2002-06-21

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion that Bill Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill because it provides an opportunity to discuss the content of the bill and some general features that are not included in it but which might be desirable for a number of reasons.
Canadians do place a tremendous value in the content of this measure and a tremendous value in its social significance as to how far and to what extent in detail the Canada pension plan meets our social needs and contributes to the development of what we could call social cohesion.
In the bill it is being proposed that the funds of the Canada pension plan be invested in the private sector stock market and other forms of investment which I imagine is the result of very thorough studies which might have given an indication that this is a safe way of investing the pension fund of Canadians.
I have some reservations about the initiative because investing in financial markets leaves the fund vulnerable to market fluctuations and to the vagaries of the private sector. Therefore I am not quite certain that this is a good idea.
At the present time it seems to me at least that Canada savings bonds have performed a very good role in providing safe investments and some very high returns even at a time when interest rates are very low.
For that reason I urge the committee during its study of the bill to make absolutely certain that this is a desirable measure and perhaps introduce some amendments to the bill that will still maintain a very large window of opportunity for the investments of the Canada pension plan funds in the form of bonds and other public sector investments which, as I mentioned earlier, are safe in the long term and provide some good, solid returns. To sum this up, it seems to me that it would be best not to engage in speculative activities with public funds.
The bill does not deal with very much else. Therefore I feel compelled to raise a question that has been raised on a number of occasions in previous discussions of the Canada pension plan, namely the five year disability clause. This clause causes unnecessary hardship to a number of Canadians. We have direct experience of this with people who visit our constituency office. Beyond that, from the study that we have conducted over the years about cases of Canadians who have been rejected because they could not meet this stringent clause, it would be highly desirable in future amendments of the Canada pension plan to extend the five year clause to seven years. That would seem to be a more reasonable and fairer way of dealing with people who, for instance, may be suffering from some kind of recurring disease but who also have lapses.
I want to refer to a specific case. A person with lupus applied for disability and was denied. The disease then became worse. When the person finally reapplied she was beyond the five year limit and was disqualified for the purposes of the Canada pension disability.
I am sure that hon. members in the House have come across similar cases of a denial of a disability pension because of the five year clause. I hope there will be an opportunity one day soon to improve this particular measure.
I want to say a few words about the Pension Appeals Board. The hearings are presently two years behind. They used to be, at the most, six months behind. When we make inquiries about the delays we are told they are due to the absence of a sufficient number of judges. It would seem only fair that this method be raised here because everyone would agree that Canadians should not be subjected to two years of waiting for a hearing, sometimes under hardships or being incapacitated or injured.
I would like the minister to take note of that problem. It is not something that requires an amendment. It is purely an administrative measure that can be taken by intensifying the search and hiring the appropriate judges. We need to reduce the two year waiting period to roughly six months for Canadians who need to turn to this appeal process. That would seem to be a reasonable request.
An issue that was covered in the media a day or two ago concerned the Canada pension plan apparently discriminating against common-law spouses. Common-law spouses are being refused survivors' pensions if they did not live with their partner at the time of the partner's death. The judgment handed down by the Federal Court of Appeal states that the Canada pension plan does discriminate in these types of cases.
The case referred to in the media concerns Ms. Betty Hodge, a 61 year old Ontario resident, who was denied a CPP survivor's pension after her common-law husband of more than 20 years apparently died in mid-1994.
It seems that we have a number of issues outside the scope of the bill that need attention.
I would conclude by expressing the hope that the government will find it possible in the fall or next year to bring forward a bill that will improve the quality of the Canada pension plan. We are certain of the fact that the Canada pension system is a pillar of Canadian social security, an absolute necessity for the well-being of people who retire and, as I mentioned earlier, it contributes considerably to social cohesion.
I would like to think that the Canada pension plan will receive the constant attention of the Government of Canada so as to improve its features and make it stronger and more relevant to the needs of Canadians. Society changes and evolves and sometimes the cost of living can increase after retirement, especially for some seniors who may have to take care of their grandchildren, and for other reasons.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member talked about Canada savings bonds providing the federal government with more funds. I first question I want to ask is quite serious. As taxpayers, many people would have trepidation with providing the government huge sums of money when they see what sometimes gets done with it. I would point, for example, to the human resources development scandal not that long ago where $1 billion was misplaced or not accounted for. That is only one example of many.
I sometimes question whether the idea of providing the government with increased revenues via Canada savings bonds is a legitimate policy on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers. I am not sure it actually serves the interests of the country as well as the hon. member might think. I would like him to comment on the feasibility of loaning more money to the government when its track record is not so good.
I served on the finance committee when the pension plan changes were last going through. For example, we in the opposition wanted to bring up representatives from the Chilean government to find out about the Chilean system. As the situation stands now in Chile, individuals know exactly how much money is in their pension fund. It is not something that is dabbled with by the government. It is a privately held account and the money can be invested in a number of private investment vehicles.
I know the member has some objections to that, but the crux of what I am getting at is that we can ask the average person in Chile how much is invested in the fund in total, how much has been deposited in a given year and what the return on investment is. I would argue that members in this place are probably some of the better informed in the country on issues of pension. Here we are debating it today.
If I were to look across the way and ask some of the hon. members how much they had put into their pension and what the return was on their investment I think some of the people debating this very law today would not have as firm a handle on it as the average Chilean would. I would ask the member why we were not allowed to bring people up from Chile on this whole question of pension reform, because I think the Chileans have done some laudable things.
I have a third question for the hon. member. We did have testimony in that committee meeting from the person who manages the Ontario teachers' pension fund. It is the largest private sector pension fund in the country. It is worth over $10 billion or at least was at that time but I imagine it is substantially larger now. That individual told us that with the changes the government brought in whereby 9.9% of someone's salary would be skimmed off for CPP purposes, it would at best buy the government an election or perhaps two. The reason he said that was that the actuarial analysis indicates that the max out of the fund will happen in about 2017 based on current demographic projections.
However, despite the 9.9% deduction right now, the fund will not be able to sustain itself. He thought that increasing it to 9.9% was a co-optive scheme by the government to try to increase the amount of revenue funds right now to cover it off for an election or maybe a second election but that after that the fund would not be sustainable and would be bankrupt anyway. He thought substantial changes were better sooner rather than later.
There are three questions. The first question has to do with giving money to the government. I do not single out the Liberal government for this because many other governments have wasted taxpayer funds. The second question deals with the fact that the Chileans were not allowed to present evidence. The third question concerns the whole idea of it basically being something that will be a massive liability. I look at the pages today and I do not think any of them seriously believe they will be able to collect a pension. It is a huge liability that we will not be able to sustain.
Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there is sufficient time to answer all three questions but I will try.
On the first question, it seems to me that the investments in Canada savings bonds are investments in the state, in what we believe to be the role of the government, regardless of the party that is in power. Most Canada savings bonds investments are for five years or more. Maybe in five years another party will be in power. We do not know. However the fact is that Canada savings bonds are a vehicle for investment for those who believe in the future of Canada.
I invest my savings in Canada savings bonds, for instance. I find it one way of supporting Canada. I am sure that many Canadians do the same. Therefore, I would not link Canada savings bonds with the performance of any department. There are always mistakes and shortcomings. What counts is the confidence of Canadians in their country and the bonds are one way of expressing that. Maybe it is a form of patriotism. Who knows? Nevertheless, it is a good form of patriotism. I would urge the member to do the same and invest some of his savings in Canada savings bonds one of these days.
Second, the Chilean system, as well as some other systems all over the world, may have some features which are better than ours. We should look at them. However it does not mean that we have to send a committee to Chile or bring an expert from Chile. If the committee decided not to call an expert, the majority of the committee, in this democratic process, must have felt that it was not necessary. Particularly today, with the Internet and other forms of instant communications, it should not be too difficult to reach and obtain details, even through the relevant UN organization, about the positive features of the Chilean system. We can learn from the Chileans, the Europeans and many others also.
I think we have a good system. All we need to do is have faith in it and improve it.
That leads me to the third question and the predictions of the hon. member that the sustainability of the fund in the long term is in doubt or is even questionable. I do not think so. That is the assumption made by some. His party has actually advocated the replacement of the CPP with a private sector system. I do not believe that at all and I reject that notion.
I would like to see the Canada pension plan as the main central source of pension funding and pension support for Canadians. Then those who can afford it can build their own little private schemes if they like. However the public sector has to be protected and the vast majority of Canadians cannot afford to fund their future and their retirement by way of a private sector system.
This has been the strength of the Liberal Party over decades. Part of our social security approach is that of ensuring that a minimum is provided via the public sector and the taxation system. That is why we do not believe, as the hon. member does, in the reduction of taxes because taxes are essential to do certain things, such as the enhancement and strengthening of the Canada pension plan. If the percentage of contributions to which the hon. member made reference to would require an increase in years to come, and this is a matter for actuaries to decide and well beyond my ability to comprehend, I am sure that a vast majority of Canadians would support it. I would be glad to fight an election on that. I am sure that we would win.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I simply want to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport for raising the issue of the disability credit. Many Canadians do not realize that, in addition to getting the pension benefits as well as survivor benefits and death benefits, the CPP program does provide disability benefits for Canadians who become disabled during their working career and have no other coverage. It is a very important element but it is expensive and it is part of the cost.
Could the member tell us whether there was any other opportunity with regard to the amendments. Because this is jointly administered between the federal and provincial governments, has he raised this matter with the provincial representatives to seek support for the change about which he spoke?
Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, very briefly the answer is no, I have not. I will seek the guidance of the parliamentary secretary to proceed in that direction.
Business of the HouseMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties as well as with the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-292, scheduled at the conclusion of private members' business later this day and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-292, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, September 18 at the expiry of government orders.

The Speaker: Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-58, follows the 1997 government policy of moving away from a “pay as you go” pension system, with a system of a two year reserve fund, to a more fully funded pension system with a five year reserve fund managed by an arm's length investment board. We have had the “pay as you go” pension system since the days of Lester Pearson,
The CPP Investment Board, a crown corporation, was created by an act of parliament in 1997, one of the first acts that we passed in the House of Commons after the election. It has a mandate to focus strictly on the prudent rate of return. The CPPIB, which is the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, is expected to cover 25% of liabilities by the year 2012. The total amount of funds managed by the board at that time will be in the range of $120 billion to $150 billion, which would make it by far the largest investment fund in the country.
The investment board will implement a market oriented approach as controlled by a 12 member board of directors appointed by the Minister of Finance with input from the provincial ministers of finance. The members of the board are largely representative of the financial community and the board has some 40 employees who co-ordinate the investment board with large financial institutions.
Bill C-58 is an amendment to the Canada pension plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. Essentially what it would do is transfer the control of CPP reserve funds to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board over a three year period. The board also implements the Liberal policy of allowing the CPP Investment Board to hold 30% of its investments in foreign property, in line with the budget of December 2001.
The government contends that the transfer of CPP funds would increase the strength of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board by allowing for a higher rate of return on investments. The argument in support of a better rate of return rests on the historical performance of financial markets that generally outperform the rate of return of government securities. Moreover the Liberal government across the way contends that increasing the limit on foreign investment would also improve the rate of return. Currently the Canada pension plan holds investments worth some $53.6 billion, which as I said before is expected to increase to $120 billion to $150 billion by the year 2012, really a very large investment fund.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board should represent all stakeholders, not just the financial community. Right now the CPPIB does not represent all the stakeholders. Labour for example is not represented. The trade union movement, which represents millions of workers in the country, is not represented. Pensioners are not represented, yet they are very much at the heart of being important stakeholders in Canada pension plan.
However the banks and the brokerage firms, with the short term goal of increasing their profits, manage the board. The CPPIB invests on behalf of some 16 million Canadians but is only required to hold public meetings once every two years. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board should be committed to a balanced representation so that pensioners as well as investors can have a say in the management of the fund. More transparency and more accountability is important in any open, free and democratic society.
Funds that are generated at taxpayer expense in my opinion should not be invested in foreign markets. We are not, and I certainly am not, against foreign investment for private investment groups but the dollars from a pension plan fund that is funded by taxpayers should be invested in Canadian companies and in Canadian securities. In other words, let us use the Canadian public pension fund to invest in the Canadian economy, strengthening our economy and creating jobs for future generations.
Investing government securities will help the economy by channeling money to the provinces and municipalities where it will fund improved infrastructure, housing initiatives and other projects, which are sorely needed as the infrastructure in this country has deteriorated in many ways right across Canada. I think of housing. I think of the water system and the water treatment system. I think of roads and transportation. I think of railways and many other public investments that could be much helped by CPP investment money.
Investment in Canadian businesses, especially new businesses, is important for the economy. In the United States, pension funds provide nearly 50% of venture capital. Canadian entrepreneurs should have access to such venture capital through the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The returns on investments in government securities and Canadian businesses may be less initially, but the new jobs created by reinvesting in the Canadian economy will create new pensions for new pensioners and increase the funds of the Canada pension plan.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board should implement the use of ethical screening for investment. This is something I have raised in the House of Commons on more than one occasion and also at the finance committee with the Minister of Finance. Why not use an ethical screen to make sure that the investments made by the board are made on an ethical basis?
