Debates of June 11th, 2009

Canadian Human Rights Commission

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to lay upon the table a special report from the Canadian Human Rights Commission concerning the freedom of expression and freedom from hate in the Internet age.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Commission for Public Complaints against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Commission for Public Complaints against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for fiscal year 2008-09, pursuant to section 45.34 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.

Industry, Science and Technology

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology concerning the study of the crisis faced by certain industrial sectors in Canada.

The Subcommittee on Canadian Industrial Sectors held 12 meetings, heard from 35 witnesses, and received eight briefs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In accordance with the order of reference of Wednesday, May 6, 2009, your committee has considered Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), and agreed on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, to report it with amendment.

Income Tax Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-417, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (inborn error of metabolism).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a private member's bill, seconded by the member for Ottawa Centre, to establish a medical expense credit for people who require special diets due to inborn errors of metabolism.

This bill would allow people with inborn errors of metabolism, who have been certified by a medical practitioner to require a low-protein diet, to claim the extra cost of purchasing specialized food products as a medical expense on their tax returns. The cost of this diet as compared to the cost of a standard diet recommended by Canada's Food Guide is significant. Under current rules, these people must absorb this extra cost themselves.

This situation was drawn to my attention by Stephen Kelen, a social worker, and Dr. Sandra Sirrs, the medical director of the adult metabolic diseases clinic at Vancouver Hospital. Dr. Sirrs notes that this bill would be an enormous help for those patients and their families whose survival depends on very expensive low-protein food products. She points out that these patients cannot survive on a normal diet, that paying for low-protein foods they need just to stay alive has been a terrible burden on them and their families, and that this bill will ease that burden.

A similar medical exemption already exists for people living with celiac disease. People living with inborn errors of metabolism should benefit from a similar provision. I hope that members will support this measure.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Children's Commissioner of Canada Act

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-418, An Act to establish a Children’s Commissioner of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as a new parliamentarian, it is a great honour and pleasure for me to present my first private member's bill to create a commissioner for children for Canada, supported by my colleague for Winnipeg South Centre.

Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child almost 20 years ago. I believe that it is now time for Canada to create the position of commissioner for children to ensure that their rights are protected. I will limit myself to reading the very short purpose of this proposed act. It states:

The purpose of this act is to establish an independent official to ensure governmental accountability in respect of the Convention, and to promote, monitor and report on the effective implementation of Canada's obligations under the Convention that are within the legislative authority of Parliament, in order to advance the principle that children are entitled to special safeguards, care and assistance, including appropriate legal protection.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Business of Supply

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present yet another petition on behalf of public safety officers in Canada.

These petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that police and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis, and that employee benefits for public safety officers often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who are killed while on duty.

The petitioners also point out that the public mourns the loss of public safety officers killed in the line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families in their time of need.

The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

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

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians have joined the call to stop the Canada-Colombia trade deal.

The petitioners call on Parliament to reject the Canada-Colombia trade deal until an independent human rights impact assessment is carried out, the resulting concerns addressed, and the agreement be renegotiated along the principles of fair trade, which would take environmental and social impacts fully into account while genuinely respecting and enhancing labour rights or the rights of all affected parties.

Labour side agreements under NAFTA, which this agreement is patterned after, have not been effective in protecting and improving labour standards as has been the case in Mexico where over one million agricultural jobs have been lost since NAFTA was signed.

In addition, the murder of labour and human rights activists has increased in Colombia while widespread and very serious human rights violations continue to be the daily reality.

It is time for Parliament to stop this free trade deal.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition signed by a number of persons from all over Canada, but particularly from Quebec.

This petition is addressed to the House and relates to adoption of Bill C-389. This is a bill which was introduced by my colleague to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination and to amend the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression in the grounds for hate crimes and thus fight discrimination and social exclusion of transgender, transsexual and genderqueer people.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Mr. Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion--Pensions

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

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Outremont for seconding this important motion.

I am most pleased to rise today to speak to the NDP motion and the reforms needed to protect and enhance the lives of Canada's seniors as they live out their sunset years. I am, at the present time, crossing Canada on a listening to seniors tour, and Canadians have been quick to tell me accounts of their fears and their concerns for their futures.

While I was in St. Thomas, I heard from Vanda, who told me how she had to start paying $90 a month for a prescription that her husband, who had recently had a stroke, needed, because it had been delisted by the province of Ontario. As a result, they did not know where the money was going to come from. Especially when people are on fixed incomes, that can be almost a tragedy.

