Bill C-574 (Historical)

Retirement Income Bill of Rights

An Act to promote and strengthen the Canadian retirement income system

This enactment creates a Bill of Rights for a retirement income system that promotes the goals of adequacy, transparency, affordability, equity, flexibility, security and accessibility for all Canadians.

Retirement Income Bill of Rights

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

moved that Bill C-513, an act to promote and strengthen the Canadian retirement income system, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss an issue that I think is critically important to Canadians and one that I have been involved in for some time, especially as the critic for seniors, pensions and the status of women, which I had previously held. I had an opportunity to talk to countless Canadians.

People who are seniors today talked to me about their struggles and how difficult it was to make ends meet. I talked to people who were in their fifties who said they don't have any ability to save money. It's not that they don't have it, but they don't have anywhere to put it. They don't work for a company that has a pension plan, so they put some into RRSPs but in many cases that's not a pension plan either. Unless they choose to work for the government or some of our major employers that provide a pension plan to which they as well as the employer can contribute, many Canadians are simply out of luck and do not have that opportunity.

Another part of this whole equation and discussion is the issue of the impact on many small companies that have a responsibility and would like to have a pension plan for their employees, but it is far too expensive. They are small companies that are trying to ensure they are able to employ people. We clearly do not want to have an impact on their businesses and deter them from being successful.

I heard that from all different equations. I heard it from the middle-aged.

I did not hear anything from the young folks who are in their thirties because they really think that the government is going to take care of them. When I would say to them, “When you think the government's going to take of you, that means you may be living on $1,500, $1,600, maybe $2,000, if you are really lucky”, they were quite taken aback. They thought that the government had a pension for them. We have old age security and our Canada pension plan. They thought it would be enough. It is not enough.

I think part of our role as government, as parliamentarians, is to ensure that people understand that we cannot sit back and wait for government to take care of us. We have to be establishing a plan. We have to be contributing. It is very difficult for those in a low-income bracket.

However, we have a guaranteed income supplement that was brought in by a Liberal government, as was the old age security, as was the Canada pension plan. However, this is not about partisan politics tonight. This is about trying to move forward to recognize the challenges that are facing Canadians and to help them start to plan.

Financial literacy is a big issue that we will hear more about as I go on with this speech. Canadians are being affected all the time because they have not spent enough time learning what pensions are and why it is important to contribute, as well as finding the opportunities to contribute. That is a major concern.

When I introduced the bill in our last Parliament, it had the support of all political parties in the House. I want to thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, in particular, and the member for Macleod, both of whom set aside partisan differences and supported the bill because it was the right thing to do.

While the bill was lost when the election was called, I am hopeful that the MPs in this Parliament will use the same sense of this not being about partisan politics or knocking anyone. It is about trying to think of a future and what we can do to make a difference in the lives of many people.

For clarity, Bill C-513 is exactly the same as Bill C-574. Not one word has changed.

However, I would like to be clear. I am not asking members' support for the sake of an ego or anything else. I am asking for your support so people such as Ray and Dawn-Marie Brown can get the help they need.

For those who did not happen to read Saturday's Financial Post, I would urge them to take a look at the Barbara Shecter story. It is just one small example of some of the challenges that are facing Canadians today. The story tells of how Ray and Dawn-Marie Brown tried to put money away for retirement, but because of financial illiteracy and financial counsel that was not truly in their best interests, which has to stop, they now have the major problem of dealing with a huge debt they took on thinking it was going to help them in their retirement.

Canadians are urged to put their money away for retirement if they have some, but investing is not as intuitive as the industry rhetoric might indicate and good advice is hard to find. The Browns thought they had good advice. It came from a reputable firm. However, $200,000 later, for them it was clearly not good advice.

Worse yet, anyone who is studying the issue of pension reform knows that individuals in a defined benefit pension arrangement accumulate five to seven times more retirement income than those who are not. Put another way, those who have the opportunity to save effectively for retirement have much more gold in their golden years. We as parliamentarians have been very fortunate to be part of a defined benefit plan. However, fewer and fewer people in this country have that opportunity. This should not be about bringing people down to the bottom level. Rather, it should be about how we can increase and provide opportunities for more Canadians to have access to a good pension plan. That is exactly why Bill C-513 is so important.

Traditionally, defined benefit plans are available only to public sector workers and a small minority of private sector workers. That means only those working for large companies or the government have access to this type of retirement plan. Everyone else is forced to go it alone in the markets and face the challenge, as Ray and Dawn-Marie did when they were trying to find a proper investment counsellor to help them invest for their coming 20 or 30 years. That is wrong and Bill C-513 is intended to be the first step toward correcting that inequity.

