Debates of June 11th, 2009

Opposition Motion--Pensions

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, when the Liberals set up the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board back in 2007, they did not know at the time that it was going to turn out to be the disaster that it is. We see now that the annualized rate of return in investments since that group took over is only 4.3%. We could have done better if we had just stayed with government bonds, which we had for years and years before that.

I want to ask the member whether she thinks it is time for the Liberals to tell us just what they are going to do with this investment board. The last two speakers have indicated that they want to keep the board. That is a surprising answer when we see evidence that clearly indicates we should get rid of the board.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the issue the member has raised is much broader. Indeed, we should be revisiting the advisability of having this board.

There is a pattern that we have been seeing for quite some time in the federal government. Instead of taking responsibility for the proper management of our resources, taxpayers' dollars and our budget, the government has been allowing people other than elected officials in the House to take over that responsibility. Another example is the appointment of people from the resource industry to give us advice on how we should be managing greenhouse gases.

It is time that members in the House took responsibility. We are elected to make the hard decisions and we should take responsibility for them. If people are going to advise us, they should be from across broad sectors. Let us hear from Canadians rather than the ones who are obviously investing our money unwisely.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this excellent motion on behalf of the people of my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

We are in a serious economic crisis, the scale of which has not been seen since the Great Depression in the 1930s. We have tried to learn some lessons from our parents and grandparents who lived in that time, but it appears the government has not learned those lessons.

Most in this place will know that the CCF was the first party in Canada to speak of fair wages, of benefits, of medicare and, as it relates to the business of today, of pensions. Over the last five decades, the New Democratic Party has always taken the responsibility of protecting and promoting the interests of working and retired Canadians alike.

Today's motion, put forward by my hon. colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, builds on the proud traditions of our party and he should be proud of his personal contribution today. Each point of this well written, reasonable and principled motion deserves the support of all members in this place.

On the first point, expanding and increasing CPP/QPP, OAS and GIS to ensure all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement, there can be no reasonable argument against this point in this place. It is in the interests of all Canadians.

On the second point, establishing a self-financing pension insurance program to ensure the viability of workplace sponsored plans in tough economy times, I am certain that a large majority of members in this place will also see the merits.

Recently the Superintendent of Bankruptcies reported that there have been 106,459 bankruptcies in the 12 months ending this April, which is 21% more than those filed in the year ending in April 2008. What does this mean? It means it is more obvious than ever that we must protect pensions by working with provincial governments to establish a system of pension insurance.

I will elaborate on the third point in a moment as it is of special importance to the people of the riding I represent.

The fourth point of the motion, in the interest of appropriate management of the CPP, is that the Government of Canada immediately protect the CPP from imprudent investment practices by ceasing the practice of awarding managers performance-based bonuses. Every member of this place surely knows this is the right, good and principled thing to do.

The most recent bonuses for the CPP board executives are as follows: David Denison, $2,361,022; Mark Wiseman $2,112,115; Donald Raymond, $1,296,573; and Graeme Eadie, $1,077,239. These bonuses have been paid out despite the fact that in the last 10 years the CPP fund would have made $13 billion more than it did if it had been invested in government bonds, rather than a diversified portfolio of equities, real estate and bonds as advised by those so-called experts who received millions in bonuses during that time.

The failure of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to adequately look after the finances of our most cherished social policy means the change must happen and a reform to this process as prescribed by the NDP in this motion is the right thing to do, not just for those responsible for investing the funds, but those in our households who depend on it today and will depend on it tomorrow.

The necessity and appropriateness of the fifth point, taking all necessary steps to recover those bonuses for 2009, ensuring managers in the future are paid appropriate industry competitive salaries, goes without saying.

I come back now on behalf of the constituents of Thunder Bay—Rainy River to the third point of the New Democratic motion on pensions. New Democrats are bringing forward a motion to ensure that workers' pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. We know this is right. We know this is justified. We know this is necessary. We know this must be done.

I recently held town halls on this very issue and others as it relates to the forestry sector. Here is what my constituents had to say on the matter.

Herman Pruys, Leon DeGagne, among others at the Fort Frances meeting, just want to be paid for the work that they and their colleagues have already performed. In case hon. members do not already know, pensions are really deferred payment for work completed. Herman and Leon are owed money for work done over a long period of time and this motion would ensure that they get it, no matter what.

