Debates of June 11th, 2009

Asbestos Industry

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the policy is clear and remains unchanged. The safe use of chrysotile fibre is being promoted, here in Canada and everywhere else in the world. It is false to say that the industry is being subsidized. The Chrysotile Institute is mandated by the federal government, the Government of Quebec and the union of chrysotile workers to promote its safe use, here in Canada and internationally.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no safe use of asbestos and anybody who watched the CBC last night knows how Canadian asbestos is actually used overseas and abroad. Most of the workers we saw on that broadcast will be dead in 10 years and we are contaminating an entire subcontinent with a legacy of asbestos-related disease.

Virtually every developed nation has banned asbestos in all of its forms. When will the minister wake up and realize that the government's continued support of the asbestos industry is fundamentally wrong? Does the Minister of Natural Resources not think that it is sexy enough to get involved with?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, we must not make blanket statements here. Some uses of asbestos in the past were not appropriate, sprayed asbestos for instance. We know that these uses are dangerous. We are talking about risk management here. To that end, promotion in Canada and internationally of the safe use of asbestos is being carried out on behalf of the government of Quebec and the federal government , as well as the workers in the industry. This is a policy they have developed, and they are the experts. We must not generalize and we must not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, our Prime Minister gave a full, sincere and meaningful apology on behalf of a nation for the sad legacy of residential schools. From 1920 to 1996, more than 150,000 first nation, Inuit and Métis children, including my own grandparents, were removed from their families and placed in residential schools across Canada. The impact is still felt today.

One year later could the Minister of Indian Affairs tell us what this truly means and what we are doing to address the real concerns and challenges that aboriginal people face today?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us were very proud and pleased to hear the apology in the last Parliament. It was probably one of the finest moments in that Parliament.

Our government is conscious of the real challenges that aboriginal people face. That is why I was pleased yesterday to announce the commissioners for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That is why we have taken practical steps. As I mentioned earlier, we have made investments in housing, in safe drinking water, skills development and so on.

As the national chief said a few moments ago on the front steps, we need to work in partnership with first nations and aboriginal people because we are all in this together.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, a hundred Congolese women are visiting Parliament. The war in the Congo has been called a war on women. During the civil war, tens of thousands of women—mothers, daughters and grandmothers—have been systematically raped. One year ago, the UN asked Canada to take command of a peace mission in the Congo, but the Conservative government refused. That was when Robert Fowler asked the question that I am about to ask again.

Why has Canada abandoned its role as an international peacemaker?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member is mistaken. His information is incorrect. We have worked and are working with other countries like Canada to bring peace and stability to that country. We have intervened to stop violence against women and find a way to bring peace to the region. We are taking action to ensure the well-being of the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Lobster Industry

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the announcements made yesterday by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to help the lobster industry do not cut it. Lobster fishers are saying the plan is vague and ill-suited to their needs. Furthermore, it provides one-time assistance only. There was no mention of how much of the money will go to fishers in Quebec or of any adjustments to the EI system.

Can the minister tell us if she will take into account the efforts already made by lobster fishers in Quebec to conserve the resource, and ensure that assistance measures will be appropriate, adequate and stable for Quebec?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was a pleasure to announce $65 million in support for the lobster industry. That $65 million includes Quebec.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think the House would be curious to know the work program that the government House leader has in mind for the balance of this week and next week.

I would like to raise four quick points. First of all, in response to his questions last week about Bill C-29, farm loans, and Bill C-33, veterans allowances, I can confirm that I have spoken to Senate colleagues and they expect a very expeditious process in the other place to bring those two items to a successful conclusion.

Second, I am sure the government House leader will want to take the opportunity to designate the two remaining days in the supply period so we will know exactly when they come next week.

Third, the Prime Minister has mentioned the conferring of honorary Canadian citizenship on the Aga Khan. That idea was very well received when it was mentioned in the House. No specific steps have yet been taken on implementation, and I wonder if there is a plan to proceed by unanimous consent on this matter before the end of next week.

Finally, the Maa-nulth treaty in British Columbia needs a ways and means motion and implementing legislation. The government House leader knows that the official opposition is supportive of this implementation. I wonder, again, if there is a plan to proceed by unanimous consent to make sure that treaty is implemented promptly, especially on this national reconciliation day.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to not just the regular Thursday question about the business of the House for the next week, but indeed to respond to all the questions from my colleague across the way.

In the order that we will dealing with it, today we are debating a motion from the New Democratic Party, which has its supply day today.

