House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 67% of the vote.
The Economy May 7th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, statistics released today prove what Canadians already know, that under the Liberal government we are getting poorer and our standard of living is falling behind that of our major trading partner.
In fact Canadian disposable incomes fell from about 80% to only 70% of U.S. levels over the past decade. Why does the finance minister keep telling us that everything is A-OK when in fact Canada continues to fall behind economically?
The Economy April 25th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, wrong again. We proposed a legislated minimum of $6 billion a year, which would add up to a whole lot more, with 75% of unanticipated surpluses going to debt reduction.
The minister talks about the IMF report which reported that over the last three years our productivity growth has been about a third of the productivity growth in the United States.
How can the minister continue to say that Canada is leading the world when in fact our major trading partner sees its productivity growing three times as fast as here in Canada because of his high tax high debt policies?
The Economy April 25th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister talks about a huge paydown in debt. He has paid down less than half of the amount of debt that he added to the national debt.
Today we learned from Statistics Canada that the leading economic indicator has dropped for the fourth straight month. We also know that retail sales have slipped. Manufacturing shipments are down by 19% over the past four months.
How can he continue to talk about a rosy scenario when all the economic indicators are on a downslide?
The Economy April 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Industry's juvenile attitude is rubbing off on the Prime Minister. The member for Markham said for the Royal Bank two years ago with respect to the currency that Canadians were less prisoners to uncontrollable forces and more masters of their own destiny.
After 25 years of productivity decline, higher taxes and higher debt, why is the Prime Minister always satisfied to say that it is not their fault, that it is because the Americans are doing better. Why is he always satisfied to see the Americans get the gold in the economic competition—
The Economy April 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian dollar reached close to a virtual all time low. The Prime Minister says that the loonie is the victim of short term speculation, but it is not a short term crisis that has led to a 25 year decline and a 25% decline under his watch.
He has called for a weaker currency and a lower dollar for 20 years. Does the Prime Minister think it is a problem at all? Now that the dollar has finally reached 63 cents, is this not the policy he has wanted all along?
The Economy April 3rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. We have lost ground against the Mexican peso.
This seems to be the party of economic nationalism, but under its watch Canada has become the bargain basement of the North American economy. I remember John Turner saying “Canada is not for sale” Under this government Canada has gone up for sale at fire sale prices, at a 40% discount for any American investor who wants to buy Canadian assets.
What will the Prime Minister do to stop allowing American investors to buy Canadian assets at a 40% discount and restore value to the Canadian currency?
The Economy April 3rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it is a dark day for the Canadian dollar which today has just traded at its lowest level ever at $0.6320.
For 25 years the Prime Minister has deliberately pursued a weak dollar policy through a tax, borrow and spend Liberal policy that led to a 30 year decline in our productivity and our currency and a 25% reduction in the value of the loonie under his government's watch.
Budget Implementation Act, 1997 April 2nd, 2001
Yes, it reminds me of that marvellous bill of sale in the Shawinigate affair. The government says it would never have made the mistake that it is now seeking to address because the change is retroactive.
What complete and utter nonsense. It is an insult to the legislative process to suggest that. If the finance minister wanted, he could interfere inappropriately in the activities of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board because of its non-exemption from the Financial Administration Act. That would be completely within his legal purview. Changing this retroactively will not remove the mistake the government made. Again we see retroactive changes in legislation that in principle are somewhat offensive. The notion that the government can retroactively change history is contrary to logic and common sense.
For all these reasons the official opposition will oppose Bill C-17. I look forward to the debate and hearing from my colleagues as they outline ways by which we could increase financial accountability on the part of the government and invest more in research and development, but do so in a context that is fiscally responsible and mindful of the choppy economic waters into which we are headed.
Budget Implementation Act, 1997 April 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am doing precisely that. This is an indication that the parliamentary secretary does not even know what is in his own bill. I am talking about the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which is precisely what clause 6 of the bill refers to. No wonder the government makes legislative mistakes when the parliamentary secretary responsible for managing the debate on the bill does not even know what is in it. We see this time and again.
The parliamentary secretary wants to know what the relevance is. If he would listen maybe he would learn something.
