Bill C-2 (Historical)

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

An Act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my response will not be in prose and verse. I just have not been hit yet with the attack of Jingle Bells , which undoubtedly seems to be striking here and there in the House.

We will continue this afternoon with the prebudget debate.

Tomorrow we shall consider report stage of Bill C-3, the Canada pension plan amendments. If there is any time left, we would then proceed with Bill C-15 respecting lobbyists. I intend to speak to other House leaders about that.

I shall communicate directly with members concerning the order of business, when we return from the adjournment on January 27. This will include any of the aforementioned business not completed, which includes: Bill C-3 and Bill C-15, obviously; Bill C-2, the Yukon bill; Bill C-6, specific claims; Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment; Bill C-19, the first nations bill; Bill C-20, protection of children; Bill C-22, the divorce legislation; and Bill C-23 respecting certain offenders.

As members can see, there are lots of items on the legislative agenda.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my best wishes for the holiday season and, of course, a happy new year 2003 to all hon. members, our staff and pages, not to mention the busboys.

Committees of the House

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on the Auditor General's report.

As the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane said, I think that the Liberal members opposite cannot read. I do not want to be too insulting, but the Auditor General stated that they have $30 billion more than they need. That is the issue. There is a $40 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund and only $15 billion is needed for emergencies.

During the last election, in 2000, the Prime Minister toured the Atlantic provinces saying, “We will fix the employment insurance problem. We will make changes because the Liberals lost seats here. We have to fix this”.

When the House resumed, the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok told the Minister of Human Resources Development, “This is a cry from the heart. Changes must be made”.

I remember Bill C-2. When it was introduced following the 2000 election, the Liberals opposite came to us and said, “It has to be passed quickly. The government is willing to pass this right now. We will work in committee to make other changes. We know that the workers need changes”.

How can this government proudly say, “We took your $30 billion in surpluses that we did not need. We paid down the debt, we balanced the budget, we lowered income taxes and we invested in social programs”. But who gave them permission? That is the question.

The Auditor General said herself that this was not right. Now, the Liberals want to justify themselves. Is it because they cannot read or because they do not know how to listen?

They come in with cheap shots in saying, “You don't believe the people who have a handicap”. Which party not too long ago cut their income tax credit? It was the Liberal Party that did it and it almost split the House. We know what happened to the motion that came from the NDP. The people who care about the handicapped people are on this side of the House and not on the government side.

As for the bill we wanted to present to the House on the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee, all parties agreed that changes were necessary.

Either we accept our country the way it is, or we do not. Our country is diversified. This is obvious when hon. members rise in this House and say “The money was used for this and for that”. Yet, when it comes to taking money from employees who worked hard for it, that is something else.

There is a small fund called the EI fund. If workers lose their jobs, they are eligible for employment insurance benefits that come out of this fund. The government is taking this away from them.

As if that were not disgraceful enough, as if they had not taken enough money away from workers without asking, the government is so greedy that on July 1, 2002, it added interest to EI overpayments

We are talking about people who are out of work. The woman from Tracadie owed $15,000 to employment insurance. She thought her employment insurance benefits had been calculated properly. She had a small business. She worked. During the off season, she did not receive any money. She paid her bills and made deposits at the bank.

One day, the government, through the Minister of Human Resources said “It is too bad. You did not declare your employment, now you owe $15,000 and you are disqualified from receiving EI benefits”.

It is a disgrace that today the government turns around and says “That is fraud”. This person did not even receive any money and she is being treated like a crook. The woman from Tracadie paid $120 to the federal government each month to try to repay her debt. She took this $120 from her employment insurance benefits.

With the interest the government is charging on the overpayment, guess how much money goes to his debt? Twenty dollars a month and $100 in interest. It is a disgrace to see how the Liberals go after poor people's money.

They cannot even monitor the GST, with the result that some companies rob them on a daily basis. It is a disgrace to go after the country's poorest. I would like to see Liberals rise and challenge what I am saying here this evening.

It is estimated that the government deprives New Brunswick of $278 million in benefits every year. It is small and medium size businesses that lose these $278 million. These are benefits that were spent in stores and restaurants, benefits that helped people make a living.

Instead of taking action and helping people get organized to find work and stimulate regional economies, the government cut support to the country's poorest, because they cannot protect themselves, they cannot afford to hire lawyers and they do not contribute to the Liberal campaign fund. This is the only reason they are punished. This is a disgrace.

It is a terrible disgrace to see a government manage our country in this fashion. It is disgusting. The government should be ashamed.

A recommendation was made by all the parties in the House to make changes to the employment insurance program. The Prime Minister travelled across the country. He went to the Gaspé, to Belledune, in New Brunswick, to Cape Breton, to Halifax. He promised to make changes, but he did not make these changes. Now, the only thing that the government says is, “Ah! we are giving that money to Canadians”.

I have no right to steal money from my child and give it to someone else to please that person. This is no way to run a family; this is no way to run a country. This is a disgrace.

That money is deducted from people's paycheques. Workers get up every morning to go to work and they receive their paycheques on Friday. The stub shows their gross earnings, their total earnings. Then, they can see how much taxes they paid. These taxes are used to fund our social programs and to manage the finances of our country. As for the Canada pension plan, it is for people, when they are ill or when they retire.

Employment insurance is for when one loses his or her job. It is not for balancing the budget and attaining a zero deficit. It is not for giving the former Minister of Finance a reason to pat himself on the back and boast about what a great finance minister he has been. “I was careful with public funds. I have no deficit. We are paying down the debt.”

But at whose expense? We have a government spending a billion to register firearms. We know that Groupaction got its hands on $22 million, and that scandals abound. Then the poor little workers are grabbed by the throat and told, “You have no right to a living. Your family does not have the right to have food on the table tomorrow morning”.

The government would have the House on the idea that 85% of qualified EI recipients in fact receive benefits. They say that 85% of qualified workers receive benefits, but that figure should be 100%. They ought to be ashamed that 15% still do not qualify. What they are not saying, however, is that only 40% of people who pay into EI are actually drawing benefits.

What has happened in regions like the Atlantic region? Young people could have seasonal employment and have some hope of staying in the region. But they are told, “No, you need 910 hours. If you don't have them, go work in Ontario or out west. That is how we will treat you”.

And what about the construction workers? “This is how we will treat you. Go to Alberta to work, leave your wife and kids behind. If you quit your job after that, there won't be any EI”. The general theme was, “Tough luck, you can starve to death.”

These are very proud people, good people. My colleague over the way comes from PEI. I am sure he agrees with me, but he cannot rise and talk about what is going on in PEI.

What is happening to the fish plant workers and the forestry workers? They depend on EI. How many times have I repeated here in this House: big city people like to have 2x4s to build with, and the lumber comes from trees cut down in our part of the country. Big city people like their blueberries, and they are picked in our region. Berry picking does not go on when there is snow on the ground. How many times have I said the same thing?

It is not on Yonge Street, in Toronto, or on Sainte-Catherine Street, in Montreal, that fishers catch cod, but in Chaleur Bay, in the Atlantic or in the Pacific. This is seasonal work. We need to understand this. And so do Canadians. To build a united country, we need to work together. The Liberals ought to be ashamed.

Frankly, my concern is not with EI premiums. I have seen no worker or demonstrator in the street, shouting that the premiums were too high. I have seen no employer in the street, shouting that the premiums were too high. What I have seen is people shouting, “I no longer qualify for EI. The Liberal Government of Canada is picking on me”.

In 1989, when Doug Young, my predecessor, was in opposition, he criticized the Mulroney government for making changes to the EI program. He said,“I encourage all New Brunswickers to fight any changes to the unemployment insurance system with vigour, because they would spell disaster for New Brunswick”.

