36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 230
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
1105
| REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL REASONS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| (Motion agreed to)
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1110
1115
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1120
1125
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1130
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1135
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1140
1145
| The division deemed demanded and deferred.
|
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1200
| Sitting resumed
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Third Reading
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
1205
1210
| Mr. John Williams |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1330
1335
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1340
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1345
1350
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| PUBLIC WORKS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| WORLD POPULATION DAY
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| EMPLOI-QUÉBEC
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1400
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| MISSING CHILDREN
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| THE LATE OWEN HART
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| CONESTOGA COLLEGE AWARDS
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1405
| THE LATE HUGH HANRAHAN
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| TASK FORCE ON FOUR WESTERN PROVINCES
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| MISSING CHILDREN
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| QUEBEC TRADE MISSION TO MEXICO
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| JULIE PAYETTE
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1410
| OTTAWA 67'S
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| INDIA AND PAKISTAN
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| ROBERT STANLEY WEIR
|
| Mr. David Price |
| LEADER OF THE BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. John Manley |
| FUNERAL OF KING HUSSEIN
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TAINTED BLOOD
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAINTED BLOOD
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. John Manley |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
1445
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1450
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Maria Minna |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BILL C-77
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1455
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1500
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
| PETITIONS
|
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Pesticides
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Nisga'a Treaty
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Housing in Nunavik
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Gun Control
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Cassini Space Mission
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Immigration
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
1510
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Goods and Services Tax
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Candu Nuclear Reactor
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Nanoose, British Columbia
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Third reading
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1520
1525
1530
1535
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1540
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1545
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1550
1555
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1600
1605
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1610
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1615
1620
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1625
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1630
1635
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1640
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1645
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Third reading
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1650
1655
| Mr. John McKay |
1700
1705
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1710
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1715
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1720
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1725
1730
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1735
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1740
1745
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1750
1755
| Mr. John Williams |
1800
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1805
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1810
1815
1835
| The Speaker |
1840
1850
(Division 450)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-260. Second reading
|
1900
(Division 451)
| Motion agreed to
|
1905
| LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL PURPOSES
|
1915
(Division 452)
| Amendment to the amendment negatived
|
1925
(Division 453)
| Amendment carried
|
1935
(Division 454)
| Motion, as amended, agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1940
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1945
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1950
| Nav Canada
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 230
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1105
[Translation]
REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
The Speaker: Pursuant to section 23(3) of the Auditor
General Act, I have the honour to table in the House of Commons
the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development for 1999.
[English]
This report is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development.
It being 11.07, the House will now proceed to the consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL REASONS
The House resumed from April 14, 1999, consideration of the
motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and
the member for Rosemont concerning the taking of the division on
Motion No. 381 scheduled at the conclusion of Private Members' Business
today. You would find consent for the following:
That, at the
conclusion of today's debate on Motion M-381, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put, a
recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday,
May 25, 1999, at the expiry
of the time provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the bill relates to something that is at the forefront
of a number of people's minds. It deals with the legalization of
marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Tragically there are a number of people in our country who are
suffering from debilitating diseases or are in the process of
dying who need hospice care and therapeutics to relieve their
suffering. In some cases we have been unable to prevent the
suffering they endure in their dying moments or in their time of
need and some of those people have turned toward smoking
marijuana to relieve that suffering.
We do not know if the effects of marijuana consumed under those
conditions are due to a medical or therapeutic effect due to the
intrinsic pharmaceutical property of marijuana or whether this is
a placebo effect. As a physician, I personally do not care. In
my view, if somebody is dying they should be able to participate
in whatever it takes to relieve their suffering as long as it
does not hurt anybody else.
We have no interest in legalizing marijuana or any other
currently illegal drug for general consumption. Some would
disagree, but the reason for this is that there is an
overwhelming body of evidence to show that marijuana is a harmful
drug.
There are over 200 substances within marijuana. Some of those
substances do have a detrimental effect to a person's functioning
in the short term and in the long term. This is particularly
profound among children who sustain cognitive disabilities as a
result of the chronic consumption of marijuana. We have no
interest whatsoever in furthering that. In fact, we would like
to prevent it.
The bill deals with the medical use of marijuana.
1110
The government needs to work with the medical community and
stakeholders to ensure there is a well defined group of people
allowed to use marijuana under certain conditions. We do not
want this to become a loophole whereby people can say they have a
headache and need to take marijuana.
I congratulate the Minister of Health for asking the Department
of Health to undertake studies on the medical effects of
marijuana under these circumstances. We would like to do our
best to ensure people are taking substances based on good medical
science and not for other reasons.
Another problem in our country is how we are dealing with the
overall drug consumption. We tend to try to manage these
problems rather than to prevent them. I have spent quite a bit
of time working in drug rehabilitation and detox centres. What we
are doing right now by and large simply does not work. Our
response to the terrible problems that drugs are inflicting on
our society is to try to prevent this when teenagers are doing it
or when adults are doing it. We try to deal with the management
of the problem rather than dealing with children very early on in
trying to prevent it.
We, along with other countries, invest a lot of money
internationally trying to deal with the countries that are
producing it. We try to deal with the peasants in Columbia and
in southeast Asia who are producing and growing poppies in order
to get money to put bread on their tables. Who can argue with
these very poor people who want to be able to grow these drugs in
order to survive? I would argue that most people in similar
circumstances, being faced with abject poverty and an inability
to care for themselves and their families, would do whatever it
took to ensure that occurs.
To invest money on that side is a losing proposition and we have
been unsuccessful. We spend a lot of money dealing with the
producers of drugs rather than dealing with the demand. We and
other countries must focus more on preventing the consumption
within our own countries of illegal substances such as pot,
heroin, cocaine, Ritalin, T's and R's and a kaleidoscope of
illegal drugs used by many people. If we put more money into
prevention to deal with the demand within our own country the
supply would have to dry up. If nobody would want to consume the
substances production would have to stop. Rather than investing
huge amounts of money in drug interdiction in other countries
like Columbia, Burma and others, we need to look closer to home
and try to deal with our consumption.
We found out that if we start dealing with children very early
on when they are eight to ten years of age, we will get the best
bang for our buck. Dealing with children early on will have the
most profound effect on our future ability to prevent children
and therefore adults from consuming drugs. The head start
program has had a profound effect in parts of our country, in
particular in Moncton, New Brunswick, and in other parts of the
world such as Ypsilanti, Michigan and Hawaii. The Minister of
Labour has been a leader in pursuing this as has the secretary of
state for youth who has taken a very big interest in this issue
and has pursued it with great vigour.
If we all get behind the concept of a national head start
program that uses existing resources, we can start dealing with
children in the first eight years of life. We will deal not only
with consumptive practices in teenagers and adults, but we will
also try to address the very important issue of fetal alcohol
syndrome, fetal alcohol effects and the effect of drug
consumption while a woman is pregnant. This is no small problem.
The leading cause of preventable brain damage in our country is
fetal alcohol syndrome. It is epidemic.
1115
The problems for people suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome
cannot be understated. These people have an average IQ of 68.
They have physical deformities. They have a number of other
problems such as cognitive deficiencies. When children who have
FAS of FAE go to school, their ability to interact with their
peers, to study in school and to concentrate is marred forever.
They have irreversible brain damage.
When the child tries to interact at school teachers are often
ill equipped and under tasked to deal with them. The child
becomes marginalized. The child does not get the help the little
one needs and progressively becomes more isolated. Developmental
and behavioural problems occur which can manifest themselves not
only in behavioural problems at school but also tragically can
lead to drug consumption and criminal behaviour.
It is a terrible vicious cycle which is very difficult to break.
Imagine if that cycle could be broken and the child's brain had
never been damaged by being subjected to alcohol and drugs in
utero. The child would have a fighting chance and could
potentially be on a much more level playing field.
I implore the government to look at the national head start
program. Look at what the Minister of Labour has done. Look at
what the Secretary of State for Children and Youth is doing on
this issue. Work with members across party lines to prevent
social problems rather than to manage them. The benefits of
doing this are dramatic on a number of levels. They found a 50%
reduction in youth crime and a 40% reduction in teen pregnancies
which is a one-way route for poverty usually for both the mom and
the child. They found a massive decrease in welfare. Children
stayed in school longer.
In short, the head start program dealing with existing
resources, strengthening the parent-child bond, teaching parents
how to be good parents, learning the importance of play,
discipline, setting boundaries, ensuring that children's basic
needs are met, the importance of nutrition for a growing child
all sound basic, but members would be surprised how many
communities across the country lack them. We have to address
this now. The longer we do not deal with the preventative
aspects for children in the first eight years of life, the longer
we will have the tragic situations we see in so many communities
today.
In closing, the motion is a good one. It needs to be applied to
the medicinal use of marijuana. We would like to see medical
studies to substantiate this. We would also like to ensure that
this is not going to be a route to legalizing marijuana which we
are opposed to.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the
control of marijuana today from the legislative standpoint and
legal obligation. The legislative challenges are imposing but
the government is committed to meeting them. The focus of my
debate today will be exclusively on the use of marijuana for
medical purposes and on the legislative and international
commitments to which Canada is deeply committed.
The medicinal use of marijuana is not only a complicated medical
and legal issue, it is a complicated legislative issue. Any move
to relax controls over cannabis brings into play domestic laws
and international treaties, violations of which bring very
serious consequences. The legal realities cannot be ignored.
That is why I am speaking to the subamendment that has been
proposed. It is troublesome from the obligations and legal
realities especially of international treaties.
Should marijuana be used for medical purposes it must be done
without undermining domestic efforts to control the illicit
marijuana market. Canada cannot contravene important
international agreements that combat the global trade of illicit
drugs.
In view of this commitment as well as many other concerns, the
government is now preparing a plan specifically intended to help
Canadians who are suffering facilitate access to marijuana for
medical purposes only.
1120
Allow me to outline these legal obligations and how our agenda
for research will address them in Canada.
Cannabis is controlled under the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act and the narcotics control regulations. The CDSA has a clear
purpose to control substances that can alter mental processes.
These are substances that can harm the mental health of
individuals in society if used and distributed without
appropriate supervision. The CDSA therefore prohibits the
production, importation, exportation, distribution, sale and
possession of marijuana in Canada.
The narcotics control regulations meanwhile permit exceptions to
the control of substances if certain conditions are met. The
regulations authorize the granting of licences to permit the
manufacture, import, transport and distribution of narcotics,
including marijuana, for medical and scientific purposes. The
current regulations therefore permit the use of marijuana for
medical and medicinal purposes. The narcotics control
regulations contain mechanisms to grant appropriate licences and
so on and so forth.
In short, the use of marijuana for medical purposes is already
possible, provided the product is of good quality and originates
from a licit, that is a legal, licensed supplier and is
distributed and used in a proper scientific or medical context.
That is where we run into the complexity of this issue. We face
many difficulties relating to the securing of safe, legal, that
is licit, and reliable sources of marijuana for medicinal
purposes.
Canada must comply with international obligations under a series
of treaties designed to control drugs worldwide. I will expand
on this very briefly. For cannabis to be used in therapeutic
situations it must originate from a legal source and be of
medicinal quality.
The government cares and has compassion for Canadians who are
suffering from serious illnesses. For this reason our plan will
include access to a safe quality supply of marijuana. We do not
want Canadians to gamble with their health in using drugs of
unknown quality and drugs which may in fact do more harm. As
well, its distribution would need to comply with the requirements
of the food and drugs act and regulations to ensure product
safety, efficacy and quality.
Health Canada is exploring avenues to provide Canadians with
access to medicinal marijuana in a controlled medical setting. In
fact Health Canada has already taken the initiative of exploring
and possibly securing legal, licit, quality sources of marijuana
for medicinal use for the vital research we want to conduct.
There are a few countries, the United States and others, where
marijuana is being legally cultivated in limited quantity under
strict government control specifically for its use in research.
Researchers can obtain marijuana from those sources. The
domestic supply here in Canada is also being explored.
The cultivation of marijuana in Canada however involves more
than domestic health and safety issues. International
obligations must be met. Marijuana is controlled primarily by
the 1961 United Nations single convention on narcotic drugs.
Canada is a signator and we have ratified that convention. Under
this and other conventions, Canada is obliged to exercise control
over production and distribution of narcotics and psychotropic
substances. We must combat drug abuse and illicit trafficking and
report our activities to international bodies. These are our
treaty obligations.
As well I would point out that at the present time there is no
scientific evidence on marijuana's medicinal values and the
safety or efficacy of marijuana. This has not been established
in any country.
The government is committed to enabling scientific research into
the potential benefits and hazards of marijuana. We want to
compile the needed evidence to meet our legislative challenges,
and they are many as I have outlined, but more important to help
Canadians who are suffering and those who are terminally ill and
who feel medicinal marijuana might be of benefit to them. We
want to help. It must however be done without compromising
Canadian standards for health, safety and security.
I am sure hon. members would agree that this is a prudent yet
compassionate and carefully considered plan of action.
1125
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 381, presented by my colleague
from Rosemont, which reads as follows:
That...the government should undertake all necessary steps to
legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical purposes.
As the Bloc Quebecois critic for seniors and seniors'
organizations, I would like to congratulate the Fédération de
l'âge d'or du Québec, the FADOQ, which has supported the
application for the legalization of marijuana for health and
medical purposes.
It has indicated its support by encouraging the Minister of
Health to work expeditiously in this matter. The federation's
decision was unanimous, that is 18 members of its 18 member
board of directors espoused the cause, while noting that they
did not encourage the use of drugs either natural or synthetic.
I should mention that the federation represents nearly 275,000
seniors in Quebec and that its outgoing president, Philippe
Lapointe, a very lively 85-year old, is from my riding of
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
In addition, we note that seniors are speaking out more and
more. They are defending their ideas and their rights. This
year, 1999, has been declared the International Year of Older
Persons, and this week is seniors' week. I would also like to
mention that the fourth World Conference on Aging will be held
at the Montreal Convention Centre from September 5 to 9, 1999.
I reiterate my request to the public at large, so we may obtain
as many signatures as possible on the postcards the Bloc
Quebecois sent out to make people aware of this issue. In fact,
the Bloc Quebecois send out over 10,000 postcards, and the
response has been positive.
People cannot be insensitive to the suffering of thousands of
people in ill health. Many patients who might use this
medication are currently forced to take many pills a day and are
at risk of becoming sick to their stomach.
In a 1997 CTV-Angus Reid poll of 1,500 adults, 83% of Quebecers
and Canadians were in favour of legalizing the use of marijuana
for health purposes.
The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, the
Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, the
Coalition québécoise des organismes communautaires de lutte
contre le sida, and the dailies Le Soleil, Le Devoir, Le Droit,
The Globe and Mail and The Ottawa Citizen all support this
initiative.
This is an issue of compassion. The chairwoman of the board of
the Vancouver Compassion Club, an organization with a membership
of over 700 individuals, also supported the motion.
She signed the postcard sent to federal parliamentarians, asking
them to support the motion to legalize the use of marijuana for
medical purposes. The club is a non-profit organization which has
been providing safe and high quality marijuana since 1996 to
seriously ill individuals.
I addressed this issue on December 9, 1997, before the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Health. At the time, I asked the
Deputy Minister of Health to provide clarifications on the use
of marijuana for health purposes in the fight against AIDS, to
alleviate the suffering of AIDS victims.
I raised this issue following representations made by
Jean-Charles Pariseau, of Hull, who regained some strength after
inhaling marijuana. Mr. Pariseau is a terminally ill AIDS
patient. He uses marijuana to relieve nausea and stimulate his
appetite.
His attending physician, Dr. Donald Kilby, from the University
of Ottawa's health services, supported his representations.
Today, Jean-Paul Pariseau will be protesting in front of
Parliament, here in Ottawa, and I want to salute him and
reiterate my support for his cause.
1130
Fortunately, there are some judges who are showing some
compassion. The Ontario court has already found part of the
Narcotics Act to be unconstitutional, particularly where the use
of marijuana for health purposes is concerned. Another Ontario
judge has recognized the right of a Toronto man, Terry Parker,
to grow and smoke marijuana for his own medical use.
It is hard to call upon judges to make a decision on a societal
debate. It is unacceptable for a chronically ill person to be
liable for six months in prison, in addition to a $1,000 fine,
for using medication that may have been recommended to him by
his physician.
As I said in my first speech in this House on the legalization
of marijuana for health and medical purposes, there have been a
number of changes in federal policy on drugs in Canada. The
first federal legislative measure in this area, in fact, dates
back to 1908 and was particularly aimed at those who smoked
opium.
The Minister of Health needs to do more than mandate federal
public servants to submit a plan including the holding of
clinical trials. He seems incapable of setting any real and
reasonable deadline.
In conclusion, I must again point out that this is a matter of
compassion. I am proud that the Bloc Quebecois has raised this
matter for the first time with Motion No. 381 by my colleague from
Rosemont, and I strongly encourage all hon. members to support
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New
Democratic Party to thank the member for Rosemont for bringing
the motion forward.
It was interesting to hear the government side speak about the
fact that we must concentrate on health care and health care
matters when it was the Liberal government that took $21 billion
out of health care spending and replaced only $11.5 billion after
five years. In many ways I wish the government would back up its
statements and arguments with the resources that are required.
It is also ironic the Minister of Health recently said that
there would be studies and clinical tests on the medical use of
marijuana for those who have serious illnesses. It is just being
done now. Marijuana has been around for thousands and thousands
of years and in 1999 the federal government is to conduct studies
and clinical tests on the use of marijuana for medicinal
purposes.
I do not think any one in the House could actually dictate to
people who are seriously ill, who have AIDS and other ailments of
that nature, what they should and should not do to feel better.
Yes, we have to put precautions in place. Yes, we have to make
sure that the safeguard of all Canadians, especially when it
comes to their health, is paramount in any decisions that the
House makes or in any recommendations from individuals.
However, we have to take ourselves out of our suits once in a
while and place ourselves in the position of those people who are
severely disabled through various diseases, especially, for
example, when it comes to the issue of AIDS.
In the United States 36 states out of the union have passed
legislation endorsing the medical use of marijuana despite a
federal U.S. ban. I am sure that ban is in place as the member
from the Liberal Party indicated. There are cross-country
obligations and international treaty organizations which have to
be adhered to in the legal matter. If the Canadian government
really wished to and if the people of Canada were really behind
it, ways could be found to speed track the issue forward so that
relief could be found for those people.
As the father of two young girls there is no question I am very
concerned about the future of Canada, what substances will be
adhered to, what will be in the schools and playgrounds and
everywhere else. The relaxation of any concern when it comes to
their health is very serious.
We should try to assist people who are seriously ill and have
relied on alternate means of remedies to achieve relief from
their pain and suffering.
This is one reason the motion brought forward by the member for
Rosemont is very appropriate at this time.
1135
I wholeheartedly encourage the government to go forth with its
studies in terms of the medicinal use of marijuana. I encourage
the member for Rosemont to continue the debate to bring this very
serious issue to the forefront.
These are issues which a lot of people do not like to talk about
because they give the perception of being seedy subjects. People
think we should not be talking about issues of this nature. The
House of Commons is exactly where issues of this nature should be
discussed and where regulations and legislation should be passed.
This is where people on all sides of the debate should have an
opportunity to discuss such an important subject.
I trust we will have a pleasant time in the House for the next
four weeks as we debate this issue and many other important
issues brought before the House.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for the
brevity of his remarks so that I might participate. I say at the
outset that the Progressive Conservative Party agrees with
comments which have been made with respect to Motion No. 381 put
forward by the member for Rosemont. This is an issue of
compassion.
A very important comment was made by a previous speaker
regarding the government's tendency to borrow opposition motions
and previous governments' initiatives. Although no one has a
patent on good ideas, Canadians have witnessed a government that
has established a record of policy plagiarism.
The hon. member for Rosemont brought forward a motion which
calls upon the government to bring about change in our health
care system, our medical practice, that would allow for the
medical prescription of marijuana in pain control. The most
important point to keep in mind about the issue is that the
motion is aimed at those who are affected and are currently
suffering from very serious illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, MS
and glaucoma. These individuals are suffering every day and it
appears very little can be done with current medical procedures
to ease the pain and ease the mind, particularly knowing that
many of these diseases are fatal.
Forcing people to acquire a painkiller like the currently
illegal marijuana certainly adds to the mental anguish. We are
on the horns of a classic dilemma. We have a legally restricted
activity, a social wrong that was created by law, yet a humane
need to ease suffering.
I want to be clear. My position or that of the Conservative
Party should not be mistaken as advocating drug use for any
non-medical purpose. In fact it is quite the contrary. We are
advocating a shift in the approach taken to the enforcement of
drug use, particularly marijuana that is used for a very limited
purpose, that being the medical tranquillity of suffering.
The key words here are health and medical purposes. We are
talking about the compassionate use of a substance which is
presently illegal in all circumstances. A number of substances
are currently being used in the practice of medicine which are
prescribed by doctors quite often to control pain, substances
such as codeine, morphine and heroin which are perfect examples
of drugs that in other circumstances would certainly be deemed
illegal. Heroin, for example, has been used with a doctor's
prescription since 1985 to ease the pain and suffering of
Canadians fighting side effects of illnesses.
We can separate crime from medicine with very definitive,
decisive laws. Further research may lead to a chemical
production of a byproduct of marijuana which might be taken in a
different form, that is taken orally through a pill. The use of
a drug to relieve pain in those suffering from terminal
illnesses, not for recreational use, is the aim of this motion.
Delay in bringing this about will cause further pain and
suffering for those afflicted.
On May 6 Jim Wakeford, a Toronto man suffering from advanced
AIDS, applied for and finally received permission from Health
Canada to use marijuana after fighting in the courts for years.
Courts have recognized the humane need. Legislators like the
Parliament of Canada should lead, not follow, on an issue such as
this one. We cannot make criminals out of those needing our
compassion or those who are trying to ease suffering.
1140
The Compassion Club of Vancouver, also mentioned in the debate,
supplies marijuana at no cost, free, solely to ease the pain of
sick people on the lower mainland. This club is illegal but
receives referrals from agencies of individuals suffering from
AIDS or multiple sclerosis. It is a secure environment with a
very good quality of marijuana, unlike that often found on the
streets which might be laced with another substance.
The health minister promised in March that he would take steps
toward helping seriously ill Canadians who require medical access
to marijuana. The guidance document makes no reference to the
severity of illness. It does not distinguish between terminal
and non-terminal cases. There is a number of ambiguities.
The health minister is simply taking too long. Hilary Black,
the Compassion Club founder, has stated that the slow speed of
the minister's initiative means that more people will have to
come into her clinic. Those individuals will continue to suffer
until legislation is passed.
A fast response and a strict guide or criteria are needed, as is
a clear definition that doctors' prescriptions will be granted
therefore avoiding litigation, confusion and further delay.
A number of facts about marijuana have been touched upon
already. One matter to keep in mind is that when it comes to
glaucoma it reduces eye pressure, which reduces pain. It reduces
spasms in victims who are suffering from multiple sclerosis. It
reduces nausea in the treatment of cancer patients. It helps
alleviate depression and regain appetite in those suffering from
AIDS. There are no real side effects, aside from some dulling of
the senses. As we know, some of the side effects from the
horrific treatments which are undergone, in particular I am
thinking of radiation, are sometimes worse than the actual
symptoms of the illness the patient is suffering.
The Canadian Medical Association since 1981 has advocated the
decriminalization of the possession of marijuana. It is
encouraging to see that we in this place and in other parts of
the country are finally catching up. The Canadian Police
Association has taken a very positive view of this step. There
are certainly noble reasons to permit the medical use of
marijuana.
The Canadian Medical Association however recommends that the
federal government, with respect to the jurisdictional aspect,
move toward changes in our Narcotics Control Act and our Food and
Drugs Act to keep up with this current trend. This position
raises concerns about the herbal medicine aspect and the fact
that it cannot be patented. The association states that there is
a possibility that there will be exploitation of research if
guidelines are not put in place. The government can address
these problems and make changes to other legislation which will
have to be amended.
There is also concern, I might add, on a number of levels, one
being the chemical content that may come into play. These plants
vary from plant to plant with respect to dosage. There is also
concern about the standardization and the reproductability of
clinical trials which will be problematic when it comes to
putting the medical use forward. It would be almost impossible
to conduct blind trials without having some consistency in the
approach. There is also concern about the delivery of the drug
and it not being reliable from patient to patient as the dose
depends on the delivery technique.
These are obviously scientific matters that will have to be
addressed in order for there to be consistency and in order for
there to be safety, one of the underlying elements which always
has to be kept in mind.
There is concern as well about research in this area. Quality
research, random control trials and a guide to decision making
are very appropriate when it comes to the needed standardized
approach. There is no consistency in terms of the product
available at this time. The dosage, the length of use and the
possibility of addiction are areas that will have to be further
researched.
Different drugs will have a different effect on individuals.
There is also the aspect of the synergistic effect that marijuana
might have when taken in conjunction with other chemicals and in
consideration of a person's bodily make-up.
The patient's perspective is something that has to be
emphasized. A person who requires marijuana and feels the
physical need to use it to reduce suffering even with the mental
effect it has certainly legitimizes the efforts to move toward
the decriminalization of marijuana for this very limited purpose.
We cannot ignore that drugs are a consistent problem in today's
society, but this is not a step toward legalizing marijuana in
its entirety. I do not advocate that position at all. With the
checks and balances that are needed there seems to be an
opportunity before us. If the government is diligent and forward
looking in its approach I am sure we can move this matter
forward.
1145
We support this initiative cautiously and encourage the
government to move swiftly and decisively. I congratulate the
member for Rosemont for taking this initiative and we look
forward to further debate on the issue before the House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to the order
adopted earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the
said motion are deemed put, and a recorded division deemed
requested and deferred until the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders later this day.
[English]
Orders of the day will commence at noon.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you might
find the consent of the House to suspend the sitting until 12
noon.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.46 a.m.)
1200
[Translation]
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12.00 p.m.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that Bill C-78, an
act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to
amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act,
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada
Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-78 is a necessary piece of
legislation which makes major changes to public sector pension
plans. This bill substantially alters our pension plans as we
know them today.
I would like to start by addressing the beneficiaries of those
plans, who may have heard, among the various arguments advanced
in recent weeks, a number of falsehoods surrounding the
amendments the government is planning to make. Please allow me
to set the record straight.
First, our employees must know that all the benefits for which
they have paid throughout their careers will be fully guaranteed
and maintained. There will even be certain improvements under
the new legislation, which will result in better benefits.
At the end of the day, the government decided to act, its
primary interest being to safeguard and improve the financial
future of these pension plans. Our employees and those who have
retired from the federal public service can thus be assured of
the future of their pension funds.
There is no doubt in my mind that our current public sector
pension plans must be brought in line with the new realities.
[English]
We have been and always will be concerned about fairness both
toward our current and past employees and toward taxpayers.
Historically, under the Public Service Superannuation Act, the
government and its employees have shared the cost of the pension
plan according to a 60:40 ratio. The increase in CPP
contributions has gradually changed this ratio which is now 70:30
and which would have reached 80:20 in 2003 if the government had
not decided to act now.
The government really wants to ensure the long term viability of
these pension funds and to improve their financial management.
The government also wants to ensure a more balanced relationship
between employees' contributions to these funds and those put in
by the government as the employer. This is a question of justice
and equity for employees and for Canadian taxpayers, which is the
very reason behind Bill C-78.
[Translation]
The three current pieces of legislation that govern public
sector pension plans impose limitations that other governments
and certain private sector firms have already eliminated. We
are a government that is respectful of the individual and, as
such, we must be fair and equitable with all.
It is difficult to justify that government employees are
sheltered from increases to CPP while other citizens are not.
It is also difficult to justify that Canadian taxpayers must
continue to pay a larger and larger share of the pension plans
of government employees as well as finance any possible deficits
in those plans.
It is also unfair that taxpayers should be paying more and more
to provide for their own retirements while public servants are
paying less and less. The principle of fairness must be the
same for our employees as it is for Canadian taxpayers.
In recent years, the pension plans of the public service, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Forces have
accumulated a surplus of approximately $30 billion.
1205
I have said it before and I will say it again: this surplus
belongs to the taxpayers of Canada since they have covered and
absorbed all the deficits incurred by the pension funds of
government employees. They have assumed all the risks.
[English]
Bill C-78 will thus make it possible to take into account both
surpluses and deficits and will establish mechanisms for
disposing of future surpluses. Existing surpluses will gradually
be reduced to an acceptable level over a period of up to 15
years.
What would happen in future if surpluses were to accumulate? It
would be the Treasury Board's responsibility to determine how
those surpluses would be used; for example, by a reduction of
contribution rates.
Naturally, if there were to be a mutual agreement to share the
risks with employees, I am certain we could establish a
co-management arrangement to share any potential surpluses in the
future.
[Translation]
Bill C-78 will also ensure the long-term financial viability of
our employees' pension funds by establishing a public sector
pension investment board, which will be charged with investing
future employer and employee contributions in the financial
markets. Investing contributions in diversified portfolios will
yield a better rate of return, thus guaranteeing a better future
and controlling increasing costs.
This new board will be completely independent of the government
and the participants in these plans. It will thus be entirely
free in its investment decisions. Other public sector pension
plans in Canada have already been investing contributions in the
financial markets. This board will be of benefit to our
employees.
[English]
Our employees have nothing to lose and everything to gain with
this new organization. If the performance of the investments I
have just spoken of fail to meet expectations, I can assure
employees that they would receive the same pension as that
provided for under the plan to which they have contributed during
their careers.
The government guarantees the integrity of the benefits provided
through its employees' pension funds. Bill C-78 re-establishes
equity between taxpayers and government employees in terms of the
funding of these pension plans. It strengthens the long term
viability of the plans and will endeavour to reduce the costs for
all contributing members.
Bill C-71, the Budget Implementation Act, also proposes
improvements to the Public Service Superannuation Act, the
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Superannuation Act.
In the future pension benefits will be computed on the basis of
the average annual salary for the five best consecutive years
covered, compared to six years under the current plan. In simple
terms this means better benefits for our employees.
[Translation]
Bill C-78 sets out a series of technical amendments, which will
enhance the benefits associated with the pension plans of
federal employees. It will also reduce the contribution rate
for the supplementary death benefit plan and the employees'
group insurance plan and will increase benefits.
Bill C-78 will also grant survivor benefits to same sex partners.
The Government of Canada would thus be making the provisions of
these pension plans similar to those of several public and
private sector plans. For example, I am thinking of the Ontario
municipal pension employees retirement plan, or similar plans
which have been modified in New Brunswick or in Saskatchewan.
I can even think of private companies like Sears, Dow Chemical
or Shell.
Furthermore, I would note that the approach adopted in Bill C-78
is supported by the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in M
vs. H.
1210
I am satisfied that the changes we are planning to make to the
three public sector pension plans are realistic and fair.
I would also remind the House that we consulted with our
partners, including the unions, over a long period and were
unfortunately unable to reach an agreement on the reforms that
needed to be undertaken.
[English]
For a long time we have needed to take action and we have taken
action. This bill is fair and equitable for both the
beneficiaries of these plans and for Canadian taxpayers. This
bill will modernize and improve public sector pension plans. I
am also fully satisfied that the majority of government employees
firmly believe that the government is acting to protect and
improve their future retirements.