In a country like Canada, it is unacceptable that senior citizens would be subjected to poverty and squalor during their retirement years. It falls upon all of us as parliamentarians to do what we can to provide opportunities for people to save their money for their retirement years. If Canadians are to take a more active role in retirement planning, then governments must also be prepared to step up and do their share. Private and public retirement saving options must be explored and integrated more effectively with one another. We know that systems, such as the guaranteed income supplement, the Canadian pension plan and the Old Age Security Act are important, but they are only elements of a much larger strategy. That is again where Bill C-513 comes into play.

The legislation is the first of its kind proposed to ensure that our future seniors have better nest eggs and the retirement income security that they need. In broad strokes, the bill would create substantive, justiciable rights relating to retirement income, give every person a chance to accumulate retirement income, promote good plan administration, and set out in law the pension reform goals to which we aspire legislatively. This is about establishing goals. This is about a first step. This is not saying that we will increase pensions or increase anything. This is about setting the goals to which Canadians and governments need to aspire to make sure that the vehicles needed for people to be able to save some money are there.

The government has introduced the PPRP plan. We have suggested the supplementary Canada pension plan, and there are other suggestions out there. However, there needs to be a vehicle for Canadians to be able to invest and save in a well-administered and safe plan. Whatever that plan would be is not in the bill. These are the first steps of a bill of rights that would start to establish the goals that I think government should have.

I want to take a moment to underscore that final point because it may be one of the most important. Bill C-513 would set out in law only the goals to which we should aspire legislatively as they relate to retirement income. It would legally compel both the current federal government and future governments to take real action to promote, enhance and preserve retirement income security, coverage and adequacy.

For years, successive governments have set out their plans to help enhance pensions in Canada, but they have done so without any sort of long-term map. Bill C-513 can be that road map.

This bill of rights is for pension income. It recognizes that a strong retirement income system is essential to the well-being of Canadians and to the overall health of our economy. It recognizes that the Canadian retirement income system is built on a combination of personal, public and private options. It affirms that we have the right to a retirement income system that promotes adequacy, transparency, affordability and equity. It also enshrines these principles in law, while respecting Parliament's constitutional limitations.

To me, and to the hundreds of pensioners with whom I have consulted, pension reform is as fundamental as motherhood. Canadian seniors, particularly the 300,000 who now live below the poverty line, are tired of struggling to make ends meet. They do not want their families and kids to have to do the same thing. Seniors should not be forced to decide between medicine and food or shelter and heat. Unfortunately, we do have certain seniors who for various reasons are in that situation. I do not think any of us want to see that continue. After all, today's seniors are yesterday's labour force, yesterday's caregivers and yesterday's builders of the economy.

If we are going to talk about consumers today, we need to remember to look beyond their current spending abilities. They carried this country through wars, depression and countless other times of difficulty, and they did it while working to raise a family and while building the social programs that we so value today. They deserve better than to be relegated to a life of poverty. It is within our power to give them and their children what they deserve.

Compassion, consideration and respect are terms that go hand in glove with retirement income security, coverage and adequacy. Today, we will conclude the second reading debate on Bill C-513 and we will then be asked to make a decision. Are we prepared to stand with our seniors or are we determined to let them stand alone?

Bill C-513 is not part of any single partisan agenda, and I would be more than pleased to share the credit of passing Bill C-513 with all members in the House. The provisions of Bill C-513 already have the endorsement of several groups, such as the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Federation of Pensioners. These groups do not support this effort because they are Liberal. They support it because they, too, believe that the security of the pension promise is paramount.

I have spoken to many members of the House on this subject and I have come to believe that this notion is one that really unites all of us. We have differences on how to arrive at the destination, but the end goal should be the same. Bill C-513 would offer us the freedom to pursue our own legislative paths, so long as the outcome is one that enhances pension security for all.

As I said, I have travelled across the country and I have spoken to many on this subject. Sadly, most are not adequately saving for retirement. This truth clearly requires foresight and leadership on the part of all of us and the government.

Clearly, we have learned that there is a need for a long-term road map for pension reform so that in the next 20 years, when people retire, they have an adequate income. Otherwise, the task falls back to the provincial, municipal and federal governments to provide that aid. This would allow people to survive, but it would not give people a decent level of living. It would still mean that they are living at just the minimum.

If we could encourage the changes necessary and do everything we can to encourage people to put money away, we would all be better off and our seniors would find more gold in their golden years. However, it will take time to make those changes and it will need people, such as all of us in the House, supporting things such as Bill C-513 to ensure that we are moving forward, thinking about retirement for many Canadians and helping them to achieve their goals.

Pensions

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak to this very important matter for all Canadians, not just for seniors and retirees.

