Debates of June 11th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Pensions

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member whether he understands that defending the bonus of $7 million is in effect an abrogation of responsibility. It is something that has average Canadians shaking their heads at a government that basically fiddles while Rome burns.

It is nice of him to say that he does not really like it, but you are the government. What are you going to do to ask these people to give this money back and stop taking future bonuses? You know that the government can—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would ask the hon. member to direct his questions and comments to the Speaker. As he well knows, I am not the government.

I would ask the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills to respond.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the solution is to target a single group of executives or a single institution with respect to executive compensation. As has been taking place abroad, I think we in Canada need to have a broader discussion about the public interest with respect to executive compensation. I do not think any Canadian would say that people should not be fairly compensated for the work they do.

Clearly, CEOs and senior executives at corporations take on a tremendous amount of responsibility and work. For that, they should be justly compensated. However, when one looks at the acceleration of growth in executive compensation in the last 20 years vis-à-vis the rate of income growth of the average worker, I think it does raise issues of concern.

In particular, I am not talking about the executive that is making a couple million dollars a year in compensation. I am talking about packages of income, salary and bonuses that amount to $10 million to $20 million annually.

When we start seeing rates of compensation like that, I think questions should be raised about whether those levels of executive compensation are appropriate and whether the government, in a general context, should take a look at imposing income taxes in a way that discourages that kind of compensation. I do not think anybody in Canada would disagree with that kind of debate and approach.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, this week, Teamsters Canada is having their convention here in Ottawa and I had the pleasure of addressing them yesterday. Prior to being elected, I worked for a Teamsters local and sat as a trustee on a employer and union jointly administered pension fund. It is the type of pension that many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians count on to provide for their retirement security.

I know what these jointly administered funds really need is for government to ease some of the funding and solvency tests that they often have to meet, particularly in the case of multi-employer plans, where there are very onerous solvency requirements that hamstring these boards in their ability to deliver the benefits.

I wonder if my hon. friend or the government has looked at the possibility of easing some of these rules so that we can have them prudently and securely funded, while also giving them the flexibility they need to provide the benefits that their members need.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a very good question. It goes to the heart of the matter in the problem of these private sector pension plans.

The current regulatory regime for private sector pension plans is procyclical. In other words, in boom times, because of good returns on debt and rising equity markets, firms have to put less money into their pension plans at the very time they are most able to. In downturns such as we see today, because of declining equity markets, and in some cases, declining bond yields or defaults on bonds, one sees these pension plans decline precisely at the point where these companies are cash-strapped and unable to ensure the profitability to allow them to recapitalize their plans.

I am of the view that we need to figure out a regulatory regime that counteracts this procyclicality that we currently have. When we return to boom times again, I think the government should look at putting in place a tighter and more conservative recapitalization regime of, let us say, three years so that companies are forced during good times to put more money into their pension plans so that in downturns like this we can allow them more slack so that they continue with their ongoing operations.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Outremont.

I want to thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his intervention this morning on this issue and for his work. The member is going out across the country talking to, and most importantly listening, to seniors and to people who are affected by the pension squeeze that is happening right now.

We know that due to the economic downturn, due to the problems in terms of capital markets and investments that many pension plans were connected to, that many people are literally seeing their hard work disappear in front of their eyes when it comes to pensions.

It is crucial that the government and the opposition parties support our motion today. We were very deliberate in the motion to ensure that it was a comprehensive motion, that we were going to open it up to look to the future but also deal with the present.

This issue is not new to this side of the House, to our party. Members will know the history of Stanley Knowles and his dedication to make sure that seniors are not left in abject poverty, that they are compensated for the work of building this country. It is the work of people like Stanley Knowles, and people in civil society and communities right across this country that we actually have a pension system.

This was not something that was initially seen as possible. At the time when OAS and CPP were put forward by people like Stanley Knowles, it was suggested that somehow this was not affordable. Clearly, that is not the case and clearly, there is a role for government to coordinate and regulate pension funds. We also know what happens when there is no coordination and regulation of pension funds. The hard work of everyday people goes up in smoke and the people who really are not the ones creating the wealth take the money and run.

