2002-12-13

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, as reported without amendment from the committee.
The Speaker: There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-3. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): moved

That Bill C-3, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 46 on page 9 and lines 1 to 5 on page 10 with the following:
“15. Section 37 of the Act is repealed.”

Mr. Speaker, I am here to discuss a very important amendment to Bill C-3, which is an act to amend the Canada pension plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act.
In general terms the bill is a disappointment, not so much for what it includes, which is on the whole unobjectionable, but for what it fails to include. It fails to include measures that would make the management board politician proof, that is completely secure from political interference, and it also fails to ensure that the Canada pension plan money that is invested through the investment board--and we are talking about an amount that will eventually total something in the nature of $100 billion--cannot be used for any purpose other than maximizing the rate of return for the beneficiaries of the Canada pension plan, which is the only purpose for which pension moneys should ever be invested and not, for example, some of the proposals that have been made in the course of the discussion of this bill.
Pension moneys should never be invested for the purpose of industrial or regional development, or for the furthering of ethical as opposed to other types of investments. If we choose to make the decision, for example, that we want to forbid the investment in certain areas, we ought to make it illegal to invest in certain areas. We ought not to lower the rate of return that the Canada pension plan earns by restricting it from investing in these areas.
These were all proposals that had been made, some of them by the former minister of finance, the member for LaSalle--Émard, who was the author of the bill.
The amendment I am proposing today is designed to eliminate one of these limitations, the most important of the limitations, upon the invested returns that the Canada pension plan can expect to earn through its investment board. This is the provision that forbids more than 30% of the moneys invested through the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board from being invested outside Canada.
Let me explain the technical aspects of the amendment I am proposing. I have referred in the amendment, in section 15 of the bill, to another section of another bill. The way section 15 currently is worded, it makes a series of changes to section 37 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, a prior act that was passed several years ago. Section 37 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act refers in turn to a section of the Income Tax Act which states that pension plans, whether they be corporate, union or registered retirement savings plans, are not permitted to invest more than 30% of their assets outside of Canada.
What I am proposing is to change section 15 of the act currently under consideration to now read, “Section 37 of the Act...”, that is of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, “...is repealed”, thereby removing the cap on the percentage that might be invested outside of Canada.
The reason for this is straightforward. The Canadian economy represents something between 2% and 3% of the total world economy. When a decision is made to restrict the percentage of the Canada pension plan moneys that can be invested outside of Canada, we make the decision to take that 70% of Canada pension plan money and require it to be invested in less than 3% of the world economy, and not, I might add, the fastest growing 2% to 3% of the world economy.
We make a decision therefore to reduce the rate of return that will be earned by that 70% of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board money. To give a sense of just how significant this is, in committee I asked the chief actuary of Canada, who was appearing as a witness, what the rate of return would be on the three main components of the Investment Board moneys.
The three components are a series of provincial government bonds which earn, quite frankly, a very unsatisfactory rate of return, largely because of a sweetheart deal that was cut with the provinces by the government and the former finance minister in order to secure the support of the provincial governments. This ensures that they will get a preferential, extra low rate of interest on the bonds that they sell to the Canada pension plan. This will result in billions of dollars, which should go into the pension plan and eventually be paid out to Canadian pensioners, being taken out instead and given to the provinces to be used on whatever projects they see fit.
The second component is the money that will be invested internationally. The expectation is that we will get a reasonably good rate of return; about 5.5%. The moneys that are invested in the Canadian equities market are anticipated to get about a 4.5% return. On that component, which is something in the neighbourhood of $25 billion to $30 billion, we should get a 1% lower rate of return out of the total capital per year. In fact, measured by comparison to the 5.5% rate of return, we can see it is substantially lower. It is about a 20% lower rate of return every year, year after year compounding, and therefore this will result in literally billions of dollars lost permanently to Canadian pensioners.
In the end, this will result in either the Canada pension plan having to hike its premiums yet further to well over 10% in order to pay for these benefits; or it will result in Canada pension plan benefits being cut so that pensioners will not get the moneys that they were promised. It may not happen to the current generation of pensioners, or at least those who are fairly well on in their senior years, but it will happen to those who are expecting to retire, as I am, some 30 years from now. They will almost certainly find themselves with a reduced--
Mr. Peter Adams: It will be sooner than that.
Scott Reid: I can point out to the members who are making jokes that members of this House have a special pension plan that is set up to provide more generous benefits than those provided through the Canada pension plan. That of course is a consequence of the fact that we get to choose our own pension plan, whereas Canadians must live with whatever we give them. It seems to me that we ought to give them the best rate of return possible.
A woman who is aged 65 today and who has a 50% chance of living to be 90 will depend on the CPP to pay her benefits 25 years from now. If the pension plan is not secure and those rates are not guaranteed, she may very well find herself at 90 years old facing a cut in her pensions.
Could this happen? It already has happened. The former finance minister, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, actually did cut Canada pension plan benefits very slightly, but he did it nonetheless, when he was making his first run of changes to this plan several years ago.
There are a number of problems with the decision to put restrictions on foreign content for Canada pension plan investment moneys. One is, as I mentioned, a lower rate of return. A second one is a higher rate of risk. When we put all our eggs in one national basket we face currency risk. If the government continues to allow the value of the Canadian dollar to fall, and it seems to be a pattern that we have seen from the government, then we can expect to have the Canada pension plan pay substantially lesser returns than it would have. That is not calculated into the actuarial projections.
We can expect to see transaction costs. When we have a very large fund like this one working away in a single small market as a huge component of that market, it automatically bids up costs when it attempts to purchase into equities in that market. When it attempts to sell, it drives down the price. It automatically therefore suffers a substantial penalty. How much of a penalty? The curious thing is that when I raised this question in committee, the ministerial officials had not done any research on this topic. This very important factor is not taken into account in costing out this program and the rate of return. In other words, that 4.5% rate of return, which is already inadequate, is in fact illusory.
Something else happens. Because a plan like this is predictable in the amount of money that goes in and the amount of money that comes out, and we can look at actuarial tables, it is possible for other investors to predict when it will put money in and when it will take money out. They can, as the expression goes, “game the system”. They can plan to take advantage by holding back on assets when there is an attempt to buy in by flooding the market and making themselves buyers when the plan is tempted to sell out. That will result in still further reductions in the rate of return on the plan. This also is not taken into account.
As a final point I would like to note that despite the attempt, which I assume was designed to ensure that moneys would be captured within the Canadian capital market under this legislation, that is not what will happen. In fact, what will happen is that better informed investors that would have made wiser investments in the Canadian economy will be forced out by these large sums of money, and the result will be that no more money will go into the Canadian economy and it will go in in a less informed way.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, shortly I will address the amendment before the House, but I first want address the Canada pension plan. We and the provinces have been joint stewards of this plan initiated back in 1997 in terms of the reforms. In the early 1990s, the Chief Actuary of Canada questioned the sustainability of the Canada pension plan. This government, along with its provincial partners, heeded that warning and we now have reforms that of course bring forward a schedule of increases in CPP contribution rates. We are building up a larger asset pool before baby boomers retire. As we know, the fact was that the moneys were not keeping up and the pool would have dried up. Therefore, investing in the markets at arm's length is another important requirement, which we have in this legislation. As well, slowing the growth costs of benefits through administrative and expenditure measures is very important.
Hon. members will recall that a key element of the reform was a new market investment policy for the plan, and the CPP Investment Board was established. Clearly the need existed for an independent organization, and I stress that because it is very important to note the independence of the board.
Prior to 1999 when the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board began operations, the investment policy in place for CPP required that the funds not immediately needed to pay the benefits be invested in provincial government bonds at a federal government interest rate. That policy of course resulted in an undiversified portfolio of securities and an interest rate subsidy to the provinces.
Fortunately, now that we have the CPPIB, we have an investment market policy. Since 1999, the funds that are not immediately required to pay benefits and expenses are transferred to the board and are prudently invested in a diversified portfolio of market securities in the best interests of the contributors and the beneficiaries.
I would point out that we have an all star board of directors, with its members recommended by provincial finance ministers in conjunction with the federal Minister of Finance. They manage prudently, as I have said, billions of dollars on behalf of Canadians. The board is fully accountable to CPP members and to governments through annual reports and material on the website, again making sure that although it is at arm's length from government it is accountable to Parliament and to the very people who benefit from the plan.
It is a market investment policy that is of course consistent with other pension plans. One might think of OMERS, the municipal employees retirement system, or the Ontario teachers' pension plan, which some members are familiar with.
It is important that certain assets have remained with the federal government. These assets included an operating reserve of about $6 billion and a large portfolio mostly made up of provincial government bonds valued around $32 billion. Under Bill C-3 these remaining assets will be transferred over a three year period to the CPPIB. That of course is very important. As I have said, we have an outstanding board made up of investment professionals, people who know how to invest money, and they are doing it in a prudent fashion. That again is important for all members to note.
