Lorne Nystrom

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about saving face, it is about showing leadership, Mr. Minister. The file is open. I repeat, the file is open, Mr. Minister. The provinces—

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The minister has often said in the House that he had the support of the provinces in the matter of hepatitis C, however, thanks to Liberal Daniel Johnson, Quebec is no longer on side and neither are Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba or Alberta.

Given the provincial support for another proposal, is the minister prepared to reopen the matter and come up with fairer compensation for all victims of this disease?

[Income Tax Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the private members' bill put forth today by my good friend from Mississauga.

First I compliment him on the work he has done on this issue over the last few years. I thank him for the copy of his book. He has put a lot of work into this issue. We should all commend him for the extra parliamentary hours he puts into this very worthwhile issue.

I am sure the member remembers that back in November 1990 Ed Broadbent was retiring as leader of the federal New Democratic Party. The last speech he made in the House as leader was one in which he talked about a need to eradicate poverty among children. I remember that very well. He was sitting about three or four seats over to my right. He made that speech. There was general consensus in the House of Commons that it was a very laudable objective which we should strive for in the next decade. That decade is almost over. We have less than two years to go before the new millennium and we probably have more child poverty now than we did in 1990. We have regressed rather than progressed.

That is a sad commentary on our country, a country with tremendous wealth and tremendous abundant resources. We are extremely fortunate that our country has all these resources. It is like a beautiful necklace of jewels and gold, the resources that are here in this country. Yet we cannot organize it in terms of public policy to make sure we bring children out of poverty and give them an opportunity and a chance. That has to be a very laudable goal and a very laudable objective.

I certainly agree fully with the member across the way that investing in children should be an objective not just of this parliament but for all of us in Canada, the provincial legislatures, the Parliament of Canada, the municipalities and likewise because the future of the country is our children. If we do not invest in opportunities for young people, we are going to have more crime, more unhappiness, more unhealthiness and more social problems.

They are laudable goals and objectives. The member certainly has his heart in the right place.

The member talked about the specific amendment to the tax act and the Canada pension plan. Again his heart is in the right place but I have some questions on whether or not this is the only area that we should move on.

This will enable a taxpayer to make a tax contribution to the Canada pension plan on behalf of a non-income earning spouse. More often that would be the female rather than the male. If we looked at this economically and ran it through a computer model, we would find that this bill would benefit only a small segment of our population, mainly the higher income part of our population. That is the part of the population which may have one spouse working and can afford to contribute into a tax benefit program in the Canada pension plan on behalf of the other spouse.

My riding is comprised in part of the inner city of Regina where there are a lot of low income folks. In those kinds of homes where only one person is working, probably nine times out of ten, maybe 99 times out of 100, the spouse cannot afford to make a contribution, tax credit or not, to the Canada pension plan of the other spouse.

It is a bit like the spousal RRSP which is a very good idea for people who can afford it. It has helped a lot of people and we do not deny that. We are not saying that we should tear it apart. But when we look at the facts, we find that the spousal RRSP helps in a great preponderance of cases the higher income people who can afford to make that contribution. Someone who hypothetically makes $80,000, $100,000 or $200,000 a year, and whose spouse is not working can easily afford to maximize his or her own RRSP contributions and then maximize the spousal RRSP.

With the change in the Income Tax Act as proposed by my friend from Mississauga South, they could max out in terms of the taxable contribution to the CPP on behalf of the spouse.

These are some of the problems I have with the bill before the House today. I suppose the bill would have been more equitable back in the 1950s and 1960s when there was a greater preponderance of one wage earner households, back in the days of Archie Bunker and Leave it to Beaver when the only person working in the family was the male. In those days it would have covered a wider sweep of the population. Again it does not mean the member's heart is not in the right place.

What do we have as alternatives? The main alternative is to make our pension system more progressive and more encompassing to cover a broader sweep of people. Instead we now have a federal government which for new seniors, for people who have turned 60 after December 31, 1995, wants to abolish the old age pension, the guaranteed income supplement and the tax credit for seniors and replace them with what is called the seniors benefit. The seniors benefit will be determined by a means test. In other words it is going back to the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s before we had universal old age pensions. The pensions are taxed back from the wealthier people based on a progressive taxation system.

The current old age pension is a monthly pension that most Canadians are entitled to. Those benefits are taxed. They disappear for single seniors whose incomes are higher than $85,000 a year. If they make over $85,000 a year, there is a claw back. This was brought in in the Mulroney days. The old age pension is taken back by the government. For a couple, that pension disappears after they earn more than $170,000.

There is a progressive scale here. Everybody is entitled to it but the more money you make, the less you get. When a single person makes $85,000 a year, they stop getting the old age pension. When a couple makes $170,000 a year, then they receive no old age pension.

In addition to that, there is a guaranteed income supplement. It is a supplementary benefit that is not taxed and is there for only the low income old age pension recipients. A poor person in this country, and I represent a lot of them in the city centre and small towns in my riding, can receive the maximum guaranteed income supplement along with the old age pension. The GIS is not taxable but the OAS is taxable. It is a fair system. It is a progressive system that is geared to helping those who are the most in need.