With regard to Bill C-2, members of the official opposition raised grievous concerns about the $120 billion in equity, which belonged to Canadian taxpayers, that was taken from them through the CPP payroll tax. The amount will reach $120 billion in about the year 2015.
We raised grievous concerns about the potential for this or future governments to reach their politically motivated hands into that $120 billion pot of taxpayer money and to abuse the fund either by appointing patronage appointees to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board or by directing its investment strategy by stripping cash out of it.
The government at the time said that we should not worry, that we should not be alarmist because there will be safeguards in place, that the bill will be exempted from the Financial Administration Act, and that the finance minister will not be able to muddy himself in the business of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
Well, lo and behold, what happens? The parliamentary secretary tries to just skate over the issue very briefly hoping that no one would notice. When it comes to complex and technical legislation we often do not have the time or expertise to understand it, but the parliamentary secretary said that clause 6 in the bill would exempt the CPP Investment Board from part 10 of the Financial Administration Act, “to ensure retroactively that it always operates as it was intended.”
What does that mean? It means that there was a drafting error or a legislative mistake. I do not know if it was a mistake or if it was deliberate, but today the CPP Investment Board is covered under of part 10, subclause 85(1) of the Financial Administration Act, which means that the finance minister could today, through a ministerial order, strip cash out of the Canada pension plan fund. He could hire or fire officers who are employees of the CPP Investment Board. He could change their compensation. He could reject their business plan. The minister has all sorts of financial powers to intervene in the operation of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This is precisely what we were concerned about when we debated Bill C-2.
That is the state of things today. The Liberals now say that it was a mistake. It has taken them four years to figure it out and finally correct it. That is four years too long.
The opposition will support the amendments. However we will bring forward one of our own that is similar to an amendment that we introduced at report stage of Bill C-2. The amendment would ensure that the operations of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board are subject to scrutiny by the auditor general. My colleague, the chair of the public accounts committee and our treasury board critic, will be bringing an amendment forward to that effect.
This is another example of the government committing to spend money without proper parliamentary authorization. It is doing this without a budget at a time when spending is growing far too quickly and when we are headed into choppy economic waters. That is grounds enough upon which to oppose the bill. The government is also seizing the parliamentary agenda to correct serious mistakes which it has made.
It would be refreshing if the parliamentary secretary or his minister would stand in this place and take some responsibility for the mistakes which they and the department have made in allowing the minister to monkey around with the business of the CPP investment board, and in allowing bureaucrats and the defence department to borrow money without proper parliamentary authority.
The government is undermining the long and important tradition of ministerial accountability and responsibility. It feels that it can make these kinds of serious mistakes with impunity. The Canadian Alliance feels that it should be held accountable for these kinds of errors. There should be some sort of accountability when time after time it seizes the parliamentary calendar to correct serious mistakes of this nature.
I will make one additional very amusing point regarding clause 6 of the bill. The parliamentary secretary said that the clause would retroactively ensure that the bill always operates as intended. Is that not kind of Orwellian? The government made a retroactive amendment in the bill. George Orwell's 1984 talks about the ability of totalitarian governments to change history and facts that have already occurred.
Budget Implementation Act, 1997 April 2nd, 2001
The House leader calls them legislative improvements. Sometimes they are euphemistically referred to as housekeeping amendments. It just sounds so pleasant.
The real ugly face of it is legislative incompetence on the part of the government. The House leader is the first, whenever the opposition drags out debate on a bill as we occasionally do, to raise the alarm about the cost to parliament and the value of debating time in this place.
We spend hours, days and weeks in every session debating bills such as this one, which are, in substance, corrections to legislative errors that the government made in the first place. If the government got these things right in the first place, we would not be spending scarce parliamentary time debating legislative errors such as those contained in Bill C-17.
Sometimes these errors are not just of a minor, technical or dilatory nature. Sometimes they are very serious and grave mistakes. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is a good example. In the immediate past parliament, the government introduced Bill C-2 in order to make some major changes to the Canada pension plan and to authorize and introduce the single largest tax increase in Canadian history. My colleagues will recall that massive tax grab that will cost tens of billions of dollars. They brought—