I can point to the experience of Nortel workers here in Ottawa. I do not think Canadians appreciate, unless they know someone who is from Nortel, what these workers are going through. People worked all of their lives to make sure that research and development in the high tech industry was going to be the best in the world here in Ottawa particularly, but also in other places throughout Canada. They were dedicated. They worked to ensure that Canada was at the cutting edge of research and development. What they saw at the end of the day was a company that shaved off profits, pocketed it, and then laid them off. The greatest insult was that not only did it do that, but it did not even have the common decency to provide severance pay to the workers of Nortel.

There are some basic rules in a democratic society. One of them is fairness and the notion that individuals can work all of their lives and be laid off and not receive their severance pay, but to turn and see bonuses being handed out to people at the top who were responsible for the downturn in the company, is not only an insult to the Canadian fabric and values but also it is incredible to see no action being taken by government.

It is analogous to someone, after having built a house, being told to leave and not being paid the price of that home. That is exactly what the high tech workers in Ottawa did. They built the house of high tech of Nortel and what happened? The carpetbaggers came in, totally undermined the interests of the company, took the money, put it in their pockets, and then told the people who actually created the ideas and wealth that they could not even get the basic minimum of severance pay. This is not just a situation with Nortel, but it clearly exemplifies Nortel.

My question to the government and to the opposition parties: Are they okay with that? Will we stand by, shrug our shoulders, and say that is the way it works. Leave the private sector alone. It will be able to take care of itself.

On this side of the House, we are clear. There is a role for government to regulate. There is a role for government to ensure that the people who actually create the wealth, the innovators, the engineers who work slavishly to increase the value of a company and the products that are then spun off from that, will actually be recognized and paid fairly. It is very basic.

I point out the history of Nortel and the people who have been laid off. Right now the Canadian government has a golden opportunity to have Canadian interests protected by intervening. Right now, bankruptcy protection is going on in the United States. When the minister was questioned in the House, he did not seem to think there was anything we could do, that we had no role at the federal level. I would simply point out to the government and to my colleagues in the opposition parties that the American government is an intervener there because it has a pension protection fund. If Nortel were not providing compensation to workers, the money would come out of that protection fund.

What happens in Canada is called employment insurance. Those workers go directly onto employment insurance when they have been laid off. They do not get severance. Who pays? It is us. When the federal government says it cannot do anything and that it is not its role, it is either incredibly ignorant or it has abdicated the responsibility to protect Canadian taxpayers and Canadian workers. There has to be some intervention by our government when it comes to the bankruptcy of Nortel. Otherwise we will just be fleeced. That is what is happening right now in real time.

The question is, does the government understand the role it has to protect pensions? Does it understand the role it has to protect Canadian interests? When companies go bankrupt, and not even bankrupt because they have bankruptcy protection, and they do not pay severance to their workers, the money comes out of EI, which is in Canadians' interests, and the public purse. I would hope it now knows it and it will actually intervene.

We also need to make sure that not only are Canadian interests protected when it comes to bankruptcy of Canadian companies and that workers are compensated fairly but we also have to change legislation so this cannot happen again. The idea that this could happen in the first place, where people who get laid off do not get their severance pay and end up on EI, is a matter of changing legislation. If we are not here to do that, the question is, what is the government doing here? Is it just sitting back and writing letters of suggestion? That seems to be the policy option.

We have had that with the credit cards. We have had it now with bonuses. When we look at the issue of fair compensation to workers who have paid in and do not get their severance, I sense another letter coming on.

The question is, why does the government not actually put in what we already have in place, wage protection, and ensure that severance is included and that pensions are protected as well. After all, these are the people who created the wealth. Without them, there would be no bonuses.