At the Thunder Bay meeting, constituents rightly pointed out that the workers had to fight tooth and nail for the benefits that had been in collective agreements over decades in some cases. They lament that companies today seem to think that such collective agreements are just a piece of paper to be ignored. The actions of Conservative and Liberal governments over the last decade have allowed companies to disrespect these agreements and ignore those obligations.

Buchanan Forestry Products is out of business and AbitibiBowater is struggling to regain solvency. As a result of the failure of these companies, I have seen first-hand the hard-earned pensions of men and women lost or put to the back of the line when a company declares bankruptcy.

I speak these words and offer my support for this important motion today on behalf of the workers and their families of the riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I thank the New Democrat member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for tabling it on behalf of all Canadians.

The failure of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to adequately look after the finances of our most cherished social policy means that change must happen and a reform to this process, as prescribed by the New Democratic Party in the motion, is the right thing to do, not just for those responsible for investing the funds but those in our households who depend on it today and who will depend on it tomorrow.

New Democrats are bringing forward a motion to ensure that workers' pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. We know that this is right. We know that this is justified. We know that this is necessary. We know that this must be done.

A greater injustice is not known to working families than the loss of a pension and a livelihood in what should be their golden years. The New Democrat motion, if supported by other parties and put into practice by the government, would protect the pensions of the families in my riding, and I urge every member of the House to offer their support for it for that reason.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important to work for our seniors and recognize their contribution to our society. Our government has taken real action, in particular to help low-income seniors who have self-identified but are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement. I would like to know what they think about the measures we have introduced, which have meant that since 2002, nearly 328,000 more low-income seniors have been receiving the guaranteed income supplement.

I would like to know whether that is in line with my colleague's proposal and whether he believes that our government has taken appropriate action to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors can receive income over and above their basic pension in order to meet their financial needs, especially during this time of economic hardship.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, poverty among seniors is a complicated issue. While some steps have been taken by all governments in the last number of years, the proper things have not been done in a timely manner.

I will relate to my hon. colleague a situation in Atikokan, one of the communities in my riding. When I was there a little while ago I spoke to some seniors. They told me that they just could not survive on their fixed incomes. They showed me their electricity bills and said that they could not pay them. For 35 years their house has been paid, but they cannot pay their electricity bill and stay in their house. This is a very real problem.

Not only do the contents of the motion need to be accepted by everyone in the House, but we also need to ensure that we work with provincial governments and municipalities to ensure that poverty among seniors becomes a thing of the past.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his support for the motion.

Every time I have stood on my feet today, I have pointed to one fact. As I have said before, in the cut and thrust of our debate we often lose sight of things when we agree. This is one of the times in this place when all parties are in agreement. We will debate the issues of the motion in the time that remains, but the concepts of the motion on how we can help seniors and the fact that now is the time to do so is a motivator to us all.

We see so many closures in northern Ontario. This guaranteed fund, the insurance plan, would protect pensions. We protect our cars and homes with insurance, even our investments. How does the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River see that being helpful to his constituents?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely essential for protecting pensions. There have been a large number of bankruptcies in the forestry industry and other businesses in northwestern Ontario in particular. It is very clear that when pensions need to be paid out, there is no money. They are at the back of the line, not the front.

Some of these workers have paid in for 35 or 40 years, even 42 years. A potential pensioner spoke to me about the service he had with a particular forest company. If someone pay into a pension plan for 42 years, it would be deferred wages. That is money owed to the person. In fact, I would make the case that this money should be paid out first.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Huron—Bruce, who recently arrived in the House on our side and, in short order, injected nearly $30 million in infrastructure into his riding and has generated many projects. He has broadened horizons bringing new vitality to seniors.

I would, in fact, like to speak of seniors today. The people in my riding often ask me what we are doing for seniors. They tell me that we must remember when we are in Ottawa that seniors represent a large proportion of those who sent us here. They tell me to remember the contribution they continue to make to society. These people help often with care for children, sometimes babysitting them. They do a lot of volunteer work, getting involved in community organizations. They ask us to remember what they have done and to do something for them.

In the time given me, I would like to point out that this is a special day, as we have revealed the results of our economic action plan. We have shown the extent to which we are preserving our seniors' heritage. I would also like to point out a few specific measures and talk about the actions that have been taken in recent weeks and months to ensure that seniors have more money in their pockets to meet the current economic challenges.

Our government attaches great importance to the contributions seniors have made and continue to make to our country. We recognize that all Canadians, including older people, look to government for support in these turbulent economic times. They can count on us. We will continue to do what is necessary for the seniors who have helped make this country what it is today, a good place to live and one we are so proud of.

