André Harvey

[Division No. 44, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party vote in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 42, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be voting against this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 41, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on this specific motion, members of my party will vote yea.

(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 40, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party will vote nay on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 39, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party will vote yea on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 38, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party are voting in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 37, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party are voting in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 36, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party will be voting in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 34, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be voting in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 1st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my Reform colleague talking about the previous government. He was saying that the present government is not any better than the previous government. I got the impression, listening to the Reform members, that they think they know the answer to everything.

I wish to emphasize that we have nothing to be ashamed of regarding the work of the previous government in the area of tax reform. Unfortunately, the present government did not follow up on that reform. We should also remember the free trade agreement, which allowed us to increase our exports by 140%. Talk is cheap, but the facts of history should not be ignored.

To come back to Bill C-2, I believe that one of the basic errors the present government is making is to want to go too far too quickly. I think it should be criticized for acting this way. This is cause for concern because this government does not presently have a very heavy legislative agenda. The government would have time to consult the population further, to better inform Canadians of the importance of this reform.

The reform of the Canada pension plan is the key issue during this mandate. I believe the government should be willing to spend more time on this. Unfortunately, it is addressing this issue with considerable indifference.

They seem to want to copy very quickly, especially in the case of the investment board. They seem to think that this investment board will prevent all mistakes, protect us from any patronage, and so on. Quebec offers an interesting example, with the Caisse de dépôt et placement managing all Quebec funds, but perhaps we should take a closer look at this example.

I am convinced that further consultations on the subject would show that Canadians feel it is a little risky to give exclusive access to this kind of money—tens of billions of dollars—to an exclusive fund, which, as we will see in a moment, may not be protected against political interference.

Unfortunately, the government is moving ahead quickly, establishing an investment board that will enable it to manage all funds contributed by Canadians. I think this is a very dangerous and risky proposition. In time, it will justify thinking that there should have been two or three boards, in totally different areas, instead of just one. This would at least have had the advantage of giving us a higher degree of security in every regard, including patronage appointments and investment choices.

We all agree, of course, that it is important to amend this act. It is a fundamental component of our social safety net. However, we must try to be as fair and equitable as possible in making these amendments. With this bill, we will be dipping into the pockets of all Canadian taxpayers in a totally unacceptable fashion. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost as a result.

Change is clearly required, but the main reason for that change is obviously our aging population. It is an inescapable reality. There is also the dwindling birth rate. This means even greater pressure on the fund.

Life expectancy is, of course, another factor that is not negligible. There is also the rising number of people on disability. There is the great concern generated by the general thrust that the government wants to give the fund. Then there are the reduced benefits that will be paid, even though the government will be dipping deep in the pockets of all Canadian taxpayers.

We are not talking about one or two billion dollars: we are talking about an annual average of $11 billion. This measure will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

As a political party, we want to ensure the program's long term viability. Obviously, everyone agrees with this goal. We also want to ensure sound management of the fund. Sound management simply means there should be a variety of investment options, given the huge amounts that will be collected.

What we want in particular is for the investment board to be protected from political interference. I will forego giving any examples of this; all the hon. members of this House are aware that it is possible for a government to intervene with the investment board and to steer it more toward ends that could be partisan or even political.

Our political party agrees with an equitable contribution unrelated to income level. We are also particularly in agreement with the fact that all of our fellow citizens need to be encouraged not to rely solely on government retirement funds. I think that, when positive measures are taken, people are in a position to understand, and particularly to make their own investments, if they are given worthwhile means to encourage this.

What we want above all is for the $11 billion in increased contributions taken from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers to be offset by lower taxes and, for goodness' sake, by lower employment insurance premiums as well. It is inconceivable that the government has created a $15 billion fund at a time when all Canadians need that money. Not $1 billion or $2 billion, but $15 billion have been salted away in order to reduce the federal deficit.

We know very well that the record of the present government as far as its battle with the deficit is concerned is due, among other things, to—and you will forgive me for bringing up measures of the former government—the way free trade has performed. The present government voted against free trade. Our exports to the U.S. market have risen from $90 billion to $215 billion. This is one of the measures which now enable the government to fight the deficit without having to dig into the taxpayers' pockets.

We are, therefore, in agreement with a variation in the contribution rate, but we are particularly in agreement with people not having to pay more in order to ensure the long term survival of the federal pension fund. This means lowering employment insurance contributions at a time when there are $10 to $15 billion dormant in the fund. Book transfers are made, and then they say we can eliminate the deficit. It is being eliminated now, thanks to other measures adopted by the previous government.

It is obvious that we would be in favour of increasing the foreign content limit of RRSPs from 20% to 50%. This is a progressive measure and one with which we are in agreement. We are also in agreement with staggering the increase over a longer period. We will not go to the wall over a staggered increase, but we do want to see this increase balanced out by a corresponding decrease in EI premiums and a reduction in taxation sectors.

It seems to me that the government would now be able to start the process of giving money back to Canadians. That is the only way to create jobs. Let us not forget that a 1% increase represents 25,000 to 35,000 lost jobs. This is the completely unavoidable reality of the situation.

Back then, the Liberals criticized payroll taxes. They no longer feel bound by the wonderful promises they made. The increase in CPP premiums must be offset by a decrease in other taxation sectors. The Liberals opposed a ceiling on increases in CPP premiums. These increases could go well beyond 9.9% without Parliament having to give its approval. This is an enormous door cabinet is opening. We must be very cautious. Above all, we must not be too quick to pass this measure. The aftermath could be terrible. A 1% increase—believe it or not—will result in 25,000 to 30,000 lost jobs. Entire municipalities will be threatened by this bill.

My last point is that politics must not be allowed to play any role whatsoever in the Canada pension plan investment board. I repeat that it is extremely dangerous to have just one investment board to manage a fund of $100 to $200 billion dollars. There have been cases in some countries where exclusive public funds were completely misappropriated.

I therefore ask all my opposition colleagues and even government members to think long and hard before turning over a large fund to one board. I am not sure that the Caisse de dépôt et placement alone is the ideal tool for managing the entire Quebec fund. I have questions about this, as do many people, and our party will make this argument over the coming hours in an attempt to change this aspect.