Roy Cullen

[Small Business Week, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure also to remind all members of the House that October 20 to 26 is National Small Business Week. Small and medium size businesses play a vital role in the Canadian economy.

Companies in my riding of Etobicoke North, like Hemosol, Ifire and Sohiel Mosun Ltd., account for nearly 50% of our gross domestic product and employ six out of every ten Canadians. Moreover, these businesses are currently responsible for generating a majority of all the new jobs created in Canada.

It is obvious that these companies have made it possible for the Canadian economy to avoid the recent economic downturn that has occurred in the United States.

I ask all members to take this opportunity to join with me in congratulating the small and medium size businesses in their ridings, thanking them for a job well done and wishing them continued success in the future.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at transparency and accountability we need to look at the full sweep of measures.

The member raises the point about public hearings every two years. This would be an opportunity for citizens to come out and express their views if they felt that the portfolio was under performing or they felt that the benefits should be expanded.

However, in addition to the public meetings every two years, the investment policies of the board are open and transparent. There are quarterly reports on the performance and the operations of the pension board. An annual report is presented to Parliament and that could trigger a debate in the House. There is a website.

I think Canadians will have full and ample opportunity to judge the performance of the board and to raise their concerns.

I think the turnout at public meetings more than every two years would be less than optimal. Canadians want to be consulted but they would like to be left alone from time to time as well. I think with this full set of accountability measures the government has responded very adequately.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of confusion about the foreign property rule. Some people say that Canadians should be permitted to invest their retirement funds in any portfolio they wish. Of course Canadians can do that. No one is preventing them from doing that, but when it comes to getting a subsidy through the tax system, I think it makes for good domestic policy to set certain limits. The government has acted on this. It was 10% some years ago. It was increased to 20%, then 25% and is now 30%. In fact, the domestic returns have in many cases exceeded the returns in the offshore markets. A sound and prudent portfolio manager would take that into account and would decide where to invest the funds.

I do not really agree that it should be totally wide open. As to whether the government would want to increase it beyond 30%, I would support that, but I do not think opening it up completely would have the support of most Canadians.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two-part question. I will attempt first to deal with the first part.

What is being done here is to bring the foreign property rule into line with other pension plans. It is a question of consistency. It would not make much sense at all for the CPP to have a different set of rules than other plans. Canadians are not even close to taking up the full 30% of the foreign property rule. Some Canadians say that we should relax that completely and eliminate the 30% rule, but I am not so convinced. First of all, I think there is a lot of room right now to take it to 30%. The counter-argument of course is that Canadians should have the ability to decide where their investments are made, in Canada or offshore. I have a certain sympathy with that argument, but if it is going to be subsidized or supported by the Canadian taxpayer we would like to encourage that kind of investment in Canada.

The member is quite right when he says that markets in Canada have performed very well. I think that if we have a sound investment board it will take those factors into consideration. It is not really for us to try to second guess what the board will do. If the domestic market is outperforming foreign markets, then presumably the board would make those decisions in the best interests of all.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and join the debate on Bill C-3. The bill is basically completing the implementation of the Canada pension plan reform that was started in 1996. We know the policy and the platform of the Alliance members opposite, and that is to set up private pension plans. They talk about distributing it to Canadians so that everyone has their own account and their own private plan. If we look at it in more detail we do know who benefits from that. It is all their buddies, the investment advisors and the brokers on Bay Street. They have modelled it after what they have in Chile. We all know what happened in Chile. The plan did not work.

What we have in Canada is probably one of the most respected pension schemes, pillar approaches to pension management in the world. It is recognized around the world. It is based on the three pillars: the old age security program, the Canada pension plan, and the employer-sponsored pension plans, RRSPs. These pillars are closely integrated and form a cohesive approach to retirement planning and income.

The bill would transfer the balance of the assets that were held by the federal government to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. It would complete the process. The board would be able to manage this portfolio in a balanced way. It has a clear mandate to optimize the returns for the contributors to the pension plan. It would remove one of the bottlenecks or ways that it was hamstrung previously when it had to invest in provincial government bonds and was receiving a less than optimal return for the contributors to the pension plan.

We need to go back a bit in history as well to the mid-nineties and perhaps earlier where many Canadians were concerned about the sustainability and the soundness of the Canada pension plan. The government launched an extensive consultation process across Canada, talking to various experts and Canadians in general, the provinces and territories. There were two main approaches that were under debate: first, the government could have increased the premiums; and second, it could have reduced the benefits. However, the government, in its wisdom, decided to do a combination of both. There was some modification of benefits but there was also an increase in the premiums to a level of a 9.9% contribution rate.

