in this process. They too
know, as other pension groups know, that this money belongs to
Canadian taxpayers. We on this side of the House want to ensure
that all Canadians benefit from the money that Canadian taxpayers
pay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
astonished at the hon. member's remarks. I wonder whether he is
not in fact trying to mislead the public. I could point out
many things he said that are really very far removed from the
truth, one of them being that the minister sponsoring this bill
is acting with open-mindedness.
There is no open-mindedness when a minister tries to impose the
government's will, as is happening here, without establishing a
committee where pension fund contributors would be represented.
It is more like an abuse of power on the part of the government.
I cannot see any open-mindedness in what the minister is doing.
He is also trying to make people think that the government is
acting in the interests of pensioners and taxpayers. Making
people pay twice, as this bill does, is robbery.
1340
It is as if the people who have contributed to this pension
fund, whose surplus is some $30 billion, were being made to pay
twice, because the government is acting contrary to the
interests of pensioners and the general public by grabbing huge
amounts of money rather then turning them back to the people who
paid into the fund.
This is double taxation. This is a hidden tax. That is the
truth. My colleague was trying to convince people that he is
working in the taxpayers' interests. That is a falsehood. Our
colleague has made a deliberate and intentional error.
Basically, the government's intention is not to act in an
open-minded way.
It has even imposed a gag on debate, scarcely an hour ago,
because it was so anxious to stifle the debate on this
misappropriation of Canadians' pension money.
This is not being open-minded. This is not defending the
interests of pensioners or taxpayers. It is making the
taxpayers pay twice.
I would therefore call on my colleague to comment this. Does he
still maintain that the minister who introduced this bill is
showing open-mindedness, and is making the taxpayers pay twice
for this pension fund really seeking to help them?
[English]
Mr. Tony Ianno: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that
even within the same party the knowledge of this bill is
different from the front to the back.
He stated that somehow employees contributed to the surplus, to
the $30 billion process. They contributed, but the number
nowhere nears the amount the government contributed, taking into
account that the government always had to put in the extra money
which the actuarial evaluator determined and taking into account
that the CPP kept increasing to the point where it was 70% from
the employer and 30% from the employee.
The hon. member indicated that he would have liked another six
months of discussion. That is the reason for time allocation.
Otherwise, if we had the views of the hon. members opposite, the
discussion would have continued for another six months, which
would not have changed the facts that we have before us today.
The President of the Treasury Board has been open minded. That
is important. As we stated, the offer may not be on the table
directly, but the unions can participate in the discussion with
respect to the surplus and the new investment fund that is being
set up by this bill. Unfortunately the unions have balked at
that. They want the surpluses, but they do not necessarily want
to participate in the potential deficits that may exist in the
future. It is one sided.
The hon. member says that the Canadian taxpayer is double taxed.
I think with the track record of the Bloc that is something which
is far-reaching.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have
a very straightforward question. I listened very carefully to
the parliamentary secretary. He said that the federal government
has put $13 billion into the program over the years. If it has
only put in $13 billion, why is it trying to take out $30
billion? Why is it not sharing it with retirees and current
employees?
Mr. Tony Ianno: Madam Speaker, we know the NDP's track
record when it comes to finances. It left a $10 billion deficit
in Ontario and in B.C. with its abysmal record on finances. Once
again its members do not understand the basic elements.
I wonder if the hon. member overheard that somewhere. It is
interesting that when the facts are on the table the member feels
awkward. Only when he hears it from comments will he then
respond appropriately.
The government has paid the surplus. That is why there is a
surplus and that is what we are dealing with.
1345
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, for
a very short period of time, and I emphasize a very short period
of time, we are debating Bill C-78 which was first debated last
Thursday morning. We talked about it for a little while last
Thursday and immediately the government introduced closure saying
that we have talked enough about this on the very first day of
debate. Today is the last day of debate at second reading. As
far as I can tell, it is the government's desire to rush this
thing right through committee, report stage, third reading and
into legislation before the people of Canada and the public
servants can realize what is going on. They will be presented
with a fait accompli.
It is not the first time the government has done something like
this and I doubt it will be the last time. Every time the
Liberals do it I think it is atrocious that they would treat the
democratic process this way, but they feel this is the way they
want to run the democratic process in this country.
I am shocked that the government thinks that a 200 page bill
with clause after clause of technical writing that is difficult
to understand can be rushed through parliament in a very, very
short period of time. Shame on the government for even thinking
about doing something like this.
We have had a chance to take a look at some of the small points
and the bigger points. We have been talking about the $30
billion surplus the Liberals are going to help themselves to,
raid the piggy bank I say and help themselves to the employees'
pension funds.
Right at the very beginning the government talks about
privatizing the pension plan. The government will set up a board
of directors to run this pension plan, which is normal. We need
to have somebody to run it.
A member of a pension plan such as the Public Service
Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act or the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, is not entitled
to participate in the management of the plan because obviously
there would be a conflict of interest. We would not want anybody
who participates in the plan being part of the management.
This bill also amends the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act. Members of parliament are somewhat affected by
this bill but they will not be precluded from sitting on the
management board. This is a little omission which I think speaks
volumes about who this Liberal government intends to put on the
management board. Ex-Liberals collecting a pension of course are
the first to come to mind. We will leave that to debate in
committee, but we have to take a look at these little things in
detail.
The parliamentary secretary tells us that the government feels
it is entitled to the $30 billion surplus. Why? He says because
the government assumes all the risks. The government of course
means that the taxpayer assumes all the risks. The government
does not have any money, only the money that the taxpayer gives
to it. Therefore, the parliamentary secretary would have been
quite clear in saying that the taxpayer is assuming the risk, not
the government. There is a huge difference.
The parliamentary secretary pointed out that in the past there
has been a deficit and the taxpayer, not the government, had to
come up with $13 billion to offset that deficit. Now that there
is a surplus the government says it should have the money. I
believe that taxpayers should be protected so that they do not
have to come up with another $13 billion down the road.
It gets a little bit complex here. I hope that I can make my
argument clear enough for the simple minds on the other side to
understand.
There is a mix between the contributions by the employees and
the employer. The two add together to make the contributions.
Contributions are invested and there is investment income as
well. Now we have a surplus. The government says “We assume
the risk and therefore we are entitled to the surplus because if
there is a shortfall we will put it back in”.
The plan says that the government intends to increase the
premiums of the employees. Therefore the employees are obviously
accepting part of the risk of the financial health of the plan.
If the employees are accepting part of the risk of the financial
health of the plan, then the government does not have the right
to say “We assume all the risks, therefore, we are entitled to
all the surpluses”.
1350
That logic is wrong. It is faulty. It cannot stand the test of
scrutiny. That is why we are saying the government is being
heavy handed. That is no doubt one of the reasons that there is
closure already. The government does not want debate to continue
on this bill. It knows it cannot substantiate and support its
flawed logic.
Let us look at why we have the $30 billion surplus today. As
the parliamentary secretary stated, it has only been accrued over
the last six years. It started to build in 1991. It started to
build for three reasons.
First, the government imposed a wage freeze on civil servants.
Since 1991 they have not had an increase. The actuaries in the
1980s had anticipated that salaries would go up. As salaries go
up the cost of benefits go up too because they are based on a
percentage of salaries. If salaries are frozen, benefits are
frozen. Therefore the anticipated extra costs of benefits did
not materialize, hence a part of the surplus.
Second, the civil service pension plan is fully indexed for
inflation. It is one of the few, if not the only one, that is
fully indexed for inflation. What happened to inflation in the
1990s? It virtually disappeared. Therefore the actuarial
assumptions that inflation was going to increase the cost of
benefits did not materialize, hence adding to the surplus.
The third point is that the money that is in the plan is
invested in 20 year government bonds. Back in the 1970s and
1980s, because of inflation the interests rates were high. Today
the plan is still benefiting from these high interest rate bonds.
As they mature and are reinvested in lower interest rate bonds
or in the private sector, and perhaps the capital markets will
not continue to do as well as they have in the past, the return
on the plan is going to start going down.
Now that we no longer have a wage freeze, we can anticipate that
benefits are going to start going up again because we are
granting wage increases to the civil service. Thankfully the
government recognized that it could not keep a lid on good
employees forever. They will either walk away and get a job
somewhere else or the government is going to pay them what they
are worth.
Increases in salaries automatically guarantee increases in the
cost of benefits. We will see a lower rate of return on the
plan. We know that that increase in the surplus is going to
stop. It may peak at about where it is now and potentially it
may go into a decline.
If the government takes the $30 billion, massages the books and
then tells us what a wonderful job it is doing, a few years from
now it will turn around and tell the taxpayers “We are sorry
folks, there is a deficit in the plan. You have to pay more
taxes. You have to pay more cash”. I do not think that is a
justifiable position. That is why I proposed on numerous
occasions that the surplus stay in the plan. We know the
Liberals are going to say that that is going to cost the taxpayer
some money. But they have already stopped paying interest on the
surplus. Therefore that does not cost the taxpayers a penny.
The money should stay in the plan to cover the shortfall. All
the Liberals want to do is a simple bookkeeping entry, reduce the
size of the pension plan, reduce the size of the debt and then
stand back and say what a wonderful job they have done. Any
bookkeeper that knows anything about debits and credits can do
that but what has he accomplished? Nothing. He has just reduced
the assets and the liabilities and nothing has been achieved.
Therefore this bill is only to make the Liberals look good at
the next election where they can say that they have reduced the
debt. But they did not do it by themselves. They did it
courtesy of the pension plan of the civil service.
As I mentioned earlier about privatization, there is going to be
a board. The plan is going to be privatized over a number of
years. That perhaps is not a bad idea.
1355
It is unfortunate that the capital markets are overly inflated
right now. We certainly hope the Liberals can guarantee a decent
return on the funds invested. If they cannot, they will be back
to the taxpayer. Remember what the parliamentary secretary told
us, that the taxpayer is on the hook fully and completely for
this fund. I can see them coming back to the taxpayer in short
order, after the election of course, saying “Oops,
miscalculation, we need more money”.
We want to protect against that. We want to make sure that does
not happen. That is why we are fighting vigorously for the money
to stay where it is.
We are not advocating that it go to the unions. We are not
advocating that it reduce the premiums paid by the civil
servants. We are not advocating that we increase the benefits.
All we are saying is protect the taxpayers. Protect them now,
protect them next year and protect them the year after. There is
nothing this government wants to do other than make itself look
good.
We know the Minister of Finance is building up surpluses here,
there and everywhere. I have talked about them before. He has
$2.5 billion tucked in a bank account for the millennium
scholarship fund. It was paid for last year but it is providing
no benefit to any taxpayer today. It is sitting there waiting
for the year 2000-01 which coincidentally happens to be before
the next anticipated election. At that time the cash is going to
flow and students are going to say “Wow, this is great, I
finally got some cash”. In the meantime that money could be
spent now for the benefit of students and it is not. That is why
it is smoke and mirrors from that party.
The Speaker: It is almost two o'clock and I
want to give the member enough room to have a good kick at it after.
He still has over eight minutes remaining. With his
agreement we will proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
PUBLIC TRANSIT
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
supporting public transit is an admirable goal and an essential
goal.
Increased transit use leads to decreased traffic congestion,
decreased pollution and related health care costs, decreased need
for infrastructure to support car use, increased transit
revenues. It starts a positive cycle where all transit users,
including seniors, students and low income families, benefit from
better transit service. All taxpayers benefit from the cost
savings associated with less single occupancy vehicle use.
Last week in this House we were presented with the opportunity
to accept the motion of our NDP colleague to consider making
employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit.
The proposal would be an excellent step in the federal
government's battle to meet our Kyoto commitment. It is one of
the few incentives available to support public transit use. I
would urge this government and the Minister of Finance to
seriously consider this initiative.
* * *
“THE GIFT”
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour to attend a
truly unique gathering in White Rock, British Columbia. Two
totem poles were raised on White Rock beach, one representative
of the Haida and the other the Straits Salish people.
What makes these totems truly unique is that they were carved to
honour the 125th anniversary of the RCMP. Both poles portray the
RCMP in the role of the guardian or the watchman who ensures the
safety of the citizens of the village. Commissioned by the White
Rock RCMP and sponsored by numerous citizens from White Rock and
South Surrey, these totems represent a coming together of the
RCMP and the first nations peoples.
I would specifically like to acknowledge the efforts of
Constable Mike Lane and Staff Sergeant Jim Fisher of the White
Rock RCMP, Haida carver Robert Davidson, Salish designer Susan
Point and the city of White Rock for providing us with “The
Gift”.
* * *
HOSPICE OF WATERLOO REGION
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to honour the 142 trained volunteers of the Hospice
of Waterloo Region.
The hospice is committed to preserving the dignity, autonomy,
self-esteem and privacy of individuals facing life-threatening
illness. The friends and family of the 1,194 clients from the
Kitchener-Waterloo area who have used the hospice will tell you
that the palliative care volunteers make a remarkable difference
in the lives of the terminally ill.
Recently Lucille Mitchell, the founder of Hospice of Waterloo
Region, was honoured at the annual mayor's dinner. In 1994
Lucille recognized the need for a volunteer based organization
that would assist the ill with their physical and emotional
needs. Hospice volunteers under Lucille's direction have given
27,548 hours to assisting the terminally ill.
1400
Last week the hospice held its annual fundraiser. I would like
to extend my congratulations to an excellent event. I commend
the Hospice of Waterloo Region and all its dedicated volunteers.
They are—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
* * *
SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to salute the dedication and commitment of the many
volunteers of Scarborough General Hospital in my riding of
Scarborough Centre.
I had the pleasure of attending the hospital's volunteer
appreciation dinner on April 19 last week. I must say I was
struck by the longstanding commitment to the hospital that all
the volunteers had. There were over 300 volunteers in attendance
at the appreciation dinner with 76 of them receiving awards for
service ranging from 5 to 40 years.
In particular, I want to recognize four volunteers who dedicated
over half of their lives to volunteering at the hospital: Doris
Daniel, Shirley McDonald, Jean Kennedy and Thelma Thomson. Each
of these people have served the hospital for 40 years plus.
At this time, when labour unrest seems to be prevalent, it is
indeed heartening to see that there are still many people who are
willing to put their time and heart into a job simply because
they love it.
I extend my congratulations to all the volunteers who were given
awards at the dinner and thank them for giving so much to our
community.
* * *
ARMENIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 84th anniversary of the
horrible premeditated mass murder of 1.5 million Armenians at the
hands of the Ottoman Empire that occurred in 1915.
Over 1,500 Canadian Armenians from across Canada gathered in
Ottawa this weekend to honour their dead and to remind all
Canadians to consider the horrible loss of life and terrible
suffering that the ultimate crime of genocide has inflicted upon
its victims.
In 1996 the House unanimously designated April 20 to 27 of each
year as the week of remembrance of inhumanity of people toward
one another. During this week, let us honour the victims of the
Armenian genocide. Let us recognize its horrors and pledge to
eliminate this evil act from our society.
* * *
DUSTIN ONERHEIM
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 9, 1997, five year old Dustin Onerheim of
Frontier, Saskatchewan and his two younger sisters were
passengers in their father's half-ton truck when it collided head
on with another pickup on the crest of a hill.
Dustin was the only one able to escape from the overturned
vehicles by crawling out a rear window. Following the directions
of his father, who was pinned in the wreckage, Dustin removed his
two little sisters and then ran for help. Everyone recovered
thanks to the quick response of a five year old boy who many
hours later was diagnosed as having himself suffered a
concussion.
Dustin has already received two national awards and he is here
in Ottawa today to receive a youth award for bravery. The House
welcomes Dustin and together we salute him for his courage.
* * *
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party's united alternative initiative
continues to implode. Now the Reform leader has started publicly
comparing himself and his caucus to the Fathers of Confederation
no less.
The Reform leader has even taken to comparing himself to George
Brown, which is bizarre to say the least since Brown was the
leader of the Grits and one of the founders of the Liberal Party.
With the Reform leader's thoughts of grandeur, it is no wonder
that the united alternative has received such a cold reception,
especially in western Canada.
An Angus Reid poll taken after the UA convention in Ottawa
reported that only 30% of Albertans are in favour of the united
alternative. Even more important, amongst Reform voters it did
not receive majority support.
Perhaps the Reform leader should listen to the growing group of
dissenting MPs in his caucus. If he cannot stay true to his own
fundamental principles, Canadians will never ever have any reason
to support him.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORTS
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week the coach of the Canadian Hockey Association women's
national team, Quebecker Danièle Sauvageau, was cavalierly
dismissed.
A few months ago, the Canadian Handball Association's had done
the same when, without any warning, it terminated the training
in Montreal of the women's team, which was made up almost
exclusively of Quebeckers.
Also during the past year, Synchro Canada required the swimmers
on the national team, again mostly Quebeckers, to report to the
national training camp in Toronto a year earlier than planned.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that discrimination toward
Quebec athletes is not an isolated phenomenon in the wonderful
world of sport.
We are calling upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage to take
the necessary steps to ensure that those in charge of amateur
sport in Canada treat all athletes with fairness and respect,
whether they are Canadians or Quebeckers. If the minister has the
future of Quebec athletes at heart, she will not allow any more
similar incidents to occur.
* * *
1405
[English]
ST. JOHN AMBULANCE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
volunteers are the glue that holds the community together. No
agency embodies the spirit of volunteerism more than the St. John
Ambulance, an international organization committed to service for
all.
This is a banner year for the agency: the Order of St. John is
celebrating 900 years of service and the Canadian St. John
Ambulance is celebrating 115 years of community service.