With the number of older people growing, we have worked actively to find ways to improve their quality of life. Our government has established various measures to improve the financial security and general well being of seniors and those who are retired. The old age security program is the cornerstone of the retirement income system in Canada. It provides basic income support to practically all Canadians from age 65. In addition, the guaranteed income supplement has played a significant role in reducing poverty among seniors in Canada. Between 1980 and 2007, the number of seniors living in poverty decreased from 21.3% of the population to 4.8%.

Our government is doing its utmost to improve the guaranteed income supplement so that it meets the needs of Canadians even better. We have raised the guaranteed income supplement to 7% more than the level of pension indexation. In other words, we have increased it faster than inflation, which amounts to $2.7 billion shared among everyone receiving the GIS, namely some 1.6 million seniors. The most disadvantaged seniors can therefore count on additional support from the Conservative government. We have also increased the GIS earnings exemption to $3,500. That means that a single pensioner earning $3,500 or more may now keep up to an additional $1,500 in annual GIS benefits.

I can assure the members of this House that our government is determined to see that seniors receive the benefits to which they are entitled. Since last year, our government has provided for automatic renewal for recipients of the guaranteed income supplement if they have filed a tax return. In other words, seniors need apply for the supplement only once, provided they continue to file a tax return yearly, which is a legal obligation.

We are doing our utmost to spread the word on the guaranteed income supplement to as many seniors as possible.

For example, we mail out guaranteed income supplement applications to low-income seniors who have been identified as such by the income tax system, but are not getting the supplement. Thanks to this automatic flagging system, since 2002, close to 328,000 more low-income seniors now receive the guaranteed income supplement.

We are also working with community service providers and partners in the private sector to ensure that hard to reach seniors—such as aboriginal seniors, people with no fixed address, immigrants and the disabled—know that these benefits exist and can access them.

Seniors are, of course, living longer, and staying healthy longer. They are also still in the work force. My father, at the respectable age of 70, is still in the work force and contributing to Canadian society. In order to limit the obstacles to those wishing to keep working, we have invested $60 million annually to make sure that low-income seniors who are working can benefit more from their earnings by raising the income exemption for the guaranteed income supplement. This change has benefited 100,000 working seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

We have also improved numerous programs already in place, such as New Horizons for Seniors, which helps seniors all over the country to strengthen their communities. To give some examples of this: the seniors club in Buckland was able to replace some chairs and refrigerators and thus to continue their activities. The seniors of Saint-Damien improved the kitchen in their community centre, and those in Lac-Etchemin organized a play. These and other fine initiatives in all parts of the country have been supported by our New Horizons for Seniors program .

In the 2007 budget, our government increased the New Horizons for Seniors program budget by $10 million, specifically to be able to help improve facilities and equipment used by existing seniors' programs and to raise public awareness of senior abuse.

As well, we have created the tax free savings account, which allows seniors to earn interest on their savings without affecting eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, our government reiterated its commitment to seniors in our economic action plan. We are presenting the second report concerning that plan here today. We are on track to achieve 80% of the goals set in that plan. Here are some of the measures we introduced: another $300 million on top of the additional $1.6 billion targeted for seniors for the 2009 fiscal year. This includes providing seniors with $200 million in tax relief by reducing the required minimum withdrawal amount for 2008 from registered retirement income funds by 25%. This change recognizes the impact of the deterioration in market conditions on retirement savings.

We are also increasing the old age credit by $1,000 for 2009 and subsequent years to allow seniors to save even more on taxes. We had already increased the old age credit by $1,000 in 2006 and we made further improvements in 2009. All my Conservative colleagues from Quebec supported those measures.

I would like to present another measure before I end my speech. The old age credit increases are based on previous tax breaks. We also doubled the amount of the pension income credit from $1,000 to $2,000. As we all remember, we introduced income splitting, which is putting a lot of money back into the hands of seniors.

Another measure I would like to mention is the almost $60 million in funding for the targeted initiative for older workers.

We also introduced some housing initiatives, with $400 million targeted for our seniors. I could go on and list other measures of course, but I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague here in the House for raising his concerns about seniors and their financial security.

I think I have clearly demonstrated that, over the course of the last two Parliaments, our government has implemented additional measures to help our seniors, who deserve our utmost respect.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is aware that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was incorporated as a federal crown corporation long before he was in the government, by an act of Parliament, in December 1997, and it made its first investment in March 1999. The fund, as of March 31, is now $105 billion and probably dropping quickly.