In 1927, Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King presided over the establishment of Canada's first old age pension plan. In the true spirit of Liberal values, the Liberal Party of Canada took a historic step by enacting this legislation and set a trend that would continue. Next it was Louis St. Laurent who delivered the Old Age Security Act. Then in 1963, another Liberal prime minister, Lester Pearson, began working on the Canada pension plan.

As has been pointed out by my colleagues, the Liberal Party of Canada has a collective legacy of valuing the long-term pension security of Canadians. It should be noted that all of these Liberal prime ministers were opposed by the Conservatives of the day. The Conservative Party has a progressive history of opposing improvements to Canada's pension plans and ignoring one of the most vulnerable groups in society. The Conservatives would rather allow our seniors and pensioners to fend for themselves. Quite frankly, this is simply un-Canadian.

While we have an old age security and pension system that has served Canadians well in the past, the Liberal Party recognizes the need to change and improve upon the system that we have grown and nurtured over the years. That is why we are fully supportive of Bill C-574, which is known as the retirement income bill of rights.

It is clear that the next 20 to 30 years will present serious challenges to Canadian pension regimes. An aging population, long natural lifespans and record levels of personal debt will be compounded by lower disposable incomes and continued global economic instability. If we are to plan for the future security of our pensioners, seniors and other vulnerable members of our society, we have to act now. We must act with decisiveness to ensure the viability of our pension security systems in the long run.

There are a number of principles that the Liberal Party of Canada has developed through its expert working group on retirement income security. The first is the inherent value of functioning pension systems. The Liberal Party understands that a robust and dependable retirement income regime is in everyone's best interests. It is really quite simple. Canadians, in fact all people, are happier and more productive during their working life when they are assured of a steady income upon retirement. Subsequently, there is less strain on other social services such as welfare, housing and health care.

There is also the question of dignity. Statistics show that poverty is a very real factor in Canadian society, particularly in the population over 65 years of age, and any suggestion that that is not the case is foolhardy. No one should be living in poverty. It does not matter if it is 6%, 10%, 20%. No one in this day and age in this country should be living in poverty.

Rising costs of basic living are claiming more and more of the income of seniors and retired Canadians. Higher taxes, higher home heating costs, higher transportation and health care costs all point to the need to adjust our current retirement income regime to meet these basic expenses. No Canadian who has worked a lifetime should face the difficult decision of having to pay for medication or to pay the heating bill.

The Liberal plan as laid out in Bill C-574 would ensure that our seniors would not have to deal with such choices, that they would in fact be able to live in comfort.

What the Liberal Party plans to do is to revisit the pillars of the Canadian retirement income system. Traditionally these pillars are: old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the CPP, or QPP in Quebec, and the various privately sponsored tax-deferred plans. While these Liberal pillars have provided for a strong system in the past, they need to be enhanced in the face of new pressures such as an aging population and the instability of global markets, to name just two things.

What we need to do is to shore up the strengths of the current system while purging its weaknesses. What we propose is a holistic approach to strengthening the current system. Unfortunately for millions of Canadians, only the first two pillars of the system can be relied upon in retirement and old age.

Most Canadians will qualify for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, as well as the CPP or QPP. However, a Statistics Canada report released on May 25 of this year reports that 75% of private sector employees in Canada did not have a registered pension plan at the end of 2008. That is 75%. Let us keep that number in mind.

This number means that millions of Canadians face dismal prospects after a lifetime of working and contributing.

Every year, I hear from a growing number of my constituents who are affected by clawbacks in their guaranteed income supplement. Every July, I receive many calls from seniors when their incomes are assessed and adjustments are made. If they have an increase in their annual income, such as a CPP increase, this results in a reduction of the guaranteed income supplement.

Let me give an example of how this directly impacts seniors. One lady in particular stands out in my mind. Mrs. Marion Russell of Stephenville Crossing in my riding is 70 years of age and a widow who worked her entire life. Because of an increase in her CPP, she lost the $4.51 she received in GIS. But more importantly, she lost her provincial drug card, her card that enabled her to have access to those medications that she needs in her old age to deal with health issues that she faces on a daily basis. This is simply unacceptable. That a minor increase in CPP could result in the loss of her GIS and her drug card should be cause for concern for everyone.

That is why we are here tonight having this take note debate. That is why my colleagues and I are fighting for our seniors and pensioners.

That is not all. As we speak, there are seniors in my riding and across this country who are sitting in malls to stay warm because they cannot afford to keep their homes heated. There are seniors who are malnourished because they cannot afford good food to keep them healthy.

We know for a fact that right now Canadians are more dependent on food banks than at any other time since the Great Depression.

