Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in this debate. I thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for putting forward this opposition motion. Today's motion gives us a chance to talk about the pension issues that many Canadians are talking about, and to talk about what else we could possibly do to improve the quality of life for seniors throughout Canada.
Many seniors are struggling because they are in a low income bracket. Others are struggling because of the income trust issue, the requirements on their RRIFs and the downturn in the stock market. Many seniors look to government to show leadership and sensitivity to the issue.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today, especially in my capacity as the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, seniors and pensions. We will have a chance to talk about many of those issues today.
I was in Normandy, France last week, along with several of my colleagues, for the D-Day anniversary on June 6. We had a chance to spend quite a bit of time with several of our veterans and to talk about many issues, not only issues specific to veterans and seniors, but issues important to the country as a whole.
They made it clear to me that they want to make sure that Canada remains on a solid footing and that we continue to be a compassionate, caring country. Our veterans fought for that. They are relying on all of us as parliamentarians to ensure that work is done. They added to my and my colleagues' feeling of responsibility.
Our veterans want us as parliamentarians to be their voice, to be responsible, to be reasonable, and to do a good job for them. I can certainly say to all of them and to my constituents in York West that I take my responsibility seriously and I will continue to do the best I can. I am sure my colleagues will do the same.
We have an opportunity today to focus on the issues concerning veterans and seniors. We need to make sure we are protecting their dignity. We need to ensure that we provide a good quality of life for them.
The NDP motion that is before us today states:
That, in the opinion of the House, in light of the legitimate concerns of Canadians that pensions and their retirement security may not be there for them in their retirement years, the Government of Canada should begin to work with the provinces and territories to ensure the sustainability of Canadians' retirement incomes by bringing forward at the earliest opportunity, measures such as:
(a) expanding and increasing the CPP/QPP, OAS and GIS to ensure all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement;
(b) establishing a self-financing pension insurance program to ensure the viability of workplace sponsored plans in tough economic times;
(c) ensuring that workers' pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings;
(d) in the interest of appropriate management of the CPP that the Government of Canada immediately protect the CPP from imprudent investment practices by ceasing the practice of awarding managers performance-based bonuses; and
(e) take all necessary steps to recover those bonuses for 2009, ensuring managers in the future are paid appropriate industry-competitive salaries.
That is quite a list. Some of those items are easier to support than others. Some of them raise other questions about our responsibilities, especially with arm's length operations. I will try to touch on some of the issues within my time limit.
Seniors are active members of our society and we want them to stay as such. Our last Liberal budget made significant investments in seniors programs, from health care to income security, from retirement savings to assistance for their caregivers. Once we had financial stability back, we did more for seniors in that period of time than any other government had done. I appreciate that governments continue to do more. This is not about who has done the most, but about how we can continue to improve the quality of life for seniors in our country.
Our constant goal has to be the enhancement of the quality of life for all seniors. We must remember that the country was built by today's seniors.
As members will know, the guaranteed income supplement provides low income seniors with a benefit that ensures a basic level of income throughout their retirement years.
In 2004 our Liberal government, under the great leadership of the former prime minister and a great minister of state for families and caregivers, made a commitment, along with the rest of our colleagues, to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $1.5 billion over five years. However, our budget went above and beyond that commitment. We also proposed to increase the guaranteed income supplement benefits for low income seniors, not by the $1.5 billion but by $2.7 billion over two years. That would have made a significant difference in the ability of many of our low income seniors to have a bit of extra money to enjoy a few extra niceties in life, a bit of a vacation or a dinner out. Many of our seniors do not have the extra funds to do that. It was our intent to have the maximum guaranteed income supplement increased by more than $400 per year for a single senior and by almost $700 for a couple.
I have to mention also that we know many of the people who continue to live below the poverty line are women. Women who stay at home to raise their children do not contribute to CPP and are penalized because of that. In spite of the fact that we have a GIS program, we need to find a way to allow women or men who prefer to stay in the household and raise their families some ability to contribute. Some sort of a pension program is needed so that they do not end up in poverty at 65 years of age.
Recently I have heard some excellent suggestions for future improvements to the Canada pension plan, such as increasing the current 60% CPP survivor pension. I often hear from widows who come into my office that the bills are the same as they were when their husbands were alive, but suddenly, when the husband dies, the pension is reduced immediately.
Could we not extend that by several months, giving the survivor, usually a widow, time to adjust to being alone and finding the ability to carry things financially? All of the expenses for a house are the same, and yet all of a sudden, within a week of the death of the spouse, that pension is reduced very quickly and the surviving spouse has to figure out how to manage that. It is a huge problem and one on which I would like to see us do some work. Could we manage to give the surviving pensioner a couple of months to adjust to suddenly being on a single income rather than a dual income?
Maybe we could increase the income replacement rate for the Canada pension, which currently is only 25% of allowable income. Canada needs to have a big discussion on what we need to do when it comes to pensions and increasing the amount of savings toward our pension system.
The former Liberal government, specifically the finance minister of the day, Paul Martin, acted in 1997 to make sure that the Canada pension plan would be affordable for future generations, and also, very importantly, could be sustained in the face of an aging population, increasing longevity and the retirement of the baby boom generation. It was clearly foreseen by Mr. Martin that that was going to put a huge strain on our retirement system and changes were made at that time. Given the economic situation we are in, we need to look now at the next 50 years and what kind of changes also need to be made.