St. John Ambulance work is performed by two distinct and
mutually dependent groups: the brigade, uniformed volunteers
seen in Peterborough and across Canada providing community
services such as first aid at local events; and the association,
a network of medical professionals and instructors who provide
first aid and health promotion courses.
Each year, the Canadian chapter provides over two million hours
of voluntary service and trains 800,000 citizens in lifesaving
first aid and CPR techniques.
I congratulate the St. John Ambulance for its tireless work on
behalf of others and wish it another 900 years of success.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, John Robin Sharpe will appear today in
B.C. Appeals Court on charges of possession of child pornography,
after being acquitted on January 13.
Had the Liberals voted in favour of a recent Reform motion to
send a strong parliamentary signal on this ruling or had Judge
Shaw ruled to uphold the law, we would not have today's
distasteful question.
Today, 18 cases are on hold pending the outcome of this case.
Each government member of parliament who voted, just to wait for
the Crown appeal, will have to accept responsibility if the lower
court ruling holds.
A loss of the child pornography section will do irreparable
damage to the work done by the law enforcement community which is
combating the sick subculture that is linked to child porn. It
needs parliament to back it up.
This case also demonstrates the need for a more publicly
accountable process for appointing judges, for it matters as much
who is doing the deciding as what is being decided.
Reform is reflecting the community view. This case again shows
that Liberals are weak and out of touch with mainstream Canadian
values and do not have the right stuff to protect our children.
* * *
[Translation]
PARTI QUEBECOIS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
having the question of Quebec's separation moved to the
foreground, Lucien Bouchard is sending the message of insecurity
for the coming months.
More quarrels the Parti Quebecois will start in order to come up
with the winning conditions. More disputes in all sorts of
areas that the Parti Quebecois will blow into big issues.
Instead of all that, why not work together, for Quebeckers and
Canadians, ensuring at the same time that Quebec retains its
important position within the Canadian federation?
* * *
YOUTH SUICIDE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the cuts made and the actions taken by this government and the
provincial governments across this country have all too often
had a negative impact on the people. Politicians do not always
recognize the problems of Canadians.
One problem they seem to have washed their hands of is the high
rate of suicide among young people. Governments must fight this
alarming problem. To do so, they must look at all the causes.
We must make sure resources are available in schools to help
young people in distress. Budgets have been cut so much that
social workers and those doing psychological testing have been
cut.
Also, with classes of more than 30 students, teachers cannot act
as psychologists. They need support.
Furthermore, governments should make sure that there are
activity centres in the community for young people.
In closing, I join with the families and students of the
Mathieu-Martin, Clément-Cormier and Dr Marguerite-Michaud
schools, currently dealing with this tragedy. I share their
grief deeply.
* * *
1849 BURNING OF THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 150 years ago
yesterday, some sad events took place in Montreal. On April 25,
1849, Orangemen rioted and burned the Parliament of Canada,
because they did not accept the amnesty granted to Patriotes who
had escaped the gallows.
Responding to a call to arms by The Gazette, the rioters
trampled a portrait of Papineau and did not hesitate to burn
thousands of documents. Ordinary citizens, both English and
French speaking, tried to intervene, but the rioters had gone
wild. This is a very sad episode in Canadian history.
Now, on the eve of the third millennium, democratic values are
well known, but this episode is a reminder that democracy is
fragile and that intolerance is never very far. Disputes, even
serious ones, must be settled within a democratic framework. The
Patriotes paid the ultimate price. Let us never forget that.
* * *
1410
[English]
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week Reform members stood in the House making accusations about
members' commitment to acting in an ethical manner. It begs the
question: Does Reform believe all its members act in a
completely ethical manner?
I would like to remind Reform members of a few facts; things
like a bingo parlour in Rockcliff, chauffeur driven limousines
and thousand dollar suits. Perhaps their leader does not receive
the same scrutiny they place on others.
Imagine, driving around in an old wreck of a car with Canadian
flags painted on the sides and physically intimidating members of
the House.
I would suggest that if Reform members were to clean up their
own act first, they might find this would go a long way to
raising the level of respect politicians receive in the country.
I am reminded of an old adage: “You shouldn't throw rocks if
you live in a glass house”. I think Canadians are witnessing
the shattering breakup of the Reform glass house.
Seeing as Reform members are experiencing such difficulty in
putting forward a united ethical front, it may in fact be a good
idea for them to pursue a united alternative front. Call it what
they may, it is still shameful.
* * *
YARMOUTH TOWN AND COUNTRY SPORTS HALL OF FAME
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on May 1
there will be seven new inductees into the Yarmouth Town and
County Sports Hall of Fame. The hall of fame, in its second year
of operation, was created by local residents for the purpose of
recognizing our local sporting heroes.
Sports have always played an integral part in our local
communities. This year's inductees were instrumental in raising
their particular sports to new heights.
This year's inductees include Mr. Keith Bridgeo who led the
Yarmouth Gateways to consecutive Nova Scotia senior league
baseball titles; the late Mr. James Burrowes, an accomplished
championship swimmer; Mr. Jene (K.O.) Fowler, the late, great
boxer; Mr. Frank Moores, a renowned pitcher during the second
world war; the late Bruce Saulnier was a very gifted hockey
player who played in the international league; Mr. Sanford
Rodgerson, the first organizer of little league baseball in
Yarmouth; and the Yarmouth County Academy swim team who won six
consecutive maritime high school championships.
To all these individuals and their surviving families, I would
like to offer my heartfelt congratulations.
* * *
ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF CAMBRIDGE
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
pay tribute to the dedication and hard work of the many
volunteers and supporters of the Alzheimer Society of Cambridge.
Alzheimer disease is a degenerative brain disorder that affects
more than 250,000 Canadians. By 2030 it is estimated that over
750,000 Canadians will have this terrible disease. The economic
cost of Alzheimer disease is estimated at $4 billion per year.
Through its resource centre, public education initiatives and
support groups, the Alzheimer Society of Cambridge plays an
important role in the community. Please join me in wishing the
Alzheimer Society of Cambridge and its many volunteers continued
success.
* * *
YOUTH VIOLENCE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
the details come out, I join with all Canadians to express our
sorrow at the tragic and senseless violence at Littleton's
Columbine High School near Denver, Colorado. Our sympathies and
compassion do not seem to be enough.
The tragic impact of this act on the families of these children
and the faculty members as well as the community itself will be
felt for years to come.
When young people are ensnared by an evil that makes them
determined to steal, kill and destroy, the result is a horror
that shakes us all. Whether it be acts such as this, or the
killing of Reena Virk in B.C., we are impacted again with the
importance for each of us to defend the preciousness of human
life.
In the memory of those tragic victims, we are each personally
called to overcome this type of evil by upholding what is good in
our family and in our community.
Above all, for today our thoughts and heartfelt prayers are with
these heartbroken parents and their families.
* * *
POVERTY IN CANADA
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
April 14 the finance minister had the audacity to tell the House
that he was “delighted to say that the number of children living
in poor or low income families has declined by 100,000”.
A day later, the Caledon Institute reported the real facts which
showed that cuts to UI and welfare offset any employment gains by
women living in poverty in the last year. Indeed, transfer
payments to the poorest families fell by 3% in 1997. The poverty
rate has not improved in 20 years. The poverty rate for families
headed by persons under 25 has doubled from 20.9% in 1980 to
43.6% in 1997.
The evidence is very clear. The gap between the rich and the
poor is growing. It is the Liberal government policies that are
to blame.
I would like to tell the finance minister, rather than taking
credit for something he did not do, he needs to set real targets
to reduce poverty in Canada.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this weekend NATO announced a partial naval blockade of
Yugoslav ports. A Canadian ship, the HMCS Athabaskan, is
now in command of a NATO standing fleet in the Atlantic and will
likely play a key role in any blockade of petroleum supplies to
the Serb army.
At the same time, on the diplomatic front the Prime Minister
announced that the foreign minister is off to Moscow to promote a
new peace proposal.
Does the government not see a contradiction in participating in
a naval blockade that will affect Russian ships at the same time
as it is pursuing a new diplomatic initiative in Moscow?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We are attempting to
bring this conflict to an end as quickly as possible. The naval
embargo will help to deny oil supplies and other war materials to
Milosevic's military machine, which is inflicting great pain on
the people of Kosovo.
We want to stop that ethnic cleansing just as quickly as
possible. That is what that is about.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the naval blockade is pursued, it will have to deal
with vessels that refuse to be stopped and searched.
The Russian foreign minister has stated unequivocally that
Russia will continue to ship oil to Yugoslavia no matter what.
What does NATO intend to do when it encounters a Russian ship
attempting to run the blockade? Does the Prime Minister not
fear, does the government fear, that such an incident would
scuttle any attempt for peace through diplomatic means?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to increase the
tension with the Russians with respect to this matter.
The exact details of the naval embargo have not been worked out
yet. They are being attended to by the military planners now.
That will be reported to the NATO council later this week.
What is very encouraging is that a number of countries in the
European Union have already decided that they would agree to an
embargo. Therefore, if there is a naval force there, it would be
helping to ensure that the very things those countries agreed to
were being followed.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. My question
was about Russian supplies to Yugoslavia, not those from other
countries.
A half-baked naval blockade and a half-baked peace proposal will
not solve the Balkan crisis. If the peace initiative is our
number one priority, why not make it the number one priority?
Why would the government agree to the announcement of this naval
blockade at a time when the foreign minister is attempting to
pursue the diplomatic initiative in Moscow?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, clearly any effort to bring about a diplomatic
resolution also depends on maintaining effective pressure upon
the government in Yugoslavia.
It does not make a lot of sense at this point in time that we
have a number of Canadian pilots risking their lives to stop fuel
supplies from reaching the Serbian army in Kosovo, which are
maiming and killing people, and at the same allow supplies to
simply come in by boat. There is an attempt to balance the two.
The Prime Minister clearly said yesterday in his press
conference that any effort on the seas would meet all the legal
requirements and the diplomatic—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is having trouble getting a return phone call from the
Russians. Yet he is going full steam ahead with his plans for a
naval blockade.
We understand the strategic reason for the blockade but the
timing of it will be critical. We run the risk of antagonizing
the Russians in the very week that we will embark on a diplomatic
mission with them.
How will the Prime Minister ensure that Canada does not alienate
the Russians by putting forward this blockade proposal?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I just answered the hon. member's leader by saying
that the importance of maintaining effective pressure on the
Yugoslav government is also part of trying to get a resolution to
the conflict. The two are connected.
We will do so. The planners at NATO have been asked to go back
and look at all the options which will clearly take into account
the military, the economic and the political ramifications. They
will report back to our ambassadors probably by tomorrow or the
next day. That will be taken into consideration in terms of the
actual implementation.
What is important is to continue to maintain the pressure and to
continue to maintain the dialogue.
1420
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
recognize our obligation to the alliance, but that should not
preclude that we need to have a position of our own.
Does the Prime Minister and the government agree that it will be
counterproductive to commit to a naval blockade which we know
will antagonize the Russians in the same week that we embark on a
diplomatic mission to Moscow?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think I have now answered that question twice. I
will do it a third time just so they will fully understand.
The reality is that at the present moment it was clearly
assessed that major fuel supplies were leaking into Yugoslavia to
support the ongoing repression the Serbian army is undertaking.
We have to stop that repression. We have to put the pressure
on. In the meantime the Russians have indicated clearly in a
series of exchanges that they are prepared to begin to look at
helping to resolve the conflict. The two have to work together.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, Vuk Draskovic, stated that
his government was prepared to accept a peace plan providing for
the deployment of a UN force in Kosovo, which could include
troops from NATO member countries.
Mr. Draskovic also said that his opinion reflected that of
President Milosevic who, until now, has been opposed to any
foreign troops in Kosovo.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm this statement? If
this information is accurate, could Canada convey that proposal
to NATO and to the UN security council?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we said on several occasions, it is very important
to get the United Nations involved in a conflict resolution
process.
The UN secretary general will travel to Russia this week. I hope
to have a meeting with the secretary general to ensure that
there will be a partnership between the United Nations, NATO and
the other partners to ensure that a there will be resolution
from the security council.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
main objection to such a proposal by Russia and China was that
Yugoslavia was opposed to any UN armed force involving NATO
countries.
Following the statement by Deputy Prime Minister Draskovic, who
claims to reflect President Milosevic's view, has the door not
just been opened, thus giving Canada, which sits on the UN
security council, all the room it needs to convey such a
proposal not only to China and Russia, but to all security
council members?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope what the hon. leader of the Bloc
Quebecois has said is true, that in fact it represents a sincere
offering.
We do not know exactly where Draskovic sits within the
hierarchy, but we will take any opportunity that exists to try to
develop agreement. If there can be an agreement on the side of
the Yugoslav government to the presence of an international force
that will make sure refugees can return in full security then
certainly we will be prepared to support that.
That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister asked me to visit
Russia this week to see how we can also engage with the UN and
with the Russians toward that objective.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that the Minister of
Foreign Affairs would be going to Moscow to meet with the UN
secretary general.
Despite what Yugoslavia's deputy prime minister said yesterday,
Slobodan Milosevic himself still categorically refuses to agree
to an international military force that includes any members of
NATO.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House the precise
goal of his mission to Russia, and whether he intends to
persuade Russia to take part in an international military force
in Kosovo?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if we go back to some of the discussions we had in
the House last week, it is clear the intervention taken by the
Russians in Belgrade last week resulted in statements about the
necessity for an international force to be present in Kosovo.
The Prime Minister is very anxious that we follow up. At the
same time the secretary general will be advancing the same
purposes. We want to see if we can help that process, if we can
as a security council member support the engagement the Russians
might take, because if they are in support then it may be
possible to get the security council to have a resolution. That
would be a very major step forward.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
the minister tell us then whether he will be promoting the
German peace plan during his visit, or whether, as a NATO
representative, he will be presenting a new peace plan for
Kosovo and the Balkans?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is a variety of plans out there. I do not
think we need any new ones, particularly. I think what we have
to get is agreement on the plans. We have to get some sort of
agreement that a common position can be advanced at the security
council and at the United Nations.
If we can use our good offices and whatever other kinds of
dialogue we can help create along with other NATO partners that
are doing the same thing, I think it may help to move the process
forward.
However, right now it is very important that there be a very
active direct exchange, and that is why the Prime Minister has
asked me to take the mission on this week.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, finally
we are seeing some promising movement on the diplomatic front.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to Moscow with the NATO
concession that Canadians were advocating all along: the need for
an international peacekeeping force, not a NATO led force.
What kind of international force is Canada proposing so that the
Russian initiative can move us toward a diplomatic solution?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have got down to actually
designing the composition. What is important at the outset is to
get initial agreement that there is a willingness to join forces
to go to the United Nations with such a position that we can all
support. I think that will require that again there be some
accommodation worked out.
What we want to achieve at this point in time is to work with
the secretary general who will be in Moscow about the same time
to see how we can lend whatever influence we can, whatever good
offices we can, to try to bring that about. We are not going
there with some secret plan in our pocket but just the goodwill
to get a resolution.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have said that
the real goal is a diplomatic solution in Kosovo and that Russia
is key to that diplomatic solution. Any naval blockade will only
escalate the conflict, will only increase the number of countries
that are involved. In fact it may drive a wedge between NATO and
Russia.
Does the government really believe we can secure Russian
diplomatic co-operation by blockading Russian ships?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member who is using the
word blockade. The word that was used in the case of the leaders
meeting at NATO was embargo.
In fact, the embargo being placed is an embargo that is being
agreed to by countries from the European Union. We hope many
other countries will also agree to that. If there is a decision
to deploy the naval force, for one thing, and if Canada
participates in it, which is a government decision yet to be
made, then that is the kind of scenario we are talking about, not
one which would in fact put a blockade against Russian ships
which would in fact increase the tension. We do not want to
increase the tension. We want to resolve this.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, NATO member
countries are preparing to place an oil embargo on Yugoslavia,
and HMCS Athabaskan and its Sea King helicopters will be
deployed to the region in order to enforce the blockade.
Recently a NATO exercise found the Sea Kings operational less
than 50% of the time.
What measures is the Minister of National Defence going to take
to ensure that the Sea Kings deployed with HMCS Athabaskan are
operational?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are a long way from that decision
because the military planners have not reported in Brussels to
the NATO council.
When NATO makes a decision of course Canada has to be part of
making that decision and part of determining whether we even
deploy HMCS Athabaskan. However, if we do, it will be
fully equipped and ready to go and the Sea King helicopters will
be performing quite well.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
even though the Sea Kings have a maintenance routine that is
probably second to none, the Sea Kings are still only available
less than 50% of the time and their anti-submarine warfare
mission system is prone to failure when they do fly.
1430
The Serbian navy has four diesel electric submarines available
to engage NATO ships. What steps is the government taking to
provide our ships with effective helicopters for anti-submarine
warfare?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been said on many occasions that
the Sea Kings are well maintained and continue to serve the needs
of the Canadian forces. There is also a procurement strategy
being finalized by the government with respect to the purchase of
the replacement helicopter when the Sea King's day is done.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first the government stiffed the public for billions on the
Canadian pension plan. Then it raided the overpayment of $26
billion in the employment insurance fund. Now it is after the
$30 billion public service pension plan.
Why does the government not admit that this is all about raiding
people's retirement and insurance nest eggs so that the Liberals
can pad their own election slush fund?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if I were a member of the Reform Party, I would really be
ashamed. It is the party that said it would defend the rights of
the taxpayers.
This money belongs to the taxpayers. The government will give
the pensioners everything it has promised them by law. The
government will give every public servant every benefit and more,
that they are guaranteed by law.
During the life of the plan, it is the taxpayers who have paid
all the deficits. This surplus belongs to the taxpayers.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
say to the minister that if he were a member of the Reform Party
we would be ashamed.