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board must have ethical screening to prevent investment in companies with poor environmental standards, for example, or with poor child labour standards or sweatshops, and to prevent investment in tobacco companies and other companies that harm people. Currently the CPPIB does not have an ethical screen for its investments. It has been shown that ethical screening does not reduce the rate of return. In fact, if one looks at many ethical funds in the country, one sees that their rate of return is not reduced but is in some cases higher than that of the funds that do not have an ethical screen. I think of the ethical funds in the credit union movement, for example, which have a very good track record in Canada.
It is interesting to note as we debate the Canada pension plan and look at the review of the CPP that the CPPIB now plans to invest some $350 million in foreign companies over the next five years. Companies involved in leveraged buyouts will receive a good deal of this. As of March 31, 2002, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has a realized a cumulative loss of $64.8 million, despite reporting portfolio gains in recent years of up to 40.1%. Since its inception the board has had a healthy return in Canadian equity investments, annualized at the rate of 13.8%, and has had a consistent loss on foreign investment, at an annualized rate of -0.3%.
Until 1997, provinces borrowed funds in 20 year loans from the CPP at a preferred rate, the cost to the government to lend these funds. They were lent to provincial governments at cost. Now they borrow the money at market rates set by the Minister of Finance. Of course that becomes more expensive to the provinces over the long run than it was under the previous rules and regulations of the Canada pension plan.
The market value of the CPP Investment Board is $14.2 billion in terms of what is currently invested in equity, with 70% of investment in Canada and Canadian companies, 15% in the United States and American companies, and 15% in other nations and other companies. As a matter of fact there was an article this morning in the Ottawa Citizen in which the headline stated “CPP [Canada Pension Plan] puts $500M [million] into risky business”. The sub-headline stated “It plunges into angel funds and venture capital” funds. The article is raising some concern about the risk for the Canadian pensioner who contributes to the Canada pension fund. The article also states that some $2 billion Canadian will be going into the American private equity funds over the next few years and some $537 million Canadian into European buyout funds over the next few years.
There is this move to invest more and more of Canadian taxpayers' money and pension money into foreign funds, foreign equities and buyout funds, to invest in certain equity funds that are highly risky on behalf of the people who are the owners of the Canada pension plan.
According to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, concerning the issue of ethical screening its position is the following:

Our legislation specifically prohibits us from engaging in any investment activities other than maximizing investment returns...The policy fully states that we will not accept or reject investments on non-investment criteria.

That is the position of the board when it comes to ethical investments and I am saying that we should look at an amendment to make sure that we have an ethical screen.
Tobacco is a very good example of that. Tobacco and cigarette smoking are very harmful and very costly in terms of the health of Canadians and the funds of our country. I do not think we should be investing the Canada pension plan money in Philip Morris or any other tobacco companies. We do not want to send a signal that smoking is a good thing for the people of this country, yet the government across the way so far has not agreed to look at an ethical screen. I know that some members across the way would support the idea of an ethical screen on tobacco. I have heard them speak out against tobacco and talk about a national campaign to stop cigarette smoking in the country.
So on the one hand we have the government advertising to young people and others that they should stop smoking and we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years in campaigns to stop smoking, but on the other hand we have the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board investing in tobacco companies. It is doing the exact opposite of a policy that the Government of Canada is advocating. Here we have a conflict in policy and a contradiction between the left hand and the right hand of the government.
The rates of return for the 2001 fiscal year, which ended in March 2002, were a modest 3.4% for equity. This is lower than the return on government bonds, which I think was 5% for the same period of time. Investment outside of government securities involves risk. For an entity mandated to reduce the risks as well as to realize a profit, government securities are a lot stronger investment. Certainly the facts on that in the last year or two speak for themselves.
In 2001, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board investments in private firms suffered a loss while government securities remained stable. I think a lot of people in this country, including the member for Davenport, would appreciate a stable, guaranteed rate of return for our nation's public pension fund, which is the foundation on which to build retirement income for each and every single Canadian.
The real rate of return for the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is about 7%. The change in government securities returning 1% or 2% less would be worth the growth in the economy from the investment and the low risk, because we would be investing in our own country, investing in our own businesses and investing in our own infrastructure. We would be investing in public programs of value to Canadian people. We would be growing the economy and having all the spinoffs from a growing economy with fewer people unemployed and so on.
The total assets of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board come to $53.6 billion. This includes the two year fund of $40 billion that was initially transferred from the Canada pension plan. Government bonds total nearly $32.6 billion. Some $13.8 billion is invested in publicly traded companies. Nearly $400 million is currently invested in venture capital and buyout funds. The fund is meant to represent 25% of the liabilities, leaving the system largely pay as you go. When the Canada pension plan was first established in the 1960s it was a pay as you go plan and remained one until the amendments of recent years by the Liberal government.
As we look at what is before us today, I would recommend that we oppose the bill unless changes are made that provide the CPPIB with a mandate to put an ethical screen in place. I also would like to see the bill's provision for investment in foreign markets eliminated, because I think we should put the money from Canada's large pension fund into Canada.
Investing in private equities is a way of improving the rate of return for CPP funds. It makes sense if they are in Canada, but having no ethical screen for those investments is bad policy. Canadians are forced to pay their CPP premiums into an investment fund that has no rules against investing in tobacco or companies that make use of child labour or companies that have very poor environmental standards. The government must develop an ethical screen for the CPP investment fund through public hearings and consultations with those who have developed ethical screens in the private and co-operative sectors. In that regard I would mention the credit union movement, which has seven, eight or nine different ethical investment funds for the credit union movement in the country. Improvements to pension legislation should also give employees the opportunity to decide if they want an ethical screen to be part of the investment decision in their pension fund.
Finally, at this time we should also bring in an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board legislation that would provide for representation of other stakeholders on the board of directors. Here I am thinking of the pensioners themselves who should be represented on the board. Here I am thinking of the trade union movement, which represents the workers who will be future pensioners. They too should have representation on the board of directors.
If we do these things, if we have the ethical screen and representation on the board for the working people and retirees, and if we roll back the amount of money going into foreign markets with more money going into the Canadian markets such as the provinces and municipalities at low interest rates at cost to the federal government, with those three things, I think we would have a Canada pension fund that would reflect what the Canadian people want.
When I go across the country people tell me they are concerned about their security in terms of the Canada pension fund. They are worried about the future of the Canada pension fund. I believe there is no need in a country as wealthy as ours to worry about the future security of our major pension fund, but if more of it were invested in Canada, in provincial bonds and bonds to municipalities, schools and hospitals, it would strengthen the economy and the pension fund itself would be that much more secure.
I hope we can have a real debate on this in committee and come out of it making some amendments in those areas to make the Canada pension fund, which is the foundation for retirement income in the country, an even better fund for the Canadian people in the years that lie ahead.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, having been on the finance committee when Bill C-2 to create the investment board was first dealt with by the House, I was astounded to hear some of the statements made by the member in referring to the CPP plan when it was started back in 1966 as a pay as you go plan. This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of what happened when the CPP was created.
At the time Canadians who had come through the depression years had very little opportunity to provide for their retirement years. It was a decision by the Canadian people through their elected representatives to establish the CPP fund. It allowed Canadians in that situation to begin receiving pension or retirement benefits right off the bat, even without having contributed anything into the plan. It is not a pay as you go plan. It is Canadians taking care of their own. It is Canadians working today and making contributions to a plan which is used to pay benefits to those who had no opportunity to provide for their retirement. I am sorry that the member mischaracterized the Canada pension plan.
The member has mistakenly characterized the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as the instrument of pension administration. The fact is that the Canada Pension Plan Act deals with what benefits are available, whether they are survivor benefits, death benefits, disability benefits, et cetera. That is the instrument which is jointly administered and operated by the provinces and the federal government.
The member would like to have representatives from labour, trade unions, pensioners, and future pensioners on the board. If we start making lists, several different groups will be represented, and once we start making lists someone gets left off.
The Canada pension plan is set up and operated by the governments of Canada, provincial and federal, to ensure there are appropriate pension benefits for Canadians.
Today's pensioners get $8 for every $1 they put into the plan. Today there are five workers for one pensioner and because of our aging society it will be down to three workers for one pensioner. For that reason premiums have had to go up to sustain the plan over the long term.
To suggest that we should somehow manage the investment board for a bunch of other policy objectives is fundamentally wrong simply because these moneys are collected on behalf of Canadians to provide them with pension benefits. It is not there as an instrument for other social or economic objectives. We already support venture funds. We already support the applicable screening of investments in tobacco issues as the member mentioned.
The member has mischaracterized the board as an instrument of policy rather than an instrument to ensure that the market is not distorted with a very large investment fund. It was set up so investments would not be all over the place but rather would reflect the purchasing and selling patterns of the stock exchange as a whole so it had no undue influence on the markets which the member is suggesting that it does. Setting it up that way ensures that returns will be comparable to what other investors would get, ergo the 30% foreign investment limit, which is exactly what Canadians are permitted now under the Income Tax Act.
The member has some explaining to do as to why he has misled the House on these important issues.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member across the way would say what he said.
I said that the plan that was instituted back in the 1960s had a pay as you go philosophy. That is exactly how it was set up. I know it was kick-started and pensioners qualified right away. My father got a small CPP payout fairly early from the plan, as did other people of his generation. The whole philosophy was pay as you go.
It was changed by the amendments in 1997 when it started to move away from a pay as you go pension plan to having some of the money set aside for an investment fund that would be directed by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. There was a change in philosophy and we debated that in the finance committee at the time.
The Alliance Party, which was called the Reform Party in those days, wanted to go even further. In essence it wanted to privatize the Canada pension plan fund and set up huge RRSP type funds. It would be taken out of the public sector altogether and everybody would have their own private pension fund or private pension plan that was totally in the private market. That was the debate in the finance committee at the time.
The Liberal government came up with changes which were a bit of a compromise, where more money is going into the investment board to be managed. Now it wants more and more money, some 30%, to go into the foreign markets. There is a change from the pay as you go philosophy which was there in the beginning by the people who originated the Canada pension plan in the days of Lester Pearson and Tommy Douglas.
When I talk about stakeholders I only mentioned two stakeholders. The member said how many stakeholders do I want on the board? I mentioned the workers and the retirees.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Labour, trade unions.
Lorne Nystrom: Workers, labour and trade unions are all the same. Let us have some trade union representation on the board. Trade unions represent workers. Trade unions represent the people who work in this country. There should be some trade union representation on the board. I moved an amendment during the debate on this legislation a few years ago in the finance committee.
I said that the pensioners should have some kind of a voice as well. There are 12 people on the board of directors. Why could there not be labour and pensioner representation, current pensioners and future pensioners? It makes sense. We have that kind of representations on other boards as well. We have boards that have stakeholders on them.
It is not prohibitive, but it is up to the judgment of the Minister of Finance and the recommendations of provincial ministers of finance. The provincial ministers of finance do not appoint somebody to the board; they make recommendations. If the provincial minister of finance in New Brunswick recommends someone, that person is only on the board through the grace of the federal Minister of Finance. Again, it centralizes so much power in the hands of the Minister of Finance.
Let us open it up and be a little more democratic. There are all kinds of precedents for representation on boards. The new crown corporation for air security has on its board representation from the stakeholders, from the airport authorities and the airlines.
The finance committee accepted my amendment to have representation of the trade unions to represent the workers on the board. That was overturned by the House of Commons on a recommendation coming from the Prime Minister's office.
It is not a radical idea. It is just a matter of opening it up and making it more democratic and more accountable for the Canadian people. What is wrong with having pensioners sit on the board? What is wrong with having workers sit on the board? They would provide valuable input for the people who are making the decisions as to where those investments go.
The last point is the ethical screen. Why would there not be an ethical screen that would disallow investment in tobacco, for example? The federal government is spending all kinds of money on an advertising campaign saying that people, in particular children, should not get hooked on cigarettes. On one hand the government says not to get hooked on cigarettes and let us get away from tobacco. On the other hand, the CPP Investment Board can invest in Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies. It does not make any sense. I am surprised how conservative the member across the way is.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, the member talked about ethical screening. He also talked about the trade union movement being involved in deciding how the pension money is spent.
I seem to remember something about the teamsters, Hoffa and Las Vegas and a whole number of things but I am not going to dwell on it. As often happens in this place, I was distracted by what the government member was saying and instead I am going to focus on that.
I listened to a good chunk of the speech by the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle. I do not believe that he mentioned the theft of public sector pension funds by the government in the last parliament. I seem to remember billions of dollars were taken out of public sector pension funds that had been accumulated over the years and invested by the government.
As a matter of fact I look at the guards who are protecting us today in the House. I recognize that it was their pension funds that the government raided to the tune of billions of dollars which were literally sucked out of the fund. The government thought it was too large and basically was a nest egg to go after to try to balance the budget and allow the finance minister some wiggle room.
Does the member have any thoughts, any particular musings, or anything he needs to get off his chest with regard to the government's theft of billions of dollars from the public sector pension funds during the last parliament?