When the Liberals set up the fund, they told Canadians that we could make higher returns on our savings in the CPP if they were invested in the stock market and in private sector investments instead of government bonds. At the time, that probably made some sense. Not only was the federal government doing it, but provincial governments were also allowing their crown corporations to invest surplus funds in equity investments.

However, the history has turned out to be very bad. In 2008, the CPP lost $23.6 billion. The annualized rate of return since that time, in the last 10 years, is only 4.3%, which is what these investment geniuses were able to get. At 4.3%, that gave us a total of $23.8 billion over the last 10 years. Now, had that money been simply put in long-term government bonds, the fund would have done $13 billion better.

So the question, then, is whether the member is prepared to admit that it is time to get rid of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board so we can save the $300,000 salaries, so we can save the $7 million bonuses--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his well-researched question, in which he referred to the financial crisis we have undergone and to the declining returns that have troubled all pension funds, not just seniors' funds, but all investment funds. I am sure that, like me, my colleague has seen his income and investments drop in value during this financial crisis.

However, we must not forget that 4.3% is a pretty respectable rate of return all things considered. Some pension funds have seen the value of their assets decline, but it would be unwise to make any dramatic changes during a difficult financial period.

A constructive risk management strategy was in place, and we have to maintain it. We are already seeing encouraging signs that economic activity is picking up steam.

One thing is for sure, and I can assure all Canadians, particularly seniors, that despite economic ups and downs, our plan has the flexibility and the capacity to keep up with benefit payments. It is important to seniors and to our government that we ensure access to a stable source of income for seniors.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's conversation about GIS, in particular, caught my interest when he said that there was an effort on the government's part to get information out to seniors regarding the GIS.

I have always been a little bit on the curious side. Canada's tax system is such that our birthdate is available and the amount of our income is available. Therefore, the government is aware of the financial situation of any Canadian who has filed an income tax return and of the fact that he or she is already receiving OAS. One would think that the evidence that seniors need the GIS is very clear. Why would the government not either make it automatic or at least make notification automatic in those cases?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question about what the government has done and must continue to do to ensure that all seniors who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement have access to it.

I would note that, as of 2002, individuals who file a tax return and meet the age and income requirements to qualify for the guaranteed income supplement automatically receive the application once. After that, they are more or less registered for life unless their financial situation changes. They are registered to receive the guaranteed income supplement for life. Since 2002, we have tracked down 328,000 seniors who now have access to the guaranteed income supplement.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to today's motion. I would like to thank the member for Lévis—Bellechasse as well.

As members know, Canada has a three-pillar retirement income system based on a balanced mix of public-private responsibility and voluntary, compulsory programs.

The first pillar, the old age security and guaranteed income supplement programs, provides a basic minimum income, guaranteed for seniors who meet residence requirements.

The second pillar, the Canada and Quebec pension plans, ensures a basic level of earnings replacement in retirement for all workers in Canada.

The third pillar, the system of voluntary tax-deferred savings in RPPs and registered retirement savings plans, encourages and assists Canadians to save for retirement, to help bridge the gap between public pension benefits and the retirement income goals.

Issues surrounding pensions have grown in increasing importance recently, as this is an issue that impacts all Canadians in one way or another. Our Conservative government has recognized that reality.

I would like to highlight key initiatives that we have recently unveiled to support pensions and help protect the retirement of Canadians across this country.

Let me begin by pointing out to the House that our government started this process by actually consulting with Canadians, releasing a comprehensive discussion paper on improving the framework for federally regulated private pension plans. This important discussion paper, available online for all to read, was part of our effort to reach out to Canadians for their views and input on issues related to federally regulated pension plans.

Indeed, the public was invited to make submissions directly to the government in response to this paper, and in fact, our government has already posted responses we have received to this initiative online. This input, open for all to see, will help inform permanent changes our government intends to make later this year to federally regulated pension.

Before continuing, let me remind all members that the federal government only directly regulates private pension plans subject to federal legislation, that is, areas of employment under federal jurisdiction, including banking, telecommunications and interprovincial transportation. These plans currently only represent 7% of all private pension plans in Canada, with the balance regulated provincially.

In addition to the release of that discussion paper, we went further in talking and listening directly to the concerns of Canadians, as our government held a series of national consultations earlier this year. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member of Parliament for Macleod, went right across Canada to meet face to face with people from Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and Whitehorse. Those who could not attend these meetings were invited to send in written submissions on the discussion paper.

