Dean Del Mastro

[June 11th, 2009]

They did less than nothing. They cut funding to the CBC by some $400 million. Four thousand jobs disappeared. That is the Liberal record.

The member voted in favour of Canada's economic action plan and that was a smart move. It was a good thing he did. As we can see today, 80% of the stimulus measures in Canada's economic action plan have been implemented. We are moving forward. We are getting things done for Canadians.

What else was in that economic action plan? There was record funding for the CBC. That is what was in there. Perhaps the member did not read it. It was a heck of a plan. In there was a lot of money for the CBC, more than $1.1 billion. That is one thousand, one hundred million dollars. If we distributed that money to everybody in Lakefield, Ontario, they would all have half a million dollars in their bank accounts. That is a lot of money.

The people in Lakefield would like that, but the people at the CBC are using it to produce shows that are in the public interest, fulfilling their mandate with more than $1.1 billion. That is how much support our government has put behind the CBC and Radio-Canada in this country.

I have said many times in this House that the CBC is a Conservative Party creation. Of course it is. The Conservative Party brought the CBC and Radio-Canada into existence. It is the Liberal Party that wanted to shut it down. In fact, former leader Pierre Trudeau said that if the lights went off at the CBC, nobody would notice. That is their record.

I could take some criticism on this from some parties, but not the Liberal Party. It is the height of hypocrisy. What it did to the CBC was shameful. Our party stands four-square behind the CBC.

We are doing a study right now at the heritage committee on the future of broadcasting. We have found that all broadcasters in over-the-air broadcasting are having some difficulties because the advertising revenues are not what they normally are. That has also hit the CBC, but what we have done amid this crisis is put the money behind the CBC. We have provided the CBC with funding.

Is the CBC experiencing challenges? Sure it is, but so is everybody in broadcasting and so are Canadians right at home. It is a common theme that we hear from the opposition: spend, spend, spend. That is why I believe the Liberal leader when he says, “We will have to raise taxes”. Of course the Liberals will because all they come forward with are spending proposals. That is what the member is saying. He says, “Spend more money. Throw more money at the problem and it will just go away”.

We are committed to getting value for tax dollars in this country. That is the Conservative promise to Canadians. We stand behind the CBC, but we will not spend frivolously.

[June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is proof why it is wonderful to have a selective memory in this House.

The member, who was once a part of a Liberal government, likely does not remember that back in 1993 and then in 1997, when the Liberals played a familiar tune, they said, “If elected we will provide more and stable funding to the CBC. That is our word to the CBC”.

What did they do?

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, once again, we have members of the NDP standing and calling on intervention from the government on the CPPIB. Once again, they are standing saying that the government needs to intervene and tell these guys how to run the show.

I think it would be a terrible marketing idea for any investment bureau, any investor at all to say “Hey, I'm an NDP investor, invest with me and I'll make you a fortune. By the way, we're going to increase corporate taxes, we're going to intervene, we're going to do all kinds of things, which are interventionary on the market”. This is absolutely preposterous. Once again, it is a clear double standard. Some crowns we should intervene on bonuses. For others, we should be completely hands-off.

Why have the NDP members picked this issue? Why are they coming down on these investment professionals? Why not other groups? When I asked the question about CBC bonuses, during a time when it was laying people off, why did the NDP accused me of being mean to the CBC? I do not know.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Once again, Madam Speaker, why the outrage on these bonuses to this crown corporation? Why the double standard? Why can we not have a little consistency on this? Why do we say that some professional boards should not get a bonus, but we say that bonuses are okay for other professional boards that have a similar record, that are under economic pressure right now, that are losing money? That is a double standard.

For example, the Ontario teachers' pension fund is a pretty successful fund that makes a lot of money. In fact, it owns the Toronto Maple Leafs, a team which I happen to follow, a team that I have cheered for my entire life. That fund makes a lot of money. It does not just invest in government bonds and so forth; occasionally, it takes prudent risks. That is what it is about. Investing is always about measuring risk and reward. I would argue that the CPP Investment Board has struck the right chord. It has done the right thing.

We are at a point in time where there is no question that stocks over the last number of months have been challenged, but that is not the future of the market. The history of the market has always shown fluctuation, but over time it becomes stable. When it picks up, the CPPIB will also pick up. I hope that the member then will congratulate the board for the hard work it has done.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I actually believe that the CPP Investment Board is very well managed. It is easy to look in the rear view mirror and say that if the managers had chosen option A instead of option B, we would be further ahead. There are an awful lot of investors right now who, if they had known back then what was going to transpire over the last few months, they would have a lot more money than what they have today. That is the benefit of hindsight, and that is what the member is speaking about.

It is important that the fund be managed by professionals who understand investing, professionals who understand that their duty is to protect the public money that is in the Canada pension plan.

I do not believe the intervention that is being mentioned is appropriate.

