Jane Stewart

[Question No. 125, March 20th, 2003]

In January 2003, Canada pension plan, CPP, including disability rates increased by 1.6%. This increase was based on the monthly average change in the Consumer Price Index, CPI—All items, compiled by Statistics Canada, for the 12 month period November 2001 to October 2002.

Although consumers paid 3.9% more in December 2002 than they did in December 2001 for the goods and services in the CPI basket, it should be noted that the CPI is a “snapshot” and the 3.9% quoted above reflects the change in the CPI between the index in December 2001 and the index in December 2002. The CPI experienced monthly increases and decreases during the year, i.e. goods and services became less expensive or more expensive throughout the year. CPP benefits are adjusted, increased, to even out fluctuations and take into account the average change, increase, in the CPI over a full 12 month period.

According to the latest release from the CPI, published by Statistics Canada on February 27, 2003, “…the annual average All items CPI increased 2.2%, a slightly slower rate of increase than the 2.6% observed for 2001”.

Canada pension plan benefit increases have a direct correlation to the CPI and are calculated in the following manner in accordance with the Canada Pension Plan Act and Canada Pension Plan Regulations: Every January, CPP benefit increases are based on the average CPI increase over the 12 month period, November to October, as compared to the same preceding 12 month period.

To determine the CPP increase for 2003, i.e. 1.6%, we calculated the average CPI between November 2001 and October 2002, 118.2, and divided it by the previous year’s average CPI. Between November 2000 and October 2001, the average CPI was 116.3. One hundred and eighteen point two, 118.2, divided by one hundred and sixteen point three, 116.3, equals 1.016. Expressed as a percentage, there was a 1.6% increase in the average CPI between 2000-01 and 2001-02 and this percentage was used to escalate the CPP rates.

It should be noted that where there is a decrease in the average CPI year over year, this will not result in a decrease in CPP benefits. Rates would not change for the year following the decrease. Rates are only adjusted upwards.

In a time when the rate of inflation is increasing, such as now, the resulting adjustment in benefits may be less than if a December to December comparison had been used. But this is not always the case. For example, if the December to December increase in the Consumer Price Index had been used for CPP benefits in January 2002, the benefits would only have been increased by 0.7%. Instead, using the method set out in the CPP legislation, the increase was 3.0%.

[Employment Insurance, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the attention of the hon. member the changes that have been made to the Employment Insurance Act that do benefit seasonal workers. The change to an hours based system is responsive to seasonal workers. The repeal of the intensity regulation was in recognition that it was not fair to workers, including seasonal workers.

Where there is evidence that the Employment Insurance Act can be improved for the benefit of Canadians, we take action. The Prime Minister just conveyed that again in his meeting in the hon. member's region.

[Softwood Lumber, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are following this file very closely and we are heartened at this point to see that the Quebec lumber industry has in fact had a 7% increase in employment between January 2002-03 and that the number of employment insurance claims in Quebec continued to be lower than in the previous year in this industry. As I said, we are following it closely and we are responding as we should.

[Softwood Lumber, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are preoccupied by the potential negative impact of this trade dispute on the workers in the softwood lumber industry. That is why we have added to the $450 million in EI benefits that are already provided every year through the employment insurance fund.

With $246 million, $71 million over two years to build on existing employment insurance programs and $110 million to support communities to diversify their economies, the hon. member can rest assured that we are following this file very closely.

[National Child Care, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, from his question, it sounds to me that the hon. member is suggesting it is a waste for the government to invest $935 million in working with the provinces and territories to create quality, reliable, regulated child care spaces. If that is the way he thinks, let us be clear.

However on this side of the House we are in unanimous agreement that the right thing for us to do is to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that Canadian parents can rely on a strong system of quality child care for their children.

[National Child Care, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. As the hon. member becomes more experienced with the complex issues that we have to deal with in family and child policies, he will realize that it requires a number of measures. It requires tax incentives, tax issues and tax measures of which we have a number. It requires income support.

I am so glad that through the national child benefit we have significantly increased that support, but it also requires child care. In our system we have allowed for the flexibility in the provinces. It does not necessarily mean regulated care only in centres. It could be regulated care in homes.

[Post-Secondary Education, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that the budget allocated $60 million to the Canada student loan program to reduce barriers to post-secondary education.

We have tripled the amount students can earn while studying without affecting their student loans, we are improving debt reduction for students who experience long term difficulties with paying their loans, and we are very proud that protected persons, including convention refugees, will now be eligible to receive the Canada student loans.

I want to recognize the hon. member for his consistent work in this area as well as the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the Canadian Federation of Students for their advice and support.

[Employment Insurance, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to remind the new member of the things that we have done to change the Employment Insurance Act that have been beneficial to seasonal workers.

We went to an hours based system and repealed the intensity regulation. We made the small weeks pilot projects a permanent piece of the employment insurance system.

The hon. member is right. We are working at the community level in many places in Quebec and New Brunswick with employers and individuals to do what Canadians really want, which is to create more work for them.

[Seasonal Employment, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The government appreciates the contribution of seasonal industries and seasonal workers to the overall Canadian economy. The hon. member should recognize that our change to an hours based system directly supports seasonal workers by lengthening their entitlement and increasing their benefits.

As well, she will recall that we have made changes to a number of aspects of the Employment Insurance Act quite directly that respond to all workers, including those in the seasonal industries.

We are convinced that we have a program that works, that works well and that is there when Canadians need it.

[Softwood Lumber, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me first remind the hon. member of the efforts that have been made by the government on behalf of workers in the softwood industry.

Clearly we are concerned about the reality that they face as this disagreement continues. However I would remind the hon. member of the $450 million that goes to employment insurance benefits, of the more than $250 million that has been announced for support to communities, as well as additional support through employment insurance.

I also would remind the hon. member of the over $650 million the Government of Canada transfers to the province of Quebec specifically for active measures--