Jim Peterson

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think we must all subject ourselves to a dose of reality. If anybody in the House believes that one Canadian is interested in our procedural wrangling he or she is totally mistaken, totally out of sorts with what the Canadian people believe and feel.

This is why it is important that instead of procedural wrangling we get back to debating substantive issues. The sooner we do it, the sooner we will be responding to what Canadians elected us to the House to achieve.

[Education, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government is very concerned about the question of access to education. This is why we have acted so strongly. This is why we brought in the millennium scholarship fund. This is why we have the RESPs and this is why we have introduced the Canada educational savings grant where we will actually top up individual contributions in order to make access an issue.

This is why we have reformed the Canada student loans program. We have allowed a deferral of interest for up to 54 weeks after graduating. We will make sure that a person does not have to pay back more than 15% of their income in any one year. This is why we brought in the Canada study grant—

[Health Care System, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces have benefited greatly from lower interest rates, equalization payments and so on, despite the cuts.

Bernard Landry had the following to say, and I quote “We must admit that we feel we must do our share so that the Canada we have helped to put in debt can eliminate that debt”. So said Mr. Landry in the National Assembly.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill S-3 today at third reading.

This bill is a well considered and concrete example of how we are dealing federally with our regulated private pension plans. We are updating the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, or the PBSA as it is often called.

These reforms are long overdue. This legislation governs the private pensions plans in the sectors that are subject to federal jurisdiction, including banking, interprovincial transportation and telecommunications. These plans are administered by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI.

Of Canada's 16,000 pension plans about 1,100 are covered by the PBSA. They represent approximately $45 billion or 10% of the entire asset value of all private pension plans in Canada.

With the number of seniors in Canada growing so rapidly I assure the House that sound, secure pensions are and continue to be a priority of this government. Our colleagues know that over the past two years we have embarked on a dramatic reform of the public component of our national pension system, including changes long overdue in the Canada pension plan. If we had not made these changes, in 20 years there would have been real problems and we would not have the type of secure retirement that Canadians deserve.

The PBSA has not been materially revised since it came into force in 1987. This is in contrast to the financial institutions legislation where the supervisory and credential systems were significantly strengthened, first in 1992, then in 1995 and again in 1997. There is no question that the PBSA needs to be updated.

While most federally regulated pension plans are fully funded, some pension plans have come under financial pressure as a result of demographic and economic factors. These include an aging workforce. They can also come about from corporate downsizing. Those are two factors which make pension funding relatively more expensive for employers.

In this environment there have been solvency concerns regarding some plans, while others have wound up without sufficient assets to pay all of the benefits that were promised. In these situations the employer, whether a single employer or an industry group, experienced economic difficulties.

Many pension plans made substantial improvements to pension benefits in the 1980s with the expectation that employers would always be able to fund them. This also added to the challenges. In some cases insufficient contributions were made to fund these improvements. As these problems emerged it became clear that the current credential and supervisory framework is not always equipped to deal with problem plans. The range of powers and regulatory components needed were just not there. Bill S-3 is our effort to meet these challenges. Under this legislation the federal government and the superintendent of OSFI will have the necessary powers and tools to work with plans that are experiencing problems.

The measures in Bill S-3 flow from a series of basic principles outlined in our July 1996 white paper. These principles are that private pension plans be supervised for the benefit of members, retirees and other beneficiaries, that the pension regulatory and supervisory framework should contain the incentives and safeguards necessary to reduce the possibility that pension promises might not be met, and to provide for early intervention and resolution of pension plans that are experiencing difficulty.

Outside supervision cannot and will not be expected to guarantee that pension promises will always be met, nor can it be a substitute for good governance of plans by administrators. After all, these plans are governed by the trustees who are appointed by the workers and by the companies themselves. Regulation and supervision must be cost effective. Regulatory framework for pension plans should not impose undue costs on existing plans or unduly inhibit the creation of new plans.

Members of private pension plans should receive adequate and timely information from the administrator concerning the precise financial condition of the plan that person is under. There must be appropriate accountability and transparency in the supervisory process itself.

The measures in this bill are as a result of a very broad consultation process. In drafting this legislation the comments received on the initial proposals that were contained in the white paper were considered and the appropriate amendments were made. Provincial ministers responsible for the supervision of provincial pension plans were also invited to comment and there was ongoing consultation among pension supervisors to the CAPSA.

I should mention, too, that other proposals in the white paper which have not been addressed in this legislation will be introduced later through regulation. Areas such as additional disclosure requirements and funding rules are already dealt with through regulations and this approach will continue.

In other cases, such as planned governance and investments, the government believes that it is more appropriate to develop best practices. We recognize that the size and other attributes of individual pension plans will affect government structures, government practices and investment strategies.

Considerable additional consultation will take place prior to the implementation of these regulations and guidelines.

At this time, on behalf of the government, I would like to thank the Senate, the many industry participants and other stakeholders who provided such constructive and insightful co-operation and advice in bringing this legislation forward and in working with us in such a constructive way to deal with the precise problems that we faced to fashion legislation which is more responsive to the concerns that all of us have, which is to maintain secure and dignified retirements for our pensioners.

I have highlighted the important issues dealt with in this legislation. All of us believe that the stability of Canada's private pension regime will be enhanced for the benefit of its plan members. We are confident of that. I certainly encourage all colleagues in this House to give speedy passage to this bill and I thank them for the co-operative approaches which they have taken in working with us, with pensioners and with the regulators to provide better legislation for Canada's pension community.

[Employment Insurance, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member draws attention to the job creation record of this government. When we took office unemployment was at 11.4%. Since then 1.2 million jobs have been created by our buoyant Canadian economy.

We have the strongest job growth rate in the entire G-7. This is a result of the measures we have put into force. We are the first member of the G-7 to eliminate its deficit. We are now paying down our debt. The figures we see today show record business confidence. We had a gross rate in the first quarter of—

[Employment Insurance, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since our government took office we have made four cuts to EI premiums.

They have gone from $3.30 down to $2.70. For every 10 cents we cut in those EI premiums, it costs over $700 million. The hon. member has to come clean. If he wants us to make the cuts there, where is he going to cut? Is he going to cut that out of reductions to the debt? Is he going to cut that out of other tax relief? Is he going to cut it out of transfers to the provinces? Is he going to cut it out of transfers for pensions or health care?

[Employment Insurance, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is in the consolidated revenue fund.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 25th, 1998]

According to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI:

[Seniors Benefits, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken very responsible actions to ensure seniors pensions will be there, that seniors will be given a secure and dignified retirement. We have brought down a package that would increase the pensions for 75% of seniors.

At the same time, we continue to work with seniors groups and we continue to listen. We have this case under advisement and we want to make sure we do the right thing for our seniors. That is why we will continue to consult and to work on this package. I thank the member for his question.

A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1999 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Deputy Speaker to the House.

[Met Life, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa West—Nepean who is also the chair of the national capital Liberal caucus.

From the very start, when this merger was announced, the member has taken a leadership role in bringing these concerns to the attention of the government and our caucus.

I assure the member we have been listening. We will continue to consult. We will continue to work with her. The merger has not yet been approved.

I thank her for the very diligent work and the leadership role she has shown.