Here we are developing a more coherent policy in terms of investment, which I think is important for those who will benefit from this plan. A point that must be stressed is that it puts it on the same footing as other public pension plans, providing CPPIB investment managers with the flexibility to determine the appropriate mix of investment strategies for the Canada pension plan, which again I think is important. It is also important to remember that the transfer of the remaining assets over the three year period will help to ensure that the transfer is absorbed smoothly by the capital markets and the CPPIB in terms of the provincial borrowing programs as well.Again, this is extremely important.
The amendment being proposed here has to do with section 37 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. The issue is one of the foreign property rule. I will not support the amendment, because in terms of government policy the 30% limit strikes a balance between two important objectives that I think the House should be aware of: ensuring that there is a significant portion of tax assisted retirement savings invested in Canada and providing diversification opportunities for pension plans and RRSP owners. The government is conscious of the need to maintain an appropriate balance. The minister certainly is aware of achieving those objectives and making sure that the impact is appropriate. The foreign property limit was increased from 20% in 1999 to its current 30%.
In fact, I will provide some background history for those members who may not be aware of this. During the initial period of the reforms in 1997, as I have said, expanding the foreign property rule was in fact part of those very discussions. It was a key recommendation from the Senate banking committee from its review of the legislation.
We know that initially in the 1971 budget it was at 10%. Of course what has happened over the years is that we have increased it to 20% and now to 30%. I think that is prudent. I think that makes a lot of sense. Again this is in keeping with government policy. I think it provides the objectives we need in terms of the plan.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: A good balance.
Bryon Wilfert: My colleague says it is a good balance. It is very important to maintain balance, both domestically and abroad. Again, we want to make sure of this. Obviously the objective is important in terms of making sure that it is consistent, and consistent with other plans. That is why I will not support the amendment of my colleague across the way: It would not be consistent. I have already said that in 1999 we increased it from 20% to 30%, so we are continually reviewing the foreign property rule. It is not as though we have not responded to this issue. In fact, we are continuing to do so I think in a very responsible way.
We need sustainability. Sustainability is very important, as I have said before. If we had not increased the dollars that were going into the plan from contributors, the benefits would have gone up while the amount of money going into it was going down. It would have dried up. What has happened is that the rates will go up faster than they otherwise would have, but not as high as they could have because of the prudent, responsible and appropriate steps taken by the government.
On this side of the House we recognize the issue of the foreign property rule. We recognize that we have increased the percentage, but I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to take the steps outlined across the way. I would urge hon. members not to support this amendment.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise on this debate. One of the biggest concerns the New Democrats have had, and my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle has been mentioning it for quite some time, is the fact that the entire Canada Pension Plan Investment Board exists without an ethical screen.
Whether the Alliance has an amendment or whether the Liberals want to fool around and sort of debate that issue a bit longer, the reality is that in many instances we will be using pension dollars to the detriment of Canadian society. One of the items I brought up before, and that I will bring up again and again, is a question I asked at the committee hearing we had less than a couple of weeks ago. I asked Mr. MacNaughton, the head of the pension board, if right now we are using Canada pension investment dollars from Canadians across the country to invest in companies such as tobacco companies. Without hesitation, he said yes. At the same time the federal government invests millions of dollars to try to get Canadians to stop smoking.
I know that the government is saying it should be an arm's length board, which eventually means out of reach, but that is what it is, and the government is saying the board should be able to invest the funds as it sees fit being that it is a board of eminent people who have great experience in investing large amounts of money throughout the country and internationally. No one is going to argue their individual or probably collective successes, but the Government of Canada and Canadian parliamentarians do have an obligation in regard to the health and safety of Canadians. The reality is that there should have been an ethical screen at the pension board to ensure that our dollars do not go to the detriment of the health of Canadians. For the life of me, I cannot see why anybody would argue the facts on why we are investing pension dollars in tobacco companies.
There is another concern we have. Pension dollars are from employees and employers. What happens? With the 30% investment rule, the pension board can be investing in companies in the United States, for example, that could conceivably manufacture, sell and create landmines. We do not know, because there is no ethical screen. The fact is that this country signed the landmine treaty to abolish and get rid of landmines throughout the world. We were very strong on that. The former foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said that himself, but yet our pension dollars may very well be invested in companies in the United States that manufacture landmines, or anything else for that matter. It could be nuclear weaponry. We simply do not know.
If these companies are publicly traded companies or a privately traded companies, if that is the correct terminology, on the various stock exchanges around the world, the pension board can invest in those funds. That is what makes us nervous. We do not believe that the pension dollars of Canadians should be going into those types of companies. That is why we demanded and insisted upon an ethical screen. Unfortunately we cannot support this type of legislation until that type of screen is put in place.
There is another thing that just boggles the mind here. With the 30% foreign investment rule, the reality is that the pension board can be investing in companies that are in direct competition with Canadian companies. One wonders what we are doing. Pension dollars should be going to benefit Canadian companies and the Canadian public at large. We should not be investing in companies that compete directly with our own. That inadvertently is what is happening. We think that should change.
We think that Canadians by and large want a pension plan that will be there when they need it. We think there are alternative methods, such as labour venture funds and environmental funds et cetera, that would actually not only bring a rate of return that is satisfactory to Canadians but also would help build this country by helping help small business, labourers, and the disenfranchised. Our country would become better and stronger by investing funds internally and building up the assets of the country. We think that is the way to do it.
I will repeat it one last time before I sit down. We should not in any way, shape or form be using pension dollars to invest in tobacco companies or companies of that nature that do harm to the Canadian people.
At the same, if we are going to invest millions of taxpayer dollars to get people to stop smoking, then we are being very two-faced. Again, it is hypocrisy at its greatest.
We should ensure that we do not invest that money in companies that, for example, make landmines. Also, we should not invest in companies that compete directly with our Canadian companies. Again that is being two-faced.
If the government brings in those changes, the New Democratic Party will again look at the pension investment board.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the party, federally and provincially, we would like to wish you and all the workers, staff and members of Parliament on the merriest of Christmases and a happy new year.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will be extremely brief. We support the bill.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Of course you do.
Loyola Hearn: My colleague says, “Of course you do”. Everyone should support this. The changes recommended will strengthen the protection aspect of the Canada pension plan.
My colleague talked a lot about investing locally. Nobody has a problem with investing locally within Canada. However the board has the responsibility of creating and protecting a fund for every Canadian as he or she reaches retirement age. It has to ensure that there will be something there at the end of the day. If we invest for investment's sake and not worry about the return on the investment, then I am afraid our future will be very insecure.
If we look at the history of the Canada pension board, which goes right back to the work done by the Diefenbaker government and eventually it came into effect, there were concerns about the amount of funds within the fund to deal with more and more people who were coming on stream.
As we advance through the years, we have more people involved in the labour force and more people are paying into the fund. However we are reaching the stage where a bulk of retirees each year are starting to draw from the fund. We have to have a good board investing wisely with proper transparency and accountability. If we do what the NDP suggests, invest locally for the sake of investing and not worry about the return, we might help local industry somewhat and local business but we could ruin the pension plan. We have to be careful. We can keep that in mind and invest where there are good investments and good returns on those investments.
If we do not get good returns for our investments, down the road there may be nothing in the fund. Whereas right now under the present plan with its present direction and if things go well, in 50 years' time the plan will be the greatest investment in Canada itself.
Consequently, the direction set is good and the work is good. The bill will tighten up the protective measures even more. With that, we support the bill and we think it is a step in the right direction.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I am very interested in the Canada pension plan in general. I followed very closely the changes that have been made to make it truly sustainable.
There is no doubt that there have been quite dramatic changes in the demographics of the country. I think we all realize not only is the country still growing but the percentage of older people is growing. All the projections suggest that the proportion of senior citizens as a proportion of the entire population will get larger and larger. Therefore a variety of steps were necessary to strengthen the Canada pension plan. I certainly support them.
Like some other colleagues here, from to time I receive complaints from people who ask why the rates are going up and that kind of thing. To make the fund sustainable, one thing we had to do was look at the figures for the next 30 to 40 years, look at what the demands on the pension plan would be and then work out rates that truly reflected those figures, with the new vision we have of the way Canada will age.
We did that in a very fair and balanced way. It was not a huge increase over night. It was gradually phased in. The premium levels are higher but not as high as they would have been had we left the matter, as is often the case in the House, I regret to say. We tend to put things off because of political pressure.
The rates were changed. That has been one of the important ways we have tried to make this truly sustainable so that for generations to come people will know the Canada pension will be there them. This is not just the pension for when we reach retirement age, it also throughout one's life gives the safety net of the CPP disability pension which is also supported from the same fund.
The other measure, the one we are discussing today, is the so-called foreign property rule. We might ask how can we make a pension plan sustainable. One way is to ensure that people put in the right amount of money so that there is a good sum of money for the future.
