Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2002

Canada Pension Plan

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

Madam Speaker, that is a good question and one that deserves to have the input of Canadians.

The current Canada pension plan disability program has its shortfalls. I know of people who have taken early retirement income at age 60, as they are allowed to do, and if something happens to them during that time so that they become disabled they are not able to apply for the Canada pension plan disability section because they have taken their early retirement income. So there are shortfalls even in the current system.

However I do not believe that is a major obstacle that cannot be overcome. We need to have some kind of disability program but I think we could still have it even in spite of the fact that people would have their own individual retirement. Those are separate issues that could be designed in a separate way and I do not really see any problem with that.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, my remarks will not be lengthy. The House will know why they are not going to be lengthy after I begin my preamble. Listening to the debate today made me think about the issue of relevance. It is definitely a fact that most of what is being discussed today is in some way relevant to the Canada pension plan, most of it.

I have noticed that members on both sides of the House have taken advantage of the debate on Bill C-3 to raise issues relevant to the Canada pension plan. That is all well and good, except that the bill in question is relatively a housekeeping bill with five or six types of changes to the existing Canada pension plan.

Maybe those elements in the bill are just too darn boring for everybody. Maybe they are not that important. It makes me wonder why we just would not adopt the provisions and move on to debate something else. It is not that the Canada pension plan is not a worthy subject of debate. It is just that the debate today is supposed to be on the contents of the bill, yet the debate seems to be on more general issues involving the Canada pension plan.

We have heard about the process of appointments to the pension plan investment board. We have heard about how the pension plan should be investing its capital, the level of benefits to those who receive the pension, the survivor pension or the disability pension, and the health of the plan itself. All of these are important public issues but none of them deal with the contents of the bill.

I will try to focus my remarks on the bill itself. I know that earlier speakers will have done that. I know it may be boring, but such is the nature of these types of legislative amendments. Let me address the five or six changes just so the record can show it and so we can all be bored as we get ready for members' statements and question period.

As everyone knows, the 1998 legislation created a Canada Pension Plan Investment Board which would take all of the money contributed into the plan, or most of it, and invest it to obtain a return to the plan higher than that which was originally being obtained by the silly practice of lending the pension plan moneys to the provinces. That practice was based on a political deal struck two or three decades ago here in Ottawa. The money was lent out from the pension plan pool to the provinces, I suppose at appropriate rates of interest but using investment methods that did not allow for any appreciation or accumulation of capital. Most of that money is still outstanding I guess. The money was lent. The provinces owe it. They pay interest and they repay it over time.

That provided very little in the way of growth to the pension plan pool. That became painfully obvious in the 1980s and 1990s as we saw other public pension plans grow, public pension plans where the funds were invested in the capital markets in a prudent fashion. There are several pension funds in Canada and the United States which have grown hugely with prudent investments, even grown beyond expectations. There are private pension plans that have so much money they have to take some of it back. There are fights by labour unions and corporations about how much money should be taken back because the pension plan has been invested so wisely.

Here we have our own public Canada pension plan and to some degree the Quebec pension plan, which does not run exactly the same way but in a sense runs in tandem for the same objectives. We have now allowed the definite investment of these moneys which proves beneficial for our whole country over the long term and medium term.

The first tinkering amendment to that existing legislation is one which seems to be pretty trite stuff. It would allow some or all of the money which, by law, has to be held not in the investment account but in the plan account, which was three months worth of capital sitting there just in case it was needed, to be turned over to the investment account so it can be invested as well. At the same time as we do that, the pension plan itself needs a legal mechanism to draw back from the investment account the money it needs monthly, daily or whatever to run the pension plan. It pulls it back from the capital markets.

Those two amendments run in tandem. They make sense. We could ask why those provisions were not there before. They were not there when the amendments were made in 1998. Some elements of the original pension plan legislation were kept in place and better foresight on the part of the managers and the government now allows us to see that we should make these changes.

There is also the matter of long term investments held not by the investment fund but by the Minister of Finance. Over all of the years, the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Government of Canada and on behalf of Canadians, was the named owner of many investments that the fund had. Those investments are principally loans to provinces.

