Lorne Nystrom

[Banks, December 5th, 1997]

What a stupid answer, Mr. Speaker.

[Banks, December 5th, 1997]

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House in response to the bank profits going up by $7.4 billion, the minister in his generosity announced that there would be a calculator on the website so people can shop around for lower bank service charges.

My question for him this morning is very simple. How is this calculator on the website going to help the millions of Canadians who are living in poverty in this country?

[Taxation, December 4th, 1997]

A web page calculator certainly helps those people living in poverty, does it not, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the record bank profits of $7.5 billion, the highest ever in this country, and record student debts of around $25,000 per student, and in spite of a commitment made by this government to tax these banks, it collected only a paltry $85 million in surtax in the last two years, I am sure the prime minister will agree this is peanuts.

What steps is he going to take to raise the surtax to help offset student debts in this country?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not. That is why I said we needed a stronger economy. If the Liberals had kept their basic promises in the red book of jobs, jobs, jobs, building a strong economy, putting Canadians to work, bringing down the unemployment rate and increasing salaries, the rates would not need to be as high as the government is proposing in Bill C-2.

That is a trick in terms of a pay as you go plan, a plan which means that workers of today pay into the fund to pay pensions to the workers of yesterday. That is what the plan is all about.

As long as unemployment is sitting at 9%, 9.5% or 10% year after year after year, fewer people are contributing to the plan and fewer people are contributing a good sum to the plan. That is the main way of getting the rates down.

We also moved an amendment to lift the ceiling of $35,800 that is there today. The reason is twofold. The first reason is that someone making $35,800 a year pays the maximum amount into the plan. A lot of people are making that kind of salary. Senators and MPs make more than that but we subject to that cap. We pay as much into that plan as somebody making $35,800, or someone making $200,000 or $300,000 pays the same amount into the Canada pension plan as someone making $35,800. That is unfair and should be changed. We are flagging that for the next review.

The Minister of Finance agreed that some of these matters would be looked at. I say to the member opposite that we should make this more progressive, along the lines we have been talking about in the debate.

He also talked about democracy. The Canadian Union of Public Employees was not allowed to make a presentation to the committee. It represents 500,000 workers. The Council of Canadians, by the way, circulated a petition and got back over 500,000 petitions which I personally brought to the office of the Minister of Finance. Its was not allowed to make a presentation to the committee. That might have been the largest petition in the history of Canada. There were 11 mail bags full. The member from Calgary was very impressive carrying 4,000 faxes. That was very positive, but 500,000 petitions is extremely progressive. Yet the council was not allowed to make a presentation before the committee.

I go back to the question the member asked about democracy. It is real democracy when committees start hearing from groups that represent Canadians in such large numbers.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

The Reform Party wants the Chilean example, the right wing, neo-conservative, Neanderthal examples, just as they want people to opt out of the Canadian Wheat Board and destroy it. Well, that does not reflect what the people in their constituencies are saying or what the Canadian people want. The Canadian people want a strong, strong public plan, but a more progressive one.

As I said, we do have some problems with the plan. First, we believe that the contributions are going up too quickly and too steeply, 73% over the next six years. The economy of this country is not as strong as it should be. If we had a stronger economy and more people working and higher wages in this country, there would not be the need to raise the premiums so fast. That is why it is so important to concentrate on a job strategy, putting more money into research and development, more money into education and training and putting more people to work and looking at a better wage policy so that people will have a decent wage and a decent standard of living.

If that was the case, the increase in the Canada pension plan would not to be a steep as it is going to be under this bill. There will be a 73% increase in six years. In terms of our pocketbooks, it means that someone who is earning $35,800 a year or more will see an increase of $450 per year in premiums. For the self-employed it will be doubled because they will have to pay both the employee and the employer's premium which for a person in that income range would be a $900 per year increase for a self-employed person making $35,800 a year or more. Those are some of the real problems we have with the plan.

The government has taken a very pessimistic scenario in terms of income growth in the future. It has taken a very pessimistic scenario in terms of unemployment and employment growth in the future. It has based its projections on an actuary report that gives numbers which increase the premiums by 73% over six year. We maintain that we have more optimism in the future of Canada and in the economy. The increase does not have to be that steep or that regressive.

While this is happening the government is cutting back on benefits by about 10%. My main concern is that a cutback in the benefits of about 10% will hit those who can afford it the least, low income people.

