Clifford Lincoln

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about government investments. We are talking about the Canada pension plan. This is why a separate board was created, to make sure that the investment follows basic principles and objectives as set out in the act. The act is the ruling instrument to decide how the moneys are going to be invested. This is the way it should be.

I am suggesting that within the powers of investment of the board, according to the objectives and principles of the act, the member for Winnipeg Centre has a point. We should look at this whole issue to see whether we can make the criteria, the principles, the objectives much more precise, much more in keeping with the values we share and we decide upon as a democratic society in this Parliament. This is really what I was trying to convey.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I never equated Liberal values to Canadian values. That is nonsense; I never said that at all. I do not believe that the Liberal Party has the monopoly on virtue or Canadian values or that it is the purest of the pure.

Surely the government has made mistakes. It has admitted to them. There are many mistakes but to say that this is exclusive to the Liberals and that everybody else in the land is pure is just demagoguery as it is to say that I should leave the Liberal caucus because of one issue or another where the government has made mistakes. There would not be any democracy left; we would all have to leave at one point or another. I am not even going to address that part of it because I think it is puerile.

At the same time I would like to state that certainly there are common values that we hold as a democratic society. A democratic society makes its decisions here in this Parliament and other parliaments, provincial and otherwise. The majority rules. We accept it. That is the way democracy works. For example, if we decided tomorrow that we were going to invest moneys in policies to stop smoking in society, at the same time we would say let us not invest in companies that promote smoking in society. That is what I am trying to say.

There are certain common values that we share. There are others where we differ. At the same time when Parliament rules in its majority that a certain line of conduct, a certain policy should be implemented, what I am saying is that surely it would be paradoxical for a pension plan to go in exactly the opposite direction to what democracy has chosen.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that, in today's world where so many people know so much about investments, there are ways to reconcile the issue of maximum rate of return with very specific social responsibility criteria.

In fact, I fully agree with my colleague that it would be completely paradoxical for us, on the one hand, to implement certain environmental or health care policies, such as anti-smoking measures, while investing in companies trying in fact to avoid their national and international responsibilities or get around government policies.

I look at today's criteria and objectives and I wonder if these objectives are specific enough, for example, to prevent a major cigarette manufacturer from being selected as an investor by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. I am not too sure about this.

Consequently, I fully agree with my colleague that, at all costs, we must establish precise criteria to avoid falling into a paradoxical situation, such as supporting certain policies, as a Parliament and a democracy and, at the same time, trampling on these same principles in the CPP. That would be illogical.

It seems to me there are ways to amplify, identify and improve the current objectives and principles so they are much more restrictive and specific.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I believe the motion he has introduced will enable us to have a healthy debate, because it deals with issues we absolutely must discuss, as objectively as possible. It is a matter of great importance for each of us. One day, we ourselves and our children and grandchildren will all benefit from the Canada pension plan.

At the same time, it needs to be pointed out that not everything is bleak; not everything is negative. In fact, before the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was established in 1998, the investment policy stated that all available funds after the payment of pensions to beneficiaries and of the system's administrative costs had to be invested in provincial bonds, at the prevailing federal interest rate.

The legislation that created the board in 1998 certainly changed things for the better. At the same time, many other steps were taken and it is vital that they be pointed out. As I said, not everything is negative; we are not starting from scratch.

Legislation on corporate responsibility was enacted on June 12, 2003 and a corporate ethics code was also adopted. We created a national contact point for Canada, an interdepartmental federal committee comprised of representatives of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Industry, Human Resources Development, Environment, Natural Resources, Finance and the Canadian International Development Agency, mandated to raise awareness of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises and to ensure their implementation.

We developed an information kit on the production of reports on sustainable development. This was a joint effort of Industry, Environment and Foreign Affairs and International Trade with a view to providing information and guidelines for the production of these reports.

What the government attempted to do with the 1998 reform was to make the Canadian pension system self-sustaining, which it had ceased to be. This became a government priority. In fact, a whole series of well thought out changes were introduced with a view to bolstering the plan's financing, improve its investment practices, and reining in the increase in its costs.

The changes effected in 1997 brought in the following changes: better performing investments; changes to the calculation of certain benefits in order to control spiralling costs; regular reports on the CPP for Canadians; and contribution rates limited to no more than 10% for future generations.