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that is a very tough and direct question. Of course I have concerns about the fancy bookkeeping of the federal government. It happens time and time again. I share some of the concerns that the member has mentioned.
I want to mention another one that makes me very angry. It is the use of the EI fund. Workers pay into the EI fund as do employers pay into the EI fund. The accumulated surplus in the EI fund is some $42 billion. The federal government sees that going into the consolidated revenue fund, which is the general fund of the government.
The previous minister of finance viewed using the funds of the workers and employers to eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt. That is a very fancy way of making sure there is a balanced budget. It is not fair because the ordinary working people are paying that money. It is a theft of the money of the working people. It is just not the way to view public finances.
The EI fund should be separate. It is an insurance fund. It provides insurance and benefits for people who lose their jobs.
Time and time again there is creative bookkeeping used in terms of the EI fund and in terms of pension funds. Funds move back and forth between the consolidated revenue fund and crown corporations. More transparency and more accountability is needed. That is why a fixed budget date is needed, so that we have a more democratic parliamentary system.
I could go on at length about this issue but I see that I have run out of time.

Statements By Members
National Aboriginal DayMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is National Aboriginal Day, a day when Canadians from sea to sea to sea celebrate the culture and achievements of Canada's aboriginal people.
I celebrate the strength and the courage of the people. I celebrate the adaptability of the people. I celebrate the youth who have so many opportunities but also many challenges.
I celebrate the great knowledge that we have to share with the country, and even though we did not have a written language until very recently, the ability to pass on all that information, knowledge and creativity. I celebrate the creativity and the artistic ability of the aboriginal people.
I am very pleased to share this day with Canadians. I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing all Canadians a very happy National Aboriginal Day.
HealthMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, research can save lives. It can help us discover medicine to treat diseases that we never thought possible. It can help us reduce hospital stays and improve our overall quality of life.
We know that Canada's health care system needs adjustments. There are too few doctors and too many long lineups. The future will see an influx of seniors who will no doubt rely on our health care system, and it is not ready.
One way to help, however, is to support the development of new medicine, but the approval time for the new medicines is too long. The time it takes to review and approve new drug submissions is longer than Health Canada's own targets. Its target is 345 days but it now takes it 717 days. That is almost double. It is also a year longer than it takes the United States.
We are talking about saving and/or improving lives, and our neighbours in the U.S.A. are getting medicine a year before Canadians. They are getting well while Canadians are getting sick. That is not acceptable.
We must improve drug approval times. After all, time is a luxury that some Canadians do not have.
Timothy FindleyMr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this occasion to pay a special tribute to a great Canadian author who passed away today at the age of 71: Timothy Findley.
Mr. Findley was a renowned Canadian author who received recognition and accolades around the world for his work. Included on his list of awards is our Governor General's Literacy Award and an appointment as an Officer of the Order of Canada.
Mr. Findley began his writing career in 1967 creating many great works, one being The Piano Man's Daughter . He also wrote several plays, short stories and television, radio and film scripts. Even in this arena Timothy Findley excelled, for which he earned an ACTRA Award. Mr. Findley was also very active in the Canadian writing community and was the president of the Canadian chapter of PEN International.
Perhaps I may close with a quote from critic Eugene Benson who said of Timothy Findley that “He has written only masterpieces”.
On behalf of all citizens I express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Timothy Findley.
Italian Week 2002Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): The Italian Cultural Centre Society in my riding in Vancouver will be celebrating Italian Week 2002 from June 23 to June 28 with folk dances, musical entertainment, homemade Italian food and many other delightful programs.
The Italian Canadians have played an important role in the development of our country. I congratulate President Leonard Bruno, Donatella Geller and the many volunteers for their hard work in organizing this event.
I ask all members to join me in saluting all the dedicated members of Vancouver's Italian Cultural Centre Society for making this celebration possible.
Saint-Jean-Baptiste DayMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday, June 24 is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, the great festival of all French Canadians.
Together, we shall celebrate our diversity and our identity. We will proclaim our pride in a country that continually celebrates the richness of the French language.
I invite all Canadians to gather round a bonfire of friendship, to dance and to raise their voices in song.
Bonne fête, francophones du Canada.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for the second time in the last year a situation has arisen in my riding involving a band council and a school board. Last year's problem was resolved quickly after I raised it in the House.
In this instance school district 52 is owed some $640,000 by the Kitkatla Band for educational services provided. The chief of the band has stated that it will not pay the amount owed. As a result Prince Rupert School District No. 52 will not be signing a local education agreement with the Kitkatla Band even though the band now wishes to do so.
The money owed must be forthcoming to school district 52 in order for needed educational services to be provided for Kitkatla children. A speedy resolution to this matter must be pursued by the minister and his staff to ensure that the necessary agreements are in place for the future and that this situation does not recur.
I trust that like the last time this will be quickly resolved.
AfricaMr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is only just that Africa be a centrepiece of next week's G-8 meeting.
Africa is the most compelling, indeed urgent, case of humanitarian concern anywhere in the world: where 1 African in 5, 160 million people, are daily victims of armed conflict with the genocide by attrition in Sudan the most alarming cri du coeur; where 260 million of the 660 million in sub-Saharan Africa live on less than $1 a day and millions face imminent starvation; where the disease and debt burden are staggering; where the most urgent crisis, and one which threatens the life of an entire continent, is the AIDS pandemic; where of the 40 million people worldwide affected with HIV, more than two thirds live in Africa; where 2.3 million Africans die every year and thousands a day, as we speak, are dying of AIDS; where 13 million children, an entire generation, have been orphaned; and where entire families and entire education systems are ravaged as parents and teachers die.
A great continent, Africa, is dying. It can only be saved and the G-8 vindicated if combating the AIDS pandemic and urgently mobilizing the necessary funds to do so is the overriding priority. Otherwise the goals of NEPAD will never be secured and its legacy will be not a Marshall Plan for the living but a requiem for the dead.
Radio-CanadaMs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under Radio-Canada's management, culture is dwindling. First it was the disappearance of the program Au coeur du monde , and now management has announced that the most popular radio program, Johanne Laurendreau's Rayon Musique , is going to be cut, supposedly because there are too many radio hosts, and also because the new broadcasting plan is focusing more on music and less on spoken commentary.
When Mira Krie and Jean Deschamps were forced to retire, it was assumed that they would be replaced by permanent staffers, but instead they have been replaced by people on contract.
What is more, the disappearance of the program Passage delivers a strange message to its faithful listeners, who, during the Radio-Canada lockout, made their feelings known and expressed their nostalgia for quality programming at Radio-Canada. Is radio programming not being stripped of its content?
Yet, the vice-president in charge of programming, Sylvain Lafrance, appeared before the joint committee on official languages and spoke of the great generosity for funding regional productions, in the cultural sector in particular, and of the additional journalists who would be starting this fall.
Is there not a contradiction here?
G-8 SummitMr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week on June 26 and 27 the Prime Minister will host the G-8 summit in the Kananaskis region of Alberta. This beautiful mountain setting will serve as the backdrop for discussions about how to solve global challenges including African development, economic growth and security issues.
The Prime Minister has taken a lead role among his colleagues in the G-8, particularly in the area of African development. Just this week CIDA announced it will contribute $34.2 million for humanitarian aid to southern Africa.
Canada will not only host this important meeting but will also be a key player in helping to set the international agenda. The discussions that will take place at this year's summit will impact ordinary people all around the world and will provide Canadians with an opportunity to share our values with the world.
I ask the House to join me in welcoming the world leaders to Canada.
Canada-U.S. BorderMs. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on three separate occasions the government has announced that it would sign a new border accord with the United States only to subsequently announce each time that the ceremony had been cancelled.
This is typical of the Liberal government's relationship with the United States. It has no idea what the relation should be, little idea of what it should not be, and the occasional minor signing ceremony to pretend that we are getting somewhere.
Because the government has been unable to get its act together, this summer my constituency which contains the two largest border crossings west of Windsor-Detroit can look forward to border lineups between two and four hours long. These lengthy lineups will occur despite the fact that the crossings are in the process of implementing NEXUS.
It is time for the government to develop an end-game strategy in its relationship with the Americans, forget these little signing ceremonies, and quickly implement a program that is both secure and promotes the easy movement of goods and people across our borders.
G-8 SummitMs. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our government for everything it has accomplished and will accomplish to make Canada the best country in the world to live in.
Next week, Canada will welcome leaders of the greatest industrial countries for the annual G-8 summit, in the breathtaking countryside in the foothills of the majestic Rocky Mountains in Alberta.
For the first time in the history of the G-8, non member countries have been invited to join the eight most powerful countries in the world. Representatives from five African countries will come to defend and promote a new development plan to world leaders.
For the first time in 50 years, we have five consecutive balanced budgets. Canada is the only country in the G-8 that expects to balance its budget this year.
National Aboriginal DayMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today the first day of summer is National Aboriginal Day, a day to celebrate aboriginal people, their communities, their cultures and their successes. It should also be a day to acknowledge their continuing need for justice, their continuing right to justice and their relationship with non-aboriginal Canada.
On National Aboriginal Day let us dedicate ourselves to a new era for aboriginal people in Canada. Among other things the federal government should go the extra mile in settling land claims, ending its evasion of responsibility when it comes to residential school claims, and providing the resources necessary to help lift aboriginal Canadians out of the terrible social and economic conditions so many of them have to endure.
We have a long way to go before we can celebrate a different day called national day of justice for aboriginal people.
Linguistic MinoritiesMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is not enough for member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac to insult everyone left, right and centre when the speaks; he makes outrageous statements. Recently he was directing his venom at the members of the national assembly, accusing them of spending their time taking rights away from Quebec's anglophone minority, and saying that they had no lessons to teach the francophones of New Brunswick.
If he took the time to look more closely into the matter, he would see that the English speaking community in Quebec is far better off than French speaking and Acadian communities in Canada. In fact, it is generally accepted that anglophone Quebecers are the only minority with all of the institutions needed for its development. Rather than disparaging Quebec as he has, he should encourage the province of New Brunswick to follow in Quebec's footsteps.
The national assembly only expressed its solidarity with the actions of the Société nationale de l'Acadie, the institution that represents the Acadian people, on the issue of recognizing the wrong done during the deportation. This member should know that Quebec has the greatest number of Acadian descendents in the world. If he knew this, he would not reduce Acadia, as he did, to the francophones of New Brunswick alone.
G-8 SummitCharles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, next week's event in Kananaskis is the result of the Prime Minister's hard work over the past year and his all out effort to eradicate poverty from Africa. As a result of the Prime Minister's visits to G-8 capitals there is now agreement on investing in Africa's economic growth and social development.
Today Africa is the only continent where poverty is on the rise. Consequently G-8 leaders will discuss poverty reduction, promoting primary education, fighting the spread of HIV-AIDs, and reducing the technology gap and the debt of the poorest nations.
Kananaskis is likely to be remembered as a milestone in the practice of human solidarity and in narrowing the gap between the haves and have nots in the global community. Canadians can be proud of the Kananaskis initiative.
Cadets CanadaMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I stand today to recognize yet another achievement by a distinguished Atlantic Canadian. For the third time in the past eight years a cadet from the Admiral Murray sea cadet corps of Pictou County, Nova Scotia has been named Canada's Top Sea Cadet of the Year by the Navy League of Canada.
Chief Petty Officer First Class Tennille Bowen, a 17 year old resident of Westville, Nova Scotia, is this year's deserving recipient. Her parents, Stephen and Debbie Bowen, are no doubt bursting with pride at Tennille's success. Cadet Bowen joins two former Admiral Murray sea cadets who have also won this prestigious award. Dwayne Conrod received the award in 1994 and Greg Muir was the recipient in 1997, both from Stellarton, Nova Scotia.
Cadets Canada is the largest youth program in the country with over 55,000 young men and women enrolled in every province and territory. Cadets are encouraged to be active, responsible members of their communities and they learn valuable life and work skills such as teamwork, leadership, citizenship and physical fitness.
I congratulate cadet Tennille Bowen. She has brought pride to the cadets, her region, her family and her community. A nation salutes her success.
SoccerMr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first Under-19 Women's World Soccer Championship will be held here in Canada. Awarded by the Fédération internationale de football association, this prestigious event will run from August 17 to September 1 in Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria.
It is an opportunity to hold a new event for a sport whose popularity is increasing steadily. It is also very exciting to see that another high visibility sport event has been awarded to Vancouver which we hope will be the future site of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. As host country Canada will field a team that will proudly represent us at this first Under-19 Women's World Soccer Championship.
I congratulate the Canadian Soccer Association and the organizing committee under the leadership of Mr. Jim Fleming who will be responsible for hosting this wonderful event in Canada.
Parliament of CanadaMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this day reminds me of many days that I experienced as an instructor and as a teacher and as a student. It is the last day of the semester.