I also heard from Joyce in Elliot Lake, who related how hard her life had become due to the fact that on a yearly basis, she had to pay almost $2,100 a year for her hydro.

Today, far too many seniors are forced to live this way, just one crisis away from a financial catastrophe. Many seniors are also worried that their private pension plans will not be there for them when they retire, as in the case of Nortel. They wonder if they will have any pension at all.

Seniors are also quick to condemn the bonuses being paid to Canada pension plan executives. They have seen the media reports, such as the case of CEO David Denison, who saw his pay triple since 2005 by taking home bonuses amounting to $7.4 million. That is in addition to a $400,000-plus yearly salary.

Seniors are also quick to tell anyone who will listen how unforgivable those bonuses are when so many seniors across Canada are living near or in poverty. The bonuses during good times are already viewed by the public as symptomatic of financial industry greed. Today, given the frightful economic times that we are living through, the fact that the same managers, who lost $17.2 billion, are expecting and accepting massive bonuses is not only indefensible, it is obscene.

We in the NDP believe in removing bonuses from the administration of CPP and taking away the incentive plan for managers. The one they have now causes them to take potentially unacceptable risks in the investments they make. I do not quarrel with anyone who proposes appropriate industry standards for salaries, but having said this, the game afoot today across the corporate community is to load up salaries with performance bonuses, retention bonuses and other perks.

I recall in the 1970s, when I first joined Bell Canada, talking to a manager regarding our pay practices at Bell. He had a saying, and it is very true, “A fair day's work for a fair day's pay”. I agree with that notion and Canadians agree with that notion, but I would suggest the corporate community, especially the financial community, has forgotten just what fair is. Never mind that according to economist Toby Sanger, in the last 10 years, the CPP fund would have made $13 billion more than it did if it had been invested in government bonds, rather than in a diversified portfolio of equities, real estate and bonds.

These managers have not been producing value-added returns above risk-free bonds, and over the past four years, they have not achieved the returns required for the long-term sustainability of CPP.

These managers have repeatedly defended their bonuses by pointing out that their performance is graded according to a rolling four year average of the fund's performance. My reply to them goes like this. In the fiscal year 2009, the losses in the fund wiped out four years of contributions, and the fact that senior managers are still in line for bonuses is simply not acceptable.

Recently at the House finance committee, Phil Benson from the Teamsters Union said:

The performance bonus should be, “Guess what, folks? We're in a recession, tough times, but don't worry. Your pension is still there”. That's a performance bonus.

One thing I am sure of is that Canadians will appreciate the section of today's NDP motion which demands that government secure the repayment of those bonuses.

The genesis of my seniors tour came about when I was visited by a prominent seniors group. One of my guests stated to me that seniors feel invisible to their government. This group was also wondering why their government has given $14 billion in yearly corporate tax breaks while doing nothing for them.

Last fall I told another story in this House that is worth repeating. It is the story of a senior who came into my office with a letter in his hand from the government saying that his pension had increased by 42¢. He was so upset he had tears in his eyes. He said that not only does the government not give a damn about seniors, but it goes out of its way to insult them.

As we face down the worst economic crisis in 70 years, Canadians have been vividly reminded why we have a social safety net in the first place. I say to members today, now is the most opportune time in our recent history to undertake a complete review of the benefits paid under OAS, GIS and CPP. This must be done with an eye to increasing benefits immediately to raise seniors out of poverty.

Recently an economist at the Canadian Labour Congress reported that an annual infusion of $1 billion would raise all seniors above the low-income cutoff. According to Statistics Canada's 2004 estimates, there were 219,000 Canadians living below the low-income cutoff, which is the way many organizations measure poverty in Canada. An even more sobering statistic is that of the 219,000 seniors living in poverty, more than 60% were single, unattached women. That is nothing short of a national disgrace.

It is clear that with the bailout of GM and our ballooning deficit, this is not a time of business as usual in Canada. I would suggest if the federal government can buy a serious stake in two auto plants, Canada can afford to invest in those plans designed to protect us all in our senior years. We could do so much more and we must do so much more for all Canadians.

Today only 38.5% of Canadian workers have workplace pensions and nearly one-third have no retirement savings at all. More than 3.5 million Canadians are not saving enough in RRSPs for what used to be called their golden years, and 75% of workers are not even participating in a registered pension plan. Clearly, the notion that retirement savings can be adequately accounted for through purchases of RRSPs does not work, and urgent government action is needed.

