Norman E. Doyle

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first I will address the first part of the hon. member's comments.

It is important that the board of the CPP be viewed as an independent board. We have seen it so often in the past where these order in council appointments are really only rubber stamps and that we do not always get the very best people. Even though in this particular case some of the recommendations for these members of the board come from committees. However these committees are often only rubber stamps of government as well.

We have to ensure that the Canada pension plan remains viable. As I said a moment ago, I think the government is moving in the right direction. The markets right now are very volatile. Hopefully the board and the actuaries will keep a very close watch on what is happening and ensure that Canadians have a good retirement plan for the future.

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-3, the Canada Pension Plan. As we said when we spoke on this bill before, there is nothing major in the bill that would necessitate voting against it so we will be supporting the bill.

The bill would consolidate management of all CPP investments under the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. It would no longer require the CPP to hold cash reserves equal to three months of benefits. The bill would also make various technical amendments as well.

The Canada pension plan is a very important cornerstone of the future retirement savings plan of most or all of Canadians. Certainly it is one plan that is broadly supported by a wide range of Canadians. Canadians support the notion of a secure government pension plan but also of course it maximizes their retirement income.

Generally, Canada's system of retirement saving has three main pillars. The first is the universal old age security and the low income supplement. Second, there are the earnings based Canada and Quebec pension plans as well. Third, there are private retirement savings and pension plans.

The Diefenbaker government initiated the work leading up to the 1966 introduction of the CPP. Progressive Conservatives have traditionally viewed the CPP as a fundamental part of Canada's social safety net, an obligation that government must meet and government has to honour. More than 2.8 million Canadians outside Quebec receive retirement benefits of up to $9,345 a year, depending upon how long they contributed and their employment earnings. Special benefits are also provided for people with disabilities, widows, widowers and orphans. The Quebec pension plan is not a lot different.

For three decades the CPP was a “pay-as-you-go” plan. Premiums only provided a fund equal to two years of benefit. By 1997, there was only $40 billion in that fund, while the cost of promised future benefits totalled $600 billion. Without changes to the overall plan, premiums would rise to 14.2% of pensionable earnings by the year 2030.

In 1997 Ottawa and the provinces agreed to two major changes to the CPP. The first was to increase premiums more rapidly than had been previously planned but to cap them at 9.9% in 2003, which would be $4.95 for employees and $4.95 for employers. This equalled an $11 billion increase in the annual premium revenues. The plan right now is sustainable over the long run at next year's rate. All Canadians will receive the benefits that they have been promised and that is a very good thing.

Second, changes were made to the way benefits were calculated reducing slightly the pensions of new beneficiaries, reducing the death benefit and making it harder to get disability benefits.

Third, new funds flowing into CPP funds would be invested in the marketplace and managed by an arm's length agency, which is the CPP Investment Board. Previously funds not immediately needed to pay for benefits were loaned to the provinces at the rate paid by the federal government on its long term bonds.

By 2010, CPP assets will equal $142 billion. By 2050, they will approach $1.6 trillion. Therefore, by the turn of the decade, the CPP will be by far the largest investment vehicle in all of Canada.

The CPP actuary says that the changes in the bill would increase returns on CPP assets by $75 billion over 50 years. That reflects both the higher returns of a more diversified portfolio and a reduction on the amount of money that earns lower returns as part of the cash reserve. This movement of the Canada pension plan beneficiary pool toward capital markets is one that in the long term should benefit all Canadians and improve their retirement incomes.

Notwithstanding what has happened in the last year or two in the capital markets, by and large managers recorded that the return last year on the Canada pension plan compared to most mutual funds and investment portfolios was fairly good.

The CPP Investment Board's governance model is built on two fundamental principles. First, the investment professionals must be able to make their decisions without political interference, which is a good thing. Second, there must be full accountability and reporting to Parliament, to the provinces and to the people of Canada.

The legislation seems to be carefully crafted to effect accountability while ensuring independence. Whether it actually plays out that way remains to be seen. Time will tell. However it is a start in the right direction. For example, the legislation would require the board to have a sufficient number of directors with proven financial ability or relevant work experience. Why the standard would be anything lower really is not an issue. In fact that should be the minimum prerequisite.

