Charles Caccia

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I also indicated in my intervention that it will soon be necessary to increase the amount of contributions to be made by the employer and by the employee in relation perhaps to a change in the demographic profile of Canada. If that is done, it will take care of the numbers.

In addition, this is a sizable fund that needs to be invested and there are a variety of ways this can be done. I am sure the Alliance Party, in its creative moments, will come forward with some constructive ideas.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the context of this debate is the fact that the Canada pension plan will have a very sizeable investment to manage. I am told that by the year 2012, will be an amount of between $120 billion and $150 billion. This is quite a responsibility. It is understandable therefore that so many colleagues wish to participate in the debate. This is the broad context. In my brief remarks I will talk about how to invest, where to invest, the issue of ethical screening, the issue of return on investments, what people tell us about the CPP, and frequent complaints.

I will begin with the question of how to invest it. There is a unique opportunity for the board to be instituted by way of Bill C-3 to proceed in a rather creative manner in finding ways to establish its long term program by investing in a manner that will facilitate the construction of infrastructures. Examples would include: sewer separation; the rehabilitation of toxic sites; and initiatives that would lead to energy conservation and energy shifts in order to help Canada achieve its Kyoto goals. In other words, a number of investments would have a municipal flavour in relation to water and air quality and also a flavour that would somehow be coordinated with the long term objectives of the Government of Canada in the decades ahead.

On the topic of where to invest, many interventions have been made. We definitely seem to differ in our approach from that of the official opposition. Many of us on the Liberal side feel very strongly that investments should be made in Canada and that they should be intended to facilitate, as I mentioned a moment ago, the long term pursuit of Canadian interests, particularly in relation to air and water quality and the very difficult pursuit of sustainable development.

The issue of ethical screening was raised in the previous session by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, whom I congratulate. He and I are on the same wavelength in the sense that an ethical screening procedure ought to be incorporated by the board to be established by this legislation. This screening would ensure that the funds were not allocated to opportunities which are contrary to the public interest, which are contrary to long term goals, be they human rights or be they other very difficult objectives that the government intends to pursue.

On the return on investments, we will see from the record that the debate has been quite intensive. I tend to agree with those who wish to adopt a policy for stable and guaranteed investments rather than investments of a speculative nature. These funds are Canadians' hard-earned savings. Therefore it would be a natural conclusion to recommend that the funds be invested in a manner whereby they would be safe and productive, even if not in a spectacular manner in terms of interest rates, but safe and guaranteed.

My next topic is what people are telling us about the level of Canada pension plan payments. Canadians are increasingly concerned about the erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar, namely the effects of inflation, and it has been kept down to a minimum. Nevertheless, the pensions are less significant today than they were a few years ago. Therefore, the time has come for a revision of the Canada pension plan payment policy so as to allow for higher pensions for those who qualify.

We all know that higher pensions will require greater and larger contributions, which is a burden both to the employee and the employer. Nevertheless, a very strong case can be made that a good, healthy pension scheme, and Canada can say that it has one of the best pension schemes in the world, certainly reinforces social cohesion. Social cohesion is a very important factor these days, namely the ability of operating as a mutually supportive society. The element of the pension level is an important contributor to the cement which binds us together and makes us function every day.

I would argue in favour of a review of the system so as to permit an increase in the level of pension. This cannot be done in isolation. Evidently not only the CPP system will have to be examined, but also old age security and in particular, the guaranteed income supplement, which is a very important instrument in the overall pension policy. That kind of supplement goes to people who do not have a Canada pension to draw from and who can only rely on old age security, if they qualify for it.

It seems to me that the entire pension sector ought to have the attention of the Department of Finance, so ably represented by the parliamentary secretary in this debate, and also HRDC and other departments so as to produce a coherent and constructive long term policy. The time has arrived to do that.

The next item is the frequent complaints in relation to the Canada pension plan. I must repeat the complaint about the five year rule for the acceptance of disability claims. It is a rule that has had its time. It has also damaged potential claimants who have seen their claims rejected. It seems to me that this five year rule needs to be re-examined and possibly changed, let us say, to seven years or perhaps 10 years, so as to permit people who are disabled to make their claim and receive it without being denied.

Another complaint that has been raised in recent times is the delays on the part of the pension appeals board. The pension appeals board is probably understaffed. The claimants who appeal have to wait long periods of time until a decision is made. We have seen cases with waiting periods of up to two years. Obviously this is not good. It also does not compare well to two decades ago when the waiting period was six months at most. There has been some slippage. I submit that this item requires attention on the part of the authorities in charge of the Canada pension plan.