In February 1993, when he was in opposition, the current Prime Minister of Canada stated that the Progressive Conservatives were not acting properly in connection with the changes to EI.

What did he tell, in Rivière-du-Loup, a group of people opposing the changes to the EI system? He told them that the government was not acting properly, that it should not be attacking men and women, that it was discriminatory. He said that, instead, it should be dealing with the economy and creating jobs, and that those who went back to work would no longer need employment insurance. We must give these people a sense of pride, and stop putting them down.

I find it disgusting to hear that $50 million going to Toronto described as an investment, whereas $6 million going to Atlantic Canada is described as social assistance. We have had it. There is no place for this kind of language in a united country. It is not fair to say that people in Atlantic Canada are abusing the system. These are proud people; they want to work, but they need job opportunities.

If millions of dollars were pouring into New Brunswick, as they are in the pockets of Groupaction, there would be jobs in New Brunswick and no one would be unemployed. If the government were serious about economic development, we would be able to develop our economy.

Last week, the Liberal Minister of Labour said in Belledune that there was $90 million set aside for northern highways. This week, she said, “What I meant to say is that this is $90 is part of the $500 million that were promised last year”. Announcements cannot be made two or three times. That is not how announcements should be made. When you make an announcement, it is done. The $500 million that was announced was for highway 2 in southern New Brunswick, not for northern New Brunswick. Now, we hope that they will keep their word. They cannot move forward by going back on their word.

In New Brunswick, people believe in economic development. We believe that infrastructure needs to be put in place. We need to stop cutting and invest in people and the economy. That is how to solve the problem.

We cannot cut the Gaspé Peninsula, or the Atlantic regions off and tell the people there that there is nothing left for them and that we no longer believe in them. It does not work like that.

I quite like Toronto. It is a fine city, but the folks from back home do not want to live there. It is not where they come from, it is not their home. When a government is in power, it has a responsibility: it cannot look after just one province, it is responsible for the whole country. It has to understand how people live. That is what a real government is all about.

These days, the government has forgotten all about this. It does polls. It asks itself, “Will we get enough votes? If so, we are fine. Did we cut enough? We cut too much; we will give back a bit. They are hungry; we will solve it with a few crumbs”.

In human terms, we need more than this. Back home, small businesses want to succeed. They want to create jobs. There cannot be jobs if the government does not build the infrastructure to get people to work.

For example, in northeastern New Brunswick, they want the government to build a natural gas pipeline. They say, “Where the natural gas pipeline is being built, there will be job creation”. When you look from out west all the way to Bernier, in Quebec, there are jobs. Any further, and there are no more. Which means that if there were natural gas back home, the region would prosper. It would pave the way for businesses and people could work. People would give anything to work or to create jobs.

Last week, I met with representatives of the local chamber of commerce. They asked me what they could do to create employment. I told them the only way would be to have infrastructure and to get the wheels turning to attract companies and create jobs.

As I was saying before, all of a sudden one week they announced $90 million. This dropped to $77 million on Monday, and today, Wednesday, there is no money left at all. Some announcement. That will create jobs.

People do not just want employment insurance. It exists and was created for cases when the government cannot fulfill its responsibilities or else for companies to find employment for people. People do not want to go on social assistance. People are eager to work. People from back home go to work in northern Ontario, in Toronto. You meet people from my region everywhere you go, and some of them have left their family behind in order to find work.

It is a disgrace to hear people say they are all lazy and no good and do not want to work, as my predecessor said. I answered back, “If you worked for $5.50 an hour, you would be lazy too”.

People want a good job, they do not want to be on employment insurance. That is not what they want. It is a program that belongs to them to help them out when they are going through hard times.

As I have said before and am saying again, 35 days before a general election, the Liberals believe in everything that I just talked about. But the day after the election, and for the next four years, they forget all about it. They become true right-wing Liberals and say, “We will look after our major corporations and people like those who run Groupaction. We will throw money at them, to the tune of $20 million or $22 million a shot”. Now, these people have fun; they are not on social assistance and they have food on the table every morning. Their children are not hungry. These people have no problems.

But that is not the case back home. I meet people; every day, my office receives between 50 and 100 calls from people who are in dire straits. On the government side, it seems that they only get a couple of calls, usually from Groupaction, Bombardier, GM or other corporations. Now they have noting to worry about: one call, and everything is settled. As for the others, let them starve to death.

Let us hope that the government will realize what needs to be done. It is not about benefits, it is about having a system that works, and it is about beginning to give money to remote regions, to regions that have seasonal workers, so as to help them and create jobs. At the same time, we could have a program to ensure that these people can survive during those periods when there is no work to be had. We cannot let them down.

We do not live in that kind of country, I think. It is said that we live in the best country in the world, but today there 4.1 million children who are going hungry in this country. Three hundred thousand children depend on food banks each month. That is nothing to be proud of.

Therefore, I am asking the government to do some soul searching, particularly since Christmas is coming. Perhaps the government will have some good news for us in January.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report that was tabled today. I helped draft this report, since it is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on which I sit, that also examined premium rates and employment insurance surpluses.

We asked many questions in the House. The Department of Human Resources Development provided some explanations. So did the Department of Finance. This is the third time that the Auditor General has sounded the alarm and said “It really makes no sense that, with current premiums, there is a surplus which, on March 31, 2002, reached $42.8 billion”.

I invite members opposite to read the report. There are some very interesting conclusions and recommendations. We hope that, for once, the government will address this issue.

I want to say something about the first recommendation. When recommendations are made to this government, it is important to include dates, because this government has a habit of saying “Soon, soon, soon”. But for us, soon now means 2003, if not 2004.

The first recommendation is very clear and it includes a cut-off date. It reads:

That the government clarify and disclose to Parliament and the public accounts committee all the relevant factors used in setting the employment insurance premium rates, particularly with regard to determining the nature of the employment insurance account balance and deciding on its disposition.

That the government table the relevant information to Parliament and the Committee no later than March 31, 2003.

This means that the other side will have to wake up and begin to realize that there is a major problem with premium rates and the employment insurance surplus.

The second recommendation states that:

During the review of the employment insurance premium setting process, the government take all necessary steps to include consultations with employee and employer groups along with the Canada Employment Insurance Commission and the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada and all other relevant stakeholders.

We put a question to Human Resources Development officials. They told us “We will soon begin consultations and that is about it”. We asked where these consultations would lead us. They replied “If we cannot agree, we will go back to the old method”.

The old practice is the one that allows the government to keep on collecting the surplus and strangling the unemployed.

I will continue because this report is very important. The last time the Auditor General referred to the EI fund, she said, “This is the third time I have raised this issue. I hope that the government will deal with this very important issue once and for all”.

The third recommendation is as follows:

That the government prepare a status report on these consultations—

It should start with this. This is most important.

--summarizing each participant's position, contribution and conclusion to the review of the employment insurance rate setting process and table the document to Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee when the review is complete.

I think that the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts have once again found ways and methods for this government to finally resolve this problem that affects workers and small business. The way that premiums are paid hurts small business and creates problems in terms of competition. The members opposite do not seem to understand this.

I will continue with the fourth recommendation, and I hope the members opposite will take the time to read this report.

The Auditor General said that if the government did not act, she would have very harsh criticism when she returns before us in April, 2003. She has warned the government three times now and she hopes that they have heeded her.

The fourth recommendation reads:

That the government formally reinstate the requirement that the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada prepare and produce full and complete actuarial reports for the EI program for 2002-2003.

As my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, said earlier, since Bill C-2 was passed, the whole issue has been left in the hands of the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development. We do not know where the money goes, nor how the premiums are set. It is high time, therefore, to return to more transparent and more effective methods.