How the directors are appointed is a departure from the traditional practice for crown corporations. The committee appointed by federal and provincial finance ministers would nominate candidates and the federal minister would select candidates from the nominating lists of the committee in consultation with the provinces. At the end of the day the appointments would still come by way of a final recommendation from the Minister of Finance, only to be rubber stamped by an order in council. That may or may not produce the very best people, but let us hope it does.

The proposed bill is a very good step in the right direction. As a result, future boards will consist of professionals with accounting, actuarial, economic and investment credentials. They will be experienced in the private and public sectors and will bring to the board informed opinions on public and private sector governance.

There are other proposed legislative measures to ensure transparency and accountability. The board will also appoint external and internal auditors who will report directly to the audit committee of the board.

Despite these powers, government can check on what is being done with the public's money. Indeed the federal finance minister will be required to authorize a special examination of the CPP Investment Board books, records, systems and practices every six years. Perhaps there might have been some utility in the suggestion of performing examinations more frequently.

Our political and public accountability is especially important at a time when some Canadians may be worried about equity markets. The Canada pension plan has to be invested for the long term. Good portfolio management expertise will prevail with the right quality of people at the management level. That one reason why it is so important that the board of the Canada pension plan be chosen very carefully.

We have had and continue to have significant concerns about the way in which the government makes order in council appointments. The correlation between Liberal Party contributions and the appearance in the board's order in council appointments is somewhat unsettling. The degree to which this level of partisanship can threaten the potential quality of the board is a very important consideration. When we are talking about the future retirement incomes of Canadians it is absolutely essential that the individuals on these boards be beyond reproach and that they be chosen by absolutely no partisan influence.

Furthermore, the government has to take a look at other ways to address Canadian retirement planning right now. We are just a few years away from seeing a significant reduction in the number of Canadians who are actually working and paying taxes, along with a significant increase in the number of people who will be drawing pensions.

Therefore the government should heed the finance committee's report and the PC's dissenting report both calling for the increase of RRSP contribution limits. Of course, we have seen that over the last few days. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. It is one way in which we can defer taxes to the future as people withdraw from the these RRSPs.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports the bill but we want to make sure that the elderly in Canada do not suffer due to rigid policies and misguided principles or bureaucratic holdups. As I said a moment ago, the bill is a step in the right direction.

[Petitions, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 250 people from St. John's East who wish to call to the attention of the House the degrading nature of pornography to individuals and society as a whole. They call upon the House of Commons to bring in legislation with a view to curbing the production and distribution of pornographic material.

[Petitions, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in the St. John's area who are making the point that non-embryonic stem cells, known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress and do not have the immune rejection problems or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells. They are calling upon Parliament to focus support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Public Service Modernization Act, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-25, the public service modernization act.

The bill is a good first attempt at overhauling the way the public service functions. By the government's own admission over the past few decades the public service has remained structurally and functionally a top down organization. It is somewhat stiff in its functioning, a lumbering giant that often requires a department to go through a maze of several months of paperwork and meetings in order to hire an ordinary file clerk.

Bill C-25 provides for more flexibility in staffing and in managing people. Managers, within certain limits, will have more power over hiring and who they hire, just like out in the real world. Applicants who feel they have been shortchanged in the staffing process will be given access to redress under the public service staffing tribunal.

The bill also stresses the need for a cooperative approach to labour-management relations. The intent is to make employees part and parcel of the process of running the workplace. Nobody really knows how to do a job like those who do it every day. If the intent of the bill holds true, we should have happier federal workplaces.

The bill provides for the overhaul and consolidation of the staff training and development process of the federal public service. It more clearly delineates the role of key players in the human resources area, in Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and the various deputy ministers and their equivalents.

Many of the changes are long overdue improvements to the nation's public service. If carried out properly they could lead to a much happier, less strike prone and more productive public service.

Over the past 20 years the nature of work has changed. Knowledge simply flows in the computer age. We all know more and we all seem to do more. Whoever said computers would make life easier? Computers are fast and because of their importance in our lives, the pace of life has actually speeded up; it has become more efficient maybe, but it has definitely speeded up. The public service has not kept pace with the absolutely frantic pace of the private sector in the modern world.