On the subject of bonuses, it is interesting to note that the United States will be capping bonuses to deal with the bonus situation. That is in the United States. There is a full article on the front page in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. If the United States are able to cap bonuses in private sector firms, the least we could do in this country is to go after a Canadian pension fund and ensure that bonuses are capped and that people pay back the money. That would do something. The Conservatives say they cannot do anything. It is political impotence and it shows no value in terms of what governments can do.

The government can call a meeting of all interested parties, be it provincial interests or at worker and business levels, and lay out an agenda. It should show some leadership and protect Canadians. At the end of the day, the motion at its heart is about protecting Canadians now and looking to protect Canadians in the future. It is about making sure we have equality in this country and that the people who create the wealth get rewarded for that, and that the people who are not creating wealth, but who are actually doing a disservice to our companies and to our economy, are not rewarded for that. Fundamentally, that is what this motion is about.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think one of the challenges of the New Democratic Party's approach on this is that we may do harm in other areas if we single out a single group of executives for special treatment. I think we need to be careful that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction to the broader issue of executive compensation.

I think many Canadians would welcome a debate, as is going on in broader international forums right now on executive compensation practices. However, if we are going to do anything, it needs to be of general import, it needs to be of general application. If we single out a single institution for special treatment with respect to executive compensation, there may be unintended consequences which may do even more harm to the pension plan or the investment board than we realize.

The first principle in many areas of life is to do no harm. Therefore, I think we need to think carefully about whether we want to do something that is specific to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board rather than have a broader debate about compensation practices in Canada which would ultimately end up with something of general import.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are having the debate right now. That is why we put the motion forward and I think it is an important one.

Regarding the member's concern, I actually think that we are not just isolating it to the CPP but it would deal with the CPP. It is one that we can actually do something about immediately because of its connection to government, and to the fact that this is a pension plan of all Canadians. Its oversight is shared with provinces and others but that is where we must start.

I think we need to confront this issue. As I said before, right now in the United States there is a pay czar, or call it whatever we want. We need to deal with that question.

There is a problem with the unintended consequences argument that the member suggests. If we do not deal with this, we are rewarding people who are actually in it for the short-term. The propensity of these bonuses is to amalgamate and cut operating costs, and to show stockholders that they are going to get a better return on investment, which is not good business practice. Then they are rewarded for that.

We have seen that time and time again. I have seen it here in Ottawa with the high tech sector and we have seen the hollowing out of the high tech sector.

I would submit to the member that continuing this path of allowing bonuses to go out to people who are basically hollowing out our key industries, strategic industries like high tech, is something we must stop. I say to him that this debate is we are having now is one way but some decision must be made on action.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague who gave such a wonderful speech invoked the name of Stanley Knowles and J. S. Woodsworth who pioneered the concept of security for people in their old age.

We all know that the Canada pension plan in its current form does not provide that for people. It only is intended to and in fact is structured to provide only a fraction of what people need in retirement, even with old age security and the GIS.

I note that the current government is exploring with the provinces ways to come up with different kinds of programs. It would seem to me that the Canada pension plan is sitting right in front of us with an administrative scheme right there for us to simply start adding investments to it, so that we can apply those pensions.

I know the government talks about payroll taxes, but really pensions are simple. We get out what we put in. If we want secure retirements, we put in more money now. It grows and we take it out.

I wonder if my friend could comment on that concept.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway that this is the way to go. Many have pointed out that if we were to change the way that CPP is done, instead of the thresholds being 25% of pre-retirement, we would increase those thresholds.

What that would do is not only provide people with much needed income security but it would also stimulate the economy. It is an infrastructure that exists to stimulate the economy. We do not have to invent it. The Americans are a little bit behind in that infrastructure. We have it and this would be a way to change those pre-retirement thresholds from 25% up that would actually help people immediately, the people who need it. I think that is the way to go.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak today to this important motion by my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I am also pleased that he asked me to second it. Let us keep in mind that its purpose is to provide proper protection for one essential component of the economic safety net for the people of this country, or in other words to guarantee them a decent income when they retire.