Contrary to what the members opposite say, there have been three actuarial reports since those measures were undertaken that have confirmed the soundness, the actuarial soundness, of the Canada pension plan. We now know that the Canada pension plan is on a sound footing and that Canadians can rest assured that their pension requirements will be met through the Canada pension plan.

When we look at investment returns, we need to look at it over the medium to long-term. I know in my own account I look at mutual funds. Some mutual funds have achieved high rates of return in the short run but over the medium to long-term are not as successful. Therefore, we need to give the board an opportunity to prove that it can optimize and diversify this portfolio of investments. I am sure that it is up to the job because, as my colleague pointed out, it has a capable, independent and arm's length board that is managing this portfolio. The bill would transfer the balance of the assets to the control of the board so that it could manage a diversified portfolio in a sound way, one that spreads risk and manages risk in a much more cohesive way.

This board would have a sound governance that it is designed to achieve. We hear a lot about corporate governance these days. The board of directors would be independent and accountable. There would be quarterly reports. There would also be an annual report to Parliament. The policies of the investment board would be open and transparent. It would hold public hearings every two years. There is a website so that Canadians can dial up and see how the fund is doing.

This board has a mandate to operate in the best interest of CPP contributors and its beneficiaries. It is very much like any large pension plan that has the ability to diversify into bonds and equity investments. Today's market has been badly hit, so in this market any pension board that is beating the market is doing very well and once the market returns to a sounder footing, I am sure that the CPP board will achieve some excellent results.

I would like to comment on the three pillars because the bill is fairly routine in the sense of completing the implementation of the CPP reform and transferring the balance of assets to the board. I would like to look at the old age security program and the GIS. I have many constituents in my riding who are on fixed income. In my area property taxes have increased and I have a number of constituents who have worked hard all their lives who are living in modest suburban homes and are finding that on a fixed income the pressures on them to maintain their property taxes and their standard of living are severe. It is something that we need to look at in terms of seniors and how they are able to cope, people who are on fixed incomes.

We know that the old age security is adjusted by inflation and the GIS but perhaps we should be looking at that in a more comprehensive way. Doing so would have a cost attached to it. Canadians do not want to go back into deficit but it is something that the government should be mindful of. Likewise I hear from many Canadians in my riding, of modest income, who are concerned about the clawback provisions, individuals who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to a private pension and to the CPP and suddenly now because they are at an income that is not excessive but at a modest income level, a lot of these pension benefits are taxed away. That is something over time that the government should be looking at to see if there is a way to remove a disincentive in the system that has a tendency to penalize those Canadians who have been responsible and put away money for their retirement.

We have other issues under the private pension schemes and RRSPs, that is, that there are limits in terms of the deductibility of contributions to pension plans for companies. For example, an auto worker with Ford, GM or Chrysler, the amount of contribution that the employee can make and that the company can make to a company pension plan is limited by our tax rules. It is something that our government should look at over time. Likewise there has been much discussion regarding RRSP contribution limits. The government has increased them quite substantially and consistently over time. However if we look at the three pillars of our retirement system, we need to ensure that all the pillars are acting in a uniform, consistent way so that if the government was to do anything with the RRSP contribution limits it seems to me that it would also need to look at the CPP contribution limits for private or corporate plans.

The bill before us is fairly straightforward. I cannot imagine that the members opposite would not want the contributors and the beneficiaries of the Canada pension plan not to have an actuarially sound plan, not to provide the opportunities for the managers of that portfolio to achieve the maximum benefits within a sound and a risk managed environment so that the returns could be increased and the contributors would receive the maximum benefits that they could. I cannot imagine that the members opposite would vote against that.

To conclude, I would say that this CPP reform is really another segment of the government's approach to fiscal management. The member opposite talked about tax cuts and paying down the debt. I guess he has not been listening or has not been around, but in the year 2000 our federal government introduced the largest tax cut in Canadian history. In fact, this year those tax cuts are saving Canadians $20 billion a year.

With respect to the debt, the government has now paid some $45 billion or $46 billion against the federal debt. Is it still too high? Of course it is, but without the actions of the government in eliminating a $42 billion deficit in only five years we would not have been able to even attack the debt. We have started that process. By paying down in excess of $45 billion, the federal treasury is saving $3 billion a year annually. That is an annual saving. Those funds can be redeployed to more tax cuts or to strategic investments in social programs or other economic programs or to pay down the debt.

CPP reform is another step or another cog in the wheel that is improving the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. For members opposite, once they have had their comments in the House for the benefit of I am not sure who, perhaps their investment adviser friends on Bay Street, given their fundraising constraints and I am not sure who they are trying to reach with this private pension scheme, we do know that it will not work. In Canada we have a culture of doing things together, of acting as a community of people sharing risks among ourselves. We do not just throw everyone to the hounds. We have that culture in Canada. The CPP is something that everybody in Canada appreciates and benefits from.