The other question is how are we best going to use the moneys that we actually have in the plan. That is always a matter of serious debate. Some investments return a great deal but are very risky, some return very little but are very safe and so on. In this case we have a board of excellent, very highly qualified Canadians looking after the investment side of Canada pension.
Also, as a part of the move to make it sustainable, we have gradually brought up the percentage that can be invested abroad. It is now 30%. Not very long ago it was only 10%. I know some people become nervous about that. It is human nature that we have much greater faith in our own institutions and our own businesses than those overseas. If we look at the way we work, invest and trade already, a great deal of our wealth comes from overseas. We are a small country in terms of population, we are relatively wealthy, highly educated and we have remarkable natural resources. I suspect that in one sense we could live behind our fence and subsist better than any other nation in the world. However to keep our standard of living, we to trade abroad.
As a simple example, our farmers are the best in the world. We have an incredible range of climate so we can grow a variety of crops. We have an incredible range of soil so we can grow a variety of crops. We have highly educated, highly sophisticated farmers in every commodity group. We grow not only grapes and corn in Ontario but we also grow kiwi fruit. Farming is very diverse. However, even with all the benefits that our farmers have for this wonderful local environment in which they work, 50% of the farm gate income of our farmers comes from overseas.
I mention that in connection with the foreign property rule which we are discussing. The question really is, why should we invest 30% overseas? The answer is so our CPP fund can tap into the wealth of the rest of the world. We produce 2% of the gross product of the entire world, so we are tapping into the other 98%. That is a very important point.
Having followed this CPP matter with great care, I view it as appropriate at this time, given the nature of the world economy, that 30% of the investments of the CPP could and should be overseas so we can have access to the wealth which is out there. I want to stress though that this is not some novelty or something that we just dreamt up here in Ottawa. This also has been the pattern with provincial and other major pension plans in Canada. Some of those have been mentioned in the debate this morning.
At this level of the foreign property rule, CPP is treated like all the pension plans in Canada. If that were not the case, in a very real sense we would be penalizing all Canadians. All Canadians invest in this pension plan and we would put them at a disadvantage compared to people who invest in other pension plans. They have an opportunity, with their weekly, monthly payments into CPP, to get the benefits of up to 30% foreign investment. That is appropriate and it is fair. It brings the CPP in line with other pension plans. It also creates a balance in another sense. It ensures that a significant portion of tax assisted retirement savings are invested in Canada and provides diversification opportunities for the pension fund and for RRSP beneficiaries.
This is a very large fund. I for one would certainly never support the idea that all moneys in the pension plan be invested overseas in other operations. This is not the intention. I support the fact that 70% of these funds are and should be invested in Canada. The idea with the other 30% allows Canadians, as we do in other forms of trade, to benefit from wealth which can be generated overseas. There is a balance in that sense also.
This was mentioned earlier and I should repeat it for the record. In the initial set of reforms in 1977, expanding the foreign property rule was one of the key recommendations of the Senate banking committee. It was proposed in its review of the amendments to the CPP legislation. The foreign property rule was initially introduced in the 1971 budget, setting a limit of 10% on the value of foreign investment held in tax assisted saving plans such as RRSPs and registered pension plans. As my colleague earlier described, since then the 10% has been gradually relaxed and it is now at 30%. This is a level at which I am comfortable. As the member for Peterborough, I become less comfortable if we move beyond this limit.
I am a strong supporter of the Canada pension plan. I believe it is one of the safety nets which makes Canada a very special place. It is small but it is something which is there for everybody when they retire and it there for every worker should he or she become disabled. It is important for the Canada pension plan to be totally sustainable and the current foreign property rule that allows 30% investment overseas will help make it sustainable.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-3 and the amendment put forward by my colleague from Lanark—Carleton, who feels that the bill would be improved by the amendment.
I would like to talk about the Canada pension plan in general and the fact that this has been set up for many years to provide pensions to our citizens in the years that they want to call their golden years or sunset years when they can sit at home and enjoy the fruits of their labours.
We have had some considerable concern over the last number of years about the capacity of the plan to do exactly what it was intended to do. Members may recall that the Minister of Finance brought out some new premium structure that would see the Canada pension plan premium rate jump to 9.9% of earnings.
It seems rather strange that he would arrive at the figure of 9.9%. We in the Alliance felt that he was pulling the wool over our eyes, that it would require a substantially higher amount of contributions to sustain the fund as we get into the baby boomer years. He has maintained that 9.9% was that maximum, just a hint and a fraction short of the double digits. I was surprised that he did not go to 9.99%.
I think that the Liberals are pulling the wool over our eyes because we are getting into the baby boomers. We only have to look around this see place and see the amount of grey hair. We are supposed to be representative of--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
John Williams: Some members are taking offence, I think.
We only have to take a look around and see the age, if not the colour of the hair in this place--Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that you are taking no offence--to see that since we are representative of our society, society is aging. We are also living longer while we are aging and the baby boomers hope to be around until the age of 80 or perhaps even 85 or 90. So if we retire at the age of 65 the Canada pension plan would have to pay for us for about 20 years. The Minister of Finance says not to worry, that 9.9% would do it. We are quite apprehensive.
Let us take a look at how the Liberal Party got into this game of private investment. We had the greatest boom in the stock market starting in 1980 and it went all the way to 1999, almost a 20 year run, at which time the growth was exponential. There were millionaires and billionaires practically on every street corner rather than beggars. People were saying, “I made another extra million dollars today”. Toward the end of that boom the government decided to take the money out of the staid Government of Canada bonds where it had been getting 5%, 6% and 7% returns and put it into the stock market and bingo, what do we find? Losses.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Bad timing.
John Williams: Not only was it bad timing, but it seems to be the way that the government works. Every time we turn around it is losses, losses in the Canada pension plan, the gun registry, HRDC, and the advertising approach.
I wonder what the current Minister of Finance would suggest today if he goes back and does his numbers, and takes a look at the actuarial projections of the Canada pension plan, as it is currently losing money, as to whether that 9.9% is still appropriate. If it is not, the government has a responsibility to be open and transparent. That is not its strong suit
A democratic government should be open and transparent and should tell Canadians exactly how things are supposed to be. We know the government was not open and transparent on the gun registry. It did everything it could to hide from Parliament and from the Canadian public. The Auditor General told us that this thing had gone from a $2 million program to a billion dollar boondoggle.
It is unfortunate that taxpayers are hoping and expecting the government to do the right thing, provide efficiency, productivity, and programs that they want, however every time they turn around there is another big loss, a billion dollar boondoggle.
Every rule in the book was broken during the advertising program with Groupaction and $40 million of our money went right down the drain because the government said that the rules did not matter. It was all about saving the country. That was the Prime Minister's way of doing things, but perhaps we could have saved the country in a better way if the Liberals had got up and fought for this country back at the time of the referendum, rather than sitting back and expecting that they would win by default.
These are the types of things that we have. Regarding the billion dollar at HRDC, the government said, “Don't tell anybody what is going on, please, because the news is bad”.
I am getting some heckling from the other side, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this is the last day before we go home for Christmas and I thought everybody would be in such good spirits, so that they would be applauding me from the other side rather than heckling me. This is supposed to be the time of good will, good cheer and good wishes.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: And good bookkeeping.
John Williams: And good bookkeeping too.
On the Canada pension plan, at this time of Christmas and when I think about gifts and being able to provide for the needy, that is what it is supposed to do all year every year from now and into the future, not just the next two weeks over the Christmas break.
The Canada pension plan has to be secure. That is why we want the government to report to Parliament so it can explain to us and be prepared to stand up and justify its figures so that we can see that the job is being done properly and done right.
I understand the Minister of Finance will be bringing forward a budget in February. He is the new Minister of Finance who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, and in the running for the Prime Minister's job. How he will have time to figure out a budget, I do not know, but he said that he will bring one forward. I hope that he explains in the budget how he can justify telling Canadians that 9.9% of their salary for Canada pension plan contributions will be sufficient because I have my serious doubts.
Therefore, in the interest of openness and transparency I would think that the Minister of Finance would be more than willing to go to the finance committee and explain his numbers to let the public know how these projections, when Canada pension plan is losing money, would be able to do the job.
The Canada pension plan allows for some money to be invested overseas which perhaps is not a bad thing. However now we will be turning over even the cash to the Canada pension plan board and I can only hope that is a good thing too. When it loses money on the investment side we hope it can figure out how not to lose the money in the cash account.
I understand that the government's chief actuary estimated that the proposed changes would increase the returns on CPP assets by about $75 billion over 50 years. That is one wonderful projection by presumably a wonderful actuary. If he can figure out how we would increase the return by $75 billion over 50 years when the CPP board could not figure out how to make even a dime over one year because it lost money.
I would hope that we can put our trust in the CPP board as we put our trust in Santa Claus and I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and everybody else a Merry Christmas.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued with this Canada pension plan. I was a young man just starting my career in 1966 when the Canada pension plan was brought in. I remember at that time that some advice had been given by different people to the government bureaucrats, and some from the government bureaucrats, saying that it must be set up to be financially sound and stable. There were questions even then regarding whether the Liberal government of the day should be getting into this thing at all because before that there was no Canada pension plan.