In January of this year, I had the opportunity to meet with many of my constituents at a town hall meeting in Stephenville to discuss seniors issues and pension reform. I was joined by my colleague, the Liberal critic for seniors and pensioners. What we found was not surprising. People are concerned that the pension plans they have paid into all their lives are not going to be there when they retire. Too many people are simply unable to cover the basic costs of living on CPP and GIS alone. When adjustments are made to their income, many people stand to lose what precious little resources they have, by way of clawbacks to their payments.

The Liberal Party has been pressing the government for reforms to make retirement easier and more secure. We have been consulting with our constituents and Canadians across the country to develop a plan that will facilitate safe and secure savings for retirement.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, are failing to live up to the rights of Canada's seniors and future pensioners by neglecting to undertake much needed pension reform. Today, 1.6 million seniors in Canada are living on less than $15,000 annually. In less than 10 years, one in five Canadians will be over 65. This presents an immediate challenge and we need to act quickly with solid pension reforms.

Given the rising debt load of Canadians and the increased cost of basic living, it is simply unrealistic to expect Canadians to survive with any dignity on old age security and CPP alone.

That is why we are recommending that pension reform should now include private savings outside of tax-sheltered plans. Public and private structures should be integrated with a goal of providing more coverage to Canadians who run the risk of falling through the cracks as the situation now exists. In particular, what we are proposing will benefit women who statistically endure greater rates of poverty because of factors involving longevity, employment type and tenure.

Other specific pension reforms the Liberal Party is calling for include a supplementary Canada pension plan to give Canadians the option of saving more for retirement, allowing employees with stranded or abandoned pensions following bankruptcy the option of growing their pension assets in the Canada pension plan, and protecting vulnerable Canadians on long-term disability by giving them preferred status as creditors of bankruptcy.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Chair, it is great to be focused on pensions tonight. It helps to show Canadians that we are very serious about these issues and that we care.

In a country like Canada, it is unacceptable that senior citizens would be subjected to poverty and squalor during their retirement years. If Canadians are to take a more active role in retirement planning, then governments must also be prepared to step up and do their share.

That is a quote. On October 13, 2010, I presented a white paper to the leader of the Liberal Party. That paper took more than a year to write and it contained 28 recommendations for substantive changes to the various pension systems in Canada. That paper contained the words that I have just said. They represent the guiding philosophy that was used during the drafting of that paper. They are the basis for my actions and beliefs as they relate to pensions and pension reform in this country.

Canada is a nation rich with resources and potential and our citizens should be able to enjoy a measure of dignity during retirement. Contrarily, more than 200,000 Canadians over the age of 65 currently live well below the low income poverty line.

What that means is that after a lifetime of working to raise their families and pay their taxes, 200,000 Canadians are being forced to choose between buying groceries and paying the rent because their retirement income is simply too low to allow them to do both. While almost unbelievable in Canada, this is a daily reality for far too many. In response, the daily goal set by this or any government of Canada should be to immediately correct this wrong.

I would suggest it is shameful that the government seems ambivalent to the issues of inadequate pension security. We need to get serious about pension security, coverage and adequacy before we see more situations such as the one which is currently threatening 17,000 former employees of Nortel. That is 17,000 people who worked for a lifetime, paid their taxes and put money away for a rainy day, but despite their efforts saw their savings wash away because of inadequate legal protections. Shame on all of us.

I am not here to poke holes without offering my thoughts and ideas. That is what my white paper is all about. Historically speaking, prior to the Great Depression, most Canadian social services were delivered by a patchwork of religious, volunteer and charitable organizations. However, the reality is that today, in addition to being essential for basic living, many Canadians view pensions as defining elements of our national identity.

Where are we today? Most Canadian seniors are eligible for old age security and most former workers can receive Canada pension plan or Quebec pension plan benefits based on their contributions during the course of their careers. Those at the lowest end of the income scale are also eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. Alone, these mechanisms provide somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30% of one's replacement income in retirement.

In dollars, these plans pay a maximum of about $20,000 annually, but the average payout continues to be significantly less. Current economics suggest that this will not be enough for most Canadians who will need private retirement savings to survive. All of us know that is not sufficient today, never mind 20 years from now.

A number of Canadians do have a private pension through their employers and/or take advantage of government tax shelters, such as RRSPs or the tax free savings account, but recent events have called the security of these private investments into question. With this, it is this last option that in many respects needs some of the most dramatic attention from government today.

In the past few years alone, we have seen a number of private companies become insolvent. Once that occurs, it would seem that employee pension plans are inadequately protected under Canadian law. The real life result is that thousands of hard-working Canadians, like the 17,000 former employees of Nortel, are being cast to the wolves and the government seems content to watch the carnage.

In fact, last week one witness at the industry committee suggested that Nortel employees can expect to take a “haircut at the neck” when it comes to their pensions. How is this acceptable?

Despite repeated calls for action, the government seems willing to sit back and allow the markets to do as they will to many of these people. I will not support this approach and I am proud to say that my party is not prepared to sit back either.

