Debates of Dec. 4th, 2001

Committees of the House

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion for which I seek the unanimous consent of the House is as follows:

That as part of its consideration of the government's future role in agriculture, eleven (11) members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food (six (6) government members and five (5) opposition members from the various opposition parties) be authorized to travel in Canada from February 18 to February 22, 2002, from March 11 to March 15, 2002, and from March 18 to March 22, 2002, to meet with Canadian farmers and other stakeholders in the agrifood sector, and that the required staff accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to pose is this: Why did the member for Mississauga West not address the very motion that was put forward today, the reallocation of moneys within the existing budget of the government? That is what we are debating here: the reallocation.

In addition to having him comment on where he would find the money to reallocate, I would give him a suggestion which was put forward by the Liberal member for Winnipeg South, that the western economic diversification program be chopped, clobbered, finished, kaput. The reason the member suggested this is that it is not meeting its objectives. It is not creating jobs. It is not doing anything it was set out to do. Is that not an area that could be reallocated to higher priority spending?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard two questions, one on why did I not address the motion. I thought I did. I clearly said that the opposition parties tend to want to talk in terms of generalities by saying to slash low priority spending and increase high priority spending, but their priorities change all the time.

I pointed out that at one time that party, or the ghost of that party, supported the slashing of defence spending. Now of course it is high in popularity that it be increased. This points out exactly what I said. I said that they would cut ACOA, as an example, in Atlantic Canada. Now what did they say about western diversification: kaput? They are saying to shoot, destroy and get rid of western diversification.

This is the kind of attitude they have instead of recognizing the good work and the value of HRDC and all the economic development agencies we have in the country, and there are only a few. They should get on the ground and talk to the people who benefit from those programs. This is exactly why that party will never be elected to govern this great land. It does not understand the importance of these diversified programs right across the land.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed with the member's remarks and those of some of his other Liberal colleagues. Often we hear, particularly from that member, the tone that this is a partisan opposition motion, that it is dilatory and terrible. It is a sort of hyperbolic political rhetoric.

We all engage in political rhetoric here, but by and large this is an opposition party that tries very hard to be principled, co-operative and objective. We support nearly half the government legislation that comes to this place. I have in my hands the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, almost all of whose recommendations are reflected either directly or more or less directly in the supply motion before us.

Recommendation (a) to reallocate resources is an expression of the recommendation of the finance committee. I will quote from page 26:

To the extent that new spending on security and defence could lead to a deficit, the government must balance this new spending with spending cutbacks elsewhere.

Regarding the recommendation to increase security spending, there was not a specific number in the report. We are suggesting one based on solid research we have done. It is a good point for discussion.

Regarding reducing the EI premiums, the finance committee suggested a different way of doing so, but it is there.

Elimination of the capital tax is in the finance committee report.

The selling of non-priority assets like Petro-Canada and Hibernia is in the finance committee report.

Perhaps the hon. member would like to actually read the finance committee report and see that virtually all of these recommendations are there.

Finally, he is wrong. We have always advocated an increase in defence expenditures--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Mississauga West has one minute to respond.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that this member is in support of the government and supports over half the pieces of legislation that come into this place, but in the theatre that is politics around here we all know that the opposition is trying to find ways to twist things in terms of the government's priorities. It is a consistent message that we have seen from both the current party and its predecessor.

If that leads to partisan differences then so be it, but the reality is that our government is committed. We already have announced a reduction in EI premiums, putting some $400 million back into the hands of workers and companies. That is an additional cut from the time we took office. We are committed to lower taxes. We have already have announced all that, the member knows it full well and I am pleased that he supports it.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to participate in this afternoon's debate on the Alliance motion about what the Alliance Party feels should be contained in the upcoming budget. I must add that I quite enjoy these prebudget discussions and it is very important to have them, because they give us an opportunity to share with each other our constituencies' priorities, to compare them and also to learn about what the pulse of the country is.

The first thing the Alliance proposes in its motion is for the budget to:

reallocate financial resources from low and falling priorities into higher need areas such as national security;--

However, since the tragic events of September 11, the Liberal government has identified national security as an area of high priority and is committed to providing the financial resources necessary to protect Canada. In fact, since budget 2000 we have invested $1.8 billion in policing, security and intelligence. These measures are an important part of the government's $280 million anti-terrorism plan.

Also, on October 19 we announced a special allocation of $47 million to two of Canada's security and intelligence organizations; one is CSIS and the other is the Communications Security Establishment.

To go back to the first part of the Alliance motion, I have to say that at first glance the idea of reallocating financial resources from priorities in previous years to new priorities actually appeared to be quite appropriate and supportable at the outset. My problem is, how does one define what is a low priority and what is a high priority?

