Gary Pillitteri

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is exactly correct.

As long as there is one Canadian without a job, there is one too many. As long as there is one child going to sleep at night with hunger or waking up in the morning with hunger, there is one too many. Yes, we have to do much more. Yes, we are doing much more. This is the role of this government and the role on this side, to make sure that we care for those who least can afford it.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question concerning the medicare system. As a matter of fact, we have increased the bottom line from $11 billion to $12.5 billion starting this year, a year earlier than planned. I am not a mathematician, certainly not in answering the question on how someone is going to get a bypass, but let me say one thing. We have the best health care system in the world. We have.

By the increases that will be put in there, we certainly will continue to have the best health care system in the world. If we try to throw around facts and figures on how much it is going to cost, who would we compare it with? Would we compare it with south of the border to us where they are spending over 16% on health care and not getting the services that we are getting here in Canada as universal services? They have over 30 million Americans without the new services. We in Canada have a service which is accessible to all Canadians, slow as it might be sometimes, but we have a system which is enjoyed by all Canadians.

The hon. member also talked about cuts to the provinces. It is not necessarily the case that because we put in that $1.5 billion more in the social transfer, the provinces will be spending this money on the health care system. The health care system is a provincial jurisdiction. We do have the best—

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be given the opportunity to participate in this debate and to speak on the prebudget consultation report.

I would like to express my support for the recommendations brought forward by the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member.

I would also like to thank the constituents of Niagara Falls who responded so enthusiastically to my invitation to debate these issues. They provided valuable insight in the consultation process.

During the consultative process we heard from Canadians from all walks of life and all parts of the country. Canadians took the time from their busy lives to tell us how they thought the Canadian economy should progress and what direction it should take.

Canadians told us very openly and sincerely about their values and priorities and how the next federal budget should reflect them.

I support the report. However, one of the recommendations of the report about which I am concerned is increasing the 20% foreign investment rule, which will happen over the next five years. This is supposed to help Canadians achieve a higher return on their retirement savings and reduce exposure to risk.

I question this measure. I believe the Canadian economy is performing and will perform as well or better than foreign economies. In addition, I believe that a dollar invested in Canada creates employment in Canada. Even with the recovering economy, which seems to be booming in all sectors, Canada still needs to create more jobs.

In addition, the Canadian economy is the winner if funds are invested at home. In my opinion, those savings make it easier for domestic companies to raise the capital they need to stimulate economic growth. Growth is vitally important to future pensioners and workers. When all is said and done, it is the gross domestic product of the future which will inevitably have to support them.

People saving for their retirement forgo higher foreign investment returns and thus are making a sacrifice for the benefit of workers in the future.

During the budget consultations, in answer to a question on the subject of opening the door to investment outside Canada, the governor of the Bank of Canada, Gordon Thiessen, replied that at the moment the Canadian economy is undergoing a major restructuring. Canada needs many things, such as investment in new equipment and investment in plants, to make itself really competitive.

It is important for Canadian investors to be able to invest in the rest of the world and, indeed, in growing economies. However, Mr. Thiessen did not think this would occur in the immediate future.

I question foreign investment. Often we import the problems of the host country with the investment. A classic example would be Korea. It is now trying to withdraw its investments around the world, regardless of the problem of unemployment and dislocation that causes. It is often said that capital has no conscience. Certainly foreign capital is going to look at its own country before worrying about others.

In this day and age when there is much movement not only of goods and trade but also investment, it is a concern which we may have to live with. However, I strongly believe that we should watch it carefully. There is an old saying that whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

In the last 50 years important changes have taken place. Some are even reflected in the way the government does business.

One of these changes has to do with the way jobs are created today. Nowadays jobs are created not only by small, medium and big business but by the ideas, thoughts or concepts of people who are going after a niche in the market or are selling their ideas, plans or concepts. In other words, more often than not one of our big exports today is what is set up on a piece of paper or on a computer. This is unlike a few years ago when technology had not yet reached the level it is at today.

We have to bear in mind that the big income earners of the future are found in the minds of Canadians. They are found in the ability to be innovative and thus able to compete successfully within the global economy. Therefore it makes great sense that our resources and a great amount of care funds be directed to the development of the minds of Canadians. This naturally means education.