He also introduced proposals to significantly alter the Canada pension plan on February 14, 1997, just days prior to the release of his 1997 federal budget. Stakeholders all across the country agreed that these tough changes were in the country's best interest to ensure a socially secure and fairly compensated work force in the years to come. Thank goodness that work was done at that particular point.
The economic crisis though means that Canadians continue to be worried about their pensions, and rightfully so. We have all heard stories of Canadians who are losing their pensions due to company bankruptcies. The only province in Canada that protects pensions is Ontario, and that is only to a certain value, but thank goodness that at least Ontario has that program. I would hope that other provinces would adopt a similar program.
I would like to hear what the Conservative government is going to do to protect Canadian pensions. We have heard some comments from the parliamentary secretary, but most of us are anxious to know what other ideas the Conservatives have and how we can work together to make sure that we are doing the best for our seniors who are looking forward to their pension days. So far, we have not heard anything concrete, other than more study. I am glad there is a website up and working today, but how long will it be before we get legislation that we can pass quickly?
The motion calls on the government to ensure that workers' pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. A lot of Canadians are shocked to find out that is not currently the case, but it should be. In my capacity as critic, I have met with countless people who are finding themselves in dire situations through absolutely no fault of their own, due to the bankruptcy of their former employers. It is very unfortunate. We need to be able to protect those Canadians. I am encouraging the government to act immediately to protect the pension funds and make them priority creditors.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is handling the pension file for the Conservatives, and continues to move it along. On January 9, 2009, the government released a consultation document seeking views from Canadians on the legislative and regulatory framework for federally regulated pension plans. As part of this process, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance will be engaging Canadians through public meetings across Canada to examine issues pertaining to defined benefits, defined contributions and other private pension plans to ensure that the framework pertaining to these pension plans is appropriate.
Given the importance of some of the issues involved, I hoped that the government would accelerate that timeline rather than delay it. However, on May 25, as the parliamentary secretary indicated earlier, he sent out an email saying that the Conservatives had made the decision to extend their consultations until May 31, 2009, which has also passed. The website is up now. In January the issue was so important they were going to move quickly, and in May it was so important that they would need more time to study it.
Something must come out of it quickly. The House will soon be rising. The parliamentary secretary has indicated that he will be bringing in legislation in the fall. I hope that would come sooner rather than later and that many of us have a chance to comment on it prior to its being introduced in the House.
Canadians continue to be worried about the security of their retirement plans, both public and private. The CPP alone has lost some $20 billion, but it still does far better than any other program of a similar nature around the world. It continues to be held as a model in all of the G8 as the most solvent pension plan around.
Part of the motion talks about the issue of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and its bonuses. There has been public outrage over the $7 million paid in bonuses to four top executives at the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Our House leader asked that the government request that the CPP Investment Board review its multi-million dollar bonuses in the context of the recession that is killing the jobs of 350,000 ordinary Canadians. We have yet to hear anything concrete from the government, other than the comment that has been made earlier. It would be helpful on a moral basis if the individuals receiving those bonuses stopped and thought about those 350,000 people who have no employment and that that $7 million is actually coming out of their pension program. It would be good if they did it on a moral basis, but it is arm's length, and we all understand that.
The government does not seem to be taking any action on it. The Conservatives are very busy right now with lost binders and tape recorders, but I do hope that does not take them away from the real issues we are trying to deal with today, which are the issues of pension, pension reform and seniors, and how we can help them further in one capacity or another.
Another excellent suggestion from our House leader was that executives, such as president and CEO David Denison, voluntarily give back this year's bonus as a sign of moral leadership. I am sure we would all be very happy if he were to do that, and we would probably find a way to recognize him in the House as being a great Canadian who understands the suffering and struggling of those 350,000 unemployed Canadians, but there is no news on that yet.
Another big issue, especially in these difficult times, is making sure that seniors are aware of the benefits for which they are eligible. I know that most of us on this side of the House, and I imagine throughout the House, have spent a lot of time reaching out to our seniors through our newsletters and householders, making sure that people know what services we provide as MPs but most importantly, that they are eligible for pensions, CPP, OAS and so on, so that we can offer the utmost help to our seniors when they are entitled to it.
A recent Senate report also called for the undertaking of an aggressive campaign to ensure that all eligible Canadians were receiving all retirement and associated benefits. It recommended:
Inform seniors of all possible federal sources of income supports when they apply for any one of them;
The province of Quebec clearly does a very good job of reaching out to all seniors living in Quebec to make sure that they are able to get the resources that are available to them. I think that is a very important thing.
The report continued:
Make available to seniors application forms in aboriginal languages and the languages of larger immigrant populations;
We do a lot of filling out of applications in my office due to language difficulties. I have a very multicultural riding. Once we get our messages out there, ultimately, the people need to go somewhere for help. Many of them end up in my office and we are very pleased to have the opportunity to be able to assist them.
The report continued:
Make fully retroactive repayments with interest to eligible recipients who did not apply for OAS/GIS at 65 or CPP at 70, or who were denied benefits due to administrative errors.