Regrettably what is happening is that this system is going to be abolished. We are going back to the past. There will be a means test. People who make a few dollars will not receive an old age pension or the seniors benefit while those who make a few less dollars will receive part of the seniors benefit. Starting from dollar one, a person will be judged as to whether or not they qualify for the seniors benefit.

That is the concern I have with some of the details of the bill we are talking about today. The member is going in the right direction in terms of his heart and is being very thoughtful, but again I think we could put the money into a more progressive pension system.

In addition to that, this House just recently voted on the Canada pension plan. It made it a more regressive plan. It upped the premiums by 73% over six years. It cut down what people will receive from the plan during that same period of time. It particularly hit widows and people on CPP disability, again going in a regressive way.

It is a sad commentary to have those things happen from a Liberal government that at one time had a proud heritage of being compassionate, caring and progressive in this country.

I see the member from Hamilton across the way hanging his head in shame at the regressiveness. This government is more conservative than Brian Mulroney back in the 1980s. It is no wonder the member from Hamilton is hanging his head in shame. He used to be a progressive Liberal. Now he is to the right of Brian Mulroney in destroying the old age pension in this country.

[Credit Ombudsman Act, April 30th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-396, an act to establish the office of Credit Ombudsman to be an advocate for the interests of consumers and small business in credit matters and to investigate and report on the provision by financial institutions of consumer and small business credit by community and by industry in order to ensure equity in the distribution of credit resources.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will set up the office of a credit ombudsman to investigate and report on the availability of financial institutions to consumers and small business people throughout the country. The office will act as their representative and advocate to make sure the financial institutions are serving the communities and citizens of this country in the way financial institutions should serve Canada.

I recommend this bill to the House.

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

[Canada Pension Plan Act, April 29th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-395, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (early pension entitlement for police officers and firefighters).

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been requested by police officers and firefighters for quite some time. It would amend the Canada pension plan to provide for early pension entitlement for police officers and firefighters. It would provide for reduced benefits at age 55 and for unreduced benefits at age 60. It addresses the special needs of these two occupations, namely that they are dangerous occupations and at times the lives of these individuals are on the line during the course of their duties.

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

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment that I would like to make which arises out of what my friend from Mississauga South stated. The member made a comment about the seniors benefit.

One of the concerns that I have about the seniors benefit is that I think we are going to end all pretence of universality in this country and that really concerns me as a citizen.

It is very ironic that the Minister of Finance is the son of one of the founders of the national social programs in this country, along with people like Stanley Knowles and other members of the New Democratic Party.

With the seniors benefit, if someone earns a few dollars, they will lose money in terms of their seniors benefit. After they earn a few more dollars, they will lose even more money. After a certain level it will all be gone.

Therefore, people who have saved money for their retirement, who have a middle-class income, all of a sudden will not have a seniors benefit. I am talking about people who were not 60 years of age by the year 1995.

If that happens we will basically have a welfare program and there will be a lack of political support for that program. It will become more and more of a welfare program. There will be a means test and an end to universality.

What a legacy for the Liberal Party of Canada to leave this country. Here is a party which used to pretend in opposition that it was a progressive party which stood up for ordinary citizens. It talked about social programs and the redistribution of wealth in this country.

Here is a party that makes Brian Mulroney look like a raving socialist. It even makes you, Mr. Speaker, look like a raving socialist. I am sure that you would not even advocate, coming from a very progressive Edmonton background, the end of universality for pensions in this country. We have a Liberal Party that is a throwback to the conservativism of the last century. It wants to end universality.

I want to know whether the member for Bras d'Or agrees with me or not.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my friend in the Reform Party. I applaud what he said about the bill being introduced in the Senate. I said similar things a few minutes earlier. We therefore certainly agree on that and I would like to elaborate for a minute or so.

This practice started decades and decades ago. Over the last few years it has escalated, which concerns me. When I was first elected in 1968 it was extremely rare that the government would introduce a bill through the Senate. If that were to happen, the Hon. Stanley Knowles would rise in the House and object to it. The practice now is becoming more and more common, which concerns me as a democrat. I am talking about a democrat in a democratic process.

Would the member across the way think that the Senate should be abolished? Do we need that other place, or do we form an elected Senate? The problem with forming an elected Senate, having gone through a constitutional process, is that it is very difficult to come up with a national agreement that would carry in the country. As long as we hold out a dream of electing it and reforming it we might be stuck with the unelected Senate.

I went through the Charlottetown process, the Meech Lake process, the parliamentary committees of the House where there was all party consensus and so on, and the most difficult issue was always the Senate. Triple E sounds very nice in principle, but the province of Quebec is unique and distinct with 25% of the people. The huge province of Ontario has 38% of the people. There are many small provinces. We are a federation with 65% or 70% of our people in two of the ten provinces. Therefore it makes it very difficult to reach an agreement on an equal Senate. Ontario and Quebec do not agree to it because of their size.