The bill has over 200 pages and deals with a surplus of $30
billion. It affects 300,000 employees and 30 million Canadians.
If the government is so convinced that the bill is fair, I would
like to know why is it moving closure on this? What is it afraid
of?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the lawyers, the actuaries, the accountants and the
auditor general all say that this surplus belongs to the
taxpayers.
The Reform Party, of all parties, the party that says it is
dedicated to the taxpayers, how does it dare want to take that
money away from those it truly and legally belongs to, the
taxpayers? How does it dare do this?
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
after an exhaustive review of the young offenders bill by the
Quebec Minister of Justice, the Quebec Minister of Public
Security, and the Minister responsible for Youth, it is quite
obvious that the bill will have a negative impact on the Quebec
model, which has worked well overall.
Does the Minister of Justice acknowledge that, as the bill
stands at present, Ottawa is not leaving Quebec or the provinces
any opportunity to withdraw from the adult system the cases of
young people they would very much like to exclude from it?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with
the comment made by the hon. member.
Throughout the entire process of reform of the youth justice
system we have acknowledged the fact that there are diverse needs
and pressures within this country and that Quebec has chosen to
approach the concerns of young offenders in a certain way. This
legislation, I am convinced, provides Quebec with the flexibility
to continue with its approach.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there is no point in talking about flexibility when, in the
opinion of experts, lawyers and everyone else working in the
field in Quebec, there is no flexibility.
In that case, I would ask the minister: would she accept
amendments ensuring the clear and unambiguous exclusion of
Quebec from the application of the young offenders legislation,
as proposed?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this legislation is clear. It
provides the province of Quebec or other provinces or territories
with flexibility to pursue diverse approaches to dealing with the
concerns and pressures of young offenders. If the hon. member
disagrees, I am sure he and I will continue this debate in
committee.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
year the government passed a law which said that a surplus cannot
be taken from a pension plan without a two-thirds majority vote
of the employees. Now the government is rushing through a bill
which will give it the authority to take the entire surplus from
the civil service pension plan, over the objections of the
employees.
1435
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why
does the government impose restrictions on the private sector
pension plan withdrawals while giving itself the right to raid
the civil service pension plan over the objections of the
employees?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my hon. colleague is wrong. Once again he does not understand
what is going on.
With private sector pension plans, when the risk is shared
between employers and employees, there is a sharing of deficits
and surpluses. In this case we have a legislated plan, a plan
where the benefits of civil servants are guaranteed by law and a
plan where the government has paid for all the deficits before.
Not a cent has been charged to the public servants. In this case
the legal situation is clear. The surplus belongs to taxpayers.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
not the President of the Treasury Board confuse the issue.
The employees, civil servants, make a definite contribution to
their own pension plan. That contribution is going to be going
up after the bill goes through, so do not say they do not
contribute anything.
I want to know if the government is going to have a vote with
the civil servants to see what they think about taking the $30
billion out of the surplus. Will you have a vote or will you
not?
The Speaker: Order. Hon. members will know that they
should address the Chair in their questions and in their answers.
The hon. President of the Treasury Board.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, that surplus belongs to the taxpayers because the
public servants have not paid one cent of the deficits that have
been accumulated in the plan.
When the plan was indexed, that plan acquired a liability of $8
billion and more at one go. No public servant paid a cent of
that $8 billion deficit. The taxpayers were in charge of paying
and that is still the situation.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, while students are being deprived of money
because the federal government is still stubbornly refusing to
negotiate with the Government of Quebec, plans to establish the
millennium scholarship foundation are moving forward.
With not a single scholarship yet awarded, how much money has
the federal government spent to date on setting up this new
bureaucracy, creating further duplication?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I must point out that
negotiations with a number of provinces are going very well.
The millennium scholarship foundation should soon be in a
position to sign agreements that will enable students to benefit
from millennium scholarships and thus pursue their education for
as long as possible.
I can assure the House that many Canadians and Quebeckers would
also like to see students from Quebec benefit from these
scholarships. The Government of Quebec and the foundation
should reach an agreement whereby Quebec's students could
benefit as well.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, is $150 million over ten years not the exact
cost of the thirst for visibility of the Prime Minister, who
thought nothing of another costly duplication so that his name
would be associated with the new millennium?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it amuses me no end to hear the
Bloc Quebecois talk to us about thirst for visibility, when we
see that they have even tacked “quebecois” onto the name of
their party in order to monopolize our nation's symbols, and
when we see their intensive publicity efforts in recent weeks.
They have spent the last few weeks telling us about the Quebec
identify and surveying us—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
* * *
[English]
PENSIONS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, clearly too much has been paid into the public service
pension plan because now there is a big surplus of $30 billion.
The government is saying “Thank you very much, that is mine,”
even though public servants themselves have paid into the plan,
too much obviously since there is a surplus. Now this
legislation is going to make the public service pay 30% more into
the plan that they are already paying too much into. How can the
government explain that?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the contribution paid by public servants to the pension plan is a
fixed contribution that was equal to 7.5% of their salary. For
that price, they got benefits that are among the richest in the
country, and fine.
Public servants have worked hard and deserve their pension plan.
1440
However, they did not share any of the risk in the pension plan.
Whenever there were deficits, it was the taxpayers of Canada who
paid for them, not the public servants. The lawyers, the
accountants, the actuaries and the auditor general are very clear
that this surplus belongs to Canadian taxpayers.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if public servants are not taking part of the risk, why
are they having to pay more? Clearly, there is some
determination that they have to take more of the risk. They have
to make a bigger contribution.
There are many questions that need to be talked about in this
whole bill. It is over 200 pages. Yet after only four hours, the
government is trying to shut down debate. What is the government
hiding? Why does it not want a full exploration of these very
important questions?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my hon. colleague misunderstands the question.
The reason there is an increase in contributions is simply that
public servants in the future will be treated exactly like any
other Canadian taxpayer and they will pay the increases in the
Canada pension plan. What does my colleague want, that public
servants pay something that discriminates against other
taxpayers? What does she want, that the public servants would
pay less than what every other Canadian taxpayer will pay? Come
on.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with Bill C-78, the government is planning to raid all the
accumulated surplus in its employees' pension fund. This is the
latest in a long series of blows dealt by this government, which
is essentially incapable of discussing and negotiating in a
civilized manner with its employees.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why
does the government not do what was done in Quebec and negotiate
with its employees a use for the surplus that would suit
everyone?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately, there is a legal precedent, which goes all the
way to the supreme court and which is known as The Province of
Quebec v. Villeneuve, in which the supreme court said very
clearly that the Province of Quebec was entitled to appropriate
the surplus.
It was entitled for the same reason we are, namely that deficits
have always been paid by taxpayers and so the surpluses belong
to the taxpayers.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
It is my understanding that last week some Reform MPs met with
their political brethren in the United States to discuss border
trade problems. Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
believe that this kind of initiative will affect the trading
relationship we enjoy with the United States?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes all initiatives
to improve the trading relationship between Canada and the United
States. That is why over five months ago with the United States
we embarked on a 17 point plan of action including a consultative
committee to address issues before they became hotter issues
between our two countries. Progress is being made. We are
pleased that five months after we did that, the Reform Party has
started to participate.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday
B.C. Liberals walked out of the legislature in protest over the
cutoff of debate. Even Frank Barton, a Nisga'a band member says
that grassroots Nisga'a people have not been heard from.
Respected Nisga'a elder statesman Frank Calder has said that the
process has been badly tainted.
Does the minister still intend to bring this legislation into
this House when everybody we have heard from in British Columbia
says that the process is so badly tainted?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that no
matter when this government brings the Nisga'a legislation to the
House, that party will stand against it. We know that because it
has done it every other time we have brought forward a piece of
legislation that supports and improves the lives of aboriginal
people in this country.
The member talks about grassroots aboriginal people. He
represents the Nisga'a First Nation. How is he going to stand
here against the Nisga'a treaty when 5,000 of his constituents
support it?
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
should get her facts right. Only 2,300 actually live in my
constituency.
1445
The minister knows that for this treaty to be successful she
must have public confidence and she knows that the people of
British Columbia are appalled at the ratification process. She
knows that the Nisga'a people themselves are appalled and have
said that this process is badly tainted.
How can she possibly proceed with legislation in the House when
she knows that the people of British Columbia and the Nisga'a
people have said that this process is so badly tainted?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member what
the Nisga'a people are appalled at. They are appalled that this
member, their representative, has not ever met with the president
of the Nisga'a tribal council, Joe Gosnell.
They are wondering how the critic for the Reform Party can dare
stand in the House, talk about grassroots people, talk about the
Nisga'a, not ever having met with their president and their
leadership.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is about plutonium. Today the International Association of Fire
Fighters added its voice to environmental groups, thousands of
concerned citizens and an all-party parliamentary committee in
calling for a moratorium on the transportation of plutonium
through Canadian communities.
Will the minister listen to the growing chorus of Canadians?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I answered this question last week. There has been
no emergency response request plan filed by AECL for the
transportation of this particular material. Our department has
not received a request.
It is up to Transport Canada under the Transportation of
Dangerous Goods Act to approve the transportation of these
substances.
I remind the House that 800,000 shipments annually of
radioactive material occur in Canada and they occur, by and
large, without incident.
We have a very elaborate response program and tracking plan
called CANUTEC in Transport Canada that does the job well in
looking for safety issues.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
the minister's stonewalling is nothing short of arrogance.
The minister is not a safety expert. Firefighters are safety
experts. Their leaders today said that they do not believe in
the government's safety assurances when it comes to its plan to
transport plutonium. They say the plans are irresponsible and
that an accident is waiting to happen.
What will the government do about the concerns which Canadians
have about plutonium?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have a Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act in
this country which is second to none in the world. We have the
highest standards of transporting these goods.
There are 27 million shipments of dangerous goods annually.
Very few, less than 1% of those shipments, ever spill or cause
problems. We have a tracking system and safety response systems
which make sure that all emergencies are attended to.
Much of the information put out by the International Association
of Fire Fighters is erroneous and does not do credit to the
firefighters in the country who do a terrific job under all
circumstances.
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last Tuesday, Judge Fowler of the Newfoundland provincial court
ruled that DFO's main piece of evidence against Newfoundland
sealers, an International Fund for Animal Welfare videotape, was
not an original, that it had been altered and changed and did not
meet the court's continuity principle requirement.
Now that the most important piece of evidence of the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, the videotape, has been judged
inadmissible, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be
dropping the charges against those Newfoundland sealers who were
wrongly charged because of an edited and doctored videotape?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because this issue
is before the courts it would be improper for me to speak to it.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in 1996 Mr. Chris Wicke, an employee of the
International Fund for Animal Welfare and a key witness, gave
false information, including his business card, to DFO officers.
Mr. Wicke also used fictitious names and addresses and lied to
DFO Officer Marvin Oake. He also signed a false application to
gain access to a sealing vessel.
Judge Fowler stated that Chris Wicke was a biased witness who
behaved like a sophisticated con man. Chris Wicke still has not
been charged.
Why were Newfoundland sealers wrongfully charged and why has
Chris Wicke not been charged?
1450
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated
earlier, it would be inappropriate for me to speak to a case that
is before the courts. However, I can tell the member that the
minister is looking very closely at the sealing issue. The
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is looking at the
issue. Any decisions that we make on that issue in the future
will be based on good scientific advice.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As the
minister knows, there has been a lot of public concern about air
bags and the safety of children in cars equipped with air bags.
The House deserves to know and I would ask the minister to tell
the House about a national program which he announced this
morning to protect our children from that danger.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, surveys show that up to one-third of children do not
use seatbelts. That is something which results in about 10,000
injuries a year.
As far as the federal government is concerned, we want to
heighten awareness. What we announced today was an information
program, highlighted by a video called “Car Time: 1-2-3-4”,
which was demonstrated in the hon. member's constituency.
I am pleased to say that this is one way that younger Canadians
can be reminded of the absolute necessity of buckling up to
prevent injury.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are over 100 farmers being prosecuted for custom's
violations for selling their own grain.
Hudye Soil Service, probably the biggest violator of wheat board
and customs regulations, is now about to enjoy an out of court
settlement. Meanwhile, the 100 poorer farmers are forced into
lengthy legal battles.
Why is the government enforcing the letter of the law with poor
farmers when it is willing to negotiate and settle out of court
with this rich farmer?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in my capacity as minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board I have to advise the hon. gentleman that I am not
aware of any recent development that he may have referred to in
his question.
He and I have had the opportunity to discuss the particulars of
this matter. He has asked for further information. I have
undertaken to try to provide that information to him; however, at
this stage I am not in a position to do so.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
Minister of Transport was questioned in the House on the
Baie-Comeau and Gaspé air tragedies, he said that he was waiting
for the end of the Transportation Safety Board investigation
before making any statement on safety equipment.
Since the outcome of the investigation will not be known for a
year, does the Minister of Transport intend to ask Nav Canada to
suspend the closure of flight information stations in the small
airports, such as Roberval, until the results of the
investigation are known?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, air traffic operations and
the determination of levels of service have been the
responsibility of Nav Canada for the past three years now.
We will continue with the changes, but we have to await the
Transportation Safety Board report before making changes.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government has attempted to explain away the question of racism
which surfaced during its recent judicial appointments when it
overlooked Corrine Sparks, a senior black female judge, by
claiming that there were more judges than positions available,
but then appointed one person who was not even a judge.
Will the Liberal government now send a positive message of hope
to Canadians of colour by committing to a full review of this
decision or is the government aiming to condemn black judges to
the back seat of the judicial bus?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say on behalf of myself
and the government that I take very strong exception to the
remarks made by the hon. member.
The hon. member should know that I take some considerable pride
in the fact that I and the government appointed the first black
judge in the province of Alberta to a superior court.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
light bulb has finally come on in the office of the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, albeit it is a very dim light bulb.
Last week the minister announced the extension of the AIDA
application deadline to July 31. I would like to thank the
minister for the extension. However, it does little to resolve
the problems plaguing the program.
Does the minister honestly believe that the extension is going
to solve the problems that are inherent in the design and
delivery of the AIDA program?
1455
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the challenge that we have in delivering
the program is getting the producers to fill out the seven-page
forms and getting them to send them back. There have now been
over 24,000 forms sent out. A number of the provinces are
already delivering cheques.
As I said to the hon. member and to the House last week, in the
provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where most of those
24,000 forms have been sent, because the others are being
administered in partnership with the federal government and the
provinces, the cheques will be in the mail this Friday.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
three years now in order to protect salmon stocks in the Fraser
River there has been a moratorium on gravel extraction from the
river. Gravel operators have been put out of business or forced
to search for alternate gravel supplies.
At this moment, however, the Cheam Indian Band has started to
remove 100,000 cubic metres of gravel from the river and DFO
officials seem powerless to stop it. Gravel operators and
biologists would like to know why there is one set of rules for
the Indian band and another set of more stringent rules for
everyone else. I wonder if someone could explain that for the
people of my riding.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is committed
to ensuring that aboriginal people in this country have access
through their inherent rights to the strategies and the
undertakings that will allow them to be full partners in the
economy of this country. That is the strategy of the government
and it will build strong, healthy first nations into the future.
* * *
[Translation]
IRVING WHALE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The fishers of Îles-de-la-Madeleine are concerned about the federal
government's decision to leave the PCBs from the wreck of the
Irving Whale on the ocean floor.
Does the Minister of Fisheries realize the potential negative
impact on fisheries products exports of the presence of PCB
contaminated products, as a result of this negligence?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, the minister
and the department are very aware of the decision. There should
be no impact on the export of products. Three options were
considered in terms of the decision. When the decision was made
we took into consideration full safety factors so that there
would be no damage to any fish stocks in the area.
* * *
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
President of the Treasury Board was quoted in today's paper as
saying that pensioners do not stand a chance in hell of getting
their hands on any of the $30 billion surplus. That makes us
wonder: If that is true, why does he need to change the
legislation? If his position is so rock solid, why is he ramming
through a complex bill such as Bill C-78 after only four hours?
Will the government at least guarantee that there will be
extended committee hearings right across the country so that the
670,000 Canadians who are directly affected will have some voice
where their elected representatives do not?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the history of the pension funds, every time there has
been a deficit, every cent of the deficit has been paid by the
Canadian government and therefore by the Canadian taxpayers.
This is a legislated plan whereby the benefits are promised to
the employees. It is legislated by law, whatever the state of
the plan.
Once again, the lawyers, the actuaries, the accountants and the
auditor general are clear that the surplus belongs to the
taxpayers.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture says that 24,000 applications have been
sent out, but only 291 applications have been returned. The
agriculture minister says that $900 million is sitting there,
waiting to go into farmers' pockets, but not one red dollar of
federal money has fallen into the pockets of western Canadians
and Canadian producers.
Does this minister wish to have the $900 million spent on
agriculture or does he wish to return it to the Minister of
Finance when the program does not work?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have his facts
straight. Federal dollars are flowing to farmers in a number of
provinces.
I read comments which were made by the hon. member and his
leader last week. They suggested that we mail out the money and
ask questions later. Obviously that is what that government did
when it was in power and that is why we had a $42 billion
deficit. That is not the way to do it.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery today of His Excellency Vladimir
Vetchy, Minister of Defence of the Czech Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery today of His Excellency Jozef
Torgyan, Minister of Agriculture of Hungary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR PROVENCHER
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege with regard to the member for Provencher
who on Thursday, April 22, 1999, deliberately divulged
information from an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee
on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The evidence is prima facie and is now a part of the record of
the House, recorded at page 14225 of Hansard. The member
made a reference to something I said at that standing committee
meeting, and I quote:
He went on to say:
I reiterate that the member for Skeena asked for a tripling or a
doubling of the budget of the standing committee on Indian
affairs to bring in people and to hear witnesses on this
particular issue.