Many public servants today are about to retire. They are baby boomers. We are told that 7,000 new people are needed every year just to keep pace with the retirements. A hiring process that lumbers on for months often sees the best and brightest applicants scooped up by the private sector. When we add to that a looming shortage of skilled workers in all sectors as the baby boomers move on, the public service will be very hard pressed to come up with the good workers it will need. If there is a criticism of the government, it is that it has taken this long to act on the reality of the looming skills shortage in all sectors of the economy.

As for the bill, it appears to be very thorough and detailed indeed. The devil is in the details as they say. I am sure that as we speak, lawyers and labour leaders are combing through the fine print. If there are major problems, I am sure we will be hearing from the various stakeholders in the system. No doubt there will be a more detailed analysis of the bill done in committee.

It is important that managers have a greater say in the hiring process. After all, the people being hired are people they will have to work with every single day. As an employee and an employer, I have always seen the wisdom in having a harmonious productive workplace.

I recently read an article, and I am sure I was not the only one as it was quite a public article, that referred to a study on the issue of who did the best hiring, the manager or the technocrat from the human resources section. The study found that while both entities could assess applicants on their level of technical competence, the manager did a much better job of picking an employee who also fit into the organization. Simply put, I guess personality does count and it counts a great deal.

This extra power on the part of managers has to be matched with a strong grievance procedure. Managers have to be required to account for their decisions on hiring. Hiring people because of political pressure is forbidden. Hiring friends who do not meet the basic qualifications is not allowed. The government, as we are all aware, has taken care of a lot of its political friends, so let us not allow the system to get into bureaucratic patronage as well. If such people do apply and do win a post, there must be a process for redress. Part 5 outlines the process. Again, on this front, the devil is in the details and in the importance the government actually places on real reform. No doubt it will be given full scrutiny in committee.

One aspect of the bill I want to make particular reference to, and I am pleased the minister is here today, is section 34 of part 2 regarding appointments. It says that the Public Service Commission may determine an area of selection by establishing geographic, organizational or occupational criteria. This is a part of the bill that can accommodate affirmative action hiring, I am aware of that.

I am sure the minister is aware of the efforts made by my colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, with respect to that particular provision. He questioned the Minister of Transport on it yesterday in the House. The minister expressly made the comment that these provisions do not exist. If they do not exist, what are they actually doing in the new bill in section 34, part 2?

I am sure the minister is aware as well that until recently, in Atlantic Canada especially, we were faced with federal job advertisements requiring applicants to be from certain geographic areas. In Newfoundland, for example, a job opening in St. John's might be restricted to applicants from the Avalon peninsula. People who lived in Gander or Labrador City could not apply. Also, many jobs in central Canada were offered only to applicants from restricted geographic areas.

There are two sides to the issue. Some people have said to me in my own constituency that we have so few federal job openings, how would they ever compete if 30 million other Canadians were free to apply? That was one side of the issue. The other side is that there are so many more job openings in central Canada and other places that they wish they could apply. There are two sides to the issue. I happen to be of the opinion that all the jobs should be wide open to people from all over Canada. Whether they come from Newfoundland or some other part of Atlantic Canada, or British Columbia, they should be free to apply.

I certainly hope the minister will make reference to section 34, part 2 when she speaks. On page 125 of the bill it is stated:

For purposes of eligibility in any appointment process, other than an incumbent-based process, the Commission may determine an area of selection by establishing geographic, organizational or occupational criteria or by establishing, as a criterion, belonging to any of the designated groups--

Unless I am interpreting it incorrectly, and that is entirely possible, the very problem the member for Cumberland—Colchester was talking about yesterday is still in the bill even though the Minister of Transport indicated when he answered the question in the House yesterday that it was not in the bill. I certainly hope the minister will address that particular issue because it seems to me to be discriminatory in a way, especially as it pertains to areas that do not have a lot of jobs.

At the time of course I favoured the view of my colleague, and I still favour that view, that in opening up the competition, everyone would be able to apply, and that is the fairest way to do it.

The intent of the bill is commendable. I recommend that it be sent to committee for detailed study and analysis. Hopefully we will correct some of these shortcomings in the bill when it gets to that point.