We think the exams are over. I am not sure they are. Certainly the marking has not yet been done. That is going to be done in the next couple of days, and I am sure that Canadians everywhere are going to be looking with great interest at what the results are for the government. I think they will see that it has failing grades in a number of areas, but there are other places where there are definitely passing grades and some with honours. I think, for example, of the wonderful work our pages have done. I would give them firstclass honours. I think of the people at the table. They have served us very well.
Mr. Speaker, if I may conclude, you and the other three people who occupy the chair have served us ably and well, and we express our gratitude.

Oral Question Period
AgricultureMr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had two separate and contradictory announcements on agricultural assistance. The minister of agriculture said that farm aid would only be sent to the provinces if they forked over 40% of the bill. The Prime Minister later said that the federal portion would go out in any case.
Why can these guys not get their lines straight? Who exactly speaks for the government? What is the policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had programs of that nature before and each time the federal government has subscribed to 60% and the provinces came along and subscribed to the other 40%. We are hoping that the negotiations will bring the same result.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Prime Minister actually answered the question, but I will go on. The government is creating a situation where some farmers may get more support than others depending on the province they live in. This is unfair. We are dealing with a national issue, a trade injury compensation issue, that is a federal responsibility and should be a national program.
Will the Prime Minister agree to treat all farmers fairly and to provide 100%, not 60%, compensation to farmers in areas where the provincial government cannot afford to do so?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Alliance is asking us to spend even more money than we are spending, so that will be well noted.
Agriculture has been a shared jurisdiction and we have been more generous than the provinces by funding 60% of the program. We are making the same offer. We hope that the provinces will respond because they have done it in the past. They have recognized the responsibilities.
We will put 60% on the table. We hope they will put their share on the table. However, if some provincial governments think that their farmers are not important enough to them, what I can say is that they are important to us.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is right. In this case we are asking for more funding when the provinces cannot afford it. If the government did not have so much money for its advertising buddies, it might have money to pay every farmer fairly.
Yesterday the Prime Minister stated in his speech that he wants farmers to increase their incomes through value added processing. Western Canadian farmers have wanted to do this for years but have been stopped by the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers have been demanding an end to this for years. Now even Liberal members of the agriculture committee are demanding the same thing.
Will the Prime Minister step in and adopt the position of his own backbenchers and finally give western farmers the right to process and market--
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we have always been a great supporter of the wheat board. Now the wheat board is managed by the farmers themselves. They have a say on that and will be in a position to comment on it.
The wheat board has been a great instrument for the farmers of western Canada. We gave it the benefit of the doubt. It will look at the situation. However I do think that it is the duty of this parliament to respect the laws of the land that have established the wheat board, which has been a great success over the years.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the wheat board is such a great success, why does it not operate in the eastern part of the country as well as the west?
It is very interesting to me that three provinces, B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have all said that they cannot afford 40% of the farm aid package. My question to the government is this. If those provinces do not come up with the 40%, will the farm families in those provinces be treated equally with the rest of the farm families in Canada?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as the Government of Canada, we are taking our responsibility. Now the hon. member says that if the provincial governments do not care about the farmers, we should be blamed for that.
The people of these provinces will have the occasion to tell their provincial governments to look at what the federal government is doing for them and that they want the provincial governments to do the same thing for them.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that trade is a federal responsibility. The government knew that this U.S. farm bill was coming. What did it do? Absolutely nothing. It has failed internationally and it has failed now domestically.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Is the government going to launch a WTO and a NAFTA challenge so that the farmers in this country will not be hurt by this U.S. farm bill? Yes or no.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to work with our partners in the European Union. Brazil is looking into it. Our Cairns partners are there as well.
The problem at this moment is not necessarily the compatibility at the WTO, whether the American subsidies are legal or not. What this government is saying is that they are illegitimate. They might very well be legal at the WTO. We are checking that and we will be working with our partners. However we made a commitment at Doha, and the United States was there, to eliminate export subsidies and to reduce substantially domestic subsidies. That is what the Americans are not doing and we want our U.S. partners to withdraw that sort of--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
Sponsorship programsMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have finally learned that cultural and sport events will not be adversely affected by the scandals that are plaguing this government.
Indeed, festivals of all kinds will receive the promised money, and this is good news, even though the Department of Public Works and Government Services also said that the sponsorship program would remain in effect for at least another year.
As regards the cheques that will soon be issued, can the minister tell us whether the sponsorship program will operate in the same fashion, that is with firms pocketing generous commissions, or whether, on the contrary, the middlemen have been eliminated, as the minister claimed he intended?
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, just to be precisely correct, the moratorium that I announced some four weeks ago remains in effect. We are examining the ways in which we can move forward for the balance of the current year.
Before the moratorium came into effect, about half of the program already had been administered for this fiscal year. Obviously that is work that already has been committed. However for the balance of this year, the remaining half, it is indeed my hope that we can administer that without the assistance of commission agents.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that his department would review ongoing sponsorship projects on a case by case basis to identify the firms that have had a number of problems.
Can the minister tell us if he took advantage of this review to at least ensure that groups such as Groupaction, Lafleur, Polygone, Coffin and Media IDA Vision—whose files are under police investigation—will be immediately barred from receiving any further commissions under the sponsorship programs?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members in the House to be careful with their language. The business with respect to some of the firms to which the hon. gentleman referred has been referred to the police. That is not the case with respect to all of the firms to which he referred, but I would reiterate this point. Wherever there has been a police reference, there is no more business.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's strategy is becoming clearer.
After trying to cover up the sponsorship scandal, the government asked the auditor general to get involved, referred the whole matter to the RCMP to investigate, announced a moratorium, is shutting down the House in June, only to start all over again in September, as if nothing had happened.
Is this not the government's strategy to ensure that the public finds out as little as possible?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. This whole matter arose because of an internal audit that was conducted by the officials in my department in the year 2000, the results of which were posted on the Internet. That is hardly a demonstration of secrecy.
Following that, further information was reported upon in the Globe and Mail . The work that the auditor general did was reported upon publicly. We have been very forthcoming in indicating to Canadians that we intend to get to the bottom of what went wrong and to ensure it does not happen again.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem.
The government used all kinds of tools to make the public believe that it was taking action. There was a communication plan, and the findings of the internal audit were posted on the Internet. When the issue became public, the government asked the auditor general to investigate and then, to really bury the matter, it referred some files to the RCMP.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the reason there is no public inquiry is that he does not want one before his leadership review, because he knows full well that he would be at the centre of such an inquiry?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is, I am afraid, drawing some nonsensical conclusions. I fail to see how having an internal audit is somehow an act of secrecy, how calling in the auditor general is an act of secrecy and how referring files to the RCMP is an act of secrecy. They are exactly the contrary. They are acts of transparency.
G-8 SummitMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government has created a parameter of fear and denial around Kananaskis, denying visas to international delegates, denying accreditation to journalists and denying access to civic leaders once applauded by the government.
Criminalizing dissent suffocates democracy. Instead of learning the lessons from APEC, the government is once again trampling the rights of citizens to peaceful protest and democratic dissent, the very lifeblood of a free and democratic society.
Is freedom of expression respected and protected in this country today only when one thinks like the Prime Minister?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the security of the summit is the responsibility of the RCMP. For people who want to come to Canada, there is a process under the law where they have to fill certain requirements to get a visa when visas are needed and so on. It is administered by the different departments that are responsible without any government intervention.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, very clearly violent protest is unacceptable, period. However why can the government not understand that its confrontational and provocative strategies reward those seeking confrontation? It actually fuels violence. Why can it not see that quashing peaceful protest and criminalizing dissent is like handing live ammunition to the tiny extremist element otherwise isolated on the outer fringes?
How can the Prime Minister, after three decades, not understand that?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have always welcomed expression of opinion everywhere but we want that to be orderly. I started my career by organizing a demonstration against Duplessis in Quebec. It was a very democratic act.
When I travel in Canada, sometimes some people come out, have signs and protest. I read them and accept that. However all that has to be orderly, while ensuring that the property of individuals is well protected by the police who have the duty to ensure that the citizens of Canada are safe.
Prime MinisterRight Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister changed the Shawinigate story yet again yesterday saying that the phantom company, Akimbo Development Corporation, was just a trade name. Yet, for that to be true, the company must be registered somewhere in Canada. It is not.
Last year the government refused to let Jonas Prince testify before a committee of parliament. In the interest of the truth, would the government now agree to summons Mr. Prince before parliament to explain in detail whether any company he controls bought the golf course shares, what company that was, where it was registered, when the alleged sale took place and whether there ever was actually a sale of the property?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we dealt with all aspects of that for weeks and weeks in the House of Commons and we had absolutely nothing to hide. What is very disappointing is that it will probably be the last time that the right hon. member will ask questions in the House of Commons as the leader of an opposition party. He would have been in a position to be at a higher level in concluding his career if it had not been for the throwing of dirt. Every time one throws dirt, one loses ground.
Government ContractsJoe Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is about another cover up. The auditor general cannot examine the advertising and sponsorship programs of arm's length foundations and certain crown corporations, including Canada Post which is run by André Ouellet.
The auditor general has requested that the government act as authorized under section 11 of the Auditor General Act to let her extend her inquiry now to those powerful entities. They spend billions of dollars of public money, including on advertising.
Will the government give the auditor general the power she requests now so there can be a true government-wide inquiry? If it will not let the auditor general investigate--
The Speaker: The hon. president of the treasury board.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has a very clear mandate. Her mandate is to audit all government departments, and even certain crown corporations.
In addition, she has made some very firm commitments concerning certain government programs and even certain foundations, in light of the funding arrangements we have with some of them.
The minister is able to ask the auditor general for compliance audits. I believe she has all the necessary tools to make good recommendations to the government.
AgricultureMr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is contradicting what he said yesterday about the farm aid package. The Prime Minister said that the federal government would pay out its portion of the farm package even if the provinces could not afford to participate.
I am wondering, did he just get a little too much sun yesterday? Why is he changing his mind on that issue?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it has been like that for years. We have always paid 60%. In the last agreement we offered 60% and the provinces came along and offered the other 40%.
Let me say that I expect the provinces to do the same thing. The provinces, like any government, do not like to spend money. We also do not like to spend money but when we have a problem like that we pay our share and we expect the provinces to do likewise.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, if that is the government's position, the Prime Minister's position, I want to suggest that they are not operating in good faith. They are offering a package that they know they will never have to pay out because the provinces cannot afford to participate.
Why is the government offering false hope through its farm aid package?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, he is from Alberta and Alberta is willing to participate. If Alberta participates it will put pressure on Saskatchewan. If Saskatchewan participates it will put pressure on Manitoba. We care about farmers and we moved first.
Softwood LumberMr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier of Quebec came to meet with his counterpart to discuss the softwood lumber dispute.
During this meeting, the Prime Minister of Canada said that he was going to do something for the industry.
Will the Minister for International Trade tell us what immediate measures he intends to take to help the businesses and workers affected by this dispute?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, our government has already put forward a great many measures. The Minister of Human Resources Development announced funding of $13 million to help workers in the communities.
Increasingly, obviously, we have offered to work to develop international markets for our softwood lumber. We will be doing research and development.
The Prime Minister said that we would be continuing to consult with the industry and to work closely with it to do what is necessary in the circumstances.
Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, three months ago, the Bloc Quebecois put forward a plan to help the softwood lumber industry, which included loan guarantees and improvements to the EI plan.
Will the minister tell us whether this sort of measure will finally be put forward by the government?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Landry has also made certain proposals. We undertook to examine the proposals that the Government of Quebec came up with. I think that this is very important at this point in time.
The dialogue with Quebec has been excellent throughout the negotiations with the Americans. We have worked closely with those responsible in the Government of Quebec, and in the Government of British Columbia as well.
So we are now going to approach problem from a similar viewpoint, taking a close look at what the Government of Quebec has proposed. In addition, I wrote to my colleagues asking them to be as precise as possible, so that we can make good decisions.
Government of CanadaMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up again to another poll highlighting their lack of trust in this government. The RoperASW poll reveals that only 46% of Canadians trust the federal government. When we look at specific areas of the nation, the trust level falls to the thirties in the west and in Quebec.
Surely the government's secrecy, its arrogance, its complacency, its mismanagement and corruption have a lot to do with the poll's results. It could help the situation by keeping the promises it made nearly 10 years ago.
Why does it not--
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we already proposed a package on that. After I made a speech about that in the House of Commons we delivered a package a few weeks later. There will be reform. The role will be independent. The person will not be able to be removed without two-thirds of the vote of the House of Commons. We will reform the Elections Act and so on.
What we are happy to note is that in spite of the fact that we are opening up, the Alliance contestants for leadership are refusing to reveal who financed them to get their jobs.
Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, why should Canadians buy that garbage? How many times have they heard it before? Facts are irrelevant to the government and it avoids the truth. Is it any wonder that the latest poll shows that more than half of Canadians do not trust the government.
Here is another suggestion for improving its rating. Instead of damage control, stage management and public relations, why not be completely open about cleaning up the corruption in the ad and sponsorship programs with a full independent public judicial inquiry now?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the auditor general was asked to move in at the request of the opposition, now it wants something else.