Education will start at a very young age at the preschool level and progress through post-secondary education. We must start educating our young minds. We have to start providing our youth and our parents with the help and tools necessary in developing their unique resources.

We also have to look very closely at our health care system because you cannot have a good mind without a healthy body. This is one of the oldest proverbs known to man. Therefore the recommendation in the report that calls for increased help for education and health care is to be taken very seriously. I concur fully with the report when it states in order to build a strong society we have to improve our health care system. I also agree with the recommendation that the government consider establishing new approaches to health care in full co-operation with the provinces and health care providers in local communities

As the fiscal dividends grow I am supporting the recommendations directed toward helping children who live in poverty. I support the creation of more opportunities for Canadian youth. It is vital that the federal government in co-operation with the provinces and territories be able to offer students a debt repayment schedule based on income.

As I said before, important changes have affected the way in which government has carried out its business in the last 50 years. Another important change has been in the field of planning. There are those in our society who say that we have gone too far and moved too fast toward an open market. We have learned one thing, that hiring a number of academics, sticking them into the civil service and telling them to plan our economy does not work. Therefore if we are to get any input or planning we must have hearings with the public. It is paramount that we consult with Canadians.

At least if a mistake is going to be made it will not be made by some ad hoc think tank dreamed up by the government and removed from the realities of everyday life. I think it was Chairman Mao who said let a thousand flowers bloom. This thought is the very essence of thinking and it is what we have discovered lately to be within our market economy.

Hundreds of thousands of people thinking and discussing new ideas are very likely to get as good idea to emerge. This is much better than having a few selected experts planning and finding solutions. We encountered all this during our consultations and indeed we find it in our report. The wisdom is out there. It is not in the bureaucracy as this report shows.

We have to remember that to have fertile and aggressive thinking minds we must also continue to support good health care and education systems. Those are the basics of a society.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-18, legislation reintroduced in this House to give customs officers new powers under the Criminal Code.

This legislation continues the good work carried on in Bill C-89, a bill that died when Parliament was dissolved prior to the last federal election.

Customs officers are our first line of defence in keeping drugs, contraband and illegal firearms out of the country. I am proud to lend my support to Bill C-18. I believe this legislation will make our communities safer and will be beneficial for border communities such as the one that I have the privilege of representing federally.

Under this new legislation, customs officers—many of my constituents happen to work as customs officers as there are four point crossings in my constituency—would provide first response capability at the border.

Bill C-18 will make the enforcement of our criminal laws more efficient and effective and will help to render every community in Canada a safer place in which to live.

Under the proposed legislation, customs officers will be given the capability of detaining or arresting at the border those individuals suspected of having committed criminal offences, for example, impaired driving or child abduction.

At present, customs officers have the power of detaining and arresting individuals who commit customs act offences such as smuggling. Customs officers also have the authority to search and seize goods such as illegal drugs, firearms, contraband tobacco and liquor and prohibited materials such as child pornography from entering Canada.

A study conducted in 1995 concluded that the existing situation was unacceptable and it proposed an extension of customs officers' powers to include Criminal Code offences. The recommendations made by this study received support by many important organizations and groups such as police forces, Revenue Canada employees and the customs excise unit.

History showed us that if customs officers had had in the past the powers, lives could have been saved.

Six years ago, sexual predator Jonathon Yeo was prevented from entering the United States at the Niagara Falls border crossing. He was armed. American officials alerted Canada Customs that an armed man was heading back into Canada. Sadly, Canadian officials did not have the legal right to detain him. As we know, he went on to murder three people before killing himself. One of the victims was the daughter of Priscilla de Villiers, founder of CAVEAT, a group that has been pushing for expanded powers for customs officers.

In the case of Mr. Yeo, the jury believed that customs officers should have been able to do more to assist the police. I believe that the proposed legislation is consistent with the jury's recommendation.

Our customs officers encounter many criminal situations while on duty. I know, as many of my colleagues here know today, that Canadian customs officers perform their duties in an exemplary way. For example, in the last two and a half years, customs officers were faced with 8,500 different suspected impaired drivers, almost 200 incidents of suspected child abductions, cases of individuals who were subject to arrest warrants and more than 500 individuals who had in their possession suspected stolen goods, most being motor vehicles.