I hope that all members of parliament will see the necessity for
the government to act now, will support the government and will
vote in favour of this legislation.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, before
I start I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent for me to
share my time with the member for Calgary Centre.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
hon. member to share his 40 minute speech and divide it into two
20 minute sections?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange
that the President of the Treasury Board would stand and tell us
how virtually all the civil servants are behind Bill C-78 and
that it is going to be a wonderful thing for the civil servants,
the employees of the government, to find out that their employer
is going to take $30 billion out of their pension plan. He says
they feel good about it. I wonder who he has been talking to. I
do not think that very many civil servants are enthused about the
idea of the government raiding the pension plan to the tune of
$30 billion.
The minister talked about the fair and equitable contents of
this bill. I draw the attention of members to an article which
appeared in the Globe and Mail today on page 2. The
headline reads “Old RCMP pension plan leaves widows stranded”.
It states:
Twenty-nine days after Eva Fisk's husband died in 1991, she
received a letter from the RCMP. The letter said her husband
Albert, a Mountie for 22 years, had not left her a pension. The
letter also said she was no longer covered under the federal
health-care plan.
“It was horrible, so I threw it out”, said Ms. Fisk, now in
her late 70s and living in Victoria. “I was cut off”.
If the minister is so concerned about fairness and equity, I
would have thought that he would have provided some redress for
this particular situation where widows of RCMP officers are left
high and dry with absolutely nothing. Based on the rules of the
pension plan in the past they are left with nothing.
The article continues:
The RCMP pension plan was amended in 1949 to improve survivor
benefits, but participation came with a price for
non-commissioned officers and constables.
Lower-ranking Mounties were required to cash out their principal
payments and give up the accrued interest they earned in order to
join the new plan. Mounties promoted to commissioned-officer
ranks were entitled to keep their benefits under the old plan
without cashing out their principal payments.
We have very clear discrimination between commissioned officers
in the RCMP and non-commissioned officers and constables who were
left high and dry and who were forced to cash out their pension
plans, give up all the interest they had earned, while the
commissioned officers were able to keep all their money plus the
government interest and roll it into the new plan. Has Bill C-78
provided redress for this issue? Absolutely not.
1215
It is unfortunate that the minister would use such words as fair
and equitable when talking about this legislation. When their
husbands die, widows of members of the most respected police
force in the world, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, are left
high and dry with nothing.
I talked with the department involved and it said they opted out
of the pension plan. They did not want to provide for their
widows and orphans. They made that election. If they were single
and subsequently got married, they were again given the offer. It
is rather strange that we would have the situation where people
could leave their family members high and dry and the government
would agree to it. It cannot be fair.
I asked the department to assure me that members were given the
option to opt in to the widows and orphans section of the pension
plan when they married. It said absolutely. Back in those days a
person had to ask his employer, the RCMP, for permission to get
married. He could not go to the local church and get married
without getting permission from his employer.
We have come a long way. People no longer ask for their
employer's permission to get married. Common law situations are
recognized. Bill C-78 now extends that to same sex relationships.
It goes beyond that to basically any relationship of any kind is
going to qualify.
I was speaking to a person this morning who asked about the
situation of two people sharing an apartment, that one could
claim to be the survivor of the other. I said yes but the person
could dispute that. We are talking here about survivor benefits.
When a civil servant dies and is in the graveyard, his companion
or roommate, even though there was no conjugal relationship,
could claim survivor benefits and nobody could dispute it. As I
have said before, the lawyer before the committee indicated they
were going to take the person's word for it. Therefore, even if
there was no conjugal relationship, we are going to have to pay
benefits in that situation.
It seems that the government wants to have its cake and eat it
too when it comes to same sex benefits. It wants to have any
relationship whatsoever qualify for survivor benefits, but at the
same time it has narrowed it down by defining it as conjugal and
cohabitation. How it intends to police that, it really has no
idea. It intends to leave it up to the courts.
I think of the M. v H. decision that came down last week. It
concerned the Family Law Act of Ontario and dealt with the
definition of spouse. The definition as far as I understand it
in section 29 of the Family Law Act is either people who are
married or a man and a woman living in a conjugal relationship
for three years.
Bill C-78 deals with pension plans and defines a relationship as
conjugal and cohabitation for one year. I understand there are
some circumstances where cohabitation for six months qualifies as
a common law relationship. I am wondering how soon it will be
that after a one night fling one's pension will be at risk. I am
sure that would take some of the enthusiasm out of one night
stands. The point is we have to look to where we are going as
far as these issues are concerned.
In 1949 if a person wanted to get married he had to ask his
employer for permission.
That went by the wayside. Then people did not bother to get
married. Then it did not matter that it was the opposite sex.
Then it did not matter how long the relationship lasted and now
it is down perhaps to as low as six months. Goodness knows where
it is going to end up.
1220
That is the issue we see on the slippery slope where Bill C-78
is not fair and equitable. It wants to hand out money anywhere
and everywhere on relationships that cannot be defined, that
cannot be policed, if I may use that terminology.
I am at a loss. It is very disappointing. We as
parliamentarians are in the House debating a new law of the land.
I expect it will become the law of the land because the
government is going to ram this bill through later today.
Regardless of what we say in the House and regardless of the fact
that about eight members on the government side voted against
this bill, it is going to get rammed through.
The other day I was reading the M. v H. decision the supreme
court brought down last Thursday. It referred on several
occasions to parliament's wishes and that parliament knew what it
was doing when it passed the legislation.
Here parliament is expressing its serious opposition to this
bill that was drafted by the bureaucrats, 200 pages of technical,
detailed, complex legislation. The bill would have been passed
through committee in 15 minutes had there been the chance but I
was able to slow it down to four hours. This is not parliament
expressing its will. This is parliament being railroaded into
rubber stamping what the government wants.
I would hope that is on the record because if, as and when this
is ever challenged in court, I would never want the courts to say
that parliament freely expressed its wishes and opinion on this
particular issue, because its opinion is irrelevant. It is being
railroaded into approving something that has not been analysed,
debated or thought through. We have not examined the
ramifications of where it is leading us.
We are going to find Bill C-78 finished and voted on in the
House of Commons tonight. The government has organized it by
cracking the whip and saying “You will be here to vote for the
bill”. For those who would like to do otherwise, I understand
there are all kinds of incentives to be in other places. We will
find out whether they have accepted these invitations later on
this evening. What can I say, Mr. Speaker? It is a travesty that
the House which should approve the legislation is being forced to
endorse the government's legislation.
The $30 billion is another issue which I find rather
contemptuous. There is a $30 billion actuarial surplus in the
plan today because of a fortunate coincidence that has brought
several factors together.
Inflation has come down quite dramatically yet because the money
is invested in 20 year bonds the return on the plan is still very
high. Because there was a six year wage freeze the cost of
pensions has been reduced. Salaries were not so much reduced, but
their growth was less than anticipated through the wage freeze.
Therefore, pensions are less than anticipated, hence the cost of
pension payouts are less than anticipated. Because inflation is
down, the cost of pension payments in future years will be
reduced. This is the largest fully indexed pension plan existing
in the country today. If inflation is down, the cost of these
pension payments over the next number of years is going to be
reduced.
It is not because of overcontribution by the government. It is
not because of overcontribution by the employees either.
It is just that these fortunate circumstances have come together
to create an actuarial assessment which leaves more money in the
plan than otherwise required.
1225
The government wants to take that money. It wants to take the
money that was contributed by itself and the employees. It is
very distasteful that it would help itself to money put into the
plan by its very own employees. In the private sector it is
totally illegal. It would not be allowed under any
circumstances.
Bill S-3 that was passed by the House a year or two ago laid out
specific rules for taking out a surplus from a plan if there was
such a surplus. There had to be a vote by the membership. A 50%
vote by members was required to remove the money under certain
circumstances. In other circumstances it required a two-thirds
majority of the members before the employer was allowed to take
the money out.
The President of the Treasury Board has told us that many of the
members support this. Why did he not put this to a vote? The
government imposed that restriction on employers and refuses to
apply it to itself.
I again register my opposition to the government's taking $30
billion out of the plan.
There are two other major fundamental issues in the bill. One
is to split the payment of CPP and pension contributions into two
payments rather than one. Until now civil servants have
contributed 7.5% of their salaries as a combined payment to CPP
and the pension plan. The government has introduced very
dramatic increases in the CPP contributions over the next number
of years, increases as large as 73%. If the CPP contributions
were to go up, by obvious correlation the contributions to the
pension plan would go down. The government says it cannot have
that. It wants to put them on the same footing as all other
Canadians where they have to pay the CPP contributions and the
pension plan as two separate payments.
We do not have any problem with that, but we do have a problem
with the fact that it will now increase the civil service
employees' contributions to the pension plan from about 30% to
40%. The minister tells us the employees are not accepting any
of the risk of the plan yet they will pay a whole bunch more into
the plan. The government by definition will pay a whole bunch
less into the plan. And the government says it is carrying the
risk. It cannot be.
The other one is the privatization of the plan. The money will
be invested in the private capital market rather than in
government bonds. Perhaps that is not a bad situation. We do
not dispute that there is an opportunity to make more in the
private sector but we do know that sometimes less can be made in
the private sector.
If the plan makes less and the employees are contributing to the
plan, they are sharing in the risk. They share in the risk if
the return is lower. The value of the plan may not be as high as
it should be or could be. Therefore they have to cover their
60:40 split of contributions to the plan to ensure it is a viable
plan.
Lots of arguments can be made for the employees sharing in the
risk in the plan yet the government would say there is none.
I do not think the government is being honest and forthright. It
is certainly not allowing enough debate on this bill. It is 200
pages of complex legislation. It went through committee in less
than four hours. Closure has been introduced twice on this bill.
What can I say? I call it the great run at the brick wall where
the government feels that because it wants to do something the
House has to endorse its position.
1230
I find that rather odious. I object to it. I would certainly
hope that the bill would be defeated this evening, although I
doubt it will because we know that when the government wants
something it gets its members to fall in line, much to my
disgust.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
add my applause for the member who just made a well reasoned
argument regarding Bill C-78. He pointed out some very
significant shortcomings in this piece of legislation.
I would like to build on some of the points he made this
morning. For those listening and those in the House, let us be
clear on what we will be voting on later today. The bill talks
about changes to who will manage and oversee the pension funds
for federal government employees, what will happen to surpluses
that may accrue to the fund, and who will be eligible for
benefits.
Through Bill C-78 the government will appoint a board which will
be removed from the auditor general's oversight and no longer
subject to access to information legislation. Bill C-78 will
allow the federal government access to any surpluses in the
pension plan provided the federal government, that is the
taxpayer, commits to making up the shortfall in the pension plan
in the future.
In brief, Bill C-78 proposes to remove the funds from public
accountability and let the federal government spend the surplus
today with the taxpayer guaranteeing to make up future shortfalls
in the fund. These are not false accusations. It is the truth.
Every Liberal will probably dutifully do as they are told and
vote for it. Constituents will not know the reasons and will not
understand all the nuances.
I want to address another aspect of the bill before us which
deals with expanding the benefits. It is on this aspect that I
will direct the remainder of my time for it is here the
government has grossly misrepresented its intent.
When a contributor to a pension plan dies the benefits go to his
or her surviving husband or wife. The bill proposes to maintain
this provision, which is good, but it will extend the benefits
beyond this point in a new way. The government has said its
intent is to extend the benefits to same sex relationships as
well. This is not what it has done.
There are many types of same gender relationships: siblings,
friends, roommates, partners, et cetera, but the only
relationship the government wants to include is when two people
of the same gender are involved in private sexual activity or
what is more commonly known as homosexuality. No sex, no
benefits, even if everything else is the same.
More important, Bill C-78 benefits will be extended to any
person who has had, as the bill says, “a relationship of a
conjugal nature with a contributor” regardless of sex, male or
female, two males or two females. The bill refers to the phrase
“a relationship of a conjugal nature”.
According to Black's Law Dictionary conjugal means sexual
activity. That is how every major Canadian dictionary defines
it, but the bill does not define it in any way. It has added a
new legal expression, a relationship of a conjugal nature with
absolutely no definition of what it means. We are left with
assuming it means what the Canadians dictionaries mean.
The government seems determined to make private sexual activity
between anyone the primary condition for benefits. This is the
focus of the substantive section of the bill.
To further illustrate the point, it was interesting to note that
during the debates on the bill the Liberal member for Scarborough
Southwest realized that the changes to the bill were specifically
designed to extend benefits based on the sexual activity between
two men or two women. The bill also excludes those without
sexual activity but who may still be dependent on each other. He
proposed an alternative. The amendment was intended to leave
sexual activity out of the benefits equation altogether.
Benefits, according to his amendment, would be extended based on
dependency relationships and sexual activity would not be a
criteria for benefits.
1235
The member's government ruled his amendment out of order and
struck it down, effectively insisting that the expanded benefits
had to be based on homosexual activity in order to qualify. This
is not a same sex benefit bill; it is a sexual activity bill. The
new part of the bill extends benefits only when there is sexual
activity between two people of the same sex.
I have in my riding an elderly gentleman who has a friend who
was down on his luck, a senior who was living on a very meagre
pension. The wealthier person took in his friend. They have
been sharing accommodation for years. They basically share
everything in that household. They have a very deep friendship,
but it has never even crossed their minds to have any kind of
physical intimacy in a sexual way.
The bill totally excludes that kind of relationship. The only
way for the survivor benefit to be extended to the person who
otherwise might be dependent on the public purse is for them to
enter into some sort of physical intimacy which they do not want
to entertain.
The amendment by the member for Scarborough Southwest would have
taken sex out of it and based it on dependency, he said. The
Liberal government said no. It ruled effectively that private
sexual activity between people of the same gender is now the
requirement for new benefits within Bill C-78. This is from the
same government that said it would not do so.
I will reference some comments made by various cabinet ministers
in the government across the way over the past few years. I will
start with one from the current justice minister.
On April 24, 1998 in a letter to a constituent she said that she
continued to believe it was not necessary to change well
understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any
fairness consideration the courts and tribunals may find. Yet
they have proposed legislation that has removed every reference
to spouse, wife, widow, and has gone to new terminology.
The current health minister when he was the justice minister
spoke in the House. He said that notwithstanding sexual
orientation was a ground within section 15 of the charter on
which discrimination was prohibited the benefits did not
automatically follow. That was the law.
On January 21, 1999 the Prime Minister said in an editorial in
the Lethbridge Herald that it was not on the agenda of the
government at the time when he was asked about spousal benefits
to same sex couples.
When asked about extending these benefits the member for
Scarborough—Rouge River was not convinced that there was either
broad based political support or legal justification for major
changes in the current paradigm.
They say one thing and yet we are faced with legislation today
which seems to contradict exactly what they told the public and
what they stated in response to questions on this topic. This is
the same government which is now bestowing benefits based on
sexual activity between two people of the same gender.
I am attempting not to purposely overstate this and not to be
sensational. I am reporting simply on the effects of the change
in Bill C-78. If Canadians do not believe me they can contact me
and discuss it with me. What I am saying is clear in the
legislation and in the actions of the government.
My colleagues in the Liberal government will probably vote later
tonight in favour of sexual activity benefits and not same sex
benefits.
Is this how we serve our constituents? Does this serve the best
interest of those who have put us here?
1240
Beyond the invasion of privacy concerns, I have some personal
concerns about how the bill violates those who are sent here to
serve. Some may not like what I have to say but I think it is
the truth. If we cannot state the truth in the House, I do not
know where we can do so anywhere in the country.
It is well documented that physical sexual intimacies between
persons of the same gender result in much higher rates of serious
illness, particularly when two males are involved. Statistics
show that people involved in this kind of activity have a life
span just slightly over half a normal life span. From a study
out of the United States it has been shown that suicide rates are
25 times higher than the norm.
If we really care about people, why are we requiring people in
the same gender relationships to be engaged in sexual activities
to qualify for benefits? Why are we making benefits contingent
upon behaviours that generally speaking have been shown to work
against the personal health and best interest of those involved?
I questioned the treasury board minister in committee. He
responded that the courts made him do it and lawyers wrote it
this way. Does the government serves the people by letting the
courts set policy and lawyers draft the legislation? In the whole
process people are left out. Is that what members opposite will
vote for tonight?
We live in busy times. The bill will be voted on tonight under
the cover of the war in Kosovo, Y2K, tax issues and bank mergers.
An ever increasing number of issues overwhelm the daily lives of
those who are trying to pay the bills, raise the kids and get
some R&R.; They will not notice all this.
The vote today will very likely go unnoticed. The significance
of Bill C-78 will be lost in the flurry of activity of life in
the information overload age. The bill will likely go unnoticed
by those who put us here to serve them.
I remind members opposite and all other members in the House of
something I saw in the Speaker's chambers. I know that every
word spoken in the House is recorded and bound in volumes which
are kept there. Everything we say and every vote are recorded.
In a sense it is our accountability. In a sense we might say it
is the legacy we leave to families or those who follow who may
want to reference what we said and where we stood on issues.
I ask members to consider their votes tonight on Bill C-78.
Surely we can do better than Bill C-78. The bill needs to be
sent back for a redraft which puts the needs of all people first
and includes respect for the personal privacies of people and
their tax dollars.
If the government is intent on drafting legislation to allow
benefits to flow to relationships between two people of the same
gender, to make benefits contingent upon their having some sort
of sexual relationship, it is in my view inappropriate. Is it
not more reasonable to focus on demonstrated interdependencies
and the social contribution of the relationship when considering
benefits rather than the private physical intimacies of the
persons being considered? I encourage all members of the House
to send Bill C-78 back for an improved redraft.
In summary, the bill has three key strikes against it. First, it
removes the management of public pension plans from public
accountability with an appointed pension board, no auditor
general review and no access to information. Second, it allows
the federal government to access any surpluses in the fund with
the guarantee that taxpayers will make up the difference if there
is a shortfall in the future. Third, it extends survivor
benefits outside marriage dependent on private sexuality
regardless of gender.
1245
Three strikes. Three strikes and we should send this bill out.
Let us send it out and call on the government to bring forward an
improved version, an improved version that makes some sense and
actually serves the people who worked so hard to put us here.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow me to
start my presentation as I did all my speeches on this topic,
two weeks ago.
What is remarkable with this government and with the bill before
us is how the government ended up imposing its view on this
issue. We are increasingly wondering about the type of democracy
that prevails in the House of Commons. I am primarily alluding
to the government's way of doing things by always silencing the
opposition through closure.
The other day, Reform Party members told us that the government
used closure 53 times. I imagine this figure applies to the past
two parliaments.
Based on the figures that we have, from 1997 until now, closure
was used 24 times regarding bills reviewed in the House of
Commons.
One has to wonder. Does this House truly have the opportunity to
do an in-depth review of the bills? It seems that when the
government has a priority, it just wants to pass the related
legislation. When the government is faced with some opposition,
it resorts to closure, to a time allocation motion, and tells us
“Unfortunately for you, it is over. This is how we want to
proceed. If you are not happy, discuss the issue during the few
additional hours that we are giving you and then it will be over
and we will vote on the legislation”.
This is what I call the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately,
this tyranny does not exist only in the House. We regularly
experience it in the committees as well.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development and I note that, in committee, when the
government wants to pass a bill and seems to consider that
enough is enough, the majority automatically steps in.
I have nothing against the majority, because I think that
democracy must function with a majority, but excessive
imposition of closure on the opposition makes me think that
democracy is sometimes in doubt. In fact I would say that it is
definitely in doubt. Two weeks ago, in debates, they did this on
a number of occasions.
I thought it important to begin my speech today by saying that,
with this bill, closure was once again imposed at second
reading, at report stage and is now being imposed at third
reading.
By the end of this evening, the members of the government and
ourselves will decide the fate of $30 billion, which should
belong to the employees.
The government imposed closure and is now going to tell us that
it is going to take this $30 billion. I find that absolutely
deplorable.
I also want to speak of the government's arrogance. When the
bill was introduced, the government House leader was all smiles,
not only at imposing closure on the opposition, but also at
continuing the tradition of imposition in Ottawa, with these
employees, in these terms “We are taking over the $30 billion,
we are not negotiating with you, we are the ones deciding. The
people elected us, and we are deciding that there is a $30
billion surplus in this fund. There will be no discussion with
you of sharing. We are taking it and we will see about it
afterwards”. Not only is the government using closure to excess,
but it does so with considerable arrogance.
If I look at the way it is done in the case of other pension
funds, it is clear that, when a government that is both judge
and jury—the government is the legislator and the employer—decides
that there is too much of a surplus or that it wants to change
employee contributions, the situation is very delicate.
I do not want to say that, in Quebec, we are better than
elsewhere, but the tradition in Quebec is one of negotiation,
which is not the case in Ottawa. While negotiations may be long
at times, they may be difficult, pressure may be exerted, a
negotiated solution is still better than an imposed one.
1250
Recently, I read through a study in which the government was
trying to find out why public servants are so dissatisfied and
no longer motivated at work. If one looks at the government's
behaviour over the last few years, or even the last few decades,
one can see that it very seldom negotiates with its employees.
It lets collective agreements drag on even after they have
expired, adds 1 or 2% and finally imposes a settlement. On top
of that, it limits job action even though it is allowed under
the Canada Labour Code.
Job action is allowed in a democracy. When workers are
dissatisfied, there are legal means of expressing their
dissatisfaction. These are provided for in the Canada Labour
Code. Striking is one of them, and job action is another. But
this government does not give people the opportunity to use those
means. Moreover, as I said earlier, it is both employer and
legislator.
Its strategy is very simple. By blocking negotiations or
delaying them it forces workers to take some kind of job action.
Then it brings in special legislation—like the one passed the
other day—to impose a settlement, arguing that employees are
holding the state hostage, which, by the way, is absolutely
false. The government does not give people the opportunity to
carry through the bargaining process.
Let us come back to the infamous special legislation brought in
by the government no too long ago, when we spent the night here
so the government could force public servants back to work.
I give this example because it is particularly outrageous.
Personally I found that the President of the Treasury Board was
adding insult to injury when, at two in the morning, he came and
told us that an agreement in principle had been reached with
government employees.
Instead of letting the process run its course and saying “We
have done our part; it is now up to the workers to approve the
agreement in general assemblies”, the government added insult to
injury by allowing debate to continue all night and forcing the
employees back to work anyway.
That goes to show the government's attitude, which is to
continually impose its views not only on its employees but also
on the opposition, always using drastic means like legislation
to force public service employees back to work and closure to
gag the opposition.
That is totally unacceptable and that shows arrogance.
The President of the Treasury Board, who is the sponsor of the
bill, just spoke in support of his bill. I would say he hardly
spoke more than 10 minutes. Of course, hon. members have limited
time to speak, but anyone who does not have much to say and
wants to slip a bill through discreetly and rapidly does not
spend much time talking about its legal and moral implications.
The present government has no moral values and that is why the
President of the Treasury Board talked only ten minutes about
his bill at third reading.
I would like to quote a statement made by the President of the
Treasury Board not so long ago.
In 1996, he asked for consultations on the pension plan. He
said:
Consultations could lead to a partnership that would establish
in the public service the concept of a management committee at
arm's length with the government.
But what did the President of the Treasury Board do? Exactly the
opposite of what he said in 1996.
In 1998, it was announced in a press release by the Treasury
Board Secretariat that the government had agreed to a number of
recommendations made by the advisory committee in a report that
was the result of four years of painstaking work by union
representatives, retirees and government officials. That is what
was said in the press release of the Treasury Board Secretariat
in 1998.
Now, through the President of the Treasury Board, the government
has done exactly the opposite of what it said it would do. When
a government sets up an advisory committee, one really has to
wonder.
1255
It has said to its employees: “A small surplus seems to be
building up, and maybe we should sit down and discuss this”.
What did the government do, in the end? Through the bill before
us, it is grabbing whatever it feels like. The government is
making off with $30 billion.
This leads me to talk about the government's management
practices. What kind of management has the Liberal government
been practising since it came to power in 1993 and since it was
re-elected in 1997?
I have been listening to the finance minister. Like I said, Star
Wars is now very popular, and we have long waiting lines outside
movie theatres.
I feel that the finance minister is the Darth Vader of this
House. I will explain why later. His shadow can be seen
everywhere he tries to put his hand on surpluses. Whenever funds
generate surpluses, the government cannot wait to get its hands
on them, and the Minister of Finance always has a say in the
matter.
Let us look at how the government has been managing things these
last few years. First, it said “We have agreed on a certain
proportion of transfers to the provinces”. The province of
Quebec, for instance, has lost some $2.5 billion in just a few
years.
The government simply decided to cut transfers to the provinces.
That created a huge problem for the provincial governments in
their own areas of jurisdiction, that is to say anything having
to do with health, education and, as far as we are concerned,
welfare.
That is what they called the CHST.
The government agreed to transfer some funds to the provinces to
help them solve these problems. What happened was highly
predictable. When the provincial governments, including Quebec,
received less than they expected, problems started to emerge:
crowded emergency wards, lack of equipment, personnel cuts,
budget cuts for health institutions and education. Welfare
programs were also affected.
Provinces were crippled by the government's decision to cut
transfers. The federal government was able to start reducing the
deficit. They kept bragging, saying “This is remarkable. See how
well we can manage public affairs”.
Darth Vader himself, the Minister of Finance, came to tell the
House “See how we are putting the economy back on its
feet—extraordinary”. Transfer payments were the first step: less
money transferred to the provinces means more money for the
federal government.
The other question that can be raised concerning this
government's management style relates to the employment insurance
fund. A huge reform has taken place. Before, when people lost
their jobs, seven out of ten of them qualified for employment
insurance. Now that number is 3.5, or nearly 4. Half of those
who used to be eligible no longer are.
As well, this fund is increasing by $6 billion or $7 billion
every year. Perhaps $25 billion have gone into the government's
pockets in recent years.
That same reform also resulted in people having to pay into
employment insurance regardless of how many hours they work. In
the past some were excluded, for instance students with weekend
jobs. Now students and others with weekend jobs have to pay
starting with the first cent they earn. They have to pay, but
what is shocking is that they will never be able to qualify for
benefits.
This fund is continuing to grow and the Darth Vader of this
House continues to say that he is managing public funds very
well. Several billions are not being transferred to the
provinces and end up in the kitty, the EI fund. The government
continues to pocket between $6 billion and $7 billion every
year.
Another question on the way the government is managing things,
getting back to the matter of its employees once again, is the
whole business of pay equity.
The President of the Treasury Board performed intellectual
gymnastics with this. It is incredible how flexible he can be in
the stances he takes.
The Liberals initially acknowledged the problem a little bit.
Then they were told “You have to pay these people”. During
negotiations, the people said that the government probably owed
them between $2 billion and $7 billion, because the women in the
federal public service are paid less well than in other sectors
of employment. This has been proven.
1300
The President of the Treasury Board kept trying to push back the
deadline. He began by saying that he would wait for the
decisions on this issue for other sectors of the economy, which
would certainly have an effect on the government's position.
These decisions were made public a long time ago. There is the
problem of pay equity. It has been corrected elsewhere, but it
has yet to be corrected by this government. The House's Darth
Vader continues to say “The way I manage this economy and the
public finances of this government is phenomenal”.
We have just been talking about several billion dollars in the
employment insurance fund because the government does not pay
fairly women working in the federal public service. The latest
discovery of the President of the Treasury Board, surely on the
advice of the forces of evil, the shadow in this House, is the
$30 billion surplus in the fund belonging to the employees of
the federal public service. Thirty billion dollars is not
peanuts.
We are talking about a surplus of $14.9 billion for the public
service, $2.4 billion for the RCMP and $12.9 billion for the
Canadian armed forces.
The government is wondering. Earlier I was saying that they want
to do psychological studies to find out why the employees of the
federal public service are dissatisfied and are not working up
to par.
There were also reports explaining why Canadian forces members
had so little motivation.
Considering the attitude of the President of the Treasury Board
and his government, it is easy to understand why federal public
servants, like members of the Canadian armed forces, are often
unmotivated. They do not have a say in anything. Again, as I
said earlier, this is the tyranny of the majority.
The government imposes taxes, dips into funds, does as it
pleases, continues to gag the opposition and keeps imposing
working conditions on the whole public service. All this is very
hard to accept.
One might understand if the government targeted people who enjoy
a gold plated pension, but we are talking about public servants
who, as retirees, have annual incomes of $9,400.
Who did the government decide to target? It is these people.
The government had other options. It could have negotiated with
its public service. It could have said “We realize that there
are surpluses. Perhaps we could try to improve the plan. Instead
of paying you $9,400, we may be able to give you up to $12,000”.
The government could also have said to participants “There are
surpluses. Therefore, we will give you a contribution holiday
and you will not have to make contributions for a few years, so
as to use up some of the surpluses. Afterwards, we will use the
same contribution rates but, for a few years, you will not have
to contribute”. However, this is not what the government did.
It runs away with the $30 billion pot and then says “Now, we
will put in place certain provisions, so that if this situation
occurs again, we will be able to react more quickly”.
What will happen when the $30 billion are gone and the federal
public sector realizes, perhaps a few years from now—I hope not,
but it could happen—that there is not enough in the plan to pay
employees retiring in one, two or ten years? The government
will probably tell contributors that it is sorry but that its
actuarial forecasts oblige it to take action, as it did with the
CPP, where premiums were increased. The same thing may well
happen.
Once the government gets its hands on the surplus, contributors
will probably be told that there are problems and that premiums
are being increased. It is outrageous.
A number of terms have been used in the House and I want to
mention them again. They are parliamentary.
Everyone has avoided using unparliamentary language. In my
view, the parliamentary terms used so far are quite significant.
They include making off with, siphoning off, raiding,
controling, and swindling. I think that they are all
descriptive of this government's attitude towards its employees.
I would also like to look at what this will mean. Some of my
constituents are listening today. There is a military base in
my riding with a large population of Canadian forces members.
Members of the RCMP also live there.
1305
Most retired members of these three groups receive an average
pension of $9,400 a year. It might be different for members of
the RCMP because they earn a little more and therefore receive
slighter higher pensions, but Canadian forces members are not
extremely well paid and public sector blue collar workers in
Saint-Jean are earning perhaps $30,000 or $32,000 a year and will
receive a pension of $9,400 a year.
We are talking about regional economy. What will someone
receiving $9,400 a year going to do with that amount? Spend it.
There is no question of looking into investments, buying mutual
funds and playing the stock market on an annual income of $9,400.
These people spend their money in their own ridings, for
housing, for clothing, for food and sometimes for a little
outing. This is about all they can afford with $9,400.
Now, imagine what would happen if the government decided to
upgrade pensions. These people could afford better housing and
clothing, higher quality leisure activities, more travel. All
that would strengthen the economy.
Just in the case of the employment insurance fund I talked about
earlier, the $6 billion to $7 billion stolen each year from the
unemployed represent $21 million for the riding of Saint-Jean.
This is not peanuts. Further more, if women had pay equity, they
could spend more in their riding, and this would be over and
above the $21 million.
When people cannot increase their annual income with their
retirement fund, this represents another loss for regional
economies. The government is siphoning off money not only from
the public service but also from the economy of the riding of
Saint-Jean and other ridings in Quebec and Canada.
I thought it was important to share these facts with the House.
People often believe that the government is doing the right
thing and taxpayers ask: “Will that affect me? Will Bill C-78
affect me? NO, this will not affect me, but it will affect
employees of the federal public service”. For instance, people
who have a business, who sell houses or condos or have a grocery
store should understand that the less money there is in ridings,
the slower the economy will be.
Earlier, we raised questions about the government's management
practices.
There are even more questions when it comes to such matters as
R&D; and the procurement of goods and services. This is one more
thing that affects Quebec directly.
Quebec contributes about 24% of the tax base, but when it comes
to categories of expenditures that are important to Quebec,
whether R&D; or the procurement of goods and services, there is
no more equity. To give an example relating to R&D;, in the
Ottawa-Hull region, there are 43 research centres. Of that
number, 42 are in Ottawa, and 1 in Hull. That strikes me as a
pretty flagrant lack of fairness.