On paper, it may seem as though Canada has already addressed the challenges presented by an aging population through the utilization of a range of public and private mechanisms. But, despite this apparent resolution, retirement income security, adequacy and coverage continue to be looming problems that require the immediate attention of business, labour, individual citizens, and governments at all levels. I very much hope all of us can work together to come up with some solutions as we move forward on this important issue.

The undeniable fact is that over the next 20 to 30 years, Canadian pension regimes will face a perfect storm of an aging population with longer lifespans and dramatically higher levels of personal debt, coupled with lower disposable incomes and global economic and market instability. Immediate steps must be taken in the short term if pension security, adequacy and coverage are to be attainable for the long term.

In an effort to ensure that Canada's retirement income system is prepared for these challenges, I have suggested adopting a multi-pronged, internally coherent strategy that will shore up our system while being mindful of several key principles.

First, we need to underscore the value of a functioning pension system. I strongly believe that a reliable retirement income regime is in everyone's best interests, as indicated by the parliamentary secretary.

Second, we should be rethinking the three pillars of the existing pension system. Canada has long prided itself on the success of its current retirement income system. The three primary mechanisms associated with that system are: old age security and the guaranteed income supplement; the Canada pension plan; and the various private plans in privately administered options. A fourth pillar includes private savings outside of tax-sheltered plans. These structures have provided a strong base. However, they will face new pressures as the national population continues to age over the next 20 years. Weaknesses must be purged and strengths should be expanded upon.

Third is the integration of existing systems. It is essential that the existing structure be examined holistically and with a multi-generational focus. Public and private structures should be integrated with the stated goal of providing more seamless coverage to the population.

Consideration must also be given to those who have traditionally fallen through the cracks. In particular, women, who statistically endure a greater rate of poverty due largely to factors involving longevity, employment type and tenure, must receive the attention needed to ensure retirement income security, adequacy and coverage on par with all Canadians.

With these principles in mind, and understanding the need to respect any relevant jurisdictional and partnership issues, my white paper is proposing several specific recommendations to help ensure Canada's pension and retirement savings structures are fortified in a way so as to ensure they are prepared for the anticipated storm. Those reform proposals include measures such as: the establishment of a supplemental Canada pension plan; launching financial literacy measures; a review of the cost of living calculation; and the creation of a stranded pension agency.

All of the items in the white paper have been shared with the government. I am very hopeful that it will review those recommendations. Clearly, I would not be offended if it adopted several of them.

Many of these measures are also encapsulated in Bill C-574, the pensioners' bill of rights that I presented earlier and on which we had the first hour of debate.

While I am pleased to hear that the parliamentary secretary is going to support sending my bill of rights to committee, I look forward to working with all of the parties in the House to improve the pension system.

Royal Recommendation--Bill C-574

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments on these issues, but Bill C-574 is very much a statement of principle.

As the mover of the motion, I was very careful to ensure that it did not require a royal recommendation. I understand the interpretation of clause 13, but I can say that I reviewed that because I did not want it to be ruled out of order and require a royal recommendation.

It is very much a statement of principle. It does not require actuaries to come forth with an extended report. It is an issue of setting down principles. It is a motherhood issue that establishes the principles of a bill that would protect pensioners, protect Canadians and ensure that all Canadians have the right to have a pension system.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all the presumption here and the references to Bills C-286, C-250 and C-257 all are with respect to the same statement about a new function and beyond the mandate.

However, I would like to submit that the Minister of Justice already has responsibilities in the area that C-574 deals with. To discharge that responsibility, it is clear that the minister would have to get information from resources such as actuaries and other experts in the area.

It is not incumbent on the Minister of Justice himself to have all of those particular levels of expertise within his own department to fully discharge his responsibilities. There is a reliance obviously on the resources of the Government of Canada, available to all ministers.

In this regard, before any minister of justice would opine on any matter related to the retirement income system, it is clear that the retirement income itself is not within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice.

However, there is a due diligence and a due care requirement on behalf of the Minister of Justice to ensure that in giving legal opinions that he or she also has the important information with regard to the fundamentals and the dimensions.

This argument about “significantly alters” is a qualitative assessment by the hon. parliamentary secretary, but the argument does not, in my view, sustain the suggestion that a royal recommendation is required, most simply because in this particular case the Minister of Justice, in fact, has a responsibility with regard to opining on Bill C-574 on the Canadian retirement income system and must engage these kinds of resources in the normal course of his work to do his job in a proper fashion with due diligence.

Therefore, I submit that, since the Clerk of the House normally advises a member about the likelihood of a royal recommendation being required on a bill, and the House has extensive resources to make such an assessment, it is clear that the question about extending the mandate beyond what the minister may have has already been considered. It is one of the fundamental positions.