I will finish by quoting the fifth recommendation from the report:

That the government consider legislative amendments that would require the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada to produce on an annual basis actuarial reports on the EI program. That these reports be made available in a timely fashion to all stakeholders and the public on the Human Resources Development Canada website.

There are five major recommendations in this report, which are to my mind logical and necessary if we are to get to the bottom of this problem with employment insurance, which affects workers and small businesses. The current employment insurance rates are strangling them.

I am directing this message to the government, and to the present Prime Minister as well, if he really wants to leave a legacy, an image of someone who cares, who has given some thought to the fate of the jobless and the small and medium size businesses that are struggling. He has an opportunity, in my opinion, to leave us as the mark of his passage through here as Prime Minister, the proof that he is humane, a man of compassion and one who understands the suffering in our society.

I do not think this will happen, because there is a conspiracy within this government, the present Minister of Finance, his parliamentary secretary who has just spoken, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the Liberals, or the Quebec Liberal caucus, to keep on digging into the employment insurance fund.

This government's sole objective, in maintaining the premium rates and the surplus in the fund so high, is to keep its hand in the till so it can pay down the debt. It is doing this at the expense of the unemployed workers and the small and medium size businesses. This is unacceptable, heartless, totally arrogant.

I trust that the Liberals over there, the federal Liberals from Quebec, will take time to read this report so they will understand what poverty is, and will get moving once and for all on solving the problem with the EI fund and its surplus.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what to respond to since I have not heard any questions. The member took this opportunity to make a speech.

If people are paying employment insurance, it is so that if they lose their job, they can get benefits, thanks to their insurance. That is the purpose of employment insurance.

In some ways, it is good that we have this system and employment insurance. What is bad when we talk about employment insurance, is that the government has misappropriated it for other purposes. When the Bloc refused to support Bill C-44 in 1997, it was because the government was using this bill as a licence to steal. That was the issue.

In 2000, the government came up with Bill C-2, which made theft from the fund legal. That is what is unacceptable.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources on Bill C-6, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other acts, with amendments.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, pursuant to its order of reference dated Tuesday, October 22. Your committee considered Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon, and reports the bill, with amendments.

Parliamentary Reform

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the issue of modernization in this place.

I honestly believe that we need to have a long hard look at the excessive use of time allocation and closure and bring back meaningful debate. Quite likely very soon, the House will be asked to debate the Kyoto protocol, arguably the most important issue to hit this session. While I would never anticipate a decision of the House, I will anticipate the Prime Minister and his House leader. Even though the government has absolutely no agenda it will resort to closing off debate on Kyoto because it is concerned that if enough Canadians become aware of the impact, the government will be in hot water.

If one is on the right side of an issue and debates it sufficiently enough, one will win, and the Liberals know that they are on the wrong side of the Kyoto issue so they will respond by stifling debate. They used the same tactic when they raised the CPP premiums by 70%. The figured that if Canadians were upset about a 7% GST, they would not have much appreciation for a 70% CPP hike, so they rammed the bill through using closure at every turn.

The naval aid bill of 1913 marked the first time in Canadian parliamentary history that closure was used. When it was used to shut down the pipeline debate in 1956, a respected academic, C.E.S. Franks, dubbed the incident the most important in Parliament's history. He argued that the pipeline debate had “inaugurated the modern parliamentary age of both obstruction and reform”.

If 1956 marks the inauguration of the modern parliamentary age of obstruction, then I submit that 2002 marks the age when the right of the opposition to filibuster died. The opposition no longer has the tools to obstruct. Normally, as soon as the government gets a whiff of a filibuster or anticipates controversy, it closes off debate and advances the bill through the system before the public gets wise to its contents. On the second day of debate on the CPP bill, the government invoked time allocation. The remaining stages of that bill met the same fate. The public felt the impact of Bill C-2 long before it ever heard there was a bill before Parliament.

It is important to note that the finance minister at the time was the member for LaSalle—Émard, the member who now cries crocodile tears about democratic deficit.

Time allocation and closure are supposed to be about managing time. The government uses time allocation to manage controversy. When it introduces a controversial bill, it invokes time allocation almost immediately, slipping the bill through Parliament before the opposition has time to solicit public support for its point of view.

Filibusters are a part of our history and play an important role, since they raise the profile of an issue so that the public can learn and respond. Sadly, that tradition has been lost because this government and its predecessor have taken just about every filibuster tool away from the opposition.

The last time the opposition waged a successful filibuster was with the Nisga'a bill. Unlike debate, the government could not curtail voting, so the Reform Party introduced hundreds of motions, causing the House to vote around the clock for 42 hours. It was that unusual event that made news as far away as the United Kingdom. It was a successful filibuster tactic in that it raised the profile of an issue.

How did the government respond? The first order of business in this Parliament was to remove that tactic. The current government House leader shuts down debate at every turn, often leaving the House with nothing to debate. Since this session began we have had an unprecedented number of take note debates. We have taken note more often than we have taken action. There is no legislation, so we take note and navel gaze for days at a time when Canadians are faced with serious issues that demand action.

The reason we are taking note today is not that we do not know what to do or that we need to convince ourselves that reform is needed. It is that the government has nothing else to do and would rather take note than take action.

It has become so bad that sometimes government members have had to filibuster their own bills in order to give the appearance that the House has something to do. Under the current House leader's reign, the House has had to be adjourned early every Friday and sometimes on Thursdays. Just last Monday, we shut down more than one hour early.

It might come as a surprise to some, but the Canadian Alliance is not entirely opposed to the use of time allocation and closure. With a few changes, these procedures can be used legitimately and effectively. I would like to read into the record the Alliance's policy on closure and time allocation from Building Trust II, our document on the issue:

First, we recommend amending the rules to provide the Speaker with greater discretionary authority. The Speaker should only allow a time allocation motion to be put forward if he is satisfied that the motion does not infringe on the rights of the minority.

Second, we believe that a change in attitude is required. An Alliance government would respect the parliamentary tradition of the balance between the right of an opposition to solicit public support through debate and reasonable delaying tactics and the right of a government to eventually have its legislation come to a vote.

The final point would be to provide more legitimacy to the legislative process, including the process for allotting time, by allowing free votes.

The excessive use of time allocation is symptomatic of a larger problem. The government has little time for parliamentary process because it arrogantly believes that its own internal process is sufficient.

While we can appreciate that much work goes into the creation of legislation, Parliament is where the views of the public are brought to bear on the process. The current process is unacceptable. Once a bill is introduced in Parliament, or leaked to the media in advance, another extremely thorny subject but best left for another day, once introduced, the public and the media accept that it will become law. The parliamentary process is often seen as little more than a delay. What takes place on the floor of the House is nothing more than a time game. Debate is not intended to convince anyone of anything but is used to fill time. That is the perception of the public.

The government is interested in only one thing. The question it asks of the opposition is not how it feels about a particular bill, or how it feels it might be improved, or why the opposition's constituents have a problem with it. No, the only question on the mind of the government is how much time the opposition is going to spend on it.

The government House leader takes all this information from the opposition parties regarding time and decides if it fits into his timetable. What is said or done on the floor of the House and in committee is rarely considered. The concern is not what is being said, but how long it takes to say it. This is the only leverage the opposition parties have, so they use it. An opposition that messes up the government's agenda occasionally succeeds in getting change. The result is that speaking and listening become irrelevant, while disruption and delay occasionally achieve change.

We should consider giving more value to debate, rather than time, by allowing free votes. Free votes would go a long way toward altering this dysfunctional relationship between the legislative and executive branches of government. With free votes, the government would have to listen to debate. It would have to negotiate and be willing to compromise. With this process, legislation could be improved.