As a complement to today's motion, I am in the process of tabling other bills designed to promote transparency and responsible investment practices in the management of public related pension fund assets. My private member's bill, Bill C-361, would enhance public disclosure rules and severely curtail the ways in which the assets of public sector pension funds can be invested, with an eye to all but eliminating a fund manager's ability to invest in risky financial instruments.

Another bill I have drafted does the same for the remainder of the federally regulated pension funds. These are the public sector pension funds. I also have been drafting a bill to require federally regulated pension funds to over-fund themselves by 20%. We could think of it as a rainy day fund, so that in the better times we prepare for the downturns that will come eventually. The bill would also amend the Income Tax Act to permit the deductibility of contributions or an excess surplus of, for example, up to 30% of ongoing corporate liabilities.

The last bill I am preparing would amend the Income Tax Act to provide substantial tax incentives to employers who wish to create a defined benefit pension plan for their employees.

The next issue I would like to speak about is that Canada needs a pension benefits guarantee fund. There is a need for this. Federal leadership is urgently required to set about working with the provinces to develop a pension insurance regime to ensure workers actually receive the retirement benefits they have earned, even if their employer goes out of business. We insure our cars and homes and we have deposit insurance for our savings, so why not insure our pensions?

Such an insurance system could be comparable to what exists through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation for bank deposits, RRSPs and tax-free savings accounts. The system could be funded by contributions from federal workplace pension plan sponsors administered by the federal government and designed to ensure efficiency and fairness to all parties.

Another notable model worth studying is the American Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Like the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is not financed through general tax revenues but through the following measures: insurance premiums paid by the sponsors of the defined benefit plans; assets from the pension plans it takes over; recoveries of unfunded pension liabilities from plan sponsors' bankruptcy estates; and investment income.

Canada may choose not to follow the American model but could create some form of pension insurance uniquely its own or a hybrid of other plans, like schemes from Switzerland, Sweden, Germany or Japan. The Netherlands has chosen to directly guarantee its pension plans with strict investment regulations and requiring that the pensions are fully funded at all times.

A recent OECD working paper put the matter succinctly when stating “no scheme to provide pension insurance can work without adequate funding rules”.

The OECD document stated:

Strict funding and investment rules should be seen as complements to any pension guarantee scheme.

Good funding rules can achieve almost all of what a guarantee scheme is striving for, are arguably easier to design and manage and, especially when combined with other measures.... If a guarantee scheme is successfully combined with funding rules or other protection measures it can effectively perform its task as a 'last resort' benefit protection measure.

Another clause in the motion calls for “ensuring that workers' pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings”.

Ken Georgetti of the Canadian Labour Congress recently stated before the finance committee:

Critically, for the sake of genuine fairness, we need to ensure that the full value of workers' pensions is protected in bankruptcy proceedings. If Canadians shouldn't be in the front of the line when it comes to protecting them, who should be?

I would take a moment to remind the House that if the current government were to only enact certain clauses of a bill that is already the law of this land, the clause would be unnecessary. The Wage Earner Protection Program Act, which enacts changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, was given royal assent in December 2007. The purpose of that act is to ensure that workers' pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. The Wage Earner Protection Program Act sets out provisions to ensure that unpaid wages in the event of bankruptcy are paid to workers and sets up super-creditor status for the unpaid pension contributions.

Elements of the amendments to the above pieces of legislation were enacted by the governor-in-council in the summer of 2008. However, not all aspects of the changes were implemented, leaving some glaring loopholes.

The NDP leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, has raised this on occasion in the House. He stated:

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the government will not act even when it is the law.

In December 2007, Parliament took action to protect Canadian pensions by adopting Bill C-12 to amend bankruptcy laws. Section 39(2) prioritizes unpaid pension contributions in the case of bankruptcy. Sections 44 and 131 ensures that the court cannot unilaterally overturn a collective agreement. Section 126 prohibits a court from sanctioning restructuring plans unless all unpaid wage claims and pension obligations have been met. It is the law but the government has refused to put it into force. Why?