I would submit that the expertise within the Clerk of the House's office has taken that decision and not made that recommendation, and indeed the Chair has not given that notice of a likelihood of a royal recommendation.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding Bill C-574, An Act to promote and strengthen the Canadian retirement income system.

Bill C-574 proposes to create a new bill of rights for a retirement income system that would promote the goals of adequacy, transparency, affordability, equity, flexibility, security and accessibility for all Canadians.

Clause 13 of the bill would require the Minister of Justice to examine every bill and regulation to ascertain whether any of the provisions violate, among other things, an individual's right to accumulate sufficient pension income to provide for a lifestyle in retirement that the individual considers adequate, an individual's right to determine how and when to accumulate pension income, and an individual's entitlement to receive investment advice from an advisor free of conflict of interest.

Section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act provides that the Minister of Justice must examine every bill and regulation in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights states that the Minister of Justice shall examine every bill and regulation to ascertain whether any provisions thereof are inconsistent with this act.

Bill C-574 would impose an additional obligation on the Minister of Justice that is not currently authorized by statute. In particular, the new functions envisioned in clause 13 of the bill would require actuarial, financial and economic expertise well beyond the current mandate and activities of the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice.

Precedents indicate that imposing new obligations not provided for in statute requires a new royal recommendation. On page 834 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered.

On October 20, 2006, the Speaker ruled, in the case of Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act, that Bill C-286:

...extends the application of the program...that does not currently exist under the witness protection program. In doing so, the bill proposes to carry out an entirely new function. .... New functions or activities must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

On June 13, 2005, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, that:

...clause 2 significantly alters the duties of the EI Commission to enable new or different spending of public funds by the commission for a new purpose....

On September 20, 2006, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, that:

...the provisions in Bill C-257 which relate to the designation of investigators by the minister do not constitute an authorization for new spending for a distinct purpose. The functions which are already being performed by inspectors would appear to be reasonably similar to the functions envisaged by Bill C-257.

I submit that this last precedent does not apply to Bill C-574 as the functions set out in clause 13 of the bill would significantly alter the functions of the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice. That is because the new functions in Bill C-574 would require actuarial, financial and economic expertise well beyond the mandate and current activities of the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice.

In conclusion, the additional functions for the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice proposed in clause 13 of Bill C-574 are not currently authorized in statute. The bill, therefore, should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be here to speak to issues, especially things that we went on record some months ago as supporting, without having to listen to some of the rhetoric. I heard my colleague behind me use words that are inappropriate in the House, and I will just leave it at that.

It has been suggested that we on this side of the House are not supporting this bill. It has also been suggested that this has been a fast process. The bill was introduced in June. This issue was brought up first by the media, by the way, not by anybody else, in March. It took until June for the legislation to be introduced. Here we are on November 16 finally getting a bill passed. That has a lot to do with the fact that the committee worked very well with the intent of getting the bill back into the House. Otherwise who knows how long it would take to get it here?

Some of us are concerned and frustrated when we hear the other side say that we are not helping. We are the ones who have been pushing this forward since it was first announced in the media. The government has been advancing it at nothing short of a snail's pace. Let us be clear on that point.

The committee has done a good job. After all, it was a little more than a month since the committee was asked to examine Bill C-31. Members of the committee took the bill seriously. They did their homework and asked questions to make sure that we avoided unintended consequences. Hence the bill is now before us and it could be passed very quickly here and in the other place. It is fair to say that the committee members did a quick and thorough job of reviewing the bill, contrary to, as I indicated earlier, what the government did not do.

My primary concern stems back to the pace that business is being advanced in the House. A proactive government would move quickly on issues that concern Canadians and parliamentarians.

Most members know that Bill C-31 is legislation that is relatively simplistic from a legal perspective, which does not happen too often. It is not particularly controversial, nor is it divisive in its scope. After all, the entire bill, in both English and French, is less than six pages in total length. It is a very small bill.

Put another way, after more than five months of working on this legislation, we have successfully completed just 25% of the legislative process. Imagine, just 25% in five months; that is a snail's pace if there ever were one. If this is the best we can do, Bill C-31 will not pass into law until July 2012, long after when every reasonable person expects the next election to be held. We know what will happen. An election will be called; everything will die on the order paper and nothing will ever get done. This could have been done in September. The bill could have passed in September and gone to the other place. It is not often that we are asking the government why it is not moving something forward faster, but this is a very simple and small bill and it could have been passed by both houses by now.

This means the government wants to talk about this bill more than it wants to pass it. It wants to say that it is tough on crime more than it wants to back its rhetoric with real action. Most particularly, the government is clearly more interested in optics than it is in the elements of governing as responsible Canadians.

