Mark Muise

[Firearms, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government is in the process of putting the final touches on its proposed firearms registration system.

Bill C-68, in its regulation, will not accomplish the government's stated goal of reducing crime involving firearms. The national registration system, which places the onus on law-abiding gun owners, will not reduce crime, as those planning on committing crime will not register their guns.

It is estimated that more than $500 million will be spent on the implementation of the government's gun control package despite the fact that serious questions exist about the effectiveness of mandatory registration. This large sum of money will be spent with little or no impact on violent crime.

The PC party believes that changes to the Young Offenders Act, introducing DNA legislation and toughening the Criminal Code pertaining to criminal use of firearms would be much more productive.

As we pause to reflect on the tragedy of the Montreal massacre, the government should start addressing the fundamental causes of violence.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the true question here today is what the Canadian public, small and medium size companies and charities have suffered over the past weeks since the postal strike began. That is my concern and that is why I made my interventions this evening.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes. We voted in favour of this.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska.

All we can say today is: finally. But we must also ask ourselves why it took the government so long to show a little leadership in the labour dispute with Canada Post.

On November 17, exactly two weeks ago, we asked the Minister of Labour what he was waiting for to introduce back-to-work legislation. His answer was that we would do better to concentrate on what had already happened and what was in the process of happening, rather than on what might happen.

This response was very indicative of the laissez-faire attitude of the minister who has gotten us into the mess in which we now find ourselves. It was precisely because I took an interest in what had already happened and what was in the process of happening that I implored him to introduce back-to-work legislation.

Negotiations began eight months ago in April. They seemed to be deteriorating with each passing day and there was nothing to indicate progress. If the minister had come back to earth, he would have seen that a postal dispute would have terrible consequences for many Canadians. He would have acted accordingly. But he refused to do so.

As a result, thousands of businesses have lost money and thousands of Canadians have had to put up with inconvenience and headaches that could have been avoided.

Consider for example small and medium size businesses. Last Wednesday, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released the results of a survey of its members. According to this survey, the postal strike was costing an average of $240 a day because of higher delivery costs, lost sales and late payments. It is estimated that total losses for small and medium size businesses are around $200 million a day. This is absolutely incredible. And the government did nothing.

The Christmas period is very important, even essential, for many mail order businesses, but it is also an important period for charitable organizations.

These have experienced a dramatic drop in the money they raise. What is the government's answer going to be for these organizations who will not be able to do their work in their communities because of the Minister of Labour's lack of courage and because of the schemes of the minister responsible for Canada Post? There is not much that can be said about that, is there?

The social costs of the postal conflict are not limited to charitable organizations. I would like to read part of a letter that I received in my office by electronic mail.

It reads:

I want to make my child's support payment(s); I always make them by mail. My children need their support payments to survive. The Canada Post Corporation, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Government of Canada are stopping me from meeting my obligations.

The province of Ontario will deem me in arrears if/when I miss a payment. Yet we did not receive anything from the provincial government directing us what to do in the event of a postal strike. All businesses had plans.

The federal government's Bill C-41 ensures that I will lose my driver's licence, passport, credit rating, ad nauseam, all because of their failures.

Children starving, mothers struggling, being out on the street. Neither government or union care. Why didn't they think about the women and children prior to the postal strike. Why aren't they thinking about children and women?

I am sure you will agree that this is a very telling letter which shows the wide impact of this postal strike on everyone, especially the least fortunate.

My colleagues also raised in the House the case of a man who could not purchase the insulin he required because he had not received his government cheque.

But the nightmare stories do not end there. In Newfoundland it seemed that the distribution process the department of human resources had set out was a miserable failure. When recipients showed up at the distribution centre they were presented with a computer print-out which they had to sign to acknowledge receipt of their government cheques. That would not have been so bad if the computer print-out did not also contain the names, addresses and cheque amounts of every other recipient in that community. This situation has prompted the privacy commissioner to review and evaluate if a breach of the Privacy Act has indeed occurred.