Because of the use of closure, members have resorted to other means to legitimately raise the profile of an issue. These other means are no substitute for legitimate debate, but in the absence of such, members are left with little choice. The most obvious recent example is the Nisga'a voting marathon in the last parliament. I am sure that Canadians would much rather listen to reasoned debate than to the ringing of bells or to members' names being called for 42 hours straight.

Government Contracts

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat for the hon. member's benefit: the contributions are already public and the rules of transparency will be enhanced by the bill that is going to be introduced shortly. Finally, I might point out to her and her party that, when we reinforced the rules for third party transparency with Bill C-2, her party voted against it.

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I am not reprimanding anyone on my side of the House, bien au contraire. I will get to that in a little while and I hope the hon. member will listen attentively.

I am not too worried about consistency when debating the Alliance members. Their party is the one which not too long ago wanted to take some people whose profiles they did not agree with and put them at the back of the store. It is the same party that chastised its own members and put them at the back of the House. It is the same party that turfed people out of their critic roles and all kinds of other things when they made statements they did not like. So I will take the remonstrances from the people across the way with a grain of salt.

Let me get to what was said a while ago about Canada's record as a liberal democracy. We can have our debates inside the House and disagree with one another all we like, but to pretend that this is akin somehow to our not being the liberal democracy that we are, the international observers that we are, the international defenders of peace that we are and have been, is simply wrong.

It says all kinds of wrong things about the people who work for Elections Canada, with which I do not agree. It says all kinds of wrong things about our peacekeepers, about Canadians working as volunteers offshore trying to install parliamentary democracies and other liberal democracies elsewhere in the world.

I for one am very proud of what they have done, and I am very confident about every effort they have made, such as representing Canada in Zimbabwe. We have been chastised for that by the House leader for the official opposition, which is wrong. None of us on this side of the House, regardless of how we agree or disagree with the motion that is before us, would agree with the premise raised by the hon. member that our international election observers cannot defend Canada as a result of a dispute on how to elect committee chairs. That is simply ridiculous.

This is internal cuisine that we have here. That is what it is. We will solve it and that is fine, but we should at least put it for what it is and not start saying that Canada somehow misses its international role as a result of a dispute two sword lengths across the way for our electing committee chairs.

There was an indication a while ago about how we did modernization and how all of us live by the modernization rules that we have set in place.

We put in place a modernization rule whereby members on all sides of the House could know a day ahead of time what the subject would be. What did the opposition do yesterday, those same people in favour of modernization? They put forward two motions so that we would not know which one they really wanted to move today. Next week perhaps there will be 10, and the week after the entire phone book so we will not know what the topic will be. They are completely going around the modernization rule which they themselves said they are in favour of. Let us remember what is going on here before we believe everything we are told by the other side of the House.

I want to talk about the parallels that have been drawn with the Canada Elections Act. I am the minister responsible for the Canada Elections Act. I put forward Bill C-2 to modernize our election laws, to put rules on third parties and to do all those things so that there would not be some of this grey money, shall I call it, that was entering the political process and so that we could not have these campaigns artificially defeating some of our people in the House. There was the no more prime ministers from Quebec campaign which some of us saw not that long ago. Do we remember those campaigns? Do we remember how they got there?

We remember all those things. We put forward Bill C-2 to plug up those loopholes. Which party voted against it? Do we remember which party was against Bill C-2, which party was against those transparency rules? It was the Alliance Party. Do opposition members think I have forgotten or that any other member on this side of the House will soon forget?

After we put that in place, the National Citizens' Coalition protested. Of course the National Citizens' Coalition is not national and it is not a citizens' coalition or anything close to it. Anyway, that organization decided it would launch a court action against me and the government for having passed that. Then it brought the government to the Supreme Court against having transparency rules. Does everyone know who was the leader of the National Citizens' Coalition when it did that?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague from Halifax West. I agree with a lot of the things he said. It was an excellent submission, especially the point about the 800 years in developing a parliamentary procedure and that we should be careful in what changes we make.

I would like to muse on the strategy the opposition parties have come up with for opposition days this fall. Last week we debated a motion from the Alliance when members explained they would like to debate “a new idea” from the member for LaSalle—Émard. Rather than debate one of their own ideas, they wanted to debate another Liberal new idea. Today we see that Bloc members once again have made a great point all day that they would like to debate “another new idea” of the Liberals, an idea from the member for LaSalle—Émard.

Most of the motions coming from a majority government are Liberal ideas which we promote and debate, but now the opposition has decided to give their days back. In the time that they have to promote their ideas of how they will be a government in waiting, we also get to debate new Liberal ideas. It is devastating.

In the spirit of collegiality I encourage my cher collègues to keep coming up with good ideas so that the opposition can press forward with this strategy right to the bitter end.

I would like to talk about today's motion but first I will read it into the record.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, government appointments of ambassadors, consuls general and heads of regulatory bodies and Crown corporations should automatically be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for consideration, and that the relevant Standing Orders of the House of Commons should be amended accordingly.

On December 5, 1984, the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons, the McGrath committee, was appointed to examine the powers, procedures, practices, organizations and facilities of the House of Commons. Among the recommendations it ultimately came up with was that committees should be authorized to review non-judicial order in council appointments or in some cases nominations for appointment.

As a result, under Standing Orders 110 and 111 of the House of Commons, non-judicial order in council appointments are automatically referred to the appropriate standing committee within five days for consideration. The committee may call the nominee or appointee before it during the subsequent 30-day period to review his or her qualifications for the post. The committee may report recommendations to the House, but in keeping with the recommendations of the McGrath committee it does not have the power to confirm or reject the appointment.

In essence, the resolution today is confirming that procedure and reinforcing it. I do not have a problem with that. That is confirmed in a statement made on February 19, 2002, by the member for Mercier:

In the case of any political appointment, the committee may ask to give its approval regarding the experience and expertise of the appointee to perform the duties of his job.

This is an article from the Canadian Press .

I have no problem in supporting the motion and the system that basically is in place.

The Standing Orders currently allow for a review of order in council appointments. Since 1994 there have been over 4,300 such appointments and the committee has rarely used this power except when there was significant publicity. I would like to commend the former members of Parliament for using this power judiciously, for not having the types of circuses that occasionally occur in American congressional hearings that go on and on, and which do not serve the purposes that a rational review is meant to accomplish.

While we are talking about appointments, I want to make a clarification on another bill we are reviewing, Bill C-2. There was an issue related to appointments to a board in that particular bill. One of the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition was concerned that there might be problems with these government appointments because of the significant major powers of this board.

The member may have had some bad experiences in the past related to this and so has concerns. For clarification, and I said this on CBC radio last night as well, this particular board has only seven members and only one is appointed by the minister free and clear. The rest are nominated by other organizations. That may be a generic debate related to boards totally appointed by the Government of Canada. In this particular case it is not relevant because only one in seven of the members is appointed by the government.

A number of members from all the parties today have talked about various aspects of government reform that have been discussed in the House. I want to talk about private members' bills because there are a number of members who have been concerned about various aspects of it. I probably have a different view than many members. In promoting private members' business and making it more successful, we must increase the respect that parliamentarians have for the people who work in the departments and vice versa. They must also increase their respect for us so that we can get good policy into private members' bills.

If I come up with an idea in an area in which I am not an expert, I go to the experts who have spent careers on that particular area. Some members do this and that is great. The experts have checked out various legislation in other countries that is similar. They have checked the pros and cons, and consulted people. They have done legal checks. They have done all sorts of research on a particular area and if members can say that they have dealt with it, consulted on it and looked at it, then people would give more credibility to the initiatives.