The Canada pension plan is not a wonderful scheme for people who do not happen to work during their lifetime. For example, people like my own wife, who, because of our choice to have a full time mom in the home, has never been the recipient of a weekly or a monthly salary. She has not been able to contribute to the Canada pension plan and gets no pension. It is only for those who presumably already have the means whereby they can put away some extra money to supplement the income they would get from the old age pension. This was not well done because it was badly set up.
I remember an actuary from the government suggesting that the rates of contribution were not high enough to make it sustainable. He was summarily fired, not unlike the actuary a year or two ago who suggested that changes should be made and who disagreed with the former minister of finance. He too was fired because of that advice.
We need to take sound financial advice from actuaries and others so that the Canada pension plan is sustainable and is financially sound because Canadians are expecting it.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, January 27, 2003, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all the parties and there is an agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), that the recorded division requested on report stage of Bill C-3 be redeferred until Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 3 p.m.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Statements By Members
French-Canadian CommunityMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I want to congratulate the French-Canadian community for two initiatives to provide French language health services.
First, I want to congratulate the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for successfully culminating its work on French language health services with the foundation, in early December, of the Société Santé en français. Under the leadership of Hubert Gauthier, president and CEO of the St-Boniface General Hospital, this organization will develop a national network for cooperation to help francophones in Canada gain access to French language health services.
Second, I want to congratulate the French Language Health Services Network of Eastern Ontario, which is celebrating its fifth anniversary. I want to salute the co-chairs of the interim committee, Pierre de Blois and Rolande Faucher, and the network's chairs, Jean-Claude LeBlanc, Jacques Schryburt and Edgar Gallant, as well as its executive directors, Jocelyne Lalonde and Normand Dupasquier.
I am very proud to see that French Canadians are creating their own networks and organizations, a sign of their vitality and their determination to obtain the services they deserve.
ChristmasMr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 700 years before the birth, the prophet Isaiah declared the virgin birth and said, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”.
Five hundred years before the birth, the prophet Zechariah told of his death, how much his betrayer would be paid and that he would come riding on a donkey. He was born in Bethlehem, which means in Hebrew the house of bread. He said, “I am the bread of life...I am the way, the truth and the life...I am the resurrection and the Life and his life showed he was the Son of God”.
That is what Christians believe. That is what they celebrate at this time of year. He is the reason for the season.
May it truly be a very merry Christmas for you, Mr. Speaker, for all members of the House, for all Canadians, and a wonderful new year for Canada and for the world.
Export and Import of Rough DiamondsMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over 14 months ago I introduced a private member's bill which would have prohibited the import of conflict diamonds into Canada and created a diamond certification scheme. At that time I noted, “Canada has an obligation to pass meaningful, effective legislation which would put our domestic policy in line with our stated foreign policy objectives”.
I am very pleased that yesterday the Governor General gave royal assent to the federal government's Bill C-14 which will in fact bring Canada directly in line with the Kimberley process, an international system for the certification of rough diamonds. Once again the Government of Canada has proven its commitment to work with our international partners to address issues of international peace and security and in this case, the illegal trade in conflict diamonds.
I would like to offer my congratulations to everyone involved in this process, all of the officials at foreign affairs and natural resources, as well as the NGO Partnership Africa Canada that did a tremendous job. Its hard work—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.
The EconomyPeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, the National Bank of Canada projects a 3.6% growth for Canada next year, following this year's 3.3% growth. This is an extraordinary forecast. We will once again lead the G-7. We will once again have a balanced federal budget. We will once again lead the United States.
2002 was unprecedented. We not only led the U.S., but while U.S. economists were revising their forecasts down, our forecasters had to revise their forecasts up. All Canadians benefit from this. For example, in 1990 a typical family in a typical house paid 40% of its income on the mortgage. In 2002 that family paid only 25%. 2003 is going to be another great year.
Happy new year to you, Mr. Speaker. Happy new year to all MPs and happy new year to all Canadians.
The EnvironmentMr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is going to be honoured today by the Sierra Club for his commitment to the Kyoto protocol. He will be awarded the John Fraser Award for Environmental Achievement.
This award is in recognition of the scope of the environmental initiatives put in place by the Liberal government.
Canada has played a lead role in the Kyoto protocol negotiations. Future generations will reap the rewards of the steps taken throughout the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Prime Minister has shown his determination to enhance the health and well-being of Canadians, and to ensure a future for our children and grandchildren. Preservation of the environment is an important legacy. This honour is richly deserved.
Congratulations and thank you, Prime Minister. Holiday greetings to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all our colleagues in the House.
Canadian ForcesMr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured on behalf of the Canadian Alliance, Canada's loyal opposition, to thank the men and women of the Canadian forces for helping to keep Canadians safe and secure. I especially want to remember all of our troops who will spend Christmas far from loved ones so that we in Canada may enjoy our holidays with our loved ones in safety and peace.
More than at any other time in this generation, Canadians have come to appreciate freedom and democracy, and that we cannot take them for granted. The commitment of Canada's military personnel to upholding these values and to keeping our country safe and secure is deeply appreciated. Canada deserves the very best, and in our military personnel it has the very best.
I am sure all members of the House will join with the Canadian Alliance as we thank all of the men and women in the Canadian forces for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. We pray that those overseas during the holidays will be kept safe from all harm. May God bless them all.
Perth--Middlesex RidingMarlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to congratulate Rick Horst, who last night was chosen as the Liberal candidate in the great riding of Perth--Middlesex. Nearly 2,000 people jammed the Stratford Coliseum to choose among six superb candidates.
Dr. Horst will make an excellent candidate. He has been very involved in his community, in sports, in health care, in children's services, with the military as padre of the Royal Canadian Legion, as chaplain of the militia 48th Cameron Highlanders of Canada.
We wish him luck in his battle. We know that we will soon be welcoming him into the House of Commons as the new member of Parliament for Perth--Wellington.
Fight Against Substance AbuseMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this past November 27, I had an opportunity to take part as a panellist in a very special evening. All parents of secondary school students in Saint-Hyacinthe were invited to visit 15 displays set up by organizations involved in the fight against substance abuse. They were also able to hear from a group of specialists and ask questions on topics that were of concern to them.
We in Saint-Hyacinthe have made a choice to face the problems of drug use head on. The Info-Crime committee, co-chaired by myself and the head of the school board, Raymonde Rivard, wanted to start our action by addressing young people, who are the first victims of increased drug use, as well as a captive market for the criminal element.
As a result, an exceptional collaborative effort was initiated by the various stakeholders: the school, health workers, community groups and community police workers such as Claude Denis, who is on the Info-Crime committee. All of these work together to provide parents with operating tools for understanding and prevention.
My warmest congratulations to the organizers of this great project, and in particular to Richard Gingras, drug abuse prevention coordinator for the Saint-Hyacinthe school board, and Gilles Charest, principal of the Hyacinthe-Delorme polyvalente, which hosted the event.
Thank you very much, and the warmest of holiday wishes to everyone in the House as well as everyone in my wonderful riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Canadian BanknotesMr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a growing number of private businesses are refusing to accept $50 and $100 bills even though they are legal tender for fear of their being counterfeit. This is a policy that more and more food chains are adopting. This is affecting our economy.
With the holiday season upon us and the large amount of people who prefer to pay with cash, I would like to encourage the government to take action to settle this issue.
Liberal GovernmentKen Epp: Mr. Speaker, how fitting that this sitting of Parliament should end on Friday the 13th. With the boondoggles and fiascos of this morally bankrupt government, the whole fall session has been bad luck for Canadians.
We have had endless sandbox squabbling between the Prime Minister and the ex-finance minister. Another minister has been forced to resign over patronage in his province. We have seen a Prime Minister beleaguered with patronage and sleaze turn his sights on backbench and opposition MPs. We have seen a Prime Minister threaten the members of his caucus as they wrested away a small part of his control over committees.
The Liberals take pleasure in putting innocent farmers into jail but they will not stop pedophiles and child pornographers. They throw away $1 billion on a gun registry that does not work.
Bad luck this whole session. It is time for Canadians to send these “fiberals” packing.
Big Brothers and Big SistersMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 6, along with the representative from the Quebec chapter of the association of federal Liberal assistants, I had the honour of delivering a cheque for $1,000 to the Grands Frères et Grandes Soeurs de l'Outaouais.
Big Brothers and Big Sisters runs a program that pairs an adult with a child to foster the personal and psychosocial growth of children between the ages of 6 and 14. The child and volunteer participate in sports and recreational or cultural activities together in order to get to know one another and to develop a meaningful friendship.
This donation is one of four $1,000 donations given to non-profit organizations in Quebec. I would like to thank the Quebec chapter of the association of federal Liberal assistants for this generous initiative.