A preponderance of those people are women, survivors and people obtaining the death benefit. All those things will be cut back and made more difficult to obtain. That is a real shame.

The NDP governments of B.C. and Saskatchewan are not supporting the initiative of the government as supported by the other provinces because of the cutback to low income people and because disability pensions will be more difficult to obtain and when obtained will be cutback. That is a shame. It is something that does not have to occur if we have a stronger economy and a more progressive way of paying into the Canada pension plan by raising that ceiling of $35,800 per year as a maximum.

These are some of my concerns. We should have a more progressive arrangement in terms of contributions and the reception of benefits from the Canada pension plan. If we do that there would be massive support right across the country.

That is the progressive way. That is what witnesses said before the committee. They did not want to privatize the plan. They did not want to get into super RRSPs. They did not want to go totally into the marketplace. They wanted a more progressive public pension plan. That is the argument we will make as we go into the next review in the year 2000.

There will be a partial privatization of the plan through the eventual accumulation of a fund of over $100 million and a private investment board. This will be pretty good for stock brokers, brokerage houses and banks because the fees for the fund will be about $500 million. That is being greeted with a great deal of glee by them.

We are concerned that the mandate of the pension board is only to maximize returns. It is important to maximize returns but like the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Quebec, the Quebec pension plan, there should also be a balance of maximizing returns, maximizing employment and maximizing income benefits so we have investment in accordance with public policy objectives as well. That is not part of the plan.

We are also concerned that all these changes were made before the government tabled the seniors benefits. It is difficult to consider one pension plan when we do not know when the other shoe will fall or what it will be when it does fall. The seniors benefit will end the universality of old age pensions. It is important to consider that in conjunction with the CPP.

My last comment is on the whole issue of democracy. I agree with the member of the Reform Party who said there were many amendments at committee stage. They were supported by all four opposition parties. Yet the government did not accept any of the amendments.

It is a rather sad commentary on the parliamentary system when the four opposition parties represent 62% of the Canadian people and the government represents 38% of the Canadian people but would not accept even two or three credible opposition amendments supported by all four political parties.

The next review is in the year 2000. We want a more progressive Canada pension plan. We want to maintain a public pension plan that is more progressive, with the talk now about how we make the economy stronger, how we put more people to work, and how we provide more decent wages so people can contribute to the plan and make sure it is a healthy plan.

I wave a flag of warning. We must not privatize the Canada pension plan and get into the scheme of super RRSPs. They would be good for the wealthy and the privileged, the people the Reform Party speaks for. It is no wonder that party speaks for them. Its tax critic said in the House a while ago that Conrad Black and millionaires were paying too much in taxes.

That is not the way to go. The way to go is to have a public plan that is strong and healthy.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to split my time with the illustrious member for Palliser.

This morning we have the third reading on the debate on the Canada pension plan. This is a chance to wind up, to sum up what has been happening in the last while.

The Canada pension plan is a plan that we as a party have supported since its inception in 1966. We believe it was a great piece of social legislation that has had a profound impact on reducing the poverty of seniors in this country. Any way that you look at the statistics from 1966 to 1995, you will notice that the number of seniors living in poverty has dropped rather radically. That is the only segment where the poverty statistics have changed in the last 30 years to any significant degree.

If we look at child poverty, for example, there has not been an improvement. Conditions on Indian reserves have shown no improvement and in the inner cities there are the same problems. However, there has been a vast improvement in the living conditions and the incidence of poverty among seniors in this country. That is why we are so concerned about protecting and enhancing the Canada pension plan in future years.

It is a pay as you go scheme. In other words, people who are working today contribute to the fund so that people who are retired can draw a pension in recognition of the work they did in the past and the contributions they made. I believe this is a good plan, a good way to go.

I believe in this country and in the people of this country and I believe that we could have the strongest economy of any country in the world. If that was the case we could have a very strong and healthy Canada pension plan which would be funded for years and generations to come. When I look at this and the economy of this country, I am optimistic that we can and will do better.

My concern and the concern of our party about the changes to the Canada pension plan is that it has become more regressive. It should be more progressive and based more on the ability of people to pay and receive benefits in accordance with their needs. However, with these amendments it has been made more regressive. I will get to that in a minute or two.