On the other side, the people in the departments too have to respect that every member in the House is a representative of the people. They have been elected by the people to put forward the wishes of the people. When members, no matter which party they are from, come up with ideas or suggestions which more often than not probably emanated from the people, then the people who have designed the bill should be able to answer the questions. They should be able to come up with the reasons why the bill should stay as it is or make appropriate changes.

We need to increase that dialogue. Everyone would have more respect and more confidence in the product that comes out. Perhaps we could have more progress in private members' business.

Canada Pension Plan

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-3 would basically carry on with the work that was done in a prior Parliament under Bill C-2 establishing the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Some of the points the member has raised were discussed and considered when we went through that process.

One of the principles that was discussed was whether the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board should be an instrument of policy. By that I mean whether it should be an instrument used to promote social or fiscal policy or other objectives that Parliament might have such as ethical investment which the member mentioned. Should we have any investments in tobacco companies because tobacco is bad? We want to clean our environment therefore should we not be supporting those areas?

Those are all very important goals that we try to work on. However considering the size of the pool of funds available to the investment board it is clear that there is a high risk that those investments, if strategically placed, could have a significant disruptive effective on the marketplace.

The decision was taken back then that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and its investment funds would not be utilized as a policy tool. In fact, we would have investments. Our objective was to maximize the return on investments comparable to what other investors receive in the marketplace and that investments would be made in the broad cross section in Canadian markets as well as having a balanced debt and equity, and to afford up to 30% of those investments offshore as under the RRSP program. That is where Parliament made that decision.

This particular bill is not bringing that subject back up again although the member again raised the concern that we would like to do those things. Upon reflection, I am sure the member would agree that it would be a dangerous thing to take the money of participants in the Canada pension plan and use it to somehow steer social or public policy considering that such a large amount of money is intended to provide pension benefits for retirees, death benefits for spouses and children, survivor benefits and disability benefits which are substantial. The member may want to comment on those points.

He may want to comment on the fact that the Canada pension plan system was under some question about whether or not it was viable over the long-term. He may also want to comment on the fact that the changes made in Bill C-2 were necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Canada pension plan system.

Notwithstanding the member's noble intent to advance social and public policy, I think he would concede that it is in conflict with the premise of ensuring that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board optimize the return for pensioners to ensure that the cost of operating the plan is as fair and reasonable as possible. At the same time it should be maintaining the benefit levels of all of those benefits, whether they be pension benefits, survivor benefits, death benefits or disability benefits. We must ensure that they remain at levels which would allow our seniors to get the benefits.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that would be an interesting subject for discussion for a broadly based round table, because it really is all about the impacts of an aging society, in every aspect. We know how the baby boomer spike has moved through the system and has affected us over the decades in various ways. It used to be that tennis rackets and golf clubs were the big investment for baby boomers and now it is bird-watching equipment.

The impact on the Canada pension plan system is significant in terms of the ratio of workers to retirees. It is going from about five workers per retiree down to three. It means that there is a greater demand. By the same token, if we follow it out to its logical extension, once the baby boomers get into the late retirement years and in fact pass away, all of a sudden the demand is going to shift again. We are going to go through this and we are going to get the echo generation.

Canadians were saying at the time that they thought the Canada pension plan system was bankrupt or was maybe going to be bankrupt and they were concerned about it. The government, through Bill C-2 and now through this bill, Bill C-3, is completing a process to ensure that the Canada pension plan system is on a sound footing, that the returns on the moneys invested are comparable to other investment opportunities and that this plan will be there for them in their retirement.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-3, having been a member of the finance committee when the former Bill C-2 established the CPP Investment Board. Having spoken on it, I feel I have a little bit of background knowledge on it.

I was astounded today to hear some of the commentary by some of the members. There was one speaker, I believe from the NDP, who suggested that when the GIS increased, the CPP would automatically decrease. That is absolutely incorrect. Canada pension plan benefits are determined independently, they are not subject to an income test or a means test. Canadians get reports periodically on their prospective pension benefits so that they know exactly what they have to work with in terms of their overall retirement planning.

Bill C-3 would provide another step toward the fuller implementation of the creation of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board which was set up under former Bill C-2 to bring the Canada pension plan into the next phase to take into account the fact that we have an aging society. That is what it comes down to.

Let me comment briefly on the investment board. I then want to get back to the Canada pension plan because it is important that we reassure Canadians exactly what the Canada pension plan system is and how it works for them.

The board established in 1998 and it is an independent arm's-length board from government. It has a mandate to invest only in the interest of plan members. It has full authority to develop and implement investment policies and has a process for choosing its own board of directors.

It now has a track record with regard to the moneys that have been transferred to it for its investment and indeed on a calendar year basis, the Canada pension plan's last reported annual return was 6.2% which outperformed many other large public sector pension plans. Canadians should understand that the board has a good track record. I wish to note some comparatives. People might be familiar with the Caisse de dépôt which over the same period had a return on its investment of negative 5%. It lost 5%. The Ontario teachers pension plan lost 2.3%. In terms of the performance measures, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has been doing a good job on behalf of Canadians through the management of Canadian funds.

There was a question raised by some members about a number of issues such as, why we do not invest in certain types of investments rather than others, for instance, why do we not have an ethical filter, or a health filter? For example, let us not invest in tobacco companies because tobacco is bad. There were a number of principles involved in establishing the investment board and one of those was that it was not going to be manipulated and used as an instrument of policy. It was not going to be used to direct how we were going to influence certain activities either in the marketplace or in terms of social policy.

Therefore, the thinking at the time was that given the size of the fund the investment board was going to manage the fund on behalf of Canadians. It was important that this large investment body, with this large pool of funds, was not going to be used in a way which would bring disruption to the marketplace. It meant that it was going to invest in a balanced way right across the spectrum and basically emulate the investment patterns of all other investors in the Canadian marketplace as well as foreign investment content.

The House has dealt many times with foreign content in registered retirement savings plans, et cetera. Certainly it continues to be a matter which the finance committee has looked at.

It is another element of a good investment strategy to ensure that there is an opportunity to have a balance in a portfolio and that Canadians can earn a fair and equitable return relative to other investment opportunities. However with a restriction on foreign investments, it could be argued that those who have a different investment strategy and utilize investment funds outside of their RRSPs have no limitations on how much they can invest abroad.

They do have options if in fact the returns were that much greater, but in this volatile marketplace the CPP Investment Board is not meant to be an instrument of high risk or volatility. It has to support the marketplace to the extent necessary not to impair the availability of capital for Canadian capital markets. At the same time it should be supportive of Canadian businesses through equity investments that reflect the broad base of listed equity investments as well as debt instruments that are available to all investors.

The issue regarding foreign investment is always under discussion and it is useful to have. I know that the CPP Investment Board is made up of some of the best experts in the industry and those kinds of questions come up. As members will know, the Canada Pension Plan system is a collaboration of federal and provincial governments and there is a tri-annual review, I believe there is a review this fall, at which time the provinces and the federal government get together to look at some of the matters which have come to their attention, and where they may want to review policy positions.

I would encourage all members who are interested in the process to make suggestions to the Government of Canada, to the Minister of Finance, maybe through the parliamentary secretary, about items they would like to see discussed with regard to the future of the Canada pension plan and how it operates. It is constructive to get those items on the agenda so that when the provinces and the federal government get together and sit down and talk about the CPP, they have the benefit of the ideas we have from Canadians and from our own work, whether it be through the finance committee or otherwise. Their deliberations will determine how the Canada pension plan can better serve Canadians over the longer term.

I was a concerned about one speaker from the Canadian Alliance, the member for Peace River. It reminded me of the discussions that were taking place in the House about the future viability of the Canada pension plan system. The then Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, came up with a view that the Canada pension plan system should be replaced by another system which was described as a mandatory pension contribution by Canadians. It is almost a mandatory retirement plan.