Tomorrow we will continue, and hopefully conclude, the third reading stage of Bill C-6, product safety, followed by Bill C-36, the faint hope bill. The backup bill tomorrow will be Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism bill.

Monday, June 15 and Friday, June 19, 2009 shall be allotted days.

On Monday, we will be introducing a bill regarding the Maa-nulth First Nations agreement. It is my intention, provided that I have an agreement from all the other parties, to call and complete that bill on Tuesday. On behalf of that first nation, I express my appreciation to all hon. members and all the parties in the House.

Next week, I will also call Bill C-26, auto theft, for report and third reading. My hope is that we will get that down the hall to get it dealt with at the Senate.

In addition to Bill C-26, we will also consider Bill C-36, the faint hope bill; Bill C-37, National Capital Act; Bill C-38, Nahanni; and Bill C-31, modernizing criminal procedure. All of these bills, as we know, are at second reading.

I am hoping that Bill S-4, identity theft, can be sent over from the Senate expeditiously. If and when it arrives, I will be seeking the cooperation of the opposition to try to expedite that bill in our Chamber.

I might add that despite the assurance of the hon. opposition House leader last week, after we had passed Bill C-33 at all stages, the bill that will extend benefits to allied veterans and their families, I expected the Senate to quickly follow suit. Although sad, it is true that time is running out for some of these veterans and their families. They are waiting to receive these benefits. This bill is not controversial, but the delay of this bill by Liberal senators will become controversial very quickly.

Last week I also mentioned Bill C-29 in my Thursday reply, which the hon. member for Wascana mentioned a minute ago. That is the agricultural loans bill, which will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. Today the Liberal senators did not grant leave to even consider the bill, let alone agree to adopt it.

Another week has come and gone. I am not sure how the member for Wascana intends to return to farm families in Saskatchewan and explain why his senators in the other place are delaying the passage of Bill C-29.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat for the benefit of the government House leader that the senators have both of those pieces of legislation clearly on their radar screen, and they will be dealt with expeditiously.

I wonder, though, if he would answer the one other point that I raised in my original question, and that is with regard to the government's plan with respect to proceeding by unanimous consent on honorary citizenship for the Aga Khan.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, with regard to bills C-33 and C-29, which I just mentioned, I would point out that with the cooperation of all parties in this chamber we dealt very expeditiously with those pieces of legislation, both for our veterans and for our farmers. I do not see any reason that the Senate could not have had those passed, at a minimum for royal assent tonight when other bills will receive royal assent by the Governor General.

As to the honorary citizenship for the Aga Khan, certainly I will be returning in due course to the chamber, and negotiations will take place with all the parties. As the Prime Minister would say, I would expect and hope there will be rapid cooperation on that issue from all members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Opposition Motion--Pensions

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. When the motion was last debated in the House, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour had the floor for questions and comments, consequent on his speech. There are five minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the facts, I think we have to conclude that the former government, in 1997, was correct to raise the contributions to the CPP, but the investment board idea was probably not such a good plan.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was incorporated as a federal crown corporation by an act of Parliament in December 1997 and made its first investment in March 1999. As of March 31, 2009, the fund is currently at $105.5 billion.

When the Liberals set up the board, they told Canadians we could make higher returns on our savings in the CPP if we were to invest in the stock market and in private investments instead of government bonds. That has not worked out so well.

In 2008, the CPP lost $23.6 billion. In fact, the annualized rate of return since these great investment geniuses took over 10 years ago is only 4.3%.

That 4.3% has amounted to a total benefit of $23.8 billion over the past 10 years. Had the money simply been left in long-term government bonds, the fund would have been $13 billion more if they had left the whole thing alone in the first place. Without the fund, the plan would have earned $36.5 billion, as I said, $13 billion more.

The question is why not simply get rid of the board, go back to where we were before, and save $300,000 to $400,000 in salaries plus all these bonuses, the $7 million in bonuses that are paid on an annual basis? Why are we doing that? Why do we not simply go back to where we were in 1997?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason we would not want to go back to 1997 is that we might not have the CPP today if the government had not stepped in and done something about it.

At the time, it was not an easy decision. We could talk about the returns that have been year to year, but back in 1997 we were in desperate trouble. Canadians today would have had a lot less money to look forward to in their retirement years.