As I was considering my remarks for today, it was during that time that we were marking the 65th anniversary of D-Day, the Normandy invasion. We as a grateful nation marked that occasion as we should to show our veterans, their families and the following generations the importance of the sacrifice that generation made for us all. Successive Canadian governments claim to support the generation of sacrifice that we honoured this past week, but this year we heard stories of veterans who are now living in poverty and living in the streets. That is not acceptable for the veterans of Canada, nor any senior in Canada.

This Parliament must find a way to build up and fortify OAS, CPP and GIS so that they better serve the needs of those for whom they were designed. Today's NDP motion is intended to start, in a very public way, a national discussion on the future of our retirement security system. Whether it is CPP, OAS, GIS or private pensions, Canadians know these plans must be looked into to ensure that they are available for them when they retire.

Canadians need to know there will be a level of pension income for their retirement to ensure that they will spend their final years in financial security and with the dignity they deserve.

Before I am even asked, I would like to address the issue of cost. Will this motion not require billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to implement? My response is this: How expensive will inaction be?

The government is already indirectly bailing out pension plans, not to mention that it will soon have to do something for all of those people who have no pension plans. Seventy-five per cent of private sector workers who are not participating in a registered pension plan today have not been able to save for their retirement. Today 3.5 million Canadians are not saving enough in RRSPs. This situation, if unaddressed, will cost taxpayers heavily in the years to come. I would suggest the price of inaction is simply not an acceptable option.

The Conservative government can choose to continue to respond to the developing crisis in a piecemeal ad hoc fashion, or together we can devise a comprehensive long-term strategy that will put Canadian seniors on a more solid fiscal footing.

Over time, with adequate pension funding rules in place, the cost of the guarantee fund would actually be negligible as it would not be needed as pensions would be adequately funded. In the near and interim period it will be potentially expensive, yet failure to act will also cost both in terms of dollars and in terms of lives. There is no escaping the fact the government will have to come up with massive amounts of money one way or the other.

I remind members that CPP and QPP are self-financing. It then becomes a question of whether Canadians are prepared to pay more for security in their senior years and to do so as part of a secure public plan. Canadians certainly face insecurity today in the context where private options, such as RRSPs or defined contribution plans, leave Canadians uncovered and victimized by the market, that is, if they are those who can afford to contribute in the first place. Quite simply OAS and GIS are for those who cannot afford to contribute to the CPP, and that is where the cost may lie.

We accept the fact that as a result of increasing the benefits and increasing eligibility to include currently excluded groups the cost will rise. However, as I said earlier, in an age when the government is spending more than $100 billion to relieve banks of mortgages, that does not seem like much to relieve our deserving senior citizens.

We would also suggest a beefed up CPP is the cheapest way for working Canadians to pool risks, take the burden off individuals and secure their senior years.

Regarding private plan insurance, the proposal in the motion is defined as self-financing. It would require a small increment on top of the contributions to cover insurance premiums. Once we have brought them into the plan, they would remain fully financed by employers and employees but would have the security of CPP.

Never again should Canada's seniors feel invisible to their government. We can take our valued retirement income support system and make it better. Today's seniors have worked hard all of their lives and in my view they have already lived through far too much turmoil and grief.

The worldwide economic crisis has certainly made it clear that it is critical for this Parliament and for the government to adopt a coordinated national plan of action to protect seniors. This is the NDP's call to this Parliament to rise to the occasion of a great national need. Let us roll up our sleeves and come together as Canadians and do the work necessary to confront this critical need.

Here today I say to the opposition parties, to the Prime Minister and to the government, the NDP is here to work for the benefit of all Canadians, especially seniors. Join us. This is the time and place to enhance Stanley Knowles' dream of sustaining and maintaining the dignity of all Canadians in their old age.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. We will have to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for York West.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to raise this issue and to ask my colleague some questions on the solutions he thinks we need.

When we talk about protecting pensions, in 2005, the Liberal government put forward $100 million for a pension protection system, which his party voted against. One thing that concerns me greatly is the number of individuals who are counting on having a fairly secure pension plan and who may now be losing that as a result of the downturn in the economy and the stock market.

What would he suggest needs to be done in order to help remedy that problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, we should be infusing funds into the CPP and OAS to raise the amounts of the benefits payable.

If the government of the day were to cancel $1 billion of that $14 billion a year in tax breaks it is giving to corporations, that money could be infused into the public plans—

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Raise taxes for GM and Chrysler?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am saying cancel those tax breaks that have not been rolled out yet, that have not impacted on companies, and use that money to invest in seniors.