There is no denying that we are in the midst of one of the most challenging economic periods in recent memory and that has caused a sharp decline in global markets, which has led to losses in many pension plans. Our government has recognized that challenge and taken specific concrete measures to provide temporary solvency funding relief for federally regulated, defined benefit pension plans, as originally outlined in our 2008 economic and fiscal statement.

The Federal Superannuates National Association, in reaction to these changes, publicly congratulated our government “for recognizing the need and placing priority on creating an equitable and fair pension system for Canadians--”.

Again, these measures covered plans established for employees working in areas that fall under federal jurisdiction only and offered temporary relief to sponsors while also protecting pension benefits.

The proposed regulations set out a series of measures to: first, extend the solvency funding period by one year for deficiencies reported as of year-end between November 1, 2008 and October 31, 2009; second, extend the solvency funding payment to 10 years from 5 with the agreement of members and retirees; third, extend the solvency funding payment to 10 years from 5 when the difference is secured with a letter of credit; fourth, extend the solvency funding payment period to 10 years from 5 for agent crown corporations with terms and conditions to ensure a level playing field; and fifth, allow asset smoothing above 110% with the difference in payments subject to a deemed trust.

We have recently also taken other important steps to help protect the retirement savings of individual Canadians. For instance, in recognition of the exceptional deterioration of market conditions and its effect on retirees' savings, in the 2008 economic and fiscal statement we announced a 25% reduction in the required minimum withdrawal amount for registered retirement income funds for 2008. This one-time measure has provided an estimated $200 million in tax assistance to retirees by allowing them to keep more of their savings in their RRIFs.

A respected Financial Post columnist, Jonathan Chevreau, declared that this measure gave “pensioners and pension-plan administrators more flexibility to deal with the market malaise that has triggered a plunge in asset values recent months”.

Our government has also increased the age at which RRSPs must be matured from 69 to 71. With this change, RRIF minimum withdrawals are not required to begin until the year an individual turns 72 years of age, which is well above the medium retirement age in Canada. I hear my colleague from Newfoundland adding some comments across the way, and I would encourage him to participate when his turn comes.

Another important development in supporting retirees and their savings was reached this past May when the finance minister met with his provincial and territorial counterparts at their annual spring meeting. At that meeting, the results of the tri-annual review of the Canada pension plan were announced. The federal, provincial and territorial ministers all agreed that Canada's retirement income system was healthy and compared well internationally in terms of adequacy and affordability, confirming that the CPP remained on sound financial footing despite the market downturn.

The minister also unanimously recommended numerous key changes to the CPP to increase flexibility for older workers, expand CPP coverage and improve fairness in the plan's flexibility retirement provisions. Key among the changes: providing greater flexibility to those taking up the retirement benefit before the age of 65 to enable them to combine pension and work, and an enhancement in the pension formula to exclude up to an additional year of low earnings.

Jack Mintz, public policy professor at the University of Calgary, heralded these changes, remarking, “The more flexibility you build into pension arrangements, the better”.

Finn Poschmann of the C.D. Howe Institute said:

This is an important shift in public pension policy. The proposed adjustments mark an important sea-change in government pension policy’s approach to dealing with population ageing and, in particular, making it easier for those people who want to work later in life to do so.

The Edmonton Journal cheered them as “an overdue update of the CPP which reflects contemporary realities”.

Those are not my words, these are the words of eminent public policy persons. What is more, ministers also agreed to the extraordinary step of creating a research working group, something suggested by today's motion, on retirement savings adequacy. This group was tasked to quickly undertake that study and report back to the ministers of finance and ministers responsible for pensions by the end of the year.

Clearly, promoting the retirement income security of Canadians has been and will continue to be an important goal of the Government of Canada. To conclude, let me say our Conservative government is working hard in consultations with the provinces, territories and, most importantly, Canadians across this country.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have participated in this debate and who finally understand the harsh reality that is confronting so many seniors.

In particular, I want to the commend the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Clearly, his superior political skills have brought people on board with this very important motion. I am very pleased to see that happen in the House.

I would like to ask the member opposite a question. While he is being very supportive in a forward-looking way of the things we all ought to turn our minds to with respect to helping seniors, could he talk a bit about an initiative that might actually help seniors today?