Just to pick an example, the province of British Columbia or Ontario owes the Canada pension fund $20 billion. The debt instrument reflecting that account is in the name of the Minister of Finance for Canada. This amendment will allow the Minister of Finance, who is statutorily obliged to be the named owner as trustee, to turn those long term investments over a three year period over to the investment fund.

It is possible in theory that the investment fund in prudence and with good investment intent may decide to actually sell some of that debt. It may decide to cash it in now depending on the interest rates, sell the money that is owed by Ontario on the open market, take the cash and reinvest it elsewhere.

I hope I am not making it sound like the investment board is into funny money investments and playing Monopoly with our pension funds. These are financing and investment techniques that are in use now and if used properly and prudently will serve the beneficiaries, the annuitants of our national pension plan, the Canada pension plan.

At some point in time over the last few years it has been questioned whether or not our Canada pension plan should have to live by the same foreign investment rules that our personal pension plans, statutory pension plans, RRSPs, have to live with. There is a limit on how much Canadian law will allow a statute based pension plan to invest in foreign funds. Forgive me for not knowing precisely what it is, but I think it is 20% now. That is a cap on how much can be invested in foreign funds.

Should our pension plan be able to be invested in no foreign funds or some and how much? This statutory amendment makes it clear that our Canada pension plan will follow the same rules as all of our other pension plans. If I am correct that the limit is 20%, that is the limit of investment of our Canada pension plan funds.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

It is 30%.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

My friend opposite has corrected me. It is 30%. That is the limit on foreign investment of our Canada pension plan funds.

The last amendment in the bill has to do with accountability. All of us in the House are true believers in the process of accountability. The trick is to get the right mechanisms that reflect what is happening with these types of investments to allow at least trained observers, and some untrained observers like most of us here in the House, to assess how the pension plan is doing.

The final amendment which I am referring to with regard to Bill C-3 relates to changes in reporting mechanisms for the Canada pension plan. In saying that we want good and effective reporting mechanisms, I have to point out what is probably obvious to most of us, which is that in requiring our public pension plan to report, it is important that we not remove from our pension plan the ability to make appropriate moves with respect to investments.

If a large fund is going to make a big investment, it probably is not a good idea to announce it in advance. Sometimes the movement of moneys in capital markets needs appropriate levels of confidentiality before and after they are moved to protect the integrity of the investment. At the end of the day, there is no confidentiality. It has to be reported. It has to show up on the books. Reporting mechanisms that we design and put in place have to take into account the need for large pension plans like this to operate with reasonable confidentiality and integrity as they move our money around.

That is the list of housekeeping reforms. All of them are important in their own way. I hope I did not diverge too much onto other issues. We are back on relevance and back on focus on this very boring bill. Maybe there are some questions from members about this very important subject.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I will not be taking any questions. We will go to statements by members and continue after question period.

Canadian Wheat Board

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am a prairie grain farmer. I can grow wheat, but I cannot sell it. Federal law makes it illegal for any prairie farmer to market wheat without a licence from the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would like to market my own wheat. I can market canola. I can market oats. I can market lentils, canary seed, flax and rye, but not wheat.

I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in land and machinery. Each year I purchase thousands of dollars worth of fuel and fertilizer to see my wheat seeded, harvested and stored in my grain bins, but once it is there I cannot sell it.

I can log on to the Internet and buy or sell items of any kind. I can trade my vehicle, buy a horse, get a loan, or purchase land, but I cannot sell my wheat.

I can travel around the world in a leaky air balloon, risk my life in extreme sports, gamble away my assets in a casino, engage in high risk business deals or try my luck on the stock market, but I cannot sell my wheat.

I am free to choose which political party I will belong to and which religion I will adhere to. I can quit working, quit taking my medication or even quit eating, but I am not allowed to sell my wheat.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member for Oakville.

Afghanistan

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, today the United Nations world food program warned that an estimated four millions Afghans will be short of food in the next 12 months.

Last Friday, President Karzai asked for international aid to eradicate the production of illegal drugs. His problem is that poppy growing is 40 times more profitable than growing wheat and his farmers need to be convinced of viable alternatives to poppy crops.