I commend Prime Minister Chrétien and Finance Minister Martin and the others. The member does not have to take my word for it. The Caledon Institute, which I am sure my colleague knows well, which does tremendous work, said in its report that this huge reduction in poverty among seniors is due largely to improvements in public pension programs, including OAS and GIS but also the Canada and Quebec pension plans.

I think it was a very positive thing for Canadians that we did that. It provided a basis for some financial foundation today in spite of the difficult markets and difficult circumstances that Canadians are facing.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague speak about the dire situation in which seniors find themselves today. I am sure we can all relate to horrific stories that we hear from our constituents, especially our seniors who are finding it very hard to make ends meet, whether it is to put oil in their furnaces, food on their tables, to pay for their medications, or having to decide which one in fact they are going to spend their money on.

I ask my colleague what recommendations he would make and what kinds of programs he thinks we should institute to try to help our seniors through these very difficult times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the concern she has for seniors in her own riding. There are a lot of people in Canada, and around the world, who are looking at the issue of poverty and how it relates to seniors.

Our colleagues in the Senate have come out with a very excellent report entitled “Canada's Aging Population: Seizing the Opportunity”. It has a number of recommendations, one of which says:

Current income security measures for our poorest seniors are not meeting their basic needs.

As much as OAS and GIS are an improvement over what we had before, they do not even meet the poverty line. The alternative federal budget had some ideas about the GIS. We have heard in our committee from seniors. I talked about CARP, and the work that Susan Eng and her group have done. Many seniors across the country have come to talk to us as we have travelled the country.

There are some things we can do. Housing is still a big issue among seniors. We need to invest in seniors housing. We need to make sure that we do something to solidify and strengthen private pension plans. That is a big issue for a lot of people. There is no question about that. I think that the single biggest thing for the poorest seniors is the need to increase the GIS.

As Liberals proposed during last year's election, we need to look at that GIS and make sure that all Canadian seniors who cannot go out and earn the money they are otherwise losing have the basic needs to lead a productive life in their senior years.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the acknowledgement. I congratulate my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I would like to add that it certainly is a critical part of the debate to talk about the well-being of our seniors. Being from a riding in central Newfoundland where we have an aging population, I have an above-average amount of seniors living in my riding. Because the area's true nature is certainly rural, we have people living in smaller communities spread out over a large geographic area. That boosts the cost of living for many of these seniors, certainly for travel and receiving primary health care.

First, I want to thank my colleague from the NDP for putting forward the motion we are debating today. In 2005, the Liberal Party brought forward changes to the Canada pension plan to ensure it remains well into the future. The Liberal Party also made positive changes to the guaranteed income supplement in 2005 that benefited single seniors by $36 a month per person and $58 a month per couple.

A lot has changed over the past four years. We have witnessed the price of home heating fuel and gasoline increase to the point where many seniors are currently finding it difficult in the winter months. I have heard many stories and I have personally witnessed seniors having to resort to turning off the heat in their homes on the cold winter days, some of them resorting to travelling to public areas simply because those areas have a far better heating system than what seniors can maintain in their own homes. When we travel to the local mall and hear a group of seniors say they are there because it is much warmer, we know we have a problem in this particular situation.

Canada is one of the richest countries in the world. It is sad when we see many of our seniors having to resort to taking those extreme measures. It really comes down to two choices: staying warm or putting food on the table. Many cannot afford both.

Our seniors, through their hard work, determination and self-preservation, built this country, and our generation in particular is in a position to help them live out their remaining years with dignity. What we have done to ensure this happens is of key importance to all of us in the House. Many are struggling at this point because of the higher cost of living. There is less money floating around in the economy. Therefore, it is hurting them in many, many ways.

It has been four years since they have seen any increase in the basic old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. It is about time the government stepped up to the plate and recognized the contribution of our seniors to this country by doing just that. It is one of the key elements of seniors policy and fiscal management that could be rectified in the near future.

Throughout my riding, and I am sure in every riding, there are seniors' homes that are filled with seniors who would much rather be living independently in their own homes. With their currently limited income through old age security and the GIS, they find that living in their homes is not always an option. Yet we as legislators allow the tax dollars of all Canadians to be used to supplement their stay in a seniors' complex. I would suggest that if we had foresight, we would pay our seniors more benefits through our social programs, therefore allowing more of them to stay in the homes of their choosing.

I am convinced that if a thorough study were done today, the findings would be that the taxpayers, and subsequently the government, would save money in the long run, especially in this age when we have such an aging population.