We need to pay close and regular attention to Canada's current pension regime and ensure that our seniors do not live in poverty. This exercise of revision should be a regular one rather than one done at infrequent intervals, as seems to have been the case in the past.

It seems to me that the debate on Bill C-3 and the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is a terrific opportunity for all of us to make proposals on how to invest carefully but also in a creative and new manner. Considering the large amount in question, we have everything to gain in investments that will lead to improvements in the health condition of the population and in projects that are oriented toward health and the environment which will improve water and air quality, human condition and ultimately the economic condition of the country.

Clear evidence has emerged in recent years that shows that health and the economy are closely interlinked. Pension funds offer a great occasion to look at opportunities to improve our performance in relation to basic elements such as water and air. I hope the comments made in the course of this debate will help to move in that direction.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, October 21st, 2002]

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Conservation Society writes:

--we are most anxious to have YESEAA moved to both Standing Committees and look forward to receiving a favourable response--

It seems to me that by and large the society is supportive and that even if this process will not be as required or as suggested by the society it will be given very thorough consideration.

As my learned colleague from Peterborough has just mentioned, we are splitting our time.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate. I would like to start by complimenting and congratulating the member for Yukon and the member for Winnipeg Centre for their very exhaustive, comprehensive and thoughtful analyses of the bill.

I was particularly struck by the comment made by the member for Winnipeg Centre when said that this was the most culturally sensitive bill he had seen ever come into the House. Coming from an opposition party, this is quite a compliment being paid to the government and those who have helped in preparing the bill.

Also, the member for Winnipeg Centre referred to this bill as resulting from the most comprehensive consultations that have ever taken place. I would imagine that he speaks from experience and that his comments are very relevant.

Unfortunately, I cannot say very much about the intervention by the member for Portage--Lisgar who trotted a number of old chestnuts into the debate which were not really necessary in the context of Bill C-2. However, in explaining the reasons for his opposition to Bill C-2, he referred to the fact the bill would be a disincentive to potential developers. I do not see anything in the bill that can be interpreted as being a disincentive to a potential developer.

On the contrary, if one were to read, as several members have already done, the purpose and the aim of the bill as indicated on page 1 is “to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in the Yukon”. If that is not adequate enough to give the member for Portage--Lisgar sufficient assurance, then he probably would find that assurance by reading clause 5 of the bill where the purposes of the proposed act are outlined. Clause 5(2) is extremely well worded. It states:

(2) The purposes of this Act are

(a) to provide a comprehensive, neutrally conducted assessment process...

(b) to require that, before projects are undertaken, their environmental and socio-economic effects to be considered;

If I had any criticism for this particular clause, I would have it in paragraph 5(2)(e) where it seems to me that perhaps it could be phrased in a more positive way. It states:

(e) to ensure that projects are undertaken in accordance with principles that foster beneficial socio-economic change without undermining the ecological and social systems on which communities and their residents, and societies in general, depend;

When the bill comes to committee, I would recommend an alternative wording by way of an amendment which would say, instead of “without undermining” which is a bit negative and detracts, the words “while enhancing the ecological and social systems on which communities and their residents”. Enhancing is a positive approach and it fits much better into the general purpose of the bill as outlined by the short title.

However this is not the place perhaps to make suggestions for amendments to the bill and I am sure that the member for Yukon in his very committed way will look at every positive possibility to strengthen the bill.

I would only like to say that we have a Canadian Environment Assessment Act and the bill ought to be responsive and on the same wave length and have the same degree of application and strength as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Therefore, I would like to put on the record some questions, namely, how will the two laws, Bill C-2 when it is proclaimed, and the existing Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, plus the current Bill C-9, which is in the process of being referred to committee, integrate? How will they come together? Will they be implemented in the same way, as I hope they will? Are the two laws reinforcing each other? Are the interpretations of each of the definitions in clause 2 of the bill the same? In other words, are they going to be applied in the same manner?

For instance, will the words “significant impact” be interpreted in the same manner in both laws once they become operative? For instance, will “mitigative measures” have the same significance in both laws? Will the word “assessment” have the same definition? Will the word “environment” have the same definition? Will the word “project” also be defined in the same manner? I do find some comfort and assurance in clauses 63 and 64. At this stage one can only raise these as potential questions for examination in committee and leave it at that, because I am sure that after all these consultations the bill will be examined very thoroughly.