The members opposite often talk about the CPP as a tax. When we talked about the increase in CPP premiums, I remember that the members opposite on many occasions said in the House that it was an increase in tax. Of course it was not. The CPP is not a tax. It is a contribution based plan that takes contributions and premiums from employers and employees and puts them into a fund that will help Canadians plan and execute their retirement in a sound and reasonable way.

Again, I think the members opposite really do not have it right. They should be thinking more clearly about these measures that our government has implemented and continues to implement. I know that we all look forward to the next budget. In fact next week the Minister of Finance will be giving an economic and fiscal update. I am sure he will comment on the Canada pension plan and its soundness.

I am very glad the government has taken these steps. I look forward to my own retirement one day when this plan will have optimized my contributions and the contributions of other Canadians to the benefit of all.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a large number of constituents who call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions which I am pleased to present to the House.

The first petition requests Parliament to request that the Government of Canada undertake a review of the foreign aid it provides to the government of Bangladesh in view of that government's record of recurrent violation of human rights with respect to the persecution of Hindus and other minorities.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of reporting to the House, in both official languages, the visit of a Canadian parliamentary delegation to Taiwan which occurred from August 4 to August 10, 2002.

[User Fees Act, October 7th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring back to the House this bill, an act respecting user fees, which will bring greater accountability and transparency to the introduction and increase in any user fees brought about by the government or its agencies and departments. It also links user fees more closely with performance and with international benchmarks.

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

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the government motions that would allow for the continued business of Parliament in this new session. The motion is very important as it allows for the continuation of committee business and the reinstatement of government bills.

Reinstatement of government bills is a common practice when a new parliamentary session begins after prorogation. In 1999, at the beginning of the session, the opposition allowed a vote on a similar motion to be held without debate. The House of Commons adopted this practice informally more than 30 years ago. A similar procedure is used for reinstating private members' bills. The House agreed to entrench this in the standing orders during the last session.

There is a similar practice in use in the British House of Commons,where they are looking into the possibility of integrating it with the standing orders so that it will become standard practice at the start of a new session.

Over the coming days the government will be seeking to reinstate and complete parliamentary consideration of bills from the last session which were highlighted in the Speech from the Throne. They are: the species at risk bill, the Canadian environmental assessment bill, the pest control bill and the first nations governance bill. The government will also reinstate and advance other bills which were not completed last spring, namely, the human reproduction bill, the specific claims bill, the cruelty to animals bill, the public safety bill, the nuclear safety bill, the Canada pension plan amendments, the copyright bill and the sport bill.

The cruelty to animals bill is one that has received a lot of attention in my riding of Etobicoke North. Many of my constituents would like to see that passed without further delay. Likewise, I have a photography group that would like to see amendments to the copyright bill. I have been discussing that with the minister over the last week or so.

Rather than focus on the general theme, I would like to focus my time on the portions of the motion that relate to the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. Today's motion would allow for the re-establishment of the special committee so that it can continue its important work.

Drug abuse is a serious problem in my riding of Etobicoke North. We have had close to a dozen murders over the last year and a half or two years that are crime related, drug related and gang related. We have a challenge in Etobicoke North to deal with drugs. This particular initiative is one that is being followed closely by my constituents. The relevant portion of the motion states:

That a special committee of the House be appointed to consider the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs in Canada and make recommendations with respect to the ways and means by which the government can act, alone or in its relations with governments at other levels, in the reduction of the dimensions of the problems involved in such use;

That the membership of the committee be the same as the membership of the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs at the time of prorogation of the First Session of the present Parliament, provided that substitutions may be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

That the committee shall have all of the powers granted to Standing Committees in Standing Order 108; and

That the committee shall present its final report no later than November 22, 2002.

Members of this committee have been working diligently and effectively, travelling across Canada and meeting with various stakeholder groups. My colleague, the member for Burlington, has been very active as she is the Chair of this particular committee.

This part of the motion is similar to the motion that established the special committee in the first place, and was passed by the House on May 17, 2001. The motion was moved by the member for Langley—Abbotsford from the Canadian Alliance during an opposition day debate. Therefore, I am struggling to understand why that party would not support the reintroduction of this particular bill.

The committee is a non-partisan body and this part of today's motion should be supported by opposition and government members alike. The misuse of drugs is a non-partisan matter facing all Canadians.

The purpose of the special committee's work, to study and report on Canada's drug policy, is a timely issue. The committee's report in November will be much anticipated by the government and I am sure all members of the House, and I know by the constituents in my riding of Etobicoke North.

Last Monday in the Speech from the Throne the government expressed its openness to changes to Canada's drug policy. The throne speech stated:

The government will also implement a national drug strategy to address addiction while promoting public safety. It will expand the number of drug treatment courts. It will act on the results of parliamentary consultations with Canadians on options for change in our drug laws, including the possibility of the decriminalization of marijuana possession.