In summarizing the debate of the last couple of months, the second concern I have is the position of the Reform Party. It wants to abolish the Canada pension plan, get rid of this plan, tear it apart, privatize it and bring in super RRSPs. But members of the Reform Party cannot answer the fundamental questions of how that could be done and what we would do with a $600 billion unfunded liability.

That is going to be a very important issue as they try to push this right wing, neo-conservative agenda of theirs to privatize, abolish, get rid of the Canada pension plan and set up a private scheme which would be good for the wealthy, the bankers and their friends who have money. That is a big issue, one we are going to face when this thing is reviewed again in the year 2000.

The Reform members are talking about tax grabs and all the negative things about the Canada pension plan. That does not reflect what the Canadian people want. They want a strong, public plan like the Canada pension plan, but a more progressive plan.

[The Late Jack Pickersgill, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I would like to say a few words in tribute to Jack Pickersgill who passed away recently.

As was mentioned before in the House, he was a very unique individual. Born in Ontario, raised in rural Manitoba and member of Parliament from the great province of Newfoundland. He was a very versatile person, a scholar, a public servant, a Prime Ministerial aid, an author, a cabinet minister and a very effective opposition parliamentarian.

He did not seek re-election in 1968 when I first came to the House, so I did not have any personal experience at seeing him perform in the House of Commons. However, when I arrived here I heard many stories about the effectiveness of Jack Pickersgill.

I suppose he was in the category of many of those extremely interesting parliamentarians of the 1950s and 1960s. I think of John Diefenbaker, Paul Martin, Senior, Tommy Douglas, Real Caouette and Jack Pickersgill, all very effective parliamentarians, the like of which we do not see often today in the House of Commons. They were members of the pre-television age in this place.

He was very effective in bringing Newfoundland into Confederation and became a very close friend of the first premier of that province, Joey Smallwood. He was an effective and passionate cabinet minister and perhaps his reputation is best known as an opposition parliamentarian when the Liberal Party was defeated in 1958 and 1963. He was a member of the so-called four horsemen, or the original rat pack in the House of Commons, and I understand that he often sparred with Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.

It is with a great deal of respect that I offer my condolences today on behalf of the New Democratic Party to his widow, Margaret, and his family. He made a tremendous contribution to Canada and the House of Commons. As did Stanley Knowles, Jack Pickersgill really loved this place and all that was best about it. With that, I want to extend our condolences.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 1st, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before royal assent I was discussing Motion No. 16. I suggested that it is a very important motion because it restores the benefits to their current levels. Many people will experience a cutback to their benefits under the legislation. It will make accessibility to benefits more difficult. It is a step in the wrong direction.

Motion No. 17 has been moved by the NDP under my name. It would restore the old formula for the calculation of disability benefits under the CPP.

Unfortunately the Liberals across the way in their new conservative style have decided to make it more difficult for disabled people to collect benefits under the Canada pension plan. They are hanging their heads in shame.

Disabled people are finding it more difficult to get benefits. This is happening at a time when we are experiencing economic recovery in the country. The so-called Liberal government is taking it out on the disabled.

I would be willing to sit down if the Liberals would get up to explain why there is an attack on the disabled. I am puzzled as to why the party of Paul Martin Senior and the party of Lester Pearson would do that kind of thing. It is amazing. They are going after those who are most vulnerable in society. They are making accessibility to disability benefits more difficult.

I plead with the government to accept this reasonable amendment to return to the formula that currently exists in the Canada pension plan for the disabled to receive benefits.

Motion No. 18 is also very interesting. It is a departure from the current Canada pension plan. Currently there is a maximum of $35,800. Above that maximum people do not make any further contributions on their earnings. What actually happens is that the person who is making $35,800 pays as much into CPP as a senator, a member of Parliament, the Minister of Finance or Conrad Black, who is a friend of the Minister of Finance.

I ask again if that is fair. I ask the hon. member for Abitibi if that is fair. That member is a free spirit. He should be rising in the House and saying that it is not fair.

My motion would make it more progressive. It would ensure that people who make more money would make contributions on the money they make above $35,800 a year. Some might say this is a radical idea that could not be sustained.

The upper limit for contributions to the United States pension plan is $85,900 Canadian a year. That is over two and a half times higher than what it is in this country.

Let us make it more progressive when it comes to people who are making $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 or $150,000. As members of Parliament we should be paying a bit more of our income into the Canada pension plan to make it more progressive. It would be more progressive than the contribution rate for low income people. It would be lower. It would not be 9.9% but much lower than that.