The meeting he was quoting from was an in camera meeting of the
Standing Committee of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
which was held on April 13, 1999. Beauchesne's sixth
edition, citation 851, reads:
When a committee chooses to meet in camera, all matters are
confidential. Any departure from strict confidentiality should
be by explicit committee decision which should deal with what
matters should be published, in which form and by whom.
Without divulging the discussion of the in camera meeting, I
will only say the committee did not make a decision to make the
minutes public.
What is further disturbing, and I would add a further contempt,
is the fact that the member has misrepresented the confidential
information by also misquoting me.
Since I cannot divulge the confidential minutes of the
committee, I can correct the record of Hansard which is
public. The member should have accurately quoted me as saying
that I urged the committee to increase the base funding being
proposed by the Indian affairs committee at that time because the
Nisga'a legislation was coming down and I wanted to ensure that
we had adequate funds available for the committee to travel to
British Columbia. I in no way asked that the committee move
quickly on the Nisga'a treaty, as the parliamentary inaccurately
stated.
On April 20, 1999 the matter of the government leaking a
government response to a report of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs was raised in the House. The next day the
government House leader apologized for the leak and assured the
House it would not happen again.
1505
The very next day after he issued that apology, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development stood in the House and quoted from an in
camera meeting. The apology from the government House leader has
just been negated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The House must take action and protect its authority and the
authority of its committees. If you rule this to be a prima
facie question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move
the following motion:
That the hon. member for Provencher, the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be
charged with contempt and ordered to appear before the bar of the
House to be admonished by the Chair for breaching the
confidentiality of the in camera meeting of the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development held on
April 13, 1999.
The Speaker: The hon. member mentions a specific
member, the hon. member for Provencher. That hon. member is not
in the House at this time but I would like to hear what he has to
say on this particular matter before I make any decision.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you correctly pointed out, I
want to hear information from the hon. member for Provencher, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
It has come to my attention that the information he made
available to the House in responding to a question the other day
was already in the public domain long before. We will endeavour
to get that information.
An hon. member: It was not.
Hon. Don Boudria: The hon. member across says “It was
not”. I do not know how he can make that affirmation without
having seen the proof that the hon. member will be bringing to
the attention of the House. I understand from conversations I
have had that such was the case.
As soon as the hon. member for Provencher returns, I will ask
him to reply directly to what the hon. member has said, in
particular bearing in mind the information I received from him
which is to the effect that the information in fact was in the
public domain already. I will nevertheless ask the hon. member
to address that upon his return.
The Speaker: I think we have set the stage. We have an
allegation by one hon. member about something that was said. He
quoted it directly. It was said in the House of Commons. There
was nothing written. It was said in the House of Commons and it
is recorded in Hansard.
At this point I would like to hear what the hon. member for
Provencher has to say, so I will wait until he is in the House
and we will hear what he has to say about it.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
[English]
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am somewhat surprised today that we do not have a
ministerial statement flowing from the NATO conference in
Washington over the last few days.
Certainly with the significance of this conference to the world
and our involvement as a country—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It was a nice try,
but it certainly was not a point of order.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
section of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie, as
well as the related financial report.
The report has to do with the meeting of the PAF commission on
education, communications and cultural affairs, which was held
in Niamey, Nigeria, on February 15 and 16, 1999.
* * *
1510
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-500, an act to amend the
Employment Insurance Act (waiting period).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill today,
following repeated requests by workers. We know that the
Employment Insurance Act provides for a two week waiting period
during which people who have lost their jobs are not eligible to
benefits.
In the present context, where eligibility rules have been
tightened, I think this is a simple way to give an important
part of the EI fund surplus back to workers when they are
unemployed. A person who earns $400 a week would receive two
more weeks of benefits at $220, which would give that person an
interesting refund on the EI fund surplus.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-501, an act to amend the
Employment Insurance Act (self-employed persons).
He said: Mr. Speaker, with a view to ensuring that the
Employment Insurance Act reflects reality on the labour market
as faithfully as possible, this bill is aimed at allowing
self-employed persons, a new category of workers who are
currently covered by no plan, and do not come under the
Employment Insurance Act to get basic insurance, on a voluntary
basis, in case they lose their job.
My bill will therefore fill a major gap and allow many young men
and women to have basic security, on a voluntary basis, in case
they lose their job.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-502, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deduction of expenses incurred by mechanic for tools required
in employment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the aim of this bill is to allow persons
employed as mechanics to deduct the cost of the tools required
for their work which they provide, if it is a condition of their
employment.
The deduction includes amounts expended for the rental,
maintenance and insurance of the tools, the total cost of tools
worth $250 or less subject to some adjustments as may be allowed
in the regulations to take into consideration inflation, and for
tools over $250 the amortization of the capital cost as set out
in the regulations.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
[English]
AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONTRAVENTIONS ACT AND THE CONTROLLED
DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT (MARIJUANA)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-503, an act to amend the
Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(marijuana).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to decriminalize, not
legalize, the simple possession of marijuana. The reason is
quite simple. In our justice system today, the resources our
police have to do their job and to prosecute are severely
limited. In my province of British Columbia six courts have been
closed. As a result, serious offences like rape and assault are
not being prosecuted to the fullest extent.
This bill is intended to seek a fine for those who are found
with simple possession. That money could then be used to engage
in prevention. It could be put into education programs for
children. We could deal with prevention and substance abuse
issues.
I am happy to introduce this bill which is being supported by
the Canadian Police Association.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I move that the 48th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs presented on Tuesday December 8, 1998
be concurred in.
I am not sure how much of a pleasure it is to speak to this
motion. I should not have to be standing here in the House today
speaking to it. This motion should have gone forward and should
have been dealt with in the House some time ago. Nevertheless I
am going to take my time and go through several issues relating
to this committee that were supposed to have come from the
procedure and House affairs committee to speak to the report on
televised committees.
Some questions have to be asked. Why is it necessary to begin
speaking about a seemingly isolated report from a committee? Why
was the report not dealt with by the House of Commons? What is
in the report that the government does not want to deal with in
the House? Since the report was adopted by all parties, why has
the pilot project contained in the report not gone ahead? Where
do we go from here?
I will address the question of why it is necessary that we are
here today speaking about this issue. This is indicative of most
committee work in the House of Commons. A lot of members in the
House of Commons spend a lot of time doing committee work. In
this particular committee when we were dealing with getting more
television coverage in committee, we spent a great deal of time
in the House on the matter.
Did we all disagree in committee? No. In fact we all agreed,
including the government whip and members opposite who were
sitting on the committee. They said that it was not a bad idea,
that we were approaching the year 2000 and perhaps we should
allow committees to have television coverage equal to other media
coverage like newspapers, radio and so on. So we said, why not
try a pilot project in the committee. Sounds good. We all
agreed on it. If we all agreed on it, where did it go from there?
1520
It came out of the committee, into the House, a report was
tabled and non-action. Why no action? Presumably somebody over
on the government side, I guess the cabinet, said, “We do not
want more coverage by the television networks in committees so
let us just drop it”. Nothing happened.
I asked three times in House leaders meetings, “Where is this
committee report? What are you doing about it?” The response,
“Ho hum, we just do not want to deal with it now”. Finally, I
went to a House leaders meeting several weeks ago and the
government House leader said, “I have a new deal for you. Why do
we not equip one more committee room and spend the money on
television cameras and so on and we will treat it like the only
other room we have,” which is room 253-C I think it is in the
House of Commons.
Out of the blue the government House leader made an offer
totally unrelated to the results of the report and the results of
the committee. I am going to show that in a few minutes. We are
supposed to accept this kind of deal under the table and get on
with life. He totally disregarded all of the work of all of the
members on the committee. He totally disregarded all of the
recommendations and came up with his own little brainstorm.
One has to ask therefore, what is the value of a committee in
the House of Commons? Do they all work like this? Yes, many do.
A lot of members in this House of Commons go to committees. They
undertake hard work on behalf of their constituents and on behalf
of people who believe in what they are doing. They think that
after a report is dealt with, something valuable is going to come
of it. However, once it gets outside and in the House of
Commons, zero, nothing. Is it any wonder that we think and are
convinced committees are all but useless in this House of
Commons. I do not think so.
I guess we can look at it that maybe there are better things to
do. Why not look at how petitions operate in this House of
Commons. Same thing. People go all around the country getting
signatures for things they believe in, things they trust that
they can change, and what happens? It comes into the House of
Commons and I hate to tell everybody, it goes nowhere, absolutely
nowhere. It does not even come to a vote in the House of
Commons.
This is going to be more of a discussion on what is wrong with
committees in addition to why can we not have televised
committees. There are reasons we want televised committees, by
the way, and we will cover that as well.
What is in this report? I must say when I was first approached
by this, I was quite impressed by the representation in
particular from LeeEllen Carroll, the director of the Canadian
parliamentary press executive, who is very forthright in her
positions and a professional indeed. There were no hidden
agendas with this individual. She came to me and said, “Look,
what is fair is fair. Why do we not have televised committee
meetings in all committee rooms?” It sounded great to me and in
fact she made a very professional presentation to the committee,
along with Craig Oliver, a well respected and renowned individual
in media circles.
All of this information was taken by committee members and
thought to be very well done. The end result of course is
“Well, that does not matter”.
Let us look at the recommendations. These are some of the
comments in the report that came from the committee to the House:
“Much of the coverage of the House of Commons is focused on
question period. This is only part and, arguably, a distorted
view of the work of the House and involves only a handful of
members”. That is absolutely correct. Look at the House today.
Listen to this. There are more people in a committee than are
in here.
A lot of good work in 20-some committees goes on in the House.
Unfortunately, the results of those committees are basically
taken with a grain of salt by the government.
1525
The report acknowledges that room 253-D is used for broadcasting
purposes in the House. The experience appears to have been very
positive and has been well received by members of parliament and
the public. Are there concerns with the way things are televised
in that room? No, there has not been. Should there be concerns
with televised proceedings in other committee rooms? I do not
think so. Experience has not led us to believe that.
“Members feel that it would now be appropriate to expand the
coverage of committee proceedings to permanently equip another
room for broadcasting committees. However, it is not feasible or
desirable at this time”. This is interesting. Should we have
permanent facilities, much like we do in 253? No, we think there
is a better idea, we say. Let us find out what that is.
By the way, the report says that there should be no
discrimination between electronic and print members of the press
gallery in carrying out professional duties. I wholeheartedly
agree with that and so did the committee.
What else does it say? “We note that the essential purpose of
broadcasting committee meetings is to enable Canadians to better
understand the work of parliament and to make the House and its
work more accessible and transparent”. This is an excellent
idea, a good idea. Let us implement that. That was one of the
recommendations.
Here are some specifics: “All committees should be given an
opportunity to have some meetings broadcast”. Good idea.
“Provisions should be put in place to ensure broadcasting by the
House of Commons broadcasting service and that it is balanced
among all committees. The committee intends to monitor this”.
Great idea.
“The electronic media will be allowed on a trial basis to June
30, 1999 to film any public committee meetings held within the
parliamentary precincts in Ottawa, subject to certain
guidelines”. Good idea. “It should be gavel to gavel
filming”. Great idea. “The filming must respect the spirit of
an electronic Hansard and will be subject to the same
general guidelines, rules and policies as applied to the
broadcasting of the proceedings of the House itself”. Excellent.
I would concur with that, as did all members on the committee.
“That they”—the electronic media—“deposit with the House of
Commons a copy of the complete tape of each committee meeting
that is filmed under these guidelines as soon as possible after
the completion of the meeting”. Good.
“The cameras must be in fixed positions while the committee is
in session”. Great idea. Nobody has complaints about that. “No
more than three cameras will be permitted in a committee room at
one time”. Good. “Cameras and other equipment must be set up
and dismantled as quickly as possible to minimize the
disruption”. That is fine, no problems. “The existing room
light and committee sound system are to be used”. Who could
argue? “Camera operators will be required to be members of the
parliamentary press gallery”. No problem. “A member of the
parliamentary press gallery wishing to televise a committee
meeting must notify the clerk of the committee at least 24 hours
prior to the meeting”. That sounds sensible.
“We should respect the principle of balanced coverage to
reflect the work of all committees of the House”. No one will
argue with that. “Those members of the press gallery who wish
to take advantage of these arrangements will be required to first
sign an agreement with the House agreeing to be bound by the
guidelines”. I could not agree more. “A subcommittee
consisting of various members should be set up to oversee and
monitor the implementation of this report”. This is great.
If these are not such bad concepts, if these are not so tough,
why is it that this is just another report from another committee
that goes nowhere in this House of Commons? What is it on the
other side of the House that says “If it does not come from our
cabinet, it is no damned good”? It is wrong what those folks
are doing.
Since the report was adopted by all parties, why is it that a
pilot project like the one I have just described cannot be
undertaken? Somewhere in cabinet is there somebody who says “I
did not think of it so it will not be done”? Is it that the
House leaders did not get an opportunity to see it first so it
will not get done? No, that is not the case.
1530
Is it just possible that all members, when television cameras
get in a room, speak articulately enough that it embarrasses
those people in portfolio positions across the way? Is it
possible that someone on the other side is concerned about
somebody having a bright idea? Is it just fundamentally possible
that a committee could work better than the chambers of the House
of Commons? I may be treading on some soft ground, but I
sincerely believe that is the problem is here.
What about grassroots' input as compared to top down? Is it
just possible that people who work in committees and travel
around the country for input to bring into a committee know more
than the ministers in cabinet about any specific issue? I think
it is possible.
Where do we go from here? There is a certain bias against
television and the media in these committee rooms. I respect all
the media that are in these meetings, but there seems to be a
fear on the other side that television will actually display
incompetence, bias or a lack of knowledge on issues. If that is
the case, would it not be better to have television cameras in
the committee and have the skills and abilities of individual
members improved?
The committee that is most often on television is the finance
committee in room 253. I have never really seen any untoward
comments made in that committee, nor have I seen anything
inappropriate. In fact, I thought the level of debate was really
quite high.
If we are looking at why we cannot proceed from here, the
question has to be, why? Backbenchers, in particular on the
other side the House, do not get much television time. I think
the government House leader was overheard to say “It is just so
the Reform Party members can get their faces on television”. If
we want that we can come in here anytime and speak to it.
This is not about getting one's face on television. This is
about opening up the House of Commons to the real issues and real
debates instead of going in camera. I might note that the
pension debate we are facing right now is about to head into a
committee. This is an important issue and yet it is likely it
will not be televised. Why not? What is wrong with it? Why
should we not have it open? Why should the Nisga'a agreement not
be televised? There is nothing wrong with that.
It is time the House of Commons got into the year 2000 and
beyond. I am sick and tired of our members wasting hour after
hour, day after day in these committee meetings working on
reports that go nowhere and end up in here even after all the
Liberals in the committee sign those darned things off. They
agree with them and yet they still go nowhere.
I am about to take issue with this. They will be hearing this
speech time after time until such time as I get a reasonable
argument as to why we cannot deal with this issue. It will be
either that or maybe I will just have to start pulling our
members out of committees until I get some kind of guarantee from
the government that their time will be worthwhile and that the
reports will be listened to.
Something has to give here because I am not going to put up with
it any longer.
1535
Why has this report fallen on deaf ears? Why has nothing
happened? For goodness sake, if the media, the very people
government members depend on for their press releases and so on,
cannot be given respect by hearing the government say “this is
why we do not want this and why we are going to vote it down”,
or whatever it wants to do, then there is something wrong.
Do not just sit on this and have yet another useless report from
a committee going nowhere but into the annals of government. What
the government has to do is treat the media and the members of
those committees with a modicum of respect. It must make their
work worthwhile. Government members should not take the position
that regardless of how sound a judgment and how great a decision
some of these things are that because it was not their idea they
are not going to do it. That is wrong.
The backbenchers over there, however few there are in here
today, should have the courage of their convictions and stand up
and say “Yes, why do my reports not come in here for a vote?”
What is wrong with the people over there? Why do they not insist
on it?
This is the first of many times that I will get up and speak to
this until such time as I get an adequate answer.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
the chair of the standing committee concerned. We are dealing
with concurrence in our report No. 48. The member has picked out
this report. Our committee, I believe, is now in the seventies
in terms of reports that it has submitted.
I will make some comments about the report that the member
quoted from selectively. There are five main recommendations.
The first one deals with the situation the member described. At
the present time, as many viewers of CPAC will know, there is a
committee room that is equipped for committee hearings and they
are televised. Those proceedings are broadcast through CPAC when
the House of Commons is not sitting. That has been quite
successful. There is a procedure whereby committees go into that
particular room. Recommendation one of the report dealt with
that.
The second one dealt with the fact that the House of Commons
already has portable television equipment which can be moved
around and can go into committee rooms and particular committees.
There is a procedure for doing that. Their proceedings can be
taped and, in the same way, can go out over the CPAC channels at
times when this room of the House of Commons is not in operation.
My colleague, the House leader for the Reform Party referred in
part to that. Our House leader, very soon after the report was
presented, made the suggestion that it might be very useful, as a
point of departure for discussion, to discuss fully equipping
another room so that committees could be broadcast from it. That
was the second recommendation.
The third one, which is very important, was the recommendation
with respect to CPAC. A consortium of cable companies tapes the
proceedings in the same way as they are taping what I am saying
now. It goes out across the entire country on the parliamentary
channel. CPAC deposits a tape of these proceedings which becomes
the electronic record of the proceedings of the House of Commons.
There is a discussion about that.
I would suggest that the CPAC arrangement, if one talks to
people across Canada, has been very well received as a creative
way for getting what the House of Commons does.
