Apologize.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Division No. 49 December 2nd, 1997
Apologize.
Division No. 49 December 2nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague said, but I would like his opinion on the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.
As you know, I come from the academic community. I was there when my colleague, the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, visited the asbestos mining region in order to proclaim the virtues of the CEQ. He had sought inspiration from the famous colonel, colonel Kadhafi, whom you certainly remember.
In 1972, a special bill was passed in Quebec, a bill similar to the one which will soon be put to the vote. My leader at the time, who is now the member representing the poor people of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, is about to vote in favour of a piece of legislation quite similar to the one passed in Quebec under Robert Bourassa. In those days, they did not hesitate for a single second before putting him in jail with his two partners, Marcel Pépin and Louis Laberge. He was incarcerated for twelve months because he had encouraged his followers to defy the law. Today, I ask my colleague what he thinks about a man like the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, a flip-flop artist who follows power, the power of money.
Asbestos Industry December 1st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the asbestos issue, the Government of Quebec has sent four letters since February to the federal government asking it to lodge a complaint against France before the World Trade Organization. Only the Minister for International Trade seems not to be aware of these letters.
When will the government make up its mind to complain to the WTO about France's banning of asbestos?
Division No. 33 December 1st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-2, which seeks to put some order in the Canada pension plan and to modernize its structure.
I want to pay tribute to my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who does a wonderful job in leading the Bloc regarding this issue and in expressing Quebec's representations on the amendments to the Canada pension plan.
The Canada pension plan must undergo a thorough review. If the government does not act or is slow to act, within ten years, the fund will be empty. I am among those who have always believed that, when a government or a municipality buys or builds things, the payments should be spread out over the duration of the investment.
It would not be wise for a government to borrow each week to pay its public servants, just as it would not be wise for the hon. member for Québec to borrow every month to pay her rent. The government has now reached a deadline where it must make decisions, otherwise our children or grandchildren will have to pay so we can get our old age pension.
Last year's contribution rate of 5.6% was clearly too low. In 15 years or so, the baby-boomers—and I am one of them—will reach retirement age in very large numbers, at which point the fund would be insufficient.
So, the government, whose role is to anticipate such things, must make proposals to adjust the contribution rate, so as to meet future financial needs. The proposed rate schedule seems fair and reasonable. The rate current of 5.85% for 1997 would be increased to 6%. Premiums will go up slowly but surely over the next five years to a maximum of $9.90, or 9.9% if you prefer, in 2003.
This 9.9% would be frozen. According to actuaries we have consulted, who corroborate the government's figures, it could be frozen until 2100, in other words, for over a century. If our forecasts are accurate, and I believe they are, this should provide us with a safety valve for those who will begin to draw a pension at age 65.
To govern means to anticipate. Certain parties in the House are going to oppose an adjustment. They apparently do not anticipate the impact of baby boomers. Those now 50 and under are going to be reaching the eligible age in very high numbers. When we begin drawing benefits, we will be contributing much less, perhaps nothing at all if we have no insurable earnings. So the fund will be rapidly depleted.
It is my sincere and honest belief that recipients must pay the cost of this pension plan. For this reason, our party will be supporting Bill C-2 generally speaking.
But we cannot vote in favour of the motions in Group No. 6 because they go directly against the premise that the plan must be self-funding.
Bill C-2 has three basic objectives. In order for the plan to be self-funding, there must be increased capitalization, and this I think will be achieved through the new premium rates over the next five years.
It is also necessary to increase the rate of return—and this is important—through the establishment of a Canada pension plan investment board. The role of this board is not to stash the money in a sock like my grandfather used to do; that was not only unsafe, it was also unprofitable. Inflation was not very high at that time, so he did not lose anything, but he did not gain anything either.
At present, we could say that the government has not succeeded in using wisely this large amount of money that was placed in its care. It has not been a cautious administrator of these investments, unlike what Quebec did for the Régie des rentes when it established the Caisse de dépôt et placement.
I would like to take the opportunity here to pay tribute to a great team led by Jean Lesage at the beginning of the sixties. That team included none other than Jacques Parizeau, and, of course, René Lévesque. So they set up the Caisse de dépôt et placement, which, often, produces a return of up to 20% a year. That is a very interesting annual rate of return; it is the equivalent of one fifth of the total capital that the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is responsible for. Unfortunately, the central government failed to act and was unable to ensure a proper yield for the money in the Canada pension plan; this is rather disturbing and shameful.
Fortunately, with Bill C-2, the Canada pension plan investment board is being established, and if it is well managed, it should be able, hopefully, to equal the return obtained in Quebec.