I wish all the assistants of ministers, members, and senators, and the residents of the great riding of Hull—Aylmer, a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.
Voices in the Wilderness Peace TeamMr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to four courageous Vancouver women, Irene MacInnes, Linda Morgan, Irene Vandas and Jennifer Ziemann, who are presently in Iraq to support the people of Iraq.
They are there as part of the Voices In The Wilderness Peace Team whose members go in relays so that there will be members in Iraq if and when the U.S. launches a war. In effect, they are there to act as human shields.
The purposes of the peace team are to live among the Iraqi people, to be there with them during any aggression, to use their presence to protect life supporting facilities and to speak truthfully about Iraq from the perspective of peace activists and to look at the effect of sanctions and war on the people of Iraq.
They are joined by two Canadian doctors, Dr. Amir Khadir and Dr. David Swann.
War would have devastating consequences on the people of Iraq who have suffered too much already.
New Democrats call once again for the lifting of the genocidal economic sanctions on the people of Iraq. We call as well for an end to any suggestion of war on the people of Iraq, with or without the sanction of the United Nations.
Brigitte Saint-VincentMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Brigitte Saint-Vincent was chosen woman farmer of the year for 2002 by the Fédération des agricultrices du Québec at the 15th soirée Saturne in Saint-Hyacinthe. Brigitte, at 34 years, is the youngest recipient of the award and the first woman from the Beauce region to win.
At a very early age, she took part in animal shows and her work on her father's farm led her to become one of the first women horse and cattle judges in Quebec. She holds a Bachelor of Animal Science from Macdonald College, and judges across America and Europe. She was also the first woman to judge the finals for purebred beef cattle in Brazil.
A great horse lover, she is also a certified instructor with the Fédération équestre du Québec and owns a horseback riding school in Saint-Cuthbert.
On behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois I would like to congratulate Brigitte Saint-Vincent for this title as an ambassador for agriculture. I am proud that young women like Brigitte are so motivated and active within the agricultural sector.
CadetsMr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence of the Donnacona Air Cadet Squadron, from my riding, and the Lanark Sea Cadet Squadron.
These 100 young people are here as part of an interprovincial exchange, to meet, take part in activities, share their experiences and develop lasting friendships. Discipline, team spirit, leadership, and mutual aid are the values that the Canadian cadet movement promotes for our youth.
I would like to welcome the cadets to the national capital and congratulate them on their drive and involvement.
Merry Christmas to all.
Liberal GovernmentMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not good managers. Time and time again the Auditor General has slain the Liberal mismanagement dragon, only to see it reborn again in a different department.
There is a long list of Liberal failures, most of them directly linked to the Prime Minister and his replacement hopeful, the member for LaSalle—Émard. Let us look at the list.
There has been $1 billion wasted in a long run registry that will punish law-abiding Canadians, while at the same time Canada's worst and most heinous sex offenders will not be on the Liberals' sex offenders registry. Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted. Some $7.2 billion have been wasted in foundations and there are new scandals every day. We do not have funding for the military. Ten years after the fact, $4 billion has been wasted in penalties and lost revenues. We have Sea Kings the Minister of National Defence will not fly in.
Every stone we turn over, out crawls a Liberal patronage scheme or another scandal. Liberals are not good managers.
Community Policing AwardMr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Halton Regional Police Service has won the 2002 Community Policing Award for its total integrated policing service delivery, a model of community policing based on extensive research and input from all members of the service and the community.
Developed in response to problems with a nightclub that attracted clientele from around the Golden Horseshoe, the Halton police worked with local residents and business owners to reduce or eliminate the dynamics that were providing the opportunity for crime to flourish. Working together they identified problems and came up with an immediate coordinated strategy to improve safety for everyone and quality of life in the neighbourhood.
Congratulations to Halton police on being recognized by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and ITT Industries Night Vision for this outstanding initiative.
Queen's Jubilee MedalMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to recognize the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal recipients for Cypress Hills--Grasslands.
They are: Mr. Myrle Clark; Captain Trevor Davies; Mr. Lenard Ellis; Mrs. Mary Findlay; Mr. Joseph Gervais; Mrs. Helen Gilchrist; Ms. Mabel Hobbs; Mrs. Peggy Koethler; Ms. Sandy Larson; Mr. Clem Millar; Mr. Robert Norton; Mrs. Dorothy Saunderson; Mr. Bryan Tallon; Mrs. Pat Thistlethwaite; Mrs. Judy Voth; Mr. Dan West; Mr. Wilfred Wright; and the Swift Current Old Time Fiddlers.
These individuals were nominated in recognition of their outstanding achievements or distinguished service to their neighbours, their community and their country.
I would like to wish my colleagues a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Human RightsMr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of one of the great defenders of democracy, Egyptian Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim, and in association with the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, based in my constituency, and at whose request I have been serving as counsel to Professor Ibrahim.
Simply put, Dr. Ibrahim was charged, convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison for doing nothing other than being a democracy advocate. Indeed, the prosecution and conviction itself violated Dr. Ibrahim's fundamental rights to a fair trial, including: the presumption of innocence; protection against arbitrary arrest and detention; access to legal counsel; the right to a full answer and reply; the right to a fair hearing before an independent judiciary; and the right to equal protection of the laws, and the like.
To its credit, the Egyptian Cour de Cassation has ordered a new trial on January 7 in what is one of the world's most important human rights cases today.
This case is a dramatic case study of the proverbial canary in the mine shaft of the Mideast's budding democracy movements. It deserves the support of Canada and all those who work for the rule of law, the protection of human rights and the pursuit of democracy.

Oral Question Period
Firearms RegistryMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Parliament refused to give the government another $72 million for the gun registry, a gun registry that will end up costing Canadian taxpayers a billion dollars. Yet, that is no big deal for the justice minister. He says that he will to find another way to fund it through other departmental sources.
If we took $72 million out of the gun registry, why is the government funding it through a backdoor scheme?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we discovered that at the last Canadian Alliance convention, when the Leader of the Opposition was chosen, it removed the words, “We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer”.
Speaking of funding, why has he refused to disclose more than 13% of the contributors to his leadership campaign? Is this removal of that important statement part of the price that was extracted from his party by contributors to his leadership campaign?
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, in a language change in our policy, this is what the Canadian Alliance said:

We will especially emphasize a more stringent punishment of individuals who use a firearm or other weapon in the commission of a crime involving a threat of or actual violence.

Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister this one more time. Why would we take $72 million out of the firearms registry and fund it through a backdoor scheme?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, we know Alliance members do not care about $72 million or anything else. They are against gun control. They are against the fact that we have already had more than 7,000 firearms licences refused or revoked, 50 times higher than had been the case before. They do not care about the fact that the police access this online system 1,500 times a day. They are against gun control. It is as simple as that.
Grant Hill: Let us be really clear, Mr. Speaker. We are against the gun registry and that is all we are against.
Let us go further. When firearms owners, who are trying to reach the deadline, phone the 1-800 number, there is no answer. When they try to get applications, there are no applications.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this. If this gun registry is so good, then why are legitimate, law-abiding citizens having trouble doing what the government says is the law?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, if this gun registry is so bad, then why do the police agencies access it 1,500 a day? Why has the number of lost or missing firearms declined by 68%? Why has the number of stolen firearms decreased by 35% over the same period? Why are fewer firearms being used in crime?
They are against gun control. They are not just against the registry, and we do not even know who gave the money to their leader.
Export Development CanadaMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in 1999 Export Development Canada provided a $3.2 billion loan to Union Pacific Railway to purchase 1,000 locomotives from General Motors in London, Ontario. GM then contracted more than half of the work to Bombardier, which is doing the work in Mexico.
Could the minister explain to the House why Canadian tax dollars are being used to fund work done in Mexico?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer that, because the hon. member could not be more wrong in his assertions.
This loan was at commercial rates. It was not subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. Without the very loan the member cites, because of low order book at GM, those jobs would have been in jeopardy two years ago. He could not be more wrong in his false assertions.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, the only reason that this Canadian government agency should be lending that kind of money is to keep work and jobs in Canada.
Last week General Motors announced the lay-off of 871 workers in London because no new locomotive work was coming in. At the same time, workers in Mexico are doing more than half the work on this Pacific project.
How can the federal government lend billions of dollars to create jobs in foreign countries while hard-working Canadians are losing their jobs at the same time?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, let me try again and I will speak very slowly this time. First, General Motors, I repeat, did not announce lay-offs under required legislation. It announced the possibility of lay-offs, if it did not get more orders.
These jobs were in jeopardy in London, Ontario two years ago. Because of the actions of EDC and General Motors, those lay-offs were forestalled two years ago and we certainly hope they will be forestalled again.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the CBC has a journalists' ethics code and it invoked this code when it suspended journalist Norman Lester for his book “ Le livre noir du Canada anglais ” It seems that, at the CBC, ethics are decided on the basis of politics.