His government's control is weak outside of Kabul and there are outbreaks of violence in the southeast and the northwest. He reported that of the $1.8 billion pledged by the international community, only $890 million has been received. He added that peace and stability depend on the international community's sustained engagement in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Mouvement des aînés du Québec

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, since its creation in 1970, FADOQ-Mouvement des aînés du Québec has grown steadily and has provided the population of Quebec aged 50 and over with an opportunity to be heard. With close to 280,000 active members in 900 different social clubs, it has over time become the most important and the largest voluntary seniors' group in Quebec.

In addition to the activities it organizes and the programs and services it provides to its clientele, FADOQ is energetically involved in defending and gaining recognition for the rights and needs of Quebec seniors in various political, economic and social forums.

That is why I call upon the House to join with me in greeting the directors and representatives of the Mouvement des aînés du Québec who are here in Ottawa today. Our distinguished guests will be taking part in two days of training sessions organized by Communication Canada on the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada.

I wish them a pleasant stay in the national capital, as well as every success in their endeavours.

Forest Industry

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Madam Speaker, the forest industry applauds the Government of Canada's financial efforts to assist forestry workers and communities affected by the softwood lumber crisis with the United States.

Today, the big losers are the forestry contractors and the small independent sawmills. They are the ones to be hit first by the imposition of George “Wood” Bush's taxes.

Financial assistance is needed for the lumber companies and associations. A new program must be implemented to make loans to the lumber companies of Canada and Quebec.

Health Research

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today is Health Research Day on the Hill. It is a time to celebrate the accomplishments of Canada's health research community and to consider their future goals and needs.

Today I was pleased to meet with representatives of the Council for Health Research in Canada. They emphasized the benefits of research in containing costs and, more important, in improving health. They also shared examples of groundbreaking health research. An example is the international attention that has focused on the Edmonton protocol, where scientists using liver islet transplants have provided new hope for diabetic patients formerly dependent on insulin injections.

It is estimated that this year Canadians will donate $300 million to health research. Many more dollars will be given in contributions through government grants. These are precious dollars and should be spent not in ways that divide Canadians but in ways that Canadians can be proud of.

The Canadian Alliance salutes the hard work and the dedication of those who strive to provide a healthier future for all of us.

Governor General's Awards

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Women's History Month is about celebrating women's role in and contributions to Canadian history and society.

Every day women across Canada strive to make a difference in the lives of other women and in their communities. The Governor General's awards in commemoration of the Persons Case were established in 1979 to recognize the lifetime achievements of five women who, in the spirit of the Famous Five, have done just that. More recently, a sixth award has been added to recognize the contributions of young Canadian women who prove that no matter what one's age it is never too early to make a difference in the lives of others.

It is with great pride that I rise to congratulate the six women who have received this year's awards. The recipients for the 2002 Governor General's awards in commemoration of the Persons Case are: Margaret-Ann Armour of Edmonton, Alberta; Françoise David of Montreal, Quebec; Michele Landsberg of Toronto, Ontario; Nancy Riche of St. John's, Newfoundland; and Elisapie Ootova of Pond Inlet, Nunavut. Megan Reid of Leamington, Ontario is the recipient of the youth award.

Smokey Smith

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

Mr. Speaker, during the second world war 16 courageous Canadians were awarded the Victoria Cross, the Commonwealth's highest military decoration for bravery.

Ernest Alvia Smith, better known as Smokey, is the last surviving recipient. On this very date 58 years ago, Smokey earned his Victoria Cross during a battle at the Savio River in Italy. As a member of the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada's tank-hunting platoon, Private Smith single-handedly fought off two assaults by German troops. While his comrade lay wounded near him, Smokey held off the enemy until they gave up and retreated.

Today Smokey Smith lives in Vancouver and travels extensively as an ambassador for veterans. He was here in Ottawa on Thanksgiving weekend at the national war memorial. Last year during Veterans Week, Smokey visited the House where members paid him tribute. This year he is proudly featured on the Veterans Week poster.

On this anniversary of Smokey Smith's amazing act of bravery, we wish him many more years of good health and happiness.

Percival Broomfield

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, late Friday night, a nationalist, a great and fervent sovereignist and a good friend, Percival Broomfield died in his sleep.

A co-founder of the Théâtre Le Patriote, which was first established in Montreal before settling into its permanent home in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, Percival devoted himself to getting artists to speak and sing about Quebec.