My task is coming to an end. I will conclude by quoting a letter I received from the Yukon Conservation Society today in which the text, signed by executive director Christine Cleghorn, reads as follows:

Since the signing of the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) in 1993, the Yukon Conservation Society has participated in and followed with keen interest the development of new environmental assessment legislation for the Yukon.

At the present time, [the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act] is scheduled for review by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development...Despite having undergone a second round of public review this spring, the draft legislation remains a convoluted, labyrinthine document. For a jurisdiction with only 30,000 people and environmental assessment trends indicating that over 85% of projects assessed each year are small projects, it is our view that YESEAA is unnecessarily complex to the point of absurdity. It seems that during the negotiations the original vision in Chapter 12 was lost to trying to create a piece of legislation that is basically a super version of The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We believe it would be beneficial for YESEAA to be heard by both of the above-noted Standing Committees.

These are, namely, the aboriginal affairs committee and the environment committee. This is not possible unless the House leader approves of that approach and I do not know whether this would be very productive and very helpful.

To conclude--

[Parliamentarians against Corruption, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for two and one-half days last week, parliamentarians from 60 countries gathered in this chamber to discuss ways and means to combat corruption. They formed the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, an action oriented global network to help parliaments and parliamentarians in fighting corruption. Governments will benefit from this parliamentary initiative made possible by the determination and commitment of the member for St. Albert. He deserves applause and support.

The fact that 168 parliamentarians from all continents participated sends a clear signal to governments and business that corrupt practices are coming under close scrutiny and will be dealt with. The organization will meet again in two years to measure progress and adopt new measures to fight corruption in its many forms.

Congratulations to the hon. member for St. Albert.

[Fisheries, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Given that aquaculture as it is currently practised poses serious threats to wild salmon stocks and the marine environment, and given the ill-advised lifting by the British Columbia government of the seven year moratorium on salmon farming, would the minister have the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans examine in depth the aquaculture industry, its environmental impacts and its economic and social future?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what opponents of the Kyoto accord are saying, its ratification offers Canadians advantages and opportunities: one, to become more energy efficient and less energy wasteful; two, to make Canada more competitive and more productive; three, to make non-renewable fuel reserves last longer; four, to develop renewable sources of energy; five, to remove unwarranted tax subsidies to the oil sands and nuclear industry; six, to improve air quality; seven, to protect the polar ice caps; eight, to reduce the rising sea levels; nine, to moderate weather extremes, frequent droughts and forest fires; ten, to be a good team player on the global scene; eleven, to shoulder with other countries the short term burdens that go with the ratification of Kyoto.

For these reasons, today the majority of Canadians support the ratification of the Kyoto agreement.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 8th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food).

Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to explain that this bill is aimed at making it possible for Canadians to know when they buy genetically modified food. At the present time the labelling of genetically modified food is left to the vagaries of the market, and it is not mandatory.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Kyoto Protocol, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, critics say Canada does not have a plan to meet the Kyoto target. This is false. There is already an initial “Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change”.

Implemented two years ago, the plan will help Canada meet one-third of the Kyoto target. In addition, after consultations with the provinces and territories, the government released this year a document proposing 4 options and 40 measures to reduce emissions for the remaining two-thirds of Canada's Kyoto target. Consequently, in a few weeks the government will be able to release an implementation plan for the public, the provinces and Parliament before a vote on ratification takes place.

We have a plan that will take us one-third of the way and the soon to be released plan for the balance, developed after widespread consultations. Critics should stop misleading the public and instead help the government achieve Canada's Kyoto commitment.

[The Environment, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the ratification of Kyoto announced in Monday's throne speech has spawned false claims, including the loss of 200,000 jobs accompanied by huge investment losses.

We heard the threat of investment loss before with the acid rain program and with the removal of lead from gasoline.

As in the past, investments will continue but in new, less damaging energy forms like natural gas, ethanol and other renewables.

As to jobs, Kyoto opponents forget that jobs will also be created because of new opportunities in renewables, energy efficiency and conservation. Opponents also fail to take into account job losses from not acting on climate change such as the high costs to agriculture because of more frequent droughts, shipping because of lower water levels, or insurance rates because of extreme weather.

This is not the time for fearmongering and false claims. In order to protect the public and private good, the government and parliament will ratify Kyoto and move Canada toward a new energy future.