Why did this happen? There had been an agreement that the postal workers would distribute government cheques in the event of a strike. However, the government ignored that agreement and proceeded with its own agenda.

The most ridiculous in all this is that the minister knew, on Thursday, October 30, that the commissioner-conciliator was preparing his report and that a strike could legally start seven days later. Even when he had the report on his desk, the following Tuesday, he chose not to do anything.

Rather than introducing a preempting back-to-work bill more than a month ago, he chose to allow an interruption of Canadian postal services, which is harming businesses and charities, and inconveniencing millions of Canadians. This is outrageous, especially since the solution was so easy.

In October 1991, our government passed a law for the continuation of postal services. That law prevented a lockout or strike from hurting the Canadian economy.

It also put into place a mechanism for dispute settlement which allowed Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to come to a negotiated agreement without the cost and pain of a strike. In this case, because of the lack of leadership in the Liberal government, we had to wait until today for a solution.

It is somewhat late for thousands of businesses and charities which have lost money. It is also late for thousands of Canadians who rely on the post office and have suffered the consequences of the strike.

It is regrettable that they should bear the brunt of the incompetence of this government.

[Goods And Services Tax, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of increasing literacy levels in our country and in our communities.

As a father of two young girls, literacy is something that is very important to me. We should never lose sight of the fact that literacy skills are a key to learning. Many people think that literacy begins when we go to school and ends when we finish our formal education. However, studies have shown that the first years or year of a child's life will have a significant impact on their learning.

Reading to a child, whether it be when he or she is in the womb, a newborn or a toddler, is an important first step in developing a lifelong desire to learn.

Whether students are headed for post-secondary education or directly into the labour force, they need fundamental learning skills and basic knowledge. These are essential if they are to keep on learning, advance their careers and achieve their personal goals.

In short, the future of our youth and of our economy depends on whether today's students are being given a sound background in primary and secondary schools.

We all have a role to play in promoting literacy in our homes and communities. As to exempting books from the GST/HST, I would be open to hearing more information on this.

The GST was designed to raise no more money than the hidden tax it replaced. Special credits offset the impact of GST on low income earners, schools, hospitals, municipalities and new homes, Basic groceries, financial services and prescription drugs are not taxed.

By law, GST revenues can only be used to service or reduce the debt. In April 1996, Ottawa and Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland agreed to harmonize their sales taxes and to bury the tax in the price.

At that time Progressive Conservative members and senators from those three Atlantic provinces tried to expand the list of goods and services that are exempt from GST or HST. Examples of the proposed exemptions were books and funerals.

This being my first term, I was not part of the government that implemented the GST but I was a member of the party that saw the need to replace the hidden federal sales tax.

Unlike the Liberals who vowed to abolish the GST, the PC party recognized from the beginning that the GST would have to be fine-tuned after introduction. We see this as a continuing process. As all members know, the Liberals did not scrap the GST, much to the chagrin of certain members of this House.

During the Hamilton East by-election, the NDP leader for her part promised to cut the GST to 5% from 7%. She said she would eliminate the GST on new homes, children's shoes and clothing, books, school supplies, furniture and other essential family purchases.

She did not mention that the British Columbia NDP government raised the sales tax to 7% from 6%. Nor did she mention that one of the very first things that Saskatchewan's NDP government did was to raise its rate to 9% from 7%. Having improved its financial position, it has since lowered it back to 7%.

In closing, I want to reiterate my party's commitment to improving literacy levels in this country. However, the government must act with prudence. Before endorsing this motion, we must weigh the benefits of any changes against the potential cost. I would like to see hard data on the impact that taxing books has on literacy in comparison with lost revenues.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act representing co-operatives.

Canada's history respecting co-operatives dates back to the mid-1800s with the formation of the Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company. This was a result of the recognition by farmers that they too could have the same security in producing and marketing their products as seen by successful large businesses. The farmers decided to band together to gain better control over the marketing of their products and purchases. This was the birth of co-operatives in Canada.

The PC Party is pleased to support this legislation. Let me highlight some of the main characteristics of Bill C-5.