We talk about a lot of crown corporations in the House and how they are at arm's length from the government, CBC being one of them. I questioned the CBC on the bonuses that it was paying to its executives while it was laying off some 800 people. I was chastised for just asking whether it felt that was appropriate. Why is there a double standard in this case?

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to speak to this motion. I will be splitting my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

I want to congratulate the member for Vancouver East and the member for Burnaby—Douglas on their amendment, which represents the goodwill that has been established around this debate.

I have just received my copy of “Canada's Economic Action Plan, A Second Report to Canadians”. The headline of that economic action plan is that 80% of it already has been implemented. I really wanted to point that out and celebrate that. It is a tremendous record of achievement, something I am certainly very pleased with.

I will address the portion of the motion with respect to ensuring appropriate management of the Canada pension plan, or CPP, and specifically that the government protect it from imprudent practices.

First, let us be clear. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, or CPPIB, which manages the CPP, is not run by our government, nor was it run by the previous government. Rather, it is an arm's length crown corporation with a mandate to invest in the best interests of CPP members, maximizing the rate of return, and obviously to protect the fund from undue risk of loss. This mandate is consistent with other private and public sector pension plans in Canada.

The CPPIB is governed by a board of directors consisting of 12 experienced professionals appointed by the federal government in consultation with the provinces. We consult with the provinces. This is not something that the federal government does unilaterally.

Parliament itself, under the previous Liberal government, voted to give the CPPIB that independent mandate, and there was goodwill around that, as well. Listen to the words of the former parliamentary secretary to the finance minister, the current member for Richmond Hill. During the era of the previous Liberal government, he said:

It is imperative that the CPPIB be fully independent of governments.... This independence is critical to the board's success and for the public confidence in the CPP investment policy.

I agree with that.

What is more, under the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, an act passed by Parliament, it clearly states that the board of directors sets the compensation for the CPPIB, not the government, not the finance minister. Indeed, the current Liberal finance critic, the member for Markham—Unionville, confirmed that interpretation, stating just on May 28, “It was a Liberal government that set up the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as an independent agency independent of government.... It's not the role of the government of the day to micromanage this entity”. Once again, I agree with that.

The CPPIB is not run by politicians. Politicians do not make the CPPIB's day-to-day operating decisions or guide investments, something most Canadians appreciate should not be subject to partisan debate.

Moreover, the federal government cannot unilaterally alter the CPPIB or its mandate. In fact, changes to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act require the approval of the federal government and at least two-thirds of the provinces representing at least two-thirds of the population.

I heard hon. members, and I have heard the debate that is going on today, suggest that we could bring forward a bill, we could pass it immediately and we could get on with changes. In fact, we know that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act specifically prevents that action because this is a partnership with the provinces.

Nevertheless, we realize the issue of executive compensation is something we have heard a lot about lately in the news, especially coming from the United States. Recently, we have also heard concerns raised here in Canada, albeit to a much different and lesser degree. Our government agreed that this is an important matter and one that merited examination. That is why we have already taken action on that front.

My colleague from Macleod, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, has said in this House that compensation must be reasonable. I agree with that. I think all Canadians agree with that.

As members are likely aware, the finance minister recently wrote to the chair of the CPPIB, along with all similar crown entities, to order a review of all their compensation practices. This review will ensure their practices fall in line with Canada's international commitments on this matter, specifically the Financial Stability Forum's principles for compensation practices that were endorsed by all G20 leaders this past April.

These very comprehensive principles, which are part of the worldwide effort to fix the global financial system, laid out firm standards with respect to executive compensation practices that require: first, that boards of directors play an active role in the design, operation and evaluation of compensation schemes; second, that compensation be aligned with prudent risk taking and not reward excessive short-term risk taking where risks are realized over long periods; and third, that there be clear, comprehensive and timely public disclosure of information about compensation. We know in this case there certainly has been public disclosure and I believe it is clear and comprehensive.

Our government believes these principles are the appropriate response that will guide both private and public sector financial institution compensation practices, helping ensure they are consistent with long-term goals and prudent risk taking. That is why Canada, alongside all other G20 countries, endorsed these principles. It is why we ordered the CPPIB and all similar crown entities to examine their compliance with these very principles.

After entities such as the CPPIB report back to the government, we will judge their compliance. If we feel they do not comply with any of the principles which I have just outlined for the House, they will have to correct those non-compliant practices as quickly as possible.

I am sure that most members, putting partisanship aside, would agree that this is a measured and appropriate response to this issue, a response that ensures the CPPIB and its pension investment decisions are not subject to the political interference, as some members in the House are advocating.

The NDP has a history of advocating explicitly for political interference in the CPPIB. That is inappropriate. It is not beyond its right but, personally, I think it is inappropriate. Without getting into it, there are several members in the NDP who have specifically recommended guidelines for investment.

I want to point out some of the principles that the CPPIB follows. The CPPIB has a policy of responsible investing related to environmental, social and governance factors. For the people watching this debate, it is publicly available online at www.cppib.ca. Moreover, the CPPIB is one of the signatories to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Enhanced Analytics Initiative, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and more. We can see that the CPPIB is very responsible.