What I would like everybody to note is that we are trying to set up a committee to establish guidelines and standards for members of parliament and the Alliance Party has refused to participate in an endeavour to make sure that we have guidelines that apply to all members of parliament and all members of the Senate.
International Criminal CourtMr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the United States is opposed to the authority of the future International Criminal Court extending to American military on peace missions. Not only does this attitude threaten the role of the court, but also the very existence of future peace missions that may be organized under the auspices of the UN.
Does the Prime Minister, who will meet with the U.S. president during the G-8 summit, intend to express his opposition, and strongly urge the president to modify his attitude?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were among the first to work on this issue. We are pleased to have made so much progress. This is another initiative of the Government of Canada with other countries.
We would obviously like the Americans to participate, but they do not want to. We deeply regret this and I have already had the opportunity to say so to the U.S. authorities.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rigidity of the U.S. position, does the government plan to suspend sending Canadian troops on any mission under foreign command, and will he make a commitment to no longer send troops unless they are under the auspices of the UN?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, these are situations that must be assessed on a case by case basis. Sometimes it is impossible to get UN consent, because certain members have a veto on the security council.
However, on some occasions in the past, when it was necessary to protect the lives of civilians and there was no consent from the United Nations, Canada has joined peacekeeping missions, even without the explicit authorization of the United Nations, when one or two members of the security council had refused to support the initiative.
The MediaMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, despite the denials there are still plenty of suspicions that the Prime Minister was somehow involved in the firing of the prominent journalist who was critical of his leadership.
Those suspicions received new fuel today with the news that another prominent person has felt the sting of the Prime Minister's Office for criticizing the Prime Minister and, worse yet, supporting his chief rival.
Raymond Garneau, a Quebecer with very strong credentials, was punted from the Bank of Canada board following his suggestion that the Prime Minister resign.
Who is next on the Prime Minister's hit list?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. I assume I am being asked to take this as being a representation on the part of the member as to who should be on the board of directors of the Bank of Canada. I will take it as that. Of course I am sure she will agree that the independence of the bank is a very important prerequisite for the credibility of the monitoring policy of the government. That has been the tradition and that will continue to be respected.
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, the government offers excuses just like it did with the firing of Russell Mills from the Ottawa Citizen. However Canadians still have their suspicions.
The Prime Minister has a pretty long reach given his concentration of power in that office, and there is ample evidence that he likes to use that power to advance his personal agenda. We also know he is not above pulling the levers of power to thwart the former finance minister's efforts to replace him.
Why is the government sending a not so subtle message that no one can say anything critical about the Prime Minister without the fear of job repercussions?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, some years ago, when there was another owner, Joan Fraser, Peter Calamai and Jim Travers lost their jobs. Warren Kinsella lost his job as a writer for the same group. There were no interventions. The owners of this corporation make their own decisions as did the previous owners and the owners before them. We have nothing to do with that. If I were to control the press, there would be a few mornings when some things would not appear in some of the newspapers.
Canadian HeritageMr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The minister must be aware now of the silly goings on in the United States capital where the U.S. house of representatives passed a motion claiming that somebody other than Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.
I am wondering if the minister will take the time to inform the U.S. congress that indeed yes, Virginia, Alexander Graham Bell did invent the telephone.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is one planted question that will bear fruit.
The member for Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant has raised a very important point. It has also been raised by my colleague from Brantford and by members on all sides of the House.
I am very pleased to report that right after question period I hope we will be able to table a unanimous resolution of all members of the House recognizing the fact that the real inventor of the telephone was indeed Alexander Graham Bell.
AgricultureLorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On the farm question, George Bush has put up 100% of the money for American farmers, not the states of Montana and North Dakota.
Our Liberal government wants to put up 60% of the money and the provinces the rest, which discriminates again some of the smaller provinces that do not have the same fiscal capacity as some of the larger ones.
Our federal government is sitting on an $8 billion surplus today. International trade is under federal jurisdiction. Because of those facts, will the Prime Minister now do the right thing and make sure the federal government pays 100% of the cost to the farmers of this country?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to give our share. It has been that way for a long time and it will continue to be that way.
When there has been a problem of joint jurisdiction, like this one, both governments have contributed. We hope all governments will do the same at this time. That has been the case in the past and we hope it will be the case in the future.
However we have moved first. Yesterday the leaders in the agricultural community praised the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the government for the action we have taken.
National DefenceMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The government is in contractual talks with Tibbett &amp; Britten of England to privatize the supply chain of our military.
Over 1,600 public service workers and over 3,000 businesses are very concerned that there has been no security, no savings and no scrutiny of this contract.
Will the defence minister assure all parliamentarians and all Canadians that no contract will be signed until the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and the auditor general have a thorough review of this project?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his steadfast support of the military which has taken his party in new and very welcome directions.
As for the supply chain, he said that there was no security. As I explained in the House a while ago, not only are all the workers guaranteed their jobs at full wages, but they get seven years job security which, as I indicated before, is a lot more than those of us sitting on this front bench.
The EnvironmentMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, I hope I get a better answer than that.
About a year ago I raised the question about Isle Haute, a pristine island in the Bay of Fundy, two and a half kilometres long, which is exactly the same as it was about 10,000 years ago.
I asked the Minister of the Environment if he would designate this a wilderness preserve. He seemed to be inclined to do that. Has he made any progress on this designation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give a report for the hon. member. The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans responsible for Nova Scotia and myself have been working on this. We recognize the historic importance of the island and its environmental importance.
We expect to transfer it from DFO to Environment Canada this year. We hope shortly thereafter to include it in our national wildlife area as soon as possible.
I will certainly be keeping the hon. member informed so that he can attend the ceremony when it takes place.
National DefencePeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the resource starved Department of National Defence will spend tens of millions of dollars on obsolete analogue foreign communications equipment from France to upgrade the Aurora aircraft. It could have purchased high quality, high tech digital technology from a firm right here at home.
Kanata based DRS Technologies Canada supplies the U.S. navy. It could have handled this upgrade with the state of the art equipment for our soldiers.
Could the Minister of National Defence assure the House that the purchase is the best deal in the interest of Canadians, not in the interest of the Liberal Party?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this particular case and report back to the hon. member.
In general, what my department does is it puts these contracts out to tender. There are bids made and we go by a combination of the lowest price and the best technical performance. I have every reason to expect that this was done in this case, but I will look into it.
AfricaRahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is staking a lot of his legacy on what he can accomplish at the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis.
Since he will be doing it on the backs of Canadian taxpayers, we need a clear response on his African agenda, especially in light of his weak reaction to democratic violations by Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
What assurance can he give Canadians that their hard-earned tax dollars will flow only to those nations which clearly embrace democracy, the rule of law and human rights for all their citizens?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will appreciate the exciting prospect that the Prime Minister has initiated with the G-8 by working with NEPAD. It is precisely to enable us to work with our African partners to encourage better democracy. This is exactly what the NEPAD initiative will do.
What is interesting about it, and where the Prime Minister has shown great leadership, is this will allow African nations themselves to be engaged in the process of judging themselves. That is exactly what we did with the Commonwealth. We are confident this will happen with Mr. Mugabe in Zimbabwe as well.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, this is the exact problem. The Canadian Alliance and the Canadian people actually are in favour of providing support to people in desperate need. What we do not support is sending the money over there without the safeguards and assurances that it will get to the people who in fact need it.
The Prime Minister seems to be willing to rely on people like Robert Mugabe to distribute Canadian aid. Members of his caucus have voted down an Alliance request for a closer examination of these expenditures.
Will the Prime Minister agree today to an independent public audit of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid spending to ensure the money gets to those who need it?
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we constantly and regularly audit internally and outside what goes on at CIDA on how our dollars are delivered. We ensure that our dollars are delivered to those people in need. We work with reputable international and Canadian organizations to make sure the dollars and the food go where they need to be and to the people who need them.
We are not working with the government of Zimbabwe right now. That is a well known fact. We are working with international organizations. We will be making a number of decisions in the coming days about how those dollars get to where they need to be.
Official LanguagesMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says that almost everything his official languages action plan will contain comes under provincial jurisdiction.
That being the case, does the minister intend to take any steps to ensure that other Canadian provinces provide their minorities with services similar to those which Quebec is providing for its anglophone minority?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
The Prime Minister made official languages one of the priorities of his mandate in the Speech from the Throne. We are determined to bring Canada to a turning point so that the fact that we have two official languages, which are international languages, is more than ever an asset for all Canadians.
For instance, we have decided that one of our objectives was to double the number of secondary school graduates able to express themselves in both languages. This is an essential dimension of the country's competitiveness, and we are determined to move ahead.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, in announcing his action plan, does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs also intend to provide francophone communities with the financial means necessary to achieve the goals he set?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, resources will certainly need to be increased, but there are ways of going about things. We must be very clear about our objectives and work very closely with the provinces.
I must say that in my contacts with my provincial counterparts, I sensed a desire to act. And I would like to congratulate the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, which strengthened its Official Languages Act. It did so unanimously and with the support of the people of New Brunswick.
Middle EastMr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, suicide bombers do not act alone. To perpetrate their deliberate attacks on children and other innocents, they need an extensive network of accomplices, people to build the bombs, financiers to pay for them, map makers and planners, people to encourage them with false promises of heaven, and people to guide them through military checkpoints and security clearances.
Is it the government's position that Yasser Arafat, a confessed terrorist himself, has no knowledge of the many people in these networks and that he is powerless to disrupt them? Is that our government's position on Yasser Arafat?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, everyone on this side of the House and I believe everyone in the House deplores these senseless acts of violence that take the lives of innocent people. The Prime Minister demonstrated that with his strong statement the other day to this effect. We constantly remonstrate with everybody in the world to stop these acts.
I agree with the hon. member that there are problems of incitement. I specifically spoke yesterday to the minister of foreign affairs of Egypt and to the minister of foreign affairs of Jordan to tell them to speak to Mr. Arafat to make sure that he clearly removes all incitement, all inducements of anybody in his area to take the lives of innocent--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, the question was about Mr. Arafat, not those other ministers.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have demonstrated over the last couple of days how vocal and condemning they can be of the United States commander in chief after they read unconfirmed media reports that he might have plans for Saddam Hussein. However, day after day, with confirmed media coverage of the suicide slaughter of innocent children in Israel, unless we push the government in question period like today, we rarely hear vocal condemnation of Yasser Arafat and his lack of action on this murderous network within his own enclave.
Why so much silence unless we push the government?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, it must be Friday because the pushing of the government is coming two days after the Prime Minister's specific denouncement of this act. Maybe what pushing should be done is to the hon. member's staff to get him the information when released by the government. That might get us further along this line.
Veterans AffairsMr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veteran Affairs has stated in the House that finding a resolution for first nations veterans is a top priority for the government. The government has been very optimistic that this resolution could come to a close.
Could the minister tell us now, before the summer recess, is there a more definitive answer on how we can address the first nations veterans issue?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for his continuing interest in this issue. I thank all government members as well others in the House who have expressed similar sentiments.
I am pleased to announce today that the Government of Canada on compassionate grounds has set aside $39 million to help in the resolution of this issue, with up to $20,000 per living first nations veteran, or their spouse, who returned to the reserves after the wars.
Softwood LumberAndy Burton: Mr. Speaker, forest workers, communities and companies are coping with layoffs and closures as a result of the Canada-U.S. softwood dispute.
The senior minister for B.C. said several weeks ago that there would be an upcoming announcement of financial assistance for B.C. forest workers. Dollars to U.S. ad campaigns and R and D may be useful, but this does nothing to assist the laid off logger or mill worker whose EI benefits are running out.
When will the minister announce a package of useful and practical assistance for laid off forest workers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the government is very concerned about the impact of the trade dispute on softwood lumber workers in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, really wherever the industry is found.
I want to assure the hon. member that currently the employment insurance system is strong and the vast majority of those workers in the industry will be eligible for employment insurance benefits. As I have said over and over again in the House, we are following the circumstances. We are tracing the employment insurance beneficiaries directly and if more needs to be done, more will be done.
Andy Burton: Mr. Speaker, this really does not help those whose EI benefits are running out. The minister is doing nothing to assist these forestry workers other than to buy time for the government at the workers' expense.
It will be a long, hot summer for laid off forest workers and their families. They need to hear good news, not more of the same about WTO and NAFTA and advertising programs and programs that may or may not help them.
Why will the government not address real needs right now and announce a package which extends useful assistance to long suffering B.C. forest workers? Why not?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that real assistance is in place. It is there through the employment insurance program. It is there with the $13 million that has been set aside in the province of British Columbia specifically to assist these workers in their continuing skills development. Again, as I have said, if more needs to be done, more will be done.
Kyoto ProtocolMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week at the consultations on climate change held in Montreal, organizations such as Greenpeace, Équiterre and Quebec's Environnement Jeunesse have reiterated the benefits of ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell us whether, given the recent consultations and the example of the European Union and Japan, the federal government plans to ratify Kyoto this year?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is true that we have held consultations over the past three weeks with interested groups, industry in particular.
