Debates of June 11th, 2009

Opposition Motion--Pensions

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Imagine the president and vice-presidents all giving themselves bonuses. The president got a $2 million bonus while the CPP was $24 billion in the hole.

The Minister of Finance asks if we really want the government to interfere in the private affairs of the Canada Pension Plan. The government speaks of an arm's length relationship. Do we want it to dictate the president's salary? Do we really want to see the government interfering in CPP salaries?

Was the government not interfering in the GM employees' affairs when it told them their wages had not been cut enough, and that if they wanted to get some funds from the government for restructuring, they should make them even lower?

It has interfered in the business of ordinary workers. But when it comes to interfering in the affairs of important people like the president and vice-presidents of the Canada Pension Plan—which exists in order to help workers and retired people—the government is fine with these VIPs giving themselves bonuses in the millions of dollars, while the CPP is sinking instead of making profits.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that when the credit card rates were going up, the finance minister said he would talk to the banks.

He should be talking to this group. He should be saying that if they have any self-respect at all they will repay the bonuses. We should not have to legislate that. This is a matter of self-respect.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to respond to the hon. member's response to a previous question about the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board management.

Just a few days ago in the House, the finance minister explained that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is arm's length from both provincial and federal governments by an act of Parliament.

If we respect parliamentary process, we respect the rules of Parliament. We do not want political interference in the remuneration of this board. The finance minister has written to those respected individuals, who have actually done a very good job as compared to other investment pension plans. They have done a very good job. They had a tough year, just like everyone did in investments.

The minister did what he could, without political interference, and suggested that these individuals abide by the agreement of the G20 on corporate remuneration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to hear that the government has a new respect for the acts that are passed in this Parliament. Perhaps all of a sudden it now want us to implement the wage earner protection act.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the pieces that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek underlined was this ridiculous compensation which, as we just heard, the parliamentary secretary seems to bless.

It is interesting. Yesterday, the front page of The Wall Street Journal, and The Wall Street Journal is not known to be over on the left in terms of its writings, talked about what is being done in the United States. Do members know what the Americans are doing? They are going after bonuses, not only within the reach of government, but they are going after corporations that are paying bonuses.

Does the member think our country is less able to go after compensation and bonuses than the United States? Does he think that the Conservatives are so impotent--maybe they need some political Viagra, I do not know--that they cannot get it together to actually go after bonuses at the CPP, which after all is appointed by government? Does he think they cannot do it? Does he think that they are just incapable? Do we actually have a government over there?

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the capacity of the government to go after people, it could certainly go after auto workers. I am sure it could do the same in this case.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as a former miner, I have received bonuses in the past. I worked for Noranda, in its Brunswick mine, and everything was performance-based. When the company did not make a profit, it was not performing well, so there were no bonuses.

We never had any bonuses when we worked at the mine and the company was not making money. When the company was in a deficit and we were not making money, we were not getting paid bonuses.

I am trying to understand how it is that the CEOs of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board were paid bonuses. As I said a little while ago, the government told the workers at GM that if they did not bring down their wages, they would not get a cent from the government. How is it that the government said to the CEOs, that for them it was okay?

They were told in the United States, “If you want money, come to see us, but leave your jets at home. If you want money for your corporation, it is the same thing, bring your wages down”.

Here is an organization that is arm's length to the government, but it is appointed by the government that represents the workers of this country to ensure there is a pension for workers when they retire, and the government says, “No, no, you can be paid millions of dollars of bonuses even if you lose $24 billion”.

I would like to know if the member can understand why the government is staying silent or why it is protecting those CEOs who are stealing $12 million from the pension plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I spoke to the fact that there is an attitude in the corporate community that they top up their salaries with performance bonuses, retention bonuses and whatnot. It is almost like a disease. It spread through the United States, and we saw what happened with the collapse down there. To some extent maybe it has permeated to the Conservative side of this House, because the Conservatives seem to accept this as a fact.

I agree with the member that this is workers' money. The government should be defending that and demanding the repayment of those bonuses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would recognize that in today's corporate world the bonus or compensation structure is very much set up, not for one year but for an average rolling out. Corporations and companies look at the long-term vision and not just a one-year return.

I wonder if the hon. member would have a comment on that or the theory of that in general.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would rather be more specific. In the case of CPP, the losses of one year wipe out all the contributions of the last four. They do not deserve a bonus.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to comment on the motion before us today.

This government stands with hard-working Canadians who want to be able to count on their pension plans for a stable retirement.

We realize that Canadians, particularly seniors, are worried about their pensions. The current financial market turmoil and uncertainty is a concern for all of us, including older Canadians who have worked hard and saved diligently for their retirement years and rely on their pensions and savings.

