House of Commons Hansard #50 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pension.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 166, 168 and 169 be made orders for returns and that they be tabled immediately?
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
With regard to the hiring of consultants and contractors by the Department of National Defence in fiscal year 2010-2011, how many individuals who were hired under contract also received payments for (i) a Canadian Forces pension, (ii) a federal Public Service pension?
(Return tabled)
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
With regard to the engines (propulsion system) for the 65 F-35 fighter jets purchased by Canada for future use by the Canadian Forces: (a) does the estimated $9 billion acquisition cost for the 65 F-35 fighter jets include the engines for all 65 F-35 fighter jets; (b) if the government’s response to part (a) is yes, for each of the 65 F-35 fighter jets, (i) which engine, including the manufacturer’s name, was used in the calculation of the estimated acquisition price for the 65 F-35 fighter jets, (ii) what is the estimated cost for each engine used for the calculation of the estimated acquisition price, (iii) has the estimated cost for each engine used for the calculation of the estimated acquisition price increased or decreased since the original calculation and, if so, by how much, (iv) what is the estimated cost for sustainment over a 20-year period for each engine used in the calculation of the estimated acquisition price, (v) how many engine choices or options were made available to the Department of National Defence (DND) for calculating the estimated acquisition price, (vi) what are the names of the engine manufacturers with regard to the government's answer in part (b)(v), (vii) with regard to the government's answer in part (b)(v), when were the engine choices or options made available to DND for calculating the estimated acquisition price; (c) if the government’s response to part (a) is no, for each of the 65 F-35 fighter jets, (i) what is the estimated purchase cost, above the $9 billion acquisition price, for each engine, (ii) what is the estimated cost for sustainment over a 20-year period for each engine; (iii) which engine and manufacturer was used with regard to the government’s answer in parts (c)(i) and (c)(ii); (d) have any engines options or choices been presented to DND or the government for final approval; (e) if the government’s response to part (d) is yes, (i) how many options have been presented, (ii) when where the options presented, (iii) what are the engine options, (iv) what are the names of the companies who have proposed the engines, (v) where are their Canadian head office locations; and (f) if the government’s response to part (d) is no, (i) has DND requested any options or choices with regard to the engines for the 65 F-35 fighter jets purchased by Canada, (ii) when will the engine choices or options be presented, (iii) which manufacturers are allowed or are capable of presenting engine choices or options to DND, (iv) what is the deadline for presenting the engine choices or options to DND, (v) what is the deadline for the government to submit its engine choice to the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office?
(Return tabled)
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 granted by the department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade since January 1, 2006, what are: (a) the names of the recipients; (b) the amounts of the grants or contributions per recipient; (c) the dates of the grants or contributions were issued; (d) the dates of length of funding; and (e) the descriptions of the purpose of each grant or contribution?
(Return tabled)
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh on November 14 regarding proceedings in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, with respect to its study of access to information at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CBC.
I would like to thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for having raised this matter and for having provided me with helpful background material. I would like as well to thank the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, and the members for Winnipeg North and Saanich-Gulf Islands for their interventions.
The matter raised by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh revolves around a motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics ordering the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide the committee with certain documents which are currently the subject of court proceedings involving the CBC and the Information Commissioner.
While acknowledging the long-standing principle that committees are masters of their own proceedings, the hon. member argued that the freedom committees enjoy is neither total nor absolute. More importantly, he argued that since the documents in question are already the subject of ongoing litigation before the Federal Court of Appeal, the committee was effectively trying to substitute its decision for that of the courts and, in doing so, had offended the sub judice convention and the constitutional principle of the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. In other words, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is claiming that the committee has gone beyond the scope of its mandate.
In seeking the Chair's intervention in this matter, the hon. member presented this situation as just the kind of exceptional instance where my predecessors sanctioned the intervention of the Speaker, and so he seeks specific remedies from the Chair: he asks either that I direct the committee to cease the study it has initiated or that I at least direct the committee to suspend its study until litigation has run its course.
For his part, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons agreed that committees are masters of their own proceedings and acknowledged that there might be circumstances where the involvement of the Speaker in a committee matter might be justified. However, he stated that he had heard no compelling argument to warrant the Speaker's intervention in this particular case, notably in the absence of a report on the matter from the committee.