These kinds of crimes are not acceptable in our community as they are hurting all of us. At this point we may ask: By delegating additional powers to customs officers are we putting them at risk? Bill C-18 will ensure that customs officers will receive additional training. Customs officers will be trained to ensure that they act fairly, responsibly and within the confines of the law in carrying out their duties.

Customs officers in my riding have raised the issue of bullet proof vests. The Department of Revenue will make bullet proof vests available to those designated officers who believe that their personal safety will be enhanced by choosing to wear a protective vest.

Many of the youths in my riding get jobs during the summer as customs officers. Some may ask if those student customs officers will receive first response powers. The answer is no. First response powers will be restricted to a fully trained, permanent customs officers, full time and part time, who have direct contact with people seeking to enter Canada at points of entry. Designated officers will respond to the Criminal Code situation identified by the students.

From the time this bill receives royal assent it could take six to nine months before it would be fully implemented. Customs officers will receive full training during that time and holding facilities will be constructed at border points across the country. This initiative will strengthen the already excellent working relationship between Revenue Canada customs and the RCMP, which will represent a more efficient way in which to help my own community of Niagara Falls and Niagara on the Lake and indeed every community in Canada a safer place in which to live.

I am aware that some customs officers believe that they should carry a weapon for their personal protection. However, I believe and it is my government's position that introducing firearms at the border is unnecessary. In fact, it could be a serious mistake. We have to bear in mind that this is not entirely new ground for customs officers. They are already designated as peace officers for the purposes of the customs act and to date they have demonstrated that they have no need for firearms to fulfil their responsibilities very safely and efficiently. Arming them in fact could invite more violent behaviour on the part of criminals. If not handled properly, an officer's firearm could provide a would-be criminal with a weapon that could actually be used to injure or kill the officer.

The role the government has in mind for our customs officers will be to provide a first response service. They will not be expected to participate in a Criminal Code investigation or transport prisoners. Police will intervene at the earliest possible stage.

As I said before, a great many of my constituents work as customs officers. I am well aware that they are carrying out a tremendous job with Child Find Canada and Operation Go Home in trying to alleviate the suffering for all those who experience the pain of missing or abducted children. Customs officers have every reason to be proud of their contribution to Canada's efforts to return abducted children to their homes. They have always acted professionally and completely within the scope of their authority.

The legislative changes called for in the legislation we are debating today will enhance their ability to assist with the retrieval of missing children because it will enable them to detain suspected abductors and turn them over to the appropriate police authority.

I am in favour and I lend by support to Bill C-18. To those who are saying that the government has the intention of creating another police force, I say these measures are a means of assisting police in their work, not replacing them. Under this legislation customs officers will be authorized to only make a preliminary action to hold suspects until police arrive.

I am in favour of and I am pleased to support Bill C-18. While I fully endorse this initiative, I am asking the House for the speedy passage of these changes that will benefit my community and other communities across Canada.

[Immigration, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are those in this House who link unemployment with immigration in spite of the fact that several studies have proven them wrong time and time again, but ignorance perseveres. Immigrant success stories which are the norm do not make the front page of national newspapers.

Recently I received a letter from a constituent, a refugee to our country and now a proud Canadian citizen. She wanted me to know that she was gainfully employed, waiting for a place to do her apprenticeship in hairdressing and earning credits toward a high school diploma.

She ended her letter with:

I will try to make you proud and to be a good, honest and valiant citizen, a small part of a large family of Canadians.

I am sure I echo the sentiments of many Canadians when I say to her “Thank you, Hilda, for choosing Canada as your new home”.

[Niagara-On-The-Lake, Ont., October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Niagara-on-the-Lake, a town I have the honour of representing federally, may rank as the second prettiest town in the world. But in the hearts of those who live there and of the 3.5 million who visit our community each year, Niagara-on-the-Lake is and will always be the most beautiful town in the world.

At the Community in Bloom contest hosted in Madrid, Spain, Niagara-on-the-Lake was competing against four other finalists, one of which, Stratford, Ontario, came first.

Today I would like to salute Niagara-on-the-Lake and congratulate its citizens who made it possible for this beautiful Canadian town to participate in this important international competition and place second.

While I congratulate Stratford, I would like to point out that three of the four finalists were Canadian towns. This speaks volumes for Canada, the best country in the world in which to live.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the question.