1540
The channel already has very creative programs, such as the
scrums, the extended interviews with ministers and other people,
and a variety of programs about the way the House of Commons
operates. In my experience they have been very well received.
The committee's recommendations on that are very important
because it is basic to the healthy broadcasting of the House of
Commons.
The fourth recommendation deals with the fact that the standing
committee was very concerned, as is the hon. member opposite,
that members' work in committee be better represented on the
airwaves across Canada. We then came to the point of the pilot
study, which was the focus of the House leader's speech. A
proposal was made for a pilot study by the media with certain
constraints, which he described.
The report contains four recommendations, which the hon. member
has brushed over. The member was concerned about one of the
recommendations, although he admitted that our House leader, very
early on, proceeded with a suggestion which actually was a
stronger presentation of one of the recommendations; the
equipping of a second full time committee room where proceedings
could be televised.
From the point of view of this debate, I will go back to the
fact that my committee, which is one of 20 or 25 standing
committees and subcommittees of the House, has presented over 70
reports. The normal procedure when reports come in is, if they
are substantial and involve considerable changes, as this one
does—and the hon. member is quite right about that—there is
healthy discussion between the parties and the House leaders.
My colleague from the Reform Party is the leader in the House of
his own party. Normally there is discussion about the reports
because sometimes reports come in and some parties like one part
and some parties like the other part. It is a healthy discussion
and something comes from it.
In this case, I would suggest that healthy discussion was
stifled by the Reform Party which did not take up the opening
offer, as it were, of our House leader which was to go beyond one
of the recommendations here and fully equip a second committee
room.
It is very important that reports coming into the House be
thoroughly considered. One of the best ways of doing that is for
the House leaders to look at them, discuss them in great detail
and then come back to the House and make recommendations which
can be supported by all parties.
Although the Reform Party members express great interest in the
matter, it is also of great interest to me personally as chair of
the committee and to my hon. colleagues on this side of the
House. It disappoints me that they did not engage in the normal
dialogue that follows the tabling of a report in the Chamber.
I move:
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I will agree with the motion on the proviso that I have the
opportunity for questions and comments to the member opposite. He
said some things that are quite inaccurate and I have to make
some comments on them. Otherwise we will be going to a 30 minute
vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is a motion
before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1545
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1625
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lee
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Muise
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 158
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Grewal
| Harris
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Meredith
|
Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Turp
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 25
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Asselin
| Beaumier
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Carroll
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
|
Folco
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Graham
| Iftody
| Keyes
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Murray
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Whelan
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
* * *
1630
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is indeed my pleasure
to rise to present a petition signed by over 8,000 residents of
Sault Ste. Marie and the greater Algoma district.
The petitioners observe that a recent ruling of the B.C. supreme
court has for all intents and purposes legalized the possession
of child pornography. The petitioners ask parliament to
acknowledge that child pornography is a threat to common Canadian
values and they call upon parliament to examine ways to eliminate
child pornography in Canada.
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition containing over 200 names from
people across Canada who add their voices to ask our government
to support Canada's merchant navy veterans in their quest for
recompense.
This weekend Mr. Gordon Olmstead, a long time advocate, passed
away after a lengthy illness. I can think of nothing more
fitting than to rename Bill C-61 the Gordon Olmstead act.
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition
signed by 46 people who ask that parliament intervene to have
the government withdraw its appeal of the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal decision and implement the decision without further
delay, in order to ensure that all women in the federal public
service enjoy employment equity.
[English]
MMT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, London and Dashwood
who urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT. The petitioners
note that studies under way at the University of Quebec show that
MMT has adverse health effects, especially on children and
seniors. They also note that car manufacturers oppose the use of
MMT.
GRANDPARENTS RIGHTS
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition in which the petitioners request that
parliament amend the Divorce Act to give a grandparent who is
granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and to be
given information as to the health, education and welfare of the
child, as supported in Bill C-340, an act to amend the Divorce
Act.
TOBACCO
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour to present the following petition signed by concerned
citizens of my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.
Currently many young people continue smoking despite clear
evidence that it causes cancer.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the
government to lend its full support to well-funded educational
and public awareness programs aimed at stopping the growing youth
smoking trend.
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
grandparents, as a consequence of death, separation or divorce of
their children are often denied access to their grandchildren by
guardians. As a result, the petitioners request that parliament
amend the Divorce Act to approve the provision as supported in
Bill C-340 regarding the right of spousal parents, that is,
grandparents, to have access to the children without having to go
to court.
1635
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians, including those from my own
riding of Mississauga South, on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House that
human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world in
countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. They also acknowledge
that Canada continues to be recognized internationally as the
champion of human rights. Therefore they call upon the
government to continue to speak out against human rights abuses
and also to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such
abuses.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 190 and 211.
.[Text]
Question No. 190—Mr. John Cummins:
With regard to the herring spawn-on-kelp fishery and the
response to the directive of the Supreme Court of Canada in
Gladstone that a new trial be held to establish the extent of
licences that ought to be available to the Heiltsuk band: (a)
were existing spawn-on-kelp licences purchased and transferred to
the Heiltsuk in either 1997 or 1998, and if not, why not; were
existing licence holders given the opportunity to sell their
licences; (b) did the department of fisheries and its
spawn-on-kelp technical working group prior to the issuance of
additional licences in 1997 and 1998 undertake reviews of the
economic impact on existing spawn-on-kelp licence holders of the
creation of additional licences versus the purchase of existing
licences, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations
of each review, and which of the recommendations of each review
were implemented; (c) did the department of fisheries and its
spawn-on-kelp technical working group undertake reviews of the
economic impact on existing licence holders of the creation of
new licences following the 1997 and 1998 seasons, and if so, what
were the findings and recommendations of these reviews and what
action was taken in each case to implement the recommendations;
(d) did the
department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group
prior to the issuance of
additional licences in 1997 and 1998 undertake reviews of the impact of
the creation of additional
licences on herring and kelp stocks versus the purchase of existing
spawn-on-kelp licences, and if so, what
were the findings and recommendations of each review, and which of the
recommendations of each
review were implemented; (e) did the department of fisheries and its
spawn-on-kelp technical working
group undertake reviews of the impact on herring and kelp stocks of the
creation of new licences
following the 1997 and 1998 seasons, and if so, what were the findings and
recommendations of each review
and what action was taken to implement the recommendations of each review;
(f) did the department of
fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group prior to the
issuance of additional licences in
1997 and 1998 undertake a review of the market impact, particularly on
spawn-on-kelp prices, of the
creation of additional licences versus the purchase of existing
spawn-on-kelp licences, and if so, what were
the findings and recommendations of each review, and which of the
recommendations of each review
were implemented; (g) did the department of fisheries and its
spawn-on-kelp technical working group
undertake a review of the market impact, particularly on spawn-on-kelp
prices, of the creation of
additional spawn-on-kelp licences following the 1997 and 1998 season,
and if
so, what were the findings and
recommendations of each review and what action was taken to implement the
recommendations of each
review; and (h) what criteria were used to establish that additional
spawn-on-kelp licences were required
in 1997 and 1998; did the minister of fisheries or his department consider
the impact the additional
licences would have on existing licence holders and on the public right;
has an assessment been made of
the impact on the existing licence holders and the public right since the
creation of the additional
licences?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
In the Gladstone decision the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a
new trial to consider whether the limitations imposed on the
Heiltsuk were justified, not to “establish the extent of
licences that ought to be available” to the Heiltsuk First
Nation.
(a) Spawn-on-kelp licences: Existing spawn-on-kelp licences
were not purchased and transferred to the Heiltsuk First Nation
because of the high cost of spawn-on-kelp licences and because
constraints on the allocation transfer program do not alllow for
sufficient capacity to be retired from the spawn-on-kelp
licence category. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO,
facilitated the voluntary retirement of herring gillnet licences
from the commercial fishing fleet to offset harvesting capacity
resulting from the addition of new communal spawn-on-kelp licences in
accordance with departmental policy.
(b), (c), (f) and (g) Economic and market impact: An
economic/market assessment regarding spawn-on-kelp was conducted
in 1997. The spawn-on-kelp technical working group has not
conducted a formal review, but the issue has been discussed with
industry participants. The 1997 study determined that the
state of the Japanese economy is a critical factor in the demand
for spawn-on-kelp, particularly Japanese income levels and
exchange rates. The study also found that a previous increase in
the number of licences had a temporary effect on prices, and
therefore it recommended that future quantity changes should be
gradual. The situation has been monitored since then, but no
formal review of the economic or market impact has been
conducted, nor have there been recommendations.
In retiring herring gillnet licences and creating communal
spawn-on-kelp licences, the objective is to keep overall harvest
effort on herring stocks constant. The management plans reflect
changes to the number of herring gillnet and spawn-on-kelp
licences.
(d) and (e) Biological impact: Biological assessments of B.C.
herring stocks are conducted every year. The herring gillnet,
seine and spawn-on-kelp fisheries are monitored throughout the
fishing season. Assessments based on in-season monitoring and
other factors are used to determine the total allowable catch and
herring management plans for subsequent years. The spawn-on-kelp
technical working group did not do a formal review, but the issue
was discussed and industry participants provided advice.
The harvest of macrocystis kelp used in spawn-on-kelp
operations is carried out under the authority the B.C. ministry
of fisheries. The B.C. ministry issues marine plant harvest
licences, which include licence conditions on the area and
quantity of kelp that may be harvested.
(h) The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Gladstone decision,
1996, found that the Heiltsuk tribal council had an
unextinguished aboriginal right to trade herring spawn-on-kelp on
a commercial basis. While the court did not quantify that right,
some guidance was provided on matters that might be considered to
determine whether the external limitations were justified. As
part of the aboriginal fisheries strategy, AFS, discussions, DFO
then consulted with the Heiltsuk on the number of licences to be
issued for the 1997 and 1998 seasons. The minister considered
the impact of additional licences on existing licence holders.
Some commercial harvesting licences have been removed from the
fishery. The spawn-on-kelp fishery is a limited entry fishery,
which is open only to those who hold a licence. Public access
has not changed as a result of the issuance of licences to the
Heiltsuk tribal council.
Question No. 211—Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
With respect to the sums set aside by each department for the
settlement of the federal public service pay equity issue: (a) what is
the total amount of this reserve; and (b) in what government
account is this reserve deposited?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Annually, the Government
of Canada establishes allowances as it deems necessary to present
fairly the financial position of the government and the financial
results of its operations for the year. Specific allowances are
not disclosed as they may be prejudicial to court proceedings or
negotiating contexts.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Mississauga South—health.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-78, an
act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to
amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act,
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada
Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to continue the debate that was interrupted by question
period and the proceedings since that time. I have largely
covered the issue regarding the surplus in the plan at this point
in time.
Other major issues in the bill include the splitting
of the CPP from pension plan contributions. As we know,
employees of the civil service are the only employees in the
country who have been making a combined CPP-pension plan payment.
Now that the government has decided to increase CPP contributions
dramatically over the next number of years it has split that out
so that employees will have to pay the same CPP increases that
everybody else is going to have to pay and perhaps pay more into
the pension plan as well, if that is warranted at a later date.
The intention is to privatize the fund over the next number of
years so that as new contributions are made, starting April 1,
they will go into a new plan. Benefits will be paid out of the
old plan, but new money will not go into the old plan, so when
the old plan is broke and finished and fully disbursed, by that
time it will be fully privatized. It is complex stuff that shows
the length the government is prepared to go to try to get its
way.
One of the other things the government does is to redefine terms
in the dictionary. I am looking at page 51 of the bill under
“persons considered to be married”. I find this rather
interesting. It states:
For the purposes of this Part, when a contributor dies and, at
the time of death, the contributor was married to a person with
whom the contributor had been cohabiting in a relationship of a
conjugal nature for a period immediately before the marriage,
that person is considered to have become married to the
contributor on the day established as being the day on which the
cohabitation began.
Therefore, the marriage ceremony is irrelevant. The government
has redefined the definition of the term marriage. As soon as
one enters into a cohabitation arrangement, by the government's
definition, one is married, regardless of what the dictionary
says.
I will leave that point for Canadians to contemplate. As many
people are concerned about the changes taking place in our
society today, we now have the government leading the way in
redefining the very simple word “marriage”, which I think for
generations has meant a ceremony in which people commit
themselves to each other.
Then we have the other issue of it not only being people of the
opposite sex but people of the same sex. The government has run
into a real conundrum in trying to define a defined relationship,
while at the same time leaving it open for virtually any kind of
relationship to apply.
I could not put on the record the complex terminology that
government members have had to use in trying to say that the door
is shut and open at the same time. As we can see, they have had
to go through contortions to define that. That debate will
continue on another day.
1640
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I think it is dreadful
that a 200 page bill with complex legal language, dealing with
issues as complex as actuarial assessments of pension plans, who
benefits and who does not, who pays and who does not, who shares
in the risk and who does not, and so on, should all be wrapped up
in less than two days of debate because the government has
introduced closure. That is an affront to the democratic
process. I would hope that members opposite would hang their
heads in shame for having trampled the rights of members of the
House who have a right to speak on issues before the House, to
express the wishes of their constituents and to express their own
opinions on the issue.
We have a 200 page bill and the government says after a few
hours of debate “That is enough. Thank you very much. We will
move it to committee”. We will no doubt have closure at
committee. We will likely be refused to hear any witnesses.
Government members will say that the job is done and that it
should be brought back to the House. I can see closure being
moved at third reading. That is how arrogant the government has
become.
I hope that Canadians start to take this point seriously and
start calling Liberal members of parliament to ask why they are
doing this. Why are they putting a muzzle on parliament? Surely
if free speech means anything it means free speech in this place.
We do not have free speech. We do not even have the right to
speak any more because of closure. It is a dreadful day for
Canadians.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how my hon. colleague
puts on his sleeve what his real concern is.
Reform members are confused. They came here talking about their
concern for the taxpayers and their money. This is a great
opportunity for the member opposite to deal with this issue.
However, because of the fear that somehow or other we might get
credit for defending the taxpayers and their money, members of
his party are unfortunately trying to find themselves once again,
even though we know there is the united alternative, which some
in his party want to kill.
There are many issues that come to this table. The member
realizes that it is taxpayers' money, but he is trying to figure
out where we can take this money. He stated earlier that it is
taxpayers' money. It is not the government's money, it is the
taxpayers' money. Yet he wants to take that money and put it
into some safe somewhere and say “Do not give it to the
government. Do not give it to the employees”, because it is not
for the employees, but somehow it should stay there because some
time in the future there might be a deficit. Is that not
interesting?
Canadians want their money back now. They want to know that the
government is guaranteeing the pensions of its employees, and it
is doing that. However, if there is excess money in a surplus,
they want their money back, so that in effect they can have all
of the services that they need and require, including receiving
tax back, if necessary, on the issues at hand.
The hon. member stated that the Canadian taxpayers paid for the
surplus and they are entitled to their money. Does he believe
they should get it back? If not, what does he recommend we tell
Canadian taxpayers that is different from what he has stated in
the last several years?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh when
government members say they are protecting the taxpayers. How
much tax relief are they offering because of this bill? It is a
big, round zero. They are offering the taxpayers absolutely
nothing in this bill because they know that they will stand one
day and reduce the debt by a bookkeeping entry and say “Look
what we have done”, but they offer the taxpayer nothing.
1645
As I have said, the surplus arose because of circumstances. We
have reduced inflation thankfully, after this government let it
run out of control. We have a debt that it let run out of
control. Thankfully, because we have been here pushing hard it
has brought that under control.
Now we have a situation where the taxpayer is potentially at
risk so the government can look good for the next election. That
is what this bill is all about.
I refer to an article in the Ottawa Citizen on March 4,
1997. I cannot say his name but it talks about the Minister of
Finance's hidden cash, “Government raids $24 billion public
service pension surplus”. It is a raid. The civil servants are
finding that their contributions into the plan are being taken.
We are saying leave the money in the plan to protect the
taxpayer. We know that if the Liberals stay on that side of the
House they will be soaking the taxpayer for a tax increase the
minute it runs into a deficit. They cannot have it both ways.
They should be honest and say what their position is.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks with great interest.
I want to draw his attention to the fact that the Canada pension
plan was roundly criticized and condemned because the investments
were primarily in government instruments, in government bonds,
and consequently the CPP did not grow anything like the rest of
the economy. By contrast, Quebec, which manages its own plan,
the QPP, invested in market instruments and indeed attained a
better level of solvency than the CPP.
It seems to me we are doing precisely the same thing with the
public service pension plan. By taking it out of low risk, low
return government instruments and giving the government an
opportunity to invest it into the marketplace, we have an
opportunity to benefit the taxpayer. Any money that is earned on
that $30 billion surplus will ultimately go directly or
indirectly to lowering taxes. I would appreciate the member's
remarks on that.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that
the government has already stopped paying any interest whatsoever
on this actuarial surplus of $30 billion. There is absolutely
zero cost to the taxpayer at this point in time. That is saving
the taxpayer about $2.4 billion a year, give or take.
That is why if the money stays in the plan it will not cost the
taxpayers anything but it will protect them against tax increases
at a later date at the whim of this government the minute there
is a deficit. Surely a little buffer is not that bad because we
know at the first opportunity the government will tax and squeeze
more money out of the taxpayer. That is what we are trying to
stop.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
the member for St. Albert to clarify something.
He mentioned that the government is no longer paying interest on
the surplus, but over the years it did do that. As a result, the
money that was supposed to be set aside for pensions increased.
While the government was considering that amount to be part of
Canada's deficit, that it was money owed, it is now considering
that same money to be part of a surplus that it will now use to
offset the deficit. Does the member find the government's
approach in its bookkeeping a little strange?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, there are an awful lot of
strange things in the government's bookkeeping. There are many,
many things and this just happens to be one of them. The
Liberals are going to say that they have done a wonderful thing.