This was the solution to the problems of the Canada pension plan system because it has higher premiums than it used to, and it has an unfunded liability. According to the Canadian Alliance we should take that system, put it over here, and the best thing we can do for Canadians is have a mandatory contributory plan to pensions.

I have never, ever thought that this idea was well thought out. I was concerned that someone actually would suggest that somehow retirement contributions would be mandated, knowing that in a volatile world, more often than not people are not only living from paycheque to paycheque, they are actually borrowing to live. How does a Canadian make a mandatory contribution to a pension plan, to a pension program, when cash flow is not available? How does he or she provide for those pension benefits? It makes no sense. I have not heard the explanation and I hope that the members who are suggesting that would explain that point.

There is another aspect. Let us look at the Canada pension plan system and what it does today. It provides pension benefits to Canadians when they reach retirement age. Canadians have the opportunity to retire early, up to age 60 instead of 65, by taking a slightly reduced pension. They also have the opportunity to extend or defer the collection of Canada pension plan benefits and earn even a greater benefit. So there is a little bit of latitude here, depending on personal circumstances. Canadians have this opportunity either to take pension benefits early or to defer them.

The Canada pension plan also provides survivor benefits to the spouse of a pensioner who passes away. It is very important that there be this continuity of the benefits for a family or a part thereof because they have responsibilities.

There are also death benefits. I am not sure if Canadians are aware but under the Canada pension plan system a person does have a death benefit. Should a pensioner die, a death benefit is there for the surviving spouse and for any surviving children. I think the amount was $2,000 but I believe it is now just $1,000. It went down but the benefit is there.

Then there is the disability benefit, which most Canadians probably have not figured out why it is in the Canada pension plan system. Under the Canada pension plan system Canadians who become disabled and are contributors to the Canada pension plan system qualify for disability benefits.

We have talked quite a bit in recent days about the importance of disability benefits and to make sure that people who are entitled to those disability benefits get them. There is some controversy now about whether the rules have been changed and maybe some people who should get disability benefits are not getting benefits. I think members know, through our work in our constituency offices, that there are venues and that every case can be dealt with on a case by case basis to justify a disability benefit.

That is an expensive proposition. Members can imagine how when we build up pension benefits, survivor benefits, death benefits and disability benefits, the CPP is a very important program for Canadians. For the life of me I do not understand how a mandatory retirement plan replacing CPP would address all those other benefits. What would happen to the survivor benefits? What would happen to the death benefits? What would happen to the disability benefits?

I asked the member for Peace River what would happen to the disability benefits. He said that was a very good question and that he would have to think about it.

Those things are not thought about after one says “here is our solution to the problem”. Those things have to be thought out in advance. I must say that it is disconcerting to me to think that when suggestions like that come out they could actually become part of a policy or a platform item of a party to suggest that by a stroke of the pen we could get rid of the CPP and do something else, which I am not sure Canadians could manage, particularly in those early years.

We made a number of changes in the plan over the years. They were important changes to respond to the needs of Canadians.

The Canada pension plan system has an unfunded liability and members know that. It has become a source of criticism by the members of the government and of the Canada pension plan system itself. However members must understand from where we came.

The Canada pension plan system started in 1966. When it was first started the initial premiums I believe were about $35 a year. It was very nominal. At that time there were at least five working persons in Canada contributing premiums for every one pensioner.

Why was the Canada pension plan system set up? If we look back and we figure out who these people are who receive pensions, they are the people who came through the depression years. These are the people who in the most important part of their earning life went through a depression and had no opportunity to provide for retirement. It was devastating for families. They could hardly feed themselves. It was a period of time before I was born, but we educate ourselves and we have to understand where Canadians came from. So that was a big part of why the CPP was set up.

Canadians had nothing for themselves in retirement. We had to take care of them somehow so we established the Canada pension plan system in 1966 to provide some measure of retirement dignity for those who had built this country. What more noble cause could there be?

The people who started collecting pension benefits back in 1966 made no contributions to the pension plan. They just started collecting benefits because they had nothing. So all of a sudden this principle that we are always in arrears, today's workers are paying for today's pensioners.

When there are over five workers for every one retiree there can be low premiums. What has happened as we have moved through the decades? Our society started to age. In the next 10 or 15 years instead of having five workers for every pensioner there will only be three. It is clear that something has to change.

Pensioners collecting CPP who had worked some 40 years and made regular contributions to the CPP from 1966 to 2001, their accumulative premium contributions were less than $16,000. I will put that in perspective.

Today's pensioners paid in about $16,000 if they had worked from 1966 to 2001. What can we get for $16,000 even if we assume that it was invested and received a fair and reasonable return over all the years of contributions? We would not have received much, and yet our Canada pension plan system paid out pension benefits, death benefits and later disability benefits, the child benefit and survivor benefits.

Things changed to the point where premiums had to increase. Today's pensioners receive about $8 for every $1 they put in. The opposition is suggesting that it is a travesty that tomorrow's pensioners will not get the same $8 for every $1. I do not know where anyone can make investments like that anymore. We did it at the time because it raised the quality of life of yesterday's pensioners up to a reasonable standard so they could live in the dignity to which they were entitled. It was not equitable but it was the right thing to do.

Now we have to look at the reality of an increasing retirement population. We have to look at the fact that all of a sudden it is expensive to continue to provide retirees with those ongoing benefits and still maintain some stability in that. It costs money and there were increases.

Members continue to say that this was a tax grab, the biggest tax bite ever, and all the hyperbole one can think of. All of the funds in the Canada pension plan are separate and apart from the government's revenue. They are not included in the determination of a surplus or deficit for the year. It is a separate fund. All CPP premium contributions go to the plan and all benefits are paid out of that plan.

When the actuaries did their numbers they told us what we had to do to ensure the long term sustainability of the Canada pension plan system. There were substantial increases. It was important for Canadians to continue to support pension benefits, survivor benefits, death benefits and disability benefits up to a level so that our retirees could live in dignity in their retirement years. To suggest that we are somehow going to take this away and force Canadians to fend for themselves is not only wrong, it is irresponsible.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-2.

Canada Pension Plan

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan Act that has been brought back in this Parliament after Parliament prorogued last spring.

The main thrust of Bill C-3 is to propose a transfer of all amounts held in the Department of Finance within the Canada pension plan account, including the bond portfolio which is worth about $40 billion. It is the transfer to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This transfer would take place over a three year period.

Bill C-3 would establish a means for the transfer of assets between the Department of Finance and the CPP Investment Board so that immediate payout obligations of the plan can be met. The legislation also spells out how the provincial securities currently held in the account may be redeemed or replaced. Lastly, the bill would apply to the Canadian pension plan fund the 30% foreign content limit that applies to registered retirement savings plans and employer and union sponsored pension plans in Canada.

While Bill C-3 is a step in the government's planned development of the public pension plan, managed at arm's length by a crown corporation, the bill is more than a housekeeping bill. The Canadian Alliance is opposed to the Liberal solution of bilking Canadian workers and employers out of billions of dollars to pay for a plan that is unquestionably unfair to younger generations in our society.

The Canada pension plan was devised over 36 years ago by a Liberal government with a noble objective, one which I believe all members then and now can agree on, to provide retirement security to all Canadians and to reduce poverty among seniors. A mandatory pension plan was devised and paid for through equal payroll contributions and deductions from workers and employers.

Back in 1966 Canadians were told that their payroll deductions required to fund the Canada pension plan would never go above 5.5%. However, how times change. When the plan was designed it was assumed that there would be six taxpaying workers for every dependent retiree. Of course, we know that has changed significantly. The member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley just talked about the changing demographics in our society. Anybody who does not have a plan to deal with that is in for some nasty surprises.