Bill C-5 redefines and widens the definition of co-operative basis. The principles of co-operative basis date back to 1844 and were set out by the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers in England. These principles formed the basis of most Canadian provincial legislation for over 50 years before they were adopted by the federal government in the Co-operative Associations Act.

The new definition under Bill C-5 is in keeping with the 1995 statement on co-operative identity issued by the International Co-operatives Alliance and sets the tone for all proposed changes to the act. The new definition includes the principle of open membership. There is also some flexibility added to the one member, one vote principle with regard to delegate voting.

Furthermore the principle of member funded investment is expanded under Bill C-5 in order to provide for co-ops issuing investment shares. The principle of using surplus funds to extend the operation of co-operative enterprises is also added. Finally, the principle of education is included.

Bill C-5 makes changes to the rules governing incorporation. It permits co-operatives to incorporate provided they operate on a co-operative basis.

The act currently requires a memorandum of association for the granting of incorporation status. This memorandum is submitted to the minister. He then decides, provided the application meets all technical requirements and conditions, to either grant or deny the right of incorporation. This paternalistic approach works against the co-operative philosophy of group decision making.

With Bill C-5 they will be acting under the same principles of the Business Corporations Act of incorporation as a right and not at the discretion of the crown. The proposed system is simpler and would streamline the administrative practices. This would also reduce the costs currently associated with incorporation for all parties.

Bill C-5 introduces the concept of natural person when describing co-operatives. As a result, they are awarded the same rights and privileges of a natural person. This is instead of detailing the various rights, powers and privileges individually. It is also in keeping with the same rights now awarded to business corporations and mirrors the powers some provinces already offer co-operatives.

Record keeping under Bill C-5 is simplified and streamlined. This again is in keeping with similar rules found in the Business Corporations Act.

Bill C-5 simplifies the rules governing amalgamations with other co-operatives or corporations. For instance, Bill C-5 will allow provincial co-operatives to merge with federal co-operatives provided that the end result is a federal co-op.

Furthermore, co-operatives will have similar rights to those of business corporations under the Canada Business Corporations Act. When applying for an arrangement, the courts will have the power to order an arrangement or reorganization and not the crown. This is a change from the current situation where members apply directly to the minister.

Bill C-5 also includes provisions specifically for worker and housing co-operatives. Currently they are governed under general rules in the existing act. The industry has identified several gaps in the current legislation which does not address the needs of these two types of co-operatives. Bill C-5 attempts to resolve this problem.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support Bill C-5. I believe that it will benefit co-operatives and in turn, millions of Canadians.

[Canada Post, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, depending on what time of day it is the minister responsible for Canada Post cannot decide whether or not he is going to privatize the corporation. The government has also made it clear that it has no plans to end this postal strike. In fact, the government has no long term business strategy for the future of the crown corporation.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that small and medium size businesses are losing $200 million a day while this government drags its feet about ending the strike.

Does the minister have any idea what he is going to do about Canada Post and if so, when?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to discuss Motion No. 11 put forward by the NDP. Basically if we voted for this amendment we would be negating our Motion No. 12. The NDP amendment would eliminate clause 59 of the bill, which sets out the premiums to be paid now and in the future.

We agree that certain measures must be taken to ensure the stability of the CPP now and in the future. That includes raising CPP premiums. We also believe that hiking CPP rates would put payroll taxes at a level which would stifle job creation. It would place a tax burden on Canadians that would be hard to take.

While we can agree with raising CPP premiums they must be offset by a reduction in EI premiums. As it stands the EI fund has a huge surplus. During the election campaign we argued that EI premiums should be reduced 70¢ per hundred dollars. If members do not want to take our word for it, they can take the word of several business organizations that have echoed our position and said that premiums could be reduced 60¢ to 70¢.

Some business groups have recognized that reducing payroll taxes will not necessarily create jobs but that increasing payroll taxes will stifle job creation. The government recently ignored all these arguments in favour of reducing EI premiums substantially. It reduced them by a mere 20¢, not nearly enough to offset the $11 billion tax hike with CPP premiums.