What frightens me is that the Alliance has always called for cuts in so-called wasteful spending areas. According to its 2000 election platform, such areas included Human Resources Development Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage, including the CBC, and the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA. If these are what the Alliance calls low priorities, I can state that my constituency strongly disagrees.

I also conducted prebudget consultations in my riding this year, as I have done in previous years. This year I actually held those prebudget consultations after September 11. While in the past the top priority had been paying down the debt, this year, in addition to investing in the necessary security measures to combat terrorism, the top priority was preventing or at least ameliorating the effects of a possible recession. I have to say that there was also a general consensus that we should not go into deficit.

One of the things that my constituents specifically addressed was the importance of HRDC programs and retraining programs. HRDC programs work in my riding and they work very well. Let me give some specific examples and success stories.

There is an area in Parkdale--High Park known as the Junction. For years the area has been declining. Once the stockyards moved out, businesses started vacating, stores became empty and buildings became run down. It was not safe to walk on the street. People did not like to go out at night. Yet through the intervention of a group of concerned residents, the West Toronto Junction Team was born. With an industrial adjustment program grant of $100,000 from HRDC, it was able to leverage $2 million from the city of Toronto for streetscaping and matching grants for store owners to improve the facades of their stores, but $19 million from Toronto Hydro, which is the largest capital investment ever made, to bury the hydro wires. The area has become revitalized. Stores, art galleries and restaurants are moving in. The streets are safe. People are out at night. There is activity because prosperous communities are also safe communities and safe communities are prosperous communities. It is a wonderful example of where moneys were able to leverage and revitalize an area.

Another example in the area known as Parkdale is the Parkdale/Liberty Economic Development Committee. With an industrial adjustment program grant it was able to take on a strategic plan and revitalize the neighbourhood and streetscape.

In the Liberty area in Parkdale we have high tech companies moving in because it is a welcoming place, a safe place and part of a community that has worked together to revitalize itself.

One especially wonderful program that deals with youth and the creation of jobs is run by the All Aboard Youth Centre. It has established a restaurant in the riding called the River Restaurant which provides training in restaurant skills. It is integrated in the community and provides life training skills so youth can find work after leaving the program.

The program has a 79% success rate in dealing with youth at risk. The only youths who have not been successful have been those with mental handicaps. It is a wonderful program. The community comes out in full force. We support it. We love it. It is making a difference.

Last but not least, while I do not want to dwell on HRDC programs its summer student placement programs are a wonderful opportunity to help not for profit and charitable organizations get on with their work.

Another thing my community has found is that after September 11 charitable giving has shrunk, not just here but everywhere. People are putting off donations because they are afraid of what the future will bring. The charitable groups that do such wonderful work, and with which we must partner to address the needs of the less fortunate, are finding themselves strapped. We must do something to help the charitable sector.

I will speak specifically about the Department of Canadian Heritage. Arts and culture are important to the people of my riding. The May 2 announcement of $560 million was the largest reinvestment in the arts in the last 40 years. It was welcomed not just in my community but across Canada.

It was a recognition that the arts are at the centre of excellence. They are at the centre of our lives. The arts are integral to the lives of Canadians and Canadian communities. They are about investing in the creative process, innovation and research, our identity, our youth and our quality of life. The arts provide essential training for a more creative world.

It is the arts and not computers that make children creative. There is empirical evidence which clearly states that children exposed to music and the arts at an early age score much higher on scholastic aptitude tests in math and science than those who are not. I would go so far as to say it is the arts that foster our scientists.

Studies have shown that children exposed to the arts grow up to become better citizens. They participate to a greater extent in their communities. They volunteer and provide community service. At their very best our creators are social architects.

To share with members of the opposition why the arts are so important I will quote James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank. Nine days after the tragic events of September 11 he said:

--there is a level in terms of music and the arts which I've long been privileged to participate in, which is a level beyond finance, beyond budgets, beyond economics, beyond politics, a level which is the inner resource that most of us don't talk about most of the time because it's sort of soft. And it's sort of a luxury, but when things really come down to it, it's the thing that really makes a difference in life. I believe that passionately. I've always believed it, and in periods of good and bad in my life, I have turned to the arts.

I will not be voting for the motion. While I agree that priorities have changed since last year and the reallocating of funds is necessary, the priorities the opposition considers low I consider essential.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the examples of my colleague for whom I have a high degree of respect. I saw the smile on her face as she talked about her community and the good she felt the handouts of government money had done for her. However our motion calls for repriorization. It points out where money is wasted. We have numerous examples of where money is wasted.