How is it that the CBC enforces its ethics code so strictly when it comes to Mr. Lester and is so tolerant when it comes to Claude Beauchamp?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): The answer is the same as it was yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the government has often used its moral weight with regard to certain matters, like the Canadian-Arab art exhibition at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, this fall.
Would it be asking too much for the Minister of Heritage to ensure that the CBC abides by its own ethics code in the Claude Beauchamp affair?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the connection between Ararat and the question. I would ask the hon. member what the Armenian tragedy has to do with this issue. Ararat has nothing to do with the CBC.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his defence, the anchor Claude Beauchamp maintains that all he has done is provide financial support to the Canadian Unity Council and has not participated in any of its political activities in ten years. However, it has come to our attention that, as a board member of the Canadian Unity Council, he was a speaker at an event sponsored by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada, which is a Canadian Unity Council organization.
Under these circumstances, how can anyone claim that Claude Beauchamp is not politically active in promoting Canadian unity?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that a person's openness about their political views should prevent them from being a member, journalist or whatever.
I know full well that some CBC journalists have sovereignist views. It happens. Personally, I do not get involved because it is none of my business. It is not important to know a journalist's political views.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, in that case, can the hon. minister explain how the CBC spokesperson could say that the journalist's behaviour is not political activism and does not breach the corporation's impartiality policies?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Landry likes to pick fights and that the Bloc members are looking for hot buttons.
There are none. This is about freedom of expression for all Canadians. Whether they support sovereignty or Canadian unity, everyone has the right to express their political views freely.
BanksMr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, bank mergers are not in the public interest. They lead to reduced competition, fewer choices and higher charges, not to mention layoffs and branch closings. Canadians ought not to have to pay for the greed of the bankers.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he favours bank mergers and how he feels about the idea of having foreign investors in our banking system?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is well aware that foreign investment is allowed in banks. There is a limit on the number of shares that can be owned by one individual, whether Canadian or foreign.
As far as mergers are concerned, I have asked for a report on this from the Senate and House finance committees. I am still waiting on the report from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.
Equalization PaymentsDick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, my question is still for the Minister of Finance. When the equalization formula was last renewed, it forecast that changing the mining tax base would result in a slight net gain for Saskatchewan. It is unclear whether this prediction was made by people overseeing the gun registry, but Saskatchewan now owes $300 million plus future reductions of $100 million a year.
Is the finance minister reviewing this matter and will it be on next week's agenda when he meets with his provincial counterparts?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of whether the minister from Saskatchewan wishes to raise it among other ministers or not.
I know that officials have been reviewing some questions around the data that is being used in order to generate the calculations. That review, I understand, continues.
As he knows, I am sure, the review of the equalization system itself is scheduled for 2004 and that process is now underway.
JusticeMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is a terrible manager of taxpayers' money.
I ask the Minister of Justice to assure Canadians that he will not be cutting the already depleted transfer payments to provinces in the areas of family law, legal aid, youth justice and aboriginal justice. Against Canadians' wishes and their best interests, he says he is going to find $72 million within his department's existing budget to prop up the disastrous failed long gun registry.
If the minister believes there are programs in his department that are already overfunded, could he tell us just which ones he plans to cut? Where is he going to find that $72 million?
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister did address the House yesterday, and in that address he clearly stated that there is still money left in the firearms program account. He will be using that money until such time as it is depleted and then he will cash manage until the program is funded through this House.
We believe sincerely in the principles of this program. We are not going to stop going forward with this program.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government believes sincerely in wasting taxpayers' money. They are not good managers of money. Rotten registries, fancy planes, subs, helicopters, HRDC: all of this proves they are not good money managers.
According to an RCMP study, CPIC is already overloaded and inoperable 10% of the time. The present CPIC infrastructure will be strained further with the addition of this category.
If the Liberals can dedicate millions of dollar to a retroactive, ineffective, stand-alone registry, why will the Solicitor General not dedicate the necessary funds to an effective, stand-alone, retroactive program to protect Canadians from sex offenders?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing a member from the Progressive Conservative Party talk about financial mismanagement. When we arrived here we found the state of management of the finances of the country to be generating a deficit of $42 billion annually. That is real money.
Now we are the only remaining country in the G-7 still running a surplus. I think he ought to take a financial management course and perhaps it will help him.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. Hon. members will want to check my comments of yesterday about Santa Claus arriving, particularly the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. His question time is finished for the moment. Maybe we will be back to him later. The hon. member for Kelowna has the floor.
Goods and Services TaxMr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the backroom deal between the revenue minister and the Treasury Board was made over seven years ago. Seven years of GST fraud losses have been hidden from Parliament.
The Speaker explained yesterday that it was “disingenuous” of the minister to suggest that the present system of reporting is “adequate”.
Will the revenue minister today now tell the House how much money in GST fraud losses has been hidden from Parliament?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): None, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have been forthcoming here in the House, before public accounts, and my officials, over a number of years, are there to answer all questions.
There is one interesting statistic that I would like to share with the House today, and that is that over the past six years CCRA, and Revenue Canada before it, collected $1.6 trillion. Of that, we had bad debt write-offs of $4.87 billion and that represents 0.3% in bad debts. One of the--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, reporting procedures practised by this government are questionable at best. The firearms registry was allowed to balloon to $1 billion under the government's watch.
I will give the revenue minister the opportunity to come clean, to practise the transparency that she has been bragging about. Millions and millions have been lost to GST fraud. Canadians want to know: Why?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, in fact I will say to the member opposite that fraud is a problem in all countries that have a value added tax. We share best practices with other countries, and I can say from the advice I have from my officials that Canada, like other countries, is very aware of the need to work cooperatively together with other countries to identify best practices so that where we find fraud we get prosecutions and convictions.
We have had great success: 13 out of 13 cases so far have resulted in convictions and over--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec.
Amateur SportMs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Jennifer Carroll affair revealed that serious injustices persist at Swimming Canada. It is becoming more and more apparent that Swimming Canada directors behave like monarchs accountable to no one.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not agree that the only way to get to the bottom of all of the injustices that have been revealed involving Swimming Canada is with an inquiry, and that it should be done by the Standing Committee on Heritage, and not departmental officials?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the coach and by Swimming Canada are not acceptable. For this reason, we are today requiring that Swimming Canada implement a specific strategy. We feel that the coach's behaviour was not acceptable, given that Swimming Canada receives funding from the Government of Canada.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, will the minister pledge to suspend Swimming Canada's funding if this happens again?
Sheila Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Canada Elections ActMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals scoffed at the rights of western Canadian farmers who were jailed because of the government's flawed legislation.
They scoff at the rights of law abiding firearms owners who are facing jail time for being unable to apply to register their guns.
The rights of prisoners, however, are of great importance to the Liberals.
An amendment to repeal prisoner voting has been introduced by the Alliance. Will the government commit to restoring the integrity of democracy by supporting the motion?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to another colleague of the hon. member that I want to work within the existing constitutional framework to have whatever legislation we can have within that, but if he is asking me if I want to amend the Constitution to revoke rights, the answer is no.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has just mentioned, the rights of ordinary, law abiding Canadians continue to be pushed aside or completely forgotten. It is obvious that the government is now more preoccupied in soliciting the votes of jailed murderers and rapists.
Is this not the reason the government refuses to ask to overturn this ridiculous court decision which grants voting rights to society's worst offenders?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, these are not the questions that this particular member usually asks.
The hon. member I am sure knows that the question he has just asked, suggesting that anyone in the House wants to create any policies to solicit the votes of murderers or some such, is ridiculous, and it is not the policy of even any colleague with whom I would profoundly disagree on the other side of the House, let alone anyone on this side.
Natural ResourcesMr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources maintains that the agreement for oil and gas exploration in the St. Lawrence has not yet been signed because Quebec does not accept the federal government's regulatory framework.
Does the minister realize that by delaying the signing of the agreement, he will set back the whole exploration project by at least one year?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working with the Quebec government just as we are working with the B.C. government or Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick, which have all expressed interest in taking advantage of oil and gas resources, but we will want to make sure that we move forward in a way that respects the sustainable development principles and the environment.
If the hon. member thinks it is not important to protect the environment or make sure we move forward in a socially responsible way, he should stand up and say that, because we think it is important to protect the environment and it is important to have a regulatory framework that does this. That is the way we are going to follow through.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am most certainly in favour of respecting the environment.
Would the minister be prepared to sign the agreement with Quebec including a proviso to the effect that he was doing so without prejudice to the rights of the federal government, as he did with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the federal government is always willing to move forward but it was the Quebec government that rejected the federal framework that already existed. If it were truly interested in moving forward a lot more quickly it would have accepted the existing federal regulatory framework. It rejected that. As a result, we could not move forward.
If the Quebec government would have focused more on economic development instead of being focused on its separatist agenda, a lot more jobs would have been created in Quebec.
