Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the speeches today by Liberal members raise more questions than answers about the stability of our health care system, but I must say the same holds true for the comments made by Reform members in the House today. There is an incredible amount of inconsistency and lack of clarity around this whole issue. But time does not permit me at this point to pursue that.

There is another issue around Bill C-28 which deals with the finances of this country for which there is a deafening silence on the part of both Liberals and Reformers and that has to do with this proposed merger between the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal.

My question for the hon. member in the Liberal Party is to get some clarity on this issue. Why is this member so silent on this issue and the seriousness of this monster merger? What is the policy of this Liberal government for today? Why are we waiting for a report from a committee when in fact this government knew all along about the problems growing with respect to the power of the banks and the international agreements?

[Petitions, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased and honoured to be able to present petitions on behalf of constituents in Winnipeg North Centre and other Manitobans who are deeply concerned about the future of Canada's retirement system. They express concern about the changes to the Canada pension plan that were forced through this Parliament. They are very concerned about the changes to the seniors benefit. They petition this House for a national review of the retirement income system in Canada to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today and tomorrow.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that many organizations were able to appear before the committee, but many were not. In fact the Canadian Union of Public Employees representing 500,000 workers was not able to appear. It was turned down. The Council of Canadians, which had a petition with 500,000 signatures, was not able to appear. Many other concerned Canadians were not able to be before this committee because it was located here and there was no opportunity to go to the expense and the time to get here.

Let me just conclude by saying that not only were groups refused in terms of participation but in fact those that were able to be here were not listened to. The Council—

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we had seven hours of debate at second reading, which was hardly time enough for but a handful of members in this place to participate.

We had the government refusing to allow for full representation at the committee hearings. Many groups were excluded. There was a built in bias for friends of the Liberal government, the BCNI, the Fraser Institute, all of those organizations, while excluding the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and other groups. The government refused to address any of our amendments—

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear there is not unanimous support or even two-thirds support for the kinds of changes the Liberal government is introducing by way of Bill C-2. There was a huge outcry on the part of Canadians when they learned about this piece of legislation.

The problem is the government is busy forcing it through so quickly that there has not been ample time and ample opportunity to ensure that Canadians are well informed enough to raise their concerns.

We as members of Parliament have had the opportunity to send out questionnaires and to seek opinions. We know that Canadians are deeply concerned about these changes and would like us to do whatever possible to slow down the process and to have a thorough review of the national retirement—

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would heartily recommend that all members of the government read the book entitled “Stanley Knowles: The Man from Winnipeg North Centre”, written by Susan Mann Trofimenkoff.

Let me conclude by saying that the concerns we have brought to the debate are serious. They are based on the values of dignity and security. The debate is about ensuring that everyone who reaches their retirement years will live with some feeling of economic security and some sense of dignity about who they are and what they have contributed to the country. It is about our sense of being a civilized country. It is the least we can do. The fight will continue.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

A member across the way suggested that we get into this century. Is the member suggesting that the work of Stanley Knowles in helping to shape and create a universal pension plan is not significant, is not worthy of note or is not there to guide us in the future?

Stanley Knowles worked from 1942 on trying to make changes to ensure we had an adequate income retirement system. He started back when the old age pension act allowed Canadians $20 a month and was means tested. He stood up to fight that meagre, mean program and made some difference. He kept fighting until 1963 when the Canada pension plan was first introduced. He fought to see that benefits were indexed. He kept his fight going until 1967 when we were able to see come to fruition some semblance of a guaranteed income supplement program. He kept fighting through to 1975 to try to change the spousal allowance which only guaranteed women between the ages of 60 and 65 years, if they were single or widowed, some measure of security.

After that long struggle I would like to quote what Stanley Knowles said:

I sometimes think that if our party or if I had done nothing else in this country but play a part in getting this kind of improvement, it has been worth all the effort and all the struggle. We have done well and I am proud of having been involved in it but we are just getting started.

