Debates of April 26th, 1999

Petitions

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is indeed my pleasure to rise to present a petition signed by over 8,000 residents of Sault Ste. Marie and the greater Algoma district.

The petitioners observe that a recent ruling of the B.C. supreme court has for all intents and purposes legalized the possession of child pornography. The petitioners ask parliament to acknowledge that child pornography is a threat to common Canadian values and they call upon parliament to examine ways to eliminate child pornography in Canada.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition containing over 200 names from people across Canada who add their voices to ask our government to support Canada's merchant navy veterans in their quest for recompense.

This weekend Mr. Gordon Olmstead, a long time advocate, passed away after a lengthy illness. I can think of nothing more fitting than to rename Bill C-61 the Gordon Olmstead act.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by 46 people who ask that parliament intervene to have the government withdraw its appeal of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision and implement the decision without further delay, in order to ensure that all women in the federal public service enjoy employment equity.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, London and Dashwood who urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT. The petitioners note that studies under way at the University of Quebec show that MMT has adverse health effects, especially on children and seniors. They also note that car manufacturers oppose the use of MMT.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in which the petitioners request that parliament amend the Divorce Act to give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child, as supported in Bill C-340, an act to amend the Divorce Act.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present the following petition signed by concerned citizens of my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.

Currently many young people continue smoking despite clear evidence that it causes cancer.

Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the government to lend its full support to well-funded educational and public awareness programs aimed at stopping the growing youth smoking trend.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, grandparents, as a consequence of death, separation or divorce of their children are often denied access to their grandchildren by guardians. As a result, the petitioners request that parliament amend the Divorce Act to approve the provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the right of spousal parents, that is, grandparents, to have access to the children without having to go to court.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including those from my own riding of Mississauga South, on the subject of human rights.

The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world in countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. They also acknowledge that Canada continues to be recognized internationally as the champion of human rights. Therefore they call upon the government to continue to speak out against human rights abuses and also to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 190 and 211. .[Text]

Question No. 190—

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

With regard to the herring spawn-on-kelp fishery and the response to the directive of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladstone that a new trial be held to establish the extent of licences that ought to be available to the Heiltsuk band: (a) were existing spawn-on-kelp licences purchased and transferred to the Heiltsuk in either 1997 or 1998, and if not, why not; were existing licence holders given the opportunity to sell their licences; (b) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group prior to the issuance of additional licences in 1997 and 1998 undertake reviews of the economic impact on existing spawn-on-kelp licence holders of the creation of additional licences versus the purchase of existing licences, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review, and which of the recommendations of each review were implemented; (c) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group undertake reviews of the economic impact on existing licence holders of the creation of new licences following the 1997 and 1998 seasons, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of these reviews and what action was taken in each case to implement the recommendations; (d) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group prior to the issuance of additional licences in 1997 and 1998 undertake reviews of the impact of the creation of additional licences on herring and kelp stocks versus the purchase of existing spawn-on-kelp licences, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review, and which of the recommendations of each review were implemented; (e) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group undertake reviews of the impact on herring and kelp stocks of the creation of new licences following the 1997 and 1998 seasons, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review and what action was taken to implement the recommendations of each review; (f) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group prior to the issuance of additional licences in 1997 and 1998 undertake a review of the market impact, particularly on spawn-on-kelp prices, of the creation of additional licences versus the purchase of existing spawn-on-kelp licences, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review, and which of the recommendations of each review were implemented; (g) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group undertake a review of the market impact, particularly on spawn-on-kelp prices, of the creation of additional spawn-on-kelp licences following the 1997 and 1998 season, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review and what action was taken to implement the recommendations of each review; and (h) what criteria were used to establish that additional spawn-on-kelp licences were required in 1997 and 1998; did the minister of fisheries or his department consider the impact the additional licences would have on existing licence holders and on the public right; has an assessment been made of the impact on the existing licence holders and the public right since the creation of the additional licences?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

In the Gladstone decision the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial to consider whether the limitations imposed on the Heiltsuk were justified, not to “establish the extent of licences that ought to be available” to the Heiltsuk First Nation.

(a) Spawn-on-kelp licences: Existing spawn-on-kelp licences were not purchased and transferred to the Heiltsuk First Nation because of the high cost of spawn-on-kelp licences and because constraints on the allocation transfer program do not alllow for sufficient capacity to be retired from the spawn-on-kelp licence category. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, facilitated the voluntary retirement of herring gillnet licences from the commercial fishing fleet to offset harvesting capacity resulting from the addition of new communal spawn-on-kelp licences in accordance with departmental policy.

(b), (c), (f) and (g) Economic and market impact: An economic/market assessment regarding spawn-on-kelp was conducted in 1997. The spawn-on-kelp technical working group has not conducted a formal review, but the issue has been discussed with industry participants. The 1997 study determined that the state of the Japanese economy is a critical factor in the demand for spawn-on-kelp, particularly Japanese income levels and exchange rates. The study also found that a previous increase in the number of licences had a temporary effect on prices, and therefore it recommended that future quantity changes should be gradual. The situation has been monitored since then, but no formal review of the economic or market impact has been conducted, nor have there been recommendations.