These very important discussions and consultations have proven very effective. We shall be continuing the debate with the Canadian public until the fall and I hope we will reach a decision this year, but we shall see.
We are going to reach a decision after all consultation has taken place and after we have a plan in place that does not have a negative impact on any of this country's regions.
HealthCharles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, released last week, a poll commissioned by the Government of Canada reveals that 84% of Canadians want labels on genetically modified foods.
Could the Minister of Health indicate when the government is likely to make a decision on the mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the government recognizes the importance to all Canadians in relation to the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology.
The hon. member has worked hard on this issue and is fully aware that the Standing Committee on Health is studying the matter. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has just recently issued a report.
The hon. member is also aware that we have presently voluntary labelling of foods where biotechnology has been applied to those foods.
I want to reassure everyone while we await the report of the Standing Committee on Health, both the Department of Health and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency put the health and safety of Canadians first.
Government ContractsRob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the last question. We have asked many times and have been rebuffed, refused, ridiculed and rejected. Still, Canadians demand answers. So I ask again for government concurrence with the Canadian Alliance call for a corruption cleanup, a full, independent, public, judicial inquiry now.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, alas, we have asked repeated times and we have been stonewalled. We have even been ridiculed by the other side when we have asked them to come clean with the source of funding for their leadership candidates in the last campaign. Is it from Canada? Who is it from? What is it all about? They just want to keep it hidden in the dark. What are they trying to hide?
The Speaker: We could go on, but we will not.
This is the last scheduled sitting day before our summer recess.
I would therefore like to invite all hon. members to a little reception in room 216 after the House adjourns.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: When are we going to adjourn?
The Speaker: It could be at any time, but that decision is not up to the Chair.

Routine Proceedings
Regional Development BanksPaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and on behalf of the minister responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report entitled “Report to Parliament--Canada's Participation in the Regional Development Banks 2000”.
Alexander Graham BellSheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent on the following motion, which has been discussed with all parties, regarding Alexander Graham Bell. I move:

This House affirms that Alexander Graham Bell of Brantford, Ontario and Baddeck, Nova Scotia is the inventor of the telephone.

The Speaker: Does the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that we forward a copy of this to the congress in the United States so they get their facts straight?
PetitionsMr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the member for Peterborough concerning child pornography. The petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia and sado-masochism activities involving children are outlawed.
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of about 60 residents of my riding of Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia. These petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians and that the courts, in the petitioners' opinions, have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.
Therefore, these 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.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, like the two previous members I am presenting a petition on behalf of citizens who are concerned and sickened about child pornography provisions in the country.
What I am very surprised by is that the two previous members introducing these petitions were government members, and they were voting with the government and being tolerant with regard to these various provisions that allowed John Robin Sharpe and others to possess and hold this material. That is what upsets me, but I present this petition in the constituents' names.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: That is out of order, Mr. Speaker.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, some of which are from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that: hundreds of thousands of Canadians suffer from very debilitating illnesses such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, et cetera; that Canadians support ethical stem cell research, which has already shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for these illnesses and diseases; and that adult stem cells have shown significant research potential for these purposes without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.
The petitioners therefore 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.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions from rural mail cariers across the land who call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. This is the section of the legislation that makes it impossible for rural mail carriers to collectively bargain with Canada Post. Rural mail cariers have a great deal of difficulty getting the kind of wages that are competitive and appropriate in Canada. These petitioners would urge the government to reconsider that portion of the legislation and repeal the section so that they can bargain collectively.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by business owners, self-employed workers, subcontractors and citizens.
Self-employed workers do not qualify for employment insurance, but it would be important to allow them to have access to this program.
Therefore, the petitioners are asking parliament to quickly deal with the situation and to take the necessary measures to ensure that these workers qualify for employment insurance.
The number of self-employed workers will be growing constantly in the future.
Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first one concerns rural mail carriers. The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which would then allow collective bargaining.
Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have, from 45 constituents, concerns child pornography. It is essentially the same petition that has been presented three times already in the House today. 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.
Questions on the Order PaperPaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make this quick because I realize everyone wants to go home.
There is a requirement under section 115 of the Canada Pension Plan act that when a bill is introduced in parliament that alters the Canada Pension Plan act it is to be accompanied by a report from the Chief Actuary of Canada. The reason is to provide members with necessary information to consider the changes.
However, the law has a flaw, or perhaps I could describe it as a loophole, that gives the minister the excuse to proceed with the bill without the report and that is exactly what happened with Bill C-58. We had to consider Bill C-58 at second reading without the report and that impeded members' ability to be effective legislators. The report was tabled 11 days after its introduction. This type of delay is frankly unacceptable. Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, since the bill fails to address the current situation whereby changes to the Canada Pension Plan act can be considered by this House before the required report of the Chief Actuary of Canada is tabled, a situation that diminishes the ability of the House to competently perform its legislative role.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The amendment is acceptable to the Chair.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had understood today that on the carriage of the bill we would then proceed to adjourn. Of course proceeding with that amendment prevents the carriage of the bill, which means we cannot. That was the agreement that had been formally agreed to; unless we could defeat that amendment on division and go back to the original question. Obviously things have not panned out in the way officials from all parties had informally agreed to.
Perhaps while I am saying this, if the Chair will be patient with me, someone on the other side will verify internally as to what was to occur, to ensure that in fact what was informally agreed to is occurring, we could either withdraw the motion or defeat it on division. If the hon. member is indicating that he will not, notwithstanding the all party agreement, that is unfortunate. I guess the only thing we can do now is continue with the debate on this item. If the Chair will be patient for a minute, perhaps someone on the other side can respond to the point of order.
Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, there is another way with which this could be dealt that would respect the agreement among House leaders. That would be for the House to agree to accept the amendment.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Madam Speaker, the other thing we could do, of course, is just simply vote on the amendment that the member has put, or we could call for the vote and postpone that until September 18.
Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, there was an agreement today that the Alliance would be able to have a speaker up on the bill. I am that speaker. That was the agreement among the House leaders. I have duly, as a member of parliament, moved an amendment to that particular bill. That is all perfectly legitimate. There is nothing untoward about that. We have a prerogative to do that as members of parliament.
Madam Speaker, you have duly accepted it. I respect that. If the government House leader does not like it, that is something he will have to deal with. Nonetheless, I am the sole speaker that we wanted to have up today. I have done my duty. I could go on and speak at length to the bill, but--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Order, please. The hon. member is perfectly right. As a member he had every right to move the amendment. The amendment was acceptable under the rules of the House. We are now debating the amendment. Whatever negotiations took place, the Chair was not privy to those negotiations.
On debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I was prepared to speak to the bill itself, not to the amendment. The amendment would basically kill the bill, which was not in accordance with the understanding and the agreement between the House leaders. Notwithstanding that, the member decided he wanted to take this attack.
Let me make a few comments on the bill and why the bill should pass. I think members will know from the debate so far that we are dealing with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board that is charged with the responsibility of investing Canada pension plan dollars. These dollars are kept separate from government dollars that are available for spending on programs and services for Canadians. The premiums are put aside and invested to earn a proper return so that pensioners under the Canada pension plan will be assured long term stability and security.
I would also point out that the Canada pension plan is much more than just a pension for those who contribute to the plan to receive benefit during retirement. Canadians should also know that the pension plan also provides survivor benefits. In the event someone who has made contributions to the plan dies before they can collect those benefits, or even after they starting collecting and subsequently die but have a surviving spouse, the benefits can be transferred to that surviving spouse. There are also death benefits, not only for the estate or for the surviving spouse but also for the children of the deceased.
Finally, there also is the disability insurance. It is an expensive proposition. It was introduced as part of the plan. It represents a very growing part of the cost of the Canada pension plan administration and the system of benefits. It is a very important part of that pension plan. I am not sure if Canadians know why that is in a pension plan. It is there to provide protection to Canadians who might not otherwise have workers' compensation or other disability insurance in the event they become disabled and are unable to earn an income for their families and to take care of their financial responsibilities.
The Canada pension plan system came in 1966. It was in response to an interesting phenomenon. People who were reaching their retirement age at age 65 had come through the depression years. They not only had a lot of difficulty getting work to provide for their families, but they also had no opportunity to put money away for their retirement. Therefore, the Canada pension plan was an important instrument to provide retirement benefits for Canadians.
However, those people were getting benefits immediately on the passage and introduction into law of the Canada Pension Plan Act. The act provided benefits which were paid for by the current contributions of the workers of Canada. We had at the time over five workers in Canada for every one pensioner under the Canada pension plan. That was very adequate to ensure that there was appropriate funding for the pensions of these Canadians who did not have an opportunity to provide for their retirement and who now were drawing benefits from the plan.
Canadians know that as time goes on our society ages. It is estimated that in the next 10 to 15 years we only will have about three workers for every one pensioner. That puts a greater burden on the system to sustain a much larger number of pensioners. Therefore the House approved changes to the Canada Pension plan act which would put it on a long term stable footing.
In the nineties, in my early years as a parliamentarian, I often heard that the Canada pension plan was bankrupt because the premiums were going toward paying pensioners. People felt that was their money. They wanted to know why it was not being accumulated. That is the explanation.
As we move forward and as benefits improve, premium schedules have been put in to ensure long term financial stability for our plan. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has also been established. That board was established for one purpose and one purpose only: to ensure that it earned a fair and equitable return on its investments for the protection of moneys of today and future pensioners.
The board was not set up as a policy instrument. It was not set up as a board to direct its investments in certain areas but not others. A very significant amount of Canadian money is involved. Imagine if that investment board had a plan whereby it would invest in high technologies exclusively. That kind of capital being directed totally in one sector of the economy would be terribly disruptive. It could severely impact the market value of other securities on the exchanges.
One proviso of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was that its investments mirror the level of activity and the kind of investments Canadians themselves would make in each of the stock exchanges so there would be no disruptive effect of this large amount of capital going into the equity markets.
The bill also has a proviso whereby up to 30% of investments can be made in offshore investments. One reason for that is it mirrors what the Income Tax Act now provides for all Canadians. Canadians know that Canadian markets have a quite satisfactory return rate. However from time to time there are investments abroad unavailable on the Canadian market. Canadians feel for their own retirement purposes, for their RRSPs or for their own personal investments to further provide for their retirement, that they want an opportunity to invest in foreign markets. As a consequence currently there is the 30% foreign ownership limit. That is what is being prescribed again to emulate exactly the laws that are there today for individual investors.
A previous speaker suggested that we not maximize the return for investments but maybe start to use it as a policy instrument or start to invest some money in infrastructure, venture capital operations and other things like water safety. As I said, the purpose of the investment board is not to be an instrument of policy. We have opportunities. We have all the tools we need to invest in infrastructure. We have tools to promote good health, such as tobacco cessation programs and to deal with things like drug problems. The money of the pensioners should not be put at risk on those policy initiatives. We should use the tools which have been directly set up to achieve those policy objectives.
The policy objective of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is to protect the money of contributors to the Canada pension plan thereby providing long term stability and survivability of that plan on a sustained basis for all current and future pensioners. That is important to point out.
That is why I oppose the amendment which basically says that the bill should not go forward. It basically eviscerates the bill. I am not sure whether it is constructive to do that. The member should simply speak to the bill, lay out the reasons why he does not support it, step by step, so people have an understanding of the basis for the objection.
The member has a right to table an amendment. However to say that he does not want the bill without giving reasons is really not responsible. I hope we find a resolution to this because the bill should go forward. It is an appropriate bill. It addresses a longer term implementation of getting the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board on a stable footing for the long term sustainability of the CPP.
There were some earlier comments about an ethical screening. Canadians know that there are certain investments and mutual funds. Their investments are based on certain principles. For instance, they will never invest in the tobacco industry or in activities that are damaging to our environment. Some of those have done well and some have not.
Through those investment instruments we might demonstrate our wishes, but I am not sure whether it is the most effective way to address our concerns, whether they be the health of Canadians or protection of our environment, which is also an important health issue, or to improve infrastructure, water, housing or any of the other important social needs that Canadians have and want.
Canadians should also know that the Canada pension plan is a program which is not just operated on behalf of Canadians by the federal government. It is the joint responsibility of the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments to agree on the benefits and administration of the plan. The investment board is a vehicle under the Canada Pension Plan Act to make the investments secure, stable and wisely on behalf of Canadians but not to make policy as to what benefits are given, et cetera. There are certain things that must be done.
This is an important element because one of the members suggested that somehow we needed to have on the investment board representatives of pensioners, non-pensioners, future pensioners, trade unions, labour, white collar and blue collar workers. If we were to say that every government agency and board should represent every identifiable group within Canada, we would have boards of hundreds, if not thousands, of people to appropriately reflect the balance and mixture of groups.
I have always opposed making lists. If we have a list of appropriate people it must mean somebody is left off and that person must be inappropriate. However what about those people who are not represented on the list but are not inappropriate? We get ourselves into trouble by making lists.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was established for the purpose of ensuring that the dollars of Canadians, who invested in their pensions, would get a fair and reasonable return, given the opportunities within the marketplace, and in a way which would not be disruptive to the overall marketplace, given the substantial amount of money being administered by the plan.