What I am hearing across the floor is funny. It is always the same rhetoric for the haves. Let us remember the Canadians who were not able to accumulate savings, the Canadians who were not able to take care of themselves. This gives them that opportunity. I fear to ask him what would happen to the people who did not accumulate savings for their own pensions, how they would be when their retirement age comes?

The government plan is to assure that every Canadian regardless of his pocket book, when he or she retires, will have the opportunity to live with dignity and not to live in poverty as the hon. member from across the floor would have it. Every Canadian should live in dignity for the long hours and days they have worked. They should be able to know that some security is there for their old age.

There is an additional reason for us to do this expeditiously. The federal and provincial governments are joint custodians of the CPP. The proposed new rules will need the approval of at least two-thirds of the provinces representing at least two-thirds of the population before they can come into effect. We have to give the provinces the time to do this. They could come into effect within a year.

What we are asking with this policy, with this bill, is not only that the federal government be the custodian but also the provinces. They have to agree. We are not asking, as is claimed across the floor, that we should let those who have live in comfort at the expense of those who have not as much. Later on in life some of us might need to have a government that will protect us. It will not be a pension plan that is exuberant but a pension plan that is realistic.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment and make some response on the present plan we want to bring in. Had we not brought in these measures within this pension plan it would have gone up to 14.3 percent. This is almost the same as they are proposing to have as their super RRSPs. I think Canadians have confidence in the government. Canadians want to be sure that when they retire there will be a pension plan there for them. Canadians want to be sure that the future is more secure.

The hon. member was talking about the MP pension plan. I think he has just been elected. I wonder if he knows the policies of his own party. As a matter of fact, there was a member here in the last Parliament who wanted to increase the pay of members of Parliament to $150,000. I think he should be asking his own party some of those questions.

We have put proposals in the House that address the issues of today and not of yesterday. When he asks about pensions I hope he will stay here long enough to see the measly pension we will receive. I hope he can stay in the House in order to qualify for it.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-2, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act.

I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment and to thank my constituents for the trust they put in me by re-electing me as their federal representative.

My remarks today will focus on a very important element of the legislation at hand, a new investment for the Canada pension plan.

This policy is critical to the sustainability of the CPP reforms. It enjoys the support of all the provinces and all the pensions experts. Even more important was the overwhelming support of Canadians during the public consultation on the CPP.

A number of key themes emerged from these consultations, which included 33 sessions in 18 cities across every province and territory.

What did we learn? We learned that Canadians wanted to preserve the CPP. They wanted to reduce its cost, to straighten its finances and to improve its investment practices. All of these themes are mutually sustaining. A better investment policy is vital to preserving the CPP.

Ordinary Canadians and experts alike have made it clear that a better investment policy for CPP would be one similar to that of private and public pension plans. CPP funds would have to be invested in the best interests of plan members, with a proper balance between returns and risks. This would call for an effective government structure to be put into place in order to ensure sound fund management with the right measures of independence and accountability.

The consensus in favour of this principle was clear. In October 1996 we saw the federal and provincial finance ministers adopt them as guiding principles for the new investment policy.

These principles will be turned into concrete reality by the legislation before us today.

The legislation proposes that in future CPP funds will be carefully invested into a diversified portfolio of securities in the best interests of plan members, like other pension funds. In turn, the fund will be managed by qualified investment professionals at arm's length from government by a board of 12 directors, the CPP investment board.

To ensure independence of the board, the legislation prohibits government employees from serving as directors and it requires that the board include a core of directors with financial investment expertise.

Bill C-2 includes a conflict of interest provision for directors and officers of the board even more stringent than those under existing Canadian corporate law.

The question now is why this new investment policy is necessary. Why not continue with the existing policy?

At present the CPP has a fund equal to about two years' worth of benefits. Funds needed immediately to pay benefits are loaned to the provinces at the federal government's long term bond rate, which is slightly below the provinces' own cost of borrowing from financial markets.

As it happens, this policy has given good returns until now. That is because much of the money was locked in at favourable rates in the eighties. However, with the current financial environment such a policy cannot be expected to deliver the best investment performance over the long term.

Canada's chief actuary, responsible for evaluating the financial position of CPP, estimates that the old policy could be expected to yield a real rate of return, that is the rate of return minus the rate of inflation, to about 2.5 percent annually.

Under the new policy the chief actuary considers the long term annual real return of about 3.8 percent to be realistic.