It is going to kick in before the election.
As I was saying before question period, they have $2.5 billion
sitting in a bank account for the Canada scholarship fund. It is
already paid for. The taxpayer has put up the cash and nothing
is coming down until next year. There was $3.5 billion for the
big announcement on health care. Again, it will not be available
until next year. There was $800 million for the centre for
innovation that was paid for a couple of years ago. The money is
sitting in the bank and is not going to be disbursed until next
year.
Here the Liberals are taking the money from the pension plan.
Presumably they will apply it to the debt just before the
election and will say “Boy, we are doing everything”. But when
we look at the bookkeeping we find it is a front and that is not
the way it is.
1650
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my colleague to comment on the following.
It seems to me there is one commonality between what is
happening here and what has happened to the EI fund, namely, the
government is raiding a surplus. In the case of the EI fund, it
took the money away from employers and employees and it has
absolutely no intention of giving it back. It just brings it
into general revenue. Now it is raiding this fund.
I would like the hon. member to comment on how those two
situations are similar and on any differences he might detect in
them.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, it is a good question.
The government raids every piggy bank it can find if it is going
to make the government look good.
There is a little bit of difference between the EI fund, which
is paid for by employers and employees, and this one. The
taxpayer puts cash into the plan and they are not going to get
this cash. We are not talking about tax relief. Not a penny of
this is being promised as tax relief to the taxpayer, not a
penny. The government wants to make a simple accounting change
to reduce the debt and say how wonderful it is.
The Liberals tried to tell us how wonderful they were when I
think it was Pierre Trudeau who said “Don't worry about the
debt. We owe it to ourselves”. Look at the mess we got
ourselves into courtesy of the Liberal government.
Does the government think it is going to fix it with some smoke
and mirrors type of accounting policies? No way. Taxpayers have
worked darned hard. They have had to slog and pay high taxes.
Now this government is going to put a smile on its face and say
it is doing a wonderful job with smoke and mirrors accounting. I
say that is the wrong way.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting to rise today. It is déja vu all over again
for me, having gone through the experience of merging some
teachers pension funds in the province of Ontario when I was in
that legislature and arguing whether or not the government of the
day, the David Peterson government, had the authority to merge
pensions.
Hon. Jim Peterson: That was a great government.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The hon. member says that was a great
government.
The experience we had there would be rather enlightening to
members opposite, were they to look at the impact. In reality we
had one pension in a deficit and another in a huge surplus.
There were arguments about whether or not the contributions being
made by the teachers were sufficient or fair in light of
contributions being made by other employees in the public sector,
and indeed in the private sector.
I can say that people in the private sector would be delighted
to have a pension plan similar to the one we are discussing today
and certainly similar to the one the teachers enjoyed and still
enjoy in Ontario.
I can see that we are changing the guard. I should clarify for
the Chair that I was told by the whip's desk that I should be
discussing this for a full 20 minutes, as opposed to sharing my
time.
In any event, the results of that legislative change in the
parliament of Ontario were that we took a teachers pension fund
that was in one sense in some jeopardy and by increasing the
contributions and by taking the surplus into proper use, we were
able to create one of the strongest pension funds in all of
Canada, perhaps even all of North America. In fact, look at what
it owns.
An hon. member: The entire world.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It could be the world. You never know.
I am not sure of the European, Asian or African experience, but
it is very strong.
It owns the Toronto Maple Leafs, who are about to go on and
defeat Philadelphia this evening, hopefully. It has amazing
investments that are making wonderful returns for its members.
For whose benefit? That is what we hear in this place from
members opposite. Who is going to benefit from these changes?
They are trying to suggest that this is simply for the benefit of
the Liberal Party or the Liberal government. That is absolute
nonsense.
1655
This is for the benefit of all Canadians and in my view, the
changes here are for the benefit of those who will draw on that
pension. This will ensure that that pension is sustainable for
many years to come for the tens and possibly hundreds of
thousands of pensioners who will draw upon it.
I wish to point out something which I find rather interesting.
We went through the exercise of having a vote in this place. We
voted on a motion to adjourn the debate. I am sure the public who
were watching were somewhat confused. Why would we be voting on
a motion to adjourn the debate and what debate were we
adjourning?
The House leader for the official opposition put forward a
motion on debate that we should have televised coverage of every
committee operated from this place. On the surface that would
seem to make sense. Why would we not want to have all the
debates open to the public and televised? The reality is, and
the reason I raise this point is that instead of getting on with
the debate on a very important issue such as this bill and the
changes to the pension act, what we got was a filibuster that is
meant to do nothing more than put a wrench in the wheels of
government. It is not substantive.
The member opposite knows full well that there are dozens of
committee rooms throughout the parliamentary precincts. The rooms
are in various buildings, across the street in the Wellington
building, in West Block, East Block and Centre Block. They are
all over the place. If we were to attempt—
Mr. John Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to bring to the member's attention that we
moved off that subject when we had the vote. We are now on Bill
C-78 which has nothing to do with cameras and committee rooms.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
St. Albert does have a point. I would ask the member for
Mississauga West to make a link between what he is saying right
now and the bill.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, all I need is a bit of
time to do that. I can see the link quite clearly. I heard the
member who just rose on a point of order stand here and complain
about closure. I do not know how that had anything to do with
this bill.
What it had to with was the attempt by the opposition to delay
this parliament, to stop us from having the opportunity to speak
about this bill. That is exactly what it was about. Now we face
the threat from the House leader who came halfway across the
floor to say “You guys have had it now. We are going to keep on
delaying”.
Instead of getting on with the issue of whose surplus it is,
instead of debating with my hon. friend who chairs the public
accounts committee and does a commendable job at it, instead of
getting to refute some of the points the member makes, we wind up
wasting time. It is now five o'clock and question period was
over at three o'clock. So what do we do. We kill the better
part of two hours in this place because the members opposite
simply want to stand up in an obstreperous manner to try to delay
the proceedings of parliament with nothing whatsoever to be
gained on the bill involved.
The question here is, whose surplus is it anyway? Let us look
at the facts. We have a collective agreement. While I find the
position of the Reform Party, in the usual fashion, somewhat off
the wall, I want to at least give some credit to the NDP critic,
the member for Winnipeg Centre. Even though I do not agree with
the position the member is taking on this, at least the NDP is
being consistent on this issue.
I will read from Hansard the NDP's view. This came from
the member for Winnipeg Centre: “It is a basic tenet of the
trade union movement that all pension surpluses are the sole
property of the employee. They are not the employers' money to
use as they see fit. They are deferred wages. It is our money
speaking on behalf of working people”.
That has long been a position of the New Democratic Party. That
is absolutely clear. Its stated philosophy or goal in life is to
stand up in its own way and defend what it sees as the rights of
the union.
1700
Then we get the other extreme that comes from members of the
Reform Party. They say it is the position of the official
opposition that these surpluses belong to neither the government
nor outright to the unions. It is the taxpayers who are the
forgotten partner in this debate.
We have pretty extreme positions dealing with an issue.
Interestingly enough it is easy to take extreme positions when
they sit in opposition and are accountable to no one. It is up
to the government then to make a decision as to what is fair.
We have a pension fund where contributions have been made by the
employees and the employers alike at a ratio of 70% by the
employer, which happens to be the taxpayer, and 30% by the
employee.
Would it not make sense, if we believe in the position of the
Reform Party that the taxpayers are the forgotten elements, to
use the surplus that has built up as a result of a 70%
contribution over many years to pay down the debt? I find it
astounding that members opposite could stand in their places, as
I think the previous speaker said, and say that $30 billion is
only a small amount.
The government has been successful in eliminating a $42 billion
deficit-overdraft. For the first time in over 40 years it has
actually put a dent in the debt of the country by some $20
billion. Now we have an opportunity staring us in the face to
further reduce the national debt by $30 billion.
I understand where the NDP is coming from. It is fighting for
its brothers and sisters in the union. It is consistent. However
I cannot understand where the official opposition is coming from
when it stands and says that we should leave it alone, not touch
it. It does not belong to the union. It does not belong to the
government. Somehow it belongs to taxpayers but we are to leave
it alone and not give it to the taxpayers.
An hon. member: Did we say that?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member asks whether they said
that. How else would we interpret the fact that I have heard
members of the official opposition say that the surplus moneys
should be left in surplus and simply allowed to grow?
Somewhere the NDP talks about the potential growth going to $100
billion. Let us turn around and extrapolate it. We leave the
$30 billion in the account as members opposite are suggesting.
That account then grows to $100 billion as a result of a
contribution agreement that is 70:30. Benefits are being paid
out. Obligations are being made. Pensioners are secure. We
should leave $100 billion in some kind of surplus savings account
while taxpayers on the other side of the argument struggle with
the burden of carrying a $550 billion or $560 billion debt? It
makes no sense whatsoever.
It is time all of us in this place, regardless of political
stripe, agreed with the taxpayers who say to me that we should
pay down the debt. Yes, they want tax relief, but they want debt
reduction. The reason they want debt reduction is that they know
that debt will fall on the shoulders and come out of the wallets
of their kids and their grand kids. There is absolutely no doubt
about that.
They can point fingers if they want and say that the reason the
debt is so high is this or that government. We could blame all
kinds of people and parties, most of them not in this place, for
the size of that debt.
1705
The reality is that society has changed. Our country has
matured. It is my view that we have matured to the point where
we recognize something which I think was recognized in many
municipalities around the country in the late seventies, that we
cannot simply continue to borrow and mortgage the future.
That is what this is all about. I find it a rather incongruous
position for the opposition party to stand in this place and say
we should leave it alone, ignore it, pretend it is not there and
save it for a rainy day.
This brings me to another point. Whether it be an employment
insurance fund or a superannuation fund for the RCMP or for
anybody involved in the public service, who ultimately is
responsible to ensure that the pension commitments are made?
An hon. member: It is not complex.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, it is not complex. It is pretty
straightforward. I would submit the people of Canada have signed
the bargaining agreements and employ these individuals. It is
the Government of Canada representing the people of Canada that
is ultimately responsible for it.
The issue of the surplus is key just because of the size of it,
it being a $30 billion impact. If I thought for one minute we
would take the $30 billion out of this fund and simply spread it
around and spend it, that would be irresponsible. That is not
what we are talking about. This is an unprecedented opportunity
for the government to show leadership in fiscal responsibility
again.
It would follow on the last budget and the one before and the
takeover in 1993 when the government put the country of Canada,
along with the tremendous help and sacrifices of Canadians, on
the route to fiscal responsibility by eliminating the deficit and
starting to pay down the debt.
They can say all they want about disagreeing with government
policies. They can say all they want about criticizing the
direction or philosophy of the government. They cannot dispute
that since 1993 the overdraft in the country has been eliminated
and the debt is starting to be paid down.
While it is an important part of the whole issue surrounding
these pension amendments, the primary purpose is to establish
something that once again members opposite, notably the New
Democrats and the Reform, should be supporting, that is a public
sector pension investment board.
An argument has gone on and on at various levels of government
about who will control the money. Who will make the decision
about where it is to be invested and how much it returns? This
is an absolute breath of fresh air because the board will operate
at arm's length from the government, something I would have
thought we would have heard cheers about from members opposite.
It will be arm's length from employees and pensioners. No
member of parliament will be allowed to sit on it. That is the
way it should be. There should be no conflicts or perceived
conflicts in the establishment of such a board. There will be 12
qualified directors to be appointed by the government. I do not
know who else would appoint them.
Ultimately at the end of the day it is the government that is
responsible, that is liable for anything which goes wrong, and
there is no question it is the government's responsibility to
ensure that there are 12 competent, highly qualified individuals
on that board.
It will require quarterly or annual financial statements to be
provided to the ministers responsible for the funds. An annual
report will be tabled in the House, I say to the chair of the
public accounts committee, which is something he is always
calling for. There will be an opportunity to debate that report.
We can refer it to committee. There is no question the
accountability is there.
I mention particularly for members of the New Democratic Party
mandatory advisory committees for each of the three major plans
with at least half the committee members to be employees and
pensioners shall be established.
1710
That is saying there is an opportunity for co-management, an
opportunity for input. I am sure the New Democrats would rather
turn it over unilaterally to the union. I understand that
position. That would be once again consistent with the
philosophy of that party, but that is not the position the
government wishes to take.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Turn it over to management. That is
what is happening.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I do not think it should be turned
over to management either. This is an opportunity to work
together on this fund and it makes absolute sense.
The question of managing ongoing surpluses is critically
important as is the whole issue of how we determine over a 15
year period what is to be done in relationship to any surplus
that might amount. We do not need to be going through this every
15 years. This is causing some stress, some anxiety.
I understand the labour position. I would expect nothing less
than for labour to stand through its representatives in the House
and fight on the basis that it thinks this is its money and it
should have control of it. I understand that. I just do not
agree with it. Neither does the government agree with it.
I do not understand the position of the official opposition,
however, that would continually simply take a position that is
contrary. Somehow Reform members think every day when they get
up in the morning that whatever they do we will disagree with and
take a contrary position.
This is responsible legislation. It is fair to the taxpayer. It
is fair to pensioners that will need this pension for their
future protection.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I appreciated the speech to some degree, although I have a number
of questions for the hon. member for Mississauga West.
It is interesting that a third of the bill deals with redefining
or changing the terms widow, wives, spouse, spouses. They are
all taken out of the bill and he did not make any mention of
that. They have been replaced with the following, and I read
from the bill itself:
For the purposes of this part, when a person establishes that he
or she is cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with
a contributor for at least one year immediately before the death
of the contributor, that person is considered to be a survivor.
The key is “cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal
nature”. Nowhere in the bill does it define what that is
exactly.
Would the hon. member for Mississauga West be so good as to tell
us how the government will determine who qualifies and who does
not based on that definition?
For example, would two roommates who are close and share
expenses but have no conjugal or intimate physical relationship
be excluded based on physical intimacy? Is this the policy of
the party whose leader once said that the government had no place
in the bedrooms of the nation?
I would appreciate if he could clarify for the House how they
intend to approach that issue with the bill.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I am sure it caused
some consternation in the Reform Party when its members saw what
appeared to be some attempt to dodge the same sex issue. They
would like to simply turn this debate around on that one issue.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Give us a break.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I will give the member a break all
right. What has happened here is that the government has put in
place an amendment which frankly takes that issue off the table
and settles it.
Let us deal with the important issues. The important issues in
this are not whether someone is having a conjugal relationship
with a same sex partner. We are not redefining family. We are
not redefining marriage. I believe the important aspect of
benefits paid to a survivor under any pension plan is how the
premiums were paid. Were they paid on a family basis and are
they recognized in that capacity?
The bill goes a long way to setting a new standard that
Canadians will understand.
1715
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, while we appreciated whatever the member just
said, he did not answer the question from the member for Calgary
Centre.
He stood up for 20 minutes in debate and seemed to have at least
assured himself that he was talking about a subject he knew
about, so the member for Calgary Centre asked him a question
regarding the definition of the relationship of a conjugal
nature. He wanted to know if two roommates who were close and
shared expenses but had no physical relationship would qualify.
The member did not answer the question. I would just like to
give him an opportunity to specifically answer the question that
the member for Calgary Centre asked him and which I put to him
again.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, this proves my point.
The Reform Party members would simply like to turn this into an
issue of same sex relationships instead of—
Mr. Ken Epp: You are the one who put it into the bill.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, they are trying to understand
what the word conjugal means. I will allow them to go to their
own dictionaries to figure that one out. It would be highly
unlikely that I would take the time in here to try to conduct sex
education classes for members opposite. I am not sure that they
would be able to grasp it in any event.
The issues in this bill are about improvements to the benefits
of the people who will collect the pensions. The issue very
clearly lays out the fact that survivor benefits can include
people in that kind of relationship.
I do not know why those members do not just stand up and say
what it is they want to say. Frankly, I do not think they would
like the reaction of the Canadian public when they do that.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, in
response to the member's answer and his position that the issue
in the bill is to improve the benefits for the pensioners, why
are we not reinvesting the surplus and improving the pension
benefits to those women who have been in the service for 20 years
and will get $9,600 a year in pension? Why are we not doing
that? Why are we taking that money out and using it to make the
government look like it has a surplus and is doing a great job
with our finances?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for a relevant question.
Let me first deal with the improvements. The formula for
calculating retirement benefits will be changed to five
consecutive years instead of six. That is an improvement. The
hon. member's own critic said so in Hansard.
The formula by which the plan benefits are integrated with the
CPP or the QPP will be changed in the plan member's favour; life
insurance to ensure the government's pension package for its
employees, in keeping with the opinions of the courts; the issue
of survivors' benefits under the major plans, including the
pension plans for members of parliament, will be amended to
extend survivors' benefits to same sex partners on the same basis
as survivors' benefits are now available to opposite sex partners
in a common law relationships.
A dental plan will also be included in the amendments. The bill
will include authority for the Treasury Board to look at the
surpluses that get accumulated every 15 years. I have outlined
lots of benefits that will be improvements for the members. There
are more, but I know that my time is limited.
The member should read her own critic's Hansard. He
actually praises many of the changes in the bill on behalf of the
retirees. I would not want to mislead the House by saying he
agrees with everything, but he does point out that there are a
number of very positive improvements.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to watch the Reform
members sort of stumble in this process. They realize that what
we are doing is something that they probably would consider doing
if they were on this side of the House. However, because they
see this as good government, they have to try to find things that
will go to the worst part of their being. It is unfortunate.