Age of ConsentMr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has refused to listen to police and parents. He insists on allowing pedophiles the legal opportunity to prey on 14 year old and 15 year old children. The government has been unable to defend its position and its failure to raise the age of consent.
How can the minister justify keeping this legal loophole open to criminals and to pedophiles?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed this matter fully and we have met with the provinces and territories. We have debated the issue to the end that we believed was acceptable.
The acceptable end is that we are going to attack those who would prey upon our children and other vulnerable people. That is the legislation we brought forward. We are going to protect our children and vulnerable people. Children are a priority for this government.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, children are so much a priority for the government that it refuses to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. It fails to do that and to protect our children all the way down the line. It has kept the law open for criminals to entice children who are too young to make mature decisions.
Our children must be protected from all adults whose intention it is to inflict harm, not just those in a place of trust and authority. My question for the minister is, one more time, before Christmas, why will he not raise the age of sexual consent to 16 to protect our children?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, as we have said in the House, we have canvassed the provinces, we have canvassed the territories, we have consulted, we have reviewed, and we have brought before the House a piece of legislation that we believe is important.
We believe this piece of legislation does attack those who are preying upon our children.
When we go through the process within the House, of course we will listen to others. We will listen to what the opposition has in debate and we will listen at committee, but in fact we believe we have brought forward a solid piece of legislation that deals with the issue, and that is protection of our children.
Government of CanadaJulian Reed: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Yukon, I have the honour to ask his traditional year end question of the hon. government House leader.
Would the House leader please outline what the government has accomplished since September of this year?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this very serendipitous--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: He couldn't possibly do that in 35 seconds.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. Hon. members I am sure will want to hear the answer that the government House leader is giving to this question. It is Christmastime after all.
The hon. government House leader.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, not only have we had six days of debate on the throne speech, we have had: the successful Kyoto resolution, which was adopted by the other place yesterday, I might add; the implementation of the Prime Minister's ethics package, by a draft bill, of the independent ethics commissioner; a code of conduct for parliamentarians; the Romanow commission report; the passing of Bill C-8 on pest control; the passing of Bill C-13 on human reproduction, as we did yesterday; and the Species at Risk Act having royal assent.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt you will recognize a supplementary so I can add to this.
Svend Robinson: Well, that's turkey, Mr. Speaker.
Foreign AffairsSvend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Over two years ago the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, renounced its armed struggle for the rights of the Kurdish people and committed itself to peace and democratization.
Despite this decision, this week the government announced, in response to pressure from the U.S. and Turkey, that it is adding the PKK to its list of terrorist organizations.
Why is the government now criminalizing Canadians who want to support the peaceful struggle of the Kurds for justice and human rights, for respect for their language and culture, and for an end to the jailing of Kurdish MPs like Leyla Zana? Why this shameful decision?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said quite a number of times in the House, the listing of entities is done in a process whereby we believe that those entities have knowingly participated in or been associated with terrorist activities.
It is done on the basis of criminal and security intelligence information. I feel confident that the decisions that we have made and the listings that we have done have been strictly based on the facts, and for the right reason: to protect the security of Canada.
Social ProgramsPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, thousands of caregivers are struggling under the choices they must make between caring for loved ones under palliative care or end of life situation, and having to leave their place of work to provide that type of care.
I would like to ask the human resources minister, being the Christmas season, can she assure that these thousands of caregivers and their families will see some kind of federal program early in the new year to alleviate the financial stress of these caregivers?
On behalf of all of us in the NDP I want to wish the minister a happy Christmas and to ensure that this program--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that in the last Speech from the Throne the government committed to working with Canadians so that they do not have the moral dilemma of leaving work to care for a gravely ill child or family member.
I would note in last night's debate in this place that there seems to be broad support for such an initiative from all parties. I look forward to working with the House to deliver on the government's Speech from the Throne commitment.
FisheriesLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are certainly poor managers of our resources.
I would ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, while he is contemplating the closure of the Atlantic cod fishery to deal with declining stocks, is he also planning to deal with the growth of the seal herds, foreign overfishing, and gear types that have a detrimental effect on these stocks? If he is not, why is he bothering to close the fishery at all?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will know that no decisions have been taken on the question of the three cod stocks in question, two in the gulf and one off Newfoundland and Labrador.
He will also know that last year I made a decision to increase the amount of seals being harvested by establishing some flexible management practices. For only the second time in 25 years did we reach the quota. I also permitted an extension of the quota of some 30,000 animals and injected some $30 million to those affected communities, that was well received last year.
We have worked very hard with the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization to ensure that rules are better respected and we will continue to do so.
Goods and Services TaxMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, not only are the Liberals bad managers but they do not even make changes when they know they should make them. At least the Conservatives made changes that we knew had to be made in 1984 when we inherited a $32 billion deficit from the Liberals. We brought in the GST and free trade, that the Liberals fought against the whole time. The Liberals are the Enron of Canadian managers and Canadian government.
A recent access to information request revealed that Revenue Canada and the finance department discussed legislative changes to shut down the GST fraud, but nobody made any changes. Nobody brought forward the required legislation, even know they knew there was a problem.
Why did neither of the two departments that acknowledged the problem was there bring forth the legislation? Or do they just not bother to manage?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear in saying that the amount of GST fraud over the past six years was $25.6 million and it has resulted in 57 years of jail time, plus $13.3 million in fines.
We review how the program is working all the time and what actions can be taken to deter these kind of fraudulent activities, but we know that there are those who will always try to defraud, those who will try to evade, and that is why we have such an effective enforcement capacity at CCRA.
JusticeMr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal sex offender registry is a fraud. It will utterly fail to protect Canadian children. If the registry is not retroactive, it will be launched as a blank piece of paper, without a single name on it.
What good is a sex offender registry if it does not include any known sexual predators such as Karla Homolka?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, the sex offender registry was set up in consultation with the provinces and territories. It was unanimously agreed that they did not want retroactivity. However, there has been a movement to deal with the province of Ontario because in fact it does have an existing sex offender registry. In that case we will work with the province to incorporate it within the existing registry as proposed.
National DefenceMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence wants to throw out 60 years of experience in training first responders for emergency preparedness by closing the Arnprior college. As an economist he should know that the estimate of $1.9 million to temporarily relocate the college to a site rejected by every other federal government department is gun registry math.
The minister has said he will allow stakeholders to put forth a proposal, but why is the minister compromising the safety and security of Canadians by disrupting the training with a move?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by my hon. colleague from Hull—Aylmer yesterday, the member across seems to show little respect for the use of the French language in her householder, let alone for Canada's basic linguistic duality.
I would like to answer in French. The problem is that since September 11, there has been a significant increase in the number of people who need first-responder training in the event of terrorist attacks. The problem in Arnprior is that there is not enough space. It would cost $20 million—
TaxationMr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the members of the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Government of Canada to stop using the EI fund to pay down the federal debt and to make a transfer payment to Quebec for labour market development.
The National Assembly of Quebec would like to see an additional agreement reached that would put an end to the overlap in funding Quebec initiatives in labour market development.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development not think the time has come to sit down with her counterpart in Quebec to negotiate this agreement, which would help develop the labour market by putting an end to these unnecessary overlaps?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that every year we transfer over $600 million to the province of Quebec, precisely for labour market issues. The hon. member will also know that we have continuing discussions with the labour market ministers of all provinces to ensure that we have the best programs in place at both levels of government to support Canadians.
Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, the minister should also know that there are overlaps that we could do without.
Quebec is faced with major challenges in training its workforce. In the context of the Canada-Québec Labour Market Development Agreement, does the minister not think it is time to pay Quebec the maximum amount under the Employment Insurance Act?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians know that all levels of government need to work together to deal with the challenges that we face in the 21st century with skills, manpower training, and development, to ensure that we are the most innovative and successful country in the world.
We are working with the provinces and territories in an active way and I wish to remind him again that our labour market agreements that have been signed with the majority of provinces are working well in this regard.
Airline SecurityMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister's misinformed statement of yesterday that air taxes had no negative effect on the industry is simply wrong.
The CEO of Air Canada Jazz has said that the tax “has without a doubt contributed to the reduction of short haul passenger traffic in this country”. The stakeholders and travellers, and the House of Commons transport committee have all called for a reduction in this tax.
Will the government admit finally that the tax has caused problems and commit to its immediate suspension?
John Manley: No, Mr. Speaker, because that would be imprudent. Furthermore, I call the member's attention to the fact that if we look at the statistics the overall level of air passenger traffic in Canada for the first nine months of 2002 was down by about 8% relative to the same period in 2001. However for the first three months of 2002 it was down by 12%. Those were the months when there was no air security charge.
Therefore I find it very difficult for him to make the case that usage is down simply because of the air security charge.
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, prudent is hardly the word for the way the government spends its money. The government has wasted a billion dollars on the gun registry. It has spent millions on advertising contracts for its Liberal friends and over $100 million on Challenger jets it did not need.
