Debates of March 12th, 1998

Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Canada pension plan affects all Canadians. They have a right to know the important details of this plan and how it will affect their retirement security.

I have asked the Minister of Finance on at least seven occasions to disclose the real rate of return that young Canadians can expect to receive on their lifetime CPP investment.

The minister has avoided answering the question all seven times, therefore, here I am again. I would like to repeat that I am asking about the real rate of return, not a rate increased by inflation.

To assist the minister in his response, I also point out that I do not want to hear of some hypothetical sum that would be returned after 35 years. I am interested in the real rate of return on an annual basis.

To further assist the minister, I would like to refresh his memory with respect to the Canada pension plan's sixteenth and latest actuarial report with which I am sure he is familiar.

Page 14 of this report shows a table with the real rate of return calculated for contributors to the Canada pension plan. For someone born in 1948, 4.9%; for someone born in 1968, 2.5%; for someone born in 1988, 1.9%; and for someone born in 2012, 1.8%. I might point out that a 1.8% real return is less than one half the real rate of return available through Government of Canada RRSP bonds.

I know the minister has in hand a pre-written, canned response. I also know from sad experience that this not only will fail to answer my question, but it will not even come close to doing so.

I ask the government to just throw away that canned response that is now in the hand of a member opposite and not to insult Canadians again with any well crafted, carefully crafted self-promotion.

I ask the government to spare us also the well-worn attacks against my party with fictitious numbers thrown in for good effect. Just give Canadians a rare, straightforward answer to a direct question.

I simply ask this government to come clean and admit that the real rate of return on their lifetime CPP investment for young Canadians, still too young to vote and many yet unborn, will fall below 2% and in fact will be only 1.8% I look forward to the government's answer.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify some points about the rate of return that Canadians will receive from the Canada pension plan.

A generation of Canadians born in 1988 will earn an effective rate of return on their CPP contributions of 1.9%, comparing the benefits they can expect to receive to the contributions they will make. However, the Reform Party does not tell you that this return accounts for commitments already made under the CPP. In fact 6.1% of the 9.9% steady stay contribution rate in 2003 will pay for the benefits of contributors. The rest is needed to pay for the plan's unfunded liability which is currently around $600 billion.

The effective rate for contributors would be higher if the contribution rate was only 6.1%. However, this would be possible only if we reneged on commitments already made under the CPP or paid them from a source the Reform Party has not identified.

The money actually invested in the CPP under the new, more fully funded approach is expected to earn a 3.8% of return after inflation. This is comparable to the returns of any large pension plan in the private sector.

Finally, the hon. member should know that the recent report of the Association of Canadian Pension Management supports a retirement system that includes the CPP as well as employer plans and RRSPs. It does not support, and I stress it does not support, the kind of privatized system that the Reform Party wants. On the contrary. It points out that private plans can have much higher investment costs than the CPP to the investor's disadvantage. Those are the facts.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, on December 10, 1997, I asked a question to the human resources development minister.

I asked him if he was aware that the unemployment insurance reform had increased poverty. What is nice with the adjournment motions is that, between the day where we ask the question and the one where we move our adjournment motion, new information becomes available.

In the last two weeks, we have received very conclusive answers that really demonstrate in an clear, convincing and definite fashion that the employment insurance reform has created a lot of poverty in Canada.

A very solid study done by a distinguished professor, Mr. Fortin, showed that, for Quebec alone, there are 200,000 people who, in 1989, would have been eligible to employment insurance but did not benefit from it because of the restrictive rules that have been systematically imposed since that time.

The minister tells us that there is a regular follow-up and that a report will be submitted. He talked about this in December, but we received the report at the beginning of February, and it contained absolutely no recommendation to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

We considered the issue at the human resources development committee and there is currently a motion before the committee to report to the House, so that the hon. members can do the work the employment commission should have done, which is to see where the situation stands.

Following the reform, the number of people on the welfare rolls increased by 200,000 in Quebec and 750,000 throughout Canada, which significantly reduces the chances for the unemployed to get back into the labour market. The situation is quite clear. Time is of the essence.

It is important for the minister of Human Resources Development to stop saying that he is making the appropriate follow-up. He now has the results and he can see that the operation is very disappointing indeed. If we do not take the necessary corrective action as soon as possible, we will be faced with permanent consequences.

This will have a negative impact, since more people, especially low income or poorly educated workers, are systematically joining the welfare rolls and leaving the workforce. These people are less happy, less satisfied and are added burdens to our society. They have no way of increasing their self-esteem and getting interesting results.

Today, I want to ask the minister, through the parliamentary secretary, the following question: Now that we are convinced that this is an urgent matter, will the Minister of Human Resources Development take concrete steps so that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development can present him with short term recommendations to amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to correct the inequity that was created, the terrible vacuum that is forcing a lot of people back onto the welfare rolls and creating poverty?

Should the federal government that wants to fight poverty not use the first tool available and, instead of accumulating a $25 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund by the year 2000, return that program to its original purpose and use that money to help those who, unfortunately, do not have a job, those who need a sufficient income between jobs?

Recently, we heard testimony, on television, from people who, after contributing to the EI fund for 30 years, had left their job for a year and then, when they returned and needed EI benefits, got no more than $130 a week.

Is there anybody in this House who could live on $130 a week? This is totally unacceptable.

So, if he thinks there is an urgent need, last December, the minister told us that there was no—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken when he suggests that employment insurance has increased poverty.

The first major reform in 25 years is fundamentally about helping Canadians get back to work quickly. The old system encouraged ongoing dependence and did not address structural unemployment. The new reform invests in people who are prepared to invest in themselves. It is fair, balanced and reflects the job market of realities across Canada.