Research centres are real generators of truly high-paying jobs.
This is also true for the procurement of goods and services.
The government is the largest purchaser of goods and services in
Canada, which it would have to be, considering the size of its
budget, but instead of encouraging the regional economy, there
is a shortfall of several hundred million dollars in Quebec.
That is a lot.
It is said that the rate of unemployment in Quebec is higher.
What if the government decided to be fair where the procurement
of goods and services are concerned? It would buy more in
Quebec and this would generate more employment. But it has not
done so. It is penalizing Quebec as far as procurement of goods
and services, and research and development, are concerned.
As well, it is pocketing money from all the sources I have
already referred to: transfer payments to the provinces, the
employment insurance fund, pay equity, and its latest discovery,
the public service pension funds.
I now wish to speak a bit about same sex spouses. As I said two
weeks ago, I think the government is treading on eggshells
somewhat with this.
1310
For the series of amendments concerning same sex partners, the
government has decided to hold a free vote. I wonder if the
government will hold a free vote this evening or whether it will
oblige Liberal members who were not in agreement with this
clause to vote in favour of it this evening. Some members have
expressed very interesting points of view. I had mine, I
expressed it and I put it into practice when I voted on the
amendment as such.
What is deplorable with this approach, these specificities and
the provisions of the bill is that the government is going to
force people to perhaps vote against their conscience.
In my opinion, the government should have introduced a specific
bill on same sex partners.
In Quebec City, the government introduced a sort of omnibus
bill, which will really allow, once and for all, a clean-up of
regulations and laws in Quebec, because the courts are according
more and more rights to same sex partners. We saw this again
last week. Decisions are recognizing these people increasingly.
But the problem here is that the government is resolving things
piecemeal. This is not the first matter resolved in such a
fashion. The other day I gave the example of native women who
have no protection on an Indian reserve when a household is
being broken up.
Instead of settling the heart of the issue, the government
introduces bills concerning natives, and women's lobbies want to
introduce amendments to each of these bills to take into account
the fact that these women are not protected on the reserves.
The same thing is happening here. The government lacks courage.
Instead of settling the heart of the problem, it is introducing
legislation piecemeal. It just did so in Bill C-78, with all its
attendant problems. Some people may agree with taking money from
the funds, but they do not agree with there being same sex
partners and vice versa. Some people may oppose the bill, but be
in favour of measures for same sex partners. They are going to
have to make a choice this evening.
The government should have resolved the fundamental issue, since
this would have saved time for parliament. Indeed, every time a
bill on economic matters comes before the House, some will say
“We want same sex spouses to be specifically recognized in this
bill”. The government is taking a piecemeal approach, instead of
resolving the fundamental issue. I realize that this approach
could take more time, because it is a moral issue. There could
even be a free vote on this specific bill.
However, for the time being, the government has decided not to
use that approach. It is taking a piecemeal approach. There are
members from both sides of the House who have spoken freely on
the impact of the fact that, from now on, same sex spouses will
be entitled to their deceased spouse's government pension.
However, it may well be that, next year if not in a month or
two, the government will introduce another bill dealing with
economic matters, and lobbies for same sex spouses will come
back and say “We want amendments on this”. We will once again be
forced to have a debate on specific provisions, because the
issue will not have been dealt with globally in the first place.
I want to raise another point. Recently, the government has been
telling us “You know, we contribute 70% of the public service
employees pension fund”. Obviously, one can use statistics to
support any position.
It may be that, in the past two, three or four years, the
government did contribute 70% of the money paid into the fund.
However, if we look back further, we realize that, from 1924 to
1998, the government's contribution to the employees' fund only
amounted to 48% of the total.
It wants to make off with 100% of the surplus, and that is what
is particularly scandalous. I think the government could have
been more flexible with its unions and negotiated something more
acceptable and equitable, instead of what it finally did.
Having contributed 48% for 74 years, it decided to make off
with, help itself to, siphon off 100% of the surplus. It is an
utter disgrace.
1315
Now I would like to turn to the example the government is
setting for the private sector. Last time, I mentioned
internationally renowned financiers, now dead. There was Robert
Maxwell, a press baron in England. He sailed the seven seas in
a yacht financed by his own employees' pension plan. It was
scandalous.
These people were all denounced by workers, those who know the
value of the $15 or $20 dollars a week they hand over to the
government or their employer to pay for a decent retirement.
People know what it means to take $20 of what they earn every
week and hand it over to the government. They also know what it
means when the government says it is going to help itself to the
surplus. They know that it is utterly unfair. The government
is setting a precedent. It is going to send a message to
employers, particularly those in the private sector. They will
be able to say that, if there are any surpluses in their funds,
they will be entitled to help themselves because the money
belongs to them.
That is how this government, which makes laws and employs
people, thinks. It tells itself that, since it administers the
plan, it will help itself to any surpluses. The House should
consider what this will mean in the private sector.
Last time, I spoke about who this attitude hurt most and I am
going to do so again, because it is completely unfair. I am
referring to Singer employees.
A few years ago, the Bloc Quebecois began to ask questions on
this issue. This case was widely publicised. Many people believe
that the issue has been settled, that the Singer employees won a
victory and that $1.7 billion was shared between survivors.
Almost half of the employees are now dead and their average age
is 84. Yet people believe that the issue has been settled.
What they do not know, and I want to repeat this today, is that
between 1942 and 1967, the federal government was responsible,
through government annuities, for the Singer employees' fund.
The government, which was the watchdog of the retirement fund of
the Singer employees, allowed that company to dip into the
surplus.
In 1967, some $400,000 should have been paid back to employees
as a bonus. The government decided otherwise.
It allowed Singer to dip in the surplus. An amount of $400,000,
in 1967 dollars, would be the equivalent of $6 million to $7
million today, an amount which should belong to employees of
Singer.
I know what I am talking about, because my father worked for
Singer for 45 years. He is now retired and gets government
annuities, an astronomical $20 a month. All this because the
government allowed a company to walk away with the jackpot under
the cover of a holiday on premiums.
Today, we understand, with Bill C-78, why the government of the
day acted that way. Three different human resources development
ministers told us “This is not our fault, we deny any
responsibility and we do not want to pay.”
In 1994-1995, the Bloc started asking questions about Singer.
What was happening at the time? The federal public service
pension funds were starting to generate a surplus. There were
surely some mean-spirited people in the government who decided
that they were not about to recognize their responsibility and
reimburse former Singer employees. “Because we allowed Singer to
stop paying premiums, we cannot do that. If the surplus in our
own pension plan, in the federal public service pension plan,
continues to grow, we will have to get our hands on it”.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, realize that the first victims were
the Singer workers. But they were only the first victims,
because there will be many more to come. The government is
paving the way for all private employers, by sending them the
message that they will be able to get their hands on any
surpluses they have.
You have to agree that this sets a precedent. Of course, we are
also talking about federally regulated funds.
1320
Last week, I took part in a show about Bill C-78. People told me
that, under the provincial legislation, provincially regulated
employers acting this way would probably go to jail or pay huge
fines.
Employers who have some kind of link with the federal government
will feel they no longer have their hands tied.
Who will benefit from this bill, the employers or the workers?
Who gives money to this irresponsible and arrogant government?
Is it the low income workers or retirees who receive $9,000 a
year? No. It is the large corporations, the big banks, the large
insurance companies, the huge multinationals, those who refuse
contributions when we ask for them.
We tell them, “The Bloc Quebecois needs money, but you have to
give us a personal cheque”. That does not work. People from Bell
Canada tell me, “Look, Mr. Bachand, every time you organize a
cocktail party, we have a cheque for you”. But it is a cheque
from Bell, and we can only accept personal cheques.
The banks tell me the same thing.
Whose interests is this government defending? I think it is
defending the interests of the banks, of insurance companies, of
Bell. In the report of the chief electoral officer, I see that
Bell Canada gives $50,000 or $60,000 to the Liberal Party, and
the same goes for Nortel. The Bloc Quebecois gets absolutely
nothing. Who is the government favouring with a bill such as the
one before us today?
To whom is the government saying that, from now on, they will be
able to use any surplus in their pension plan? To the big banks
whose profits already total $6 or $7 billion a year, to the big
multinationals such as Bell Canada, which will probably have a
surplus of $1 billion this year, after having just laid off
about a thousand employees.
The workers and the retirees are beginning to understand who
really defends their interests in the Parliament of Canada. It
is the members of the Bloc Quebecois and those who will oppose
this bill today.
Those who will agree with this bill are government members, and
those who will congratulate the government are big banks,
insurance companies and multinationals. They can at last see the
light at the end of the tunnel.
For those corporate interests, billions of dollars in profit
each year are never quite enough. If there are a few extra
billions to be made at the expense of workers or retirees, they
will not say no. They are quite willing to grab their employees'
pension fund.
This is the kind of terrible precedent the government is
setting. I hope the workers and the retirees will understand
that the $20 they have contributed every week for years will not
be used to help them in their retirement, but for something
else.
I hope people will remember this when the time comes to vote.
I would like to come back to the financing of political parties.
For the Bloc Quebecois, money should not be a factor in a
democracy, and we should abide by the principle of one person,
one vote. I once told big companies like Bell they could keep
the $500 cheque they were handing to me. I will never have my
hands tied by big multinationals. Those who vote for the Bloc
Quebecois are workers, retirees who have a hard time making ends
meet, people in trouble and people who are persecuted by the
governments.
We are in a very good position, because we will never want to
become cabinet ministers. The Bloc Quebecois will never want to
become the government. I think voters do understand who is in a
better position to speak on their behalf.
Is it the government party, which accepts cheques from major
corporations, or is it the small parties, the ones sensitive to
workers? These parties will collect $5 or $10 on far flung
concession roads or hard to reach streets. We do not have our
hands tied.
This is why we can say the sort of thing we are saying today.
This is why today we can tell the government that it is
arrogant, ill-advised, excessively appropriating money,
incapable of managing public finances in a reasonable fashion.
1325
The fact that these workers support us with their $5 and $10
contributions allows me to say what I am saying today to this
government. I think people will be grateful to us and, when the
time comes to make a democratic choice, it will be one person,
one vote, but all of these votes in Quebec will mean that the
Bloc Quebecois will be back for the next election, should we
decide to come back.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will be very brief because the member for Winnipeg North Centre
is very anxious to give a long speech in the House today and I
want to share my time with her.
We have a very important bill before the House today, Bill C-78,
which deals with the pension funds and superannuation of retired
public servants, including the RCMP and the armed forces. It has
become a very controversial bill because the government wants to
use the $30 billion surplus that has accumulated in those funds
to go back into the consolidated revenue fund or to the
Government of Canada so it can pay down the debt or use for its
general operations.
I submit that this is really theft of a lot of money that the
federal government has collected in pensions. It should go for
pension purposes for retired public servants in the country.
An hon. member: Nonsense.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I hear a Liberal member on the other
side saying nonsense. I wish he would get up in the House and
make a speech about this and face his constituents who are
concerned about the government taking $30 billion of their money
and using it for general revenue purposes.
An hon. member: They cannot spend it.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: A Liberal member is saying that they
cannot spend it. This is very revealing. Maybe he should talk
to retired public servants, retired RCMP officers and retired
military personnel in the country. The Liberal government is
saying that they cannot spend it, that they have too much money
and that they cannot have higher pensions. The government says
the Canada pension is better indexed. It says retirees cannot
spend the money so it is going to take the money from them and
use it for other purposes.
This is a Liberal member revealing in the House today that these
retired pensioners cannot spend the money. I hope our pensioners
understand that the Liberals' position is that pensioners cannot
spend the money so it will take it use it for other purposes.
That is a very revealing statement. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that
you, as a very non-partisan officer of the House, would be
scandalized to get up in your place and comment on a question
like that.
I hear laughter from across the way. The Liberals are
embarrassed to hear this Liberal member from Hamilton saying that
they cannot spend the money. What has been said today is very
revealing. It is more revealing than when the minister got up
and read a prepared and scripted text written by bureaucrats.
I want to make three points. The first point is that the
government has really held the pensioners in the country in
contempt by not having a proper public hearing on this bill
today. It is a very major step and a major initiative. There
should have been very extensive public hearings so pensioners
could have had a say in what was happening to their money. If we
had a parliamentary democracy that was worth writing home about,
the pensioners would have had a say. However, that is not the
case.
I noticed an article in the paper awhile ago by a very
distinguished journalist, Doug Fisher. He said that the
government was really holding the pensioners and the opposition
parties in contempt. He said that the government was ignoring
the parliament of the country by bringing in closure to force the
bill through the House of Commons. I gather the Prime Minister
will designate this as a confidence vote forcing Liberal
backbenchers to vote with the government to make sure this is
railroaded through the House.
The time has come for serious parliamentary change so some of
the Liberals across the way, who do have some independent, free
thinking minds, can get up and speak their minds and their piece
on this. It is about time we had that kind of parliamentary
reform and change, but that has not happened.
Later today the Prime Minister will use his power and his whips
to make sure that Liberal trained seals on the backbenches get up
and vote yes in favour of Bill C-78. That really is a tragedy
and a shame in terms of our parliamentary democracy.
I am sure many Liberals across the way, like the member from
downtown Toronto, are hanging their heads in shame because they
cannot get up and speak their piece. All they can do is laugh at
the plight of the pensioners.
1330
I remember back in 1985 when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney tried
to partially de-index old age pensions. There was a huge
demonstration on Parliament Hill and grey power across the
country organized rapidly. A little woman, Madam Denis, went up
to the prime minister and said to him in French “You lied to us.
Vous avez menti”. The people forced the largest majority
government in the history of this country, which I believe had
211 seats and was sitting at over 50% in the polls, to back down.
That government is not here today and one of the reasons is
because of what it tried to do to seniors.
I remind the Liberal government that if it wants to take a leaf
out of Brian Mulroney's book it is well on its way to alienating
a lot of Canadians, a lot of seniors in this country. That is
one point I wanted to make.
The other point I want to make concerns the investment board
which will be set up to invest part of the money in the fund. We
have discovered that there will not be any ethical screening of
those investments. For example, the Canada pension plan now has
an investment board which invests about 15% of CPP funds in the
stock market. That investment is made in accordance with the TSE
300 Index, which means that some of the money is going into
Imasco which owns Imperial Tobacco.
Imperial Tobacco is a company which is encouraging young people
to smoke and become addicted to cigarettes. I think that
contravenes a stated public policy of the Government of Canada,
including the Minister of Health, that we are encouraging people
to stop smoking. We are aiming campaigns at children to
encourage them to stop smoking. On the other hand the Canada
pension plan is tying part of its future success to kids who
smoke by buying shares in Imperial Tobacco. I think that is
wrong.
I know that the Minister of Finance is committed to look at that
in terms of the Canada pension plan. I wish the minister in
charge of this bill would also take a look at whether we should
bring in ethical screening in terms of the investments board's
investments when it comes to the superannuation of retired public
servants. I do not think it is right to invest pensioners' money
in companies like Imperial Tobacco and indeed other companies
which pollute our atmosphere, which use child labour in different
parts of the world and which are irresponsible socially and
ethically. I would urge the government to amend this bill to
bring in ethical investment guidelines. I would certainly
support an amendment to that effect.
I cannot support a bill that is going to take $30 billion away
from the pensioners of this country, but we could certainly
improve the bill. That is what parliamentary democracy is all
about, suggesting ideas and policies to make legislation better.
However, again the trained seals across the way are going to vote
in accordance with the Prime Minister's wishes. The member from
the central part of Toronto, the member from Spadina, wants to be
a cabinet minister, so he is not going to alienate the Prime
Minister.
If we had some serious democratic reform in the House the member
from Spadina could propose an amendment to bring in ethical
screening of the investments made by the investment board. That
is what we should be doing in this case and in other cases as
well.
I want to address the whole question which has become
controversial with some Liberal backbenchers, which is that the
benefits will apply to people in conjugal relationships. The
issue that is raised time and again is, are the rights of gays
and lesbians to be treated the same as people in common law
relationships. I certainly support that thrust of the bill.
I want to make it very clear that we should be treating people
equally in this country, regardless of sexual orientation or
personal circumstances. Therefore, I would appeal to Liberal
members who are in opposition to that part of their own bill to
support the thrust of the bill in terms of equality of people
whether they are living in a common law relationship or whether
they are gays and lesbians living in that type of relationship as
well. That is very important. There was a supreme court
decision very recently and I think we are making progress in that
general area.
I want to say once again that I am discouraged closure was
brought in on this bill. I was very dismayed to hear a Liberal
member say in the House today that seniors do not need the $30
billion, that they could not spend it anyway. The member from
Hamilton said “They could not spend it anyway”. Hansard
will indicate that is exactly what he said from his seat on the
far left-hand side of the House.
I also believe there should have been proper parliamentary
hearings and discussions. There should have been hearings with
retired military personnel, retired government workers and the
RCMP over the direction of this bill and what to do with the
money in the fund.
That has not happened.
1335
Let us make sure that when we set up investment funds, which is
something new in terms of pension legislation in the country, we
bring in the principle of ethical screening to make sure that the
public funds being invested on behalf of pensioners in the future
and today will be done ethically in accordance with the wishes of
the vast majority of the Canadian people.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was interested in my colleague's speech. As usual he
was very articulate. We can tell who has been in the House for a
while and who knows the issues.
I am concerned about something the member alluded to, which is
the complicity of government members in the House. Instead of
holding the government to account he said that they simply act
like trained seals, and I could not disagree with that.
In committee this morning there were votes on estimates without
any discussion or examination of the merits of these huge
expenditures of money, and yet government members did not even
want discussion. They just said “Yes, we will pass it”.
From this member's perspective, and I know he has been in the
House a long time, even though he and I might not agree on some
issues I think we both have a real concern about accountability
and about the oversight function of members of parliament into
the way the business of the country is run. I would like him to
comment further on his perspective over the years about erosion.
Perhaps there never was an oversight function in a meaningful way
by members of the House.
I would like to know how we got so far down this road where
essentially what we do in the House has no meaning and has almost
no bearing on what the government does.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a
real move toward executive government in the last 20 or 30 years.
I was first elected in 1968. Of course, I was about 12 years
old then. I remember the great debate in 1969 when there was a
move to take estimates off the floor of the House of Commons. The
argument of the opposition in those days—the opposition leader
was Mr. Stanfield, our leader was Tommy Douglas and Réal Caouette
was the leader for the créditiste movement—was that the
committees of the House must be strengthened to bring
accountability to the committees of the House.
The House sat until the end of July. It was a debate that went
on and on into the hot days and evenings of the summer of 1969.
Of course that never happened. The Trudeau government rammed
through the legislation in the end and we have the committees as
we know them today.
I also remember 1984 when the Liberal Party came back with 40
some members after its great defeat at the hands of Brian
Mulroney. In opposition those members started to talk a lot more
about bringing in accountability. They wanted better
parliamentary democracy, fewer confidence votes, more free votes
and other things about which a lot of us are concerned. However,
once they were elected again in 1993 they sort of forgot about
that.
I remind members that the government across the way has had a
majority for five years. It received 38% of the vote in one of
the lowest turnouts in the history of the country when 67% of the
people in the last election voted. When we take 38% of the 67%,
it is sitting there with well under a third, probably a quarter
of the Canadian people who have endorsed the government, and yet
it has this awesome power of a majority and it cracks the whip
all the time to make sure it happens.
I will give an example of what I mean. The other place, which
we call the Senate, wants an increase of $5 million in its budget
this year. It is, by definition, not elected, not accountable
and not democratic.
We have checked with the procedural experts in your office, Mr.
Speaker. No minister is responsible for the Senate. There is no
one across the way who can answer on behalf of the Senate. If no
minister is responsible for the Senate, therefore the government
is not responsible for the Senate and therefore if one votes
against the estimates of the Senate it is not a motion of
non-confidence in the government across the way.
We will be having votes on the estimates, probably on June 9,
and we will see the cracking of the whips as the Prime Minister
deems the vote on the Senate estimates to be a matter of
confidence.
1340
The latest polls indicate that about 5% of Canadians support the
existing Senate and 95% do not. Some Canadians want the Senate
to be abolished, some want it to be reformed. That is not part
of the argument. Five per cent of the people support the
existing Senate, and yet the Prime Minister will crack the whips
and deem that to be a confidence vote.
I think that is the best example of the need for radical
parliamentary change to make this place democratic, meaningful
and accountable to the Canadian people. It is actually quite
embarrassing to vote for $5 million to be given to an institution
which only 5% of the Canadian people want, especially when it
will be deemed a confidence vote by the Prime Minister.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill
C-78 and to follow the words of my esteemed colleague, the member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who has served this House and the
Canadian public for some 28 years. I consider it a privilege to
work with someone with that experience, who has made an
incredible contribution not only for his own constituents but for
Canadians everywhere.
I noticed, despite these 28 years of service, that my NDP
colleague for Regina—Qu'Appelle used the word theft. That word
was not singled out as being unparliamentary, but I understand it
could be borderline and it is not an appropriate word to use.
However, I think that word, if we were able to say it out loud in
this place, would best characterize what we are dealing with when
it comes to Bill C-78.
This reminds me of an issue I dealt with as a member of the
legislative assembly of Manitoba in 1988 when we were dealing
with serious and drastic cutbacks to our child care system
engineered by the then Conservative government. I had been
working with many groups trying to deal with and stop these
cutbacks. My son, who is 10 years old today, was about 2 at the
time and, having heard all of this talk from me about government
cutbacks, proceeded to announce to the world that the
Conservative government had come to his daycare and stolen all
the money. Out of the mouths of babes come words of truth and
wisdom. I think that is exactly what we are dealing with today.
I wish I could say those words that would best epitomize just
what Bill C-78 means.
I want to address a couple of points today along the lines of
the remarks of my colleague for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The first
has to do with the arbitrary, undemocratic way in which the
government is handling this piece of legislation and the way it
has approached just about every piece of legislation in this
entire parliamentary session.
In all the times I have spoken in the House, and there have been
a good number in the last couple of years, on just about every
occasion I and my colleagues have been forced to deal with the
issue of closure. Whenever a bill is presented to this House,
debate starts to take off and the public starts to get
interested, what does the government do? The government brings
down the heavy instrument of closure, time allocation. I know my
colleague from the Reform Party touched on this in her question
about what has changed in our democracy and what has gone wrong.
I think the trend is clear and worrisome.
I understand from some reports that closure was a very rarely
used tool. Between Confederation and 1956 it was only used half
a dozen times.
1345
Let us compare that to how many times the government has brought
in closure in the last two years. If my count is up to date,
time allocation has been brought in 12 to 14 times in the space
of two years. This is an incredible development, an incredible
attack on our rights in the Chamber and on the whole notion of
democracy. Is it any wonder Canadians are cynical and skeptical
about politicians and about our democratic institutions when this
kind of process is allowed to take place?
Some of those sentiments are best described in a letter that was
sent to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record by David Crow, a
retired airline pilot:
This is nothing more than autocracy masquerading as democracy.
Canadians now live in what can only be described as a benign
dictatorship where policy decisions concerning their future are
made behind closed doors. Amid the pomp and tradition of
parliament lies a system which has become fractious, insensitive,
remote and elitist. The antiquated system no longer has the
support of most Canadians.
I would hope we would hear those words and understand and
appreciate that if we are to renew people's faith in democracy,
in parliament and in participatory democracy, surely we have to
address what is happening in the Chamber and the shocking way in
which the government has been so arbitrary and dictatorial.
Members of the House will remember the kind of anger the present
House leader of the Liberal government displayed when the
Conservatives brought in closure in their time in government. He
went on a rampage about this tactic and actually said “Shame on
those Tories across the way”.
Today the situation is much more serious. We say to the House
leader and to all other members of the Liberal government, shame
on them for bringing in closure so many times whenever there is
an important issue before the House and whenever we need to hear
from Canadians and value their input in order to put before the
public the very best possible legislation. It is with regret
that once more we are dealing with that issue and we will
continue to speak out on it.
The next point I want to make is on the problems we have with
the legislation on a substantive basis. I do not need to repeat
all the arguments we have heard from the NDP on this issue time
and time again. We are absolutely opposed to the bill which
grabs $30 billion in pension surplus to be used at the discretion
of the government, whether that be in general revenue or any
other expenditure it chooses. We have registered time and time
again our concern with that arbitrary move on the part of the
government and with its failure to reach some sort of agreement
with all the different organizations involved.
It has been said time and time again how important it is to
honour and respect the contribution senior citizens have given to
the country. The bill does the opposite. As my colleague from
Regina said, it is holding pensioners in contempt by not
recognizing their contribution and working out an arrangement to
ensure the surplus is put to the best possible use.
Many have commented on how it is so ironic that the bill is
before the House at the same time as the government is
participating in this year's UN's international year of the older
person, a year intended to mark the contributions of our senior
citizens, to recognize their achievements and to create
intergenerational respect and support.
Is it not ironic that we are dealing with a bill which does the
opposite? At the same time we are trying to celebrate the
international year of older persons which has been called
“Canada: A Society for All Ages”. That is the height of
hypocrisy which must be clearly noted in debate.
Some of my colleagues asked whether in looking for a reasonable
approach to pension surplus the actual level of poverty among
some of our senior citizens was considered and in particular the
fact that older women were among the poorest of all poor. It was
pointed out in earlier debate that a woman who served in the
civil service for 20 years ended up with about $9,600 a year in
retirement funds.
The reallocation of this surplus toward people such as these
women, the poorest of the poor in the country, would have made a
big difference.
1350
I have much more I would like to say, but I urge all members of
the House to oppose Bill C-78 which takes $30 billion out of the
pension funds.
As my hon. colleague from Regina did, I urge members on the
Liberal side to reconsider their opposition to the bill on the
basis that it is supporting a recognition of rights for people
regardless of sexual orientation. We certainly support that
provision but seriously and strongly oppose Bill C-78.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to watch the NDP and the
Reform Party being on the same side of issue after issue. They
pretend they are far away but whenever it gets to extremes we can
see how they are closely tied.
Once again it is ironic to see that the NDP supports many parts
of the bill yet is voting against issues for which it has fought
for many years. The Reform Party's whole existence is about
pension reform, the economy and money to taxpayers. All of a
sudden there is $30 billion that belongs to the taxpayers and it
is voting against the bill. It is amazing to watch the two join
hands in the true western approach.
An hon. member: That does not make sense.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Of course it does. I was talking about
the member from Regina who is always talking about amalgamating
with the Reform and uniting the west.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Give me one quote.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Oh, come on. You guys are on the same
side of the issue.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Tony Ianno: There they go, Mr. Speaker. Is it not
something really funny when we see the Reform and the NDP joining
hands? I think it is the most comical of situations.
The NDP, after working for so many years on some of the issues
we have put forward, says that it wants public debate. When we
were doing it in committee there was the CLC convention in
Toronto so NDP members had to go there. However to pensioners
and the union it says it is concerned about this issue and about
the money. Where were the NDP when we were listening to the
concerns of people?
If the concern is so great in the NDP, why was it not there when
those people were present to state their case?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to
the hon. member's initial comment about inconsistencies in the
NDP and the fact that on some occasions there seems to be some
unity on the opposition benches.
The hon. member should realize that when that unity happens,
when we speak with one voice, it is always when the government
presents us with the most arbitrary, underhanded, undemocratic
process imaginable. That is what unites us, because we are all
here banding for a parliament that is in touch with the wishes of
Canadians and operates on a democratic basis.
There is nothing inconsistent about the NDP's position. We have
said from day one that we must always look for co-operative
solutions to any problem before us. On the issue of pension
surplus we have always said there was a process in place. It was
working. It could have been carried to its logical conclusion.
The government did not have to be so precipitous, bring in Bill
C-78 and just take that $30 billion to use according to its own
agenda.
We have always stood in this place and have spoken out against
abuse of power. That is what we are doing today. It happens
that other members on the opposition benches share that concern
because it is so fundamental to democracy. We have always been
there to participate every step of the way.
1355
The government has brought in closure after four hours of debate
on a major piece of legislation which takes $30 billion out of
pension funds to be used for its own agenda. It does not allow
for any kind of extended committee hearings across the country so
that Canadians everywhere would have a chance to participate.
I suggest the member look in the mirror and see how his
government could have improved the process so that all Canadians
could have participated on a meaningful basis.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it is time to move on to the
next item of business rather than interrupting a speech in one or
two minutes. Is it agreed that we proceed to Statements by
Members?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I spent three days viewing an area in my constituency
that is suffering a severe financial disaster. At least 50% of
the cultivated acres in five rural municipalities in my riding
are under water. The remaining 50% will not be seeded this year.
This area is roughly the same size as the total number of farm
acres on Prince Edward Island. The current disaster accompanied
by a significant drop in farm income from previous years could
spell an end to hundreds of farm operations.
Today I ask the minister of agriculture to join with his
provincial counterpart to view the area that I have visited and
to take the necessary steps to declare at least the five rural
municipalities a disaster area.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I congratulate the town of Richmond Hill in my riding for the
many successful events last week during National Public Works
Week.
The town has already won two consecutive national trophies for
its public works awareness activities and is reigning champion in
York Municipalities Public Works Challenge for the second year in
a row.
Education was a major theme of this year's public works week.
The town gave school tours of its operation centre and the Leslie
Street pumping station. More than just that, it has taken the
program directly to students.
The new Hawk program will feature students working with town
staff to report problems to operations staff for their review and
repair. A special council meeting is already planned for June to
thank these responsible young citizens.
National Public Works Week is all about the quality of life in
our community, and in my town the quality is exceptional.
* * *
WORLD POPULATION DAY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to inform the House about the upcoming
World Population Day which was designated by the United Nations
as July 11 of every year. It is a day to remind both nations and
individuals about the implications of population growth.
On October 12 the world's population will reach six billion.
This increase in population will present many challenges for
Canada and the rest of the world in the next century. Some of
the challenges include food insecurity, ensuring basic primary
education for many children in the developing world, poverty
alleviation, and the movement of people across borders.
In commemoration of this day the Canadian Association of
Parliamentarians on Population and Development will organize a
media campaign to raise awareness of the cross-cutting issues of
population and development.
I encourage all my colleagues to participate in this campaign
and to get involved in activities in their ridings to commemorate
World Population Day.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOI-QUÉBEC
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
further to my remarks of May 5 concerning Emploi-Québec, here are
the facts, as Claude Picher wrote in La Presse on May 20, 1999.
“It will no doubt be useful to point out that Emploi-Québec was
created when the federal government left the manpower training
and placement sector and transferred jurisdiction and funding
for it to Quebec. Now that it has control over it, Quebec is
demonstrating its inability to effectively assume its
responsibilities.
“Minister Diane Lemieux is essentially trying to show that there
is no problem and that everything is going well in the best of
all worlds. This does not reflect the reality of the situation.
“Either the minister is unaware of what is going on in her own
department, in which case it is high time that she began
consulting her own officials, not her mandarins, but real
people, those who meet reality daily. Or, and this is a more
serious situation, the minister is well aware of the problems
but is trying to hide them, like the member for Abitibi East”.
So, today, why the silence of the “blockers”, the friends of
Lucien Bouchard?
* * *
1400
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to rise today to acknowledge that last week was
Aboriginal Awareness Week.
The Government of Canada recently launched the aboriginal and
human resources development strategy which will help to fulfill
our commitment under Gathering Strength, Canada's aboriginal
action plan. This five year $1.6 billion strategy will build on
past initiatives with aboriginal peoples across Canada.