I will ask a question on a specific issue. The hon. member across the way alluded to the fact that the Alliance is against CIDA. I will be speaking after this and explaining our position on CIDA. However recent newspaper reports have clearly stated that the minister used government money to reward her campaign workers with a report that was of no value to taxpayers.

These are numerous examples of government waste for which we in the opposition are holding it accountable. Would the member perhaps like to comment on the government waste that we are pinpointing and that the auditor general has pinpointed today?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has raised a number of issues.

The important point about the programs that have worked so well in my community is that a bit of seed money has been able to leverage a lot of additional private sector moneys. It is about partnership and building together. We in government cannot do everything. We need to seek partnerships in the private sector and the not for profit sector.

I am proud that there has not been any waste. If anything it is the constant accusations of lack of accountability and waste of money that are hurting important projects in my riding.

CIDA plays an important role which it will need to continue to play in terms of what happened in Qatar at the conference of the World Trade Organization. The great victory there was in bringing onside the lesser developed countries and trying to engage in a dialogue with them. Through CIDA we have been helping lesser developed countries understand the terms and consequences of signing these deals.

We need to help strengthen the governments of these countries so they can take advantage of the free trade market. It is good for us to do that. They call it the virtuous circle. We need people onside. We need to ensure these countries have the institutions that can support our free trade agreements. It is the right thing to do and it is good for us as traders.

There is a lot of good we can do. The recent WTO talks highlighted another route by which CIDA can play an important role as we move ahead in the future.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague failed to answer the question put by the member for Calgary East about whether she approved of the tens of thousands of dollars in government contracts let to the campaign workers of the minister responsible for CIDA. The hon. member said there is no waste in a program budget of $125 billion.

Her own Liberal colleagues on the finance committee agreed with the opposition that to the extent new spending on security and defence could lead to a deficit the government must balance the new spending with spending cutbacks elsewhere.

Would the hon. member define whether she thinks there is such an elsewhere? If so, where is it? Where would she and her colleagues reduce spending to allow for increased security spending?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I have always been proud of the government and of being part of its team is its balanced approach. We take this approach to ensure we invest in our economy by way of tax cuts for which the opposition has called. We balance it with social programs and things that reflect who we are as Canadians.

It is important that the values of society are reflected in the fiscal choices we make. I trust that the ones coming next week will continue to reflect our balanced approach.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre. It is a pleasure to speak to our motion which calls for repriorization in the upcoming budget to ensure there is no excess or wasteful spending. As international development critic for the Canadian Alliance I will use this supply day motion to speak about international development and the role of CIDA.

In the post-September 11 world there is a growing consensus that Canada must do more to promote both broad based economic growth and the alleviation of suffering in the developing world. Under the Liberal government Canada's commitment to the developing world has dropped below our capacity to help. Nevertheless we cannot increase Canada's capacity by simply spending more money.

CIDA has had only marginal success in its history. It has been subject to criticism by the auditor general and to political interference, the latest example being the diversion of CIDA funds to the minister's campaign workers in her riding.

This is the minister who goes around the world promoting transparency and lecturing other countries about how to ensure their dollars are well spent. Yet in her own riding the minister is stretching treasury guidelines as far as she can without breaking them to reward her friends and campaign workers. That is ethically wrong.

We must ensure our development aid meets value for money criteria. The government must launch a new international development white paper proposal before it seeks to increase the aid budget. This afternoon the Canadian Alliance called for a white paper to discuss Canada's role in development aid.

The Minister for International Cooperation held town hall meetings across the country to try to come up with what she says is a new focus for CIDA. These town hall meetings are not a white paper. They are not a comprehensive long term study of where our development money is going, how effective it is and how effective it has been in the past.

From experience I can tell members development dollars that have gone out of Canada have had only marginal success. As we have seen and as has been stated time after time, poverty has risen in many countries where we have given money without accountability. We have never asked for accountability from the other side. There are numerous examples.

The parliamentary secretary talked about going through the WTO and the trade route to give these countries access to our market. Yes, that is the new approach and I am glad the government is finally recognizing it would assist people in the developing world to come out of poverty.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned Doha, Qatar. This was the second WTO meeting I attended. It was the first time I saw CIDA representatives at the meetings so there has been some thinking in this department.

However in my experience as an official opposition critic I have found CIDA to be one of the most secretive departments. People do not know what the department does. Although it likes to claim it is responsible to parliament, I as an official opposition member do not know what CIDA is doing. It gives us information in pieces. It gives us what it wants to give us.

This agency is under the scrutiny of the country and parliament. It has a budget of $2.2 billion and it hides behind a curtain. It is an agency that dreams about how to spend its money on projects.