Permit me to be completely clear though. We are of the belief that the changes are long overdue and we do not oppose them. In fact, we support them. As I have said before, from the Liberals' perspective, we are certainly prepared to fast-track this legislation. I indicated in June when the minister introduced the legislation that we were prepared to fast-track this bill.

When I last spoke in this House on Bill C-31, my primary concern was simple. I wanted to make sure there were no unintended consequences attached to the bill. It is a requirement for all of us as legislators to ensure there are no unintended consequences on any legislation that is introduced in the House. Even though many of us had strong feelings from the start when the media flagged this issue, our government was not aware of this issue any more than anybody else was. It was members of the media, in the kind of work they do, who discovered Mr. Olson was receiving old age security cheques, which clearly bothered all of us.

While I was anxious to punish the guilty and to ensure that tax dollars were not being wasted, I also needed to be sure we were not punishing the spouses for the crimes of their partners. We all know that the spouses pay a big enough price and I do not believe any of us wanted to add to that difficulty.

It seems that the committee members were satisfied by hearing witnesses from various organizations throughout Canada. They listened to all sides of the issues to make sure that Bill C-31 would not have a negative impact on the spouses, and that the spouses, families and children would be protected.

In my mind there would seem to be no other reason that we would not send Bill C-31 to the other place. If the Prime Minister were truly committed to its speedy passage, he could direct his Conservative-dominated Senate to pass the legislation immediately. It could all be done before we rose for Christmas, if he really wanted it done. Of course, the Prime Minister has little interest in this approach, so one would wonder how serious he is about the issue, or is he just more interested in looking as though he were serious about the issue? That is for the Canadian people to decide at the appropriate time. After all, this is just another in a recent string of examples of the government's relentless drive for good optics.

According to the recently released public accounts, lapsed funding for the victims of crime initiative last year amounted to just under $4 million, or 45% of the available funds. That means in 2009-10, the Conservatives spent $4.8 million helping victims of crime versus $6 million which they spent this year to advertise how they helped those victims of crime.

One of the motions that was introduced at committee was that the $2 million, the amount of money saved by not sending the pension to the likes of Mr. Olson, should be given to the victims of crime organization so that we could help victims in as many ways as possible. However, my understanding is that the amendment was not passed at committee.

Those commercials we continue to see in the government's massive advertising campaign fail to mention that when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, he killed his entire crime agenda that we had heard so much about for so many years, much of which had the Liberals' support. However, once Parliament was prorogued, all of that fell off the agenda, just as this bill would if the Prime Minister were to prorogue Parliament tomorrow.

People have to understand what proroguing Parliament really does. The legislation that all of us work for, although not all of us necessarily support, is lost once Parliament prorogues. Every single bill at that time was back to square one. When Parliament resumed sitting in the spring, each one of them had to be reintroduced, one by one. That delays them, because they have to go through the same process again: first reading, second reading, consideration at committee, report stage, third reading and then they go to the other place. All that so-called big crime agenda that was necessary was lost. Some of it was not as good as it could have been; there were lots of problems with some of it, but we were supporting it. Then we had to start all over again in the spring. Yet if we listen to the Prime Minister's multi-million dollar ad campaign, we would swear that all of that legislation was in effect right now, which is simply untrue.

Call it retail politics, spin, wedge politics or whatever one wishes, but Canadians are being misinformed again and again by the government. I say it is time for that nonsense to stop and for the government to be honest about the kind of legislation that is being passed and the timelines in doing that.

In simple terms, Bill C-31 seeks to amend the Old Age Security Act to preclude incarcerated persons from receiving benefits under this act and at the same time to maintain entitlement to benefits for their spouse or common law partner. When we talk about unintended consequences, we had to ensure that the spouses and children of these individuals would not be harmed with the passage of Bill C-31.

As I have already said, the latter of these elements is, in my estimation, a pivotal thrust of this particular piece of legislation. We should never be too eager to cast a net without first ensuring that only those deserving of punishment are actually forced to endure it, and not their spouses and children.

Despite our often fierce partisan differences in the House, today we are looking at an issue that should unite all of us regardless of our political affiliation.

As we know, the old age security pension is intended to help seniors pay for their housing, clothing, food and transportation, which are expectations that many seniors struggle with each and every day.

I just came from a meeting at the industry committee where we were talking about Bill C-501. This is a bill that was put forward by one of my colleagues in the other party to try to deal with pensioners and bankruptcy collapse, to deal with what happens to people who work for companies that go bankrupt. This bill deals with the impacts on current pensioners and would-be pensioners. It deals with the devastation of trying to live on $1,200 a month and the many pensioners who are in poverty as a result of their company's going bankrupt.