I know this particular aspect is somewhat contentious. I find it a challenging issue to deal with because in Etobicoke North we have so many problems related to hard drugs: cocaine, crack and heroin. The police are trying to focus its efforts in combating that type of drug abuse and drug crime. If the police was not seized with the responsibility of dealing with simple marijuana possession, it might reallocate more resources to the fight against these more dangerous and heinous drugs.

I understand the argument and the debate which says the move to the decriminalization of marijuana would perhaps send the wrong signals to youth and might create a culture where drugs are fine. I look forward to the continuing debate on this important topic. However it is obvious that the government is looking forward with anticipation to the work of this special committee. It is clear from the Speech from the Throne that the government is looking for the views of parliamentarians on how to modify Canada's drug laws.

Over the last few years I have had the honour and pleasure to work with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. It has done much research into drugs, the misuse of drugs, and how drugs can create a huge cost societally and economically. We need to be dealing with drugs and combating the misuse of drugs in a serious way. The centre has had some input into the government's thinking about the fight against drugs. I am sure it will be able to contribute in the weeks and months ahead in implementing those strategies and programs that make sense to deal with this important problem.

It is true that the government has already received the report of the Senate committee on drugs, which called for the legalization of marijuana. This may go further than most Canadians wish to go, but it is an important contribution to this debate as well.

It is important that members of the House of Commons are able to express their views to ensure that the government can make an informed decision on the advice of parliamentarians. The special committee has already conducted an extensive amount of work led by the member for Burlington as its chair. Since the special committee was established 56 meetings have taken place to consider Canada's drug laws. The special committee has heard from a broad number of witnesses including officials from Health Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the pharmaceutical industry, academics, police organizations, health professionals and other non-government organizations.

The special committee considered the subject matter of Bill C-344, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act sponsored last session by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I spoke in the House on that bill, and while I supported the general thrust of the member's bill, I felt that the bill was flawed for a number of reasons and I stated that at the time. One of the key reasons was that we must deal with not simply marijuana use but we must be particularly tough on marijuana pushers, the people who promote the use of these drugs.

In Australia, for example, tickets similar to automobile traffic violations are handed out. These tickets are issued numerous times. People do not pay them, so they end up clogging up the courts. We must ask if that is the best way to proceed; to clog up the courts with a bunch of tickets that people have no intention of paying.

Members will recall that the other side of the House reacted with feigned outrage when the House voted to refer the bill to the special committee for consideration. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. This was a non-partisan committee of the House and the members spoke with outrage. This was going to be referred for serious study and examination based on the facts and the members on the other side were outraged. This occurred despite the fact that the proposal for this committee came from the member for Langley—Abbotsford, a caucus colleague of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

We have seen a lot of conflicting positions taken by the opposition party but this was an all time high for it. It had two members of its caucus promoting this idea. The matter was sent to a non-partisan committee of the House, and members opposite, who always argue that we should we be engaging parliamentarians more seriously, feign outrage at such a move.

Despite all these antics, it is important to remember two things.

First, the special committee, as I said, was proposed by the member for Langley—Abbotsford, a colleague of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. Sometimes members on the other side of the House forget who their colleagues are. I just wanted to remind them again that these are two of their colleagues who have supported this initiative. It made little sense to refer Bill C-344 to the justice committee, when we already had a non-partisan special committee studying this issue.

Second, the special committee has studied the subject matter of Bill C-344. On April 25 the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca appeared before the special committee to present his bill. The special committee will likely address the bill's proposals in its final report expected next month.

Finally, I would like to conclude with some observations about parliamentary reform. Critics on the other side have alleged that the government ignores the views of parliamentarians on the development of policy and legislation. Of course we know that is not the case. The motion shows that this is clearly not the case.

In this case the government is looking for advice from parliamentarians on how to move forward on Canada's drug laws. This is similar to other initiatives by the government, such as the justice committee's study on same sex marriages. I got into a debate the other day in the House with the member opposite and a member from the NDP. It is very important issue and I agree with the member opposite. It is something that needs our special attention.

I am confident that the government will continue to seek the views of parliamentarians in the development of policy and legislation. It would be an absolute shame if members voted against the motion, as it would effectively put an end to the special committee's work on the non-medical use of drugs. The result of a vote against it would be to act against the very positions of two of their members of caucus, who I acknowledge have had a keen interest in the issue and have done some important work.

I therefore urge all members, not only the members on this side but members opposite, especially members from the official opposition, to support the motion so the government can receive the views of parliamentarians on this key issue. I await with anticipation, as I am sure the government does, the report of the special committee next month.