Lynn Myers

[Toy Labelling, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a recent survey found that nearly one in two Canadians would fail the citizenship examine given to immigrants. This suggests that a large number of Canadians lack the basic civic knowledge required to understand and participate in Canada's public life.

I must confess that as a former history teacher at the secondary school level, I was surprised by some of the findings. For example, the title of the national anthem was named by 95% of Canadians but only 63% got the first two lines right.

Just 22% of the respondents could name the four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, that formed Canada in 1867 and 8% cited Newfoundland which joined Confederation in 1949. Again only 8% correctly named the Queen as Canada's head of state; 57% believed the prime minister filled the role.

Fewer than one-third of those surveyed were able to name the Charter of Rights and Freedom as part of the constitution that protects the civil rights of Canadians.

The federal government should play a role in ensuring that history and civics are taught in schools across Canada and should develop national standards in these areas.

I join with those who are calling for a federal-provincial council of ministers of education to develop a new approach to civic education. Like many Canadians I believe that not enough history and civics are being taught in our schools. I believe, as do many Canadians, that we as a national government need to develop Canada-wide standards in these very important areas.

I would be interested in hearing the secretary of state outline whether or not she shares these concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member opposite when she spoke of Stanley Knowles. I want her to know that I too knew Stanley Knowles. In fact to this day I have a picture of him in my office with a mutual friend. I very much admire who he was and what he represented.

I also want to say that while I do not know how Mr. Knowles would have voted on this issue, it is fair to say that he would have respected the government's position in keeping the universality of the CPP in place for all Canadians. I knew him well enough that I think I can say that. While he might not have voted with us, he would have respected the government for what it has done.

I remind the hon. member that we have had considerable debate on this issue. We debated the bill for nine and a half hours at second reading. Consultations have been held across the country.

When the member says we are ramming the legislation through, does she dismiss the hours and hours of consultation which have taken place?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It is an important one.

It seems to me that when the various provincial and territorial leaders signed on to this very important change, they too were concerned with the kind of question which the member is asking. What they said and said unanimously was that we would be proceeding in a fair and equitable manner. The same rules that apply to the public CPP would be similar to what the private people have done.

We have to remember that the same kind of common sense approach would be taken in both private and public. The board that has been put in place would make sure that that is done in a fair, consistent and equitable manner.

It is important for Canadians to know that that kind of process will be taking place by men and women who know what they are doing, by men and women who have the best interests of Canadians at heart, by men and women who will progress and proceed in a manner consistent with the great values of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

I was recently interested in listening to a group which represents poor people in this country. They genuinely supported what the government was doing with respect to the Canada pension plan. They reiterated something I had forgotten. That was that this is a great pillar of our society and our economy. It represents social justice in this great nation of ours, rather than going off on a half-baked, hare-brained scheme like super RRSPs which no one understands, and I think only the rich would be involved with, which is what the Reform would have us do without knowing where that is going. It seems important that we stand firm and stand solid with the scheme that CPP is and represents to all Canadians something which poor Canadians, middle-income Canadians and all Canadians want and need and will benefit from as a result.

I think this is very important and is worthy of note.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on on this bill before us and in particular on those elements that affect Canadians with disabilities.

The Canada pension plan is one of the most important elements in the social fabric of this country. Most of us will use it at some point in our lives, when we retire or become disabled by serious illness or accident or if we lose a spouse or parent who was a contributor.

Consequently Canadians have come to rely on the security that the Canada pension plan provides. It has proved worthy of our trust over the years. However, even the best of plans must change with the times. The Canada pension plan is no exception.

In recent years a number of social, economic and demographic trends have developed a threat to the continuity and viability of the plan. To address this challenge we held public consultations on the Canada pension plan to discover what role Canadians wanted the plan to take and what action they felt was needed. The chief actuary also provided input.

We began a series of in depth meetings and negotiations with our provincial and territorial government partners. At the end of this process, we and our partners put together a blueprint for renewal.

The resulting bill before us represents a balanced package of measures aimed at ensuring the sustainability and fairness of the Canada pension plan. It adjusts contribution rates and benefits. It improves the way in which funds are invested. Once implemented, this bill will ensure the future of the plan and keep contribution rate increases as low as possible.

Of course, this cannot be done solely by adjusting contribution rates and investment strategies. We had to address the benefit side of the equation as well, but as we did this, we rejected calls by some for deep cuts in survivor or disability benefits. Instead, we tried to minimize benefit changes and to make them fair across all groups and all generations.