This is a call on the government and all parliamentarians, and we were all very serious this morning regardless of party, to try to find solutions to the problem of Nortel, for example, and other companies. How do we better protect pensions and people's contributions in this country?

For thousands of seniors who are struggling with these growing bills on a fixed income, the thought that convicted and imprisoned criminals would be eligible for the same OAS benefit as they are is quite offensive and totally unacceptable for all of us.

Moreover, given that the old age security is meant to help a recipient pay for housing, clothing, food and transportation, it seems unnecessary for prisoners to get a cheque given that their housing, clothing, food and transportation are already paid for as a condition of their incarceration. It does not make a lot of sense that we give the same amount of money to seniors out there having to pay rent and buy their own groceries and clothing and all the rest of it, and yet people in prison, regardless of what they are there for, get all of that plus their old age security.

One senior said, “Maybe I should go to jail. At least I would have some extra money and all of my needs would be taken care of”. I assured that senior that once the gate was closed it might not seem like such a good idea.

As a legislator, I see the current reality to be redundant, unacceptable and, as I indicated earlier, something that should be changed without delay, without delay. I would like to hear the government move this through at votes tonight, move it into the Senate and ask the Conservative-dominated Senate to pass Bill C-31 immediately. This is precisely why I am of the belief that Bill C-31 should be advanced, as I indicated before.

I last addressed this issue in June when the minister introduced the legislation. I said at that time that I would not seek to draw this process out for the sake of speaking longer in the House. I did not intend to do that then, nor do I intend to do it today. What is needed today is action and it is needed now.

For the sake of clarity, contrary to my colleague's asking if we would vote for it, the Liberal position has been on the record since June, maybe before that, that we would support this kind of legislation. So that there is no question whether we will, the Liberal side of the House supports the stated notions of Bill C-31 unequivocally.

The next thing we know, though, there will be a massive email campaign going around to everybody in Canada saying to go after the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc because they may not support Bill C-31. Let me be clear. We have indicated from the beginning that we support it. We are going to continue to support it. In fact, we are asking the government to fast-track it through the Senate.

We agree that convicted and incarcerated criminals should not receive societal benefits, like the monthly old age security cheque. On a purely personal note, I would take this belief one step further.

I, like most Canadians, was horrified as I watched the trial of the former Colonel Williams. This person is now sitting in jail, but upon his formal retirement he could be eligible for a pension that he earned while a member of the Canadian Forces, a time that coincides with the time he committed his heinous crimes. There is something fundamentally wrong with the notion that he will be rewarded on the same scale as Canada's veterans of the war in Afghanistan. There is something terribly wrong with that.

Canada's pension systems, both public and private, need a great deal of attention. The Canada pension plan, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the various private options available are good. We are grateful that we have them and that the investments were made, but we need to do better.

We need to examine all facets of these systems in a way that will close the gaps, reduce the redundancies and enhance the benefits for all Canadians. I recently released a white paper on pension reform. That document was the product of more than a year of work by nearly 20 industry and pension specialists of every partisan stripe.

Whether we addressed the creation of a supplementary Canada pension plan, the tightening of regulatory loopholes, the enhancement of regular Canada pension plan benefits or the establishment of a pension bill of rights, the focus was not on politics. It was on substantive pension reform. Our primary focus was, and is, finding ways to make pensions stronger. Some days I wish that example could be adopted more often by the government and this House.

Twenty-eight recommendations later, I am convinced that we have a winning strategy, a comprehensive, multi-generational plan that puts people and their pensions first. The white paper, which can be found on my web page, fits hand-in-glove with Bill C-574, which I introduced on October 1.

Bill C-574 is a pensioners' bill of rights. Since the Mackenzie King government, a Liberal government I should remind the House, first introduced the Old Age Pensions Act 83 years ago, Liberals have fostered a long history of creating, enhancing and expanding pensions available to Canadian seniors.

From old age security, introduced by the Liberal government, to the Canada pension plan of previous Liberal governments and the supplement, also from a previous Liberal government, we understand the extreme importance of protecting and preserving pension security, adequacy and coverage for all deserving and law-abiding Canadians.

Bill C-574 is the next step in that process. Too often, financial illiteracy, inadequate opportunity and economic instability strip away the hard-earned savings of our seniors. That must stop.

Bill C-574 is the first bill of its kind ever proposed to better protect our seniors and their nest eggs. I am proud to have presented it. I clearly hope that all members in this House will adopt it at the appropriate time. I would urge colleagues to take part in that debate on November 23. As always, our seniors are counting on us.

Bill C-31 is yet another step that could be taken down this road. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to achieve these goals, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the government to pass measures geared to the same.

With the help of the government, I am hopeful that we can advance Bill C-31 quickly in this House and then, with the help of the Prime Minister, quickly through the other place.