We know that the birth rate in Canada for every two people is 1.2, not even a replacement factor for those people. It will certainly have a major impact on how governments operate and how we will continue to fund retirement savings with a bigger percentage of our society being in the older category and less people in the younger group paying the bills.

From 1966 to 1982, annual Canada pension plan contributions exceeded the plan's annual benefit payouts. The funds were invested in provincial bonds and the plan's assets accumulated to almost $24 billion. Beginning in 1983, however, contributions fell short of benefits. Nevertheless, the interest on the $24 billion was sufficient to keep the overall CPP in surplus for another 10 years. By 1992, the pool of assets had grown to $42 billion.

However, in 1993, the year this current Liberal government took office, was the year that the culmination of contributions and interest could not produce the revenue required to cover the stream of benefits. That was a major turning point. The Canadian pension plan's chief actuary warned that without changes the plan would be in very deep trouble, especially when the baby boomer generation began to reach 65 in about the year 2012.

By 1997 Canada pension plan's assets had fallen to $35.5 billion. During the fall of that year the Liberal government introduced Bill C-2 which was designed to save the Canada pension plan by the only way it knows how to govern: take more money from Canadian taxpayers. We see it over and over again and again this year in the Speech from the Throne.

The Liberal government showed its contempt for Canadian taxpayers and Parliament all at the same time by invoking closure after a mere eight hours of debate on a huge issue that Canadians needed to be concerned about.

Starting in 1998, Canadians saw their take home pay shrink as contribution rates for both employees and employers were jacked up in a series of increases to the Canada pension plan.

Canada pension plan premiums went from 5.5% on the average industrial wage income to 9.4% where it is currently. By 2003 it will be up to 9.9%. That is a staggering 73% increase and the biggest tax grab in Canadian history. What is really scary is that the former chief actuary of the Canada pension plan had suggested during that time that a rate higher than 9.9% was necessary to save the pension plan. However that did not suit the former finance minister's plans for his political career and instead of listening to the chief actuary he had him fired. That solved a lot. I guess what goes around comes around. Eventually the former finance minister met the same fate himself and he was fired.

With more money flowing into the Canada pension plan as a result of these jacked up rates, the plan's total revenue exceeded benefits slightly in 1998 and by 2000 contributions alone were high enough to cover all the benefits. By the end of 2001 Canada pension plan assets were approaching $48 billion. Yet despite extracting all that money from Canadian taxpayers, the Canada pension plan's unfunded liability is estimated to be a whopping $430 billion. Just in case people cannot relate that to what is currently in the plan, the current plan's assets are approaching $48 billion but the liability is $430 billion. It has almost 10 times as much in liability as we have funds to cover it.

The current chief actuary of the Canada pension plan, the one who replaced the one fired by the finance minister, admits that the contributions will once again fall short of benefit payouts but the government is betting on the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to beat that system. We heard from the member for Burnaby--Douglas that he was concerned about that because the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board had losses when the market went down.

The member for Lanark—Carleton, who spoke before me, also has a big concern with this. Our concern is not so much that there is a Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, it is that government tends to use these boards for political expediency and political operatives. Pressure can be put on these boards to invest in favoured companies that happen to give a lot of money to the governing party of the day, and which maybe the Liberals favour. We know the Quebec pension plan has had difficulty managing its money wisely and it tends to be politically motivated.

The other problem is that in a small market like Canada the huge amount of money has a disproportionate effect on our markets. What does it invest in? At one time Nortel made up 30% of the Toronto Stock Exchange. We know where it is at today and I think the Canada pension plan also knows where it is at because that was one of its major investments at the time, but what else do we invest in if we have to invest in Canada? Even more so, the legislation would restrict the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to invest 70% of all that it has in Canada. There is a 30% foreign investment rule restriction that ties the hands of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Employers and the self-employed are feeling the brunt of the Liberal CPP tax grab. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is currently conducting a letter writing campaign on the subject of the government's job killing payroll taxes. It notes that while employers received a 7¢ reduction in their employment insurance premiums, Canada pension plan premiums went up by 40¢ and they are set to increase another 25¢ in 2003. Everything the employers gained back in the employment insurance premium reductions has been eaten up by Canada pension plan increases.

If the government plans to see the CPP hike through, I would hope that at least it would look at the mangled EI program where revenues far outstrip EI costs and disappear into general revenue.

The worst injustice by the Liberal government and its CPP hike is the intergenerational unfairness. Mr. Ménard admits that every Canadian worker born after 1980 will see their Canada pension plan investment will offer them a 2% return on investment for their retirement. However those who retired in 1995, a different generation, will receive a 9% return on their investment.

What does that say to our young people who are expected to pay the bills? They are expected to pay the bills for our generation's retirement and they will not even have enough for their own as a result of this mismanaged plan. That is totally unfair and it simply will not work. As these young people get into positions of power in government and other places in society they will not accept this. They will throw it off. It seems to me that it would be better to change our plans now than to have a mangled system thrown out down the road in 10 years by the generation that sees this as being totally unfair.

The fact is that the Canada pension plan will take in just under 10% of income to receive 25% after age 65. The average annual payout is $5,500 a year. The best one can hope to receive from CPP is under $9,000 a year.

We talked about how things have changed and are changing in terms of demographics. The number of seniors in Canada will double to 22% of the population by the year 2031. This will place a heavy burden on workers who support pension and health programs.

I am sure that hon. members know if they examine their hearts on this issue that when the young people of today form the majority in this country they will be sorely tempted to change the plan to ensure that they will get some of the benefits that will now only go to the people who are currently in the plan.

The Canadian Alliance does not believe that our future security lies in the wages of a shrinking workforce. Rather, it lies in the vast productivity and production capacity of the economy. We value retirement security as a vital element of independence. The Canadian Alliance policy platform states that we will honour obligations to retired Canadians and those close to retirement under the current state run programs. We will also maintain support for low income seniors. However, and this is a very important distinction, the Canadian Alliance believes that future retirees deserve a greater choice between a government managed pension plan and a mandatory personal plan.

With the objective of giving Canadians greater control of their own affairs and retirement plans, we will eliminate the foreign investment restriction for retirement investments and devise options to allow individuals greater opportunity to save for themselves as we see that the current system failed its original objective from 1966. Times have changed considerably in terms of demographics.

What we are interested in is fairness in the system and a system that will actually work for future generations. That is why we think the Canada pension plan in its current form is failing young Canadians who are coming up. We are concerned that when young Canadians discover this as they become adults and they come into positions of authority, that they will take matters into their own hands and make changes. Instead of waiting for that to happen, let us look forward a little, be proactive and try to devise a plan that works and will work for future Canadians and will respect the demographic change happening in Canada. As I said earlier, we have an aging population.

We hear a lot of chatter from the other side but the fact of the matter is that it is the Liberal government--

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill. I want to bring to the attention of the House a connection to this bill which deals with aboriginal people.

There is an absolute crisis taking place on the Pikangikum reserve north of Kenora, north of the minister's riding. This reserve has the highest suicide rate in the entire world. Alcohol and drug abuse are rampant. Organizations are dysfunctional. Ninety-five per cent of the homes do not have running water. There are no sewers; there are outhouses. The community is bereft of hope. I say that with a single purpose in mind.

To show how acute the crisis is among the Ojibway people, this year alone eight females, five of them just 13 years old, have killed themselves. The Pikangikum reserve, with roughly 2,000 people, has an eight year average of 213 suicides per 100,000 people, which is 36 times our national average. I raise this issue in connection with the bill to plead with the Minister of Indian Affairs to deal with the situation acutely, to implement some suicide prevention programs to help save the children in particular of the Pikangikum reserve north of Kenora.