Clearly there is a lot at stake in the investment of the CPP fund. This is why a great deal of care has been given to the vital matter of fund governance in the drafting of this bill. A CPP investment board will set broad investment policies and oversee the progress of the fund but will hire qualified investment professionals to manage the investments on hand on a day to day basis.

In setting investment policy the board will be subject to fundamentally the same rules as other trustees of pension funds. Most of the investment regulations under the Pension Benefit Standard Act will be applied to the board and the foreign property rule limit for pension funds will be strictly respected.

The federal-provincial CPP agreement of February 1977 does specify a couple of further parameters for the new investment policy. For the first three years the board's domestic equity investment will be selected passively, meaning that the board will mirror one of the more broad market indexes instead of picking individual securities.

A fund that invests in this way tends to reflect the composition and the average return of the market as a whole. This requirement is meant to help ensure that the CPP fund's entry into the equity market proceeds smoothly. This investment approach is a common practice among Canada investment funds. It still allows for significant investment discretion with respect to allocation. For example, the passive equity requirements will be re-evaluated at the first triennial CPP review.

Also under the new investment policy provinces will continue to have access to some CPP funds. However, the practice of provinces paying interest on a new CPP loan below the cost of the old market borrowing will come to an end. From now on when provinces borrow from the CPP they will pay the same rate of interest as they do on the market. As a traditional measure provinces will have the option of rolling over their existing borrowing at maturity, at market rates, for almost 20 years.

For the first three years provinces will have access to half of the new CPP funds that the board chooses to invest in bonds at market rates. After these three periods, to ensure that the fund's investment in provincial securities is in keeping with market practices, new CPP funds offered to the provinces at market rates will be in line with the proportion of provincial bonds held by pensions funds in general.

Having spoken about the CPP fund's proposed investment practice, I would like to take a moment to reassure anyone who has wondered about the impact of the new fund on Canadian capital markets.

I mentioned that the policy of passive investment in domestic equity will help smooth market entry for the fund. There are additional reasons to be confident that entry of the new fund will not disrupt capital markets. Canada's capital markets are mature, well developed and growing. Moreover, the new investment fund will grow gradually in its first few years. Even after 10 years the size of the CPP fund would only be comparable to that of the Caisse de dépot and the Ontario teachers pension fund.

It should also be remembered the the CPP will be reviewed every three years. Hence there will be ample opportunity to evaluate the fund's impact on markets and to make any necessary adjustments.

Ensuring the independence of the CPP investment board is a very important aspect of today's bill. However, just as important are the provisions designed to ensure that the board remains accountable not just to the federal and provincial governments but to the Canadian public.

The investment board will keep Canadians well informed of its policies, operations and investment results in the following ways: making its investment policies, standards and procedures public, releasing quarterly financial statements, publishing an annual report, and holding regular meetings in each province to allow for public discussion and input.

In addition, the ministers of finance and human resources development will prepare an annual report on the CPP which will include the financial statements of the CPP investment board as well as the report of the auditor general on those statements. This report will be sent to the provincial finance ministers and will also be tabled in Parliament.

In conclusion, the effect of the new policy I have outlined will be to treat the CPP as a true pension plan. This is not just my view but that of experts in the pension field. One of the most distinguished of them has written that a move to a market oriented, diversified investment policy would enhance intergenerational fairness, increase public confidence in CPP finances and also increase the CPP fund's prospective rate of return which in turn would reduce the long term cost of the plan.

In short, the legislation before us will address a range of crucial objectives for ensuring that Canadians will be able to look toward their retirement years with greater confidence and security.

[Immigration, September 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this year the International Whirlpool Bridge that links Canada and the U.S. celebrated its 100th anniversary.

This important celebration reinforced the co-operation existing between our two great countries. It is therefore difficult to believe that a new American immigration law will soon require that all Canadian travellers entering and exiting the United States complete a visa information card.

The community I represent is very concerned that this will cause endless hours of traffic jams and may damage the tourist and trade links we have established over a period of many years of co-operation.

It is then my sincere hope the proposed amendments exempting Canadians travelling to the U.S. each year are passed as soon as possible.

In the meantime I ask our government to keep pressure on our friends south of the border to implement the amendments so that this controversial law will not cause havoc in border communities across Canada.