If the provinces agree to an equal Senate as suggested in the Charlottetown accord, the powers of that Senate would be diminished. Then what would be the purpose of the Senate? I get back to how we put a round peg in a square hole and ask whether or not the member has some advice for the House.

My other question is on the substance of the bill. I am concerned that the powers of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions are to be enhanced.

Would the member deal in more detail than he did with the types of powers he thinks will be negative in terms of enhancement and the move away from accountability by the House of Commons of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions?

The issue is becoming more and more an issue of sensitivity as we are looking at the big bank mergers that are coming down. I know this does not affect banks, but it affects people working in private sector companies across the country that are regulated by federal law and jurisdiction such as our major chartered banks.

I know the member is an expert in this area so I would be interested in hearing him go into detail in terms of the powers he is concerned about being enhanced. I certainly agree with him that we are handing too many powers to that official and that office without the scrutiny of Parliament. This whole process should be democratized. Accountability is extremely important in public life and politics.

On the Senate, how do we put that round peg in a square hole? My second question is with regard to the powers of the office of the superintendent of financial institutions.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words in the debate, not for any longer than my colleague in the Bloc Quebecois.

I want to register a very general complaint. Once again we have a bill here that originates in the unelected Senate. In the name of democracy I do not think that is a very wise practice and I do not think it is a practice that would be supported by the overwhelming majority of the Canadian people.

There are many dedicated individuals in the Senate but the fact remains that it is a non-democratic house, a non-democratic legislative body. Over the years going back in the history of the CCF and NDP and more recently joined by the Reform Party, they objected to this kind of practice in the House of Commons where a bill that should originate in the House of Commons originates in the other place, in the Senate of Canada.

The bill before the House today is an administrative bill and a highly technical bill. The main debate on the bill should be done before the committee at the committee stage.

Bill S-3 is an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and also the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. The bill was first introduced under a different name. It was called Bill C-85 in the last parliament and it was introduced in March of 1997. When the writs dropped for the election on April 27, 1997 all legislation at that time ceased to exist as the Parliament of Canada was dissolved.

This bill has been reintroduced and was passed by the Senate on November 20, 1997 and here it is now in the House of Commons.

The bill covers a number of things. First of all, it governs private pension plans set up for employees working in businesses under federal jurisdiction. I think of the interprovincial transportation companies and telecommunication companies. I also think of the Canadian chartered banks and any other institutions under federal jurisdiction.

It does not cover MP pensions or pensions of federal public servants. It covers only private sector pension plans of companies under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Bill S-3 would also introduce to the Pension Benefits Standards Act the same philosophy that governs the changes to legislation governing federal chartered financial institutions in Canada. That of course is of interest now with the talk regarding the merging of big Canadian banks.

The second part of the bill would deal with the office of the superintendent of financial institutions. It would basically enhance the powers of this office to supervise a pension plan in this country.

There are a number of details in the bill in general that can summarize it. It seeks to clarify ground rules for housekeeping and codify the rules of how to handle controversial issue of the treatment of surplus assets on pension plans. It restores a better balance between the employer and those who benefit from the plan. It enhances the ability of the minister to enter into agreements with provinces to apply and enforce provinces' pension legislation. It sets a prudent person approach as long as the definition of a prudent person remains broadly based. That is really the general purpose of the bill, very administrative and very technical.

I want to at this time without going into detail, flag a number of concerns we have in the New Democratic Party of Canada. Regulations can be drafted by order in council that would unnecessarily pass the parliamentary process. In other words, we are handing too much power to the bureaucrats, a few unelected officials, to draft legislation that is never scrutinized by the House of Commons or by the appropriate parliamentary committee. That is a major concern for us. All too often as parliamentarians we cede too much of our power and authority as law makers of the land to bureaucrats who, despite their good intentions, draft regulations that are accountable to no one. Even the minister and her office would be at a loss to explain the regulations. It could change the whole intent of the bill. We have seen that happen many times in the past.

We are concerned about the solvency ratio in the bill. The solvency ratio is much too high. That is something we should get into at the committee stage.

We are concerned about a number of other things. There is the question of a surplus withdrawal. The whole process seems to be very sloppy and incoherent.

Those are some of our concerns. We look forward to pursuing this bill in committee. Unless the parliamentary secretary and the assistant whip can elaborate on the details of the bill, we will pursue this at the committee stage.

[Banking, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just saying “watch us”. I want to know whether or not the minister is really getting what I am getting at.

There will be about 30,000 jobs lost. What does he have against letting the people of this country have their say now? Give the people of this country a platform to speak through an all party parliamentary committee. That is what parliamentarians are elected for. That is what parliamentary democracy is about. Why is he afraid of doing that now? Give the people a chance to speak.

[Banking, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.

As the minister knows, about 30,000 people will lose their jobs if the two mega mergers go ahead. The MacKay task force is not looking specifically at jobs. The Competition Bureau is not looking specifically at jobs. About 30,000 jobs represents the size of a small city. It is no small matter.

I want to ask the minister, in light of that fact, that there is no consideration of job loss, is the minister not now convinced that we should start immediately with an all party parliamentary committee so that people can have their say about job losses in this country?