Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act November 26th, 1997
We will get into that later in the other amendments, but I think my time is running out. We have all sorts of information that we want to share. I am sure all members are open minded and very willing to listen to some of these suggestions and recommendations. I certainly look forward to sharing them.
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act November 26th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased as a member of the New Democratic Party to participate in this debate.
I stand in this House in support of two motions that the NDP have put forward to improve Bill C-2. I refer specifically to Motion No. 1 in Group No. 1. This motion will replace with an amendment where the government may set out an independent panel of experts to review publicly disclosed and externally enforceable conflict of interest rules.
Why would we propose these changes? An independent panel of experts should help set up a code of conduct for the board of directors. I know the Liberals are very concerned about having codes of conduct because whenever that phrase is used, the Liberals seem to get caught breaking all the rules of the code of conduct.
I am absolutely petrified, apprehensive and not confident in what the Liberals are saying. They are telling this House and the people of Canada that Canadians can be assured that the Liberals are undertaking a program that will benefit them. Let me talk for a few minutes about how Canadians are so sure of the Liberal record when it comes to social safety programs.
Members and other Canadians may recall members of Parliament who preceded us in this Chamber, members in high regard, members like Major James Coldwell, a CCF member of Parliament from Regina. Many years ago members will recall the names of J.S. Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas. What these four CCF and NDP members of Parliament had in common was that they did not rest assured with assurances from Liberal governments previous to this one that they were going to support the benefits of Canadians in their later years.
As a matter of fact, these individuals, Woodsworth, Coldwell, Douglas and Stanley Knowles, fought tooth and nail for all of their political careers stretching some 35 years in a certain member's experience, fighting for pensions for Canadians. And who opposed those pensions? It was the Liberal Party, Liberal governments in the past and before that Conservative governments. If it was not for these four individuals and many other like-minded Canadians, we would not have a pension program in this country.
When I hear the Liberals opposite stand in their place and say rest assured Canadians, we are going to look after you, I think Canadians should be doubly aware and doubly concerned about something rotten in the state of Canada with respect to this pension plan. The record is very clear.
What I want to talk about in respect of these amendments is why does the government not support an independent panel of experts being created to outline a code of conduct for the board of directors? Is it because it is going to appoint the wealthy friends of the Minister of Finance? Is it going to appoint people like Conrad Black, a good friend of the prime minister of this country? They golf together, ride horses together and do all sorts of things together. What they do have in common with respect to all of Canada is that they tend to put the screws to those on the lower income scale. That is unacceptable in this day and age in this country.
Why are the Liberals not supporting such an amendment for a code of conduct? I think people should ask that question. When Liberals give them assurances that they are protecting their interests, I do not think those assurances are sufficient.
The true test of progress in our society somebody once said is not whether we add to the abundance to those who have much, but whether we provide enough for those who have too little. With respect to this test of progress on this bill and these amendments that the government is opposing, the Government of Canada is falling far short of passing this test of progress. It is not providing enough for those who do have little. What it is doing is making sure that those who have abundant incomes and assets are going to maintain and roll those assets at an accelerated scale at the expense of those who have very little.
The second amendment the NDP is putting forward is Motion No. 24. We are suggesting that there be a requirement for the chief actuary to forecast income from public benefits of future retirees relative to the earnings of those who are working. Why the change? Because we have an actuary who has been instructed by the Minister of Finance, and some people refer to him as the Scrooge of Canada and others have more unflattering names, but we will not get into those because we do not want to get into name calling at this point.
Why not allow the actuary and some of these Canada pension plan employees to provide some analysis of the costs of the plan and the benefits to seniors and older Canadians who will qualify for this pension? Why can they not share information publicly which would outline what retirees will receive 15 and 20 years down the road? It has projected what we are going to be paying, it has projected what it is going to cost, but it will not tell Canadians the truth about how much they will receive for paying for all these benefits.
I am asking the government to reconsider. If it really believes what it says that it is going to assure Canadians that it has the confidence of all of the provinces, then it will undertake to support these amendments.
I might add when the member opposite stood in the House and said that he had the support of two-thirds of the provinces, that eight of the ten are supporting Bill C-2 unamended, how many are from the CCF-NDP form of government? Not one. Who did the NDP and the CCF fight tooth and nail, year after year, decade after decade to obtain pensions? The NDP and the CCF fought the Liberals year after year, decade after decade for pensions on behalf of seniors. We were able to obtain the pension plan in the country after many decades of fighting and now they are asking why the NDP province of Saskatchewan, where I come from and represent, and the NDP province of British Columbia are not supporting the bill.
Canadians should be asking this question of themselves. They should be asking this question of the Liberal members of Parliament. When the Liberal members go back to their ridings constituents should ask them why the NDP provinces, the NDP who fought for pensions in this Parliament and this country are not supporting Bill C-2? Why are they not embracing all these changes?
Telecommunications Act November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no on this motion.
Division No. 30 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present this evening will vote no on this motion.
Division No. 30 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party caucus in the House this evening will vote no on this motion.
Division No. 29 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present will vote no on this motion.
Division No. 28 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present will vote no on this motion.
Division No. 27 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present tonight will vote no on this motion.
Privilege November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague's question of privilege with respect to the report being provided outside the committee before it was released to the members.
I was an associate member of that committee, Mr. Speaker, when the House was in session. As you will recall it was leading up to the election campaign. There was a great deal of problem with respect to maintaining a full complement of members in the House the day before they called the election.
With respect to the point of privilege, I want to add two points. The government House leader indicated that the member who just raised the question of privilege was not here and her personal privilege was not in question. She has raised this on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus. We believe that the privileges of all members of the House who were members at that time and continue to be members have been breached. We feel this has to be reviewed by you, Sir, and that you should report back to the House at your leisure.
With respect to whether this happened in committee, obviously there was a request for this information. It really falls outside the realm of the committee because it was external to the committee. The people who requested it were not members of the committee. Therefore the committee is partially responsible but we do not know for sure.
Mr. Speaker, you might recall that the minutes of the industry committee which reviewed this particular document that was leaked in advance of being provided to members of Parliament were in camera and were destroyed when the election was called and dissolution of Parliament took place. We really do not know for sure what happened but that, in my view, is a breach of the privileges of all members of Parliament as it pertains to this issue.
Banks November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In 1993 the Bank of Montreal wanted to buy the Harris Bank of Chicago. Under the American Community Reinvestment Act, U.S. regulators prevented the Bank of Montreal from closing the deal and getting a charter until the bank committed nearly $500 million for small business loans and community development.
In light of the record Canadian bank profits we are seeing on a daily basis, when will the minister introduce a community reinvestment act in Canada to make sure small business can access at fair rates capital they need desperately for their business?