Mr. Speaker, I also did not vote on the last motion and I want to have my vote recorded with the government on this motion.
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 40% of the vote.
Budget Implementation Act, 2000 June 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I also did not vote on the last motion and I want to have my vote recorded with the government on this motion.
Division No. 686 February 16th, 2000
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Late Matt Cohen December 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, today I rise with sadness to recognize the passing on December 3 of a great Canadian, Mr. Matt Cohen, this year's winner of the Governor General's Literary Award for fiction.
Mr. Cohen was both an esteemed writer and a neighbour. He contributed significantly to the Canadian literary scene. It was in 1969, at the age of 26, that Mr. Cohen published his first novel, entitled Korsoniloff . From then, he was involved in 30 books, including novels, Quebecois translations, children's books, short story collections and books of poetry. It was for his novel, Elizabeth and After , that he recently received the Governor General's Literary Award for fiction.
Mr. Cohen pushed for the right for writers to be able to receive payment for the library use of their works. Mr. Cohen kept writing even through his illness. Therefore, even as we mourn his loss, we can anticipate a book of his short stories that will be published by Knopf Canada next spring; his last gift to Canadians.
On behalf of the people of Trinity—Spadina, I would like to offer our condolences to his wife Patsy and his family.
Employment December 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand here today and state that the unemployment rate is the lowest since August 1981. From a high in 1993 before we took office at 11.6%, to today at a rate of 6.9%, a decrease of approximately 4.7% in six years. In 1993, 13 million Canadians were working. Today close to 1.9 million more Canadians have joined the workforce, bringing the total to 14.9 million.
Our Liberal government has achieved this through a balanced approach. We put a strategic plan in place, working with many sectors of our economy to ensure that we put jobs and Canadians first. We will continue to help Canadians achieve a higher standard of living through the dignity of work, while always trying to ensure that no one is left behind.
Employment November 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, six years ago today the Canadian people gave our Liberal Party a mandate to concentrate on economic growth and job creation. We embarked on a strategic plan to reduce the staggering 11.4% unemployment rate. Taking a balanced approach we worked with various sectors of our economy, such as those involved in trade, research and development, tourism, youth employment and, of course, the small business sector.
As the member for Trinity—Spadina, it gives me great pleasure to stand today and say that the unemployment rate in six years has moved from 11.4% to 7.2%. In 1993, 13 million Canadians were working. Today 1.8 million more Canadians have joined the workforce, a 14% increase, bringing the total to 14.8 million Canadians.
With our policies we are helping more Canadians achieve a higher standard of living with the dignity of work.
Supply June 7th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax West completely misses the point when he compares our commitment, as he did earlier in his question to the minister, to NATO and our willingness to provide government employees with pension plans that are more in line with the realities of today.
I totally disagree with him when he says the government was bombarding the pension plan of our armed forces. That is quite a little play on words. We know the NDP is very strong in terms of its rhetoric. On the contrary, Bill C-78 sweeps the cobwebs out of plans that were designed more than 30 years ago and needed to be updated and improved.
I also have enormous difficulty understanding why the member persists in saying that the pension plan surpluses belong to members of the Canadian forces, the public service and the RCMP. The President of the Treasury Board has stated in the House on several occasions that government employees did not have to assume any financial risks associated with funding these plans.
Canadian taxpayers have taken all the risks. Canadians have funded all the deficits. Clearly and simply they deserve to enjoy the surplus that now exists.
If the member takes the trouble to read the bill carefully, he will see the proposals being introduced and passed in Bill C-78 and Bill C-71 will provide government employees with more benefits than they had before.
The hon. member for Halifax West should also keep himself better informed about everything the government is doing to improve the lot of Canadians, especially members of the RCMP, the Canadian forces and the public service.
I stress that the bill enhances and protects the benefits the public service, the RCMP and Canadian forces employees and pensioners receive and that the benefits as defined in their plans will continue to be theirs and guaranteed by the government.
Division No. 453 May 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering if the hon. member for Medicine Hat is the finance critic.
Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act May 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I notice that he should use notes, that he should do research, because the difficulty we have is that he does not understand the facts. That is part of the difficulty he is facing. I wish the hon. member who uses a computer at his desk would put some of the research material in, maybe get on to the Internet and tap into the government's information.
When we take into account that with the government an actuarial evaluator determines how much money is actually required on a year to year basis. Even if there is a surplus the evaluator still determines on a year to year basis how much is required, not taking into account the surplus. That is why since 1991-92 the surplus has increased to $30 billion. That is what brings us to the point of dealing with this piece of legislation.
Even the auditor general has asked us to reduce the amount of interest we pay on that. We have conformed with the accounting rules that the hon. member for St. Albert should have educated the other hon. members on to ensure they understood the basic facts we were dealing with.
Unfortunately, the hon. member does not realize we take into account that in most pension plans the employees contribute 40%. What has happened here is that the taxpayer is contributing 70%. In effect, that is why Canadian taxpayers year after year contribute more than they would in any other pension plan, even in the private sector. That is what we are facing.
If we take into account the way the grass is growing, I cannot understand why the Reform Party wants Canadian taxpayers to continue contributing to the point where they will contribute almost the total amount and the employee contributes almost zero. I do not understand why the Reform Party wants to take from the taxpayers' money to pay for the civil servants' pension.
Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act May 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, there is not much they can speak about. That is what the difficulty is. Earlier I said that I would not use the term hot air because that would be unparliamentary, but taking all of that into account, they complain about the lack of time but they never state anything new. It is all on the record. Their speeches are just cut and paste and regurgitate. They hand them out to each other. It is amazing.
Even on the first day of the debate, the hon. member for St. Albert, who at least is very much aware of this issue, had to pass his notes on to another speaker because he had another engagement but that is understandable.
Under this bill the formula for calculating retirement benefits will be based on average salary during the best consecutive five years of service instead of six. That is very positive when we take into account that the formula by which the plan benefits are integrated with the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan benefits in the plan member's favour. The new formula will mean a somewhat smaller reduction in the plan's benefits when an employee begins to draw CPP—
Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act May 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting as I stated earlier today that the hon. member talks about the proposal of extending this debate for six months. Members talk about the great groundswell they believe is going to occur, but it has not occurred because Canadians are generally pleased with this bill. It is everything the unions along with the employer have sat down to discuss. There was only one part where one of the unions was concerned about the surplus and wanted a percentage of it and all the rest of the items.
As we discussed earlier, it is a legislated plan. The employees and the retirees are guaranteed their pension by this government and by the taxpayers, paid by taxpayers' money.
The concern of the Reform Party, aside from the fact that many of the things were agreed on, is that we are in effect taking what belongs to Canadian taxpayers, which is an accounting entry, and reducing the debt by $30 billion over a period of time. The Reform Party does not like that. Why do they not like it? Because that is going to reduce the cost to Canadian taxpayers in interest that they pay to bondholders. Why does the Reform Party not like that? Because all of a sudden the Liberal Party is going to get credit for reducing the debt by $30 billion. Why does the Reform Party not like that? Because everything they have been talking about, everything the Reform Party is all about is being done by this government on the basis of good fiscal management.
The real problem is that the Reform Party is not only bankrupt of the platform it has carried for six years but it is now trying to steal the Conservatives' plan by uniting the right. The hon. member for St. Albert realizes we are on the right track. He would do exactly what we are doing here because the unions—