There is another group of Canadians that we really need to take a look at in terms of negative impact on their income: the baby boomers, as we affectionately call them. They are now approaching, if not already into, their retirement years. Now that they are about to retire, or have already retired, when they turn 65 years of age and the old age security kicks in, their private or public pension is slashed, often to the point where their monthly income is substantially reduced. This is another issue that needs to be addressed and certainly needs to be studied over the coming years, if not months.

At this point I would like to provide an example to the House of just what I am talking about. A friend of mine whose name is Joan retired at 55 years of age, after working with the federal government for 32 years, and was in receipt of her superannuation. When she turned 65 years of age and was forced to take the basic old age security, her federal pension was cut by $800 per month. The basic old age security is a little over $500, and she had a net loss of $300 per month.

The example I just gave the House is indeed true, for Joan and many others throughout this country who have experienced that, who have had so many years with the federal government. When an employee of the government or a private company pays into a pension plan for many years, they should be permitted to draw that pension in full until they are dead.

In the example I gave the House, the pensioner would have been $300 per month better off if she could have retained her superannuation pension in full and was permitted to refuse the government's old age security pension. If she refused the OAS pension, her superannuation pension would still be cut by $800 per month.

One sees the situation that we are in. The public system requires more compassion in order for people to have a decent income on which to live out their lives and to be independent if they so choose. We have a situation where we have to make these minor changes, and in some cases, major changes, in order for them to have a decent living.

The other issue, of course, would be from the private sector. I brought up an example two nights ago in the House. I talked about the situation of an individual who is less than the age of 55. He worked for years at the AbitibiBowater mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, which was recently closed. With the help of his union and through work of his own as a representative of the CEP union, he was able to negotiate an early retirement package that would have bridged him straight through to age 65.

However, because the company closed, he was laid off. Therefore, 10 years of his life was pulled away from him. As a result of the situation, he was laid off and he finds himself in an extremely precarious position where, because he is in an area of high unemployment, he has to travel away from his family or has to re-educate. If he is willing to re-educate, if he wants to go into another career and desires to make a living doing something else, that is fine. The current programs do exist, albeit they could be improved.

However, what about those who choose not to do that? They are unable to move. They have larger families and they want to be home with their families. They do not want to be separated from their families. Alternatively, they are in a situation where all they need is for the government to give them assistance for a few years so that they are able to bridge through to their actual pension.

Therein lies a scenario that we have not discussed much in the House: pension bridging. There is a lot of talk going on in my riding now about pension bridging.

One of the topics we do not bring up when it comes to pension bridging is that it is a source of economic development for smaller communities. As my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador can attest, economic development is a huge issue for the very reason that these are smaller communities attracting perhaps one or two major industries.

What does that have to do with economic development? In the case of pension bridging, people are kept in their own communities. It allows them to live there, with some assistance from the government and work as well, whether it be part time or reduced hours. By doing that, a particular community keeps its tax base. Therefore, that community is able to attract bigger industries to create employment.

If the town is depleted, how can it attract larger companies? Therein lies a situation of economic development when it pertains to the income of retired individuals or those who wish to partake in early retirement. We know the government has not given much lip service in the way of early retirement, but I think it is a frank discussion that the House should be having. We should be having it in all legislatures across this country.

Again, I congratulate my colleague for bringing this to the House as a point of debate. I think it is one that is crucial. I also notice that there is a lot of work that needs to be done on this in conjunction with the provinces. The provinces have chief control over many of the situations regarding pensions, certainly when it comes to bankruptcy, and in the private sector.

Therefore, we need to engage the two levels of government. We should have this conversation, whether it is through a summit or a first ministers conference. We should engage, but solely on this issue. Let us not open it up to every other issue across the board, whether it be equalization or anything of the sort, or God forbid, constitutional amendments.

Nonetheless, we should have this conversation when it comes to our seniors and how they are to bridge themselves from their employment into retirement years and ensure that the basic level of assistance is available for them to survive and to carry on with dignity.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke earlier, after the previous member for the Liberal Party, I was in fact telling him that the government did the correct thing back in 1995 when it increased the contributions to the pension plan.

I was saying that the mistake at the time, as it turned out, was the investment board, and I asked the member to comment on that. At that time, markets were on the rise, and not only the federal government but also provincial governments were giving authority to their crown corporations to get into the equity side of things. That is something that had never happened before.