I have a question for my hon. colleague. It is interesting how
the member for St. Albert indicated that by putting the money in
the black box and not giving it back to the taxpayers or to the
employees is the best route. Reformers used to idolize the debt
board. They used to get up and look at it as it turned every
second along the way, yet when the opportunity is here, because
it is the taxpayers' money and being returned to the taxpayer,
they are against that.
I just do not understand how they would put Canadian taxpayers at
risk by trying some cockamamie idea of placing $30 billion in a
black box for some rainy day. Will the hon. member please tell
me how they can deal with this hypocrisy?
1720
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I agree with the
sentiment expressed by the hon. member.
Having worked with the member for St. Albert on public accounts,
I have found him to be one of the few members on that side whom I
would give some credit to for being a responsible individual when
it comes to this. I am therefore astounded when I hear him say
that this money belongs to the Canadian taxpayer, not to the
government nor to the union. I understand that position.
However, why do we not put it to the best use possible that will
benefit the Canadian taxpayer?
From the people I have talked to in my riding and clearly those
across Canada, they want us to reduce the debt. They understand
the burden on their kids and their grandchildren. They want us to
use every available excess dollar, every available surplus that
we possibly can to reduce the debt. That is what this will do.
It is astounding that Reform would simply see us leaving it in a
black box, as the member said, or in some kind of bank account
and not putting it to proper use and to the benefit of all
taxpayers in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the first
question I would put concerns the role of the legislator. I
have been a member of parliament for nearly six years now, and I
often wonder.
When a parliament or a government has employees it is
responsible for, it becomes sort of judge and jury, and the
current government is much more judge than jury. On a number of
occasions, whether it involves back to work legislation or any
law concerning employees, we have seen that it opposes workers
and unions.
I wonder how long it will continue to abuse the rights set out
in the various laws of parliament or in the provisions of
collective agreements or right to strike measures.
It has become almost impossible today for public servants to
enjoy the right to strike. We saw this recently with the
legislation forcing employees back to work.
The position of the government in this debate is coloured
anti-union or anti-worker, because it often reneges on its
signature. It refuses to negotiate in the knowledge that it
will legislate in the end. It is perfectly natural to question
the powers of the legislator. I think it risks falling into a
trap, that of thinking it can dictate because of its majority.
The government seems to be saying “We have a majority. The
opposition can do what it likes, in the end, we will implement a
measure”.
Unfortunately, this is what happened again today with the
infamous time allocation motion.
But there are safety valves in society and parliament is one of
them. When the opposition parties are deliberately gagged, it
seems to me that these safety valves are being bypassed.
Canada's unions, its labour legislation, its collective
agreements, and its opposition no longer matter. All that
counts is the dictatorship of the majority. I think it is
important that we be able to start by looking at this state of
affairs.
I have often accused the government of relentlessly crusading
against workers and we have further proof of this today. If we
look at this government's track record, there is nothing
surprising about it wanting to get its hands on the surpluses in
federal public servants' pension funds today.
1725
We saw this with the rail workers, when parliament sat for one
whole weekend to force them back to work. Recently, there was a
typical example of this, when the government forced federal
public servants, who incidentally had the right to strike, back
to work. The government deliberately held up negotiations.
In addition, these federal public servants had not had a pay
increase for six years. All the government had to do was sit
down and deliberately hold up progress at the negotiating tables
in order to later be able to force them back to work. This is
yet another example.
Some of my colleagues pointed out the parallel between the bill
before us today, through which the government wants to grab the
surpluses in the federal pension funds, and what happened and
still goes on with EI.
Indeed, the Bloc has been bringing up for several years the huge
surplus that is accumulating in EI fund. That surplus is
currently estimated at about $25 billion. The government used
this surplus to solve its deficit problem. There were many other
options. For example, the government could have reduced the
premiums.
We have said repeatedly that any reduction in EI premium creates
jobs. Nonetheless, the government ignored that option.
All it is interested in is grabbing any surplus that may have
accumulated, no matter where.
The other approach suggested by the Bloc Quebecois to solve the
EI surplus problem was to improve the plan. When we raise this
option, the minister often calls us old-fashioned and accuses us
of trying to use the EI fund for regional development purposes.
But we must face reality. There are many have-not areas in Quebec
and Canada where the unemployment rate is very high and which
would benefit from an improved plan.
But the government is not interested in improving the plan or
lowering premiums, even though that would create jobs. It wants
to get its hands on the surpluses.
It has already done it with the employment insurance fund. In
fact, this government has a propensity to get its hand on any
surplus, no matter where.
And there are other instances. The government has also cut
transfers to the provinces. Now it is after the surpluses in the
public service pension plans; not to mention the number of years
for which it has refused pay equity for women in the federal
public service.
The government is simply in the process of grabbing anything it
can. Unfortunately, this means less money for the regions, and
that is something we have to repeat constantly.
When we look at what we have before us today, we can see that
there is a $30 billion surplus in the federal public service
pension fund.
Granted, half of this surplus, or $15 billion, comes from
contributions made by the government and its employees. This is
the kind of surplus we are talking about in the federal public
service employee's pension plan. There is also a $2.5 billion
surplus in the RCMP pension fund and a $13 billion surplus in
the Canadian Forces pension fund.
I represent a riding that is home to many federal public
servants, and to a large military population since one of the
largest bases in Canada is located in my riding. This bill will
affect current and future pensioners for many reasons. These are
similar to the reasons set out with respect to the employment
insurance fund, as I tried to demonstrate earlier.
Is the government not interested in improving the federal public
service employees, RCMP and Canadian Forces pension plans? No,
it is not interested in doing that, just as it is not interested
in improving the EI program. It just wants to get its hand on
any surplus.
Is it interested in reducing contributions substantially or
giving a holiday on premiums, as is often the case? The
government shows no interest at all for this solution because it
wants to get its hands on as many billion dollars as possible.
For instance, could the government not reduce penalties on early
retirement, which would be another way to create employment? No,
the government is not interested in that, because it is obsessed
with the $30 billion which it wants to grab.
1730
The same thing happened with the $25 billion in the employment
insurance fund, which the government wanted. Similarly, the
government reduced transfer payments because it wanted to
accumulate money and reduce its payments to provinces.
Meanwhile, the government has not even put its own backyard in
order.
It did not even make the necessary efforts to streamline all
departments, but it forced all others to streamline their own
operations. The government now wants the surplus in the public
service employees' pension fund.
The only thing the government wants is to get its hands on the
money. It says “Look how good administrators we are”.
Conveniently, this government is almost at mid term and is now
getting ready for the next election. It will be saying “See how
good the Liberal government is and how well it is managing
things”.
Well, they managed on the backs of everyone, including the
unemployed, the provinces—with the cuts in transfer payments—and
now its employees—with the pension fund surplus. The government
also managed on the backs of women working in the federal public
service. According to some people, this policy has allowed the
government to save between $5 and $6 billion.
How easy it is to manage this way and say “We will ask everyone
to make an effort, but we will not.
Moreover, we will control anything that relates to negotiations
or that has a significant impact on the federal budget. We will
block negotiations at the bargaining table and we will impose
back to work legislation and salary freezes”. And the government
just goes merrily on its way.
This is outrageous. Let us not forget that we are all members of
parliament, that we represent our ridings. Such measures prevent
retirees from getting a little more.
In my riding, members of the Canadian forces or the federal
public service make an average annual salary of $30,000. When
these people retire, their income will be around $21,000.
Instead of trying to help them a little more and put money in
circulation in every region, the government prefers to
appropriate that money. This is absolutely outrageous.
Then there is the government's argument to the effect that if
there is a deficit, it pays for it. But it is Canadian taxpayers
who pay for the deficit. When there are surpluses, Canadian
taxpayers should benefit from them.
I would like to know how many deficits there were. What was the
amount of these deficits? I truly believe that the current
surpluses in the plans exceed all the previous deficits
combined. It might be interesting for the government to say “We
do not want to lower contributions. We do not want to improve
the plan. Therefore, let us deduct all the previous deficits
from the surplus. Then we will make sure the money is properly
shared among those who contributed to that plan”.
This is not what the government is doing. It is ignoring all of
that and simply grabbing the plan's surplus.
I would be remiss not to mention at this point the Singer
employees. A few years ago, the Bloc Quebecois fought to get
justice for the employees of the Singer Company because the
government was a trustee of the company's pension plan. Today, I
understand why the government objected to that. If it had opened
the door, it would never have been able to follow through with
its plan to raid the federal public service pension fund as it
is doing today.
It refused to budge. I submit that the Singer employees were the
first victims of the government's plan that is becoming reality
today . Nevertheless, the injustice still remains. In those
days, the government had allowed the Singer Company to stop
paying premiums. For years, it did not contribute, whereas its
employees were still paying. Then the company shut down and took
off with what was left in the fund.
Not only did it not contribute, but it made off with the
employees' contributions.
I believe today this should weigh heavily on the government's
conscience. Singer workers, who are 83 years old on average,
receive a monthly pension ranging from $20 to $50, thanks to the
federal government.
Today the Liberal government lets people who have been paying
full premiums all their life retire, but it refuses to enhance
their plan, saying the Canadian taxpayers would have to pay for
it, which is not true.
1735
It is not just the Canadian taxpayer. It is not just the
government that paid for all of this. The federal public
servants also paid for it. Some of them paid in for 25 or 30
years, and now, when they are in need of it, they are being told
“We are going to freeze benefits where they are, and take the
surplus”.
It will be no surprise to learn that the Bloc Quebecois cannot
agree with this. I have often made the claim that the Bloc
Quebecois was the party that most supported the workers in this
House. It is the one that has come to their defence the most.
Most of those who voted for all of the members of this House are
workers.
I believe it is right to take the side of the worker by
administering the federal budget in a responsible way.
Unfortunately, in this House only the Bloc Quebecois has held a
consistent position as far as workers are concerned, in all the
issues I have listed. It is the only party that has defended
them. No matter what bill was introduced, it was the only party
to come to the workers' defence. All of the other parties, at
one time or another, have taken a wrong turn, have given up
caring about the workers, but not us, ever.
Nor will we today. We will fight this bill to the utmost of our
limited abilities. We have very little leeway. The government
has announced “Debate will be over at 6.30 p.m. Then there will
be a vote”. What is going to happen in committee, because the
bill will be referred to a committee? The same thing, probably.
At one point they will say “That is enough. We will move on to
clause by clause adoption”. It will come back at third reading,
and the government will probably impose closure again.
It seems to me that this government uses closure to excess. The
opposition parties help ensure the government does not fall into
dictatorship by majority. It denies the right to speak to those
who are trying to bring about more specific things or to do a
little damage control. We have a government that is not only
judge and jury outside the House through negotiation, but judge
and jury in the House because it limits the opposition's time
for debate.
Accordingly, and for these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will
oppose this bill.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the member's speech and to the
debate generally.
It seems to me one precious part of this argument is missing.
There are two different types of pensions in the private and
public sectors. One is called the defined benefit program. The
other one is a fluctuating benefit program.
The fluctuating benefit is determined by the amount of money
that is invested in the plan. In other words, it is an actual
calculation of how much money is invested and then the benefit
level is determined.
This plan is a defined benefit plan. It means very simply that
the benefits are predetermined. It is irrelevant how much money
physically is in or is not in the plan. The beneficiaries will
get the same pension.
The Reform Party's position is even more ludicrous. The Reform
Party is saying to leave the money in the plan. But there is no
money. It is a notional amount that does not exist. There is no
bank account with $30 billion in it. Whether we left it in the
plan or took out it will not improve the employees' benefit
levels.
This particular intervener talked about defending the workers of
Canada. I suspect that those workers are also taxpayers. What
he is talking about is giving this $30 billion of the taxpayers'
money that has built up in this fund to somebody else. I just
said that it would have no impact on the calculation of people's
benefit packages.
1740
How could the member justify taking a predetermined benefit
package and increasing people's benefits for which there is no
legal framework to do so, in other words, taking it off those
very workers he claims to defend and giving it to another group
of workers? It makes no sense.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: I would respond to my colleague by
saying that if we cannot improve the plan—and I have my doubts,
because as legislators here, the plan must be approved by the
Parliament of Canada—I suppose it is possible to change the
terms.
But even if there were not a way to change the terms of a plan,
could we, for example, lower the contributions employees pay
weekly, daily, from their paycheques so they keep the plan they
have now?
There are a number of solutions open to the government, but
unfortunately it is not interested. It changes the figures when
it is time to be judge and judged, in order to save money and
then turn around and help itself to a surplus it often generated
itself.
I was reading a very interesting article this morning written by
a Mr. Paquet, who has worked in the union sector for quite some
time. He says that plans are often based on actuarial forecasts
that x billions of dollars will be needed to keep a plan going
for x number of years. Yet actuaries are frequently wrong, and
he compares them, quite surprisingly, to Quebec's JoJo Savard, a
fortune teller.
When there are surpluses in the plan, there are two ways of
using them. But that assumes one is not trying to help oneself,
that one wishes to help workers and those wanting to see their
regions benefit from these surpluses. The plan can either be
improved, or contributions suspended for a while. These are
ways of reducing the surplus, but this is not what the
government is doing.
The government is maintaining contribution rates at existing
levels, or very nearly, and claiming that the surpluses belong
to it. This is completely wrong, in my opinion.
[English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the hon.
member from the Bloc and his colleagues who preceded him. They
believe that the investment fund, especially the Quebec pension
plan, worked really well. They liked the model. Taking into
account that it is a shared risk management, on that basis it
would be shared by those participating in the plan.
Unfortunately the member fails to address the issue that
employees now contribute 30% of the plan with a maximum 7.5% of
the amount when we take into account that CPP has gone up and
reduced the amount they actually contribute to the pension plan.
This surplus has been created because the actuarial evaluator
determines for the government how much it should put into the
plan on a current year basis taking only that year into account.
Had they taken the whole process into account, then the
government would not have to put in extra money.
In the future plan that is being set up, the investment fund,
which I know his party endorses, does the hon. member believe he
should advise the unions to participate in the risk management
sharing? In effect any surplus in the new plan could be shared
through holidays for the employees or the employers or both on
that basis. In effect the risk is also taken into account and if
a deficit does occur they will also put in.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Quebec
public service pension plan is properly managed. It is so
because of a tradition of effective negotiations with the
central labour bodies in Quebec on how the plan should be
managed.
1745
It goes without saying that the government has certain
prerogatives. At some point, it can say that there are problems,
that the fund is accumulating more slowly, or that it owes too
much money to the fund. The government will then sit down with
the central labour bodies and negotiate.
The Quebec tradition in this regard is rather effective. As far
as I am concerned, it is better than the federal approach I have
seen for the past six years. The federal government ignores the
unions, either slows down negotiations or stops them altogether
and ends up pushing back to work legislation through the House.
I agree that workers should have a responsibility if there is a
deficit or a surplus. But there are surpluses right now. The
government did not provide the figures for the previous
deficits, but we have had surpluses since 1995.
I am sure that the surpluses exceed the deficits.
It is not right for the government to now take the money and say
“Continue to pay. We will not improve your plan; we are only
interested in taking the money”. Again, this is not right.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are now at the
point in the debate where the debate is 10 minutes. The Chair
made a little mix-up earlier which has caused a couple of other
members not to get a chance because the debate will terminate in
another 30 minutes.
We have at least five other members who want to say a few words.
If members who are still participating in debate would keep that
in mind, perhaps we could get through to everybody. If we keep
our comments down to what needs to said, in that way we can get
more people in.
I apologize for cutting the Reform Party out of two 10 minute
slots.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to keep my remarks cogent.
As has been variously raised, mainly by the Reform Party, the
issue of the word conjugal has turned up in the act. There have
been a number of questions through our side and the suggestion
that we do not want to deal with the issue raised in the bill,
that is same sex survivor benefits.
I have speaking notes provided by the government. As a matter
of fact I think by the department, and I presume they are
available to every member of parliament. These notes make it
very clear that this legislation is about giving survivor
benefits to same sex couples. It notes in the notes that I have
that this is merely following in concert with various court
decisions that have come down recently.
I see the member for Calgary Centre in the House. In his
remarks he focused on the issue of giving survivor benefits to
people in conjugal relationships. He has a very important point,
because rather than the bill specifying very clearly that the
intention is to provide survivor benefits to same sex couples,
the bill seems to have, shall we say, gone around the corner the
long way.
I have the bill here. What it has done is taken the section in
the original bill that deals with survivor benefits, and that
section in defining who is eligible for survivor benefits uses
words like person of the opposite sex to whom the contributor was
not married, the surviving spouse, the spouse of the contributor,
become married to the contributor on a certain day and so forth.
In other words, the existing section of the act talks very
specifically about spousal relationships and marriage
relationships as defining the people who are to be eligible for
the survivor benefits. Because they are talking about spouses
and marriages it is assumed that it is a heterosexual
relationship.
For the purpose of the act this area was changed in various
places, but to avoid use of the word spouse, married or anything
like that, the act defines the relationship. It says for the
purposes of this part when a person establishes that he or she
was cohabiting in the relationship of a conjugal nature with the
contributor and so on and so forth. The key word, as pointed out
by the member for Calgary Centre, is the word conjugal.
1750
Here is the problem. I for one believe it is high time for this
government to recognize that there are special relationships,
that there are same sex relationships that are dependent
relationships and are very emotionally tied together in almost
every way we can imagine. Whether there is sex involved or not
there can be relationships between two individuals that have the
force of a marriage, even though they are not a marriage, but are
not necessarily conjugal.
The problem is that when we use the word conjugal we not only
imply but we actually say that the relationship we are talking
about is the married relationship. More than that, when we use
the word conjugal, depending on the dictionary we use, we are
even implying a heterosexual family relationship involving
parents and offspring.