With regard to the substantive arguments advanced, let me state at the outset that I acknowledge the seriousness and sincerity with which members have approached this matter. It is evident to the Chair that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and other members are deeply concerned with the turn of events thus far in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. At the same time, the Chair recognizes the persuasiveness of the arguments put forward by the government House leader in relation to the weight of precedent when it comes to intervening in the affairs of a committee without the benefit of a report relative to the activities that are being questioned.
In a ruling on May 10, 2007, regarding the alleged intimidation of witnesses in a committee, Speaker Milliken agreed that successive Speakers have been reluctant to intervene in committee proceedings. At that time, he stated at page 9288 of Debates:
...it would be highly inappropriate for the Speaker to break with our past practice and pre-empt any decision the committee may choose to make. The committee is seized of the issue and if a report is presented I will of course deal with any procedural questions which may be raised as a result. Until such a report is presented however, I must leave the matter in the hands of the committee.
In a similar ruling delivered on March 14, 2008, at page 4182 of Debates, in reference to the mandate of the same standing committee as the one at issue today, Speaker Milliken said:
For the present, I cannot find sufficient grounds to usurp the role of committee members in regulating the affairs of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. However, if and when the committee presents a report, should members continue to have concerns about the work of the committee, they will have an opportunity to raise them in the House and I will revisit the question at that time.
The Chair does not wish to minimize the importance of the issues raised but rather to respect and preserve the primacy of committees in their proceedings, and to ensure that the role of the Speaker in such matters does not stray beyond what has been established over time.
On this point, the Chair wishes to remind the House that in the oft-cited Speaker Fraser ruling with regard to “extreme situations” in which the Chair might choose to intervene, Speaker Fraser was confronted with the likelihood that it might be months before the committee then in question could convene to resolve the matter. Obviously, the case before us today presents completely and significantly different circumstances.
In terms of the situation at hand, I am aware that the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has stated in a memorandum to members of the committee that she believes that the committee “...should wait until the Speaker has ruled on this matter before proceeding with meetings on the study of access to information at the CBC”.
For his part, the government House leader has implied that an intervention by the Speaker at this juncture “...is premature because the Chair could have more relevant timing down the road to entertain these issues if and when this matter evolves through a report from the ethics committee”.
It should also be noted that the committee has received certain documents from the CBC, some of which are, as I understand it, still in a sealed envelope awaiting further decisions by the committee.
This indicates to me that there remains room in further deliberations by the committee for a thorough airing of the serious issues that have been raised and, potentially, for a satisfactory resolution of the current situation. In the interests of giving the committee time to address the issues with which it is confronted, I am reluctant to insert myself into the substance of this matter at this early stage until events in committee play themselves out.
Accordingly, given the circumstances I have just described, the Chair believes that it should not at this time presume to prejudge the direction and outcome of the committee's deliberations. Therefore, the matter must rest with the committee for the time being.
I thank all members for their attention.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has 15 minutes left to complete his remarks.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will remind you that I am sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
I will continue with what Mr. Hodgson of the Conference Board of Canada said with regard to our situation. He said:
As part of globalization, sadly, inequality is growing in most countries around the world. In Canada the rate of growth of inequality as we measured it was actually greater than in the United States, which is a bit of a surprising result.
He closed his statement before the pre-budget hearings by saying:
We were asking whether we're doing enough as a country to ensure that all Canadians are benefiting from economic growth. Whether we're talking about the lack of job security or about people retiring with insufficient incomes, ongoing poverty is kind of a festering sore within an economy, and I think it does drag down your ongoing growth potential.
I reiterated that part because that is a very significant point. The poverty that has been created in the country over the last five to ten years is a horrendous burden.
I will now return to my theme of Bill C-13 being a missed opportunity. I will speak for a moment about the government's recently announced pooled retirement pension plan, PRPP. This plan shows how the government does not seem to understand, very clearly at least, the real problems facing working Canadians today.
The government in its opening remarks for the PRPP said that 60% of working Canadians have zero savings and no pension. That is one point on which we do agree. The PRPP does not begin to address this problem though. It is simply similar to an RRSP and is open to market fluctuations. In addition, the PRPP potential fee structure favours the institutions and would draw down on workers' savings in what we believe is blatantly an unfair manner.