Over the past seven or eight months, many people have learned that they will not be able to fulfill their expectations of early retirement because their planning had involved RRSPs, which are often invested in the stock exchange. Their investments have, in many cases, lost 40% of their value over the past year. That is a shock. We are not talking just of people who managed their own RRSPs, but also of people working for well established companies. My colleague from Ottawa Centre has just cited Nortel as an example. A classic example, and we could also mention Air Canada. Last week, I was talking to some Air Canada mechanics who are very concerned. They have 28, 29, 30 years of service and do not know if they will have enough money for their retirement when the time comes. This is a major concern.

So my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has introduced a motion to accomplish a number of things. First of all, to expand and increase retirement pensions. A slight amendment will be proposed in order to fix a problem with one reference. This will ensure the support of our motion by the 49 colleagues of the Bloc Québécois. It also speaks of establishing a self-financing pension insurance program to ensure the viability of workplace sponsored plans in tough economic times. This is the cornerstone of the proposals we have before us. Proposals as my colleague has explained today, which would ensure that our pensions are guaranteed, somewhat along the lines of the Canadian government's deposit insurance that guarantees our bank deposits.

Let us look at some of the things the government is responsible for. For example, for certain things such as food inspection—since food often goes across borders—the federal government is responsible. As we have seen with certain essential issues, basic issues of public protection, the Conservative government has not grasped what the mandate of the state is. It is almost as if it had some objection to it. There are a number of similar examples that have cropped up in the last three years of the Conservatives' abandonment of the public. Here again, if no action is taken, people are once again going to be abandoned at a time of serious economic crisis.

I am reassured, though, by the fact that the Conservatives have proposed an amendment, which, as I interpret it, gives us reason to believe—because we will agree to it—that they will be supporting our motion.

The motion also contains a proposal that workers' pension funds have priority in the event of bankruptcy. It is not right that someone who built the company and gave it value should have to go to the end of the line when creditors are being ranked. A former worker has the same rank as someone on Wall Street who has a claim against the company that has sought bankruptcy and insolvency protection. We feel that this is unacceptable. This government, this country and this Parliament have to make it a priority to protect these people. Many people learn the hard way that their pension is not protected at all.

Lastly, there is one thing we also wanted to talk about today that is extremely disturbing, and that is the issue of the bonuses that the directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board paid themselves. It is incredible.

They came to see me in my office. I am the NDP finance critic, so it makes sense. People come and say what they have to say. It was before they announced that they had lost more than $23 billion, an astronomical amount. They came to see me, and it was pretty clear to me at that point that they were planning to pay themselves bonuses again this year, believe it or not, after losing $23 billion last year.

Their reasoning went something like this. We should not look at the $23 billion in taxpayers' money that they had just lost. Instead, we should look at it in terms of a four-year rolling average.

The only one not on a roll in this is the taxpayer. I told them that they have understood nothing if they do it this year. We are in an economic crisis. The public would not stand for it and Parliament would never permit it.

Interestingly, when we put our initial questions to the government on this, we got nowhere. It took two weeks of outrage. I remember the front page headline of the Toronto Star with pictures of the four principal directors and under that a description of the public outcry. It took all that for the Conservatives to begin to understand that people no longer put up with this sort of thing and that it was time for a change in attitude.

In the end, rather weakly, the Minister of Finance announced he had written the chair of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to demand that they analyze the projected bonuses in the light of the G20's position aimed at controlling inflation in terms of the bonuses business leaders were giving themselves.

Let us make no mistake. The monumental salaries paid in firms such as Goldman Sachs in London reflected the fact that these businesses were making money from nothing by taking positions on this and that. So people were paying themselves extraordinary bonuses until everything started to crumble. With a presumptuousness never before seen, they went hat in hand to taxpayers in order to fill up their coffers. The incredible part is that they actually managed to do so.