Contrary to what the hon. member may be suggesting, we have acted, and acted early, to help protect all Canadians from the financial crisis battering our shores, a financial crisis that I might remind my friend did not originate in Canada but is impacting Canadians through no fault of anything we have done in this country. It is a crisis that major financial organizations agree Canada is handling exceptionally well because of our strong domestic fiscal policies.

Both the IMF and the OECD project that Canada will first of all experience the smallest contraction in the G7 for 2009, and as well, it will have the strongest recovery in the G7 for 2010.

A recent IMF report stated:

Canada is better positioned than many countries to weather the crisis. It has taken proactive steps to stimulate demand, ward off deflation, and enhance the toolkit for dealing with worsening financial strains if they emerge. Thanks to these factors, the strains evident in other countries, especially in the financial sector, are markedly less serious in Canada.

Even OECD Secretary General Angel Gurría declared,

Effectively, Canada will be one of the first to come out of the recession.

How is our country acting to protect the pensions of Canadians? In the November 2008 economic and fiscal statement, our government provided temporary solvency relief to federally regulated private pension plans that have been affected by the substantial declines in equity markets.

In January, our government released a consultation document seeking views from Canadians on the legislative and regulatory framework for federally regulated private pension plans.

The finance minister asked me to lead these consultations. This gave me the opportunity to listen to Canadians across Canada, to hear their views on how we can strengthen the security of pension plan benefits as well as ensure that the framework is balanced and appropriate. The hearings were open to anybody who wanted to voice their concerns. I am also working with provincial and territorial governments as an important part of this consultation process.

This consultation process follows on the heels of comprehensive provincial pension reviews completed by Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario in late 2008, as well as Nova Scotia in January 2009.

In early March, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, known as OSFI, released additional guidance on the use of smoothing and asset valuations for federally regulated plans. The government is assisting OSFI in providing flexibility to supplement the temporary solvency funding relief proposed in the November 2008 economic and fiscal statement. OSFI continues to monitor the funding situation of plans carefully and is taking steps wherever necessary to protect the rights and interests of plan beneficiaries.

In May, federal, provincial and territorial ministers of finance announced the result of the Canada pension plan's triennial review, which confirmed that Canada's retirement system remains sound at the current contribution rate of 9.9% and that it has been weathering the financial turbulence well.

The ministers also recommended a number of changes to CPP to better reflect the way Canadians work, live and retire. The changes would improve flexibility for older workers to combine work and pension, enhance CPP coverage as well as improve equity in the plan's flexible retirement provisions. If approved, the changes will be introduced in 2011 and phased in gradually.

The Canada pension plan remains one of the most successful pension plans in the world. Through the CPP, the government provides a secure, indexed lifelong benefit of up to $909 per month. We are not only maintaining the quality of life for seniors, but improving it during these difficult economic times.

At this same meeting of finance ministers, there was consensus for the federal government to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts to launch a research working group on pensions. This group will be examining the adequacy of retirement income of Canadians and is slated to report its findings back to the first finance ministers before the end of this year. More details will be forthcoming on this group in the near future, and I look forward very much to being part of this.

This government believes in preserving a strong pension system in this country. At the same time, Canada's economic action plan is stimulating the economy while protecting Canadians hit hardest by the global recession. Ensuring the retirement income security of Canadians is an important goal of the Government of Canada, but it also means leaving more money in the pockets of seniors. The economic action plan added over $300 million to the $1.6 billion in targeted tax relief that the government is already providing to seniors for the 2009 tax year.

We increased the age credit amount by $1,000 for 2009 and the subsequent taxation years. This increase will provide $325 million in tax savings to about 2.2 million low- and middle-income seniors in 2009 and 2010. With the $1,000 increase, the age credit amount for 2009 will be $6,408, translating into tax relief of up to $961 for an eligible senior. The $1,000 increase in the age credit amount starting in 2009 will reduce taxes for taxpaying seniors with incomes under the $75,000 mark.

In addition, the 25% reduction in required minimum withdrawals from registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs, announced in the 2008 economic and fiscal statement, provided $200 million in tax assistance to RRIF holders in 2008 by allowing retirees to keep more of their savings in their RRIFs.

The increase in the age credit amount builds on the significant tax relief provided since 2006 for seniors and pensioners, including doubling the amount of pension income credit from $1,000 to $2,000, a $1,000 increase in the age credit in 2006, the introduction of pension income splitting for 2007, and the increase in the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs from 69 to 71 in 2007. Together these measures provide about $1.9 billion annually in tax relief to seniors and pensioners.

In addition, the new tax free savings account provides a general purpose means for seniors to meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax-preferred basis. Of note, the income earned within a TFSA and withdrawals from the account will not affect eligibility for federal income-tested benefits or credits, such as the old age security or the guaranteed income supplement, or the goods and services tax credit.