The NDP motion would eliminate higher CPP premiums altogether. That is irresponsible, to say the least. We cannot turn a blind eye to the crisis facing the CPP. Millions and millions of Canadians are counting on us to save the CPP for now and the future.

Certain decisions have to be made. The government wants young Canadians to foot the bill almost entirely. The NDP does not want anybody to foot the bill. We want to spread the bill as equally and as fairly as we can. I believe our amendments will do that.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, there are those who think there will no longer be a government pension in a few years. The birth rate is dropping and life expectancy is increasing. As a result, the number of people receiving pension benefits is going up and the number of people paying into the plan is going down.

Our pension system is losing ground and in need of changes. We want to put it on a rock solid footing. We are working hard to ensure that all Canadians will receive a pension when they reach retirement age.

In order to understand the impact of our amendment, let us take a look at the pension system in general. There are three components. First, there is the basic income received by every resident of Canada: old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Second, there is income based on work earnings: Canada pension plan, or CPP, and Quebec pension plan, or QPP. Third, there is income paid by an employer or drawn from RRSPs.

The Liberal government is proposing a program to improve the system. It represents, however, a large threat to the three components of the existing system.

The Liberal government is creating the seniors benefit by combining old age security and other seniors benefits. Low income seniors will thus be getting a bit more than before: a meagre annual allowance of $120 will go to the least well off; and too many retired Canadians will be living under the poverty line. In addition, middle income seniors could lose up to $7,000 annually.

The Liberals will increase contributions to the CPP by $11 billion, one of the largest tax hikes in Canadian history. No tax relief is planned by way of compensation. In short, workers will have to pay more, and young Canadians will have to foot the bill for mismanagement of the plan for years to come.

They discourage people from putting their money in RRSPs or in private pension plans. The Liberal government reduced the tax deduction available when investing in a RRSP, and it continues to impose restrictions on authorized pension plan investments.

We think we have a better idea to improve our pension system. For the time being, we must limit ourselves to amending the government's legislation. But, before amending seniors benefits, we would like all Canadians to have a reasonable period of time to examine the effects of the proposals and to express their views. We want to make sure that the pension system reflects the values dear to Canadians, rewards them for their hard work and encourages them to save for their retirement.

We want to improve the administration of the Canada pension plan. In order to do so, we want to provide a sound financial basis for the plan, to make up for the increase in contributions by lowering taxes, and to encourage people to put more money into their RRSPs.

The Canada pension plan is an essential element of our social safety net. We want to maintain it. The Canada pension plan needs another $600 million to fulfil its obligations to tomorrow's retirees. The CPP must be saved. It must be properly managed by a board whose members would come from the business and financial community and have no ties to the government.

We must increase contributions to the Canada pension plan, so as to ensure its financial viability, but we must also be cautious not to penalize young workers. The increase should be compensated by tax reductions in other areas, such as employment insurance contributions. The employment insurance fund has a $13 billion surplus. Combined with the $11 billion increase in CPP contributions proposed by the Liberals, this surplus represents a huge tax grab by the government.

Governments should encourage people to save for retirement. They should not penalize those who do it. I support policies that help Canadians get the best possible return on their investments in RRSPs and that include as few government restrictions as possible. This means a guarantee that the funds protected in RRSPs will not be taxed, as long as they remain in these RRSPs. It also means allowing a higher percentage of foreign investments in RRSPs.

We have no choice but to conclude that our pension system is in a sorry state and that something must be done. Any system, either new or improved, should be based on the following principles: long term viability; sound management free of any political interference; fair contributions regardless of income; and built-in incentives designed to encourage people to look beyond the Canada pension plan and to put more money aside for their retirement.

These amendments seek to improve the bill so that it can meet these objectives. I urge members to support our amendments.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member from the New Democratic Party, what we are talking about here is wise investments. We cannot ask the people of Canada to have their funds invested unwisely. That is what we are talking about.