What I see as a result of this problem is that the government
may be missing on the very thing that it wants to achieve. In
other words, by saying conjugal in this bill the government may
be leading the courts to strike down any attempt to apply these
survivor benefits to same sex couples.
The member for Calgary Centre had a point but he did not pursue
it in sufficient depth. What is really wrong here is not that
the government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes or go
around some corner to do something the public does not want it to
do. The government has been very open with respect to its
intention to try to honour what the courts have said and to
honour what most Canadians are saying, that there are certain
special relationships that do justify people receiving survivor
benefits.
However, I think the government has erred dreadfully in using
the word conjugal rather than actually coming out and saying it
for what it is. If we do not want to use the term same sex
relationship then dependent relationship could be defined
elsewhere in the legislation, the word dependency. The use of
conjugal in this context may lead to problems with this
legislation. I hope the government will re-examine the way it
has written these particular clauses.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will certainly do my best to respect the time constraints. I
must first excoriate the government for again moving closure on
an issue like this one. This is the 51st time it has done this
since it has been in power, exceeding the record of the previous
Mulroney government. It is something the Liberals railed against
the Tories for in the past. Now they are doing the same thing.
Obviously the bill is hugely complex. Not only does it chart
new ground on the pension field, but in my judgment it charts new
ground when it comes to issues of same sex benefits. I think the
government is doing this in a sneaky way. If it wants to have a
serious debate about it, it should bring it forward naked as it
were in legislation so we can have a discussion and invite the
public's involvement. Instead it has made it part of a bill and
hides behind the skirts of the courts whenever it can. In doing
that it abdicates its responsibility as a legislator.
I will say one brief word on this point. I mentioned to my
friend from Wentworth—Burlington that according to the
Canadian Law Dictionary conjugal rights are the rights of
married persons which include the intimacies of domestic
relations. The Concise Oxford Dictionary states that
conjugate means to unite sexually.
The question in this legislation is how are they to determine
whether people are uniting sexually. Will they have sex
inspectors going into the bedrooms of the nation, something the
leader of the party across the way promised we should never do?
It is a good question and I do not see anybody on the government
side answering it. They have talked all around it. The member
for Mississauga West blew a lot of smoke when he was up but never
did get to the point on that issue. The government has some
answering to do on this issue and I appreciate the member for
Wentworth—Burlington having the courage to take this on head-on.
We appreciate that.
There are many issues here. The issue I want to talk to first
and foremost is the fact that the government is breaching a
principle.
1755
When it struck a deal with the Canadian public on the Canada
pension plan many years ago, it promised that we would never see
premiums rise above 5%. They are now at almost 10% and almost
certainly going to go beyond that at some point in the future.
That was a promise it made and ultimately broke.
We saw the same thing happen with Employment Insurance. We saw
a fund being set up ostensibly to provide benefits to the
employees who subscribe to that plan. They pay in all kinds of
contributions and expect that they will get the contributions
back. If they do not and a surplus is run up, they will get the
surplus back. What does this government do? It raids that $26
billion fund.
We see that same theme happening yet again with this bill, the
public service pension fund. A $30 billion surplus has
accumulated and it says “The means justify the end. We will go
ahead and strip this fund of that surplus because in our judgment
we can use it for something better than what that money would go
toward if it were left in there”. I think that is
reprehensible.
Is there no pool of money that is beyond the reach of the
government? Should we not establish a principle that there are
some pools of money, especially ones that are jointly funded with
the public, that the government cannot get its grubby hands on
and that belong to the people who kicked it in, in the first
place? Should that not be some kind of a principle, or does the
government feel that it can have access to every cent the public
has ever put into a plan? What is next? Will it be RRSPs?
I am alarmed that the government would do this and then cut off
debate by moving closure for the 51st time and basically ensuring
that the NDP, the Reform Party and the rest of us who strongly
oppose this and other people who have strong interests in it do
not have a voice on this issue. The government should be ashamed
of this, but we see it over and over again. I guess I cannot
appeal to its pride on this issue.
It has simply taken the point of view that it does not care what
the public thinks any more. It is going to push ahead with this
and do what it will. It should be absolutely ashamed. People on
this side of the House want to see an honest and open debate.
Sadly we will not get it from that gang over there.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to enter into debate on Bill C-78. I want to reiterate
some of the things I said earlier during questions and comments
concerning the nature of the plan.
I discussed the aspect that this is a defined benefits plan.
That is very specific because what it says is that it is based on
certain things. For instance, the last six years of employment
earnings is how they go about calculating the pension one will
receive in retirement.
Quite frankly it has nothing to do with the money sitting in the
plan. One could actually even have a plan of this nature which
has no money in it whatsoever, as long as the employer was of
sufficient calibre to make the payments. The reason there is a
notional plan is that it involves the actual contributions by the
employees and the employer.
Various legislative bodies from time to time say that should be
invested. The whole concept of investing it occurs within the
private sector because we are not so sure the employer will be
there to make the final payments. Most of us agree that it has
occurred by way of convention that most people believe the
government will somehow continue to be here and somehow continue
to honour their pensions. The reason there is a surplus is that
there has been some kind of actuarial decree which is some kind
of inexactitude.
I would like to point out another very basic aspect of this
plan. Most private plans require contribution ratios of the
employees of at least 40%. This plan has had a contribution
ratio from the employee of only 30%. The employer, the
government, has actually paid 70%. Most people would conclude
that this has been a very generous plan.
1800
Earlier today I heard the minister say that civil service
employees are good workers, that we honour that and we are happy
to give them a very generous plan. However, our generosity has
to stop when we start talking about this notional surplus.
How would members opposite deal with the surplus? Would they
physically give money or enhance the benefit packages of the
beneficiaries? That would be breaking the original terms of the
agreement. That would be saying that we are going to pay even
better benefit levels than those which were originally agreed to,
as generous as they were. Or would they reduce the premiums,
even though the premiums are some of the lowest of all the
pension plans in the country?
Indeed, because it is based on 7.5% of earnings, less the amount
of Canada pension plan contributions, members' contributions to
the plan have been decreasing, whereas everybody else in the
country has been paying higher premiums into their pension plans,
realizing that to have an enhanced pension plan it has to be paid
for.
There is no justification for the argument that somehow the
money belongs to people other than the people who originally put
in the money, who are the taxpayers of the country. I am very
surprised by the attitude of Reform members. They say that we
have to reduce deficits and then suddenly they say “Leave the
money in the plan”.
However, there is no plan and there is no physical money in the
plan. The plan is financed from the general revenues of the
Government of Canada. They are saying “Take money out of the
tax revenues this year and give it away to these people”. Reform
members are saying that the taxpayers should somehow shell out
more money for a plan that has been very well put together, at
great benefit to the employees of the civil service, who are
already receiving the benefits they were guaranteed under the
plan.
Is this called progress? Is this called integrity or
accountability? It is ridiculous. I am surprised. I hope we do
cut off debate because the debate which is coming from that side
of the House is not very meaningful.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting most of the day to speak. I
think the real question is, can Canadians trust the Liberal
government? If Canadians could trust the government they would
probably say that the promise to take the $30 billion and pay
down the debt is a good thing. However, considering the numerous
promises that have been broken since the Liberals came to power
in 1993, can we really trust them? We in the official opposition
certainly cannot. The Liberals have given us an overwhelming
amount of reasons to mistrust them.
We have the dreaded fear that when Liberals get their hands on
money like $30 billion they simply will not do what they say they
are going to do. As my colleague from Medicine Hat pointed out,
the Liberals said they were going to scrap the GST during the
1993 campaign. They went house to house, doorstep to doorstep,
telling potential voters that if they were elected they would
scrap, kill, abolish the GST. This is 1999 and the GST is still
there.
Even the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is
still paying GST. When he goes downtown to buy a can of Lysol he
still pays GST on it. We are getting a little closer to the
truth now.
Government members are telling us once again “Trust us. We
are going to appoint this board and, by the way, in case
Canadians do not know, this board will not be subject to the
scrutiny of the auditor general, the chief watchdog of crown
money”.
1805
This board will not be accountable to the auditor general. This
is the same thing we argued when we protested the propriety of
the board which oversees the multibillion EI fund. The
government staunchly refused to allow that board to be
accountable to the auditor general. It is doing it again with
the public service employee pension fund. One can only look at
the Liberal record and say “Can we trust them once again?”
The other thing that really bothers us is that once again the
government has cut off debate. This is something which the
Liberals, when in opposition, railed against. Former Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney, whom we are all thankful is gone, and
the dreaded Tory government brought in closure time after time.
Liberal members said that was the most disgusting thing a
government could do. What have they done? They have beaten the
record of the Tories. They have gone way past the Tory record.
We are up to the 53rd or 54th time.
Yes, they paid down the debt. However, they have raised taxes
by some $40 billion since 1993. These are tax increases, not
simply the increase in revenue that the minister talks about
because the economy is paying that. They raised taxes in 39 or
40 different areas to the tune of about $40 billion. They beat
the deficit on the backs of Canadians.
Even the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam talks
about it. The residents of that town tell me they are very happy
he is in Ottawa and not still the mayor. That was his best
campaign promise: “If you elect me in the federal election I
will leave town and go to Ottawa”. Boy, did he pull in the
votes.
I want to close by reaffirming that this is all about trust.
Who can trust the Liberals? The record speaks for itself. They
have broken many promises and we should not give them the
opportunity again.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate having an opportunity to say a few words. I have been
listening to the debate all day, however, I have yet to hear how
the $30 billion surplus accumulated. There has been some
acknowledgement that the employer and the employees have paid
into it, but so far very little has been said about the interest
that is earned on the investment, and there is a significant
amount of money earned in that manner.
This was debated back in 1992 under Bill C-55, and I am not
speaking about the split-run magazine bill. The current minister
responsible for the Treasury Board makes a great fetish of how
this is taxpayers' money and it must go back to them. However,
if we look over the last 40 odd years, in 1955-56 the employer
contributed 33.9% to pensions while the interest earned at that
point was 36.8%. It peaked in 1975-76 when the employer
contributed 37.4%, although the interest earned was up to 49.4%.
By 1993-94 the employers' contribution was only 14% and 75.1% of
the money came from interest earned. All of this has been
documented.
The previous auditor general criticized the plan and noted, for
example, that in 1991 there was a pension holiday. The
government did not contribute any money in that year, a saving of
some $760 million dollars.
1810
Treasury Board projections to the parliamentary committee that
looked at it at that time forecast a reduction in employer
contributions of $5 billion over 10 years, or $500 million a
year. Once upon a time the Liberals even saw through this
perspective. Not any more of course.
The Treasury Board study of 1986 concluded that the Public
Sector Superannuation Act would likely earn an additional 2%
interest if the government had stopped borrowing money while
determining unilaterally what tiny bit, if any, interest it would
repay to the plan.
Who has been affected is another question. It has been
documented that the 20 year average for people at the low end of
the wage scale, especially women, employees who endured wage
freezes and did not receive pay equity, is about $9,600 per year
in pension.
It is no wonder that the Professional Institute of the Public
Service says that people are amazingly upset at what the
government is about to do with this $30 billion surplus. The
president says it does not seem to matter how much we discuss
anything, because if the government does not get its way it just
writes legislation and imposes its will on us.
In 1992, here is what the Liberals proposed on Bill C-55. They
proposed binding arbitration to resolve disputes, including
disputes around the disposition of pension plan surpluses. They
also proposed that there be minimum employer contributions of 10%
to the Public Sector Superannuation Act, 12% to the Canadian
Forces Act and 14% to the RCMP Act. All three plans would be
subject to the Pension Benefits Standards Act with right of
access to data estimates and projections by all interested
parties.
What has happened between 1992 and 1999 is the complete
reversal? Obviously in 1992 the Liberals were on this side of
the House and in 1999 they are on the government side of the
House. It reminds one of the old Irish proverb which I have used
before: You can vote for whichever party you like but the
government always gets elected. It is certainly true and nowhere
more true than in this country where for 132 years Canadians have
switched back and forth between Liberals and Conservatives.
In opposition we hear nothing but promises, promises, promises:
promises on pension reform, electoral reform; tax reform, health
reform, and reform of committees to give MPs more power and
influence. Once they get on that side of the House how quickly
they forget. They even promised parliamentary reform when they
sat on this side of the House. What do we get today? We get a
few hours to debate a very important piece of legislation, a
document of more than an inch thick. It is a total sham.
In this case it is even more odious because hundreds of
thousands of retirees probably do not even know what this latest
smash and grab is by the government. It reminds all of us of the
former prime minister's admonition that the boys are cutting up
the cash in the back room.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far
as the pension account is concerned, all those affected will get
their pension money regardless. In fact they will get their
promised benefits for the law requires the government to make
sure that there is always enough money in those accounts.
If we look at the editorial in the Toronto Star today
entitled “Whose Pension Surplus”, the government has always,
even in times of deficit, covered this particular plan.
The fearmongering we hear on the other side has absolutely no
basis in fact. The government has done exactly what it has done
in the past, that is keeping up with its responsibility of
assuming all of the financial risk of the public service pension
plan. We will do that again if and when the need arises.
Members on the opposite side would prefer that deficits be
allowed simply to lie where the accounts, unattended, increase to
no end and to no purpose. We are asking for a purpose.
Reform Party members in the past supported the government
position. Talk about changing positions. They flip flop as if
they are acrobatics on the other side.
Canadian taxpayers feel secure in knowing that it is covered. We
are clearly showing prudence and doing the right thing. Every
member will in fact be protected by the actions of the
government.
1815
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Once again, I would
like to thank all hon. members for being considerate and keeping
their debate time to a minimum so as to allow as many members as
possible to debate.
It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the
bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1845
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laliberte
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 75
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 129
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Asselin
| Beaumier
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Carroll
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
|
Folco
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Graham
| Guimond
| Iftody
| Keyes
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Marchi
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Murray
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Perron
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Whelan
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1850
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 128
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laliberte
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Steckle
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 76
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Asselin
| Beaumier
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Carroll
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
|
Folco
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Graham
| Guimond
| Iftody
| Keyes
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Marchi
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Murray
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Perron
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Whelan
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the
bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations.
(Bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1855
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently I had an opportunity to pose a question to the Minister
of Health with regard to the subject matter of breast milk
substitutes.
I raised it because it had come to my attention through some
research I was doing on early childhood development issues that
Canada supported a WHO position with regard to breast milk
substitutes. It included such things as no samples to be
provided in hospitals, no pictures of babies to be on the
labelling, no advertising, and a number of other positions which
basically said that breast milk substitutes were not to be
represented as a viable or as an important alternative for infant
nutrition. The majority of hospitals do not follow those rules.
They provide substantial samples, et cetera of breast milk
substitutes.
In doing some of this work, I wanted to share with the House a
little bit of information with regard to the importance of breast
feeding. The research highlighted the significant benefits of
breast feeding. It even found a lower incidence of matters such
as sudden infant death syndrome, accidental deaths and sicknesses
causing deaths. The exposure to a broader range of environmental
risks, travel risks, et cetera were all associated with
circumstances where breast feeding did not take place.
The research is very clear. The health benefits of breast
feeding cannot be overstated.
In 1998 the Canadian Paediatric Society announced its unanimous
endorsement with the World Health Organization's new recommended
guidelines that mothers should breast feed for at least one year
for optimal health outcomes of their children. The president of
the Canadian Paediatric Society also announced that it would not
be party to any contraventions of the WHO code and that it would
not be involved in the distribution or promotion of breast milk
substitutes.
Research on breast feeding clearly confirms its importance for
optimal infant health. It also enhances the bond between the
mother and the child which is a significant factor affecting
healthy outcomes. In addition, and I found this very
interesting, a family can save up to $4,000 in the first year on
the cost of baby formula which significantly affects the
economics of a decision to provide direct parental care. Dr.
Fraser Mustard said: “Breast feeding can provide a perfect
nutritional and emotional nurturing to endow an infant with the
important capacity needed for a full and productive life”.
With that as background, I want to again pose the question to
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health with regard
to Canada's position on the WHO recommended guidelines on breast
milk substitutes. It seems to me that endorsing those without
enforcing them has a contradiction, particularly when it means so
much to the healthy outcomes of our children. I ask the
parliamentary secretary for her comments.
1900
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the
member's interest in promoting infant breast-feeding as the most
optimal form of feeding of infants.
At the World Health Assembly in May 1981, Canada and 117 other
countries strongly endorsed a code of marketing of breast milk
substitution. Canada has implemented the code through
collaboration, education and health promotion. Health Canada
continues to support this position and has consistently promoted
breast-feeding as the optimal form of infant nutrition.
The promotion of breast-feeding is an integral part of several
Health Canada programs. These include the postpartum parent
support program, a video entitled “Welcome to Parenting”, the
“Breastfeeding Promotional Kit”, “Breastfeeding—A Selected
Bibliography and Resource Guide” and two widely distributed
breast-feeding pamphlets “10 Great Reasons to Breastfeed” and
“10 Valuable Tips for Successful Breastfeeding”.
The National Breastfeeding Guidelines for Health Care
Providers, 1996, developed by the Canadian Institute for
Child Health, has been distributed by Health Canada to each
postpartum parental support group.
The international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes
has markedly influenced actions to promote breast-feeding in
Canada and the results have been positive. When given accurate
and reliable information, mothers and health professionals make
the correct choices to support appropriate infant nutrition
through breast-feeding.
This is an ongoing effort by Health Canada. It is one that we
are working co-operatively with all of our partners. We believe
that the actions we have taken are resulting in the best approach
for achieving widespread breast-feeding for infants in Canada. I
applaud the member's efforts in raising this issue. We will
continue to support these actions.
[Translation]
The Speaker: 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 7.02 p.m.)