In 1997, the chief actuary of the plan informed us that, if changes were not made to the plan and the way it was financed, our children and grandchildren would be paying over 14.2% of all pensionable earnings by 2030, divided 50-50 between employer and employee, for pensions. Today the figure is only 9.9%.

So there have been some salutary and positive reforms. The Canada pension plan of today is certainly far better balanced and far more stable than the one in place prior to the reform of 1997 and the legislation of 1998.

However, much needs to be looked at again. I believe it is really worthy of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre to have brought this subject forward.

As we look at the objectives of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board under the act, we see that its objective No. 2 is to invest its assets with a view to achieving a maximum rate of return without undue risk or loss. If we look at the principles, the CPP Investment Board statutory mandate and fiduciary duty are based exclusively on investment considerations.

The CPP Investment Board believes that responsible corporate behaviour in such matters as the environment, employee practices, stakeholder relations, human rights, respect for domestic and international laws and ethical conduct generally contribute to enhanced long term investment returns. This is where I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre that the objectives and the principles have to be looked at again. It has to be seen in a far more proactive and precise way than it is today.

To rely on the basic principle that we need to achieve a maximum rate of return without undue risk to loss and that our statutory mandate is based exclusively on investment considerations, belies the intention of using our corporate behaviour to decide on the criteria of the investment. Corporate behaviour can be very elastic and subjective. To say that responsible corporate behaviour in such matters as the environment, employee practices, stakeholder relations, human rights, respect for domestic and international laws and ethical conduct should be our reliance to decide on investment is very deficient.

I really believe the government should look at the whole aspect of both the principles and the objectives to ensure that at least the objectives and principles fit in with the gist of our policies and values as a government and as a country.

I could give examples. We have endorsed, with a large majority, the Kyoto protocol after much debate. The Kyoto protocol has certain obligations for us internationally to reduce our gas emissions. Yet, I would think that any company in the fossil fuel industry could say that it respects complete and utter corporate behaviour in matters of the environment, employee practices, stakeholder relations, human rights, respect for domestic and international laws and ethical conduct. It is just a matter of degree. It is a matter of really deciding what our basic value system is.

It would seem to me that it would not be asking too much for the principles of the CPP Investment Board and its objectives to make sure that whatever basic policies and criteria the government adopts--I think of examples such as the landmines convention-- that certainly language can be found to match those objectives and principles to what the government believes fundamentally to be its paramount policies and values.

In its principle No. 3, the CPP Investment Board believes that social investing means different things to different people and that the CPP Investment Board cannot reflect the divergent religious, economic, political, social and personal views of millions of Canadians in its investment decisions.

The same argument could be made about a government, that a government cannot reflect the divergent religious, economic, political, social and personal views of millions of Canadians in its legislation.

This is a cop-out. It is an excuse for complete paralysis in action. It seems to me that the government, through its agencies, must go forward and establish clear criteria so that the board of the CPP is well aware of the criteria that we set as a government and as a country. It should respect the basic policies, ideals and values that this country and this government represent.

Surely there is a possibility of broadening the objectives, making them far more precise and far tighter than they are today. Surely there is a possibility to add criteria that not only do not offend the various segments of the population, but at the same time reflect values that we all share as Canadians regardless of religion, class or creed.

I welcome the idea of the member for Winnipeg Centre who brought forward the motion to force this debate along. To say that what we have today is the perfect solution and can never be changed, amended or improved is to say that the government must be static regardless of the evolution of society.

When members of the official opposition say that it is impossible to qualify investments in terms of values, I think that is totally wrong. Society is evolving today in whatever sector to reflect the common values that we hold as a democratic society. Surely among the members here there is enough talent, conviction and commitment to arrive at wording which the Canada pension plan board could use to make our investments far more in tune with those same common values that we share.

Right now I believe the principles and objectives are too loose. They are far too open to subjectivity. They are far too open to the possibility that we should invest in corporations that do not reflect our policies and values.

I welcome this debate. I hope that instead of pouring cold water on the idea of the member for Winnipeg Centre that we will use it as a stepping stone for a constructive debate. This debate will help all the beneficiaries of the Canada pension plan now and in the future.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with careful attention to the opposition on the motion before us. It seemed as if they were replaying question period and bringing out a litany of accusations, accusations of all types levelled at the Prime Minister.

I think it would be fair to ask the question that Canadians who are listening to us right now would ask us. They would ask what is our function here if it is not to legislate and to enact laws for the public good? Who would dispute that Canadians expect us to spend our time in Parliament productively and proactively, and to pass the laws necessary for improving the lives of Canadians right across the country?