This, however, is a public institution managing in the public domain. We have nothing against them and do not want to deprive them of a salary, even a substantial one. These people, we have to realize, paid themselves bonuses of several million dollars again this year, despite their record losses, while they earn more than the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

They are not poor. They are not mistreated. They are not being told that their houses and their cars are going to be seized. What they are being told is that they are already very well paid. A bonus should be something exceptional for an exceptional performance. This year with their losses, any bonus they got should have been a negative one. Something should have been taken away from them.

This is why we find it unacceptable that the government has done nothing yet. The letter from the Minister of Finance may produce nothing, but in the name of decency in public administration, they should have acted more quickly and more decisively. However, they hid behind other authorities and other institutions. They should have told them this was unacceptable and that they would not stand for it.

Just to further convince you, they persuaded themselves that the amount was not so bad over four years. However, over the same four-year period, their performance was lower than the basic rate of inflation in the economy. Over a similar period, had they bought Government of Canada savings bonds, they would have made an additional $13 billion. These people convinced themselves that they had set standards, benchmarks. They have a fine way of describing benchmarks

A Nobel prize winner in economy said that benchmarks were a cross between a Ponzi scheme and groupthink.

Some say they are not as bad as other people. That is pure bunk. This is why it is so important we all rise in this House to send a clear signal. If these people think they are so good as to deserve millions of dollars, they should have the decency to resign. Let them do us all a favour. Let them resign and see what they are worth in the private sector. I think they will get the shock of their life.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, once again, we have members of the NDP standing and calling on intervention from the government on the CPPIB. Once again, they are standing saying that the government needs to intervene and tell these guys how to run the show.

I think it would be a terrible marketing idea for any investment bureau, any investor at all to say “Hey, I'm an NDP investor, invest with me and I'll make you a fortune. By the way, we're going to increase corporate taxes, we're going to intervene, we're going to do all kinds of things, which are interventionary on the market”. This is absolutely preposterous. Once again, it is a clear double standard. Some crowns we should intervene on bonuses. For others, we should be completely hands-off.

Why have the NDP members picked this issue? Why are they coming down on these investment professionals? Why not other groups? When I asked the question about CBC bonuses, during a time when it was laying people off, why did the NDP accused me of being mean to the CBC? I do not know.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is coming from a state capitalist who just took $10 billion of taxpayer money to make himself the boss of an auto company that has failed? He is giving us lessons? He has to be kidding.

My comrade seems to forget that we are talking about a public institution investing public contributions. It lost $23 billion of public money. Those people should be wearing a dunce cap, not giving themselves million dollar bonuses.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the extraordinarily distinguished member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue and I congratulate my colleague from the NDP for bringing it forward for discussion today. Retirement incomes, the life of our seniors in this country, is a huge issue that faces many Canadians. I think all Canadians are feeling this, whether it is them personally, whether it is their family, or whether it is their neighbours. This is a huge issue that affects many Canadians in the country today. I think all MPs have heard the stories. I have certainly heard from seniors in my riding, many of whom thought they might okay in their retirement years and all of a sudden have to relook at their income, and in some cases, have to go back to work years after they retired, because they do not have the resources they need.

There are number of negatives issues that affect all Canadians, or a large percentage of Canadians. The punitive tax on income trusts that was brought in, in sort of a blitzkrieg motion by the government a couple of years ago, hurt Canadians. I very well recall one of my constituents calling me up and saying, “Mike, look, I didn't invest in income trusts. I'm not a big investor. I never looked for very much of a return. I was always very prudent. However, when at that time the opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, said he was not going to tax them, I thought, okay, nobody can go back on that”. So he invested, and he lost $16,000. That may not sound like a lot to some people, but it is a lot of money to a lot of people in this country.

The other thing, of course, that has hurt a lot of Canadians is the falling stock markets. A lot of people who thought they were fine are now being hurt very severely by the falling stock markets. I have heard people say, “Well, they should not have invested in the stock market. Maybe they should have invested in a more secure mechanism”. However, people make decisions in a lot of cases based on advice of others, and some people had been told, “Look, the market always goes up. Why don't you invest?”