Turning now to the bill, 32,000 people live in the Yukon, which has 4% of our land mass, of which 77% is wilderness. There are 61 mammal species and 278 bird species. There is an extraordinary array of environmental jewels and cultures that exist in the Yukon. The bill is certainly going in the right direction toward blending sustainable development with preserving that incredible gift we have as a country.

I would suggest to the hon. minister that it is possible to link sustainable development and environmental protection with the enhancement of the lives of the people there. I would suggest a model to the minister. Brazil and certain parts of southern Africa have linked them. They have basically said that wild spaces have to generate funds if they are going to survive. The funds generated are poured back into the wild spaces for their preservation. The opportunities are enormous.

What does the north in general have? There is the Alaska Highway pipeline for one and the Northwest Territories pipeline down to Alberta for gas. The north has diamonds, the new emerald find near the Finlayson Lake district, natural gas, iron ore, lead, zinc and copper. They will provide the basic fuel to generate long term sustainable employment in the Northwest Territories and an enrichment of the people's lives there.

That will only happen if some of those moneys are then poured back into environmental protection and environmental enhancement. If we manage to link up that development and also utilize those moneys not only for the welfare of the people but also pour some of it back into the environment, then the people of the Yukon and the people in the north in general will have sustainable development that is congruent with environmental protection.

Historically, they have done a very good job of preserving their environment by engaging in some innovative cleanups of toxic sites. Indeed, only the wood bison and the peregrine falcon are the two major mammal species that are in danger of extinction. That is not a bad track record. The peregrine falcon has dropped to a threatened species from one on the verge of extinction.

There are some significant challenges in the north. I hope the resources there can be used to drive some environmental protection issues, such as the issue of pollution.

In Siberia the Russians dumped a lot of nuclear materials right on the ground. Those radionuclides, those cancer causing, teratogenic, carcinogenic materials have gone into the food chain. If we look at aboriginal people and some of the large mammal species at the top of the food chain, we see extraordinarily high levels of the cancer causing and teratogenic materials within their body tissue. It is having a devastating effect, particularly on aboriginal communities in the north.

I encourage the government to work with other arctic nations to deal with this acute situation. If we do not deal with it now, those cancer-causing agents, those radioactive materials that are so prevalent in certain parts of the north, will continue to waft into our food chain with devastating effects on the people who live there.

The other issue we are dealing with is climate change. The natural resources of the north can be used to generate the resources needed to combat climate change. Is it Kyoto or bust? No, there is a third way.

Kyoto, as we know, is a shell game, moving emissions trading credits around the world. In fact our country will do absolutely nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That is the big flaw in Kyoto. How can we do that? One of the things people in the north and indeed all of us can do is use energy more responsibly, conserve energy better and use existing technologies to reduce our emissions quite significantly through cars, trucks and in heat loss through homes. The amount we conserve could go well beyond the 6% target we set for ourselves in Kyoto in relation to 1990 levels. Indeed, we could go beyond that, which would be useful for all of us.

This is important for the north because if we look at the last few years, in 1998 and 1999 Yukon had two of the four warmest temperatures ever recorded in history. The Beaufort Sea ice pack was 40% less than what has ever been seen. Is this proof of global warming? No, it is not. Is it an indication that there is a problem? Yes, it is, and if we want to use a precautionary principle, we must do whatever we can to use our energy resources more responsibly. In doing so we could go beyond the commitments we chose to make, without, incidentally, taking on the oil patch, reducing jobs or affecting our economy.

If we were to adopt the approach of using the technologies we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we could find an actual added benefit to our economy in terms of a net increase to the GDP.

I would ask the minister to please look at the experience in Europe where they are well ahead of the curve on this. If we do not adopt the approach of using existing technologies to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, two separate entities but connected by virtue of what produces them, we could be left behind the eight ball in terms of our own economic development. I would encourage the government to look at those issues.

My friend from Yukon brought to our attention a very interesting problem connected to this bill, the issue of medical manpower. Yukon has a problem with medical manpower, particularly the distribution in rural areas. We have had some very good discussions on this and there is a solution. What Yukon can do is connect with existing medical training facilities for doctors, nurses and technicians and have some of that training take place in Yukon. If it does that in conjunction with paying for a certain number of medical school nursing and technical-medical positions in return for an equal number of years of service in rural areas, Yukon will be able to get the medical manpower that it desperately needs. Indeed my friend from Yukon brought to our attention the terrible situation of a lot of people in Yukon being unable to get basic medical care as a result of this acute problem of a lack of manpower.

Bill C-2, through the generation of funds and sustainable development, could generate funds that would enable Yukon to pay for certain spots in medical training facilities and in return the quid pro quo would be that those individuals would have to spend an equal number of years in a rural setting under service settings such as Yukon. It does work. We need to catch people right out of school and get them into those rural centres where they can develop relationships and set down roots. There is a better chance of them staying in those rural areas than if we try to pick people out of urban settings after they have completed their training.

The next issue I would like to address is the issue of aboriginal communities. The question of how to engage aboriginal people in development was asked in Central America and Brazil.

It was found that if the aboriginal people were allowed to use some of the money from the natural resources, be it emeralds, diamonds or natural gas, and were able to pour it into primary health, education and skills training, they would be able to improve their health and welfare. This is very consistent with a document put out by a consortium of aboriginal groups. The document gave some very basic principles of what needed to be engaged in with the Yukon government if sustainable development were to work: the aboriginal peoples would be consulted; they would be participants in development and local governments would have municipal powers, which is what the Canadian Alliance has been fighting for and now the minister of aboriginal affairs has been communicating very well. If aboriginal people could have municipal powers, be engaged in the development process in a constructive way, be participants at the table and share in the resources in a meaningful way, then we would have sustainable development in the Yukon as well as improve the health and welfare of aboriginal communities in Yukon.

I hope the premier of Nunavut and his council will look at this as a model he could adopt for his communities in Nunavut. As members know, the rates of substance abuse, sexual abuse and suicide rates in Nunavut are off the wall. The feds are paying huge amounts of taxpayer money to sustain the situation in Nunavut right now. If Nunavut were to look at some of these models, which I hope will be applied in Yukon, then both Nunavut and Yukon would benefit.

Some people like to look at northern development in isolation but I would encourage them to look at northern development as part of Canadian development. If we were to track where the resources in the north were going, for example the pipelines, we would see that they do flow north to south. It behooves us as a country to have a greater north-south dialogue within our own country. I would suggest that has been lacking for a long time.

The engagement between the populated areas along our borders with the United States and the people in the north would go a long way to removing misconceptions and ensuring greater development and harmonization of economic and social activities between both the north and the south.

I want to emphasize again to the government that within the bill lies a great opportunity to engage in true sustainable economic development. However, in order to do that, the development of natural resources in the north, be it natural gas, diamonds, emeralds, tourism or hydro power, can and must be done in a way that ensures that the people of Yukon benefit economically from the development of those resources and that the development of those resources generates a pool of cash that can be used for environmental protection.

I think the public would be shocked to know about the absolute lack of resources that many of our conservation officers have. They struggle to find $100 to pay for a pair of binoculars when they are doing research in the field. With the lack of resources and the yeoman's job they perform, they deserve a medal. They are unable to do the job they are being asked to do which is to preserve and protect the environment in the north and protect the species that live there.

The bill is an interesting one and we look forward to it coming to committee. My party has put forth some constructive amendments. We certainly hope the government listens to them so that the bill will move forward in a constructive fashion that benefits all the people in Yukon and indeed Canada.