Turning to Motion No. 19, there is a cutback in benefits to women. They want to restore the formula so that low income people receive the same kinds of benefits they are getting today.

I am not asking for too much. The economy is starting to turn around. Why penalize women? Why penalize the disabled? Why cut back on survivors benefits? The death benefit is being cut back from about $3,500 to $2,500. Again many widows are receiving that benefit. Once again it is an attack on women.

My Motion No. 22 is self-explanatory. In a nutshell those are the motions I moved. There is also one Reform motion in this grouping.

This group of amendments would restore progressivity to the Canada pension plan. I would like to see one or two progressive Liberals, one or two so-called left wing Liberals or pink Liberals, getting up in the House of Commons to offer a bit of support to a couple of these amendments.

The member for Abitibi may do that. He used to be a Conservative MP. Now he is a Liberal MP. Why does he not continue that move toward the left by getting up and supporting some of these progressive amendments. It would be good for his constituents and good for Canada.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with nine different motions, most of them in my name and one from the Conservative Party. I only have 10 minutes, so I just briefly want to touch on the motions in my name on behalf of our party.

Motion No. 11 relates to the new investment fund that is being established by the legislation. The amendment is to put other objectives into the fund in terms of where it is to be invested. Right now the only objective is to maximize the return for the contributor. That is a very laudable objective. In addition, we believe there should be some other objectives, such as investing in the Canadian economy, in industries and sectors that would create more jobs for Canada.

The model would be la Caisse de dépôt et placement.

The objectives of the Caisse de dépôt in Quebec were quite adequate for a long time; they supported job creation and economic growth. The Quebec economy grew stronger and stronger thanks to the Caisse de dépôt.

We must have similar principles and goals for the Canada pension plan.

Motion No. 11 would create some of the goals and objectives.

Motion No. 13, is extremely important to members of the NDP. This is the one that would reindex the year's basic exemption. In the Canada pension plan there is a basic exemption of $3,500 which has been indexed over the years. That indexation is now going to be eliminated.

When the Canada pension plan was formed back in 1966 the basic exemption was approximately $400. People making less than $400 would not contribute to the Canada pension plan. The government of the day and the Parliament of the day in their wisdom decided to index that $400. Now it has gone up from $400, to $500 to $1,000, to $2,500 and now up to $3,500. Low income people are not making contributions to the CPP on anything they earn up to $3,500.

Now, the government, despite the advice of a lot of people in the country, has decided to deindex that basic exemption so low income people will be paying more and more into the Canada pension plan. That is why we have put forward these amendments and that is why the changes are regressive.

Across the way there are Liberals who are ashamed of this change. I am sure that if you could speak out, Mr. Speaker, you would be ashamed that low income people in Kingston are paying more and more into the Canada pension plan. Now, that is not the tradition of Lester Pearson and Paul Martin, Sr. and the progressive Liberals of the 1960s that brought in a Canada pension plan that was progressive. That is gone.

That is why these amendments are not supported by the governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan which have the good fortune to have NDP governments which are very enlightened and very progressive.

Motion No. 15 is of great interest to my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. He spoke very eloquently on the previous motion which is very similar to this one. This deals with the problem of the self-employed who are going to be hit very hard by the changes to the CPP. The premiums are going up from 5.85% over six years to 9.9%. The self-employed person will have to pay both the employer and the employee contribution of 9.9%. That is going to be very difficult for self-employed people who are on the lower income scale.

For a wealthy accountant from the Toronto or Mississauga area who is making $200,000 or $300,00 a year as a self-employed person, it does not really matter. However, it is very difficult for the small businesswoman who is struggling along at $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a year, to pay 10% of her income into the CPP.

My motion will make this contribution progressive as well. The lower income people who are self-employed will pay proportionally less and a wealthy lawyer or accountant from Mississauga will pay proportionally more. Who could oppose that outside of the wealthy who come from Mississauga? And he is a Liberal.

I am sure in the days of the old progressive Liberals like Paul Martin, Sr. or Pickersgill or Pearson, they would never have dreamed of doing this to the self-employed people. I am sure they would not. That is another motion I present to the House today.

My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre is extremely interested in Motion No. 16 which would restore the benefits to where they were since there will now be a reduction in benefits. This reduction will affect women the most, especially low income women. That is very regressive. And—