This theatre witnessed the secrets of his wildest dreams and entire pages of Quebec culture. It played host to the first tentative steps of some of our greatest artists, including Claude Dubois, Clémence Desrochers, Jean-Pierre Ferland, Robert Charlebois and Yvon Deschamps, to name but a few.

Just this Thursday, you spoke to me of your love for Quebec, your projects, your theatre and the need for our own country.

Your indefatigable convictions and your loyalty to Quebec will remain etched in our memories. We will miss you Percival; I will miss you.

Health Research

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is Health Research Awareness Month. I am pleased to recognize Canada's health researchers and their contribution to our health care system and economy.

It is also time to recognize the contribution of the Government of Canada to a strong, dynamic health research community through its continuing support of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Our multi-disciplinary approach to health research is the envy of the world. Researchers are tackling health issues that matter to Canadians. They are working with governments, health charities, and industry on topics as wide ranging as the integrity and safety of Canada's food and water supplies, bioterrorism, obesity and population genomics.

Health research is a key to the innovation agenda, creating economic growth and jobs. I congratulate this CIHR on its accomplishments in two short years. We look forward to future achievements.

I wish to express our thanks to all those promoting health research on Parliament Hill today.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a travesty of justice is taking place, not in some third world country, not in a communist dictatorship, not under some oppressive regime, but right here in Canada.

A group of farmers, the very same people who grow the food we eat, have been sentenced to go to jail for selling the wheat they grow on their own land. This unjust situation exists only in western Canada and could not happen in Quebec, Ontario or the Maritimes.

This is due to the monopoly of the western Canadian Wheat Board, supported by the Liberal government, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Public Works. The claims the government makes to have the best interests of farmers at heart ring hollow as 14 farm families prepare to face the reality of their breadwinners being incarcerated. These farmers should not be going to jail for doing what farmers in the rest of Canada can do legally.

I call on the government to end this insanity, to end this extremely tragic situation, and to bring an end to the monopoly of the western Canadian Wheat Board. After all, are not all Canadians equal?

Arts and Culture

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as member of Parliament for Don Valley West in Toronto, I was delighted by the recent announcement made by the Aga Khan Development Network that the Don Mills district of my riding has been chosen as the site for an educational and cultural complex housing one of the greatest collections of Islamic art and heritage outside the Islamic world.

Works from the personal collection of His Highness the Aga Khan and from members of his family and rarely seen in public before will celebrate the rich cultural, intellectual, artistic and religious traditions of Muslim communities, past and present.

Canada's diverse and multicultural society makes this the right place to build a centre with a mandate to foster a global, pluralistic ethic. All Canadians can be proud that Canada has been chosen as the home for an organization dedicated to creating a society characterized by collaboration rather than conflict. These resources will greatly enrich our country's cultural fabric. Ya Ali Madad .

Week Without Violence

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, during the 7th annual YWCA Week Without Violence, October 20 to 26, YWCAs and YM-YWCAs have organized activities to bring awareness and solutions to the problem of violence.

Violence affects us all, regardless of geographic location, economic class, race or religion. More than 300,000 violent crimes are reported yearly in Canada. In 1999 more than 90,000 women and children were admitted to shelters to escape abuse. The YWCA is the largest provider of shelters for women and children in Canada.

Much can be done to promote peace and safety: a commitment to avoid violent programming and videos; speaking out against racism and hate; and treating everyone with dignity and respect.

Every day there is something violent happening and I am thankful that every day volunteers and workers of the YWCAs and YW-YMCAs in Thompson, Manitoba, and throughout Canada are working for safer communities.

I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging their work and thanking them for their commitment.

Highway Infrastructure

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on August 22, the federal government finally responded to Quebec's offer to cover half the cost of making highway 175 in the Laurentides park into a divided four-lane highway.

The entire region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean believed firmly in this project. Our pride and our persistence has borne fruit and we can now say “mission accomplished”.

I thank my constituents from the bottom of my heart for sending thousands of postcards to the Prime Minister, for giving me the strength to rise 38 times here in the House to speak to the issue, and for having allowed me to make highway 175 a national issue. I also thank the regional stakeholders, who all believed in the project.

