Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in this debate on Bill C-2, the Canada pension plan.
The Canada pension plan is a very important part of our society. This universal plan, I believe, is under attack by the Liberal government. This plan, which guarantees benefits for people when they reach their senior years, is facing a great amount of difficulty by the proposals in Bill C-2.
I want to talk particularly today about the disability provisions. I stand in support of the motions that were made by our party, the NDP, concerning this aspect of the Canada pension plan. These motions we made are designed to offset the provisions in the bill which alter the rules for calculating disability benefits and which make it harder to be eligible for benefits.
We know that the people applying for these pensions have enough difficulty now when they try to obtain what they are entitled to obtain; some of the bureaucratic delays that they have to go through, some of the difficulties while they are experiencing pain and disability. It is very degrading for many people.
Now we have a bill which proposes to make it even more difficult for people to obtain their benefits.
The proposed bill is very hard on those who are self-employed, on seniors and on women. By deindexing the year's basic exemption by freezing it at $3,500 beginning in 1998, this downloads the burden of pension hikes on the low income earners. We know that low income people are experiencing enough difficulty now without having to pay more in order to obtain benefits.
Another concern is that the effect of adding the definition of maximum pensionable earnings average alters the benefit formula for calculation with a net effect again of reducing benefits. Reducing benefits is all we need to hear about today. Pensions themselves are so low right now that when we talk about reducing them even further we realize that we are creating extreme difficulty for people.
Just this past weekend I was at a function where a constituent was telling me that he receives a $560 disability pension. Out of that he has to pay a mortgage of $400. That leaves him with $160 to pay his lights, heat, telephone and buy groceries to feed himself and his family. Imagine $160 a month. Now we are talking about looking at the Canada pension plan so that we end up reducing people's benefits.
The changes proposed regarding the minimum contributory requirements for a disability pension result in a reduction to disability benefits and further hardship, requiring recipients to work and contribute in four of the last six years instead of two of the last three or five of the last ten. We want clause 69 which provides for that to be deleted altogether. Let us not make things more difficult for people.
Another concern is that Canada pension plan premiums are collected from only the first $35,800 of income. The effect of this is that those who make over the maximum pensionable earnings pay a lesser percentage than those who make less. We need to make sure that as one earns more, one contributes accordingly rather than having the low income workers always bearing the brunt.
An hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois mentioned earlier that the NDP wanted to remove elements of the legislation relating to fraud. I believe some reference was being made to our motions where we want to amend Bill C-2 by deleting clauses 87 and 107. These are the clauses which spell out massive new powers for the minister responsible to conduct investigations into the viability of claimants.
These clauses go so far as to talk about being able to enter people's dwellings with a warrant to enforce penalties, to gather information, to request information from third parties. What third parties, I ask. Your neighbours, your friends? These clauses also talk about investigating Canada pension plan claims and imposing penalties for infractions. Who is imposing penalties for the infractions that the government administration causes with respect to the administration of this plan right now?
I draw the House's attention to a case where someone applied for benefits, was refused, appealed to the review board tribunal, a favourable decision was rendered and then the minister through the department appealed that favourable decision. Here is someone who is unable to work, is suffering, is going through all kinds of mental anguish, wins at the tribunal level and then it is appealed by the department.
Under the appeal process when that appeal is made, I believe to the vice-chair of the Canada pension board, that official is supposed to forthwith under the act let the parties know whether that leave to appeal has been granted. What is happening is the applications for appeal are piling up on that official's desk and a year later the person has not even got around to responding as to whether or not that appeal will be allowed, let alone setting up the process to carry through with that appeal.
This kind of bureaucratic delay and infraction of the current plan is of deep concern to me. And now under Bill C-2 we are going to introduce even more powerful mechanisms that will slow down the process and cause indignity to those who need to apply for these pensions. We have to think very carefully about this.
When we talk about safety and we talk about safeguards against fraud, I maintain that that safeguard is already there now. The safeguard is there in the integrity of our seniors, the people who are going to receive these benefits, the people in our society who are going to benefit from the Canada pension plan.
By introducing the kinds of changes that are addressed in this bill, we are automatically implying that our senior citizens and others are not—