I recall not that many years ago that people were rushing away from defined benefit pension plans into defined contribution pension plans, thinking this was the way to go. All of a sudden the market is bringing in 15% a year and people think, “I'll get into that”. A lot of those people have been hurt very badly. That has hurt an awful lot of Canadians. That has hurt a lot of citizens in this country who thought their retirement years were going to be okay.

It is a very sad story, because if people my age or younger all of a sudden find themselves with less income than they thought, at least they have the option of perhaps going back to work, or they at least have more options in terms of replacing income. If it happens to a senior in this country, the options are very limited. So we have to do something as a country to protect those people.

I want to focus my remarks, though, specifically on the poorest Canadians, Canadians who are living in poverty.

There has been some good news over the last number of years to offset the bad news—the solid work by previous governments, particularly the Chrétien-Martin government of the last decade, which made tough decisions. People look back and say, “Well, that was easy”. It was not easy. It was a tough decision to rescue the CPP and to make it financially solvent for years to come. That was done in a forward-thinking process just over a decade ago. It was the right thing to do.

The other thing is that we have increased seniors' benefits in this country and it has made a difference in Canada. OAS and GIS are very important. We have shown in Canada that we do value senior citizens.

As a matter of fact, the rate of poverty has gone down over the last number of years among seniors. If we look at a report from the Caledon Institute, entitled “The federal role in poverty reduction”, which was presented to the human resources committee a couple of months ago as part of our study, it stated:

Canada has made substantial strides in reducing poverty among the elderly, the rate plummeting from 29.0 percent in 1976 to 5.4 percent in 2006.... Canada ranks third lowest among 23 industrialized nations, bested only by Finland (5.2 percent) and Sweden (2.7 percent).

This huge reduction in poverty is due largely to improvements in public pension programs (Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans) and the historic rise in the labour force participation of women, who thereby become eligible for pensions in their own right from the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans and employer-sponsored plans....

However, the work is not finished: Some seniors remain in poverty....

The report particularly cites single elderly women and single elderly men, with single elderly women having a much higher rate. So that is an issue.

Even since then we have seen more seniors face very difficult times in this country. We need to have a national anti-poverty plan that includes seniors. One would think that was self-evident. The human resources committee, under the distinguished leadership of the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, who has worked very hard, and other members in the House today, has proceeded on that work.

On Monday of this week we got word that, in the periodic review of the Human Rights Council of the UN, Canada was asked to look at certain things in terms of making life better for its citizens. One of the key recommendations was recommendation 17, which stated that the Government of Canada should have an anti-poverty strategy. Amazingly, the response to that from the Government of Canada was this:

Canada does not accept recommendation 17 or the related recommendation from Ghana to develop a national strategy to eliminate poverty. Provinces and territories have jurisdiction in this area of social policy and have developed their own programs to address poverty. For example, four provinces have implemented poverty reduction strategies.

There are now six provinces that have poverty reduction strategies. Quebec has always been a leader in terms of progressive social policies. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador, long before it had money rolling in, decided it would have an anti-poverty strategy. There was a meeting with the minister at that time, Shawn Skinner, who outlined some of the stuff that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was doing.

Ontario, under the distinguished leadership of Deb Matthews, has an anti-poverty strategy. Manitoba now has one. Nova Scotia has one, and although I do not think it is particularly robust, it is at least a good start. The province of New Brunswick has one on the way as well.

One thing that all those provinces have in common when they talk about poverty is that the federal government has to come to the table. At this point in time--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. There is a debate going on.

I would ask for some order, please, from the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that all the provinces that have anti-poverty strategies have indicated is that the federal government needs to have an anti-poverty strategy.

In fact, let us look at the report from Ontario's poverty reduction strategy, “Breaking the Cycle”. Again I will mention Deb Matthews, who has done fabulous work on this. She was at the Canadian Social Forum in Calgary a couple of weeks ago and spoke about the work she has done.