The employment insurance system combines income support with practical results oriented, active employment measures. To help unemployed Canadians get back to work, an additional $800 million will be reinvested annually in re-employment measures, bringing the federal funding to more than $2.7 billion annually by 2000-2001.

In addition, a three year transition jobs fund is now in place to help create lasting jobs in the high unemployment rate regions of this country. Co-operation with provincial and territorial governments and the private sector in developing and delivering these benefits is an essential part of the EI system.

Labour market agreements with 11 provinces and territories will reduce the overlap, duplication of efforts and ensure that employment programs meet local and regional needs. As well, decisions on the most appropriate forms of assistance to help the unemployed get back to work will benefit from the insights of those most closely in touch with local markets.

The government with EI reform ensured that the new system was fairer and more equitable. The new system provides a family income supplement to help those with children. Because the entrance requirement is now based on hours of work instead of weeks, 500,000 additional part time workers will have their work insured for the first time.

Labour market conditions are now substantially improving. As 1998 begins the unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level in seven years. More than one million—

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, on November 24, 1997, I asked the Minister of Justice when she was going to amend the Young Offenders Act. It has been 108 days and I still have not heard a response to this question. In those 108 days there have been numerous cases of violent young offenders committing some of the most heinous crimes.

With no legislation to deter these youth, they are literally running wild. The justice minister continues to call these isolated incidents and isolated cases, but statistics prove otherwise. What she does not like to hear is the actual cases which illustrate the level of violence now seen in our youth today.

On November 21 in Victoria, seven teenage girls and one boy were charged with the death of 14 year old Reena Virk. These teens beat this girl to death and threw her body in a gorge.

Just before Christmas in Saskatchewan, two 15 year old girls were charged with first degree murder in the stabbing death of 58 year old Helen Montgomery who ran a custody care facility for young offenders where the suspects were living.

On January 19 in Lethbridge a single mom was killed by her 13 year old daughter and her daughter's 15 year old boyfriend.

On January 20 in Kitchener, Ontario, a 17 year old hacked off the hair of a 14 year old with a knife and beat her so badly that her eyes were swollen shut.

What is so remarkable about all these cases is not only the level of violence but that they were all girls.

I could go on and on to cite these incidents, and those I have mentioned happened since I asked the question, but I would like to talk about one young man named Keith Addy who feels that legislators are not responsible for our justice system today. I want him to know that I have heard him and I do recognize the need for change and that the Reform Party is working for it.

Keith Addy was struck by a stolen vehicle driven by a young offender which caused major head injuries to the 23 year old security guard.

The young offender was sentenced to six months in a detention facility and 24 months in the open custody of a group home. He will not be allowed to drive for five years.

What struck me about Keith Addy's letter is his insightfulness into the Young Offenders Act. His letter is entitled “Young Offenders law a joke to criminals in waiting”.

He goes on to state that as a victim he feels that the government clearly cares more about those who offend than those who do not. That is quite obvious.

He states that the Young Offenders Act should be gone because these are not misunderstood youth, they are hard core criminals in training. He states that parents should be made accountable for not maintaining proper supervision and control of their children. He signs off by stating “Thanks for nothing”.

This young man is clearly enraged with this useless piece of legislation and I totally agree. His bitterness is shared by tens of thousands of people and is growing with each passing day.

The calls for change are coming from across the nation from police chiefs, police associations, provincial attorneys general, social service ministers, teachers, parents and of course the Reform Party, but most of all they are coming from the young people themselves. They are calling for the YOA to be scrapped, since they are living in fear of being the next victim.

The Reform Party has drafted the necessary proposals for change in record time. The justice minister no longer has any excuses. Her time is up on this issue.

The outrage across this nation is so obvious that even the Liberals, if they could get it through their thick heads, should be able to understand that the people of this country are sick and tired of hearing about the violence caused by these young offenders. These people have refused to move. The act has been in place for 14 years. They have done a 10 year review. They flew across the country to consult, consult, consult.

If Liberals stood on the street corner in any city of this country Canadians would tell them to get rid of the Young Offenders Act. For Pete's sake, send a message to these young violent people that it will no longer be tolerated.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, reviewing the Young Offenders Act is a priority for the Minister of Justice, but it is clear that legislative reforms alone would not have prevented any of these tragedies.

Legislative reform is one tool among many to deal with issues of youth crime and the most effective approach would be a comprehensive youth justice strategy that includes proactive as well as reactive measures.

The solicitor general and the justice minister plan to launch a community based crime prevention initiative in 1998 and particular attention will be paid to measures for children and youth. Individual communities are well placed to identify their challenges and needs, and our initiative will encourage a partnership approach to helping communities prevent and reduce crime.

If, however, serious crimes are committed by young people, we need a legal regime that is fully capable of responding. Criminal laws and criminal law principles must be applied appropriately to young offenders. Criminal behaviour committed by young people needs to be denounced as wrong. Young people capable of forming criminal intent should be considered criminally responsible and held accountable for their misdeeds through fair and proportionate penalties.

Intensive rehabilitation and reintegration efforts may need to be applied to serious young offenders to promote the protection of the public by giving young offenders the best chance at becoming law-abiding and productive adults.

Criminal acts by youth range from high spirited behaviour to murder, and the response needs to be effective and proportionate. For less serious offences accountability and responsibility can be achieved by some innovative alternatives such as restorative justice approaches.

The goal of the comprehensive strategy would be an effective youth justice system in which the public could have confidence. It is never too early to intervene in the lives of troubled young people and never too late.

The intervention, however, must be appropriate and effective. We do not want to be incarcerating our children at disproportionately high rates, nor do we want people labouring—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time has expired.

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.49 p.m.)