As the member will know, Statistics Canada from 2001 until 2006 miscalculated the consumer price index. As a result of that, seniors right across the country were shortchanged on their public pensions. That is money that is owed to seniors. It was a legal entitlement. They are owed that money by the government. The government has recognized the mistake and, yet, has done absolutely nothing to reimburse Canadian seniors the money owed to them. Of course, in the middle of this economic crisis, seniors need that money desperately.

The member has acknowledged that need for financial support in his speech. I wonder if he could rise and say when the government will act on reimbursing seniors for a mistake that was made by Statistics Canada which was clearly no fault of their own.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give the member a brief rundown. I could go on for hours about all that we have done for seniors in this great country, but I will provide just a brief rundown.

We have introduced a minister of state for seniors. We have established a national council for seniors. We have introduced pension income splitting, which has been tremendously popular in my riding of Huron—Bruce. We have increased the age credit by $1,000 and then increased it by another $1,000, resulting in tax savings to 2.2 million seniors. We have increased the GIS amount by 7% over and above regular indexation to give low-income seniors an additional $2.7 billion.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities which is studying poverty in Canada, I can say that this is one of the great measures that has brought our seniors up a level.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member.

Yes, we have a terrific CPP system in this country and it works very well. One thing I am hearing from my constituents is that if there are two seniors on CPP and the husband would like to do a bit of work, every time he does, his CPP gets clawed back.

We are getting into an older generation now. The baby boom generation is getting older and some seniors would like to work a bit longer, but it is not worth their while because of the clawback. I am wondering if his government would look at putting a small cap on or providing a cushion so that some seniors could earn a bit of income without being clawed back.

My second question is this. He talked about everything his government has done for seniors. Perhaps he would like to explain its commitment not to touch income trusts and then shortly after being elected it put a tax on income trusts. Let us talk about the hard-working seniors who lost a lot of money because of that broken promise.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I serve on the veterans affairs committee, and I know he is very concerned about seniors not only in Huron—Bruce but in his riding in Newfoundland.

There is one thing I would like to point out. We have heard today many comments about the performance of the CPPIB, the dollars and the executives. If we always look at just one period of time, March 31, 2009, that is not a fair representation for the overall performance.

I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona has made numerous commentaries, but if we look at the time following the date he quoted, which would be March 31 until today, he might note that the Toronto Stock Exchange has actually increased 30%.

He also criticized many of the stocks that were picked and are well within the public portion of the equities. One is Cott Corporation, a Canadian beverage company. Since that date, Cott has increased 500%, the same people Liberals want to criticize. SNC Lavalin is another company that is up 35% in three months and Suncor is up 40%.

I would like to make the record clear that if people take a picture at any one time, they get a great understanding.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the NDP motion put forward by my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I will be sharing my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

The motion is about the dignity of Canadians, of senior and retired Canadians. I am far from retirement, but I care a lot about the issues facing seniors.

I would like to share a story with the House.

Before I became an MP, I worked as a community legal workers in Halifax. I worked on different poverty law issues. I was approached by a group of seniors living in a retirement apartment building. They were tenants and they were having problems with their building. They came to me for legal help and legal support. I helped them organize. This group of seniors mobilized and collectively worked to solve the problems in the building.

A year later when they found out I was running in the 2008 election, they came to me and said to me that I had helped them when they needed help and I was the only one who stood up to help them. Therefore, they said that they were there to help me. They hit the streets. They went out in droves, knocking on doors, talking to their neighbours and they started working on my campaign.

It was interesting at my nomination meeting, a nomination where a young woman was seeking election, an entire section of the audience was filled with my friends who were in their scooters, their walkers and with their well-earned grey hair rooting for me. When I won the election, they came to me and said that they felt invisible to the government, that they felt the issues of seniors were not important issues. They wanted me to go to Ottawa to stand up for them. Therefore, I rise today to honour that commitment.

In my work on poverty, I have often seen people throw up their hands in defeat when they are working on poverty issues. They say that it is too big, that it is too complicated, that there is no solution and that it is too complex.

I always use our Canada pension plan, our old age security and our guaranteed income supplement pension scheme as an example that it can be done. We can solve the problem of poverty. We did it for seniors. We dramatically reduced the rates of poverty in the country.

Professor Lars Osberg is an economist at Dalhousie University. He wrote a paper entitled “Poverty among Senior Citizens: A Canadian Success Story”. The paper looks at the poverty rates among seniors before and after the pension scheme was introduced. As his title suggests, it is a true success story.