She specifically has a chapter in this report entitled “The Federal Role”, because we do live in a country that has federal, provincial, even municipal jurisdictions. There are NGOs and organizations that do a lot of good work, but there has to be leadership at the federal level. This is as true on the senior side as it is anywhere else. For Canada to suggest that we do not need a national anti-poverty strategy is simply wrong. There are things that we can do.

I was very pleased that in the Liberal election platform last year, called “Richer, Fairer, Greener”, one of the recommendations was to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $600 a year for Canada's lowest-income seniors, and by $800 a year for low-income senior couples. It goes on to talk about changing the CPP disability requirements to ensure that those with episodic illnesses, such as MS or others, do not jeopardize their ability to collect CPP or QPP disability benefits.

We have to understand that Canadians are living longer now. That is the good news. That is due to advances in health and welfare. The problem is that a lot of people are not able to afford those later years in spite of the fact that in many cases they planned for it for a long period of time.

We have examples of people, like the Nortel employees, who are facing a very difficult circumstance now that they never planned on. They never thought this would happen to them, and who would blame them? There is stuff happening in Canada to seniors that is simply not fair.

How do we fix it? There are organizations such as CARP. Susan Eng, from CARP, made a very strong presentation to the anti-poverty committee the other day about what she thinks has to happen for seniors. CARP is calling for social change to bring financial security, equitable and timely access to health care and freedom from discrimination for Canada's elderly, ensuring that the marketplace serves the needs and expectations of this generation of persons aged 50 and over, and building a sense of community and shared values. It calls for more relief for retirees and better protection of seniors. Like many others, it is saying that the GIS is the perfect thing to invest in and we should increase the GIS.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour will have his period for questions and comments after question period.

Knights of Columbus

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, this month marked the 50th anniversary of the Knights of Columbus council at Holy Rosary Cathedral in Regina.

For 50 years, Catholic men from Holy Rosary have worked in and around Regina to serve the community and live out the gospel message.

The Knights of Columbus is a worldwide Catholic institution. The organization was founded to render financial aid to members and their families. Mutual aid and assistance are offered to sick, disabled and needy members and their families.

Today, the works of the Knights are numerous. The United in Charity initiative supports numerous charitable organizations around the world dedicated to alleviating poverty, providing health care for those in need, and building homes for the homeless.

The Knights are also one of the most active Catholic organizations in the promotion of the sanctity of human life. From raising money for pro-life causes to providing assistance to expectant mothers in at-risk situations, Knights work tirelessly to protect life in its most vulnerable stage.

I would like to thank all my brother Knights at Holy Rosary Cathedral for their very important contributions and congratulate them on their 50th anniversary.

Learning Enrichment Foundation

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations and appreciation for the work that has been accomplished by the Learning Enrichment Foundation as it celebrates 30 years of service to York South—Weston.

LEF has brought a holistic approach to employment in York South—Weston and across the greater Toronto area. From serving the unemployed by way of skills and educational training, to assisting new immigrants, to providing the self-employed with the tools to start a new business, LEF has become an integral part of job creation in Toronto.

On May 20, this momentous occasion was celebrated while remembering those past who helped LEF reach its 30th year. Former president, Donald MacDonald and former executive director, Eunice Grayson, were pioneers of this organization and have left behind a legacy that will contribute to the future growth of the organization.

I invite the House to join me in honouring the current president, and former mayor of the City of York, Fergy Brown, the staff and volunteers at LEF who continue to serve this community well, and we look forward to another 30 years of service.

CLIC International

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, Laval-based CLIC International, founded in 1984, was recently awarded a 2009 MercadOr. The prize is a special way to highlight the achievements of export companies in the Laval, Laurentian and Lanaudière regions.

CLIC is clicking with global consumers. CLIC International products include rice, couscous, beans and canned vegetables, and can be found in most grocery stores. CLIC exports some 1,600 different products around the world.

CLIC's proven secret to success involves choosing to do business directly with producers, farmers and cooperatives. CLIC also guarantees that all products shipped to a given retailer or wholesaler will sell.