In retiring herring gillnet licences and creating communal spawn-on-kelp licences, the objective is to keep overall harvest effort on herring stocks constant. The management plans reflect changes to the number of herring gillnet and spawn-on-kelp licences.

(d) and (e) Biological impact: Biological assessments of B.C. herring stocks are conducted every year. The herring gillnet, seine and spawn-on-kelp fisheries are monitored throughout the fishing season. Assessments based on in-season monitoring and other factors are used to determine the total allowable catch and herring management plans for subsequent years. The spawn-on-kelp technical working group did not do a formal review, but the issue was discussed and industry participants provided advice.

The harvest of macrocystis kelp used in spawn-on-kelp operations is carried out under the authority the B.C. ministry of fisheries. The B.C. ministry issues marine plant harvest licences, which include licence conditions on the area and quantity of kelp that may be harvested.

(h) The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Gladstone decision, 1996, found that the Heiltsuk tribal council had an unextinguished aboriginal right to trade herring spawn-on-kelp on a commercial basis. While the court did not quantify that right, some guidance was provided on matters that might be considered to determine whether the external limitations were justified. As part of the aboriginal fisheries strategy, AFS, discussions, DFO then consulted with the Heiltsuk on the number of licences to be issued for the 1997 and 1998 seasons. The minister considered the impact of additional licences on existing licence holders. Some commercial harvesting licences have been removed from the fishery. The spawn-on-kelp fishery is a limited entry fishery, which is open only to those who hold a licence. Public access has not changed as a result of the issuance of licences to the Heiltsuk tribal council.

Question No. 211—

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

With respect to the sums set aside by each department for the settlement of the federal public service pay equity issue: ( a ) what is the total amount of this reserve; and ( b ) in what government account is this reserve deposited?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Annually, the Government of Canada establishes allowances as it deems necessary to present fairly the financial position of the government and the financial results of its operations for the year. Specific allowances are not disclosed as they may be prejudicial to court proceedings or negotiating contexts.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mississauga South—health.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate that was interrupted by question period and the proceedings since that time. I have largely covered the issue regarding the surplus in the plan at this point in time.

Other major issues in the bill include the splitting of the CPP from pension plan contributions. As we know, employees of the civil service are the only employees in the country who have been making a combined CPP-pension plan payment. Now that the government has decided to increase CPP contributions dramatically over the next number of years it has split that out so that employees will have to pay the same CPP increases that everybody else is going to have to pay and perhaps pay more into the pension plan as well, if that is warranted at a later date.

The intention is to privatize the fund over the next number of years so that as new contributions are made, starting April 1, they will go into a new plan. Benefits will be paid out of the old plan, but new money will not go into the old plan, so when the old plan is broke and finished and fully disbursed, by that time it will be fully privatized. It is complex stuff that shows the length the government is prepared to go to try to get its way.

One of the other things the government does is to redefine terms in the dictionary. I am looking at page 51 of the bill under “persons considered to be married”. I find this rather interesting. It states:

For the purposes of this Part, when a contributor dies and, at the time of death, the contributor was married to a person with whom the contributor had been cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature for a period immediately before the marriage, that person is considered to have become married to the contributor on the day established as being the day on which the cohabitation began.

Therefore, the marriage ceremony is irrelevant. The government has redefined the definition of the term marriage. As soon as one enters into a cohabitation arrangement, by the government's definition, one is married, regardless of what the dictionary says.

I will leave that point for Canadians to contemplate. As many people are concerned about the changes taking place in our society today, we now have the government leading the way in redefining the very simple word “marriage”, which I think for generations has meant a ceremony in which people commit themselves to each other.

Then we have the other issue of it not only being people of the opposite sex but people of the same sex. The government has run into a real conundrum in trying to define a defined relationship, while at the same time leaving it open for virtually any kind of relationship to apply. I could not put on the record the complex terminology that government members have had to use in trying to say that the door is shut and open at the same time. As we can see, they have had to go through contortions to define that. That debate will continue on another day.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I think it is dreadful that a 200 page bill with complex legal language, dealing with issues as complex as actuarial assessments of pension plans, who benefits and who does not, who pays and who does not, who shares in the risk and who does not, and so on, should all be wrapped up in less than two days of debate because the government has introduced closure. That is an affront to the democratic process. I would hope that members opposite would hang their heads in shame for having trampled the rights of members of the House who have a right to speak on issues before the House, to express the wishes of their constituents and to express their own opinions on the issue.

We have a 200 page bill and the government says after a few hours of debate “That is enough. Thank you very much. We will move it to committee”. We will no doubt have closure at committee. We will likely be refused to hear any witnesses. Government members will say that the job is done and that it should be brought back to the House. I can see closure being moved at third reading. That is how arrogant the government has become.