With all this extra money floating around, can the government explain why security measures were not paid for out of existing revenues?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the question. The air security charge was based upon the additional costs that would be incurred to increase the level of security in the air transportation system. They were additional costs and therefore additional revenue was required to pay for them.
The hon. member clearly believes that people who do not use the air system should pay for the security of that system out of their general taxes. That is not the approach we have chosen to follow.
Amateur SportMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Journal de Montreal had a report on the questionable comments made by coach Dave Johnson about Jennifer Carroll and other members of the Swimming Canada team.
What does the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport intend to do to protect our athletes?
Hon. Paul DeVillers (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to see that the coach's comments about certain athletes or groups of athletes continue to be raised. For this reason, this very morning, I am sending a letter to Swimming Canada demanding that the necessary disciplinary action be taken.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of marketing boards operating on behalf of agricultural producers. None of these boards have a minister in the government except for the Canadian Wheat Board.
If the Wheat Board is farmer directed as this government always says that it is, then why do we need a Wheat Board minister? Why not scrap his position and save a few tax dollars?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the rationale is fully laid out in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. There are certain powers and provisions there that have to do with financial guarantees and the issuing of export procedures. There is obviously a public interest that needs to be served, and that is why there is a role for the minister.
I would point out to the hon. gentleman that not once since I became minister in 1993 have I ever issued a directive to the Canadian Wheat Board.
AgricultureDavid Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board minister wrote the legislation for himself. The Wheat Board is not the only government agricultural wreck. The government said that the new agricultural policy plan was a five year plan. We did not think that it meant it would take five years to implement.
Here we are a year and a half later and still nothing for farmers. Last year farmers had to do with second rate farm programs. Now we are less than four months from seeding time and instead of having a plan in place, the government is still fighting with the provinces.
Why has the government been so intransigent and so incompetent in its farm planning that farmers will once again be left with inadequate coverage?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the questioner for the opportunity to tell the House where the minister is at this moment. Right now in Ottawa the minister is meeting with several farm organizations and producer groups from across the country. We continue to meet with the provinces and territories.
I want to remind my colleague that last year we invested more money in Saskatchewan in a calendar year than we did before. We have given interest free loans for the spring and we will be there in the fall. We have just extended the interest free loans.
This government believes in our farmers, appreciates our farmers and invests in our farmers.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationChristiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has just agreed to intervene in the Swimming Canada affair, saying that she will suspend that body's funding if there is a recurrence of the sort of behaviour we saw in the Carroll affair.
What is stopping the minister from doing the same with the CBC in the case of the Claude Beauchamp affair?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I feel that journalistic accountability must be respected. I have no interest in interfering in a journalistic matter, and I will not.
The EnvironmentMr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of the Environment tell us what the government has done to safeguard the environment since the Speech from the Throne?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Species at Risk Act—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We have to be able to hear the answer from the minister. This was a Christmas gift. We will want to hear the answer from the Minister of the Environment.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am used to these cheers of encouragement from all sides of the House.
I am very pleased that the Species at Risk Act was approved by Parliament and was yesterday given Royal Assent. This has been a commitment in three Speeches from the Throne and two red books.
I must add that, at almost the same time yesterday, the Senate also gave its approval to the resolution on the Kyoto protocol and ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
Modernization of ParliamentScott Reid: Mr. Speaker, this week Liberal members on the procedure and House affairs committee took a giant step backward when it came to democratizing Parliament.
The Liberals, in particular their wannabe prime minister, talk a fine line when it comes to focus tested phrases like democratic deficit, but when it comes to actual specific reforms that would democratize this place, in particular allowing for all private members' business to be votable, they cut the legs out from under it.
Why will the Liberals not keep a promise they made in all party consultations a year ago and allow for all private members' business to be votable?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what government policy was at stake here. I am quite sure there was none at all, but if the hon. member is asking about the commitment to parliamentary modernization, his own previous House leader and I worked very closely to modernize 26 rules of the House. In the previous Parliament before that, we worked equally as hard to make the five party system work. We are prepared to have another modernization committee, provided his party does not stall it, which it has been doing for the last three days.
Innu Community of Davis InletYvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the federal government wants to repair the harm done to the Innu abandoned in 1967 on a rocky deserted island without any resources, thereby plunging the community, particularly its children, into a social crisis that continues to this day. The big move of the Innu of Davis Inlet is scheduled for this weekend.
Given the magnitude of the social and addiction problems affecting especially the children of this small community, can the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs tell us if he plans to provide specialized resources to help them recover from their nightmare that has lasted far too long?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important question because in the press in the last number of days there has been a lot of focus on the Innu and this new community being built. That is only part of the story. We need to develop a healing strategy for the community to work with Health Canada and to work with Human Resources Development Canada, to work with all government departments and with the community at large to make sure that we can help those community members, their parents and those children to turn their lives around. Having a new community is good but we have to go a step further and we--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst.
Employment InsuranceMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Human Resources Canada made a $4.3 million mistake in EI benefits for low-income residents of the Maritimes. Two hundred and fifty families have been notified that they have to reimburse overpayments that are the result of her government's mistakes. Once again the poor have to pay for them. Nice Christmas present, that.
Will the minister promise not to make the poor pay for the government's mistakes?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge that there was an error, a computer glitch that resulted in overpayments.
I also want to let all members of the House know that if they have any constituents who are in a position where repayment requires some time, officials at CCRA will be more than willing to accommodate their needs, particularly at this time of the year.
Kyoto ProtocolMr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have proven time and time again that they are poor managers. Their irresponsibility in implementing government programs is disgraceful. From helicopters to health care, from the gun registry to Groupaction, the Liberal government has mismanaged Canadian social programs and taxpayers' money.
Will the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Natural Resources rise in the House and guarantee to Canadians that the Kyoto accord will not cost our country more than the $12 billion Liberal price tag?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given a figure which the government has never put forward for the Kyoto accord. In the carefully detailed plan which we have put out, a copy of which I have here and am willing to give the hon. member, we have put out the expected impact on various sectors of the economy and also the breakdown province by province and territory by territory.
I assure him that if he examines this careful plan, he will get the assurances that he asked for in his question.
The Speaker: Before we begin routine proceedings, I just want to extend my very best wishes to all hon. members for a very pleasant holiday season.
On behalf of all hon. members I wish to also extend my best wishes for a Happy New Year to those who work for the House of Commons.

Routine Proceedings
Foreign AffairsHon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, five multilateral treaties and one bilateral treaty that were entered into force for Canada in 2001.
I notice that these treaties are actually in CD-ROM format, so we are moving into the information age. I know all members of the House will be happy to hear that.
Export of Military GoodsBill Graham: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report on export of military goods from Canada for 2001.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions.
PetitionsGeoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of colleagues. The first one is on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The petition is signed by residents of the riding of West Nova, in the Weymouth and Weaver Settlement areas. They 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.
Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of the member for Oak Ridges with signatures from people in his riding. The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.
David Anderson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present nine petitions signed by 723 constituents of Cypress Hills—Grasslands. The petitioners 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.
David Anderson: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke whose constituents from Eganville, Foresters Falls and Dacre request that Parliament recognize the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations, that the facility should stay in Arnprior and that the government should upgrade the facilities in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians.
Andy Burton: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition calls on Parliament to make the Coast Guard an independent body separate from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and whose priority is the saving of lives, with all the necessary resources for staffing and equipment. The petition is signed by several hundred citizens of British Columbia.
Andy Burton: Madam Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition with 1,353 signatures principally from constituents of Calgary Southeast and environs, calling upon the House to protect children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities including children are outlawed.
Larry Spencer: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is from people who call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.
Larry Spencer: Madam Speaker, my second petition requests the government assemble in Parliament to order an independent public inquiry, which is the only way to shed light on the close links between the Liberal Party and some advertising agencies which receive hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts from the Prime Minister's government in the past nine years.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today on behalf of my constituents. The first petition deals with private member's Bill C-250. The petitioners are concerned about adding sexual orientation to the Criminal Code.
Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with the issue of child pornography. The petitioners call upon Parliament to outlaw all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia and sado-masochistic activity involving children.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I too have a petition in which the petitioners express concern about private member's Bill C-250, an act that would add sexual orientation to certain clauses of the Criminal Code.
Yvon Godin: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to wish you and your family a merry Christmas.
I would like to table a petition signed by residents of northeastern New Brunswick calling on the government to set up a program for workers aged 50 and over to help them live comfortably until their retirement. This is a work program.
Questions on the Order PaperGeoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas and happy new year, and I request that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While wishing you and everyone here a my very best for the holiday season, I think that if you were to seek it you would find the clock as being 2:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Bakopanos): May I take this opportunity to wish all Canadians and all my colleagues, first, Kala Christougenna in my own language of Greek, Buono Anno Nuovo to all my Italian citizens and Merry Christmas. May we have peace in the new year and may all the children in the new year have something to eat. Happy New Year to everyone.
It being 12:12 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, January 27, 2003, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:12 p.m.)