The issues are clear. The investment board was established for specific reasons with specific criteria brought forward by the federal-provincial-territorial governments. The administration and continued enhancement of benefits are there so that when the circumstances warrant, Canadians, through their elected representatives at all levels of government, federal, provincial and many of the others, have an opportunity for input. Therefore it is not necessary to have distinct groups represented on the board. The board has its mandate and gets its direction from time to time from the representatives of all Canadians, their elected officials. That is the beauty of our parliamentary democracy.
I oppose the amendment posed by the hon. member. I am sorry he thought he had to do it because it was not reflective of the House leaders' agreement. I know he still wants to exercise his responsibilities.
I hope we have a resolution to the issue in the best interest of all Canadians. I will be voting against the amendment posed by the hon. member.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the discourse of my distinguished colleague in the House today. He will recognize that some years ago the Government of Canada, through the excellent leadership it has been exercising, put in place the investment mechanisms we know of now.
Does the hon. member remember the previous system? It worked in a rather curious way whereby the funds accumulated on premiums were converted to loans at below prime to the provincial governments, except of course the province of Quebec which has a much better system. It has an investment fund of its own which generally speaking has worked quite well. Does my hon. colleague agree that when we put together that mechanism it was high time to put the Canada pension plan back on a sound footing?
Many years ago I was in the provincial legislature along with my hon. colleague from Halton. He and I and David Peterson who was our leader at the time often questioned the then government of Ontario about how it administered the funds. They seemed to disappear into a black hole.
Perhaps my hon. colleague would agree that unlike the U.S. social security system and perhaps those of other countries, under our government Canada's national pension plan has been put back on a proper and sound footing. First, we have done so by raising premiums as we needed to. We got the consent of the provinces to do this through a federal-provincial agreement as I am sure all members remember.
Second, we have provided for mechanisms whereby in the future income would be generated so that many years from now, Madam Speaker, when you drew CPP benefits and in many fewer years when I did, there would be funding for future generations of beneficiaries.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, the hon. government House leader is quite correct. In 1966 when the Canada pension plan was instituted there were more than five workers for every pensioner. The premiums started at around $35 a year to create reserves over time which were loaned to the provinces at nominal rates of interest. At the time it was not of concern because there were sufficient workers in the labour force to provide the benefits.
However as all members know, as the plan matured and our aging society started to kick in, changes had to be made to ensure sufficient premiums were being collected. This had to be done to ease the burden on the labour force 10 to 15 years from now when there will be only three workers for every pensioner. The changes were made because Canadians felt the Canada pension plan system was an important instrument for them not only for its pension benefits but for its survivor, disability and death benefits.
Members may not be aware of this, but a person who started working in Canada in 1966 when the Canada pension plan was introduced and who has continued to work up to today and pay all the premiums would have put in less than two year's worth of Canada pension plan benefits. Such a person would have put less than $16,000 of his or her own money into the Canada pension plan.
This shows that the plan is on a substantive footing. We have the actuarial statements. The Canada pension plan is subject to biannual reviews by the federal and provincial governments to ensure all the provisions are respected and that the work of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is proceeding as planned. Notwithstanding the variability of the marketplace, the plan continues to perform equitably relative to other investors.
However over the longer term a balance between equity and debt instruments has shown a better performance than simple nominal rates to the provinces. This alone reflects the fact that the decision taken by the Parliament of Canada to institute the investment board was exactly the right thing to do.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, is there anyone in the House who agrees with the ad hoc amendment that was thrown out at the last--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sorry, that decision has already been made and you are questioning a decision of the Chair.
Larry Bagnell: Madam Speaker, because we had this frivolous last moment amendment, could the hon. member outline or summarize for the House what this important bill would do? The amendment would have pretty well emasculated or blocked the passage of this important bill that would help protect the investments of poor people in the country.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, there is not enough time to answer the hon. member's important question.
The Canada pension plan system has evolved to the point where the vision for the long term sustainability of the plan was looked at in 1997. Plans have been made. Canadians should be encouraged that the Government of Canada had the vision to look at the plan to find out how to ensure its long term sustainability and put it on the sound footing it is on now.
As a consequence of that work returns are being made which reflect a fair and reasonable return relative to other investment opportunities on a balanced basis and in a way that does not disrupt the financial markets. It gives Canadians a level of comfort level to know their pension benefits, survivor benefits, death benefits and disability benefits would all be there for them in the long term.
Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, the amendment has raised two fundamental issues of importance to parliament. First, it raises the issue of the right of members of parliament to introduce amendments that are important to them, whatever the agreements that might have been made among House leaders. The Chair has ruled on that question. It ruled the amendment to be in order.
There may well be disagreement about the extent or nature of the agreement among House leaders. If that is the case it is a commentary on the obligation of the government House leader to ensure that when he enters into an agreement with House leaders of other parties its implication is understood in the same way in all parts of the House.
Let us not forget that the amendment is about the right of parliament to make decisions on matters of fundamental public importance based on the fullest information possible. Parliament should not have to rush into decisions before the information is available for it to consider, information that is provided at public expense and by the law of the land.
As was made clear in the language of the amendment and the brief remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West, the amendment was introduced because the present situation is unacceptable. Parliament is required to make decisions before receiving and digesting the report required by law to be tabled in the House by the Chief Actuary of Canada.
If this were the only case in which the government had denied parliament access to the information it needed to decide, that would be one thing. However it is about a much larger principle. It is about the consistent and growing practice of the government to deny information about decisions that are essential not only to parliament but to the public of Canada.
The chief actuary reports to the House of Commons of Canada for a reason, and the reason is not to give a running commentary for historians to consider in years to come. It is to ensure parliamentarians who make decisions on public policy have the facts in hand.
The present situation allows the actuary's report to be tabled after decisions are taken. Decisions must be taken without the information in hand. This is not only perverse. It reflects the government's growing practice of trying to deny members of the House of Commons and citizens of the country the information they require to make major decisions.
It happens here with respect to the report of the Chief Actuary of Canada. It also occurs on a range of other questions. Everyone in the House is aware of the government's treatment of the information commissioner. When he seeks the information that is legitimately his, the Prime Minister of Canada intervenes in the courts. He uses the lawyers of the Government of Canada to try to prevent the information commissioner from exercising the rights given to him by the Parliament of Canada to look into the private books of the Prime Minister.
This indicates the elevation of the personal interest of the Prime Minister over the public interest of the country. It demonstrates the government's determination to withhold as much information as possible on as many subjects as possible from the people of Canada.
There are members in the House who have claimed to support the information commissioner. However the government has established a committee of public servants to make recommendations on how to tighten the rules of access to information even further and thereby make it more difficult for parliament and the people of Canada to have the facts upon which decisions can be based. The government has taken the same action with respect to the chief actuary that it has taken with respect to the officer whose role is to ensure access to information.
The instances go on and on. They are before the House today with respect to the extremely limited inquiry being carried out into the question of publicity and sponsorship contracts by the Government of Canada.
Earlier today we heard the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services say that there is a government-wide inquiry into this matter by the auditor general. That is absolutely false. That is not the case.
The powers of the auditor general are very explicitly limited to conduct an inquiry respecting sponsorship, respecting advertising, only into those agencies where she has the power under the law to conduct an audit. That is not government wide.
She does not have that power with respect to the so-called arm's length corporations, corporations that set up in effect for off the books accounting, a practice that became known in the private sector, to everyone's chagrin, not long ago with Enron. The auditor general cannot audit those matters so she cannot look at the expenditure or the potential patronage on publicity or on sponsorship programs entered into by any of those corporations, which include the millennium scholarship fund and a number of other agencies where the association with the Liberal Party of Canada is already too close.
There is a $7 billion pool of money that can be used for improper purposes by the government that specializes in improper purposes and it is beyond the range of inquiry of the auditor general. Yet the government pretends it is a government-wide inquiry, government wide except for $7 billion.
Worse than that, there is a series of crown corporations for which the auditor general is not the auditor. She is thus not empowered to conduct an inquiry into the abuse of sponsorship or advertising programs in those crown corporations. They include, among others, Canada Post. Who by the surest of happenstance is in charge of Canada Post? André Ouellet, a former government minister, someone who, when he was here, was known to be among the most skillful--
Larry Bagnell: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I realize the House always gives tremendous leeway in debate, which I often use myself, but really, we are debating an amendment to the Canada pension plan and the member has barely mentioned it once. He is talking about the auditor general. He is talking about inquiries. He is talking about $7 billion. He is talking about crown corporations. He is talking about Canada Post. I would appreciate it if he could add some light to the actual amendment we are debating.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question of relevance is always relevant. The right hon. member has experience in the House and I am sure he will return to the amendment.
Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, I am dealing directly, and I have been consistently through my remarks, with the fundamental principle of the amendment before the House. It is an amendment that is designed specifically to ensure that when parliament makes decisions on matters relating to he Canada pension plan it is able to do that having in hand the report of the Chief Actuary of Canada. The present practice denies us that information.
The amendment is about access to information. The reason the amendment is so very important and why we would support it is precisely that it has become a practice of the government on issue after issue, as my friend from Yukon has indicated and he knows as well as I do that the list is long and it is lengthening of areas in which the government tries to shut out the public. I could go on much longer than my time allows to identify those instances.
The point is that in a democracy we need information to decide. The House of Commons which is at the heart of our democracy particularly needs good, current information to make decisions. It needs the information before the decisions are to be made.
Under the present practice, addressed directly by this amendment, it is clear that the information does not come until after the decisions are made. That is wrong and it should be changed. The amendment seeks to change that but it is a much larger practice. The government consistently tries to move forward and it keeps the public and parliament, those who should be informed in a democracy, those instruments of democracy in the dark. That is the relevance of the amendment and the reason I am addressing it so significantly.
I do want to return to the other troubling instance of the practice of holding information back from bodies that have to make decisions.
I was speaking about the inability under the law now of the auditor general to conduct an investigation into the $7 billion that is held right now by the arm's length foundations and the inability of the auditor general to look at agencies like Canada Post which, although we do not know and will not know until we see the facts, may well be abusing its authority and entering into the kinds of contracts with Groupaction or with others that have caused such a furor here. That is why we need to see the facts. The RCMP cannot look into those activities. As well, no committee of the House can. Right now the auditor general is precluded from looking into those by the legislation that guides her decision.
However, that legislation under section 11 also vests in the Government of Canada the capacity to extend the right of audit of the auditor general to those arm's length foundations and to each of the crown corporations where patronage might now be practised. It would take a simple decision by the Government of Canada to say that the auditor general under section 11 has that authority. Once she is given that authority, as night follows day, she then also has the authority to take her investigation into potential patronage and into the activities of sponsorship and publicity into the areas where she is given the capacity to conduct an audit by the government. However, that is up to the government and it knows that.
The President of the Treasury Board today gave me an answer, and I want to be careful of my parliamentary language, designed to mislead. It was successful in its design. However, there is not a government-wide inquiry into this matter.
On the principle here today, we cannot make decisions on Canada pension plan matters based upon the report of the Chief Actuary of Canada if we are asked to make the decisions before we receive the report. It is very simple. Any child in grade school would understand that. The government understands it.
This should not be regarded as a mistake. This is a practice. The government wants parliament to make decisions without adequate information because it knows that information empowers and the absence of information enfeebles. What it wants is a parliament and a public that knows as little as possible about public business.
It is a characteristic of the government and it is a characteristic that is clear in the legislation before us now. It is a characteristic that would be changed if the motion proposed by my colleague from Calgary West were to be supported, which is why we will support the amendment when it comes to a vote today.
John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Centre for his remarks on this particular issue and the amendment. It gives me the opportunity to speak to the issue of access to information as opposed to the more limited and narrow application of the auditor general's right to audit foundations.
This gives me an opportunity to report that the task force on access to information that was struck by treasury board and the Department of Justice two years ago presented its report not a week ago. One of the major features of that report was a recommendation that would bring under the Access to Information Act the foundations and crown corporations alluded to by my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre.
I would submit to him that what we really ought to be doing in this parliament is urging the government to act on that particular recommendation in the task force report, which I suggest to him would have far more sweeping impact on government accountability and the accountability of crown corporations and arm's length agencies than having the auditor general have the right to review those agencies.
I point out to him, in the Groupaction sponsorship files case, a government audit was done on the sponsorship files in 2000 which disclosed all the problems. One of the problems it disclosed was the fact that for years contracts were being let and agreements were being entered into for which there was no documentation. One of the problems for the auditor general, and one of the problems for any police investigation that might be looking into this file, is that one cannot determine what actually occurred because the documents do not exist.
I suggest that a revised Access to Information Act that made sure all those documents that pertained to contracting out, in the sense that was done for the sponsorship program, should have been collected and put on the web so that any citizen, and even more importantly, any fellow colleagues or bureaucrats in the department of public works or any other agency would be able to look into that particular file of the sponsorship contracts. It would have been discovered instantly that the documents that should be created were not being created.