The new strategy will enable aboriginal organizations to deliver
a broader spectrum of human resource programming and will further
reinforce the positive relationship that has been building
between the Government of Canada and our aboriginal people.
The new strategy will also help address a broad range of human
resource needs related to aboriginal youth, persons with
disabilities, child care and several other social and economic
challenges.
Aboriginal people demonstrate an unwavering spirit and dedicated
determination in their ongoing efforts to achieve self-reliance
and to nurture healthy communities.
Aboriginal awareness—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
* * *
MISSING CHILDREN
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is National Missing Children's Day, a special day
designed to raise awareness about the reality that children go
missing in Canada every day. Fortunately most are recovered and
this is due to the dedicated work of law enforcement agencies and
their partners. I applaud their hard work and successes in
recovering missing children each year.
The federal missing children's program is a collaborative effort
of the RCMP's missing children's registry, Revenue Canada's
international project return, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
The annual report of the RCMP's missing children's registry
shows that runaways account for 80% of all reported cases of
missing children. Since the creation of the missing children's
program in 1986, a total of 815 children have been recovered at
ports of entry across Canada.
A key element of this government's public safety mandate is to
keep our streets and homes safe for our children. Our goals will
only be achieved through strong partnerships and ongoing
commitments to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more
than four years ago, the Quebec Central Railway closed down the
Sherbrooke-Lévis section of its operations. Jean-Marc Giguère,
the Beauce area man promoting this line, has met with nothing
but refusals from the federal government , while the Government
of Quebec has already announced its financial participation.
On two occasions, the secretary of state for regional
development in Quebec has refused to meet with businessmen from
the Beauce and Amiante regions. In the meantime, this
government has invested $16 million into the Winnipeg-Churchill
rail line in Manitoba.
It seems that the Liberal member for Beauce has already said he
would lay his seat on the line to get his government to support
Mr. Giguère's project. Given the steadfast refusal by the
secretary of state, are we to begin preparing for an imminent
by-election in the riding of Beauce?
* * *
[English]
THE LATE OWEN HART
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today I
wish to express our deepest sympathies to the family of Owen Hart
who was tragically killed this past Sunday night.
The Hart family is known worldwide as the first family of
wrestling. Owen followed in the respected footsteps of his older
brothers and his father when he began wrestling professionally in
1986. He was an outstanding athlete and an inspiration for so
many.
For a moment though, I would like to put aside the fame and
simply reflect on Owen and his family.
Stu and Helen have been married for over 50 years. At their
anniversary party last year I could see that everyone who knows
them loves them. Owen was the youngest of their 12 children. He
was a devoted husband of 17 years to Martha, and father of two,
Oje, age 7 and Athena, age 3.
Owen always made time to visit the children's hospital and said
“Say your prayers, take your vitamins and drink your milk”.
To the Hart family I can only say that behind your dignified
public composure I know Owen's death is a terrible, terrible loss
for you. I thank you for sharing Owen with us. We grieve with
you.
* * *
CONESTOGA COLLEGE AWARDS
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate this year's winners of the
Conestoga College awards.
Andrea Bohoczki of Waterloo, a nursing student, was the winner
of the Dr. Stanley F. Leavine memorial award which recognizes
achievement in clinical practice, academic excellence and
demonstration of personal and professional development.
The top winner in the broadcasting, radio and television program
was Sarah Sherbourne of Waterloo. Sarah won or shared four of
the 16 awards given out: the Q97.5FM telemedia award for
broadcast management; the Betty Thompson broadcaster of the year
award; the Christopher Allen Rawnsley—Sony of Canada award; and
she shared the K.A. MacKenzie memorial award.
1405
Carla Donnell of Kitchener won the CHYM announcing award.
Brian Gillespie also of Kitchener won the Pat Fitzgerald award
from the staff of CKCO-TV.
Congratulations to Andrea, Sarah, Carla and Brian and to all
winners of the 1998-99 Conestoga College awards.
* * *
THE LATE HUGH HANRAHAN
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to Hugh Hanrahan, former MP for
Edmonton—Strathcona who served here from 1993 to 1997. He
passed away in Edmonton on Wednesday, May 19.
Hugh grew up in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, one of five boys in the
family. He obtained his bachelor of arts degree and bachelor of
education degree from Saint Francis Xavier University and his
master's in education from the University of Ottawa.
He moved to Calgary for his first teaching job but settled in
Edmonton soon after. He taught with Edmonton Catholic schools
for 20 years.
He was awarded a teacher of the year award for his devotion to
increasing high school students' knowledge of economics.
In 1997 Hugh's health prevented him from running for a second
term in office so he returned to teaching, what he was most
comfortable with.
Hugh also had a great pride in his Irish and Scottish roots. He
especially enjoyed spending summers in Nova Scotia with his
family because he loved the seaside.
Hugh is survived by his wife Dianne, daughter Margaret Anne and
four brothers. We would like the family to know that all of us
are thinking of them.
* * *
TASK FORCE ON FOUR WESTERN PROVINCES
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while most MPs spent the last week in
their constituencies, members of the Prime Minister's task force
on the four western provinces spent three very informative days
listening to the concerns and priorities of British Columbians.
The response to our meetings was overwhelming. The task force
held meetings in five centres across the province and met with
well over 70 groups, organizations and individuals representing a
wide cross-section of British Columbian society.
This task force was established to complement the work of our
western caucus and provide western Canadians with another
opportunity to shape the national agenda as the government nears
the middle of its second mandate.
The response we had throughout B.C. last week and throughout
Manitoba last month once again shows that western Canadians
welcome opportunities to meet with and discuss public policy
issues with MPs from across the country.
On behalf of the task force members, I would like to thank all
those who took the time to meet with us in British Columbia and
all those who made written submissions to the task force.
* * *
MISSING CHILDREN
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
is National Missing Children's Day.
Four out of five missing children are runaways. Most are
running away from abusive situations.
The Liberal government has abandoned these children. They have
abandoned social housing and cut funding for youth drop-in centres
and shelters for abused children. Programs like these identify
and help troubled youth. Their loss leaves youth with nowhere to
turn. It is no wonder so many are ending up on the streets. The
lucky ones might end up begging for change or squeegeeing car
windows. The unlucky ones fall victim to drugs or prostitution.
In 1989 the House unanimously approved an NDP motion calling on
the federal government to eliminate child poverty by the year
2000. The Liberal government voted in favour of this motion
while in opposition, but in government the Liberals have made the
problem worse. Children are their helpless victims.
The RCMP is working hard to find missing children but it is up
to the federal government to attack the problem at its source.
It is time for a government that cares about children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC TRADE MISSION TO MEXICO
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
Premier's trade mission to Mexico led to the signing of 24
agreements totaling $66 million and creating some 500 new jobs.
This collective effort is proof that there are undeniable
economic, political and cultural ties with Mexico.
The collaboration of the federal government ought to have been a
given. We would have liked to have seen the federal government
not making a spectacle of itself in the eyes of the Mexicans by
refusing to organize a meeting between the Mexican President and
Mr. Bouchard.
We would have preferred not to have had to read an editorial in
the major Mexican newspaper Universal that the Prime Minister of
Canada had been wrong.
This episode has done nothing to prevent the trade mission from
paving the way to a new and unprecedented openness between
Quebec and the Americas. As the decade of the Americas gains
momentum, Quebec has created a dynamic aimed at building a
closer relationship with the countries of Latin America.
Henceforth, and forever more, Quebec will continue to open
itself up to the world, regardless of the federal government's
rigidity.
* * *
JULIE PAYETTE
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
countdown has now begun for Quebecer Julie Payette, a member of
the Discovery shuttle team, which is set to take off on
Thursday, around 6.48 a.m.
As Julie said herself, her mission is the fulfillment of a
lifelong goal.
1410
[English]
Julie, allow us to share in your success. Your mission is a
result of team effort. Many members of that team have dedicated
a good part of their lives to acquiring the knowledge and
experience necessary to make this important mission a success.
[Translation]
We will be watching you on Thursday, Julie. We are proud of you.
We are proud of this mission that you will carry out brilliantly
and professionally, on behalf of Canada and Quebec.
Good luck Julie, and thank you for representing us so proudly.
* * *
[English]
OTTAWA 67'S
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on May 23, last Sunday afternoon, the Ottawa 67's brought great
honour and pride to Ottawa fans by winning the Memorial Cup in a
nail-biting seven to six overtime win against the Calgary Hitmen.
Cheered by a crowd of over 10,000 energized fans, Ottawa's 67's
gave their best to win the Memorial Cup which they last won in
1984. This time however it was even sweeter. They won at home
in front of their fans.
My congratulations to the team players for an incredible year
and for their stellar performance during the championship.
Special congratulations are in order for coach Brian Kilrea who
is a legend in his own right. Finally, congratulations to the new
team owner Jeff Hunt who believes in this team and in this town.
* * *
INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week was the first anniversary of the nuclear tests
conducted by India and Pakistan. Since then the Canadian
government has shown a complete lack of leadership and has broken
Canada's contact at the ministerial level.
Canada should not have pursued a disengagement policy. Canada
has a reputation for our skill at mediation and peacekeeping. By
taking a leadership role, Canada can help soothe the relationship
and promote trade between these two countries that share language
and culture. The Kashmir issue will take care of itself,
otherwise the situation is a conflict in waiting.
Many other countries, including the U.S., China and France have
talked with India and Pakistan, but not Canada. By not sitting
at the table and talking, the Liberals are abandoning our
traditional peacekeeping and peacemaking roles and allowing the
situation to deteriorate.
There is still time to help relieve the pressure that is
mounting between these two nations. We call on our government to
take a leadership role while there is still time.
* * *
[Translation]
ROBERT STANLEY WEIR
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
have been singing our national anthem, “O Canada”, for 119 years
already. The English lyrics were written on the shores of Lake
Memphremagog, in my riding of Compton-Stanstead, by Mr. Justice
Robert Stanley Weir, while the music was composed by Calixa
Lavallée.
Yesterday, a monument was erected in Weir Memorial Park to
honour this great Canadian. The family of Mr. Justice Weir
donated the park. It is the only public park along the shores of
Lake Memphremagog that is maintained exclusively by volunteers,
without any government subsidy.
[English]
Mr. Justice Weir had a strong belief in his country, so strong
he wanted to write a song. By writing the English words to O
Canada, he wished to harmonize symbolically the good relationship
between the French and English speaking people of Canada. Today
our O Canada remains one of the oldest national anthems in the
world.
Mr. Weir would be proud, as we all are. This was a work of love
for the greatest country in the world.
* * *
[Translation]
LEADER OF THE BLOC QUEBECOIS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, the
Bloc Quebecois leader was in British Columbia and Alberta to
discuss a number of ideas to allow Canada and Quebec to move
toward a promising future for Canadians and Quebecers.
Our leader noticed that an increasing number of Canadians are
seriously considering the proposal of the sovereignist movement,
that is a new partnership with a sovereign Quebec.
This dialogue with western Canadians showed us that, beyond the
hollow rhetoric, do-nothing attitude and piecemeal approach of
the Liberal government, ways can be found to establish sound
political relations, based on a new partnership that will serve
the interests of both Canada and Quebec.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is another Liberal link in the tainted blood scandal. The
finance minister was a director of a crown corporation, Canada
Development Corporation, from 1981 to 1986. During that time one
of CDC's companies, Connaught Laboratories, imported tainted
blood from U.S. prisons in spite of warnings from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. The finance minister should have been
aware of these dealings.
Will the finance minister release any minutes or documents from
relevant board meetings of Connaught and CDC and if not, why not?
The Speaker: Colleagues, this is the very first question
we have had. I would ask all hon. members to keep in mind that
whatever questions are asked in the House must go to the
administrative responsibility of the government.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the Minister of Finance was a director of CDC
until 1986 when he resigned. I do not know if the minutes from
this company can be made available.
By making a statement like that, the opposition is reaching very
far in trying to attack and punish the Minister of Finance who is
very well known for his integrity.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
all of that is absolutely true then he should have no trouble
clearing the air on this once and for all.
The finance minister was a member of cabinet when we were
debating compensation packages for hepatitis C victims. This
package happened to leave out victims of tainted blood between
1981 and 1986. Coincidentally, those are the very same years
that the finance minister sat on the board of that crown
corporation.
Did the finance minister excuse himself from all cabinet
meetings that dealt with money and compensation packages for
hepatitis C victims?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Connaught Labs was the subsidiary of a subsidiary of the
CDC. In each case Connaught Labs, and in fact the parent
subsidiary, had its own board of directors.
The government director, who was on the CDC board and the most
knowledgeable about this, said that this was not the kind of
thing that would have come to the CDC board. He also has no
recollection of it coming to the CDC board. I have no
recollection of this particular matter coming to the CDC board.
I would be delighted to have whatever papers could be made
available to be made available. I have asked my officials to look
at our papers but at the present time we have found nothing.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure the minister realizes that he could have been in a very
serious conflict of interest position here. We want that cleared
up.
On the one hand, he was a director of a crown corporation that
was profiting from selling tainted blood to thousands of
Canadians who were poisoned. On the other hand, he was the
minister holding the purse strings for the government at that
same time when it was coming up with a compensation package for
hepatitis C victims.
Rather than the finance minister saying “I'm a little
surprised” or “I'm just not sure”, if he has absolutely
nothing to hide, when will he release every document available to
him so he can wash his hands of this once and for all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has indicated that if there are
any relative papers he will be happy to make them public. He
explained very well the link between Connaught and CDC. CDC was
a company of the government so the minister could not have any
personal interest in it. For the opposition to reach that far
into the past to try to find something against the minister who
was doing his job properly makes a mockery of democracy.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the association
is not nearly as tenuous as the finance minister said. CDC owned
Connaught 100%. It did not have a hands-off relationship with
Connaught. There were major significant dealings going on in
those days. For instance, Connaught lost the Red Cross licence
in those days.
Does the finance minister remember that tiny little detail?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer to the question is no. I do not remember
that.
The CDC director, the most knowledgeable and nominated by the
government, has said that he had no recollection of this matter
ever being discussed at the CDC board which was the only board on
which I happened to sit.
1420
I would be delighted to make public whatever papers I have
available but I have no such papers. I have asked the government
to look at its papers and if we have them we will make them
available to the hon. members.
The Speaker: I again remind hon. members that it must go
to the administrative responsibility of the government. Although
the Minister of Finance rose to answer the question, I will be
listening very carefully, and it must go to the administrative
responsibility of the government.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance
minister sat in cabinet when discussions were held on
compensating these victims. He was one of the individuals
who made the decisions. Can he not understand that there could
be a conflict of interest?
By the way, the documents are available from the Department of
Industry. Would he like to go over and get those documents from
the Department of Industry? Will we get them?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there are documents and we can find them and make
them available I am sure we will. As the Minister of Finance has
already said, if there are documents then we will endeavour to
make them available in a timely fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
FUNERAL OF KING HUSSEIN
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
documents obtained by The Globe and Mail under access to
information legislation in connection with the Prime Minister's
failure to attend the funeral of Jordan's King Hussein, the
Canadian army was apparently ready to transport the Prime
Minister and it was in fact the PMO that dropped the ball.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House why Canada's chief of
defence staff was forced to take public blame for the incident
instead of the PMO?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
did not force the chief of defence staff to do anything. He is
able to speak for himself. He does not need anyone to tell him
what to do.
King Abdullah was here ten days ago and we discussed this
matter. He understood perfectly well that I could not be there
at that time. He was very happy to see the Minister of Foreign
Affairs representing Canada.
He was ready to answer any questions from journalists about this
but there were none.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were here
and we did not understand why the Prime Minister was not there.
That is what is important.
First of all, the Prime Minister is responsible for the
integrity of his government. Is it not to be expected that
ministers, such as the Minister of Human Resources Development,
will refuse to take their responsibilities on various issues
when they see the Prime Minister himself hiding behind his chief
of defence staff in order to avoid his responsibilities?
Does the bad example not come from the top?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
apologized to everyone for not being there. I wanted to be
there. I could not get there.
I spoke with King Abdullah himself and he was very
understanding. He told me that he was actually surprised that
30 countries, including Canada, were able to send
representatives, with the funeral taking place 22 hours after
his father's death.
He was ready to answer questions from the press. There were
none. The proof that he was not offended by what happened is
that Canada was the first country he visited in North America
and he was very pleased with his talks with the Prime Minister
of Canada.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the documents obtained by the media under the Access to
Information Act are clear: the PMO is behind the Prime
Minister's absence at the funeral of King Hussein. We will
recall that the army exposed itself to public ridicule in order
to protect the Prime Minister in this matter.
My question is for the Prime Minister. We would like to know now
who ordered General Baril to assume the guilt in the place of
the Prime Minister so as to permit him and his office to save
face?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
really, they are so used to talking about humiliation that they
would like General Baril to say that he was humiliated.
General Baril assumed his responsibilities. He knew very well
that I wanted to be there. Neither General Baril nor I feel
humiliated. Neither does King Abdullah, who was very satisfied
with his meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada ten days ago.
1425
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
let us be clear. The documents obtained by the media show that
the army had a plane in readiness for the Prime Minister three
days prior to the death of King Hussein.
This is totally opposite to what the Prime Minister said in this
House for a week, when he maintained he wanted to go to Jordan
but that the army had not been able to take him there.
In the light of this information, is the Prime Minister's
conscience not bothering him a bit after the statements he made
here in this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there was a plane ready; and the Minister of Foreign Affairs was
able to go.
The fact of the matter is that I was not in Ottawa, I was in
British Columbia. The plane was ready in Ottawa, but the plane
was not waiting for me in British Columbia. This is what General
Baril explained and what the Bloc does not understand.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
year the environmental watchdog indicted the government for its
environmental failures. This year it is an outright conviction.
Let me read the following, “There is no reliable data on the
sales and use of pesticides”, and “Senior scientists from all
departments consistently express deep concern about the
government's declining ability to undertake research for the
public good”. How long will the government tolerate this
incompetence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have received the report. I am very happy that we
appointed this officer to look into the matter.
On the contrary, we decided there might be some problems and we
needed a commissioner who would report to the House of Commons
once a year. Each year in office he has given us the report we
asked for. He is making recommendations and every department
will make sure it has been studied and the corrections made. It
was an initiative of this government that permitted the
commissioner to make the report today.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
time for the government to listen to what the environmental
commissioner has to say about the government's record of
performance.
He reports that the cracks in the foundation threaten the
federal government's ability to detect, understand and prevent
the harmful effects of toxic substances on the health of
Canadians and their environment.
Is this government proud of its record? When will the
government take seriously its responsibility to protect the
health of Canadians and their environment?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, we put the commissioner
in place and we respect his report.
In the last two years the government has budgeted $82 million to
deal with toxic substances. Senior officials in all departments
who carry out studies with regard to toxics are meeting together,
analyzing the commissioner's report and will respond with an
action plan.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the government's approach to expropriating
provincial land in Nanoose, B.C. resembles that of a
dictatorship. It is giving the appearance of negotiating in good
faith only to use a sledgehammer to enforce its will when
negotiations fail. This approach can only be viewed as
threatening to all provinces that dare oppose the government.
The minister of fisheries said two weeks ago that he wanted to
give B.C. every opportunity to reach an agreement yet two days
later the government moved to expropriate.
My question to the Prime Minister is what took place in those
two days after the negotiations that caused the breakdown? Why
is the government exercising extreme measures in the imposition
of its will on this matter?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government wanted to negotiate for
two years, since the British Columbia government indicated its
concern and said that it would cancel the lease at Nanoose Bay, a
vital defence facility. We have been attempting to resolve this
matter and thought we were getting close. We were offering a lot
more than the property was worth.
However, at the 11th hour the B.C. government threw in this red
herring about nuclear vessels coming into the area. There are
quite obviously no nuclear weapons being tested in the area and
there never will be. This has operated for 34 years—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I take from that response that when negotiations
fail we bring in the big guns.
Canadians expect the government to obey its own laws but we have
seen the government breach contracts, ignore constitutional
conventions and now commence an unprecedented expropriation.
Pearson airport, helicopter contracts and APEC come to mind.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
When did native rights and provincial jurisdiction become so
insignificant that the government is willing to ignore them in
pursuit of its own negotiation? What options did it consider
before it brought in these harsh measures?
1430
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this is a facility that
is vital to Canada for defence and security purposes. In fact it
is necessary for the testing of equipment that will be used under
water for weaponry. If we were not able to do that then we would
be putting at risk our Canadian forces personnel.
I have a hard time understanding the position of the
Conservative leader, together with the positions of the Bloc
Quebecois leader and the Premier of British Columbia. What a
combination.
We are operating in the interest of Canada and in the interest
of British Columbia in proceeding to keep that base open.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister had better add the Reform Party to that list because
the issue is strictly expropriation.
The federal government is in the process of confiscating B.C.
lands which belong to the people of British Columbia. In 1984
the federal government went to the Supreme Court of Canada to
seek ownership. The Supreme Court of Canada said no.
Under the Constitution it belongs to the people of British
Columbia. What has changed since 1984? What allows you to
violate the high—
The Speaker: I ask all hon. members to direct their
questions through the Chair.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are following a proper lawful process
with respect to this expropriation. We did not want to go with
this process. We used every opportunity to negotiate. We
offered them a lot more than what it was worth.
This defence facility should not have been linked to the Pacific
salmon treaty in the first place. It should not be linked to
other issues. We should deal with it completely on its own
merit. This is a vital defence facility.
We have tried every means to settle this matter with British
Columbia but it wants to play politics with it and it looks like
the Reform Party wants to play politics too.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the politics are obviously coming from the Government of Canada
on this issue. Expropriation is the issue here. It is
absolutely unacceptable. It violates the Constitution.
How does the government justify expropriation in this instance
or any instance? Is it prepared to start expropriating all of
Canada in the interest of national security?
I want to know what has changed since 1984. Is the government
prepared to confiscate land which rightfully belongs to the
people of British Columbia?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the seabed, in other
words the mud underneath the water there. That is what we are
talking about. We are talking about paying full market value,
fair market value. We would not pay any less. In fact we
offered an awful lot more than that and the government of the
province of British Columbia turned it down.
The mayor of Nanaimo and the mayors and the community leaders in
and around that area know the economic value of the Nanoose Bay
range: $6 million to $8 million and many jobs for their economy.
They want to keep it open.
* * *
[Translation]
TAINTED BLOOD
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from 1981 to
1986, the present Minister of Finance was on the board of the
Canada Development Corporation. It owned Connaught, the company
responsible for importing and distributing blood products, at
the time of the tainted blood scandal.
We know that the government has made a decision to compensate
only those who received tainted blood after 1986. Did the
Minister of Finance abstain when this question was decided in
cabinet?
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance is on his feet,
but that question does not go to the administrative
responsibility of the minister. The hon. Minister of Finance, if
he wants to answer.
[Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to respond.
Connaught Laboratories were a subsidiary of a subsidiary of the
Canada Development Corporation. I was on the board, but I must
point out that both Connaught and the other company, the parent
company, had their own boards as well.
The government administrator, the one most involved, has said
that this was not the kind of thing discussed in the CDC, and
that he had no recollection of this event. Nor do I.
1435
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, did the
Minister of Finance not have a hand in a decision that was very
much in his interest, by denying all government responsibility
toward victims of tainted blood prior to 1986, when he himself
was—
The Speaker: That question is not in order.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
now know that the Prime Minister announced a $600,000 grant in
his riding months before the project had been approved, and
coincidentally just weeks before the federal election. Since
only the Prime Minister knows when an election will be called, it
is clearly and simply a case of announcing pre-election goodies.
The Prime Minister would have us believe the grant was awarded
after careful review, but program officer Lionel Bergeron thought
differently when he said in a memo “This project has been
announced by the Prime Minister. Its approval is urgent”.
How could the Prime Minister deny that he was just trying to
influence voters in his riding by getting this grant before it
went through the proper circle?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this project had been
discussed for years in Shawinigan. It is the kind of project
that is badly needed in a district where unemployment is very
high in the Saint-Maurice riding.
Everyone had been talking about it. Everyone supported the
project, including the hon. member for Saint-Maurice who has done
his job as the local member for Saint-Maurice. We are very
pleased that the project has worked and has indeed created the
jobs that it was supposed to bring to the region.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
may have been badly needed but it may have been because an
election was just around the corner.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources
Development keep trying to convince us that this was a normal
grant process, but let us look at the facts.
The Prime Minister announced a $600,000 grant just before an
election, three months before the officials in the federal
department approved it and six months before Quebec approved it.
His public announcement was then used by the bureaucracy as an
excuse to rapidly move it through the system and guarantee its
approval.
No other MP could ever get away with making that announcement
before it was properly approved. Why does the Prime Minister not
just admit that the reason the grant was approved was that he
announced it ahead of time?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the project was announced by
the Prime Minister and by me. We then realized that we had a
better vehicle for that particular project.
The reason for the delay was that we used another program to
deliver that particular project. That is the reason that
explains the little delay. It was nothing like the kind of
innuendo the Reform is trying to bring about.
* * *
[Translation]
TAINTED BLOOD
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in recent
months, as a member of cabinet, the Minister of Finance has
taken part—or had the opportunity to take part—in discussions
on compensation for tainted blood victims.
My question to the minister closely relates to his
responsibilities and is very simple. During these discussions,
did he abstain from talking, yes or no? This is simple enough.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a decision that has nothing to do with the Minister of
Finance at this time.
The minister was a director of CDC until 1986, when he resigned.
He was one of the government's representatives with that
company, which was held by a majority of private interests. The
minister clearly told the House that he did not take part in any
decision, that he did not remember anything.
The House must take the minister's word that he was never in a
conflict of interest situation.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is never
anyone's fault, on the other side, when things happen.
1440
Through these discussions, was the Minister of Finance involved
in the decision not to compensate those who became tainted blood
victims before 1986? Did he take part in that decision made by
cabinet? If so, does he agree that this decision was very
convenient for him, since he has some responsibility in this?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance had absolutely no personal interest in
this issue. He stopped being a member of the board of that
corporation in 1986.
He told the House that he does not remember ever discussing the
tainted blood issue when he was with CDC, nor do the other
directors of that company. Based on that, the Minister of
Finance was never, at any time, in any conflict of interest
situation.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP is now investigating a close crony of the Prime
Minister's for violating the Lobbyists Registration Act. René
Fugère called and met with government officials to get another
$100,000 for a self-confessed embezzler who owns a hotel in the
Prime Minister's riding.
Will the government explain how an unregistered, unpaid Liberal
aide was able to get an additional $100,000 from Canadian
taxpayers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, Mr. Fugère was not an aide. Second, the
matter has been referred by the ethics councillor to the RCMP for
investigation.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the government would like to hide on this, but
there are hundreds of lobbyists just off the Hill who would love
to know why they have to register their efforts while friends of
the Prime Minister's get away free of scrutiny.
Perhaps the Prime Minister could explain to them how an
unregistered, unpaid lobbyist can get grants and loans of this
size from the federal government?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question answered itself. If in fact he was obliged
to register then the RCMP will proceed with the matter.
In the meantime it is appropriate that the complaint be referred
to the police for investigation. We will see what the outcome of
that investigation is.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the EI quota scandal, documents obtained
under the Access to Information Act indicate as follows:
At the risk of repeating ourselves, the lack of success in
reaching targets could result in as many as 150 full time job
losses.
Bearing this in mind, does the minister still stand behind what
he told this House on February 4, and I quote “The 150 employees
in question...do not have knives at their throats. We are not
threatening to fire them”.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have always told the House
that employees of our department are protected by a collective
agreement and that, in a department such as mine, reassignments
from one division to another are constantly taking place. We
are very rigorous managers.
As for the so-called quota scandal, which the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouta—Les Basques is so fond of
mentioning, I would like to point out that Quebec's PQ
government recently went after $100 million in welfare fraud and
came up with $112 million.
As branch employees, you should take a look at what head office
is doing, and you will see that that is the direction modern
management is taking.
The Speaker: Members must always address the Chair.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the
Environment. Companies should not be allowed to release toxic
substances into the environment. Will the minister crack down on
companies that pollute our environment?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is very concerned about
the threat of toxic substances in the country, both their effects
on the environment and on human health.
That is why we are bringing in new CEPA legislation,
environmental protection legislation, which will cause companies
to prevent pollution from toxic substances.
That is why we have brought in new regulations to promote better
voluntary commitment to dealing with toxic substances.
That is why the government has brought forward $80 million in
the last two budgets to deal with the management and the science
around the use of toxic substances.
1445
We will make sure that industries and all Canadians comply with
our legislation.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
NATO is moving ever closer to sending ground forces into Kosovo.
The U.S. and Britain are in a substantial debate over this
particular issue, but Canadians have not heard a whole lot from
our defence minister.
Will Canada send ground forces into Kosovo prior to the reaching
of a peace agreement?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to do that, as we have
said on many different occasions. There are no plans by Canada
and there are no plans by NATO.
The military planners of course are always looking at different
options to make sure that we are prepared for whatever
circumstances they may be asked to survey.
As has been said before, that is a decision that will be made by
the Canadian government and it will be made by NATO. If there is
any decision to change the mandate from one of a peacekeeping
force after agreement parliament will be consulted.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is not very reassuring, coming from the mouth of the defence
minister, as to whether we will send ground troops prior to a
peace agreement.
It is incumbent upon the defence minister to make it absolutely
clear to Canadians and to this parliament whether Canada will
send troops into Kosovo prior to the reaching of a peace
agreement.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made it abundantly clear. No,
there are no plans to send ground troops in prior to a peace
agreement being reached.
That is the plan of the Canadian government, which was discussed
in this parliament, and that is the plan of NATO.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he announced a
$600,000 grant for a hotel in his constituency three weeks before
that same hotel even submitted a business plan to federal
officials?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just said to this House
that the very program we intended to use for that project did not
require a business plan. We wanted to use a targeted wage
subsidy—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, all of the information
necessary to receive a targeted wage subsidy had been submitted
and approved by our department.
We subsequently decided to use the transitional jobs fund
instead, for which a business plan is needed. It was requested
and it was received.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Liberal government is abusing its powers to expropriate B.C.
land in Nanoose Bay so that the U.S. navy can bring nuclear
warheads into the Strait of Georgia.
Why did the government walk away from the agreement that it
signed through its negotiator on May 5 and why is the government
taking its orders from the Pentagon instead of the people of
British Columbia who voted in 1992 in their legislature, 51 to 1,
to declare British Columbia a nuclear weapons free zone? Why
will the minister not listen to the people of B.C.?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made it abundantly clear that
there has never been any testing of nuclear weapons and that
there would never be testing of nuclear weapons now or ever in
Nanoose Bay. That is absolutely illogical and the hon. member
knows it.
Second, with respect to nuclear weapons being aboard any of the
U.S. vessels that come into the area, it is the policy of the
U.S. government not to do that. However, it is also its policy
not to identify whether there are nuclear weapons on any
particular ship in any particular location in the world. It does
that as a deterrent, as a general policy. We have understood
that for 34 years. There has never been any problem and there
will not be.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr.
Speaker, on the Nanoose Bay subject I ask the Prime Minister
again: Is this heavy-handed approach justified, putting American
military interests ahead, I repeat, ahead of the rights of the
province and aboriginal people? What price will Canadian
taxpayers suffer this time?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that the Conservatives
and the Reform have in common on this issue: we cannot accuse
either one of them of being consistent.
The leader of the Conservative Party is reported in one
publication as blaming the Premier of British Columbia and in
another publication as blaming this government.