When I was going to Doha I spoke with the president of CIDA who was accompanying us. He did not know who the critics were, who was speaking about international development in parliament or what we were trying to hold them accountable for.

The minister stands and talks about the fact that there is transparency. I have talked to parliamentarians and to NGOs that have called numerous times. I can say that this agency works in secrecy because its policy advisers refuse to talk to them.

I went on a trip to Brussels with CIDA officials. I was amazed at how much they were trying to keep things to themselves rather than have them out in the open. These are Canadian taxpayer dollars. Why are they not accountable? They are not accountable because they are subject to political interference. They are subject to giving money to their friends.

I was in China where its growth was an amazing 8%. Yet it was one of the largest recipients of CIDA money. May I ask why? CIDA was supposed to help developing countries with issues such as AIDS suffering and education, but here it is helping China. Maybe I can speculate that it is because the friends of the Liberal government get business contracts in that country.

As a member of the official opposition I feel that this is a highly secretive agency which is not accountable to the Parliament of Canada. It is difficult because we have to sit and wait for the auditor general to come out with her report. Every auditor general's report had something to say about CIDA's wasteful management.

The example I gave about how the minister used CIDA money to reward her campaign workers is one of the biggest, blatant abuses I have seen from a minister, a minister who is supposed to keep this agency accountable. Instead we have this biggest abuse of blatant and unethical behaviour.

She stands and hides behind the fact that she had met treasury guidelines. We can read the treasury guidelines to see that there are lines which should not be crossed. She did not cross that line; she stayed behind the line. Was it ethical to give these contracts to campaign workers who helped work on her report? Nobody knew this. When we asked for access to information this agency denied us access. I hope the bureaucrats in CIDA are listening and realize that parliament is asking for accountability from this agency.

I want to speak to another issue dealing with tied aid. Tied aid is a protectionist policy that reduces the effectiveness of development aid. In a recent study $800 million of CIDA aid money was tied to the procurement of Canadian goods and services by recipient countries. According to the World Bank and the OECD, tied aid inflates the cost of goods and services as it reduces the real value of aid by 25%.

The government reduced Canada's untied aid from 62% when it came to power in 1993 to 30% today making it absolutely ineffective. This 25% translates to $200 million. This is one area where we can start to reform, repriorize and ensure that other dollars are spent effectively. These are examples where we feel it is time that the budget looked at repriorization and not at new spending.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in my colleague's remarks because I know he spent a lot of time as our international trade critic examining Canada' position in the context of our trading partners around the world.

I understand that among OECD countries Canada is seen as having a high tax, high debt and high spending regime. Could the member comment on how these three factors impact on our position with our trading partners in view of the fact that we are in recessionary times and facing some economic challenges?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary--Nose Hill for the question. It boils down to Canada's competitiveness in the international globalization economy. We all know that 43% of our economy is tied to exports. Exports are a crucial factor for Canada's prosperity. Our hands are tied when our companies are taxed at a high rate. The debt load ties them down because of lower dollars and they end up becoming uncompetitive.

China proposed a trading bloc for Far East countries at the economic discussions held in Shanghai. The European Union and NAFTA have also formed trading blocs. Trading blocs are being formed and the world is becoming more competitive.

Canada will lose its share of the world market if we do not look at our economic regime to ensure that our companies have the ability to compete on the global market. Canada's prosperity would be jeopardized if that happened.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle said that he was in favour of more foreign aid. That is my view and the view of our Prime Minister.

That seems a little strange coming from his party because I had not realized that was its position. Would his party be in support of additional foreign aid in the upcoming budget?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague on the other side got the wrong impression. I was saying that CIDA's $2.2 billion budget should be used more effectively before we think about increasing aid.

If the existing budget is not properly utilized, why would we want to spend more money? The biggest danger is that Canadians would start suffering from foreign aid fatigue because they would see their foreign aid dollars not being used effectively. Let us use the $2.2 billion more effectively before we start spending more money.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the constituents of Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre on the opposition motion. A delayed crisis budget is a poor substitute for what Canadians deserve from their government. Canadians deserve a normal budget on a regular basis at predetermined times.

Has the Liberal Party found it easier to run the government through members of the inner circle of cabinet? How is parliament expected to function when the government administers public policy through the core of its inner circle? These are questions that are being asked in my riding.

I understand that I am one of the newer members of the House. That does not mean I do not understand that government is abusing power and authority in many cases by investing so much power in the Prime Minister's Office.

Since I am not fully acclimatized to this place it is easier for me to see that is where the power is coming from. There is such a thin green line, as I have said in talks in Saskatchewan, between us and a dictatorship. The erosion of democracy may be the reason for the rumour that the upcoming budget is not even from the Minister of Finance but from the Prime Minister.