I hope that Canadians start to take this point seriously and start calling Liberal members of parliament to ask why they are doing this. Why are they putting a muzzle on parliament? Surely if free speech means anything it means free speech in this place. We do not have free speech. We do not even have the right to speak any more because of closure. It is a dreadful day for Canadians.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how my hon. colleague puts on his sleeve what his real concern is.

Reform members are confused. They came here talking about their concern for the taxpayers and their money. This is a great opportunity for the member opposite to deal with this issue. However, because of the fear that somehow or other we might get credit for defending the taxpayers and their money, members of his party are unfortunately trying to find themselves once again, even though we know there is the united alternative, which some in his party want to kill.

There are many issues that come to this table. The member realizes that it is taxpayers' money, but he is trying to figure out where we can take this money. He stated earlier that it is taxpayers' money. It is not the government's money, it is the taxpayers' money. Yet he wants to take that money and put it into some safe somewhere and say “Do not give it to the government. Do not give it to the employees”, because it is not for the employees, but somehow it should stay there because some time in the future there might be a deficit. Is that not interesting?

Canadians want their money back now. They want to know that the government is guaranteeing the pensions of its employees, and it is doing that. However, if there is excess money in a surplus, they want their money back, so that in effect they can have all of the services that they need and require, including receiving tax back, if necessary, on the issues at hand.

The hon. member stated that the Canadian taxpayers paid for the surplus and they are entitled to their money. Does he believe they should get it back? If not, what does he recommend we tell Canadian taxpayers that is different from what he has stated in the last several years?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh when government members say they are protecting the taxpayers. How much tax relief are they offering because of this bill? It is a big, round zero. They are offering the taxpayers absolutely nothing in this bill because they know that they will stand one day and reduce the debt by a bookkeeping entry and say “Look what we have done”, but they offer the taxpayer nothing.

As I have said, the surplus arose because of circumstances. We have reduced inflation thankfully, after this government let it run out of control. We have a debt that it let run out of control. Thankfully, because we have been here pushing hard it has brought that under control.

Now we have a situation where the taxpayer is potentially at risk so the government can look good for the next election. That is what this bill is all about.

I refer to an article in the Ottawa Citizen on March 4, 1997. I cannot say his name but it talks about the Minister of Finance's hidden cash, “Government raids $24 billion public service pension surplus”. It is a raid. The civil servants are finding that their contributions into the plan are being taken.

We are saying leave the money in the plan to protect the taxpayer. We know that if the Liberals stay on that side of the House they will be soaking the taxpayer for a tax increase the minute it runs into a deficit. They cannot have it both ways. They should be honest and say what their position is.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks with great interest.

I want to draw his attention to the fact that the Canada pension plan was roundly criticized and condemned because the investments were primarily in government instruments, in government bonds, and consequently the CPP did not grow anything like the rest of the economy. By contrast, Quebec, which manages its own plan, the QPP, invested in market instruments and indeed attained a better level of solvency than the CPP.

It seems to me we are doing precisely the same thing with the public service pension plan. By taking it out of low risk, low return government instruments and giving the government an opportunity to invest it into the marketplace, we have an opportunity to benefit the taxpayer. Any money that is earned on that $30 billion surplus will ultimately go directly or indirectly to lowering taxes. I would appreciate the member's remarks on that.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that the government has already stopped paying any interest whatsoever on this actuarial surplus of $30 billion. There is absolutely zero cost to the taxpayer at this point in time. That is saving the taxpayer about $2.4 billion a year, give or take.

That is why if the money stays in the plan it will not cost the taxpayers anything but it will protect them against tax increases at a later date at the whim of this government the minute there is a deficit. Surely a little buffer is not that bad because we know at the first opportunity the government will tax and squeeze more money out of the taxpayer. That is what we are trying to stop.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want the member for St. Albert to clarify something.

He mentioned that the government is no longer paying interest on the surplus, but over the years it did do that. As a result, the money that was supposed to be set aside for pensions increased. While the government was considering that amount to be part of Canada's deficit, that it was money owed, it is now considering that same money to be part of a surplus that it will now use to offset the deficit. Does the member find the government's approach in its bookkeeping a little strange?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are an awful lot of strange things in the government's bookkeeping. There are many, many things and this just happens to be one of them. The Liberals are going to say that they have done a wonderful thing. It is going to kick in before the election.

As I was saying before question period, they have $2.5 billion sitting in a bank account for the Canada scholarship fund. It is already paid for. The taxpayer has put up the cash and nothing is coming down until next year. There was $3.5 billion for the big announcement on health care. Again, it will not be available until next year. There was $800 million for the centre for innovation that was paid for a couple of years ago. The money is sitting in the bank and is not going to be disbursed until next year.

Here the Liberals are taking the money from the pension plan. Presumably they will apply it to the debt just before the election and will say “Boy, we are doing everything”. But when we look at the bookkeeping we find it is a front and that is not the way it is.