1450
Meanwhile we have the Reform Party being critical today and yet
the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who stood previously, is
quoted as saying there is no question the Nanoose Bay facility
must be protected against the Clark government's threat to
terminate the lease and the hon. member's colleague for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is saying “I think the federal
government did the appropriate thing”.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has just told us that, whenever a premier or a province
does not do what the federal government wants, the government
will take exceptional measures, such as expropriating crown
land.
This is unacceptable. This is one of the rare occasions on
which the federal government will expropriate provincial lands.
Is that the new way of negotiating with provincial governments?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): I agree, Mr. Speaker, it is a very rare example. It
is not something that we want to do. We did not want to do it in
this particular case. We only did it because the Government of
British Columbia gave us no choice. It would not negotiate.
We offered a lot more than what this property is worth. Having
turned that down and having tried to link it to fisheries,
nuclear weapons and all of that, we said “No. Enough. We will
follow the legal process. We will go through the due process of
law in the expropriation of the seabed and we will give fair
market value for it. It is a facility that is vital for our
national interests and has been operating for some 34 years.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Children and Youth.
Questions have been raised concerning the aboriginal human
resources development strategy with regard to access to services
for urban aboriginals.
Since the strategy is designed to provide aboriginal people with
access to programs and services regardless of status or
residence, can the minister give an assurance that the urban
aboriginal population will in fact receive its fair share of
benefits under the new strategy?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is
sensitive to the needs of all aboriginal people regardless of
where they live. That is why the aboriginal human resources
development strategy takes in the needs of all aboriginal people
regardless of their location.
The strategy also includes a $30 million component over a five
year period. That is a substantive contribution of $150 million.
First nations, Inuit and Metis people are also responsible for
their people no matter where they live in Canada.
This should enhance the urban component of the strategy. The
government used the latest data available to develop the resource
allocation model.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Minister of Justice was quoted as saying that she had no
idea why anyone would think Ottawa is considering a fuel tax
hike. However, at the same time last week provincial transport
ministers were informed by a senior federal government official
from the Department of Transport that a gas tax is a possibility.
Canadians would like to know who is speaking for the government,
the minister or the bureaucrats? Will there or will there not be
a gas tax?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since the question involves the Minister of Finance, the
Minister of Transport and the Minister of Justice, perhaps I can
answer.
When the Reform Party has nothing to talk about it dreams about
the carbon tax. There is no budget planned for between now and
February and there is no plan for a carbon tax, but I am
informing the Speaker that whenever the Reform Party is short of
questions it will ask about the carbon tax.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-77
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-77 deregulates bus transportation and does away with the
Commission des transports du Québec's jurisdiction over all
transportation companies providing interprovincial service.
Does the Minister of Transport confirm that, under Bill C-77, any
bus companies providing interprovincial service will be able to
compete with the public transit companies in the cities of
Quebec, such as the STCUM in Montreal, on the most profitable
routes?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of five years of discussions
and consultations with the provinces.
A consensus has been reached that now is the time that we should
bring forward measures that would deregulate the industry
further.
1455
However, I realize that there are different points of view in
different provinces. Therefore, the legislative process is all
about hon. members bringing forward their concerns, having them
debated in the House, having them debated in committee so that we
get the best law possible for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the
Prime Minister, at that time Leader of the Opposition, said that
we must attack the economy, not the unemployed. In March 1999,
a Department of Human Resources Development report stated that
women and young people were the most affected by employment
insurance changes.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is he going to tell his
Minister of Human Resources Development to make the necessary
changes to help this country's unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has adopted a
number of policies since 1993 which have made it possible for the
Canadian economy to create 1.6 million jobs throughout the
country.
The government has undertaken a process of employment insurance
reform which has invested far more into helping the unemployed
to get back into the work force. We have created a job creation
fund of $30 million annually in order to create jobs in regions
where the rate of unemployment remains very high.
We have implemented a lot of measures to assist workers,
precisely—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
been informed that the recommendations of the Commander of Land
Force Canada regarding reserve forces were completely new, were
done without any consultations whatsoever and took everyone by
surprise.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is this
what he refers to as meaningful consultation or is this just how
decisions are made in DND?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, consultations are taking place. This is
a proposal. In fact some of the reserve people were involved in
putting this proposal together.
It is now up for discussion. No decision is going to be made
until everybody has had an opportunity to provide their input on
this plan or some other plan. There is no determination yet as
to what will be the final resolution. We know that we need to
make some changes. We certainly want to make the best possible
changes for the armed forces and we want to consult all of the
stakeholders.
* * *
SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the 21st
century rapidly approaches, the number of women joining the field
of science and engineering is too low.
Can the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development
ensure Canadians today that both qualified men and women will
have the opportunity to choose science and engineering for their
career?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have generally accepted that the rate of
participation by women in the natural sciences and engineering
sectors is too low. In fact, it is less than 12%.
NSERC has also recognized this and it put forward a university
faculty awards program where there are opportunities for women.
They are chosen like any other individual. They go through the
very same steps. They must have a research project that is at
the leading edge of their expertise.
By providing the right tools, by providing the right role
models, we will have more women and men participating in science
and technology.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to assure the Prime Minister that the Reform Party is
never short on questions, but the government always seems short
on answers.
If government bureaucrats in the departments are saying there is
a gas tax and Maurice Strong, an advisor to the Secretary General
of the United Nations and a passing acquaintance of the Prime
Minister, is saying that a gas tax is inevitable, if not today
then tomorrow, why would Canadians believe the government when it
says there will be no gas tax?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I give a carbon copy of the carbon tax answer I gave
earlier.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
environment commissioner, Brian Emmet, this morning tabled a
stunning report that concludes the federal government is
incapable of implementing its environmental legislation.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. How can the
minister claim to be defending the environment when 75% of the
reductions in the release of toxic substances reported to her
are misleading, in the opinion of her own officials?
1500
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes the report of the
commissioner for the environment and sustainable development and
certainly I do. It is very important to this government that we
protect the environment for the sake of the environment itself
and human health to the highest level.
Many departments in the government work together in science and
research and in setting policy. We have a senior committee of
departments of the government that will work together to put an
action plan in place in response to the commissioner's report
this year to protect Canadian health and the environment.
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 13 petitions.
* * *
1505
[English]
PETITIONS
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the first petition I present today calls upon
parliament to advocate the adoption of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade report regarding reducing
the political value of nuclear weapons for the 21st century. The
petition also calls upon the Government of Canada to adopt the
report as official policy, to implement all of the
recommendations fully and promptly and to harmonize existing
government positions and programs with the spirit and the intent
of the report.
PESTICIDES
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this petition calls on parliament to enact an
immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides
until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be
safe and the long term consequences of their application known.
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
petitioners from Kelowna, Westbank, Peachland, Surrey and Vernon
pray and request that parliament for a number of reasons reject
the Nisga'a treaty.
[Translation]
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to table a petition from the Inuit community of
Kuujjuaq in Nunavik.
According to the petitioners, there are 16 to 20 people living
in three bedroom dwellings in the winter. The Inuit find the
housing conditions in Nunavik extremely distressing. They
consider the situation totally intolerable. It contributes to
the high incidence of the tuberculosis, infectious deseases and
social problems.
The federal government must assume its obligations on housing
under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
[English]
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of quite a number of
constituents from the greater Kamloops area.
The petitioners point out the concern Canadians have regarding
violent crime and violence on our streets. Polls indicate that
90% of Canadians do not believe stricter gun control laws will
actually prevent more violent crimes. The petitioners point out
a number of studies which show that while violence has been a
problem, stricter gun control laws have been ineffective in
changing anything. The petitioners also point out that in 1997
the RCMP investigated over 88,000 cases regarding violent crimes
and only .08% involved the use of firearms.
The petitioners are suggesting that Bill C-68 which is obviously
costing hundreds of millions of dollars is a wasted piece of
legislation and the government should be doing a number of other
things which they articulate in terms of more effective ways to
fight crime.
CASSINI SPACE MISSION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
first petition I am presenting is on behalf of some constituents
of my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.
Mr. Hans Karlow and 29 others of Oliver, B.C. have drawn the
House's attention to their concerns about the Cassini space
mission. The plans are to execute a slingshot manoeuvre around
the earth to give the spaceship the speed necessary for its trip
to Saturn, but the spaceship has onboard 72.3 pounds of
plutonium. The petitioners are concerned about the high risk of
an incident which would expose the earth to catastrophic
radioactive fallout.
The petitioners call upon parliament to support the UN General
Assembly resolution as outlined in an emergency resolution of
February 24, 1999 CRC.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition is on behalf of my constituent Bryan Thirsk and 81 other
constituents from North Vancouver who are concerned about the
child pornography ruling that came out recently in B.C. They are
petitioning the House to do all things necessary to rectify the
problem by legislation instead of allowing it to persist. Mr.
Thirsk gave me this petition because he had previously sent it to
the minister asking for it to be presented and that has not been
done.
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recognizing the valuable assets that immigrants have
brought in the past and continue to bring to Canada, the
petitioners request that landing fees and processing fees for
immigrants be combined to total not more than $500.
1510
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition with over 1,000 signatories. They call
upon parliament to ask the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration to review the existing income requirements for
sponsored immigration applications. They also request that more
than one person be allowed to sponsor the same individual and
share the responsibility of financial support for that immigrant.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is signed by 687
fellow Manitobans who ask that the goods and services tax be
exempt on all funeral expenses.
CANDU NUCLEAR REACTOR
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by more
than four dozen residents of Manitoba. They are opposed to the
sale of Candu nuclear reactors to Turkey for two reasons. They
point out that the country is politically unstable and it is
prone to frequent and at times very severe earthquakes.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to present a number of petitions today from every
corner of my constituency. These petitioners pray that the
government take all measures necessary to ensure that possession
of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that
federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing
this law for the protection of our children.
CANADA POST
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by 58 residents of Canada who draw the attention
of the House of Commons to the following. Rural route mail
carriers often earn less than the minimum wage and in working
conditions reminiscent of another era. Subsection 13(5) of the
Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits RRMCs from having
collective bargaining rights. This denial of basic rights helps
Canada Post keep the wages and working conditions of RRMCs at an
unfair level and discriminates against rural workers. Therefore
the petitioners call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
for the 50th time signed by a number of Canadians including from
my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners 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 as the champion of
internationally recognized human rights. Therefore the
petitioners call upon the Government of Canada certainly to
continue to speak out against human rights abuses and also to
seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would be grateful if you would seek unanimous consent to return
to presenting reports from committees.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the 21st
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
In accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(a) and its order of
reference dated Thursday, October 30, 1997, the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights was instructed to prepare
and bring in a bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code
that dealt with impaired driving in order to enhance deterrence
and ensure that the penalties reflect the seriousness of the
offence.
The committee held hearings in Ottawa where witnesses and
participants were broadly representative of those affected by,
interested in and involved with the criminal justice system.
These witnesses came from all parts of Canada.
Your committee adopted the report with 17 recommendations and
also submits in accordance with Standing Order 68(5) the
recommendations regarding legislative wording in the form of a
draft bill.
Further, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests
a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
be answering Question No. 169 today.
.[Text]
Question No. 169—Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
For each of the past five years: (a) how many gun smugglers
and illegal gun traffickers have been (i) identified, (ii)
prosecuted and (iii) convicted in Canada; (b) in each case, how
many illegally-possessed firearms were recovered; (c) in each
case, how many of these firearms were categorized as either
prohibited, restricted or unrestricted; (d) in each case, how
many of these firearms were previously registered; and (e) in
each case, prior to the offence, how many of these individuals
had ever applied for or registered a firearm?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows:
Justice Canada: Data pertaining to the number of gun smugglers
and illegal gun traffickers who have been identified, prosecuted
and convicted in Canada, the number and categories of recovered
illegally-possessed firearms, as well as the registration related
information are not available from the police and law enforcement
community.
To date, smuggling is an offence under the Customs Act. The
enforcement of this act and seizure of firearms pursuant to it
falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of Revenue Canada,
Customs and the RCMP, Customs and Excise Division. This
provision under the Customs Act is not specific to firearms, it
includes all commodities. Prior to December 1, 1998 the
implementation date of the new Firearms Act, Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons, first session, 35th
Parliament, the only authority under which the other police and
law enforcement agencies could seize firearms was the Criminal
Code offence of illegal possession. Since that offence is all
inclusive, the police and law enforcement communities records
pertaining to illegal possession seizures do not specify
smuggling or trafficking.
Among various other measures, the new firearms legislation
created new offences and strict penalties for firearms smuggling
and trafficking, provided controls for the import and export of
firearms and created bans on many firearms with no legitimate
use. The newly created offences empower the police and law
enforcement agencies to pursue smuggling and trafficking charges
specifically related to seized firearms.
The firearms licensing and registration system is the foundation
for all of these enforcement and regulatory measures. In
addition to the licensing and registration system, there will be
a registry maintained containing specific information pertaining
to all firearms seized or recovered by law enforcement agencies.
The provision in the legislation which requires police and law
enforcement agencies to report all seized and recovered firearms
is scheduled to come into effect in 2001. The gathering of such
information on a national basis will provide administrative and
investigative assistance to the law enforcement community and
will provide the ability to more easily extract information
pertaining to types of offences, specifics of the firearms
recovered or seized, et cetera.
Revenue Canada: The Department of National Revenue has no data
with respect to parts (a), (d) and (e) of the question. However,
the following chart provides data related to seizures of firearms
categorized as either prohibited, restricted or unrestricted that
the Department of National Revenue carried out during the years
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998.
While data is provided with respect to seizures of firearms, the
persons from whom the firearms were seized cannot be identified
as either gun smugglers or illegal gun traffickers as these
seizures of firearms could have been from individuals who failed
to declare they had a firearm in their possession or in their
vehicle when they entered Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1515
[English]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
NANOOSE, BRITISH COLUMBIA
The Speaker: I am in receipt of a notice of motion for an
emergency debate under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I have his letter. Would he care to tell us what it is all
about precisely and in just a few words? I ask him not to read
the whole letter but just to tell us what it is all about.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to summarize it, as we heard in Oral Question Period the federal
government has commenced expropriation proceedings in British
Columbia. It claims it has been in negotiations for two years.
This is unprecedented. I submit it would set an extremely
dangerous precedent in Canada to allow this without even having
some discussion here.
To my knowledge none of the opposition parties received any
information from the government. We have no idea what
negotiations have gone on. This would allow us an opportunity to
question the government and find out what has been going on.
This would be an extremely dangerous precedent that would open
the doors for expropriations in other parts of Canada in an area
where we do not want to go.
The government sought ownership of this land through the Supreme
Court of Canada in 1984. It was rejected then. The court ruled
that it was under the ownership of British Columbia in the
Constitution.
I would submit, given all that, that an emergency debate would
be appropriate so we can have an opportunity to find out what in
fact the government has been doing to avoid this expropriation
and what discussions have gone on with the province of British
Columbia. To date we have had zero information from the
government with respect to that.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for the
explanation and for his letter. It is my ruling that this
request does not meet the exigencies for an emergency debate
pursuant to Standing Order 52.
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 third time and passed.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-78. The government
claims that the purpose of the legislation is to improve the
financial management of the pension fund of federal public
servants, the RCMP and the military. We should be very skeptical
when the government claims to be doing anything to improve the
conditions of the federal public service.
The government has acted in an unprecedented manner in
opposition to our public service and has created the lowest level
of morale in the history of the public service in Canada. There
was the wage freeze our public servants have dealt with under the
government. There was the back to work legislation and the
government's refusal to utilize binding arbitration as a
legitimate negotiating tool. There was the incredible level of
layoffs.
For instance, there is the government's latest attack on the
public service through the privatization of Revenue Canada and
its attempts to create a new arm's length agency to administer
the taxes of the country and take up to 40,000 public servants
out of the public service. It is part of a continued attack on
the public service of our country and ultimately one that will
imperil the public service and the quality of services received
by Canadians from their public servants.
The government is not interested in improving the financial
management of the pension funds of public servants. The
government is more interested in the cash windfall of $30 billion
that it can take from the public service pension plan through the
legislation. The legislation provides the mechanisms through
which the government can access that $30 billion. The government
is claiming that money will be used against the debt, but it is
just a cash transfer on paper. It is not an actual cash transfer
in terms of money going from one program to another. It is
basically just a paper transfer.
Effectively what the government is doing, and it is quite
cynical really, is taking this money and using a divide and
conquer type of attack to pit federal public servants against
Canadians at large by saying this money will go against the debts
of Canadians at large. It is ignoring the fact that this fund
was created through contributions by the public service and the
federal government into their pension plans and that this fund
was created to protect the public servants and their pension
plans against the risks of future deficits.
1520
This is particularly important given that part of the
legislation will result in the pension being invested in private
equity markets where there will be larger risks in the future. It
is very important at this time when we are engaging in a
potentially riskier investment strategy, which will provide a
higher return ultimately. With that higher risk which is
commensurate with a higher return we need to ensure the
appropriate surplus exists. That $30 billion should be kept
either within the public service pension plan or used to improve
benefits for public servants who have had an unprecedented
sustained attack by the federal government.
This is analogous to the federal government's EI fund strategy.
The government has built a surplus since 1993 in the EI fund by
maintaining unnecessarily high rates and at the same time
slashing benefits. The government has an insatiable appetite for
cold cash and that seems to be the only explanation for the
continued expropriation of the pension fund.
We heard of expropriation earlier in terms of land and the
Nanoose Bay issue where the government has taken the same
arrogant approach to the financial management of our country
either with the EI fund or in this case the public service
pension issue.
To go back to the EI issue, the government is maintaining an
egregiously regressive tax on lower income Canadians. For
instance, a Canadian making $39,000 per year will pay the same
amount of EI premiums in terms of total EI premiums and
contributions as someone making $300,000. The government is
taking that money from lower and middle lower income Canadians
and using it to subsidize other program spending. It is simply
not fair.
To add insult to injury, the result is that through the
government's slashing of benefits EI programs are only available
to 30% of those who pay into them, even with the absolutely
devastating seasonal unemployment in Atlantic Canada where the
economy dictates that a significant part of employment is
seasonal.
There is some agreement that the government has a legal right to
the surplus. If the government had a legal right to the surplus
it would not need this legislation to access the surplus. The
government is in the position to implement legislation, to bring
forward bills and legislation to change the rules whenever it
wants, and that is exactly what it is doing. The government does
not have the ability to access the pensions of federal
superannuates and federal public service pensions without the
legislation. The government is changing the rules.
A private corporation does not have the ability to change the
rules in this way. In a private pension plan there are typically
agreements between the corporation and the employees on the
contribution rates over the period of time and on the benefits.
If there is a surplus there is a set of guidelines which the
corporation follows in the division of that surplus.
It was not that many years ago that a gentleman by the name of
Robert Maxwell jumped off his boat or fell or something. He
faced an unfortunate demise off the side of his yacht. A few
weeks later it was public knowledge that for several years he had
been taking from the pension plans of his employees, many of whom
were left in tremendous financial straits due to the fact that he
had been taking from their pension plan over a period of time.
That is an example of what would happen if a company took this
kind of approach to a private sector pension plan.
1525
The government is saying that this is a defined benefit plan,
that the government has all the liabilities and that the people
who pay into it do not have any of the liabilities. As such the
government is claiming that it would have the ability to do
whatever it wants with it. The government sometimes points to a
deficit in the fund which existed in the mid-eighties and the
fact that the government paid the deficit. It was simply an
accounting deficit that existed. The government wiped it out. It
used the offsetting interest income surplus to do that.
It is a bit of a red herring when the government says that it
paid off the deficit in this fund in the mid-eighties because in
fact it used an offsetting interest income surplus to pay off
that deficit. What is particularly offensive is that the
government is going against its own rules with the legislation.
It was not that long ago that the Pension Benefits Standards
Act, Bill S-3, was initiated in the Senate and passed by
parliament. It outlined the proper procedure for pension plans
to deal with the issues of surplus in private sector pension
plans.
If the government were following these rules it would be
behaving very differently than how it is actually behaving with
the public service pension plan in Bill C-78. The government has
set a double standard. It has one set of rules for the private
sector and another set of rules for itself. It is changing the
rules as it goes to fit whatever short term or long term
political goals it has as a government.
This could create a very dangerous precedent in that private
sector corporations could seek to forgo the guidelines set forth
by the government in Bill S-3 that were designed to protect both
corporations and the people who pay into the pension plans.
Private sector corporations could forgo the following of those
guidelines and legitimately say that the government has broken
its own rules.
For instance, under Bill S-3, if a withdrawal takes place
logically the plan members would expect to see a significant
increase in benefits. Typically it would be commensurate with
the levels paid into the private sector pension plan based on the
contribution rates. For instance, if it were a 40:60 pay-in,
with the employer paying in 60% and the employee paying in 40%, a
withdrawal of 60% of the surplus would mean a commensurate
increase of 40% in the benefits enjoyed by both current and
future pension recipients.
Unfortunately this is another example where the government is
participating in an unprecedented level of hypocrisy. It is
asking the private sector to play by one set of rules and feels
it can get away with playing by another set of rules which it is
changing on an ongoing basis. It is also a further example of
the unadulterated attack on the public service in Canada.
It has long been acknowledged that public sector workers have
accepted in some cases below market wages in exchange for job
security and fairly decent but well deserved pension plans. Over
time we have seen job security disappear from the public service.
The wages in many cases are now far below those of the private
sector. One of the arguments the government uses for the
privatization of Revenue Canada is that if Revenue Canada were
privatized it would have the freedom to pay employees of Revenue
Canada or the new Revenue Canada agency more competitively to
compete with the private sector.
The government is actually abdicating its responsibility for
positive and constructive human resource management by saying
that it cannot do that with the public service. It is
privatizing a huge arm of the government, Revenue Canada. It
refuses to deal with the systemic issues that are pervasive
throughout the public service and is dealing with these issues
with band-aid solutions that will create more problems in the
long term.
1530
Ultimately the morale of the public service is an issue that
affects every Canadian. The quality of services and the value we
receive for our tax dollars depends largely on the quality of the
work of our public service. The quality of the work of our public
service depends on the morale of the public service. There is a
significant long term cost to Canadians whenever the government
takes another attack on the public service. We should take very
seriously the long term impacts of this continued attack on the
public service.
Another issue is the anticipated premium increases for
contributions to this plan which will increase from 7.5% of
salary to as high as 11% of salary by 2010. This means that
public servants will be paying a higher and higher percentage of
their salary into the plan over time.
As the payroll deductions, or payroll taxes as some refer to
them, continue to increase, it will become increasingly difficult
to retain existing public servants and to attract young people,
some of Canada's best and brightest to the public service. They
will be attracted to better paying jobs in the private sector.
Our country needs a viable productive public service. Over time
Canada has produced some exceptional accomplishments through our
public service, as well as through the private sector. If we
talk to some of professors and administrators at the universities
who teach public administration, we learn that the skills being
taught in public administration courses are not dissimilar from
many of the courses being taught in business schools.
I come from a private sector background. I was involved in
small and medium size businesses. I have an undergrad degree in
business. I enjoy the private sector. I also have a public
ethic which is why I am here.
Many Canadians who share the skills I have in terms of
administrative abilities want to work within the public sector
and have a public ethic. They may not be as interested in the
private sector. In a lot of cases these people study business and
enter businesses but really they would rather work productively
to create a better public service. We need a greater focus on
attracting some of the best and brightest, not just to business,
but also to a public service that Canadians and public servants
can be proud of.
The government has continued to reduce the quality of working
conditions within the public service. Ultimately it will reduce
the quality of services received by Canadians.
I am pleased to see that the government is moving toward seeing
that the funds within these pension plans will be invested in
external financial markets. I am concerned about some of the
elements the government is going about doing this.
It is very important to realize that the public service pension
funds will represent in the not too distant future about $100
billion. The capitalization of the Toronto stock exchange is
about $650 billion. It does not take a lot of analysis to
recognize that this potentially could have a huge impact on
capital markets.
This would be a perfect opportunity for the government to move
in separate legislation to increase the foreign content limits
for Canadian pension investments, not just within these types of
public pensions but also within RRSPs. Many people defend the
current 20:80 rule on foreign content, that 80% of an RRSP for
instance has to be invested domestically and only 20% can be
invested offshore. Many proponents of that rule state it would
have deleterious effects on the Canadian equities markets if we
were to loosen that rule and allow Canadians to invest their own
money offshore.
1535
The influx of capital by the Canada pension plan and this public
sector pension plan into Canadian equities markets represents a
golden opportunity for the government to do what it really should
do. It should reduce and ultimately eliminate the foreign
content rule. I would suggest that up to 50% almost immediately
should be allowed to be invested offshore so that Canadians can
enjoy geographic diversification as part of their portfolios. In
this case public servants could enjoy the kind of return on
investment that is provided by geographic diversification.
The fact is that since 1993 the Dow Jones and other indices in
the U.S. including Standard & Poor's, have far outstripped the
growth in terms of equities that we have seen in the TSE. The
TSE has grown by about 60% since 1993. During the same period of
time the Dow Jones has appreciated by about 190% and the Standard
& Poor's 500 has grown by around 180%. Wealth being a relative
thing, Canadians are getting poorer while our neighbours to the
south are actually getting richer. This is a brilliant
opportunity. I hope the government moves aggressively to address
that.
The other issue is that the government has modelled the pension
management board on the Canada pension plan investment board. It
has ignored some of the recommendations made in this House and in
the other place. A recommendation in the report relative to the
Canada pension plan investment board from the banking committee
in the other place said:
Directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
collectively have a broad range of experiences and expertise.
While the benefits of appointing directors with proven financial
ability are clear, the committee believes that a majority of the
directors should have expertise in pension fund management and
other relevant skills.
That was very sound advice. Pension fund management is a very
specific art or science. Someone who has managed a business may
not necessarily be good at managing a pension fund. Business
experience is not the sole criteria by which we should judge fund
managers. This has been ignored by the government in this
legislation and it continues to do its own thing.
The government is not seeking constructive input from this House
or the other place. The government is not seeking legitimate
public policy development. The government is only seeking from
this House, from parliament, a rubber stamping of the ideas and
legislation it wants to implement. This has to stop because the
secular decline of the role of the parliamentarian will
ultimately lead to the secular decline of democracy and its
benefits to Canadians.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank my colleague in the Conservative Party
for his comments.
I want to ask my colleague how he interprets the way the finance
minister has been able to go into the UI fund. The finance
minister figured out that the government could go in there, and I
know there are certain words we cannot use in this House but we
can think about them, and find a way to use $25 billion paid by
employers and employees. The government did not put a cent into
the UI fund, but it found a way to actually take it and use it
for other things while we know that less than 40% of the
unemployed qualify for UI.
Being members from the Atlantic region, we know the impact. We
know how many people right now are going without UI and without
income. Minimum wage is very low in New Brunswick. Jobs are
seasonal. Unfortunately, when we have programs to help in
developing jobs, we often get refused for government funding
because only seasonal jobs are being created. How can we try to
create jobs in our region?
The government found a way to get $30 billion. That is $25
billion and $30 billion which equals $55 billion that the
government has its hands on. It is a lot of money.
I wonder if the member is seeing what we are seeing, what the
workers are seeing and what our brothers and sisters in the
public service are seeing. This money is being taken. The
government has found two pots.
Let us face it. The Minister of Finance is very creative in
finding ways to get money that is not the government's and using
it for its own purposes.
1540
It is also unfortunate that the President of the Treasury Board
is refusing to recognize the inequality regarding pay equity.
This is directly affecting the public service employees.
Does my colleague agree with me that we sometimes have to
question what the government is doing?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
the New Democratic Party for her question.
The issue is that the government has taken the EI program and
fund, which existed for the benefit of workers and employers to
enhance labour market flexibility which benefits all Canadians
and the economy, and has created what is really an EI tax. Only
30% of those who pay into the EI fund actually qualify to receive
benefits. As a result, 70% of that is an EI tax. Only 30% of
the contributions to the EI fund are actually EI premiums. The
government has taken an already complicated Canadian tax code and
made it more complicated, less transparent and more confusing.
Through maintaining unnecessarily high EI premiums and slashing
benefits at the same time, it has also created increased
distortions. For instance, one of the goals of tax reform should
be to reduce the distortions taxes may have on a particular part
of the economy.
Canada has twice the unemployment rate of the U.S. We should be
seeking to reduce the cost of the labour input to encourage more
companies to hire people.
Instead by maintaining unnecessarily high premiums and by not
developing more innovative programs, particularly in the areas of
training and retraining, the government is denying labour market
flexibility to Canadian companies and employees. That is
absolutely unacceptable in a very competitive global environment.
In terms of the government trend of delving into the EI fund for
other types of spending or in terms of using the public service
pension plan, which is what we are talking about directly with
Bill C-78, the government is in the position where it can change
the rules as it goes. It can change the rules that will affect
Canadians for decades while it is focused on its own limited
goals which are focused on the next election. The impact of the
next election and what the Liberals will be doing over the next
couple of years to try to win that election could be very
negative for Canadians for decades in the future.
I have heard it said that politics is the natural enemy of
public policy. I am afraid that in this case that is the case.
The Liberals are changing the rules to suit their own short term
political goals. They change the rules as they go. Unlike the
private sector pension plans, where Bill S-3, the Pension
Benefits Standards Act, sets out guidelines for the private
sector by which the private sector is expected to abide, this
government can actually change the rules.
The government is saying that there is nothing legally stopping
it from delving into this fund. If there is nothing stopping it,
why does it have to introduce legislation in this House, force
closure and deny parliamentary debate in order to implement this
legislation so it has access? The government knows that it
cannot access the pension fund unless it breaks the rules so it
is changing the rules. Why? Because it is the government and it
does not respect the parliamentary process.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we all know
that when the government gets its claws on this $30 billion, it
does it, as the member has just said, because it is the
government and it knows best.
There are many different options that could be used instead of
this money being confiscated by the government and used for
whatever political purposes it chooses. It could be given back to
the people who paid the premiums in terms of refunds.
It could be used to increase the benefits to individual members.
It could also be used for other purposes.
1545
Would the member of the Conservative Party who just spoke
divulge to the House what his party's preferences would be on how
this $30 billion should be used since it clearly is opposed to
the government taking it as it is.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, a number of times during
my speech I referred to Bill S-3, the Pension Benefits Standards
Act, which sets out guidelines for the negotiations relative to
pension surpluses.
There are guidelines that clearly lay out the role for
negotiations with the contributors to the pension over the period
of time, the employees and former employees, and with the
employers as well.
I would suggest that the government engage in that kind of
negotiation and discussion over a longer term and work through
that process, as any private sector corporation would, with the
employers and the contributors to achieve an agreement as to how
that surplus should be divided.
While the size of the surplus seems huge, up to 50% of that
money will be invested in the private equities markets. It is
very important to note how unprecedentedly high the equities
markets are right now. Some economists are even pointing to
threats of potential deflation and that our equities markets may
be overvalued. Although some members may disagree, the price
earnings ratios for our stocks are very high now. I believe they
are the highest they have been since just before the Great
Depression in 1929.
I do not want to be morbid nor do I want members to rush from
the House to call their brokers or anything like that, but I
would suggest that a large pension surplus is a good level of
security against market fluctuations.
I do support the government moving toward investing this money
privately in the equities markets. In the long term, that will
maximize the return for public servants. However, in view of the
increased risk and the commensurate increased returns, it would
be prudent for the government to maintain a large surplus within
the public service pension. I think that would benefit not just
the government but also the employees and contributors over the
long term.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
It my pleasure to speak today on the employee benefit
improvements that will ensue from the legislation before us. The
first thing I must do is clarify that as far as retirement
benefits are concerned, improvements are the only effects that
will ensue from the government proposals.