Canadians deserve better. The Canadian Alliance is calling for $2 billion in national defence spending that would make us a more credible member of NATO. Another billion to our homeland securities providers would certainly not be an unrealistic expectation. The equipment and the resources given to our military are embarrassing to many of us.

Canadians deserve better when it comes to the support of agriculture. It is an established fact that the last decade has not served Canadians well. They have seen their financial situation worsen and the government is not likely to make any meaningful corrections in the budget.

Canada faced one of the worst droughts on record and the Liberal government could not seem to find any more than $2 million. I am not sure if it found that for Saskatchewan farmers to drill new water wells and dig dugouts. The agency responsible for that ran out of money in late spring or early summer. Saskatchewan asked for something like $5 million and according to the latest figures it might get $2 million.

Canadians deserve better support and more realistic employment insurance premiums. On November 30 the Minister of Finance announced a cut in EI premiums to $2.20 per $100 of insurable earnings. That is a nickel a hundred. Based on an annual income of $39,000 this EI premium would save workers just under $20 a year. A massive saving, is it not?

By contrast, CPP premiums would increase by almost $140 a year for the average Canadian worker and even more for the employer. The worker is suffering a $120 loss for the year. This year the EI account will run a surplus of $6 billion, bringing the cumulative surplus to somewhere over $40 billion by next March. The chief actuary has said that EI premiums could be cut to as low as $1.75 per $100 and that should likely work for quite some time. Yet we are only seeing them lowered to the $2.20 mark.

The Canadian Alliance motion proposes an EI cut of 15 cents this year with reductions in the following years to reach a break even point as soon as possible. EI premiums are job killers. In uncertain economic times we should be encouraging job creation, not maintaining job killing payroll taxes.

The Minister of Finance agreed with that at one time. In May 1994 he said that payroll taxes were a cancer on job creation. Employers and employees were apparently not a high priority with the Liberal government. If they were, the minister would accept some of the repeated calls the opposition has made toward reducing EI premiums. Canadians deserve better and stronger health care funding by the federal government.

After all, the federal government is the major tax collector of our nation. Both in Saskatchewan and Alberta there are propositions to deliver controversial policy changes for health care yet we expect that the Minister of Health will stick with his approach of around 14 cents, and for some provinces maybe 17 cents. We expect him to embrace the status quo and challenge anyone to alter the existing principles of the Health Canada Act. Is that good enough for Canadians? No, I do not believe that it is good enough.

The government has not even returned to the 1995 levels of funding and participation let alone to the 50% rate that was originally used in the early days of medicare.

Some of the items I have mentioned are not specifically mentioned in the Canadian Alliance motion. However the first point, the reallocation of financial resources from wasteful, low and falling priorities into higher need areas would allow for a broad number of changes as well as all the ones that the Alliance motion mentions.

A lot has been said here and many people will wonder why there is this exercise and why the Alliance would bring forth such a motion when it is so near the time that the budget is coming down. That is a legitimate question. We believe that this has been a good exercise. It has allowed many points of view to be expressed. Many members have offered suggestions of how prioritization can take place. The motion has called attention to the fact that prioritization needs to happen.

The hon. member across the way mentioned HRDC and CIDA among other things. It is not that the Canadian Alliance opposes those departments but anyone who has seen any of the spending reports from those places will absolutely know there is much fat to be cut. There are many areas of waste and useless government spending.

We believe that a government's first priority is that of safety and security for its own citizens. People throughout time have gathered together and they bind together for their own security and protection. That is the basis.

We need to talk about providing infrastructure so that our economy can function and things can happen. We seem always to get so far ahead of ourselves. We are so interested in providing for all of the different kinds of programs that we forget to take care of the infrastructure.

I am very grateful that we have had the opportunity today to address these issues.

Points of Order

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough raised a point of order with respect to the appropriations bill provision for foreign affairs vote 36a of $2 million for payment to compensate for transferred liabilities to the Export Development Corporation in respect of its employees who have contributed to the public service death benefit account. The member suggested that there is no statutory basis for this transfer.

I want to point out that the current name for the corporation is that which is specified in the appropriations bill.

I would like to note also that EDC withdrew from the Public Service Superannuation Act in April 2000. It thus incurred a one time liability at that time. This payment simply covers EDC's liability for that purpose. Authority is provided under the Public Service Superannuation Act for this. This would have been required with or without Bill C-31, the EDC Act and in fact, has nothing to do with that bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I would like to thank the hon. member for the information. As soon as the Speaker is here just before the vote he will respond.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.