The riding of Jonquière and the entire surrounding region will benefit. We can finally be proud of highway 175, because it is our tax dollars that will be put to work.

Terrorism

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the horrific terrorist outrage yesterday in Northern Israel, the blowing up of a city bus, murdering 16 and wounding at least 50, is the latest outrage by one or another terrorist group, in this instance Islamic Jihad, that not only obscenely takes credit for this slaughter of innocents but proudly and publicly asserts its objective as being the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they may be, while the Hezbollah TV station Al-Manar extols the martyrs of yet another genocidal bombing. Yet both, along with Hamas, have yet to be named to Canada's list of terrorist entities.

This latest terrorist assault is confirmation again that the root cause of this tragic existential conflict, and the suffering on both sides, remains for the most part the unwillingness of many in the Arab and Palestinian leadership to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state within any borders, and that the historical pattern from 1947 to the present has been one of double rejectionism, of Arabs forgoing the establishment even of a Palestinian state if it means countenancing the existence of a Jewish state. This was a sentiment reflected in the remarks of the President of Lebanon who, two days ago at the Francophonie conference, referred to the creation of Israel as one of history's great injustices, words inimical to the peaceful co-existence of two states for two peoples--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Richmond--Arthabaska.

Member for LaSalle—Émard

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Finance and current member for LaSalle—Émard has finally discovered the democratic deficit and, probably, we hope, seen the light on the road to Damascus.

In a speech that he delivered yesterday, the Liberal leadership hopeful was quick to endorse the principle of democratic reform. Better very late than never.

However, this is the same member who, when he was minister, remained silent on these issues and worked against his ideals, and did so for over nine years.

For example, he preferred to sway his colleagues to defeat a motion from the hon. member for Fundy—Royal on the issue of student debt. He preferred to resort to closure on 13 bills and to unveil the principles underlying his budgets outside the House.

Now, he is asking for the appointment of a real ethics counsellor who would only be accountable to Parliament. However, when he had the opportunity to do so, he voted against this measure.

This is a member who excluded himself from the decision-making level to pursue his own partisan and personal goals.

Celtic Colours International Festival

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the beauty of the Cape Breton Island coastline enriched by the brilliant colours of its fall foliage has for some time drawn tourists to our area. Our traditional Celtic music, as shared through the artistry of Natalie MacMaster, Ashley MacIsaac, the Rankin Family and others, has continued to grow and appeal to many beyond our shores.

For the past six years these two great assets have been packaged and presented as one of the country's great cultural festivals, the Celtic Colours International Festival. The festival draws not only from the great wealth of Cape Breton talent, but has also become a must-make week for some of the top international Celtic performers including The Chieftains and Sharon Shannon.

This year's event, which just wrapped up with Sunday's largest square dance in the world, has drawn record crowds and has made a huge contribution both socially and economically to the entire island. To organizers Joella Folds and Max MacDonald, the board of directors and the army of dedicated volunteers who have delivered another exceptional festival, on behalf of all the people of Cape Breton, congratulations.

Member for LaSalle--Émard

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the former finance minister lately has become aware of the benefits of democratic reform, but I question both the scope of his reforms and the depth of his convictions.

He now advocates freer voting, but for nine years he supported the most autocratic government in Canadian history. For nine years he hid when his own MPs were bridling at not being able to freely choose their committee chairs. For nine years he developed laryngitis every time he should have been speaking up against appalling appointments, like that of Alfonso Gagliano as ambassador to Denmark.

Meanwhile he voted against the very independent ethics counsellor which yesterday he said was necessary to “bolster trust”. Yesterday he was silent on critical issues like electing the Senate, a den of patronage appointments. In dismissing referenda, he dismissed allowing the public a direct voice in governing their own affairs.

No, it is apparent that Paul's conversion on the road to democracy is nothing more than a conversion of convenience.

Kyoto Protocol

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard finally said something about Kyoto. He said:

--before there is a vote we have to have a plan. And it has to be a plan that Canadians understand. One that sets out the benefits, one that sets out exactly how we're going to hit the targets and one that sets out the costs.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the Kyoto vote in the House must be not just about ratification but a vote on an implementation plan?