There have been rules on insurance companies over the years, which I think still exist. They are required to keep in fixed income investments a certain percentage of their funds, in fact, I think, all of their funds, to pay out claims. That is the way the world was up until that fateful time back in the period from 2005 to 2007, when the previous government set up this Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

I was simply demonstrating to the other member that in fact, had we not set it up at all, we would have been $13 billion better off. If we just left the money in guaranteed investments over that period of time, we would have received a better return by $13 billion and not have had to set up the board and pay these excessive $300,000 and $400,000 salaries and $7 million a year benefits to a group of financial geniuses who got only a 4.3% return over those 10 years.

I just want to ask the member whether he would agree with that.

I was certainly not criticizing the former Liberal government for increasing the contributions, because I think that was a very good thing for it to do and I really applaud it for that. However, it should not have set up this Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague who asked the question, because obviously he has done his homework on this issue. However, I am going to basically reiterate what my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said, because I think it is the right answer to give under the context that we are in here.

We made significant investments to GIS. As I mentioned, some of the figures include a $1.2 billion five-year investment. Also, on a specific level, there was a $58 increase per couple and a $36 increase for every individual.

I know he has mentioned that and he has acknowledged that. I just think we should acknowledge it again for the simple reason that it was a substantial investment back in the early part of this decade that I think the government on the other side has yet to acknowledge or yet to build upon itself.

That said, on his issue, what we did back then was make the system more solvent. Despite the increases he mentioned in CPP, what we had to do was overhaul the system to ensure that it remained solvent at that time.

We were the envy of the G8. As a matter of fact, we were considered admirable for what we were doing at the time, under the Chrétien government. We were also considered a model for other countries to follow in order to keep the system in place.

That is the issue here, because essentially down the road, with a burgeoning population, a very large part of the population now approaching senior years, if not already there, or as we call them, the baby boomers, we have to make a system that is solvent for them to take advantage of and to attain that standard of living that they so desire, that they deserve.

Maybe that is the wrong expression to use, “that they desire”. They do deserve it for all those years of work. That is essentially the responsibility we have in this House as elected officials or elected members of Parliament, despite the fact that we come from different ideologies or from different party origins.

The other issue, too, that they bring up, and I want to reiterate this point, is about the re-engagement with the provinces in order to ensure that this is going to be a uniform, orderly way to transition into a more solvent and more generous pension plan for this entire country.

The scope of the federal government action is very limited in that respect. That is why I encourage the government to open that dialogue with the provinces and the provincial jurisdictions, as well as the territories.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

This motion, tabled by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, speaks to the concerns of Canadians from all walks of life that the security they thought they would have in their retirement may be at risk, or worse, gone.

The motion supports expanding and increasing the CPP, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to ensure a dignified standard of life for our seniors. It supports establishing an insurance program for workplace sponsored plans so that in the event of an economic downturn or some other financial crisis, as we are suffering today, workers' pensions would be protected. It makes the pensions of workers a priority. If a company becomes insolvent and declares bankruptcy, the promised pensions would be paid out before other creditors, including banks, before banks could deplete the remaining business assets.

This motion also addresses the Canada pension plan. It ensures that the directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board ensure that their investments are sound, that the compensation is based on competitive rates across the industry rather than allowing for overly generous performance benefits, especially as the pension fund continues to lose money.

Why is this important for my province of Alberta?

Our seniors population has been growing steadily. Between 1974 and 2005, the number of Albertans over 65 years increased by 162%. In 2005, seniors comprised over 10.5% of our population. At present, one in ten Albertans is a senior. This number rises by 1,000 people per month. The total population of seniors is forecast to double in less than 20 years.

Coupled with this exponentially rising seniors population, we are faced with the economic recession. In Alberta, as with the rest of the country, we have experienced large job losses and with that, rising personal and business bankruptcies. The past mismanagement of the CPP has made matters worse.

This motion tabled by my colleague presents solutions to address both the current problems faced by Canadians and reforms to avoid future challenges.

Why do New Democrats support expanding the CPP, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement? In Canada, the federal government provides two key supports for seniors: the old age security program and the guaranteed income supplement. These are not generous. They provide only a basic level of support premised on personal income, and where Canadians have been able to save for retirement, these benefits are further reduced.

In the past 15 years, the average pre-tax income of seniors families in Alberta increased by more than 27%. However, much of that growth was based on non-government sources, including RRSPs, RPPs and private investments such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds or T-bills.