Seniors also benefit from general personal tax cuts, such as reducing the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15%, increases to basic personal amounts and rate thresholds, and the two-point reduction in the GST.

Promoting the retirement income security of Canadians is an important goal of the Government of Canada. We will continue to ensure that our policies, programs and services meet the evolving needs of Canada's senior population.

We recognize the contributions seniors have made and continue to make to our nation. That is why we have taken measures to ensure the old age security program and the guaranteed income supplement continue to meet the needs of seniors. The GIS is an important resource for low-income seniors. It helps to ensure that every pensioner has enough income from all sources, including the OAS, to maintain and improve the standard of living of Canada's seniors.

OAS is one of the most critical programs in our social safety net. It is important for all Canadians, those who are seniors now and Canadians who will be seniors in the future. It is the responsibility of the government to manage these programs so they will continue to exist in the future.

I know that the hon. member, like every member in the House, cares deeply about seniors and seniors issues, especially the challenges faced by seniors living in low-income situations. Providing additional assistance to older workers and to seniors wishing to re-enter the workforce is a worthy goal, especially given the labour shortages that exist in so many sectors where seniors are likely to take a part-time job.

We also understand that older workers and vulnerable communities face their own challenges in finding employment. This is why Canada's economic action plan provided an additional $90 million over three years to extend the targeted initiative for older workers until March 2012. The government has expanded the scope of the program to include vulnerable cities with populations of less than 250,000, making assistance available to more older workers in a larger number of cities, particularly those heavily dependent upon a single sector or a single employer.

These changes will expand the number of eligible communities and ensure that older workers across the country have the support they need to adapt to a changing economy. Canadians are concerned about the long-term viability of their pension plans. We are listening to their views on how we can strengthen the security of pension plan benefits and ensure that the framework is balanced and appropriate.

In April, the G20 agreed with principles on executive compensation set out by the Financial Stability Board. Based on these recommendations, the Minister of Finance asked all government-owned companies, including the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, to review their compensation packages. They are to report back as to whether they are meeting the forum's principles and to confirm steps that they will take, if necessary, to become compliant.

I am sure the hon. member is aware that public companies in Canada are already subject to detailed executive compensation disclosure requirements prescribed by provincial securities law. Let me assure the hon. member that both private and public companies are well aware of the current public views with respect to excessive compensation. For example, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board did not award any bonuses for the individual performance component of the short-term bonus for 2008-09, and base salaries are to remain unchanged for 2009-10.

Under the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board's multiple-year approach, the negative performance of 2008-09 affected bonuses for this year and will negatively affect performance pay for the next three years. No bonuses are paid to directors on the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

I would like to point out for my hon. colleague that the poverty rate among seniors has declined dramatically over the past 25 years and the average income for seniors in that time has increased. In fact, Canada already has one of the lowest levels of poverty among seniors of any country in the industrialized world.

Our record shows that our government is committed to the financial well-being of Canadian seniors, especially those with low income. In the past two and half years, we have done more for seniors than any government before us. We have made it easier for seniors to apply for Canada pension and OAS benefits. We have reduced combined income tax by allowing senior couples to split their pension income. We have reduced the GST twice, which is often the only tax that low-income seniors pay. We have created the National Seniors Council to advise the government on matters related to seniors' well-being and quality of life.

We have committed resources to combat elder abuse, through public awareness and education, as well as upgrading community buildings and equipment used by seniors. We have also contributed yearly funding to the new horizons for seniors program to encourage seniors to contribute to their communities. Since taking office, our government has acted decisively on its commitment to protect the security of Canadian seniors.

This government cares deeply about the many contributions that today's seniors have made and continue to make to our society. These seniors raised families. They helped us build our national economy, and they made vital contributions to our health, safety, education and culture. Furthermore, many Canadian seniors are veterans who risked their lives to preserve our freedom.

For these reasons and many more, our government will continue to do its utmost to ensure that Canadian seniors are treated with dignity. We will ensure that they receive the full respect they deserve. We are helping seniors and will continue to help them.

We are absolutely on the right track. The World Bank president, Robert Zoellick, during his recent visit to Canada, reaffirmed this view, saying that, by global standards, Canada is in an enviable position. He said:

I think a lot of people would like to change places with Canada.

Tabling of Reports

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that is particularly important at this very moment. It relates to a ruling handed down here in Parliament on February 3, 2009.

The budget was passed:

—on condition that the Government table reports in Parliament no later than five sitting days before the last allotted day in each of the supply periods ending March 26, 2009, June 23, 2009—

The verb tense is important:

a) to provide...updates—

So that must be tabled here. The government must provide an update and detail the implementation here, not somewhere else.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand and address the House at this very moment, the Minister of Finance is somewhere far from here giving a report, not to this House, but to a representative from the other place, Senator Duffy. I ask you, on behalf of all parliamentarians, what will you do to protect our rights as parliamentarians and elected members of this House, right here today?