The opposition is treating the motion to reinstate government bills as if it were an unusual, unfair and inappropriate measure, yet it has been a common practice in the House for well over 30 years. The same procedure has now been adopted by the House to apply to private members' bills. That was the wish of all members of the House. The same practice has been used for a long time by the Parliament that served as the model for ours, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

We should make it clear exactly what the motion intends to do, what it will do and what it will not do. It will not in any form derogate from the powers of members to debate. It will not in any way prejudice any of the prerogatives of the members and of the House itself.

What the motion really seeks to do is to allow ministers to apply to the Speaker within the first 30 days of a new session to have bills that died on the Order Paper reinstated at the same stage they were at when the old session ended. It is then up to the Speaker to decide if a given bill is the same as the one that existed in the old session and if it is, the Speaker can, if he wants, order it to be reinstated.

Reinstatement will not apply automatically to all bills, but only to those bills that have reached committee stage, that is to say, bills that have undergone a significant amount of study and debate prior to prorogation.

Reinstatement will not be automatic. Obviously there will be situations in which a minister may decide not to request reinstatement, or where he or she may decide that it was best to reintroduce the bill from the very beginning, or perhaps not reintroduce it at all. This is the reason the motion allows for all these possibilities and it is up to the minister to decide if an application for reinstatement will be made.

I mentioned earlier that the practice covered by the motion before us goes back more than 30 years. Indeed in 1970, 1972, 1974 and 1986 the House gave unanimous consent to motions to reinstate bills. It adopted a similar motion under a previous government in 1991. Similarly in 1977 and 1982 the House adopted amendments to the standing orders to carry over legislation to the next session. In the more recent past, in March 1996 to be precise, the House adopted a similar motion. As well, in October 1999 the House adopted a motion similar to the one before us today to allow it to carry on its work from a previous session.

Let us examine whether certain bills which are contemplated by the motion deserve to be reinstated or not. Can the opposition challenge the worth and necessity of the following bills?

There is the bill to create an independent ethics commissioner and Senate ethics officer. This is a measure that has been loudly clamoured for time and again by all opposition parties.

Another example is the bill dealing with the changes to the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. The bill would make it easier for people in the developing world to get low cost pharmaceutical products to tackle malaria, HIV-AIDS and other epidemics. I ask members of the opposition if they are ready to challenge the necessity for a bill of this urgent nature to speed through the House as soon as it can. Should we put a bill of this urgent nature back into the system and reintroduce it from the beginning rather than pick it up where we left off before prorogation?

Another example is Bill C-49 which sought to speed up the implementation of new electoral boundaries so our constituencies would better reflect the social, cultural and demographic realities of a fast changing country, including additional ridings in places like B.C., Alberta and Ontario. This again is a measure the official opposition has clamoured for very loudly.

There are a number of other bills aimed at enhancing the security of our most vulnerable citizens.

Let me ask also, by insisting that we hold up these bills and reintroduce them from the very beginning of the parliamentary process, are we really helping the common good? Would it not be for the common good to speed the passage of these bills by reinstating them at the stage they were at when the last session of Parliament ended? The answer is obvious.

I started my political life in the opposition. I was in the opposition for nearly five years, so I know how it works. The opposition is there to probe, to criticize and to challenge the government at every facet of the government's day. That is what the opposition does and I think it is fair game that the opposition should do it.

At the same time, Canadians also have a right to hear the other side of every story. In this particular case Canadians who are listening to us should know that the other side of the story is that certain important bills such as the institution of an ethics commissioner responsible to Parliament and the special legal provision to accelerate getting pharmaceutical drugs to people with HIV-AIDS in developing countries, in Africa and elsewhere, are bills that need to be passed as soon as possible.

The irony is that these measures, especially that of the ethics commissioner, have been clamoured for the most loudly by the opposition who have been criticizing the ethics counsellor now responsible to the Prime Minister. When we want to institute it and we want to accelerate the passage of this bill through this motion, the opposition says no, that the motion is unfair, that it is a delaying tactic.

People will have to decide for themselves what is best, the delaying tactic of not moving the bills forward, or passing a motion that will reinstate bills which Canadians in all fairness would judge as appropriate, necessary and even urgent.

I leave the people who are listening to us to decide. I know they will decide that the motion is fair and that it is necessary to pass it as soon as possible.