If only he were here today to see what it means to be just getting started. If only he knew just how much of what he fought for will be taken away by a single move on the part of the Liberal government by way of Bill C-2.

We can do nothing less than try to carry on the struggle and try to fight for the values that guided him throughout his life and helped make the income retirement system one of value.

Members can comment all they want about getting into the next century, but I suggest the values of decency, security and living with some semblance of quality of life are as good today as they were back in 1942 when Stanley Knowles started his struggle.

Stanley would have been shocked by the mean-spirited provisions of the legislation that target the weakest members of society and that imposes a 10% cutback across the board, having a particularly disproportionate impact on women and persons with disabilities.

We will continue the work Stanley Knowles began in 1942, much of which has to be started all over again. We are acutely aware of the fact that this is just the first shoe to drop. The government has a bigger agenda that would do precisely what Stanley Knowles said was abhorrent when he started in 1942, a plan that is means tested and mean spirited.

Maybe members on the Liberal side are not aware of what the seniors' benefit as being proposed by the Minister of Finance and his colleagues will do. It will do away with everything we have fought for long and hard and that must guide us in the future.

I conclude by saying the work of Stanley Knowles is not over. We are talking about the meaning of human life. It is the value we attach to quality of life in society. It is about ensuring that everyone in society, regardless of income, sex, ability and—

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rare opportunity to be able to speak to a bill of major consequence. In my last opportunity to speak in the Chamber on Bill C-2 respecting changes to the Canada pension plan I begin by expressing a great deal of regret and disappointment. One can only be left with the conclusion that the government is profoundly undemocratic.

I had some experience in the political arena before I came to the Chamber. It came as a real shock and surprise to learn that the government was willing to bypass the democratic process, to bring in closure on debate after only seven hours at second reading and to deny many of us in the Chamber the opportunity to speak on behalf of constituents.

Citizens everywhere in Canada want to have their voices heard. They believe in the democratic process. They believe members were elected to speak in their behalf and to bring their concerns to the Chamber. Now they are left feeling more cynical and more sceptical about the democratic process because the government could not even allow a reasonable amount of time for proper debate on a major topic.

Many of us on this side of the Chamber did not have a chance to speak at all. Certainly we did not engage in the kind of debate we expected to happen, given the seriousness of the issue. Equally disturbing has been the government's treatment of the committee process and of the thoughtful amendments proposed at report stage. The government ploughed straight ahead from day one with no intention of consulting with other Canadians or members of Parliament, of listening to the views of organizations that have developed some expertise in this area, or of taking seriously any thoughtful amendments on the whole process.

Here we are at third reading with hardly any debate, no serious treatment of our amendments, and the government wants us to rubber stamp its bill. It wants to get the bill through before anybody wakes up and realizes the devastating impact it will have on Canadians. It is appalling on the basis of the democratic process alone.

Our concerns are raised in the Chamber by very serious substantive inclusions in the bill. In my last opportunity to speak on the bill I remind the House of the work of Stanley Knowles for years and years and years.

[Petitions, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased and honoured to present three petitions on behalf of my constituents in Winnipeg North Centre and other Manitobans who are deeply concerned about the future of Canada's retirement system.

They raise concerns about current government plans vis-à-vis Bill C-2 and about future proposals to change the guaranteed income supplement and the old age security.

They would like a publicly administered universal pension plan which ensures that all Canadians, not just the wealthy, can look forward to a secure retirement.

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Just before we grant leave for all questions to stand, could the parliamentary secretary explain why it is taking so long to get an answer to Question No. 14? The question was tabled on September 23, which means it is well beyond the 45 days the rules allow for the government to reply.

The question seeks to find out whether the government has honoured the commitment made by the former minister of health a year ago to spend $10 million on education and other programs to reduce youth smoking. I am concerned at the delay in making this information public and wonder if my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, could undertake to ensure that the response is quickly forthcoming.