Debates of June 19th, 2009

Question No. 190

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

With respect to federally regulated pension plans: (a) how many such plans are currently at risk of default and which plans are so affected; (b) what is the value of each affected plan, how many current and future pensioners does each pension have and what is the average annual amount each pensioner, current and future, would lose in the event of default; (c) what is the government’s position on protecting existing pension benefits in the event of bankruptcy; and (d) does the government support efforts to guarantee pension benefits in the event of bankruptcy and if, so, how?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, according to the latest available pension plan financial statements, www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/reports/osfi/ar0708_e.pdf, there were 1,350 private pension plans registered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, PBSA, and supervised by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). Of those plans, there were 351 defined benefit plans, 904 defined contribution plans and 95 combination plans. These plans covered over 594,000 members, of which 391,000 were in a defined benefit plan, 104,000 in a defined contribution plan and 99,000 in a combination plan. Total assets for these plans were $132 billion, with $109 billion in defined benefit plans, $4 billion in defined contribution plans and $19 billion in combination plans. OSFI regulates approximately 7 percent of pension plans in Canada. The other 93 percent are under provincial regulation, representing 5.2 million members with total assets of $961 billion. 53 percent of federally regulated pension plan assets were invested in equities, 39 percent in debt instruments and 8 percent in diversified and other assets.

In April 2009, OSFI reported, www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/media/nr_esr_e.pdf, that the average estimated solvency ratio for federally regulated defined benefit plans was 0.85 in December 2008. Estimated solvency ratios are determined by dividing a plan’s estimated assets by the plan’s estimated liabilities, using assumptions consistent with the plan being terminated. OSFI continues to monitor the funding situation of plans carefully and is taking steps, where necessary, to protect the rights and interests of plan beneficiaries.

The government has taken action to better protect the pensions of working Canadians by making amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that will grant super priority status to outstanding employer and employee pension contributions in both bankruptcy and corporate restructuring. This super-priority status became law in bankruptcy in July 2008.

Given the present extraordinary circumstances affecting private pension plans, the Government took action in Budget 2009, presented to the House of Commons on January 27, 2009, and the 2008 Economic and Fiscal Statement by providing temporary solvency funding relief that will facilitate an orderly return to full funding while protecting the security of benefits. The regulations implementing this temporary relief were pre-published in the Canada Gazette on April 4th.

The federal government also launched public consultations on pension issues in January with the release of a consultation paper (http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/09-005-eng.asp). As part of the consultation process, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance led public meetings across Canada in March and April. To become better familiarized with this consultation process, please visit http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/09-018-eng.asp

Question No. 212

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Regarding regulations on mercury: (a) what progress has the government made on the development of new regulations to reduce mercury emissions from coal fired electric power generation; and (b) when, specifically, is the government going to issue new regulations on mercury emissions from coal fired electric power generation?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a) Canada has reduced its mercury emissions by 90% since the 1970s and now accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. Despite this progress, we need to continue taking action because mercury impacts are still evident across the country.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of addressing mercury emissions from coal-fired electricity generation as it is the largest contributor to mercury emissions in Canada at 36%.

Under “Turning the Corner”, the government announced its intention to regulate key sources of air pollutant emissions. We are working with industry, provinces and non-government organizations to refine the regulatory framework and specifically to develop national regulations of industrial emissions of key air pollutants. As part of that work, a Canadian regulation addressing mercury from the electricity sector under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is under consideration.

The Government of Canada is committed to demonstrating leadership in ensuring health and environmental impacts of mercury emissions are reduced across Canada.

Canada has several existing international agreements to limit the transport of mercury as a heavy metal and has also committed under the Canada-wide standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power generation plants to seek further international agreements to reduce the effect of mercury pollution in Canada from foreign countries.

At the UN Environment Programme’s Governing Council meeting earlier this year, I along with my counterparts in over 140 countries unanimously agreed to launch negotiations on an international mercury treaty, which some would like to see in place within three years. Given that 80% or more of the mercury deposited in Canada comes from other countries, this treaty is important to Canada.

In addition, the new U.S. administration is also moving forward with new regulations on mercury emissions from coal-fired power generation.

Canada is committed to working with the United States and the international community to further reduce global mercury emissions.

In response to b) A regulation on mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power is under consideration.

Question No. 281

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

With respect to Veterans Affairs Canada Health Benefits: (a) what is the rationale behind the application of a deduction, in most cases of $5, from the repayment of taxi fares for veterans seeking treatment or diagnosis from doctors, hospitals, or health care facilities; (b) what is the total amount Veterans Affairs Canada deducted from all repayment of taxi fares in the 2007-2008 fiscal year; and (c) has a review of this policy been undertaken by Veterans Affairs Canada?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a) and c) Financial support for travel to receive treatment benefits is authorized in the Veterans Health Care Regulations, VHCRs. The VHCRs include a deduction of $5.00 for each trip from the cost of taxi travel. However, the VHCRs also allow for $5.00 deduction to be waived whenever there is any reasonable concern that this deduction may negatively impact the client's ability to access needed treatment benefits. The deduction may be waived if the client's mobility or cognition is severely impaired, or it would seriously impede the client's ability to access treatment benefits.