[Claude Ryan, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Claude Ryan is one of those major figures in our contemporary history who leave a deep imprint, both in Quebec and across Canada.

I entered politics at the Quebec national assembly because the Quebec Liberal Party had gained extraordinary momentum and vitality under Mr. Ryan's leadership. His strong belief in individual rights and his call for a Quebec that would include everyone galvanized in a remarkable way the enthusiasm and energy of Quebeckers from all regions and all origins.

Having served under his leadership, both as an opposition member and as a colleague in the cabinet of the Bourassa government, I was able to get a firsthand look at his unique intellectual rigour and at his exceptional power of thinking and reflection.

Claude Ryan was a towering figure who, through his writings, his leadership of the no forces in the 1980 referendum and the inspiration of his integrity and formidable intellect, will leave an enduring historical legacy. We salute his memory.

[Personal Watercraft Act, November 6th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-10, an act concerning personal watercraft in navigable waters.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[Veterans' Week, November 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, this month we are celebrating Veterans' Week, culminating in the ceremonies on Remembrance Day, November 11.

Yesterday, I participated in a ceremony at the veterans' hospital in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, where the minister presided over the sod-turning for the hospital modernization project.

This modernization project involves an expenditure of $67.7 million for improvements at the hospital. The hospital is redesigning its main section and adding a new 130 bed pavilion. By the end of construction in 2007, the hospital will include 460 private rooms equipped to take care of the unique needs of our most deserving citizens.

I applaud this initiative of Veterans Affairs Canada on behalf of those who have sacrificed so much of themselves in the cause of freedom and peace.

[The Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

First, Mr. Speaker, I am not alone. The OECD itself has recommended that favourable tax treatment for the non-renewable sector should be eliminated. In 1998, the Minister of Finance constituted a task force on business taxation, which also recommended the same thing as the OECD. The reason we must have different types of taxation is that we have to look at other issues as well; we have to look at societal issues.

The fact is that climate change is a fact of life. Just this year, for people living in the west, the forest fires that raged were not just an accident of history. The Ward Hunt ice shelf, the size of the Island of Montreal, has detached itself from Ellesmere Island. It has broken down. That is not an accident of history. Hurricane Juan flew into Halifax, creating all kinds of damage.

There is climate change. It is a fact of life. What we have to do is, on the one hand, foster clean energy technologies. We are not saying to put penalties on the oil and gas industry, but the oil and gas industry is flourishing at this time and it does not need any new breaks. It does not need another $260 million a year.

We would be far better off to put that additional money into wind energy, where we put hardly any at all, only $260 million for five years, so that we develop a new stream of energy. Oil reserves, regardless of whether we like it or not, are resources that are going to be depleted.

I quoted the International Energy Agency, which my colleague from Davenport visited recently. It says that the mid-depletion point of world oil reserves is going to happen in 2020. Beyond that, the agency reckons there will be another 20 to 30 years of additional reserves and then there will be depletion unless we find new oil.

We need to start building another stream of energies. We do not say to shut off the oil and gas industry, very far from it. I realize that my colleague from Alberta has a vested interested in his province producing a resource that we need today and that we use today. And we are happy to do so.

At the same time, let us not give the industry additional treatment so that it benefits from additional breaks when the time has come to, on the contrary, put new money we might have into a clean energy stream. This is really what we recommend: a parallel stream so that when the oil energy resources are depleted in 20, 30 or 50 years, this other stream will be thriving.

At one point, coal was the big energy source. It was too polluting, so oil started to come on stream. At that time there was the same debate that is happening today. I have read that then people said oil would never replace coal, but it did. We have to prepare for the time when clean energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass and cogeneration will replace oil and gas.

[The Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a substantial amount of money, approximately $3 billion, has been invested in the Kyoto protocol.

What I disagree with is this obvious contradiction between, on the one hand, making huge investments in more efficient and cleaner energy sources and, simultaneously, on the other, adopting legislation such as this, which will invest $260 million a year for non-renewable energy sources. I cannot agree with this.

This $260 million per year is nearly the same amount that has been invested in wind energy over five years. Wind energy gets $260 million over five years, while, in one year, this bill will put $260 million in the pockets of companies developing non-renewable energy sources.

We have to go back to square one. We have to reinforce what we have already done extremely well, such as the government's climate change plan, in which substantial amounts were invested. An investment of $3 billion is a huge one.

At the same time, we must not undermine such efforts by doing one thing and then the opposite. That is my message.