Professor Osberg writes that in 1947 Canada had a means tested old age pension plan. It was available for the absolute poorest in Canada. It worked out to about $30 a month. In today's dollars that was about $289 a month. In 1952 that was replaced by the OAS system, the old age security system. OAS was a universal payment of $40 a month. Now that would be worth about $274 according to Lars Osberg.

With income at this level, the result was widespread and acute poverty among Canadians over the age of 65. Canadians had to wait until 1967 for the introduction of the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada pension plan. As the system matured throughout the 1970s, poverty rates among senior citizens dropped dramatically. They plummeted. Rates of poverty were still high for certain groups, and I am thinking especially among senior single women, but by and large this system lifted Canadian seniors out of poverty. It was a remarkable achievement. It was an achievement for all Canadians. Unfortunately today that achievement is slipping away from us.

The motion confronts a critical issue faced by Canadians, and I am very proud to support it. My colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has been travelling the country, holding town hall meetings and community forums, where he invites seniors to come in, talk to him, tell him what issues are facing them and what are their concerns.

I had the wonderful opportunity to be with him at one of these town hall meetings in southwester Ontario. What I heard in southwestern Ontario is exactly what I hear in Halifax. Seniors who rely on CPP, OAS and GIS are struggling to survive. They are having to choose between putting food on their tables or keeping their homes heated. The cost of living goes up, but their pension benefits stay the same, so it comes down to nutritious food or medicine.

The motion mandates the government to work with provinces and territories to ensure the sustainability of Canadians' retirement income by bringing forward measures, like expanding and increasing CPP, OAS and GIS, to ensure that all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement. A dignified retirement is something all Canadians deserve.

It is time for the federal government to stop standing on the sidelines, allowing the retirement security of Canadians to be compromised. We want to see real action and leadership. Canadians want to see real action and leadership, Canadians like members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, or CARP.

CARP has recently supported a portable, universal pension plan based on the CPP architecture for the nearly one in three Canadians without any retirement savings. There are many out there without these savings. CARP believes this plan should be funded by contributions from employers and employees. It also agrees that self-employed Canadians should be allowed to participate in this plan.

The Canadian Labour Congress is also calling for changes to these schemes. It is calling for a doubling of CPP and QPP to be phased in. One of the wonderful side benefits is that it will not just relieve poverty, but it will also help stimulate our economy. By increasing income supports for seniors through our public pension program, many pensioners, who are living on fixed incomes, would use that money immediately in their local economies. This would equate to a stimulus measure that would ensure more funds would be circulating in communities around Canada.

It would not take much. A $1 billion increase in OAS and GIS would virtually eliminate poverty among seniors in our country. This figure would likely be about $1 billion a year in order to maintain the benefit over time. To some people who are listening or who will be reading this at home, $1 billion may seem like a lot of money, but the 1% cut to the GST equalled $6 billion, so it is about government decisions. It is about choices.

It goes without saying that increasing old age security benefits would protect vulnerable Canadians, especially older women, who, as I mentioned, have been historically a group that have not benefited as robustly from our pension scheme. It would help protect vulnerable people like single, elderly women.

However, another group experiences poverty, despite our existing regime, and that is new Canadians. They face a double disadvantage in the Canadian pension system. Public pension acquisition is very problematic for immigrants because of residency requirements. A 2003 survey found that 26% of recent immigrant seniors were in the lowest income quintile, versus 15% of non-immigrant seniors.

Expanding and increasing our federal pension program could alleviate poverty among recent immigrant seniors and among single senior women. It is a big win for us.

I have only spoken to the first section of the motion. There are four other sections that make real changes to our pension system, including establishing a pension insurance program for workplace sponsored pension plans, ensuring that workers' pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy and ceasing the practice of awarding CPP managers performance-based bonuses. All these points are worth supporting.

In short, I am very proud to support my colleague's motion, and I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the House will agree.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I ask a question of the member, I want to point out something that the previous speaker said, which was about the return on the dollars and on the revenue and should that be rewarded with a bonus. I will point out that for the last four years, which is the rolling time for the executives of the CPP Investment Board, they lost money. In this last year, they lost the equivalent of all of the contributions before.

I want to turn to the member for Halifax and ask for her views on the insurance plan we have talked about and how that would help protect pensions, like at Air Canada and perhaps even Canadian National Railways, the concept being that the plan would be funded by the sponsors. It would be like buying insurance for our homes. Should a company go bankrupt or the plan be wound up, the assets would be transferred to this plan in order to protect those seniors, those people who have invested in those plans for years.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing forward the motion today and for the great work he has been doing concerning the rights of seniors.