The relevant policy was reviewed in 2007 and as a result, a policy statement was sent to the field in 2007 to clarify the intent of the policy and ensure staff were applying section 34.2, the regulatory authority to waive the deductible for aging veterans dealing with multiple and complex health needs who require frequent visits to treatment centres. The relevant policy allows for the full benefit of doubt given to the veteran and recognize that a deductible for those in lower income situations has the effect of creating a potential barrier to seeking needed medical care.

In response to b) The department does not track information specific to deductions on the repayment of taxi fares. In 2007-2008, there were over 90,000 payments for taxi fares processed for a total of close to $1.9 million paid to veterans.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 172, 174, 196, 204, 205, 210, 216 and 220 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 172

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

With regard to the Extension of Employment Insurance Benefits, under the Pilot Project 10 and funding for skills and development and training, within the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC): (a) broken down by provincial and territorial jurisdictions, how many clients of HRSDC were receiving EI benefits on February 28, 2009 and out of that number, (i) how many were receiving the benefit of the additional five weeks under Project Pilot 10, in each provincial and territorial jurisdiction, (ii) what were the same statistics by provincial and territorial jurisdiction for March 31, 2009; and (b) broken down by provincial and territorial jurisdiction, (i) how many clients applied and how many clients were approved for training and skills development benefits while receiving regular Employment Insurance benefits from January 1, 2008 to April 30, 2008, (ii) how many clients applied and how many clients were approved for training and skills development benefits while receiving regular Employment Insurance benefits from January 1, 2009 to April 30, 2009?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 174

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

— With regard to funding applications submitted to FedNor, the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario, for each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2009-2010: (a) which projects were submitted under each agency program; (b) which project were approved; (c) what amount was allocated to each of these projects; and (d) which projects were not processed?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 196

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

With respect to Expert Panels created by the Minister of Finance since January 2006: (a) which Panels have been so struck, on what date, and which individuals are they composed of; (b) what was the length of duration of each Panel, when and in what locations did each Panel meet; (c) what were the final conclusions and recommendations made by each Panel and have these conclusions been made publicly accessible and, if so, what is the Internet address for each Panel conclusion; and (d) what compensation was paid to each member and what travel, hospitality and miscellaneous expenses were submitted by each panelist, according to each Panel?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 204

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

With respect to investing in retraining and apprenticeships: (a) what is the government's plan to ensure that apprenticeships are being taken up by the industry during this economic downturn; (b) what new programs will the government undertake to assist unemployed Canadians to retrain for new opportunities; (c) what will the government's response be to the issue of rising tuition and costs incurred to complete apprenticeships; (d) what specific agreements have been signed with the provinces for the transfer of funds for retraining and apprenticeships, to improve the lives of Canadians, and to partner to help Canadian industries grow in these difficult economic times; and (e) what future investments is the government planning for the technical colleges and institutes across Canada?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 205

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

With respect to investing in research and innovation, specifically regarding Brock University in St. Catharine's, Ontario: (a) what is the government's plan to ensure that Canadian research and development remain an example to the rest of the world; (b) what is the government prepared to do to ensure that the best and brightest remain in Canada; (c) what research grants will the government be making available this year, both at Brock University and across Canada; (d) what new programs will the government undertake to assist students; (e) what will the government's response be to the issue of rising tuition; (f) what specific steps will the government take to invest in research and development, to improve the lives of Canadians, and to partner to help Canadian industries grow in these difficult economic times; and (g) what future investments is the government planning for Brock University specifically as well as the colleges and universities across Canada?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 210

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With respect to applications to sponsor family members for permanent residency made by residents of the constituency of Vancouver Kingsway: (a) what is the average processing time for applications made to sponsor family members from (i) China, (ii) the Philippines, (iii) India, (iv) all countries aggregated; (b) what is the approval rate for applications made to sponsor family member from (i) China, (ii) the Philippines, (iii) India, (iv) all countries aggregated; and (c) what are the top five main grounds for denying claims and their rates of usage for applications made to sponsor family members from (i) China, (ii) the Philippines, (iii) India, (iv) all countries aggregated?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 216

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

With regards to the Broadband for Rural and Northern Development Program Pilot Program: (a) how much did the program cost on an annual basis; (b) did the government achieve its stated goal of universal access by 2005 and, if not, what level of coverage did it achieve, overall and in each participating community and what factors prevented the program from attaining universal access; (c) for what reasons was the program not expanded beyond the pilot stage; (d) which communities participated in the pilot project, what funding did each community receive on an annual basis and what level of accessibility did each recipient community achieve; (e) what was the funding allocation, broken down by province; (f) what is the current level of broadband connectivity in each area that took part in the pilot program; (g) according to province, which communities are still without broadband access and how many of those are First Nations; (h) on a per capita basis for the last five years, how does access to broadband in rural and northern communities compare with Canada’s major urban centres; and (i) what strategies is the government currently undertaking to improve broadband access to rural and northern communities and what resources have been committed to such initiatives?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 220

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

With regard to the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act: (a) when will an order of the Governor in Council be issued to bring this legislation into force; (b) how many pay equity complaints are currently before the Canadian Human Rights Commission; and (c) how many pay equity complaints will be transferred from the Canadian Human Rights Commission to the Public Service Labour Relations Board?

(Return tabled)