On behalf of the New Democrats I have put forward a plan for a seven year phase-in of increases to the CPP which would double benefits in about 35 years.
We should keep in mind that the Canada pension plan lost 1% during the market downturn of the last few weeks, while the remainder of the market lost 11% during the same period. That clearly shows that the CPP is the best vehicle to secure seniors' retirement.
I will speak for a moment about the increases that we are proposing to the Canada pension plan. I want to make it very clear that they would be phased in and they would be minimal. We hear all kinds of numbers from the government side. For a worker earning $47,200 or more a year, the initial cost of gradually doubling the CPP works out to 9¢ an hour, or $3.57 a week. Hopefully, the government side is listening. For a worker earning $30,000 per year, the initial cost would be 6¢ an hour, or $2.27 a week.
It would be minimal and would allow Canadians to put money into their retirement. It would not be a huge cost to them. The reality is that otherwise they would have nothing.
I see that I am down to my last minute of debate, so I will condense my comments.
In the administrative fees for the CPP and mutual funds, there is a difference of 0.5% and 2.5% respectively. One is five times more than the other.
We need to consider carefully the need for a Canada pension plan increase to benefit those workers who today have nothing.
Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing ActGovernment Orders
Blackstrap Saskatchewan
Conservative
Lynne Yelich ConservativeMinister of State (Western Economic Diversification)
Mr. Speaker, pensions for Canadians is a concern of our government. That is why we introduced the pooled pension plan.
Could the member make some suggestions as to how that plan could work well for small and medium enterprises? To make the change to the Canada pension plan that he refers there has to be an agreement with the provinces. How would it work for provinces that did not agree to work through the Canada pension plan? Has he sought their opinion?
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question regarding the PRPP, we are not saying it is a complete failure. We are very concerned about the fee structure and how that might draw down the savings of Canadians.
With regard to the Canada pension plan, going into Kananaskis six provincial finance ministers wrote a letter to the federal finance minister endorsing an increase to the Canada pension plan. It is my understanding that Alberta was opposed to it and that Quebec was raising concerns. Clearly, a majority of Canadians supported it. We were on the right path. Instead of moving forward, the government decided to stop at that point and move to the PRPP. Essentially, that was a poor choice. It should still put together a committee with the provinces to go forward on the Canada pension plan. Hopefully it will do that in the near future.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about poverty earlier. When it comes to corporate bankruptcy, the workers' pension plan is at the bottom of the list of creditors.
How does my colleague feel this could hurt the financial security of seniors?
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, on that very topic I have introduced Bill C-331 which would move the assets of a pension plan ahead of unsecured debt in bankruptcy, insolvency and CCAA. We had the situation of Nortel and a number of pulp and paper mills across the country that closed. In some instances, the assets of the pension plan were used like a separate pool to pay down debt when in fact they belonged to workers. In addressing that, we have to change the priority in bankruptcy. In fairness, I have spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance about this very issue, and what I understand from the government side is that it is going to take a fair look at this.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask about the environment.
Recent research has shown that it is a very good thing the Montreal protocol was agreed to and implemented. Without elimination of CFCs, most of the ozone layer would be destroyed by 2065. The UV increases would be extreme with the average July noon UV index reaching about 30. A value of 11 is considered to be very high. DNA-damaging UV would be increased by 550% leading to a large increase in skin cancer.
Does the hon. member think that the government should reverse its cuts to ozone monitoring?
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, very clearly the proposed cuts are beyond the point of ridiculous. The first thing people are told when they visit Australia is to stay off the beach at certain times because Australia's incidence of skin cancer is quadruple that of the rest of the world. I agree with the member that the ozone needs to be tested. We would vote against any cuts to the monitoring of our environment.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. I would like to thank the hon. member for sharing his time with me.
Before I begin to speak about Bill C-13 specifically, I would like to take this opportunity to express my disgust at the current gag orders and reduced debate in the House of Commons. I sometimes get the impression that, for the Conservatives, democracy comes down to 35 days of debate once every four years and that Parliament can be shut down in the interim because there is no real need for it.
