Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Churchill. As we discuss the motion to amend the Canada pension plan, we should keep in mind that last year was the 75th anniversary of the first public pension plan in Canada.
In 1927, the government of the day, led by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, implemented the first Old Age Pensions Act. Those first pensions were based on a study of income and were very modest by today's standards. They were $240 a year. Eligibility was very restrictive. Only British subjects aged 70 or older, who had been living in Canada for 20 years or more, were eligible.
At the time, this was a radical change in social policies. It became the basis for an overall system of public pensions and income security programs that make Canada today one of the best and most progressive countries in the world.
The old age security program, the Canada pension plan, and the Quebec pension plan, in Quebec, are the foundation of the retirement income system in Canada.
A key element of the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan is the disability benefits that provide income to Canadians who cannot earn a living because of a serious disability.
To have a sense of the importance of these benefits for Canadians, note that during the 2000 fiscal year, the Canada Pension Plan paid out $2.6 billion to some 280,000 disability claimants who had contributed to the plan, and an additional $245 million to the children of these contributors.
This is the main long term disability benefits program in Canada. Each year, some 65,000 new claims are received and processed.
When we take a close look, it is fair to say that Canada's public pension system has truly been a successful experiment.
From its modest beginnings in 1927, we have developed an income support system that is the envy of the entire world.
Yet, we rarely hear public debate about the system. Millions of Canadians use it and benefit from it every month, but they rarely give it any thought.
I would say that we do not hear public debate about the Canada pension plan for the very reason that it does work well.
We all know the saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Today, however, we are being asked to fix something that is supposedly broken, and how? By amending the way pensionable earnings are defined by the Canada Pension Plan.
I am sure that the hon. member on the other side has good reasons for wanting to make this amendment, but I do not believe the system is defective, as she is attempting to suggest today.
In reality, if we change the definition of pensionable employment as suggested by this motion, we are going to create a precedent which might end up creating new and more serious problems for this and a number of other pieces of legislation.
For example, if we accept the inclusion of workers' compensation payments as pensionable income for CPP, why would we not accept other forms of social transfer, such as employment insurance benefits or provincial or municipal social benefits?
If we act unilaterally to amend the definition in the federal act, how will the provinces view it?
We need to keep in mind that the federal government is jointly responsible for the Canada pension plan, along with the provinces.
For example, in the case of disability benefits, the Canada pension plan and the various provincial workers' compensation plans can be taken into account for personal disability benefit claims.
Over the years, the two levels of government have worked hard to ensure that benefits to the disabled are integrated on both the federal and the provincial levels.
It would certainly be impertinent of the federal government to decide to unilaterally amend the definition of eligibility without prior consultation with its provincial partners.
The technical reasons that I mentioned show why the House should not support this motion. This does not mean that we should not ensure that all disabled workers in Canada receive all the benefits they are entitled to.
Since we must do so, I want to reassure the member for Churchill that this government, and I would say that this is true for all governments in Canada, wants to ensure that workers who become disabled are fully informed of the disability benefits to which they are entitled and can receive them.
That is why the Income Security Programs Branch of Human Resources Development Canada is working in close collaboration with each of the provincial workers compensation plans to improve and simplify disability benefit claims and the eligibility process.
It is also why the department has established an active public relations communications program that provides useful information on Canada pension plan disability benefits and how this program works.
There is always a delicate balance when it comes to managing a program as large and as complex as Canada pension plan disability benefits. Sometimes, certain cases give rise to discontent. The hon. member opposite is perhaps seeking to resolve a specific case with this general amendment, but agreeing to this motion would mean changing the definition of pensionable employment for everyone.
There could be unintended repercussions that could undermine a system that has worked well for many Canadians and which is talked about in other countries.
This government is willing to make changes to the Canada pension plan whenever all stakeholders clearly identify a need.