It has been alleged that the government proposals will somehow
diminish the pension benefits of federal retirees and employees.
I want to make it clear that this is absolutely false. Public
service pension benefits are protected and guaranteed by law.
Nothing in the bill will or can diminish those benefits. They
will continue in full and be fully indexed for inflation as
before.
Far from diminishing benefits, they will actually improve the
employee benefit package in several concrete ways. As members may
recall, two of these improvements have already been discussed in
the House. They were introduced in the recent budget bill and
will come into force on passage of that bill. Both involve
changing the formulas used for calculating benefits and both
changes favour the plan member.
The first formula to be changed is the basic one used to
calculate retirement benefits for the public service pension
plan. Up until now, that formula has been based on the plan
member's average salary over six consecutive years of highest
paid service. Other public sector pension plans use five as the
number of consecutive years in their formula. From now on, under
the amended legislation, so will public pension plans.
In most cases, averaging over five years instead of six will mean
greater benefits for plan members on retirement.
1550
The second formula relates to the integration of the public
service pension benefits with those of the Canada and Quebec
pension plans. This new formula will produce a somewhat smaller
reduction in benefits at that point. Two small changes in
formula amounting to two concrete improvements to benefits for
current members of the public service pensions.
The legislation before us today further improves the pension
benefit package for federal employees. A proposed change will
allow a survivor to waive entitlement to benefits after a
member's death in specific circumstances.
Another change facilitating the administration of survivor
benefit provisions will allow a survivor who cannot be located to
be disentitled to survivor benefits. Currently, final
determination of the payment of survival benefits can be delayed
indefinitely when a survivor cannot be found. This is clearly
unfair to those other persons whose benefits are affected.
Finally, for cases where two survivors are entitled to an
annuity in respect of one plan member, the method of determining
the percentage of the annuity payable to each survivor will be
set out in the legislation. Specifically, each survivor will
receive an amount that is directly related to the length of time
he or she contributed with the deceased contributor in relation
to the total amount of time the deceased cohabited with both
survivors.
The bill also proposes changes to the supplementary death
benefits and term life insurance to employees and retirees
payable under the Public Service Superannuation Act. For
example, the paid up benefit will be increased to $10,000 from
the current $5,000. This paid up benefit will also be extended
to another group of pensioners. Persons who retired on or after
April 1, 1995, with an entitlement to an annual allowance payable
within 30 days of ceasing to be employed will, if they elected to
retain their SDB coverage, have entitlement to the paid up
coverage at age 65.
Another change would see the coverage reduction of 10% per year
delayed until age 66 rather than beginning at age 61. This means
that the basic coverage of twice the salary for employees and the
covered pensioners under 61 is extended by five years and that
benefit coverage would not finally reduce to either one-third of
the salary for employees or, in the case of pensioners, to the
basic paid up amount of zero until age 75.
The new coverage reduction schedule would apply automatically to
those employees and pensioners who have already reached the aged
of 61. However, those persons who would prefer to remain on the
current schedule would be given the opportunity to do so.
The benefit improvements also include the removal of the
provision in PSSA and Canadian forces plans whereby persons
dismissed for misconduct could be denied access to any benefit
other than a return of contributions.
Finally, there is to be another noteworthy improvement to
benefits in the larger sense of the term. It is the new cost
sharing dental plan the government intends to establish for
present and future public service pensioners.
I will not elaborate here because strictly speaking the new
dental plan does not form part of the legislative package but
rather will be introduced under the authority of the Treasury
Board once consultations are complete and full details are
finalized. I merely mention the new dental plan in order to
place it in a context to which it truly belongs, significant
improvements that public service plan members can expect from
their benefits package.
The public service pensioners of the present have no need to
fear the proposed amendments to the public service pension plans.
Their benefits are defined and guaranteed in law and will in no
way be diminished. Today's pensioners can rest assured that the
usual cheques in the usual amounts will keep coming as they
always have.
As for public service pensioners of the future, they too have no
cause to worry. The proposed amendments will leave their future
benefits safe and intact. Plan members will continue to receive
on retirement all that their pension plans have promised them. In
fact, with the improvements currently proposed they will receive
even more.
1555
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member
said a number of times that civil servants did not need to worry
because everything was in place.
Why are civil servants worried? Why are they expressing their
great concern over the bill to members of parliament? Why are
they making all kinds of threats beyond that?
It seems to me that the government has failed in either one of
two areas. It has either failed to actually provide fairness to
the employees or it has failed to communicate it. I would like
to know which one it is.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
what I have outlined clearly illustrates the improvements to the
plan. If anyone is concerned it is probably because they have
been listening to the fearmongering by some members on the other
side.
The benefits, as outlined extensively by members on this side of
the House, clearly indicate that there are significant
improvements. There is nothing to fear because the moneys will
be there and there by law. I do not know what could be clearer
than that. The moneys are there by law. If there is a shortfall
it will covered. That has been the case all along and will
continue to be so.
I would suggest to the hon. member that the old saying “There
is nothing to fear but fear itself”, in this case there is
nothing to fear at all because it has been clearly outlined in
black and white. If the member reviews the bill again I am sure
he will come to the same conclusion.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot help but comment on this last statement that the money
will be there if there is a shortfall in the fund. Many members
opposite have indicated to us that the main reason the government
wants this $30 billion is because it is the taxpayers' money and
the government is protecting the interests of the taxpayer.
I would like to ask the hon. member just exactly which side of
the mouth the Liberal government is speaking from? On the one
hand it says it is protecting the taxpayer by giving the money
back to them and on the other hand it is saying that if there is
a shortfall it will be taken away.
One way or another the taxpayer is going to be funding this.
Whose money is it? A large part of it was the taxpayers' money
and another part was the individual beneficiary's money. Who is
going to get this money? Who are the Liberals actually trying to
protect? It sounds to me like the only people they are really
trying to protect are themselves and their greedy ambitions.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand
the greedy ambitions. I would point out to the hon. member that
currently about 30% of the fund is supplied by the employees and
the rest has been picked up obviously by the taxpayers. There is
no question that when there was a shortfall it was covered by the
taxpayers. One would assume then that there is a significant
surplus. It has been pointed out by the actuary. There is more
The fact is that there is more than enough in the fund to take
out the $30 billion and it will be protected.
In whose interest is it? I would presume it is in the interests
of the Canadian public, those who are contributing by way of
being a taxpayer and those who are contributing by being a member
of the plan. In both cases the moneys are there. This is
something we accept in this society.
In terms of fairness, if one reads the legislation one would
come to the conclusion that if the fund is covered during
shortfall times, the moneys would come out when there is a
surplus.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I intend to devote my entire remarks on Bill C-78 to the
word conjugal which has been the subject of much acrimony on both
sides of the House.
I will preface my remarks by saying that I have been extremely
disappointed in my government, or the advisers to my government,
who chose to use the word conjugal to achieve what I think was a
correct purpose to extend survivor benefits to same sex couples.
Unfortunately they chose to do it in entirely the wrong way and
it has caused a division on this side and unhappiness. I am sorry
that has occurred.
I would have thought there would have been very grave concern on
the other side of the House about legislation that has the
intention of providing survivor benefits to same sex couples, but
does no such thing. It is that kind of ineptitude that makes me
regret this particular aspect of what is otherwise a very good
bill.
1600
What was attempted in order to extend benefits to same sex
couples was that the bill amends existing legislation which
defines a survivor as a person of the opposite sex. Clause 25(4)
of Bill C-78 redefines survivor as someone who is cohabiting in a
relationship of a conjugal nature for a period of a year.
That came up during second reading and I saw the word conjugal.
I know a little bit about words. I knew immediately that
conjugal in any context does not mean same sex. It is a word
that goes back 2,000 years, back to the early church in Rome. It
is from two Latin words involving togetherness and yoking
together. That is what it means explicitly. The history of the
word has to do with conjugal rights and the whole idea that in
medieval times, in the early church and even in the later church,
the idea was that when one got married this legally permitted one
to have a heterosexual relationship with the woman and procreate.
That was how the early church regarded it, both the Catholic
church at the beginning and later the various Protestant
churches. It has not changed. Go to any dictionary including
Black's dictionary. One of the members mentioned Black's
dictionary and suggested that conjugal means something other than
a married relationship or a relationship involving sexual
intercourse in the conventional fashion. Everywhere you go you
can look it up and find that, Mr. Speaker.
I challenged the officials of the minister's department. I said
“Explain to me why you are using the word conjugal in order to
provide benefits to same sex partners”. I was led to the 1997
Rosenberg court case. The court was examining the Income Tax Act
provisions with respect to benefits to same sex couples. The
court decided that same sex couples under the charter of rights
should be entitled to the same benefits under the Income Tax Act
as opposite sex couples.
The judge looked at a particular clause in the Income Tax Act
which said in essence that a spouse is a person in an opposite
sex relationship who is enjoying a conjugal relationship. It
states that a spouse at any time of a taxpayer includes the
person of the opposite sex who cohabits at that time with the
taxpayer in a conjugal relationship.
There are three ideas here: opposite sex, cohabits and conjugal
relationship. The judge in the Rosenberg case ruled that in
order to fulfil the intention of the charter we should read into
this clause—and this is a judge creating legislation—that it
should be a person of the opposite sex or the same sex who
cohabits at that time with the taxpayer in a conjugal
relationship. The judge added words but did not change the word
conjugal which does not mean same sex. It does not mean that at
all.
When I looked at that I said to the officials from the
department “That does not prove a thing. Show me anywhere in
law, anywhere in legislation, where conjugal is actually defined
as pertaining to a same sex sexual relationship”. I looked at
all the cases presented for me. There were lots of analyses of
cohabit. There were lots of analyses of spouse, but nowhere in
any of the things presented to me with my own research or with the
assistance of the department could I find a definition of
conjugal that includes same sex relationship.
What do we have? Let us go back to the original clause, Clause
25(4), and read it exactly:
For the purposes of this Part, when a person establishes that he
or she was cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with
the contributor for at least one year...then the person is
considered to be the survivor of the contributor.
If we take that clause literally nothing has happened.
In fact the clause entrenches the idea that only married couples,
that is people in a conjugal relationship, can receive these
benefits. The legislation actually fails to achieve what it was
designed to achieve.
1605
Yes, I support the bill, but I do not support the clumsiness of
what was attempted in the bill. Let me go on the record as
saying I believe the government has an obligation to find a way
in which to recognize the genuine dependency that exists between
same sex couples. We should enshrine that in legislation and we
should pass laws, but we cannot let the courts do it because the
courts are at the whim of a judge who is not concerned with
writing legislation, who is merely concerned with expressing and
interpreting ideas, who fails to appreciate that a word in
existing legislation does not mean what he thinks it means.
Now we have the supreme court ruling in the M. v H. case in this
past week. The supreme court is suggesting that the Ontario
family law should be struck down because it only pertains to
opposite sex couples cohabiting. In its decision it mentions
that same sex couples can have similar relationships to opposite
sex couples including conjugal relationships. I submit that the
supreme court judges have made the same error. If they would
only go to any dictionary, English or French, they would never
find conjugal referring to same sex relationships.
We have the judges and courts through, shall we say, a certain
amount of literary ineptitude—and we should not be surprised by
that because they are judges, not authors, not
legislators—creating changes in the laws that are basically
wrong. It belongs to parliamentarians to make those changes.
As a result of the case with respect to striking down the family
law act, we understand that the provinces of Ontario and Alberta
will have to redo their legislation to make sure that their
family law legislation embraces same sex couples. Let them do
that, but let them, for heaven sakes, avoid the word conjugal
because conjugal specifically means heterosexual sex and married.
The reason there is division on this side is not because members
do not want to see gay couples treated like everyone else. The
reason there is division on this side is there is a genuine and
honest concern about the implications of giving gay couples
legally married status because in my view the big danger there is
that it would give them then the right to adopt children as
opposed to the privilege that they already now have. The right
to adopt children would run the danger of extinguishing the
rights of children.
In the end, while I will always try to champion the rights of
every Canadian no matter what their differences from other
Canadians, I have to always remember that it is not the place of
this parliament to ever diminish or extinguish the rights of
other Canadians, especially children.
I regret this legislation. It is an excellent bill but we used
the wrong word. If we had used the word cohabit instead of
conjugal, I think it would have been fine. If we had used
dependent, I think it would have been fine. Anything but the
word conjugal.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am overwhelmed by the approach of this member. Certainly he has
been thoughtful and has studied the bill. I commend him for
that, but he leaves me with a number of unanswered questions.
I believe he is correct in saying that conjugal generally refers
to a married type relationship. It does refer, though, to the
sexual activity within a married relationship generally.
The new term used in the bill which has never been used before
by his government is that two parties be in a relationship of a
conjugal nature in the past, that they be in a conjugal
relationship. They have changed it from one expression to a more
loose definition, to a relationship of a conjugal nature. A moot
point, perhaps, but it suggests that there is a less onerous
requirement for the heterosexual type sex in the way they have
used this term.
1610
Regardless of this particular point in the debate, we have
pressed the President of the Treasury Board several times to
include a definition of what is meant by a relationship of a
conjugal nature in the act. There is no reference to any kind of
definition of it anywhere in the act so that the debate we are
having today would not be necessary. That has been not dealt
with. To his point I think that probably where this will end up,
if this bill goes ahead, is in the courts. I am as concerned as
he is that is where this will be decided.
I just wonder what he thinks the outcome will be in the courts.
We had the minister tell us in the House that this was
specifically intended to extend same sex benefits to those kinds
of relationships. He specifically said the courts made him do it
and the lawyers drafted it this way. What does the member think
will be the outcome when this hits the courtroom?
Mr. John Bryden: In my view, Mr. Speaker, the government
has said that it is being driven by the courts but I think it has
interpreted the courts entirely incorrectly. The courts have not
ruled on the definition of conjugal.
I think the real answer here is for parliament and the
government to bring in legislation that sets this matter to rest
once and for all: define cohabitation, define spouse, define
marriage. We do not have to define conjugal at all because I do
not believe we should be in the business of defining ourselves in
terms of our sexual orientation. If we look at the legislation,
if we look at the court decisions, we will find that what we are
really talking about is dependency, cohabitation, this kind of
concept. We can leave sex out of it entirely as far as I am
concerned.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the hon. member's erudite and thought provoking
interventions today in the etymology of conjugal and its
relevance to this debate.
I wonder if the hon. member agrees with me that the Supreme
Court of Canada has a very important role in interpreting the
charter of rights, which was deliberately and politically
developed to protect the rights of minorities; that the political
process, particularly one driven by a populist environment, can
be very dangerous in terms of the defence of minority rights; and
that populism sometimes cannot be guaranteed or majority rules,
for instance, which is the tenet of parliament, does not always
serve the interests of minorities.
Is it the way parliament or the government has interpreted these
rulings that bothers him as opposed to the supreme court making
fairly significant and sweeping judgments in defence of minority
rights that bothers him? I would like him to clarify that.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would say both. I think
it is very important that the Supreme Court and the courts
interpret for us, but where we fail is when we fail as parliament
to give the courts the proper tools.
Then we have a case in point where the supreme court is suddenly
defining conjugal for us. I think it is a mistake and we have to
get in there very quickly as parliamentarians before real damage
is done.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.
I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central, federal public
servants, RCMP officers who are retired and currently serving,
our military personnel, and the families of all these people to
speak to Bill C-78, the government's proposed changes to the
public service pension plan.
The bill has become infamous on two counts. On the first count
it is because Liberals will steal a one time windfall of $30
billion. Second, it lets the courts decide the definition of
marriage. It will allow pension benefits to be delivered based
on conjugal relationships.
The Liberals have raided the pension plan surplus federal public
servants have amassed in their very successful pension fund. The
greed on the other side of the House is disgusting to watch. The
lack of respect shown to Canadians by putting a stop to this
seizure of wealth and the government preventing debate on this
matter in the House is a disgrace.
The government is allowing members of the House four hours to
deal with this huge 200 page bill, true to the Liberal's
democratic style. It has used outright closure 5 times and it
has used time allocation 47 times since 1993.
1615
This is the very same government that has taken $21 billion from
the employment insurance fund surplus. The $21 billion should
have been returned to the employees and employers who could have
created jobs with that money.
Today, through Bill C-78, which we are not allowed to debate for
more than a few minutes, the President of the Treasury Board will
take $14.9 billion from the public service pension fund, $2.4
billion from the pensions of RCMP employees and $12.9 billion
from the pensions of the Canadian armed forces, which adds up to
$30.2 billion.
The official opposition maintains that any surplus should remain
in the pension plan to cushion taxpayers from future shortfalls.
This would ensure the long term viability and guarantee the
solvency of our public service pension plans.
In the past Canadian taxpayers have covered $13 billion worth of
shortfalls in these pension plans. Taxpayers will be on the hook
for future deficits in these plans and we on this side of the
House feel that Canadian taxpayers should be protected.
The Liberals want to settle the matter of dealing with the $30
billion surplus by passing Bill C-78 well before the next
election in the hopes that the 645,000 pension plan members have
short memories. That is not the case.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada says that the surplus
money belongs to PSAC members and the government is stealing it.
The word the union is using is stealing. It is a very serious
charge.
The chief reason for the surplus in the plan is that it was
assumed salaries would grow. The six-year wage freeze has
reduced the liability of the plan. These surpluses will
eventually slow down as wages are increased and today's lower
interest rates kick in.
The money the government is taking establishes a precedent and
sends a clear message to the private sector that it can follow
the lead of the government and help itself to surpluses in
employee funds.
This is the sort of government we have. We have a finance
minister who cooks the books. We have a government that has no
surplus in the Canada pension plan fund. That plan has been so
mismanaged for 30 years that it could crash at any time.
Let us look at the history of the $30 billion grab. The
President of the Treasury Board created an advisory committee on
the Public Service Superannuation Act to look at pensions within
the public service. The committee carried on consultations for
four years. It was comprised of members of the government,
public servants, representatives of employees and pensioner
associations.
Now we know that the Liberal minister did not even recognize the
further negotiations recommended in the committee's report. The
President of the Treasury Board is trampling roughshod over the
committee's recommendations and doing what he pleases.
Bill C-78 enables the government to get its hands on surpluses,
the ownership of which, while not clearly defined, is morally the
property of employees and ex-employees, that is, the pensioners.
This bill will extend pension benefits to same sex couples. It
will allow marriage to be redefined and unfairly exclude others.
The change in the definition of marriage should not be left up to
the courts. It is a decision for members of parliament to take
right here in this Chamber.
Granting survivor benefits should have nothing to do with sex,
as defined by conjugal relationships. Rather, the definition
should be based on a relationship of dependency and
companionship. The latter definition would include gay or
lesbian couples, but would also apply to a divorced daughter who
lived with and cared for her elderly father after he retired from
the federal government.
If we believe that what is fair is right, then we should do what
is right.
Under Bill C-78 contributions would be deposited in retirement
funds and then transferred to the public sector pension
investment board.
Who will manage the board? That is a big question.
1620
The appointment process will be similar to the one used for the
Senate. The appointees, who will be responsible for managing and
administering this fund, will be the friends of the government.
The Reform Party recommends that the new public sector investment
board be comprised of qualified individuals and be accountable
for the board's investment decisions.
This is how the Prime Minister appoints his friends to the
Senate and the superior court.
Bill C-78 will allow the government, particularly the Minister
of Finance, to take $30 billion and say again that it has
balanced the budget, paid down the debt and given Canadians some
long overdue tax relief. That is what the finance minister will
say. He will boast that he is a hero, but he will actually be a
zero. If he did all of these things he would be carrying out the
official opposition's agenda. Remember that in the health sector
alone the government cut over $20 billion in transfers to the
provinces. Now, a few years later, it is boasting, saying that
it will reinvest $11.5 billion of the money which it siphoned off
earlier. The government siphoned off more than $20 billion and
now it is reinvesting $11 billion. That is outrageous.
The official opposition would leave the surplus in the account
and see that it is well managed. There would be a great deal of
consultation between the stakeholders and the government.
There should have been enough time allocated for debate to take
place in the House. Shame on the Liberals.
In the little time I have I will quote from a letter I received
from a constituent of Surrey. It states:
The height of hypocrisy is to take from the working class to line
the pockets of a politician, to make yourselves look good by
reducing the debt by 15 billion dollars and to steal from those
of us who contribute honestly to a pension that we have come to
depend upon for our retirement years.
The letter further states:
We, the regular working Joes and Janes who contribute to this
plan, contribute on a dollar for dollar basis and hope to receive
back that which we have contributed plus the employer's share for
our hard years of service.
If you remove money from any pension fund or EI fund to reduce
the debt you are in fact stealing from the people who have
contributed to the funds for all these years and are defrauding
us of our money when you expect us to pay higher premiums when
they are in fact totally unnecessary. Leave my pension fund
where it is—
The letter concludes by stating:
As the voice of the people in parliament, if you sit by and do
nothing you don't deserve your position of trust and if you allow
the deficit to be paid down by the pension contributions of a few
you are the biggest thief on the face of the earth and you
deserve to be arrested for embezzling my pension money.
That is what my constituent wrote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before we go to
questions and comments, I want to put on the record that the use
of the term “steal” is not something that we like to hear. I
want everyone to know that I am paying particular attention to
how it is used. If anyone uses the term “steal” in a general
way, not referring to a specific individual, a specific ministry
or a specific political party but to government as a whole, I
will consider it to be broad enough to be acceptable. If it is
used in any other context I will not, just so everybody
understands what the ground rules are.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to the hon.
member from the Reform Party talk about the taxpayers' money and
the government's money. It is all one and the same.
The pension plan is guaranteed. It is a legislated plan. It is
guaranteed by the government and by the people of Canada and it
guarantees that the pensioners will get exactly what the pension
dictates. Their 7.5% is guaranteed. Their pension is
guaranteed.
1625
In the public and private sectors, generally, 60% is contributed
by the employer and 40% by the employee. This plan is now 70%
employer and 30% employee. We are still giving the opportunity
over a four year period, starting in 2004, that if the
government, the employer, and the people of Canada believe there
is not enough money in the pension plan because the actuarial
evaluator determines that more money is needed, at that point the
maximum that the contribution from the employee can increase
is .4% per year, and only if it is determined that it is needed.
The hon. member opposite should understand what this legislation
is all about. It would be nice if he had read the legislation,
attended some of the committee meetings and was aware of what
this bill is all about. I wonder if the hon. member understands
some of the precepts in the bill, aside from just having a nice
speech written by someone in his office.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who
asked the question showed some ignorance about how the system
works. That is quite evident on the other side of the House.
That is why they are supporting this bill, although we read in
the newspapers that there are some wise men on that side who
oppose it. There are a few members who understand what this bill
is about and they know to whom this money belongs.
First, I point out to the hon. member that I write my own
speeches. I prepare my speeches and I work hard. I am not like
other members who bring their papers but who speak without them.
Let me point out that the hon. member knows that under the CPP
30 years ago if someone invested $1 the return should have been
$11. Now with that $1 investment we know they are getting 48
cents worth of return from their pension which is managed by the
government formed by his party and which was managed by the other
party that ruled this country. This money belongs to the pension
fund of the employees.
I have received many letters from my constituents who are
worried about their pensions. A few years ago there was a $13
billion shortfall in the pension plan. Who covered that
shortfall? The taxpayers.
Does the member believe that government can raise the premiums
in the pension fund time and again and give a little back to the
senior people who depend on their pension as a small contribution
for what they did? Is this not another tax? Is that how the
hon. member thinks the government should balance the budget? It
has already balanced the budget on the backs of the taxpayers.
Now it wants to score some brownie points during the election
time by using the pension plan money of the employees, performing
some tricks in the accounting of the books and taking money from
the pockets of retired seniors to pay down some debt and give tax
relief.
The government has already cut $20 billion from health care in
transfer payments to the provinces and then it injected $11
billion. It brags that it is injecting $11 billion. Does it not
remember that it cut $20 billion in the first place? Those are
the mathematics the government is using.
Voters do not have short memories. I am sure that the 654,000
pension plan members will remember when it is time to vote.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise to speak again to Bill C-78.
One of the issues we have to address before we talk about the
bill is the fact that closure has been moved and the debate has
been limited. When we look at some of the reasons the government
would want to do that, we see that in its backbenches there is a
bit of a revolt going on with a number of its members saying that
this bill is flawed. They do not like it and they are not going
to support it.
The government also does this to keep things moving along
quickly, so the people across Canada do not have the chance to
respond to their members of parliament and so we do not have a
chance to fully debate the bill in the House.
1630
I think the government also does this to keep some of its own
members from gathering momentum to oppose this. It seems that
the Prime Minister is going to bring out the big stick and make
sure this bill is supported by all members over there. It should
be interesting later on when we vote on this.
We heard earlier that there is nothing to worry about and that
the money will be there. The money is there now. Why do we not
just leave it there? There is a $30 billion surplus in this
account and it is to no credit of the government that it has
accrued. Anytime the government sees a lump of money, it wants
to grab it.
The indication is that this is going to pay the debt, but
actually this law is so vague and silent on this that the surplus
can be used by the President of the Treasury Board to do whatever
he wishes. The government is saying it could go to pay the debt,
but it could go anywhere. Canadians have the right to know where
it is going to go and to what benefit to them.
We have seen huge increases in CPP premiums. They are going to
go up a total of 73% over the next number of years. That still
will not solidify the plan. There is a good possibility that
premiums will be reduced or the age limit will be raised. Besides
that, we have seen the government take the $26 million surplus in
the employment insurance fund.
It seems that every time we see a couple of dollars stuck
together here, and I realize that $26 billion and $30 billion are
huge amounts of money, the government wants to get it and put it
somewhere. I am not sure where it is putting it, but closer to
the next election I imagine we will find out where it has gone.
This bill allows the government to seize the public service fund
surplus. The three funds affected are the public service plan,
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police plan and the Canadian forces
plan.
That $30 billion has built up over the years for a number of
reasons. There is the fact that inflation has been low. The
actuaries projected that inflation would rise and the
contributions would go up and that has not happened. There are
three critical areas. Salary increases have been kept low,
interest rates on investments have been good and inflation is
low.
Frozen wages for six or seven years, whatever it was, is another
thing. Public servants had their wages frozen. They finally got
a little bit of an increase and the government came right back
and said, “Okay, there is $30 billion in your pension fund and
we want to get our hands on it”. This money belongs to the
workers. It should stay where the workers can rely on it.
There have been shortfalls in the past. There could be
shortfalls again. If this money is not there to pick up the
slack, then back we go to another tax to pay for it. That is
what this has turned into. They have not been pension
contributions. They have not been EI premiums. If the
government can take that money without using it for the purpose
it was intended originally, then it is not a contribution or
premium. It is a tax and it should be called that. The
government forgets that this money belongs to the taxpayers and
the employees.
We got into quite a debate a minute ago with a government member
talking about conjugal relationships. The definition of that is
one of the issues that has really caused some concern among
members of our party and all parties.
The courts in the last little while have been creating laws.
That is our job. That is why people voted for us. That is why we
are here, to legislate. When the courts can take that away from
us, when nine appointed judges of the supreme court can start
making laws, then this country has a serious problem and one that
needs to be addressed.
Why would we leave a clause or a word in the bill that is going
to cause concern and that is going to have to go to lawyers and
courts to be defined?
The member for Calgary Centre put forward an amendment to this
bill to take that word out and it was defeated by the government.
The member stated that he has a problem with that word and if it
was not there the bill would be better. Why did the government
not support the amendment when it was put forward?
1635
In this new bill survivors benefits have been expanded to
beneficiaries. The thing that really puzzles me and many in this
country is how we are going to decide if a relationship is
conjugal. If the decision is left to the courts, the whole issue
will be gone over again and again until everybody is somewhat
confused as to what the issue is.
The whole idea of this expanding into relationships of a
conjugal nature throws a whole different slant on the bill which
does not need to be there. As members from all sides have said,
we would have another look at this if that was not in there. It
is there and this will eventually end up back in the courts where
another decision will be made by the appointed judges. This is
where the problem exists. We as legislators are not allowed to
make the laws but instead it is the judges.
The people who came to see me from my riding who belong to this
pension plan are very concerned. There was some representation
from each of the affected funds. These people who are drawing
from the pension wanted time to get together to talk to other
members from across the country because they are concerned.
They do not have the time because of the haste with which the
government wants to move this bill through so it can get its
hands on the money.
That concern should not be there. People who belong to this
pension should feel very secure. They should be able to raise
the questions that need to be raised so we can relate to them
what the issues are and that they do not need to worry, but we do
not have that time.
I believe that if a pension plan has built up a surplus of $30
billion we would have some degree of comfort if things changed,
if there was a downturn in the economy, if something happened
that the outgoing funds were higher than the incoming, we would
have a bit of a surplus. That is gone. If money is not
available to pay these people of course they are going to be
worried.
If we compound the public service pension surplus being taken by
the government with the concern that the CPP might not be
available for people when they retire, it adds up. People have a
right to feel secure in their retirement after putting money in
for years.
The whole idea that the President of the Treasury Board has the
authority to take this surplus and use it as he wishes is not
right. The pensioners who are coming forward are very concerned
with this. They have a real point that there is no
accountability here. The fact that closure has been brought in
on this bill and they have not had time to put forward all their
concerns is not what this House is all about. That is not why we
were elected by our constituents.
We oppose this bill. We feel that the money that is in the fund
should remain right where it is.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Halifax West, National Defense; the hon. member
for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Fisheries and
Oceans; the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Nav Canada.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to enter into this debate. I want to take this
opportunity to say how miffed I am.
Is miffed a parliamentary word, because I am miffed. I am upset
that the government is so anxious, as my colleague has just said,
to get its claws on this money before anyone wakes up to what it
is doing, It will all be swept under the rug. The government
will get its spin doctors out there and everyone will be talking
about it.
1640
I am not even permitted to give my speech. I have one ready but
it looks as if I am not going to get on because the government
has said, “We are not going to listen to any reason. We are just
going to do what we want to do. We are the government. We know
everything. We know best”.
The fact is that the recipients and the people who are still
paying into this pension are concerned. I am very disappointed
that the government, just because it has a slim majority, thinks
it can jam things through. How dreadful it is that the Prime
Minister is forcing these people to vote whether they want to or
not in the way of the minister.
I would like my colleague who gave such an excellent speech on
this topic to comment a little about the lack of parliamentary
process in this issue as with many issues that the government
deals with.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Elk Island for his question.
The crux of the issue on this bill and on many other bills that
we have dealt with in the House is the limit on debate. When the
present government members were in opposition at any time the
sitting government brought in closure they screamed bloody murder
and rightfully so. It is a breach of the trust that Canadians
have in this House.
The last time I rose to speak on this bill closure had been
voted on that day. A number of people come to the gallery, come
to see this place as the seat of democracy and the seat of
government in the country. For them to realize what was going on
here, we were being muzzled as their representatives in a
democracy. We were being limited in the amount of time that we
had to debate this bill. I think that is atrocious. It seems
that every report that comes from a committee gets leaked before
it is reported to the House. So many things go on that some days
we wonder about the relevance of this place. We have to keep
pinching ourselves to make sure that what we are seeing is real.
We have to have the support and the backing of our constituents.
To have the government bring in closure time after time stifles
us so that we cannot perform our job in the proper way. I find
it very objectionable as I am sure do many others in the House.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the same people
say the same thing time after time. They wanted six months to
expand on what they have said the last few times. It is a lot
of—I cannot say hot air because that is unparliamentary—but it
is interesting how incensed some of the hon. members on the other
side portray their concern for the employees and the unions.