This government is demonstrating all too clearly its total disregard for this parliamentary institution. It is reneging on a formal promise it made. The minister's press conference began a few minutes ago, but we are still waiting to hear from the government, which is reneging on its promise to report to this House, and providing an update, not tabling a document. The verb tense is very important.

It must come and explain itself here in this House. It should not be holding a cooked-up press conference with a journalist-turned-senator who will ask the minister all the right questions. This is absolutely outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to defend the rights of all parliamentarians and give a ruling that forces the government to respect this House's decision regarding the budget.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention. He is correct that the report is to be tabled in the House, and it will be.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say that it is to be tabled and that it will be. The minister's press conference has already started. It is the members of Parliament who should be receiving this report, according to the decision of this House, which adopted the budget in February of this year.

This is unacceptable and I ask you to immediately take action to protect the rights of all parliamentarians in this regard.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might want to go out and check the TV. I do not believe an actual press conference has begun.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

On the same point, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP has been very clear. It was supposed to be tabled in the House, and if the points he is making are accurate, then I think we should be suspending the House until this issue is corrected.

It again shows disrespect for this House. I am not concerned with that House; this is the one that I am in. The agreement is that the report was to be tabled in this House.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into that issue right away, and if necessary, suspend the House until this issue is dealt with.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are constantly wondering what the Conservatives will do to avoid respecting this House and this place. Today, we have another example.

The Bloc Québécois joins its Liberal and NDP colleagues in asking that the government table and present its statement immediately in this House.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on this point of order, if that is what it is, the Prime Minister is speaking at this time. He is not tabling the report. The report will be tabled in the House momentarily.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can we expect anything other than that type of subterfuge from the government? Nothing could have been clearer in the document that was adopted here in February of this year. It was a condition of the adoption of the budget, the most important thing that is done by the elected members of the House.

The French is very clear.

It states: “À condition que le gouvernement dépose des rapports au Parlement—”

On condition that the government makes its report here, the verb tense used in the French makes it eminently clear that it is not a question of sending a document to the table, which has not even been done.

The government is calling a press conference hundreds of kilometres from here. There is a rose bonbon interview to be given by Senator Mike Duffy of the Prime Minister, instead of respecting the prerogatives, the integrity, the rights of the members duly elected in the House. He has gone to the other place, taken someone who has never been elected to anything in his life, except to be elected by his Prime Minister to give him a loving interview so he can say how good things are going. The very fact that government members have done that hundreds of kilometres away from here is proof of the fact that this, for them, is another opportunity to try to control the message, instead of respecting the House of Commons.

We find it an outrage that the government would choose to set itself up, hundreds of kilometres away from the House, have an interview with a chosen senator, who is a former journalist, to give prepared questions and answers to the Prime Minister, instead of respecting the clear will of the House, expressed February 3, as precondition to the adoption of the budget that it make reports in the House.

The holding of the press conference now is total contempt for the House of Commons and for the millions of Canadians who voted to put us here to do the job we have been elected to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will take a few more interventions on this subject. I will go first to the parliamentary secretary and then after that to the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how I can be any more clear than I was. The report to Parliament, which is due to be tabled in the House today, will be reported today.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the remarks of my NDP colleague are important. You should consider that this may constitute contempt of Parliament and I humbly refer to you this serious charge. I believe that here may be contempt of Parliament and, if that is the case, it obviously has an impact on all members of this House throughout Quebec and all of Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the members for their interventions.

I think the best course of action now is we have assurance from the parliamentary secretary that the report will be tabled imminently. We can wait for that and see what is in it. Then if members have points to make, the Chair will take the interventions that were raised under advisement and review the situation once the report is tabled and if necessary come back to the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Pensions

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

Mr. Speaker, going back to our other debate, I recognize the parliamentary secretary has been touring the country and has been listening to some folks on the issue of pensions. I would argue that perhaps from the perspective of some of the seniors, the consultation was not broad enough.

In my remarks, I said that we must come together on this issue. I am certainly prepared to put aside the partisanship, and on some days it is a little more difficult than others, to speak to it.

When we consider that some seniors no longer have a partner, and perhaps have never worked and do not qualify for CPP, and are trying to exist on about $1,000 a month, we have to do something for those people in an immediate way. Even those who have worked and do not have the full value of CPP and are in the area of $1,200 or $1,400 a month, if they are lucky, are really having a hard time getting by. It is very troubling.

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. Recently on income splitting, there are sometimes situations where the income has been split and then one partner passes away. We are hearing that people are having trouble getting the income they split back. Could he respond to that?