In the time I have left, I would like to say that what I find unbelievably disappointing in the Conservative government's policies and decisions is the lack of certain ideas, certain concepts. Earlier an hon. member spoke about science being real. Yet the Conservatives, in their economic decisions, generally ignore other things that are also real, and those things are inequality and poverty. The Minister of Finance accomplished the amazing feat of tabling a budget where the word “poverty”, unfortunately, appears only once. But that does not mean that it is not real.
In 2009, 3.2 million people were living in poverty in Canada. As my colleague and neighbour to my left reminded us, these people are not always unemployed. Sometimes these are people who work. As we know, earning minimum wage amounts to living in poverty. Of the 3.2 million people living in poverty, 634,000 were children.
I find it unacceptable that, in a G8 country, so many people are being abandoned and we cannot take care of one another.
The Conference Board reminded us a few weeks ago that inequality is growing faster in Canada than it is in the United States. Thus, we are moving in the wrong direction. The Americans have a much more unequal society than we do, but at this rate, and with this government's neo-liberal conservative policies, we will catch up with the Americans in no time.
Equity or equality per se is not simply a good and moral objective that we are striving for; it is also more effective.
Last summer, the IMF—which is by no means a socialist organization—released a study on inequality that should be required reading for the Minister of Finance and the entire government. The IMF concluded that more equitable distribution of income translates into longer and more stable economic growth. This is good not only for people trying to get out of poverty, but also for our country as a whole, for the entire country will experience longer periods of growth with fewer upheavals. This is therefore something we should try to achieve.
An inequitable society has more social problems, more crime and more illness. Indeed, poverty has an impact on health, education, productivity, creativity and civic engagement. It is estimated that 20% of health care spending is due to socio-economic factors such as the income gap, for example.
Unfortunately, this government has chosen to give gifts to the banks and the oil companies and cut taxes for the Canadian corporations, which, generally speaking, do not need it. In the first quarters of this year, the six big Canadian banks earned $22 billion in profits. They are not the ones who need help. People who use food banks every month because they are having a hard time paying their bills and making ends meet are the ones who need help. There are solutions and, as New Democrats, we are proposing solutions to truly help workers and their families and truly help people living in poverty.
I want to talk about this government's choices to help those who deserve our respect, those who built the society we live in and to whom we owe everything: seniors.
The previous speaker talked about this. Certain things need to be done with regard to pension plans. I will come back to that. The NDP proposed lifting all seniors in Canada out of poverty by injecting money into the guaranteed income supplement. The answer we got from the Conservative government is woefully inadequate. Its solution was to come up with a parallel system. Indeed, it plans to give an extra $600 a year, or $50 a month to every senior living in poverty, but we must realize that it has created new criteria and new scales: a person is entitled to $50 a month if their income does not exceed $2,000 a year. Once a person has reached that threshold, they do not receive the full $50. They end up with peanuts, maybe an extra $4 or $5. I am not sure who this is going to help. That is not what it means to take concrete measures to help people.
There are so many things to do and so many problems to solve. There are so many people living in difficult situations that have an impact on everything from health to access to post-secondary education.
This government has decided to saw off the very branch on which it is sitting, or to dig the deficit hole. It tells us that it is a real problem that has to be solved. It should stop lowering taxes for banks and oil companies. It has created the problem itself. It is creating a situation where, in Canada, we now have a structural deficit, not a cyclical deficit. Why would they willingly give up revenue? It seems that the Conservatives are governing a state that they basically detest. All their efforts are focused on shrinking government programs, except for those involving the military and corrections, of course.
What could be done with this money that the Conservatives have voluntarily given up, and made us all give up? We could restore investment in social housing. The government's present contribution to affordable social housing is just about nil, and has been for many years. This has created extremely difficult and unacceptable situations for people. In the riding that I have the honour to represent, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, 2,000 people are on a waiting list for social housing and 5,500 households spend more than 50% of their income on shelter.
This is not the way to build a just, strong and equitable society. These people have problems every day. They are unable to pay their bills. This creates a great deal of tension for couples, families and individuals who cannot make ends meet.
What does the Conservative government do? It gives them tax credits that are worthless if they pay no tax. It is just great to say that they provide tax credits for youth, sports associations, access to this and that, but people have to pay tax to be entitled to them. Once again, it will help some people, but not those who need help the most. We must remember this.