It is interesting that during the committee meetings not one of
them came to show their interest, their concern or their
questions and to be enlightened on the legislation that is before
us, as compared to showing here for the TV cameras their great
concern and again, I will not say the word hot air.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I sit on the environment
committee. I will put up the number of hours I was in committee
in the last year against that member's any time. I am here to
represent the constituents of Lethbridge. When they come to me
with a problem with this bill, I come to the House to debate it.
If I was not at that committee, that is too bad because I was at
another committee doing my job there. When the environment bill,
the CEPA bill, comes into the House, if that member wants to
stick around and learn something about the environment, we will
enlighten him too.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
that you will find unanimous consent that the hoist motion in my
name with regard to Bill C-260 be deemed to have been withdrawn
and the question on the main motion to have been deemed put, a
division thereon requested and deferred to the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders today.
1645
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion as presented by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Prime Minister. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
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 Sector 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 third time and passed.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Scarborough
East.
We have before the House third reading of Bill C-78, an act to
amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act.
The proposed amendments touch the full range of pension
operations, benefits, contributions and plan administration. The
underlying thrust of all these proposed amendments is to ensure
the long term sustainability and stability of the Canadian public
service pension plans.
I propose in my comments to direct my remarks to one particular
aspect of these amendments, and that is the proposed changes to
employee contribution rates. Before I discuss the proposed
changes it is important for me to give a brief overview of the
existing contribution rate provisions.
A review of the existing legislative provisions will provide a
rationale and context for the proposed amendments. Under the
existing legislative provisions employee contributions to the
Canada pension plan, the CPP, and the public service pension
plans are now integrated. What does the integration mean? It
means the existing integration feature is such that the total
contribution rate for an employee is 7.5% of pay composed of both
the contributions to the CPP and the public service pension
plans.
For an employee earning the average wage the contribution of the
public service plans would be 7.5% minus the CPP contribution
rate, currently 3.5% of pay, which then equals 4.0% of the pay.
To the extent that the CPP contribution rates increase there is
an equivalent decline in public service pension plan contribution
rates to preserve the constraint that the maximum pension
contributions equal 7.5% of pay. In the past with periods of
relative stability in contribution rates this integrated formula
has served the public service pension plans well.
However, under the integrated contribution rate structure the
increase in CPP contribution rates beginning in 1987 has
distorted the distribution of employee contributions going to the
CPP and the public service pension plans. Under the integrated
structure the impact of increases in CPP rates has been such that
for employees earning the average wage contributions to the
public service pension plans have declined from 5.7% of pay in
1986 to 4.0% of pay in 1999.
To reiterate, over the past decade individual employee
contribution rates for the CPP have gone up while those for the
public service pension plans have declined. What are the
implications of this shift in the distribution of employee
contributions between the CPP and the public service pension
plans?
To this point I have discussed only employee contribution rates.
On the other side of the coin I will discuss a little about
employer contributions, that is the contribution of the federal
government in its role as employer.
Existing legislation for the public service pension plans is
such that the employer must ensure that the various accounts for
the public service pension plans are credited with an amount
equal to the total cost of entitlements accrued by employees in
that year. In other words, the federal government is responsible
for the total costs of the plan in a given year less the employee
contributions, and as a consequence the declining employee
contribution rates. The federal government and by extension all
taxpayers have had to shoulder an ever increasing share of the
cost of employee pension plans.
I will use the pension plan under the Public Service
Superannuation Act as an example. Over the last three decades the
financing of that plan has averaged approximately 60% employer
funding and 40% employee funding. More recently that
distribution has shifted rather dramatically.
1650
For 1999 the distribution is approximately 70% employer and 30%
employee. Next year in the absence of any changes to the
legislation it is projected that the distribution of the
financing of the PSSA plan will shift to approximately 75:25, and
by the year 2003 it will be an 80:20 split.
The ongoing shift in the cost of the pension plan to the
employer is simply not sustainable. It clearly puts the
sustainability of the existing plan at risk unless changes are
made. It is our intention to introduce the necessary changes to
the contribution rate structure to preserve the long term
sustainability of the public service pension plans. With the
amendments proposed in the bill contribution rates for the public
service pension plans and the Canada pension plan will no longer
be integrated. In other words, the public service contribution
rates will henceforth be set independently and there will be no
overall maximum contribution rate.
In addition there will be a two tier contribution rate
structured to more directly match contribution rates with
different benefit accruals below and above the average wage as
defined by the CPP. The government recognizes that there will be
a financial impact on employees as a result of these changes.
In order to facilitate the movement to a long term sustainable
pension plan environment, the government is proposing to freeze
employee contribution rates to public service pension plans over
the period 2000 to 2003 inclusive. Over this period employee
contributions on earnings below the average wage as defined by
the CPP will continue at the present 1999 rate of 4%.
Contributions on earnings above that average will continue at the
present rate of 7.5%.
It must be understood however that even though federal employees
will thus be spared any increases in contribution rates for their
public service pensions from 2000 to 2003, they will nevertheless
be subject to the Canada pension plan rate increases schedule for
that period, the same CPP rate hike and increases to which all
Canadians alike will be subject. Through integration of
contributions federal employees in effect have been sheltered
from such increases in the past. Now they will have to pay them
like all the rest of us.
Fortunately the CPP rate is scheduled to stabilize in the year
2004 as a result of good government planning. What will be the
public service plan rates then? They will rise in 2004 after
being frozen for four years. Maybe not. Maybe possibly but not
necessarily. That is important to note.
For the year 2004 and beyond the Treasury Board will set the
contribution rate structure with the intention of returning the
cost sharing ratio gradually to the historic average of
approximately 60:40 between employer and employees. The employer
would continue to assume the larger share.
Employee contribution rate increases may or may not be necessary
from 2004 on depending on a number of variables. However, any
necessary increases would be gradual. For example, members of
the pension plan under the Public Service Superannuation Act can
rest assured that no increases in their public service pension
contribution rate will be greater than an additional 0.4% per
year after 2003. If an increase proves necessary in 2004, the
contribution rate will still not be more than 7.9% of the
employee's salary. That is the previous rate of 7.5% plus the
maximum possible increase of 0.4%.
PSSA plan members can rest assured under the amended legislation
that their employee's share of current service costs for their
pension plan would never exceed 40%. In other words their
contribution rates will not be increased beyond the point where
they are paying their historic average cost share of 40%. The
historical average therefore will also be limited under the
amended legislation.
As for members of the other two public service plans under the
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Superannuation Act, it has to be noted that the cost share
between employer and employee is not the same and that the
employer is paying the larger percentage of the cost.
However, the legislation will provide that the contribution rates
of participating members to these plans will not exceed those of
PSSA members.
1655
Amendments to the contribution rate structure are one component
of the package of changes required to ensure the long term
sustainability of the public service pension plans. The bill
provides as part of the comprehensive package of amendments the
required changes in the contribution rate structure to ensure
that the public service pension plans will be sustained over a
long period of time. I think that is important to note and I
would ask all members to vote accordingly on this very important
bill.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have my own hoist motion in process as we speak. I would like to
say at the outset that I support the general principle of the
bill. However I would like to deal with the controversial
section concerning survivor benefits.
One feels a little like treading into an area where angels fear
to tread. It is my view that overall parliament has been silent
too long on this issue and has by its neglect deferred to others
in this area of intense controversy among Canadians. The
relevant section that is appropriate to this discussion is 29.4
which reads:
For the purposes of this Part, when a person establishes that he
or she was cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with
the contributor for at least one year immediately before the
death of the contributor, the person is considered to be the
survivor of the contributor.
There are various other supporting sections which we do not need
to go to. The obvious issue here is whether there has been an
extension of application of survivor benefits to same sex
partners who are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for at
least one year prior to the plan member's death. It may well be
argued that this is simply reflective of trends in judicial
authorities and the government is responding to those trends.
However, I would like to speak to the issue of institutional
competence to decide such a unique and profound issue of great
controversy for many Canadians.
The leading decision in the area is Egan and Nesbit which
challenged the spousal allowance provisions of the Old Age
Security Act. In May 1995 the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed
the appeal of Egan and Nesbit by a 5:4 margin. The court however
was unanimous in its ruling that sexual orientation was an
analogous ground and that it triggered a section 15 protection. A
5:4 majority of the court also found the spousal issue
discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and therefore
infringed section 15 of the charter. However, a different 5:4
majority found that the discrimination was justified under
section 1 of the charter.
The conclusion appeared to be based, in part at least, on the
view that the court should be reluctant to interfere in
parliament's choice in respect to socioeconomic pieces of
legislation. In summary, unanimously it discriminates; 5:4,
section 15 is triggered; and a different 5:4, a justified
discrimination.
It is quite obvious there was a very divided court. It however
had the wisdom to offer this advice to parliament in May 1995
when the decision was rendered:
The issue of how the term spouse should be defined is a
fundamental social policy issue and parliament should decide it
and parliament should listen to and balance the competing social
issues, the philosophical issues, the legal, moral, theological
issues that go into this definitional process. The court
shouldn't be deciding it. Parliament should be deciding it and
the court should defer to parliament.
This is hardly enthusiasm on the part of the court to assume a
jurisdictional area of competence.
The next leading case is Rosenberg which the government chose
not to appeal. It basically showed that the court of appeal was
a little fed up with parliament. It had a case before it and was
to define or decide the issue. In turn it found that the
definition of a spouse could include same sex spouses.
If parliament does not decide these issues a fair conclusion is
that the courts will take over. In my view that effectively
shuts out the voice of the people of Canada. The chattering
classes get to have their say on what they think is the proper
definition of a spouse or a conjugal relationship.
The courts can have their say as to what constitutes a conjugal
relationships but the people of Canada and parliament do not get
to have their say.
1700
This issue continues to percolate up to parliament in a variety
of ways and the most obvious is the bill before us.
In Bill C-78 the issue of conjugal relationship one year prior
to death gets defined through the back door by simply saying
nothing. It effectively defers to the latest decision of the
supreme court or the court of appeal as the case may be with
respect to what constitutes a spousal relationship. This
constitutes a complete abdication of our responsibility as
parliamentarians. It is a delegation of authority to a
bureaucracy with no accountability and that, frankly, is not what
I was elected to do nor, I dare say, were you, Madam Speaker.
Another area in which this has arisen recently is with respect
to Bill C-63, which delegates the definition of spouse to an
order in council. Essentially, what that means is that instead
of dealing with it in a straightforward manner, the minister,
through the order in council, gets to define what a spouse is for
the purposes of the legislation.
In my view this is back door legislation through regulation. It
is a delegation and an abrogation of parliament's
responsibilities which is inappropriate and for which all
parliamentarians should be very worried.
This is essentially an issue of jurisdictional competency. The
courts have clearly said that they are prepared to defer to
parliament on what the definition is of conjugal relationship or
the definition of spouse as the case may be providing that
parliament makes the decision.
In the four years since Egan and Nesbit, parliament has not made
the decision, is reluctant to make the decision and, in part,
probably because of political correctness and pure controversy,
but nevertheless a clear refusal to accept its role. As a
consequence, the Supreme Court of Canada and courts of appeal in
other various provinces have stepped into the vacuum.
We are then left with the definitions to be whatever a
particular civil servant thinks the definition should be on a
case by case basis. Through a closed door framework of
regulatory power or keeping an eye on the latest particular
decision of any court in the land then it is an ever revolving
decision. Once the decision of a spouse or a conjugal
relationship is delegated to a judicial process it will be
forever delegated and the people of Canada will not have any say
in the process.
Fundamentally, this is about the rule of law and the role of
parliament in deciding the issues of our time. This is an issue
of significant religious, philosophical and moral consequence
which parliament and parliament alone is unique in its ability to
balance the competing social issues that come to the table.
Only parliament has a committee process that enables all aspects
of these kinds of questions to be analyzed. Only parliament can
recognize that the implications of a definition are much broader
than the particular individual case before it. Only parliament
can reflect on the wishes of its constituents.
In my view, this issue continues to be decided by parliament and
needs to be decided by parliament and parliament alone. We are a
democratic society. We are subject to the rule of law and we do
have various institutions at various levels of competence to deal
with various issues.
It is clear that the Supreme Court of Canada is quite willing to
defer to the Parliament of Canada on these issues. I have only
to note that in the Lavigne decision it was a very split court.
When the issues then cycle back up before the Supreme Court of
Canada, which they inevitably will, they will weigh the debate.
On the basis of where there is a rational basis of a definition,
it must be shown that it is proportionate and not at all applied
arbitrarily.
If parliament ducks the issue then the courts are left in a void
and they or their bureaucrats can make up a definition as they go
along. Just because this is a politically difficult issue does
not mean that parliament should duck it.
I am told that there is omnibus legislation on the way. This is
quite curious. At this point in time parliament has never spoken
on the issue so the drafter of the omnibus bill will only have
before him or her interpretations of various courts and other
relevant issues. It will not therefore become a big surprise
that the proposed legislation will reflect the current state of
the law.
1705
This would be a great mistake in my view because the drafter of
the legislation would not then have had the benefit of
parliamentary debate.
In my view the debate should come first, the drafting of the
bill second and the debate on the bill third. Once that is
completed, the various amendments applicable to Bill C-63 or Bill
C-78, as the case may be, and various other pieces of legislation
will be amended accordingly.
It is my view that this is a matter of process and the process
is completely backward. It should be a process that firstly
debates an issue then produces an omnibus bill and then informs
all other pieces of legislation.
Parliament should provide guidance to the courts but it has
clearly shown an unwillingness to step into this void even when
courts are willing to defer to parliament.
My view on same sex benefits is quite irrelevant. This is a
matter of process, of institutional confidence and of the rule of
law.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was
listening very carefully to what the member was saying. It is
rather refreshing to hear a member from the government side put
the issues fairly straightforward on the table. I wonder if the
member has any idea how we can correct this abdication of
responsibility by parliament?
We have had a number of occasions where private members' bills
on this very issue have been brought forward. Private members'
bills are by and large called free votes and in those occurrences
members present have voted against them fairly reflecting the
wishes of the Canadian public.
Four or five years ago there was a private member's bill on the
issue of benefits for same sex couples. As I recall there were
18 Liberals out of 177 at that time who voted for the bill and
the rest against it. That was democracy at work. That was
parliament speaking on behalf of the Canadian population, on
behalf of the voters, saying that it was not ready for this
because it was contrary to what many members believed and what
constituents were saying. It was just not going to do it.
Members would vote against it or they would stay away.
We now have this closure situation and whipped votes. Democracy
is really being brushed aside while a few people with an agenda
seem to be getting their way.
I know I am putting the member on the spot but does he have any
ideas on how we can improve how this place works and improve its
democratic process?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, my view is that it is
irrelevant what one's view is on the issue. There are two ways
to get legislation into the House: first, by means of a private
member's bill; and second, by means of the government.
I think at this point the legislation is premature. In my view
we debate first, draft the legislation second and then debate the
legislation on an issue of such controversy. Once that is done
the government would be informed as to the proper decisions to be
made in the drafting of the omnibus bill. The drafting of a bill
is a little like a tree. Once one makes one decision then
several other logical decisions follow. If another decision is
made several other logical conclusions follow.
I will put the hon. member back on the spot by saying that he
should suggest to his leader that one of their supply days be
used for this issue so that it can be debated then. Presumably
we will have the view of members on the record and those views
would in turn inform the drafter of the bill. The drafter of the
bill would then present to the government and to the minister a
bill which I would think would be a stronger bill and closer to
some level of consensus.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member's speech and his answer is a reasonable one. I would
like to ask a very short question. What difference will it make
if the vote today goes the way the government members will be
whipped?
1710
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is
presuming on the way in which the vote will go and on whether it
is or is not a whipped vote. Just because a vote is whipped does
not necessarily mean that people are all subject to the views of
the government. That is just simply a reality of politics in the
Chamber.
I would, however, indicate to the hon. member that in the
absence of an amendment, the bill will in fact create something
of a precedent and that precedent will be difficult to deal with
ex post facto either by way of an omnibus bill or by way of
amending legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Frontenac—Mégantic.
I am pleased to rise at third reading to speak to Bill C-78 , an
act to establish the Public Service Pension Investment Board, to
amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act,
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada
Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another Act.
As I said in the House at report stage, Bill C-78 is of
particular interest to me.
On many occasions I have risen in this House on behalf of the
elderly and senior citizens organizations to defend their
interests.
Moreover I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact
that this week is dedicated to senior citizens, to the
Fédération de l'âge d'or. As a matter of fact, I will probably
rise in the House during Statements by Members to stress the
contribution of seniors to society.
This bill is aimed at making changes to the public sector
pension plans, and contrary to what the President of the
Treasury Board said, these changes are of great concern to
federal employees and retirees. Obviously the Bloc Quebecois is
opposed to this bill.
In 1997, the life expectancy of Canadians and Quebecers reached
unprecedented levels for both men and women.
Life expectancy is 81.4 years for women, and 75.8 years for men.
Canada comes fourth among countries where people live the
longest. However, sadly, in 1997, the number of suicides in
Quebec accounted for 37% of the total number of suicides
registered across Canada.
Over the past few years a $30 billion surplus has accumulated in
the public service, RCMP and National Defence pension plans. The
Bloc Quebecois cannot accept that the federal government
unilaterally decided to make major changes to its employees'
pension plans.
The Bloc Quebecois has been very consistent in what it has been
saying about pension plans. Pension plans should not be changed
to the detriment of senior citizens.
In Quebec, the majority of
people over 50 would like to see some kind of legislation to
protect senior citizens.
A draft version of the bill had previously been introduced.
François Legault, not the provincial minister but the current
president of the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, the FADOQ,
is showing an interest in this bill.
According to a Léger &
Léger poll conducted on behalf of the Commission des services
juridiques, 93% of the 1,009 respondents said they were in
favour of the urgent implementation of an act to protect the
elderly.
These results are in stark contrast with the opinion, held until
recently, that seniors do not want to be regulated by an act
similar to the legislation for young people, because it might
make them feel like children.
As a spokesperson for the elderly, I agree that they should be
better protected.
It is definitely not the first time that the
federal government tries to reduce its debt at the expense of
our seniors.
The elderly have always reacted strongly.
There is clearly a similarity between the control exerted by the
federal government on the employment insurance surplus that has
been growing in recent years. The government claims, wrongly so,
that this surplus belongs to it, like the surplus targeted with
Bill C-78.
1715
The promise to have joint management of public sector pension
plans is very important to the Bloc Quebecois, and a lot of
people are asking the government to keep its promise. There must
be a management board made up of representatives of the
employer, employees as well as retirees.
As I said previously in this House, unfortunately, Bill C-78 does
nothing to make that promise come true.
It is only normal for seniors to claim their share. This
unilateral appropriation of funds to the tune of $30 billion by
the government is an insult.
The surplus belongs to both the employer and the employees, not
to the government.
Let us not forget that 1999 is the International Year of the
Elderly. Moreover, this week is Senior Citizens' Week. I would
also like to remind members that the fourth world conference on
ageing will be held in Montreal, at the convention centre,
September 5 to 9, 1999. I hope I got my message across.
As I was saying the last time I spoke to Bill C-78 in this House,
a stamp honouring the elderly is not enough. Let us not forget
that, this year, the theme for International Women's Day was
“Going Strong—Celebrating Older Women”. Retired women, who
often form the majority, are sometimes and even often the
poorest.
The Bloc Quebecois has spoken on many occasions in the past
against interference by the federal government. The Bloc
Quebecois is against Bill C-78 because it allows the government
to appropriate the $30 billion surplus in the public sector
pension plans, just as it did, unfortunately, with the
employment insurance surplus.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what the member had to say about
Bill C-78.
There is one point he did not address. However, I would like
his opinion. Would this not be just what private businesses
were waiting for? Might certain companies not want to follow
the federal government's lead and do what they liked with
pension funds?
It would be a bit like what happened in Black Lake and Thetford
with the asbestos company, which helped itself to some of the
surplus in the pension fund.
The member for Laval East mentions the Singer company. I am
told that three quarters of the employees are now dead, or will
not have the full benefit of their pensions.
The company has been dragging the process out before the courts.
Employees are being told that, if they do not see the results,
their legal heirs will, as if that were any comfort.
I would like my colleague to go into greater detail on the
example that the President of the Treasury Board is setting for
the private sector.
Mr. Maurice Dumas: Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my
colleague from Frontenac—Megantic that he is absolutely right.
When the example comes from higher up we follow it generally.
This government has always arranged things so as to be able to
take pension money. He gave the example of the Singer company,
in particular. These people lost their retirement fund. It took
a court decision to get the company to return the money to its
employees.
Unfortunately, things went on so long that many of these
employees have died over the years. I do not think there are
many left now to recover their pension money.
My colleague is absolutely right, when the example comes from up
above, we tend to follow it. I fear that some companies will do
as he mentioned and imitate the government.
1720
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I congratulate my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his
comments.
I want primarily to make comments, and if my colleague cares to
reply, he is welcome to do so. I agree with him that our
government, as I was saying also, is nevertheless fairly
creative and managed legally to take money belonging to the
workers and employers in the employment insurance fund. The
surplus amounted to $25 billion. This money should be used to
help provide training and to assist those who no longer have a
job.
Today, we see that fewer than 40% of the unemployed qualify for
the employment insurance program.
In the regions in the Atlantic provinces, including in New
Brunswick and in my riding or elsewhere, as well as in Quebec,
many people are suffering terribly as the result of cuts to the
employment insurance program. It is also clear that the Liberal
government cares little for people who need help.
The government has discovered a fund with a surplus of $30
billion. We must admit that the Minister of Finance has the
ability to make us think that we are paying for one thing and
then use the money for something else.
I wonder whether my colleague agrees that, once again, this
government has found the way to take $30 billion that does not
belong to it but rather to workers and retired people. Does he
not think that there is probably a good way to describe what the
government is doing today, but which we cannot utter in the
House?
Mr. Maurice Dumas: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the
comments by the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, in New
Brunswick. Even before she was elected an MP, I know she was
involved in helping people. I heard her speak often in
connection with all sorts of activities in her area of Acadia,
and her name was already familiar with me.
I must also say that there will be many women among the victims
of this government's craze to get its hands on money that does
not belong to it—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. member.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, for his fine speech on the President
of Treasury Board's intentions to get his hands on the loot,
somewhat in the same way as the Minister of Finance did with the
employment insurance fund.
I am looking at the figures here. Going back 20 months, the
surplus was $30.2 billion, and if the trend continues, a quick
calculation would indicate that it must be pretty close to $33
billion. It is no longer $30 billion, but close to $33 billion.
Where does this surplus come from? The public service has
contributed $14.9 billion, the RCMP $2.4 billion, and finally
the Canadian Armed Forces $12.9 billion. Adding all this up, it
comes to a surplus of $30.2 billion.
Those were the figures as at March 31, 1998, just about 20
months ago. With the projection, I would suggest that the
figure would now be $33 billion.
The President of Treasury Board, before being appointed
Ambassador to Paris, wants to make his time here in the House of
Commons worthwhile by doing something memorable. He is getting
ready to deliberately get his hands on this money. Now a
committee is going to be struck to administer this surplus, with
some friends of the government of course, as was done with André
Ouellet, the former member for Papineau—Saint-Michel.
1725
He was appointed chairman of the Canada Post Corporation, with a
salary that far exceeds what he was earning as a federal
minister, without having to be concerned about voters but with
trips all over the world to see how postal services operate in
other countries.
So, the President of the Treasury Board is about to set up a new
committee to manage the surpluses, but that committee will
include very few workers. The minister even neglected to consult
the unions of the three groups to find out how these surpluses
could be managed.
Also, we learned on March 31, 1998, that $3.1 billion must be
paid to retirees, while $1.8 billion is coming into the fund.
One might think that if the fund must pay $3.1 billion in
pensions while receiving only $1.8 billion in contributions, it
will get smaller every year. Not so. A fund of that magnitude
can easily earn in excess of 10% annually, without any risk.
At a rate of 10%, an amount of $33 billion will earn $3.3
billion. The current outlay is $3.1 billion. This means that the
interest alone provides enough money to pay the pensions to
retirees. In fact, the government could even decide right now to
give a contribution holiday to all employees of the public
service, RCMP and Canadian armed forces. It is worth doing the
calculating.
The President of the Treasury Board, and member for Hull—Aylmer,
is about to get his hands on $33 billion. What will he do with
that money? Perhaps he will do like the government did with the
employment insurance surplus.
Sixty per cent of workers pay EI premiums but, when they apply
for benefits, unfortunately six out of ten do not qualify. They
are told that they must pay premiums of $2.55 on every $100 of
insurable earnings but that they will not qualify for benefits.
Barely four out of ten qualify for benefits, and those benefits
are for increasingly short periods and increasingly small
amounts.
Clearly, the Minister of Human Resources Development, whom the
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouta—Les Basques
sometimes refers to as the wise guy, led a very sheltered life.
He has no idea what it means to earn $8 or $10 an hour. He had
everything handed to him and now he is after the $21 billion
surplus built up by workers in the past four years. It is truly
scandalous.
To get back to Bill C-78, I would like to tell the House about a
very sad case. This is something that is going on in the riding
of my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, with former Singer
employees. I am sure members will remember Singer sewing
machines. When I was young, my mother always had a Singer.
Employees of this famous multinational cannot get at their
pension fund because of the federal government's refusal to
help.
On the weekend, I was speaking to one of my friends, a former
SAL employee and BC mine worker. His name is Charles Lacroix.
He told me he began working in the asbestos mines on November
21, 1970, while he was still very young. Year after year, he
paid into the pension fund.
1730
Of course he did not contribute much, but the company
contributed 19 times as much as Charles. The matter of the
employees' pension fund has not been settled yet. The
corporation was replaced by a limited partnership called Lab
Chrysotile. The matter of the pension fund is still before the
courts. Workers are getting nothing from their pension fund, the
matter has been dragging on for the past 13 years.
Does it not sound like Singer, though not as bad? I am told that
the majority of Singer's former employees are either dead or
very old. If tomorrow morning they were given $30,000 or
$50,000, they could not make full use of it. The ball is in the
government's court; it is wilfully delaying any settlement.
The matter has been before the courts for I do not know how many
years. The member for Saint-Jean talked about this earlier this
morning. He might do it again.
The employees of the corporation, the asbestos company, of Lab
Chrysotile, of Mazarin, which is part of this group, are having
problems. The matter is before the courts, to the delight of the
lawyers. We know who makes the laws around here. It is not the
lawyers. “You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours”. This is
what is going on. Unfortunately, it is always the most
vulnerable members of society who foot the bill.
This is exactly what is going on with the employment insurance.
Doug Young learned his lesson on June 2, 1997. He got his
answer. I congratulate the men and women who ran for the New
Democratic Party in New Brunswick, and defeated Dominique
LeBlanc, who was on the same wave length as Doug Young.
This does not mean Doug Young is unemployed. He is in cahoots
with the local premier and he will make as much money, if not
more, through raising a toll on highways over there.
I thank and congratulate the men and women who worked hard to
bring some order back to New Brunswick and get rid of braggarts
like Doug Young.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his clear presentation. It is always interesting
to listen to him. His comments always carry a very political
dimension. I am a great admirer of the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic.
He referred to the Singer workers. People think that the case of
Singer workers was settled. It was said that Singer workers
settled in court, that the case was closed. But there is still
an outstanding issue. I am taking this opportunity to tell
voters who are listening to us that, from 1942 to 1967, the
federal government was responsible for that fund. It allowed the
employer to stop paying contributions and, in the end, the
employer made off with the money.
In 1994, the Bloc Quebecois began asking questions. The various
ministers kept saying that the issue did not come under their
responsibility. One can understand why.
Does the hon. member agree that Singer workers were the first
victims of what is happening today? The government could see
that the surplus was growing, but was unable to tell Singer
workers “We recognize that we have a responsibility, we will pay
you”. Instead, the government said “No, we do not want to pay
you. We have no responsibility in this”. I have always thought
the government was already thinking about getting its hands on
the pot, as it is doing now.
Does the hon. member agree that Singer workers are the first
victims of what is going on today?
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, you were in this House.
Going right back to October 25, 1993, the valiant member for
Saint-Jean rose in this House every week to ask questions, of
Doug Young in particular, and then his successor, to get him to
settle the matter of the former Singer employees as promptly as
possible. Here we are in 1999, and it is still not settled. It
is now May 25.
1735
That member deserves recognition, and got it last June 2 from
his constituents.
Do you know what the President of Treasury Board wants? He
wants to set up a board with friends of the regime. But what
sort of board will it be? One made up of cronies of the regime,
of course.
One need only look at the quality and the savoir-faire of the
Minister responsible for Francophonie last week—hon. members know
they want to get rid of her—when she met with representatives and
heads of state of the various francophone countries throughout
the world in Paris, along with my good buddy Jacques Roy. They
want to get rid of him too, in an exchange for the President of
Treasury Board, in a sort of musical chairs.
I do not know whether the member from Acadia, who is here, has
heard of the situation. They were talking about it this morning
on the radio. The Minister responsible for he Francophonie—an
insult to Acadians—did not even know the year the Acadians were
deported. Our Minister responsible for the Francophonie
dishonoured us in Paris.
Jacques Roy, fortunately, set the matter straight. In a few
years, she will talk about a “small deportation”. What is going
on now in Kosovo is exactly what happened in 1755 in Acadia,
except there were no television cameras then. It is exactly the
same thing. A people was destroyed. They tried to eradicate it.
The minister said “It was some time in the 17th century”. She is
out by a century. When you're in the 20th century and you are
out by a century it is a 5% error. For the Minister responsible
for the Francophonie, this in unforgivable. Fortunately, Jacques
Roy was there to set things straight.
I would, in the period reserved for questions and comments, like
to give my colleague, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, the
opportunity to add to this. She is entitled, while she questions
me.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
must admit that I took the plane early this morning, and I was
not aware that the minister did not know that the deportation
took place in 1755. Everyone in Acadia knows that.
However this is simply more proof that a number of ministers in
cabinet know nothing of us. It was the same thing with Doug
Young, as my hon. colleague indicated. He did indeed get a
one-way ticket, but it is unfortunate that he took advantage of
people, with the help of his colleague Camille Thériault, who
made himself many millions in New Brunswick. Perhaps we will
resolve that on June 7 as well.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would simply suggest to the
Prime Minister that he dismiss his Minister responsible for the
Francophonie right away. She has done a disservice to Acadians
and to all Francophones, especially Quebecers in Canada. She has
not represented us well, she does not deserve her position. She
must be dismissed immediately. Hats off to Jacques Roy, who set
things straight. Fortunately he was there.
[English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak at third
reading of Bill C-78. This bill ensures the long term viability
of public sector pension plans and puts them on a more solid
footing by introducing the investment of contributions in public
markets.
Experience has shown that investments in the markets yield a
better rate of return, which tends to reduce the costs of the
plans. Under the current legislation investment of contributions
is limited to government bonds.
Bill C-78 also establishes an investment board, independent of
the government, that will be responsible for investing
contributions in accordance with the interests of the
participants in the plans. Its obligations and authority are set
out in the bill to ensure its independence and also its
accountability.
The bill also contains provisions to ensure that it is an
effective operation.
1740
With regard to the investment board, it has been suggested that
its directors should be appointed as the governor in council sees
fit. Other parties have expressed concern that these
appointments would give the government an opportunity to practise
patronage. The bill provides that directors be appointed to hold
office during good behaviour for a three year period. Directors'
terms of office may be renewed for one additional term. The
appointment process set out in the bill shows clearly that our
intention is to ensure that directors are competent and
independent from government.
We have been blamed for failing to include the participants in
these pension plans in managing the plans. The provisions of the
bill show us that such is not the case. Current and retired
employees will be represented in the management of the pension
plans through advisory committees that will henceforth be
mandatory.