In other words, if we had a reformed Access to Information Act that guaranteed that this type of document when generated is to be publicly available. And if we insisted on a culture in the bureaucracy, and I think the bureaucracy is headed this way in any event, and I should say the government which includes the political government as well, we should be taking advantage of electronic access so this type of document would be readily available to all.
If that had been the system, we would not have had the problems that we have encountered now in the sponsorship file. We are all distressed by that because it is a reflection on the business of the bureaucracy in which Canadians have an enormous trust and any failure, of course, may erode the confidence Canadians have in what I feel is one of the best bureaucracies in the world.
So I submit to you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the member for Calgary Centre, although I certainly heard him on the suggestion about the auditor general but audits are only spot checks. What we really have to have is a system whereby there is always in place the kind of transparency that enables all Canadians and parliamentarians and the media to do their jobs to make sure that all areas of government are being managed in a way appropriate to the interests of all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find that there is unanimous consent to say that it is now 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the House give its consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-292, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-292, an act to amend the criminal code, selling wildlife.
I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the remarks made in the House of Commons on May 9 when this bill was debated. It is not helpful to the debate to suggest, as one hon. member did on that occasion, that anyone who does not support the bill is voting against saving wildlife.
The fact that illegal poaching is undesirable is not the issue. The issue is whether this bill in its present form is the most appropriate mechanism for addressing illegal poaching.
To answer this question it is necessary to identify the particular harm that is being addressed and then examine what it is about the current response to that harm which is lacking. For example, is the problem one of inadequate penalties in provincial wildlife regulatory schemes? If that is the problem, then the solution can be addressed in that context by provinces adjusting their penalty regimes so that the fines imposed do not become the cost of doing business for poachers.
If, on the other hand, the problem is that there is a gap in the law, it is necessary to identify the particular social harm that needs to be addressed. This in turn requires an assessment of whether the response required is one that in its essence is regulatory in nature or involves the creation of a true crime.
The Supreme Court of Canada has expressly recognized that common law has long acknowledged a distinction between truly criminal conduct and conduct otherwise lawful which is prohibited in the public interest. Mr. Justice Cory expounded upon this distinction further and stated:

Regulatory legislation involves a shift of emphasis from the protection of individual interests and the deterrence and punishment of acts involving moral fault to the protection of public and societal interests. While criminal offences are usually designed to condemn and punish past, inherently wrongful conduct, regulatory measures are generally directed to the prevention of future harm through the enforcement of minimum standards of conduct and care.

In her remarks on May 9, the sponsor of Bill C-292 suggested that the approach in her bill to selling wildlife is very similar to the way serious motor vehicle offences are handled. The hon. member went on to explain that the bill would give provincial authorities an opportunity to determine when something is serious enough and they want to have steeper and stiffer penalties to try to stop it from occurring.
With all due respect, it is not accurate to suggest that a rationale for creating a criminal code scheme in respect of selling wildlife is similar to the interplay between driving offences in provincial legislation and those outlined in the criminal code. For example, the offence in section 259 of the criminal code regarding the imposition of driving prohibition orders is not simply a provision that gives police access to higher penalties than those available in provincial legislation for driving while prohibited or disqualified.
The prohibition order provision in the criminal code has an independent rationale for its existence. It is logically related to sentencing objectives for a range of driving offences in the criminal code. These offences are not simply replicas of offences that exist in provincial legislation. The rationale for their existence is entirely consistent with parliament's exercise of its criminal law power. The offence of impaired driving causing death, for example, condemns morally blameworthy behaviour and addresses a well recognized social harm.
Bill C-292 does not have the appearance and elements of a true criminal law scheme. The scheme in Bill C-292 more closely resembles a regulatory scheme that is being proposed for inclusion in the criminal code. As noted by constitutional law expert, Professor Peter Hogg:

A criminal law ordinarily consists of a prohibition which is to be self-applied by the persons to whom it is addressed. There is not normally any intervention by an administrative agency or official prior to the application of the law.

In the context of the criminal code, the application of an offence provision, however, usually does not rely upon whether a licence to conduct the prohibited activity has been issued by a federal or provincial authority. In this regard, I note that Bill C-292 expressly provides that the offence provisions in respect of wildlife that is not a threatened or endangered species do not apply to persons who act in accordance with a licence issued pursuant to a federal or provincial statute or regulation.
Another feature of criminal code offences is that they almost always apply to everyone. It is extremely rare for the criminal code to specify exemptions for criminal liability in respect of particular offences. The exemptions set out in sections 204 to 207 inclusive of the criminal code relating to the gaming offences in part VII of the code, are a notable exception to the usual rule against exemptions. Nonetheless, it is extremely rare to specify exemptions that depend upon the exercise of discretion by a member of the executive branch of government.
Clause 447.8 of Bill C-292 states that the test for exercising this discretion is met “if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary or in the public interest”. This provision may be at risk of being challenged on a constitutional basis on the reasoning that the criteria are so subjective and general that they do not provide any real limits on the behaviour to be exempted. This feature is not at all typical of offence provisions in the criminal code.
It is also rare in the criminal code context to have a member of the executive confer with an advisory body in order to determine whether the subject matter of the offence, in this case wildlife, falls within a particular category. In this regard I note that subclauses 447.7(1) and 447.1(2) respectively give the Minister of the Environment the discretion to determine whether a species of wildlife is an endangered or threatened species.
Before making a designation of this nature, however, the Minister of the Environment must consult with the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. Again, this kind of provision is entirely in keeping with a regulatory scheme that has a broad, public welfare goal, such as preserving wildlife.
This brings me to another aspect of Bill C-292 which is not in keeping with the general approach to penalties in the criminal code. Bill C-292 sets out different maximum penalties for the offences in clause 447.2 depending upon whether the animal involved is wildlife as opposed to either a threatened or endangered species.
As I have just indicated, the determination of whether an animal is a threatened or endangered species would not be set out in the criminal code but would be set out in regulations and would be determined by the Minister of the Environment in consultation with a committee. Usually in the criminal code all the criteria for determining an applicable maximum penalty are set out in the criminal code itself.
Again, the more an offence provision moves away from determining penalties on the basis of the criminal culpability of the accused, the less likely it is to resemble a true criminal code offence.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that there is a distinction between the objectives of legislation and the mechanics of the legislation itself to achieve an objective. In respect of Bill C-292, I respectfully suggest that the objective of the bill is not entirely clear. It is not sufficient to simply suggest that illegal poaching is undesirable. I think the challenge is to determine what it is about the current response to illegal poaching that is problematic and then decide whether a response to this problem is most appropriately dealt with pursuant to parliament's exercise of its criminal law power. If so, I think more work needs to be done to ensure that the offences in Bill C-292 are more consistent with other provisions in the criminal code and do not conflict with other federal schemes which regulate wildlife.
I would like to thank hon. members for their attention on this important issue.
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in debate on Bill C-292 put forward by my colleague.
Before I begin addressing the subject, I thought of something just as we began this private members' business hour today and that is that I wish our standing orders would be changed. Somehow it seems to me to be somewhat contradictory that while we agree that no one here ever says anything that is not true and while we are talking about increasing the ethics in this place, quite regularly we agree to an outright lie, and that is to see the clock as something that it is not. I wish the standing orders would be changed so that instead of saying that we see the clock as something that it is not, we would say we agree to proceed to private members' hour, notwithstanding that it is not at the usual time at which we go to private members' hour. That is just something that occurred to me while I was sitting here. I guess it is that we have been so totally consumed with the issue of ethics, honesty, truth and so on that this thought should go through my brain at this time.
We are here to talk about a votable private member's bill. I would like to congratulate my colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, not only for having her bill drawn but also for having it made votable, both of which, in our environment here, are akin to winning the Lotto 649. I guess I am somewhat envious of her since I have said many times in the House how sad I feel about myself and this whole time as an MP never once having had a bill drawn. It could well be that in the next five or six years I will cease being an MP and I will have had 15 years in this place without ever having had a private member's bill drawn. Would that not be sad? Of course, that is now being changed. That is also a little digression.
Bill C-292 is a bill that my colleague brought forward as a result of some occurrences in her province of British Columbia, where individuals were caught just outright plain trading for profit by killing wild animals, that is, animals that are not domesticated animals, and profiteering from them.
When we look at this issue across the world we see that it is an issue of considerable importance. I think, for example, of the many species, some in Africa. I think of the fact that it has become illegal now to shoot an elephant just to gather its tusks. There are other animals around the world that are at risk because of the fact that human beings, for whatever reason, think it is acceptable to take the life of that animal even though but a small portion of it is used. I have heard of people who kill an animal just to take its tongue or its gall bladder or various other parts. I will not get into the gruesome details. The rest of the animal is not utilized. It seems like a violation of a sense of nature that this should be done so flippantly and so carelessly.
Therefore, I commend my colleague for bringing forward the bill as a result of an incident or two that occurred in her province where she saw a need for legislation to be strengthened.
One of the issues in the bill is that the penalties would be increased. Also, they would be increased in proportion to the number of occurrences. In other words, when people are caught the first time they will receive a very stern warning that what they have done is not acceptable, it is wrong, it is illegal and they will be told what the punishment is. However, if people, after paying their fines or serving their time in prison, are caught a second time, the penalties substantially increase.
I think that is a very good principle on which to operate, namely, that we recognize that the purpose of legislation and the purpose of criminal law is to deter the behaviour, a phrase which I use altogether too often. I know that next fall we will have a new set of pages and hopefully soon we will have a new set of people in the government, so we will have different people who will hear this.
Too often in my speeches I say there is not a law that we can pass that can make people good. The purpose of the law is to deter those who would do evil. Here we have a law with penalties that should deter an action which we consider to be wrong, immoral or evil. We do that with other things citizens in this country are prone to do which we want to discourage. We have it for all sorts of different offences.
The fact of the matter is that if a person is apprehended for committing an illegal act, pays the penalty and then does it again, it makes us think that perhaps the penalty was not high enough. Maybe it was not a large enough fine. Maybe the time in prison was not long enough. It makes eminent sense to increase the penalty for the second offence.
Just as a little sidebar, I thought we should apply this in our laws to prohibit speeding. I was amazed to find the huge disregard for speed laws in the province of Ontario. I did not hang around this province a great deal until I was elected. I have rented a car on a number of occasions and I find that on the highways in this province the speed is out of control.
This is a real sidebar. While I was driving along one of the highways just a couple of weekends ago, I clocked people who were passing me. In the 100 kilometre per hour zone, most of them were going 130 kilometres per hour. I clocked one woman in a van going 155 kilometres per hour. When I say I clocked her at 155 kilometres, I did not drive alongside her to see how fast she was going, in which case I would have been guilty of the same. No, Madam Speaker, you will remember that I am a mathematician and I have a way of computing that speed very accurately while still holding my own speed. If anyone needs to know about that, if anybody is interested in a math lesson, I can teach them how to do that with a very simple stopwatch that I have with me all the time.
I have often thought that to control speeding we should have a sliding scale of penalties. The penalty I proposed was the square of the amount by which we exceed the speed limit. If we exceed it by five kilometres per hour, five squared is 25, so our fine is $25. If we exceed it by 10 kilometres per hour, 10 squared is 100, so our fine is $100. If we exceed it by 15 kilometres per hour, 15 squared, as everybody knows, is 225 so that is the fine. It just keeps going up until we exceed it by 50 kilometres per hour, which many of these people were doing the other day on the highway, and the fine would be $2,500 for those going 150 in a 100 zone.
The principle of a scaled penalty, that is, the greater we break the law the greater the penalty, is a good one. If we broke the law and the penalty did not deter us and we got caught again, we did not learn our lesson so the penalty should be increased. I propose that for the second offence all of these penalties would be multiplied by two, and for the third offence, multiplied by three, and so on. We would come up with a very simple scale and eventually everybody would drive at the speed limit because they could no longer afford the penalties.
The same thing is true here. The hon. member has proposed in the bill that for second offences those penalties should be greatly increased. That is a very fine principle, one which I would certainly support.
In conclusion, I simply would like to say that incorporated in the bill are a number of really good ideas. The intent is to prevent people who, due to the lack of a penalty, the lack of legislation, the lack of serious penalties for this behaviour, will do it because they can make money with it. The proposal here is to put fines up to $150,000, I think. These are serious penalties so that those who are in the business of taking animals from the wild, trading them and making huge amounts of profit would be deterred from actually doing it, that being the ultimate purpose of such a law.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity of participating in the debate on this final Friday afternoon of the spring session. I, too, give to you, to the others in the Chair and to all my colleagues, my wishes for a very good and restful summer. To all of the pages, I wish to say have a great time the rest of your life and thank you.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I thank the hon. member.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-292 are deemed put, and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred to the end of the time provided for government orders on Wednesday, September 18, 2002.
It being 1.21 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1), and the order made on Tuesday, June 18.
Dear colleagues, I wish everyone a very happy and joyous summer. To the pages and the clerks, thank you very much for a job well done.
(The House adjourned at 1.21 p.m.)
The first session of the 37th Parliament was prorogued by royal proclamation on September 16, 2002.