Nonetheless, the NDP's position begs the question: Do Canadians really want politicians directing CPP contributions into investments that they deem to be in line with their interpretation of Canadian values? We have great debates in the House and we work hard for agreement, although we do not always find it. Therefore, I do not think we should be directing the CPP as to what its values should be. We realize the NDP would seemingly like politicians to control the CPP fund, but the current framework, endorsed by Parliament, ensures pension investments will not be subject to political interference.

I represent the riding of Peterborough. Some members would suggest they represent a lot of seniors. I am certainly no exception. I have a very large riding with a population well in excess of 120,000. Demographically, we are where most of the country will be at 2020, so the population of my riding is a little more advanced in age. It puts special strains on the health care system as well.

I have concerns about single or widowed seniors and the challenges they face because they have a little less pension income than married seniors do. I have concerns around that. Those concerns are shared by all politicians. We all want to make sure that our seniors are well cared for. That is why we make the contributions we do.

[June 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the support our government has put behind the CBC and the lack of support the Bloc Québécois members showed for artists when they voted against the economic action plan and the when they came up with not one but two economic action plans in the last six months and did not mention the CBC or Radio Canada. They did not mention artists. They forgot about them completely. It is a good thing the Conservatives did not.

The reason why the member keeps bringing me in every night for adjournment questions is because she knows the record of those members. She knows she forgot about them when it came to budgets, or economic action plans or any kind of suggestion economically. They Bloc members know they forgot them. Now they have to come in and try to demonstrate something else with questions every night. It does not cut it.

They forgot them. We did not.

[June 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and answer this question.

I am always happy when the Bloc Québécois stands in the House and argues in favour of strong national institutions like the CBC and Radio-Canada that play such a major role here in Canada from coast to coast, and that includes Quebec.

When Bloc members stand in their place and argue in favour of national institutions, it really adds to the strength and vibrance, and culture and fabric of this country. That is a great thing. It is an admission that Canada is great and it shows how well we all work together.

I congratulate the member for speaking on behalf of Canada and our great cultural institution, the CBC.

The member is right. Bloc members did have a good roll going. They did support budget 2006, and that was a smart thing to do. They did support budget 2007, and that was a smart thing to do. They did not support budget 2008 because they felt that if they continued providing support to us that they would probably be in trouble in a lot of Quebec ridings, so they decided, for purely partisan reasons, despite the fact that budget 2008 was really good for Quebeckers, to vote against it.

In each and every budget, four budgets in a row, our government increased the funding to the CBC. That is an undeniable fact. The member can do some research on her own behalf if she wants. She can read the budget that she voted against. She will see that in the last four budgets we increased the funding to the CBC.

That is not the record, by the way, of the previous Liberal government. In 1993, the Liberal government promised to increase funding to the CBC but cut it dramatically. In 1997, the Liberals knew they had broken their promise and said they would increase funding to the CBC. They cut it again and 4,000 jobs were lost.

Our government said we would maintain or increase funding to the CBC: four consecutive budgets, four consecutive increases.

The member speaks about the arts all the time. She knows very well that, for example, the riding of the leader of the Bloc Québécois is receiving $20 million in support for the arts. Even the leader of the Bloc Québécois would have to acknowledge that this is a record amount of money being sunk into his own riding. That is the result of a budget that he voted against. He voted against his own riding. That is unbelievable.

Bloc members were just debating Motion No. 297, a motion to increase funding to the Canada Council. It is too bad the Bloc does not support that, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage said just a few minutes ago when he spoke in the House.

When we bring forward increases for the arts, as we did in our economic action plan and budget 2009, we did not forget the arts. The Bloc did in both of its statements on the economic action plan. Those members completely disregarded it. There is nothing on the CBC or Radio-Canada in their programs. We did not forget them. We increased funding to both. We made sure that we did not forget them because we value them.

The member should well know, despite whatever she says about Conservatives having a conspiracy against the CBC, the Conservatives created the CBC. We have nothing against the national broadcaster. We believe it adds to the national fabric of this country. That is why we put money behind it.

We do not put money into programs that we think waste money. We make sure that when we spend money, we are getting the maximum benefit not just for artists but for all Canadians. We are going to make sure that every tax dollar we collect is spent effectively. We put record funding behind the CBC.

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, June 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I feel it is my place to speak in the House, I respect your authority.

The quintessential symbol of a nation is its flag and the Liberal leader referred to our flag as “a pale imitation of a beer label”. Canadians from coast to coast are proud of that flag. Canadians around the world serve with that flag on their shoulder. I am proud of that symbol. I am proud of this nation that Canadians have built.

Our flag is no “pale imitation of a beer label”. It is the symbol of a strong and proud nation.

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, June 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, by virtue of his 34 year absence from Canada, the just visiting Liberal leader cannot possibly be in touch with Canadians. He cannot possibly know what they feel and what they need in their day-to-day lives—