Also, why is it that 1.4 million people are officially looking for a job in Canada and do not have one? This number is growing. We saw that another 72,000 jobs were lost last month. Half of the people who pay into the employment insurance fund do not have access to it when they lose their jobs because they did not work a sufficient number of hours. So, they are paying a tax or insurance premium but they are not entitled to receive benefits when they find themselves in a situation when they might claim them. The NDP is arguing in favour of re-establishing greater access to employment insurance benefits. By so doing, the government would truly provide tangible help to Canadians in their everyday lives.
Investment in infrastructure is insufficient. Clearly, the government has not stopped harping about Canada's economic action plan, but it is also important to remember that, without the threat of a coalition government, the government would never have introduced this plan. The ideas came from this side of the House. We then put an end to the plan to form a coalition, but the entire deficit has not been overcome. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that Canada is currently facing a $123 billion infrastructure deficit. As a result, overpasses are collapsing and there are problems with the Champlain Bridge and others. That means that our critical infrastructure has been left to crumble: our bridges, our highways and our water systems. This creates problems and then the price must be paid. We must reinvest in infrastructure.
We must also reinvest in research and development because it is the future and Canada has a terrible record among the OECD countries in this area. By making this investment, we will be able to stimulate the economy and create good jobs.
I can give another example. What else could we do to help people? What direction could we take? Think about the cost of medications. Last year, it was estimated that three million Canadians did not take the medications they needed because they could not afford them. That is unacceptable. That is why people continue to be sick and get sicker. Then, they become a burden on the health care system because they did not have the means to take care of themselves. In Quebec we have a drug insurance plan. The NDP thinks this is a good example. With asymmetrical federalism, Quebec could maintain its public drug insurance plan, and we could still create a Canada-wide one at the federal level.
There are many other things, such as household debt, for example. The government is not doing anything to lower credit card interest rates or ATM fees. Two-thirds of Canadian workers do not have a retirement pension plan through their employers. We must improve public pension plans. We must double them. We agree with this because it is the most effective way of doing things. That is what will help the most people once they retire, when they stop working and leave the workforce. We could also talk about Internet connections in the regions or renewable energy. There are tons of things that the federal government should invest in, such as green transportation, high-speed trains or electric monorails.
There are so many things to do and, unfortunately, the only thing this government does is lower taxes. That does not work. That is not how we will help each other and create a fair and just society.
Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing ActGovernment Orders
Blackstrap Saskatchewan
Conservative
Lynne Yelich ConservativeMinister of State (Western Economic Diversification)
Mr. Speaker, tax cuts were important to the 85,000 seniors who were taken off the tax rolls since we became government.
Then there is the working income tax benefit. We provided tax relief introduced in 2007 by $580 million for 2009 and subsequent years, effectively doubling total tax relief through the working income tax benefit.
I wonder if the member realizes there are programs specifically targeting those lower income people who were paying taxes? Our infrastructure, which the member talked about, we did have a vision in our building Canada fund. We took the historic step of investing $33 billion in a long-term plan. I just want to know if the member is up to speed on some of those investments that we have made?
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Of course, Mr. Speaker. But when it is not enough, something needs to be said. When it is not working, something needs to be said. Promises were made, but they turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors—the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors will help hardly anyone.
That is not how we will get our seniors out of poverty. Seniors will not rise above poverty if they have their promised assistance cut when they bring in more than $2,000 or $3,000 a year. It will not help people if we ignore the issue of public sector pension plans.
The Canada pension plan works. It is effective and is doing very well. More money needs to be put into it. That is how we will really help people, not by giving useless tax credits to families who do not pay taxes.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada participated in the eighth meeting of the Ozone Research Managers of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer in May 2011. There were no indications in Canada's presentation that the Minister of the Environment was planning to effectively wipe out Environment Canada's ozone group and severely curtail ozone monitoring activities.
Also notable in the presentation is the slide entitled, “An Arctic Ozone Hole”. This means that Environment Canada was aware of severe ozone depletion in the Arctic well before the government began to announce its cuts to ozone monitoring and science in June. This is a shocking revelation.
Does the hon. member think that the government should reverse its cuts to ozone monitoring?