To do this we have tried to spread the responsibility for change across all benefit categories while keeping the fundamental characteristics unchanged. We recognize that today's senior citizens have already made their financial planning decisions for their retirement and could not be expected to respond to changes in the plan.

That is why the new measures will not affect the benefits current seniors are receiving. That same principle applies to the so-called “near seniors”, individuals between the ages of 60 and 64 who have chosen to take early retirement. Their existing pensions will also be protected. If they are receiving benefits now, the amount will be unaffected.

As members will see, some small benefit adjustments have to be made which will affect future pensioners, including some changes to the Canada pension plan disability program. These proposed changes respond in part to concerns raised by the auditor general who said that disability administration costs need to be brought under control. Again, I want to clarify that the new measures will not affect current Canada pension plan disability benefits.

Under this bill, workers will be expected to demonstrate a slightly stronger attachment to the workforce to be eligible for disability benefits. Currently, individuals can work for as little as a few months over the course of two years to receive a Canada pension plan disability benefit. Under the proposed amendments, workers must have made contributions in four of the previous six years. Even so, the new coverage rules are still more generous than the original rules of the plan.

Before 1987 workers had to contribute in five of the previous 10 years and at least one-third of the years from their 18th birthday to be eligible for disability benefits. There are also changes to the requirement benefit formula for disabled beneficiaries.

Pensionable earnings will be updated based on the average wage at the time of disablement rather than adjusted for wage levels when the recipient turns 65. Like retirement and survivor benefits, Canada pension plan disability pensions will be fully price indexed from the time they are put in play.

The Government of Canada is helping Canadians with disabilities to participate more fully in the economic and social life of this country with an investment of some $280 million per year in tax measures, employment and vocational support, as well as support to organizations and for people with disabilities.

Let me also assure the House that we are committed to responding positively to the recommendations of the Scott task force. We have already acted on some of these recommendations and will act on others in the near future. However, I also want to emphasize that the Canada pension plan should not be confused with programs specific to the needs of people with disabilities. The Canada pension plan disability benefit was designed as a wage loss insurance for workers. It was never intended to provide benefits to all persons with disabilities.

The changes contained in this bill will ensure that benefits go to those for whom the program was originally intended. They will enable us to continue to provide disability benefits in a fair, consistent and responsible manner. They reaffirm the Government of Canada's concern for people with disabilities, while maintaining benefits at sustainable levels.

Canadians from all regions and walks of life have told us they expect us to act decisively to preserve the Canada pension plan. They have told us that they want us to make it sustainable, but they want to do so in a fair and consistent manner.

Significant elements of the CPP remain unchanged. First, benefits have not been changed in the case of all those currently receiving CPP pensions, disability benefits, survivor benefits or combined benefits.

Second, all CPP benefits, with the exception of the death benefit, which is paid only once, remain fully indexed to inflation.

Third, the age of early, normal or late retirement remains unchanged.

This bill responds to this call for action from Canadians. Once implemented, it will ensure that the Canada pension plan will be able to serve Canadians as well in the future as it does today. It will do so in a way that is fair to all.

For these reasons, I intend to vote for this bill and urge other members to do likewise.

[Business Of The House, December 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I was somewhat surprised recently when United States President Bill Clinton was unsuccessful in getting backing from Congress to give him a so-called fast track authority to negotiate expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement. I wondered where that left Canada.

The federal government worked tremendously hard to ensure that the Canadian economy continues to have solid foundations.

Accordingly, I believe that Canada must be diligent in ensuring that we follow our own agenda to further trade liberalization in the Americas. There is tremendous trade potential in this hemisphere for Canada. It is important that with the global economy becoming more and more interconnected that we do not watch from the sidelines.

Rather, we need to pursue with vigour trade agreements and investment co-operation agreements which will be beneficial to Canada and to all Canadians.

Will the parliamentary secretary outline precisely what Canada intends to do to continue to seek trade agreements with countries in our hemisphere?

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, negotiations took place. The process that took place over the course of the last number of months was an important one. It was something that we as a government needed to see take place, and here we are tonight doing the right thing on behalf of the Canadian people.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the circumstances surrounding that but it seems to me that is a normal grievance procedure and should be dealt with accordingly.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. The minister along with the government has worked very hard to ensure we get the postal service working again. I think it is appropriate that we do this tonight and get on with the process.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member opposite that the government has worked very hard in this whole process to ensure that we did the right thing. The mediation process and the negotiation process took place in a reasonable and fair manner as it should take place—