We insure our cars, we insure our homes, we have deposit insurance to cover our savings, so why would we not insure our pensions? This makes perfect sense. The insurance system could be comparable to what exists through Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation for bank deposits, RRSPs and tax-free savings accounts. There is a model out there. It is not something just pulled out of the air. There are really good models.

We need to protect pensions by working with the provincial governments to establish pension insurance, but federal leadership is needed. We need federal leadership to work with the provinces to develop pension insurance regime and, as the hon. member said, to ensure workers actually receive the retirements benefits they have earned, even if their employer goes out of business. This makes good sense for Canadians.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and the member for Halifax for her speech, which was very well done. If the member chooses to judge the performance of numbers on one day or after the greatest drop in the stock market in a generation, I will let that be his choice. It is unfortunate.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona discussed all the assets being put into bonds. We know the Government of Canada bond yield rate now for one to three years is 1.47%. For three to five years, it is 2.66%. Does the member for Halifax feel that is a fair return for the seniors she represents, 1.47% as the member for Elmwood—Transcona would have people do?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, what I would like to see and what I am sure all Canadians would like to see is something that makes good sense. The facts are in the last 10 years the CPP fund would have made $13 billion more than it did if it had been invested in government bonds. We can talk about rates of returns, but what we need are the facts in front of us. We would have been much better off had they been invested in government bonds rather than a diversified portfolio of real estate, equities and bonds.

Further, we are losing all this money, $13 billion, and we are still rewarding the CPP board executives with $1 million to $2 million salaries and bonuses. It is really quite remarkable. If Canadians had this information in front of them, I think they would agree.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; the hon. member for Gatineau, Arts and Culture; the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Citizenship and Immigration.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the NDP motion today. It is a very well-timed and well put together motion. I am really pleased to hear that all parties agree with the motion. Surprise of surprises, even the government is evidently going to support the motion.

We certainly do have some differences of opinion as to where we have been over the last few years and how we should proceed from this point on. Why the Conservatives, from a political point of view, would want to carry the can for the Liberals from 15 years ago is just beyond me.

Fifteen years ago, changes were made to the Canada pension plan. The investment board was incorporated as a federal crown corporation back in December 1997. It made its first investment in March 1999. I recall the Liberal government making some necessary changes at the time. The Liberals increased the contribution levels, and that was absolutely necessary. I have to give them full credit for taking responsibility and doing the right thing at that time. What they did not do right at the time was to set up this investment board and hire these fund managers.

Pension funds, federally and provincially, and provincial crown corporations have had very conservative investment policies for many, many years. For example, insurance companies have investment policies so that money is available when claims have to be paid. Members of the government must have learned something from their grandmothers when they were told to invest in a conservative fashion and not put money in different types of schemes that would get them no return.

We have collective historical experience to go on. We know that insurance premiums, whether for house insurance or car insurance, have to be there when the time comes. There is not a lot of difference between that and a pension system. People want to make sure that when the time comes to retire that there is actually money there.

Government should not be looking at short-term solutions. I am not blaming the current government; the previous government did this as well. Governments play and tinker with the pension system in a number of ways. One of the things was that in order to stimulate new home purchases, the government allowed people to take money out of their RRSPs as a down payment. That was great. This perhaps resulted in more housing starts for a short period of time. However, people are basically robbing their pension funds when they do things like that.

At least two provinces, maybe more now, and maybe more will follow, have introduced legislation allowing people to take money out of their pension plans. Saskatchewan was the first to do that, and there was quite a controversy about it. People tend to look at what is in front of them today and not what could come down the road 10 or 15 years from now, so they take money out of their pension funds.

When my own government in Manitoba did it, I argued that we were solving a short-term problem but creating a longer term one. The people who would not have pension funds available to them would be coming to the government 10 or 15 years later.

That was the environment we saw back in 1997. The Liberals, like a lot of other governments, allowed these funds to be invested in equities. It is no surprise that problems developed. Manitoba and other places have run into problems by taking people's money and investing in businesses that do not work out. What can we expect when we turn our money over to investment advisors? Those advisors get bonuses based on how much they get in the short run, which tends to lead them into more risky investments, and when it all falls apart, they have a mess on their hands.

At this point, what you should be doing, and it doesn't sound like you're going to, but you should be taking some direct action and either firing the board or replacing the board and getting yourselves out of this mess. You can blame the Liberals, because they are the ones who brought it in in the first place.

When your voters find out--