These committees are comprised of representatives of employees
and retired employees. These committees will also participate in
appointing the directors of the public sector investment board.
They will be able to appoint a certain number of members of the
nominating committee which recommends candidates for the
positions of directors of the board.
During debates in the House and in the committee we were
reproached for failing to consult sufficiently with stakeholders.
As we have indicated, we consulted with participants and with
retired employees through advisory committees on the plans for a
number of years. The need to make changes was recognized by the
advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act in
its 1996 report.
The President of the Treasury Board even established an advisory
committee to arrive at an agreement on a new framework for
managing and financing these plans. This committee, comprised of
representatives of employees, associations of retired employees,
representatives of the RCMP and the Canadian forces, met last
year on a regular basis. As we know, although there has been
agreement on most of the changes proposed through this bill,
these consultations have stumbled over the disposition of the
actual surplus in the plans. The government thus had to take the
necessary decisions and move forward by proposing improvements to
the financial management of the plans.
The bill also contains provisions pertaining to the management
of the plans. It takes into account the interests of the
participants, retired employees and the Canadian taxpayers as
well. It reflects most of the elements on which we had agreed in
principle.
The proposal in the bill that pertains to the disposition of the
current surplus has aroused strong criticism from certain
quarters. However, the public, and thus the Canadian taxpayer,
supports the government's position on this question. This
position is supported by court decisions as well as by the
opinions of actuaries and other pension specialists. Many
newspapers have also indicated their support for the government's
position.
We have also been blamed for failing to make public sector
pension plans subject to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. The
objective of this legislation is to protect participants in
employers' pension plans in areas of activity under federal
jurisdiction. The Public Service Superannuation Act already
provides equivalent protection to the participants in these
plans.
Further to this bill, it has been contended that private sector
employers would exert pressure to obtain funds from the pension
plans set up for their employees. However, such cannot be the
case. It would be hard to imagine provincial governments, which
are responsible for employers' pension plans in areas of activity
under provincial jurisdiction, allowing private sector employers
to withdraw funds from the pension accounts they administer in a
fiduciary capacity.
1745
We believe that the plans as amended by this bill will be placed
on a solid footing which will permit co-management once the
participants are ready to assume their share of the management
and risks which are a part of any pension plan. The government
remains open to that possibility.
As did the President of the Treasury Board, I can reassure
public service employees this bill will be advantageous to them.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to have the opportunity to ask a question with respect to this
bill. It is one that I just cannot seem to get an answer to.
A number of people are really concerned about this bill. Two
very widely disparate issues are at stake here. One is the
definition of survivor. The other issue is from those people who
have paid into and are benefiting potentially from this pension
plan. I would like to find out from anybody on the other side,
including the member who just spoke, if their assurances that
everything is fine are really genuine and to be believed, then
why are so many people so deeply concerned about this?
Furthermore, if the Liberals' position is defensible, then why
are they not willing to debate it at length? Why is there
closure at every stage on a bill as important as this one?
Clearly, if it is defensible, I would think they would want to
have a longer time for debate so that the truth in the matter
could come out and people could be persuaded that this is a good
bill and deserves support. Instead, what we have is closure and
those people who are already receiving pension benefits and those
who are still paying into it are worried about their future do
not have an opportunity to mobilize, to make their phone calls
and get their faxes and letters sent here.
I would like to know how the member reconciles the difference.
Why is it that if everything is okay, these people understand it
is not okay? There is a botch-up here somewhere.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting as I stated
earlier today that the hon. member talks about the proposal of
extending this debate for six months. Members talk about the
great groundswell they believe is going to occur, but it has not
occurred because Canadians are generally pleased with this bill.
It is everything the unions along with the employer have sat down
to discuss. There was only one part where one of the unions was
concerned about the surplus and wanted a percentage of it and all
the rest of the items.
As we discussed earlier, it is a legislated plan. The employees
and the retirees are guaranteed their pension by this government
and by the taxpayers, paid by taxpayers' money.
The concern of the Reform Party, aside from the fact that many
of the things were agreed on, is that we are in effect taking
what belongs to Canadian taxpayers, which is an accounting entry,
and reducing the debt by $30 billion over a period of time. The
Reform Party does not like that. Why do they not like it?
Because that is going to reduce the cost to Canadian taxpayers in
interest that they pay to bondholders. Why does the Reform Party
not like that? Because all of a sudden the Liberal Party is
going to get credit for reducing the debt by $30 billion. Why
does the Reform Party not like that? Because everything they
have been talking about, everything the Reform Party is all about
is being done by this government on the basis of good fiscal
management.
1750
The real problem is that the Reform Party is not only bankrupt
of the platform it has carried for six years but it is now trying
to steal the Conservatives' plan by uniting the right. The hon.
member for St. Albert realizes we are on the right track. He
would do exactly what we are doing here because the unions—
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The parliamentary secretary is trying to put words in my
mouth. Let us remember that he is the one who is speaking and he
is the one who is speaking for the Liberal Party, not for the
Reform Party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a point of
debate.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, there is not much they can
speak about. That is what the difficulty is. Earlier I said
that I would not use the term hot air because that would be
unparliamentary, but taking all of that into account, they
complain about the lack of time but they never state anything
new. It is all on the record. Their speeches are just cut and
paste and regurgitate. They hand them out to each other. It is
amazing.
Even on the first day of the debate, the hon. member for St.
Albert, who at least is very much aware of this issue, had to
pass his notes on to another speaker because he had another
engagement but that is understandable.
Under this bill the formula for calculating retirement benefits
will be based on average salary during the best consecutive five
years of service instead of six. That is very positive when we
take into account that the formula by which the plan benefits are
integrated with the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension
plan benefits in the plan member's favour. The new formula will
mean a somewhat smaller reduction in the plan's benefits when an
employee begins to draw CPP—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, I have
to interrupt because we have another question.
I want to assure the House that there is no prohibition for hot
air in this Chamber. Were there such a prohibition it would put
a serious impediment in the path of this House.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, we know this is a fixed benefit
plan.
He says that we get up and regurgitate. The Liberals have said
this in every speech they have handed out to their people. I
want him to know that I very seldom use notes. When I get up to
speak I make sure my outline is in here. I have never ever used
a speech that someone else has written.
My real question is on the pension issue. There is a surplus.
Quite clearly there is a $30 billion surplus. They have
collected $30 billion more than they need, actuarially computed
at the present time. It is true that the taxpayers put more
money into that fund than was needed so the taxpayers should be
entitled to have the money taken back and applied to the debt, no
problem. When he says that Reform has a problem with that, he is
wrong.
How about the contributions made by the employees? They have
also been overcharged. Are they not entitled to at least a
proportion, an actuarially computed proportion of that
overpayment? The Liberals are failing to notice that they are
overcharging them and they do not want to give the money back.
There is a word for that which I cannot use.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I notice that he should use
notes, that he should do research, because the difficulty we have
is that he does not understand the facts. That is part of the
difficulty he is facing. I wish the hon. member who uses a
computer at his desk would put some of the research material in,
maybe get on to the Internet and tap into the government's
information.
When we take into account that with the government an actuarial
evaluator determines how much money is actually required on a
year to year basis. Even if there is a surplus the evaluator
still determines on a year to year basis how much is required,
not taking into account the surplus. That is why since 1991-92
the surplus has increased to $30 billion. That is what brings us
to the point of dealing with this piece of legislation.
Even the auditor general has asked us to reduce the amount of
interest we pay on that. We have conformed with the accounting
rules that the hon. member for St. Albert should have educated
the other hon. members on to ensure they understood the basic
facts we were dealing with.
1755
Unfortunately, the hon. member does not realize we take into
account that in most pension plans the employees contribute 40%.
What has happened here is that the taxpayer is contributing 70%.
In effect, that is why Canadian taxpayers year after year
contribute more than they would in any other pension plan, even
in the private sector. That is what we are facing.
If we take into account the way the grass is growing, I cannot
understand why the Reform Party wants Canadian taxpayers to
continue contributing to the point where they will contribute
almost the total amount and the employee contributes almost zero.
I do not understand why the Reform Party wants to take from the
taxpayers' money to pay for the civil servants' pension.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order with regard to Bill C-78. My point of order
challenges the procedural validity of this bill. Bill C-78
should not go forward because the introduction of Bill C-78 was
not preceded by a ways and means motion.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, a ways and means motion is
required when there is a charge upon the people. In Erskine
May's 21st edition on page 726 it summarizes what is covered
under the term “charges upon the people”. Point five states
that a ways and means motion is required when there are
“provisions for the payment into the consolidated fund or the
national loans fund of receipts, which do not arise from
taxation”.
The Speaker made a similar statement on December 2, 1998 when
ruling on Bill S-13. You said, Mr. Speaker, that a ways and
means motion is required “if a charge raises funds that are
channelled to the consolidated revenue fund”.
Bill C-78 empowers the President of the Treasury Board in three
clauses to deposit into the consolidated revenue fund pension
surpluses arising from contributions or investments. Clause 96,
subsection 44.4(2)(b) on page 80 would allow the president to do
this in regard to the public service pension fund. Clause 152,
subsection 55.4(2)(b) on page 134 deals with the Canadian forces
pension fund. Clause 199, subsection 29.4(2)(b) on pages 185 and
186 deals with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension fund. I
quote clause 96, subsection 44.4(2)(b):
There may be paid out of the public service pension fund, and
into the consolidated revenue fund, the amount, at the time and
in the manner, that the Treasury Board determines on the
recommendation of the Minister.
We must also remember that the pension funds in question contain
funds from three specific sources: contributions by the
government of Canada; contributions by the civil servants as a
percentage of their pay, and we just heard the parliamentary
secretary tell us that it was approximately 70% paid by the
Government of Canada and 30% paid by the employees; and a return
on the foregoing moneys which have been invested in government
bonds.
It is therefore plain that the money deducted from the
paycheques of public servants will be transferred to the
consolidated revenue fund by Bill C-78 at the time and in the
manner that the Treasury Board determines at the recommendation
of the minister. The measures in Bill C-78 clearly represent a
charge upon the people as defined in Erskine May's 21st edition.
The public service of Canada is currently comprised of around
300,000 employees. Bill C-78 will affect 650,000 current and
former employees of the public service. However, the public
service of Canada is open to all Canadians to apply without
discrimination. Bill C-78 deals with those who have worked in
the past, those who work there at present and those who will work
there in the future which potentially includes any Canadian
citizen.
It is therefore a charge upon the people.
1800
The public service pension plan and other plans affected by Bill
C-78 are not negotiated plans between employer and employees in
the contractual sense. Instead, they are pension plans that are
legislated by parliament. Legally there is no employer-employee
contractual relationship.
This was confirmed during hearings on Bill C-78 at the natural
resources and government operations committee on May 3, 1999 by
Mr. Ross Hornby, senior general counsel of the Department of
Justice. He said at 5.20 p.m.:
There is no element of contract involved in it (the public
service pension plan) or any contractual rights that flow from
it.
It is clear from these comments that this is legislated taxation
imposed on employees who do not even have the right to express an
opinion on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, in your ruling of December 2, 1998 you said:
Modern legislation frequently makes provisions for the imposition
of other types of fees or payment which, although not taxes in a
strict sense, have enough of the characteristics of taxation to
require to be treated as charges upon the people and therefore to
be authorized by a ways and means resolution moved by a minister
of the crown.
I would argue that because these plans are legislated through
acts of parliament and could affect any Canadian citizen as a
potential employee of the government they maintain enough
characteristics of taxation to be treated as a charge upon the
people.
Bill C-78 should not proceed any further because it has not met
the requirements of our financial procedures. Since Bill C-78
was not preceded by a ways and means motion, Bill C-78 is not
properly before this House and should be removed from the order
paper.
I would therefore humbly request that you, Mr. Speaker, defer
the vote on third reading of Bill C-78 until you have had time to
research the arguments and report back to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This is a point of
order and it is fairly serious, so we will ask the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services to reply. This will be on
the record and the Speaker will make a ruling.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just want to make
a few points for the record.
Let me say that there was no ways and means motion
covering the original Public Service Superannuation Act. That is
because the contributions are not tax related upon the general
population but are contributions made by a defined and limited
group of people in return for the fund benefits. Ways and means
motions are required only for tax measures and are charged as a
whole to the people, which we call taxes.
I find it very strange that the Reform Party would choose this
moment, half an hour before we are to vote, to propose this. Why
did it not bring this up at second reading or in committee?
Again this is a dilatory measure that the Reform Party is trying.
I request that we proceed with the vote as scheduled.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will consult with
the clerks and will have a ruling forthwith.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to
remind you that there is an order of the House that we vote
tonight. I hope that is taken into consideration.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In response to the minister, I have put forth a point of
order which states that the bill is not properly before the House
and therefore—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We should not
get into any more debate.
1805
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-78, but not because I like it. It is another
attack against workers in this country.
One should remember that the federal government took over $20
billion from the employment insurance fund, money which belonged
to workers; this year the surplus is expected to grow by another
$7 billion.
With the bill before us today, Bill C-78, the government will
take another $30 billion from a fund that is just as important.
It is significant not only for the public service pension funds.
I believe the government has the responsibility to show the way.
What it is saying to private companies is “Look.
You will now be able to take money from your workers' pension
fund”. This is exactly what bill C-78 is doing.
When workers have a collective agreement, when money is set
aside for them, I say the federal government has no right
stealing their money to balance its budget and have a zero
deficit just as I said it had no right stealing workers' money
from the employment insurance fund.
Whether they are members of PSAC working in government offices
or members of the RCMP, the government has been undermining
their morale for years by denying them salary increases, and
today by trying to lay its hands on their pension funds.
This is money that was negotiated at the bargaining table and it
is money that belongs to workers, not to the Minister of Finance
so that he can once again tell us what a fine job he is doing.
The way the Liberal government is going after the workers of
this country is unacceptable and immoral. Whether it be EI or
public sector pension funds, the money still comes out of
workers' pockets.
That is not what the Liberals were saying. I say that it is
unacceptable and that Canadians will not stand for it. The
government has gone after those who have lost their jobs. Now,
it is going after future retirees.
I find this deplorable. The government is completely in the
wrong and Canadians will not forget it.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take the five or six minutes that remain to
make a couple of comments with respect to two aspects of this
legislation.
First, very briefly I want to associate myself with the comments
made by my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who spoke
very eloquently about why the New Democratic Party is so
profoundly opposed to this legislation.
Pensioners are being robbed of a $30 billion surplus. Let us be
clear. There will be $15 billion taken from the public service
pension plan, $2.4 billion from the RCMP and almost $13 billion
from the Canadian forces. I join with my colleagues in saying
that the New Democratic Party strongly opposes this provision in
the legislation which will affect something like 670,000 public
servants, including retirees and current contributors.
1810
I also want to take this opportunity to deal with another issue
and that is the issue of same sex benefits. I deeply regret that
the government has chosen to include in legislation that deals
with the pension surplus the issue of equity and justice for gay
and lesbian people who are involved in committed, loving
relationships.
I want to make it very clear that I and my colleagues strongly
support this long overdue justice and equality for those who are
involved in gay and lesbian relationships.
There are some who ask what this conjugal relationship is all
about. Is it some new and dangerous provision in the
legislation? Indeed, one of the Reform Party members, the hon.
member for Souris—Moose Mountain, said that this bill would
destroy the very moral fibre of the country. He said it is a
dangerous, destructive bill.
The fact of the matter is that this bill is simply extending not
any kind of special rights to gay and lesbian people who are
involved in relationships, but equal rights and equal
responsibilities. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled just last
week in the case of M. v H. that gay and lesbian people are to be
treated with equality and that includes those of us who are
involved in committed, loving relationships.
For those who say that the notion of a conjugal relationship is
something new and undefined, I suggest that they read existing
legislation. For example, in the existing Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act there is a provision that on the death of
a member or a former member extends a survivor's pension to any
person of the opposite sex who establishes that the person was
cohabiting in a conjugal relationship with the member or former
member for at least one year immediately before the death of the
member or former member.
It is in the legislation now. For those who say this is somehow
a great attack on the moral fibre of the country and a dangerous
and destructive new concept, I say: Where have they been? It is
already there and it has not caused any difficulty in
interpretation whatsoever.
There are federal public servants who contribute to pension
plans, whether they be members of the Canadian armed forces,
members of the RCMP or members of the public service, who are
involved in gay or lesbian relationships. Why should they not be
entitled to draw their pension as any other Canadian is entitled
to do?
I received a letter recently from a woman in Vancouver who
talked about her relationship with her partner of more than 13
years. She said that her partner had died of cancer. She was
diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Before that she was an active,
healthy, 48 year old woman. She said:
We shared everything as
life partners. We were emotionally and financially
interdependent. Every aspect of our lives was connected,
inter-related. We celebrated our lives together and were embraced
by family, friends, and many diverse communities.
We shared in
the parenting of two children. I continue to care for them and
support them as a co-parent myself and also on behalf of their
mother who has died.
This was a family. This was a family of two lesbians who shared
their lives. If they contributed to a pension plan, they should
be entitled to that benefit.
Finally, I note that the Supreme Court of Canada in M. v H. has
pointed out the characteristics of a conjugal relationship. It
stated: “They include shared shelter, sexual and personal
behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and
children, as well as the societal perception of the couple”.
My relationship with my partner, Max, is an important part of my
life, just as the relationships are of other members of the House
who are heterosexual with their spouses. All I ask for, and all
gay and lesbian people in this country ask for, is equality;
nothing more and nothing less. For that reason we support those
provisions of the bill, but we must oppose the theft of $30
billion in pension funds.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 13, 1999, it is my duty
to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now
before the House.
As hon. members know, there is an outstanding point of order
also before the House and that point of order may be ruled upon
at any time prior to the bill being read for the actual vote.
The Speaker and the clerks are in consultation as we speak.
1815
The question is on third reading of Bill C-78. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1835
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of
order raised by the hon. member for St. Albert concerning the
procedural acceptability of Bill C-78, an act to establish the
Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public
Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the
Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post
Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
act.
1840
The hon. member contends that Bill C-78 imposes a “charge upon
the people” in that it proposes to make any of these pension
plan surpluses payable to the consolidated revenue fund. This,
he argues, constitutes a form of tax which would require the bill
to be preceded by a ways and means motion.
In the time available to me I have carefully reviewed the
remarks made by the hon. member and I have noted that he makes no
mention of the fact that any shortfalls in these plans accrue as
a liability to the Government of Canada.
Under the heading of “Matters requiring authorization by Ways
and Means”, May in the 22nd edition at page 777 states in part:
If—money raised by statutory imposition—is—to be used for
the benefit of the public at large or for purposes which might
otherwise have required to be financed from the Consolidated
Fund, that imposition is likely to need authorization by a Ways
and Means resolution.
However, as the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government
Services has pointed out, the legislation affects not the
Canadian public in general but “a defined and limited group of
people” who, as co-contributors, will be entitled to a defined
benefit.
Consequently I cannot agree with the hon. member for St. Albert.
I rule that Bill C-78 is properly before the House and we will
proceed with the vote on third reading.
1850
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 137
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Steckle
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Ur
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 118
|
PAIRED
Members
Assadourian
| Canuel
| de Savoye
| Duceppe
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Iftody
| Karygiannis
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Perron
|
Pratt
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-260
under Private Members' Business.
As this is a private member's bill, the mover sitting on the
opposition side will have the first vote. All those who are in
favour of the motion on my left from the back row forward will
vote. Then all those who are in favour from the back row on my
right and forward will vote.
1900
Before the taking of the vote:
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I apologize for taking up the time of the House, but I
would like, if possible, to have my vote recorded in favour of
this motion.
The Speaker: It will be recorded.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to be
recorded as being in favour of this motion.
The Speaker: It will be recorded.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
|
Bulte
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Ianno
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Penson
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
– 164
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Coderre
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
|
Malhi
| Marchand
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Minna
| Nystrom
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wood – 74
|
PAIRED
Members
Assadourian
| Canuel
| de Savoye
| Duceppe
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Iftody
| Karygiannis
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Perron
|
Pratt
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
1905
LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL PURPOSES
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to an order made earlier today the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 381
under Private Members' Business. The question is on the
amendment to the amendment.
We will take this vote the same way we did for the previous
private member's bill. The first one to vote will be on my left
and we will follow the regular procedure.
1915
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Marchand
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Redman
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 58
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bélair
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 176
|
PAIRED
Members
Assadourian
| Canuel
| de Savoye
| Duceppe
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Iftody
| Karygiannis
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Perron
|
Pratt
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
defeated.
The next question is on the amendment.
1925
Before the taking of the vote:
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My colleagues think I am going on the theory that we
should vote early, vote often but I want to vote in support of
the motion. I stood up twice.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Power
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Williams
| Wood – 158
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Marchand
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Serré
| Steckle
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Wilfert – 77
|
PAIRED
Members
Assadourian
| Canuel
| de Savoye
| Duceppe
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Iftody
| Karygiannis
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Perron
|
Pratt
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion, as amended.
1935
Before the taking of the vote:
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It appears I inadvertently voted twice and I want the
record to show that I support the motion.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am just wondering if the hon. member for Medicine Hat is the
finance critic.
The Speaker: The Member is out of order.
(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed
to on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Proctor
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wood – 203
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Bailey
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Manning
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Pillitteri
| Ritz
| Serré
| Steckle
|
St - Julien
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Wilfert
|
Williams – 29
|
PAIRED
Members
Assadourian
| Canuel
| de Savoye
| Duceppe
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Iftody
| Karygiannis
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Perron
|
Pratt
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to raise the issue of the desperate shape of our
Canadian forces helicopters.
Let us listen to this litany of shame: February 1993, Sea King
ditched in Gulf of Mexico due to electrical systems failure;
April 1994, Sea King crashed in New Brunswick killing two crew
and injuring others; August 1994, Sea King fleet grounded
following emergency landing; May 1995, Labrador had emergency
landing due to mechanical problems; September 1995, Sea King had
emergency landing due to mechanical problems; August 1996, three
Sea Kings grounded due to cracks in tail section; January 1997,
Labrador crashed in Georgia Strait; October 1998, Labrador crash
killed six; February 1999, Sea King in trouble due to bad main
rotorhead; March 1999, Labrador adrift on lake due to losing both
engines; March 1999, Sea King had emergency landing due to
electrical systems; May 1999, Sea King makes forced landing due
to leak in hydraulic system.
1940
There is one more date of note. On June 26, 1986 the Treasury
Board began the process of replacing the Sea Kings. Almost 13
years have passed since then, 13 years.
The Liberal government turned our forces helicopters into
hell-copters when in June or July of 1995 the cabinet chose to
delay the purchase of the replacement helicopters. It was a
cheap political decision at the time but has become costly and
poses serious issues in terms of the safety of Canadian lives.
These mechanical albatrosses may have led to the unnecessary
deaths of Canadians and continue to present safety hazards and
risk to life. I say unnecessary because the Liberal government
made a very specific decision to delay the purchase of the
helicopters.
It is not as if the minister and his government did not know of
the problems. Headlines have screamed out the following news to
Canadians for some time: Labradors unable to join rescue;
helicopters grounded again; aging helicopters risk lives; faulty
chopper delays recovery of 11-year old; helicopter malfunctioned
days before crash; helicopter kills two veteran firefighters; the
Liberals' chopper whopper; Sea Kings a threat; Sea King makes
emergency landing.
The government may respond with platitudes about taking time to
make sure the right choice is made, care for fiscal
responsibility, that plans are proceeding well and the need to
ensure the finished product is safe. Canadians are sick and
tired of excuses.
The government must answer three questions. First, what
specific short term alternatives has the government explored,
including short term leases until the new helicopters are
operational? Second, what specific efforts has the government
made to speed up the procurement process and why exactly have
these efforts failed? Third, what month will the replacement
helicopters be operational?
A failure on behalf of the Liberal government to openly,
honestly and completely answer these three questions is a gross
betrayal not of me but of the families and communities who have
lost loved ones, a betrayal of Canadian forces personnel who have
no alternative but to continue to use these aging helicopters, a
betrayal of all Canadians and a betrayal of good government.
I express my gratitude for all Canadian forces personnel who
will bear the brunt of the Liberal government's mismanagement of
the issue. They are the heroes in this tragedy of errors wrought
by the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, maritime helicopters are
essential to the mission of the Canadian forces.
It is our duty to ensure that the Canadian forces possess the
equipment they require to accomplish their mission, both in
Canada and abroad.
In his 1994 white paper, the minister made a commitment to
replace the Sea Kings, and this is an essential project for the
Minister of National Defence. On numerous occasions, the
minister has expressed his desire to implement a strategy
involving the acquisition of maritime helicopters in the near
future.
In fact, the minister has said he hoped to make an announcement
on this issue in the current year.
Department officials are currently reviewing a draft of the
requirements established for maritime helicopters. The statement
of operational requirements, which is more or less the basis of
the project, is undergoing several revisions and rewriting, and
is the object of a close review at several levels within the
department.
It is on the basis of that document that we will buy several
millions of dollars worth of very complex military equipment.
Therefore, it is critical that we do what is necessary to ensure
the process is implemented properly from the beginning.
It is also important that the industry, Canadians and any other
person interested in this issue can read and understand the
statement of requirements that will be released.
However, more importantly, the new maritime helicopter must meet
Canadians forces' policy requirements and operational
requirements. This is a must, and there will be no compromise on
this point.
We will do our utmost to ensure the Sea Kings remain in service
until the arrival of the new maritime helicopter.
The recent minor problems were dealt with, and we will do what
it takes to make sure our aircraft are safe to fly.
The Sea Kings will be upgraded if need be, and I have no doubt
we will be able to carry out our mission with the equipment
currently available to the Canadian armed forces.
pluriel
1945
[English]
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise today again on a question
I asked regarding the exploratory seismic licences that were
given to the company Corridor Resources from the Canada-Nova
Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.
I raise this concern because those seismic drilling exploration
leases, which we have now found out are six months delayed so
they could be done in the wintertime, are right in the heart of
the lobster spawning grounds off the coast of Cape Breton, on the
inside coast in the gulf and around P.E.I. where the member for
Malpeque is from, as well as in the New Brunswick area.
If this company is allowed to have the exploratory licence to do
its seismic drilling, it will expand the drilling throughout the
entire gulf. This means that the province of Quebec and the
province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be incorporated in
this concern as well.
The reason I am speaking on this today is that over 2,000
lobster fishermen in Cape Breton, New Brunswick and P.E.I. have
very serious concerns about their livelihood.
Since the downturn of the groundfish fishery a lot of fishermen
have turned to lobster or shellfish as their main livelihood in
order to live in their coastal communities and look after their
families. They do not make very much money doing this.
If we allow this to go forward we are risking the possible long
term environmental damage of a very sustainable stock. In
Newfoundland, in fact in all Atlantic Canada and Quebec it is an
over half a billion dollar industry. The government only spends
about $330,000 a year on experiments and the science and study of
the lobster itself.
I would ask the government to be very cautious and prudent in
its environmental assessment of the project to ensure that there
will be no damage in the short term or the long term to the
lobster stocks, scallop stocks, crab stocks or whatever shellfish
is out there.
There are indications that the groundfish breed out there as
well. We must be very cautious to protect those species so that
in turn we can protect the livelihood of thousands of people and
their families in coastal communities in Atlantic Canada.
This begs another question. Why did the Fisheries Resource
Conservation Council along with the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans not immediately put a halt to this lease before all
environmental assessments were done in the long term? We cannot
do a proper assessment in six months. It is 1999 and we are still
in the embryonic stage of wondering if seismic oil and gas
drilling definitely affects the lobsters. There are a lot of
indications from the fishermen that indeed they do. The DFO
spends very little money on science in this regard.
I ask the government again that the FRCC, the DFO's advisory
board and the DFO itself, the department responsible for
management of the habitat area and the fish stocks as well, be
extremely prudent and cautious in their efforts in order to
protect the livelihood of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I answered
previously, we are pleased to see that the member opposite shares
our concerns and the minister's concerns over fish habitat.
He mentioned about being cautious. If there is one thing the
minister has clearly shown, it is that he has made some tough
decisions in terms of protecting fish and fish habitat. He will
continue to do that.
In terms of the specifics of this case, the recent issuance of
an exploratory licence for the Cape Breton block, it is important
to recognize that this is not a blanket approval for future oil
and gas activities. The licence only confers the right to
explore the lands covered by the licence, drill and test for
petroleum and obtain a production licence in respect of those
lands.
Each exploration project proposal under this licence will have
to undergo an environmental assessment and will have to be
approved by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.
Due to the concerns that have been identified in the Cape Breton
block, the board has decided to put a six months hold on any
exploration activities so that additional discussions and
environmental analyses can be carried out.
A strategic environmental assessment is currently being done for
the Cape Breton block in order to identify and provide an initial
evaluation of the issues on which future project specific
assessments completed by the industry should focus.
1950
During 1999 research will be carried out on the effects of
seismic exploration on the east coast fishery through support
from the environmental sciences research fund. In addition, the
role of Canada-Nova Scotia Petroleum Board in regulating the
petroleum industry in—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must interrupt
the parliamentary secretary as his time has run out.
NAV CANADA
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise again today to raise the subject of an unsafe
condition in Kelowna, British Columbia, identified by the
Department of Transport over 11 years ago.
My question is brought on by a puzzling situation where Nav
Canada within the last few weeks announced a $90 million
reduction in fees voluntarily. I do not understand why it has
reduced its fees by $90 million and still refuses to replace the
air traffic control tower in Kelowna.
Allow me to read into the record the operational condition
report dated November 4, 1987:
Due to the location and/or the height of the control tower a
portion of the runway and taxiways is not visible. A runway
incursion going unnoticed is now a major safety concern. The
margin of safety has been jeopardized. A restricted line of
sight visibility has been identified as a major safety concern by
the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
This report lists only two possible solutions to the problem.
First, raise the present control tower two or three stories to a
height that would ensure line of sight for all manoeuvring areas
or, second, build a brand new control tower in a location which
would ensure line of sight for all manoeuvring areas.
The manager in reply to this report by the inspector said line
of sight difficulties had been recognized as a problem in
Kelowna. The inspector identified it and the manager confirmed
it.
How can this situation be safe now and how can Nav Canada refuse
to replace the air traffic control tower or raise the present
one? How can it be safe now when it was not safe in 1987? Why
was the tower required to be replaced in 1987 but is not required
to be now?
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
please reply to that question and explain why Nav Canada is
reducing its charges by $90 million and still refusing to replace
the condemned tower in Kelowna?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to respond to the issue raised by the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester this evening on the air traffic control
tower at Kelowna airport.
I begin by assuring the member that Nav Canada applies air
traffic control procedures to address visibility limitations such
as those at Kelowna airport. Transport Canada is satisfied with
the corporation's actions to mitigate any potential safety risk
until a more permanent solution is available.
I emphasize that Transport Canada no longer has an operational
role with respect to the provision of air traffic control
services in Canada. Nav Canada is responsible for these services
including the operation, location and construction of air traffic
control towers.
I reiterate that the airport operator is expanding the apron
parking area and construction has already begun. This will
contribute to alleviating the obstruction of views caused by the
parking of large aircraft. In the longer term Nav Canada is
continuing its efforts to install an effective video system and
is commencing feasibility studies for the location of a new
tower.
As we know, safety is Transport Canada's top priority and the
Minister of Transport continues to be responsible for safety
oversight. The member may be assured that Transport Canada will continue
to monitor the Kelowna airport as part of the department's
ongoing airport inspection program.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.54 p.m.)