There are now only two provinces that continue to oppose Bill C-2. But with the agreements that are now in place, as soon as there are eight provinces representing a sufficient percentage, we will be able to override the two provinces that refuse to go along with the plan.
The third objective of Bill C-2 is to tighten up the requirements for certain benefits, including disability benefits.
We must be careful not to give disability benefits to everyone who claims them. Everyone knows that, in certain regions, and especially in certain provinces I will not name here, when people lose their job, they go to see the doctor or any other person who can be of assistance to provide a disability certificate. But doing this costs a lot of money for all the other people who are honest and who have to pay for the ones that are exploiting the system.
To conclude, the Canada pension plan investment board, again, if it is properly managed, could provide dividends, and this would be profitable for all Canadians. The member for Malpeque, in Prince Edward Island, who is listening to me closely, must know that when a potato is planted, it is subdivided into eight parts, and this can yield almost three quarters of a bag of potatoes. So he knows that in the case of potatoes, it is possible to ensure that these plants will provide a yield.
Therefore, in the case of the federal government, if they do the same thing as the member for Malpeque, they will be able to make sure that this money yields a profit.
And, finally, I am glad to see that with this bill, it will be possible to invest up to 20% outside the country, and, of course, a minimum of 80% will have to stay in the country, in Quebec or elsewhere, but it will have to stay in Canada.
Powa November 27th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister recently said that BC mine workers were not interested in a POWA. Yet, these workers are currently protesting in front of the minister's Montreal office. They are asking for a modified POWA.
Given the repeated requests made by the former BC mine workers, will the minister finally see the light and take the necessary steps to ensure their financial security?
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act November 27th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment now being considered, Amendment No. 9 moved by my distinguidished colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, is to amend Bill C-2 in order to allow certain provinces to be able to borrow from this huge fund at a very low rate of interest.
It must be remembered that governing means forecasting, anticipating. It means being able to see 10, 20 or even 100 years down the road. If I may, I would like to go back to the early 1960s, when the late Jean Lesage was elected to office in Quebec with his slogan about things having to change. And he was successful.
In 1962, I am sure you will recall the Liberal Party in Quebec talking about being masters in our own province, the primary goal being to create the Quebec pension plan fund and to nationalize Quebec's electricity companies. This phenomenal team included René Lévesque, who did wonderful things in Quebec for Quebeckers, and Eric Kierens.
The Quebec pension plan investments are earning a distinctly higher return. If the QPP loaned money to government corporations at 3, 4 or 5%, it would be in the hole today.
If corrective action is not taken quickly, the CPP will be running a large deficit. With $5.85 on every $100 insurable today, and hundreds of thousands of baby boomers all set to turn 65 at the same time, or just about, the fund will be in the red. The Minister of Finance would then be facing serious problems.
The CPP must therefore be properly managed so as to deliver the highest return possible. To this end, it is anticipated that a minimum of 80% of the fund will be invested in Canada. This could go as high as 99%, of course, but never below 80%. And the 20%, also as a maximum, could be invested in certain foreign countries, where it is the safest to do so. We should not be investing in countries offering 100% or 120% interest, but without any guarantee. In other words, we should not be investing in a company like BREX, which was very profitable, as you noticed also, but many Canadians lost their shirts after having invested in BREX.
So these assets have to be invested, not with a charitable but rather with an intelligent approach, to achieve maximum return, in the same way that such assets are administered in Quebec by the Régie des rentes du Québec. In Quebec, we have our Caisse de dépôt, and in Canada we will have a fund called the Canada investment board, which is the equivalent of the Caisse de dépôt et placement.
In conclusion, I would like here to pay tribute to Jean Lesage and his tremendous team; in 1964, they created the Régie des rentes du Québec, which is working very well and providing fruitful investments for Quebeckers.
Dairy Products November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, imports of mixtures of oil, butter and sugar, which are used in the manufacture of ice cream for example, have been flooding our markets increasingly since 1995. Our dairy producers are the ones to bear the brunt.
Is the Minister of Agriculture aware of the danger of allowing the situation to worsen and does he intend to continue to take the appropriate action to protect our dairy producers whose quotas have dropped by nearly 3%?
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 3 with the following:
“sultation with the other directors, and following the approval of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to agriculture.”
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
You are probably right, Mr. Speaker. Being bothered regularly by the member for Bourassa, I went a bit too far. The member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister, is not inherently devious.
To get back to the appointments, the former mayor of Quebec City ran up against my colleague, the hon. member for Québec, in the 1993 election. He lost the election and three days later—
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, you can see as well as I that the rookie member for Bourassa lacks experience and is doing everything he can to distract us, to keep us from criticizing the blunders of the Liberal Party, headed by the member for Saint-Maurice, who can sometimes be inherently devious.
No wonder the government—