In the good times, about 60% of seniors' average income came from sources not related to government transfers. The majority of this was from private pensions, employment earnings and investments. Approximately 62% of seniors had some form of private investment income. Almost 55% of seniors received income from other pensions outside of Canada pension plan or old age security benefits.

These sources served us well when the economy was strong. People could save and benefit from high interest rates. The stock market was bullish. Businesses were prospering, contributing to pension funds and paying out to retirees. In the past year, however, this has not been the case. Many people have lost their life savings as the markets have tumbled, leaving them without a cushion and reliant on government programs.

With a high proportion of Albertans reliant on private pensions outside of the CPP, the population is extremely vulnerable to market downturn. Because of this, we are also calling on the government to establish a self-financing pension insurance program to ensure the viability of workplace sponsored plans in tough economic times.

Canadian small businesses are the backbone of our economy. In fact, 98% of Canadian businesses are small businesses. They employ nearly half of our private sector workers. Small businesses are responsible for about 20% of all Canadian exports. They create employment, generate wealth, and serve as the anchors for our communities. In tough economic times, these businesses are suffering. Workers and the owners are left out in the cold when bankruptcies occur.

In Alberta, consumer bankruptcies jumped near 61% this past year. In Edmonton, sadly, one of the few growth industries now is bankruptcy trustees.

When businesses are forced to shut down and owners and workers lose their livelihoods, entire communities lose. Federal leadership is needed to work with the provinces to institute a pension insurance regime to ensure workers actually receive the retirement benefits they have earned, even if their employer goes out of business. Such a system could be funded by contributions from federal workplace pension plan sponsors, administered by the federal government and designed to ensure efficiency and fairness for all parties.

What happens when a business goes bankrupt and there are assets left? Should the managers continue to collect large bonuses while those who worked for years for that company are left without the pension they worked for and paid into?

We believe that workers' pension funds must go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings.

I know of a case personally where a couple moved into a new area which had grown up around a new company. They raised their family while dad went to work each day for 40 years until he retired. He worked hard and paid into his pension all his life. Sadly, shortly after retiring, he succumbed to cancer, leaving his wife behind to survive on his pension. Just a year later the company declared bankruptcy and the pension she had counted on could be gone. She could now lose her house. Is this fair? No.

It is for this reason that employee pension plans should come first. It is the workers who created the value of the company, and they should be first in line to receive a share of the benefits that their dedicated work produced.

Finally, we must ensure that the CPP Investment Board protects the CPP from imprudent investment practices. Measures are needed to ensure the board ends the practice of awarding managers performance-based bonuses. We need to take all necessary steps to recover the bonuses granted in 2009, and ensure that in the future, managers are only paid appropriate industry competitive salaries.

The measures provided for in this motion are critical to the security of all Canadians and are worth the support of every member of this House.

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

Madam Speaker, how does my colleague think we can improve the pension system in this country when every few years the government basically gives exemptions to people who buy new houses? On the one hand we tell people to save for their retirement, and then every couple of years in order to boost the housing industry the government allows people to use some of their RRSP money for a down payment on a house. In effect, that is working at cross purposes to the idea of having a pension.

There are at least two provinces, maybe more by now, that have introduced legislation, Saskatchewan being the first, to allow people to access their pension funds several years before retirement. They have to make an argument for it, but if they can make an argument, for example a medical argument, they are allowed to take the money out.

How can people possibly build up retirement savings when the government keeps allowing exemptions, such as we have seen and which I have just indicated exist?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the drift of the member's question is much broader. It is something that concerns me.

Members of my family have always been private entrepreneurs. My brother runs his own small landscape business. I have a lot of friends who have their own enterprises. That is what Alberta is all about; we are entrepreneurs. It is definitely the case right across Canada. It is the backbone of the economy.

It is time that the government stood back and took a look at where we are headed in this country. Now the government is encouraging Canadians to save, at a time when people do not even have money to pay their rent and utilities let alone save for a house. They are already depleting their retirement savings plans. Who, except for the very wealthy, have the luxury of actually thinking about opening a tax-free savings account?

It is critical for us to stand back and take a look at what we are offering this country for income security, and particularly for seniors later in life. They worked hard. We honour our veterans, but we are not really thinking about our veterans staying in their homes. We need to be thinking about the soldiers who are working overseas right now. What kind of security are they going to have for their homes and families?

I agree that we need to revisit these policies. We also need to be putting a lot more money into affordable housing. Let us not just do all of this on the backs of Canadians. Let us take a broad look at how we are spending taxpayers' money.