The Bloc Québécois would like to congratulate the president and founder of CLIC International, Assaad Abdelnour, on winning this prize.

Komagata Maru

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, May 23 marked the 95th anniversary of one of the most shameful events in Canadian history. On that date in 1914, the Japanese ship Komagata Maru arrived in Vancouver with almost 400 passengers. Most of these people were Sikhs, and there were also Hindus and Muslims aboard.

While they had every legitimate reason to be welcomed to Canada, the Canadian government did not allow them to disembark. In truth, this decision was a racist one, taken to prevent South Asians from entering our country.

The ship remained offshore for two months and was then forced to return to India where 20 passengers were killed by British troops. This is a black mark in the history of B.C. that has long cried out for redress.

I just attended a moving vigil in Stanley Park very near where the ship was anchored. I listened to thoughtful words spoken by representatives of the Professor Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation and of the South Asian community, people such as Sahib Thind, Jasbir Sandhu and Raj Hundal.

Their words were clear: They want what is just and long overdue, a proper and dignified apology in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister of Canada. They deserve it and I urge the House to work together to do so.

ALS Awareness Month

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, June is ALS Awareness Month. ALS, also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, is a fatal motor neuron disease that affects approximately 3,000 Canadians.

Each June, friends, family and supporters of those suffering from ALS dedicate their time to raise awareness of this devastating disease and to raise funds for a cure.

This cause is very close to my heart as my father succumbed to ALS a number of years ago. Since my personal encounter with this terrible disease, I introduced a private member's bill to have June officially designated as national ALS month.

I encourage each member to wear a cornflower today to show their support for this important cause. I also congratulate the ALS Society for the excellent leadership it has demonstrated in funding research to improve the quality of life of Canadians affected by this fatal disease.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, June is ALS Awareness Month. Friends, families and supporters of those with ALS dedicate June to raise awareness of this devastating disease and raise funds for a cure.

The cornflower is the official emblem of ALS. Despite its fragile appearance, it is a hearty flower found throughout Canada. Like the cornflower, people with ALS show remarkable strength in coping with this devastating and fatal disease.

The ALS Society of Canada is the only national voluntary health organization dedicated solely to the fight against ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The society funds ALS research and works to improve the quality of life for Canadians affected by this fatal disease. Imagine not being able to walk, talk or eat, yet people's minds remain intact and their senses unaffected. This is what happens to over 3,000 Canadians with this disease.

It is dedicated volunteers like Bobbi Greenberg in my riding of Richmond Hill who make a difference in the lives of those with the disease and their families.

Acts of Heroism

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to tell members about three brave young men from my constituency. On the night of April 11, Devin Knot, Brett Opikokew and Joshua Lasas, all from Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, were driving home from a hockey game when they spotted a minivan in a ditch.

Upon getting out of their own vehicle to investigate, they heard the screams of children. The minivan had begun to sink into deep, freezing water and they could hear the occupants trapped inside. Without regard for their own safety, each of these young men entered the freezing water and each was able to bring a small child to safety. All three children saved were under the age of eight. The children's mother was able to escape before the minivan submerged and the young men were able to help her as well.

It is with great pride that I recognize the heroic efforts of these young men. Their selfless actions saved four lives and their courage and humility will not soon be forgotten.

Governor General of Canada

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 2008, the Governor General of Canada, accompanied by her staff and a dozen or so delegates, took part in a state visit to Europe.

That tour through Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic resulted in a travel journal—a 100-page, full-colour book, printed on glossy, non-recycled paper. Several hundred copies were printed, all paid for by taxpayers' money. At a time when all governments around the world are talking about preserving the environment, and in these tough economic times, the Governor General of Canada has no problem wasting ink and paper on a travel journal, trying to convince us that her travels were essential for Canada.

It is unacceptable to see the Governor General of Canada, the representative of Queen Elizabeth II, behaving so irresponsibly at the expense of Canadian and Quebec families who pay her non-taxable salary and her operating budget, when they can barely make ends meet.