[Petitions, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several thousand people across Canada. The petitioners say that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that the exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Justice, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is aware of the Patrick Kelly case. A tremendous body of evidence has been presented to the minister, evidence that indicates Mr. Kelly was wrongfully convicted of first degree murder.

He has been incarcerated now for almost 20 years. The request to have the case referred to the Supreme Court of Canada was supported by Project Innocence of the Osgoode Law School and by the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted.

The minister has had the request for two years. When will the minister refer the case to the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Transfer Payments, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, according to Premier Grimes, Newfoundland and Labrador will receive only about $200 million of the $13.5 billion being transferred to the provinces over the next three years for health care. Because the transfers are shared on a per capita basis, our province always receives a relatively small amount. That problem is compounded by an aging and shrinking population spread over a huge piece of geography.

The Prime Minister has admitted that the per capita funding system does not provide adequate funding for Canada's three large but sparsely populated northern territories. Therefore, there should also be an equalization factor built into our share of federal health care transfers, a factor that takes into account the realities of our geography and demography. Otherwise a small province such as Newfoundland and Labrador will always be playing catchup to the rest of the nation.

[Antipoverty Act, February 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have a few words to say on the bill. As well, I want to congratulate the hon. member who initiated the bill. It is a very good bill and one which we can support.

Let me say at the outset that I would support very strongly adding the phrase “social condition” to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination.

It is difficult to believe that or understand why the government is not supporting the bill. Given the facts that there are problems associated with poverty, that poverty is rampant in this country and that the government has contributed more to the problems of low income people in the country than it has created solutions, it is difficult to understand why the government would not be supporting the bill.

The hon. member says that the government has broken the cycle of poverty. My initial reaction would be to say, how dare he say that the government has broken the cycle of poverty given the fact that people are lining up at food banks in ever increasing numbers across the country. Either the member is living in a fool's paradise or he is engaging in wishful thinking. Either way, it is a dangerous attitude that he is displaying.

The bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding “social condition” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. It would make refusal by a financial institution to provide banking services to an individual by reason of the individual's low income a discriminatory practice. That sounds very reasonable to me and it is something that we could support.

The bill also would require the Canadian Human Rights Commission to review any bill introduced or presented in the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown to ascertain whether any of the provisions are likely to result in a discriminatory practice prohibited under the act.

It would also require the Canadian Human Rights Commission to submit an annual report to the Minister of Justice on poverty in Canada and on the amounts that should be expended annually to end poverty. This can only be a very good thing that we review every single year the amounts of money that are expended on trying to end poverty in the country.

The thrust of the bill is one of equality. It seeks to achieve equality for those less fortunate through the addition of the phrase “social condition” in section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Specifically, the aim of the bill is to stop the discriminatory practice of financial institutions which refuse to offer banking services to individuals with low incomes.

It is hard to believe that this could actually be occurring in this day and age. This is 21st century banking. The poor and the low income again are being done a very grave injustice, and this time by our banking institutions, our financial institutions.

Clause 3 amends section 10 of the act by adding proposed subsection 10.1(1), which reads:

It is a discriminatory practice for a financial institution offering a banking service to refuse to provide the banking service to an individual by reason only of the individual's low income.

Statistics have shown there is an ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and the idea that someone would face discrimination based on wealth is abhorrent. The larger issue surrounding the bill has to do with poverty and questions about how government can work collectively to alleviate that kind of disparity.

Accountability is also central to the bill. Clause 4 amends section 61 by adding a stipulation in proposed section 61.01 that the commission be required to review any bills introduced to ascertain whether or not any of the provisions would be likely to result in a discriminatory practice. That would be a step in the right direction as well. It is something that we could support.

The review in terms of discrimination is very important. I would suggest that all bills which come here be examined in that vein. As the primary legislators in the country, it behooves us all to take seriously bills which affect Canadian individuals. The toughest of scrutiny must always be exercised when examining bills that affect people. The far-reaching impact of government cannot be underestimated. The amendment also makes mandatory the requirement that the minister issue a report on the findings of the commission and that a copy of the report be tabled “before each House of Parliament on any of the first two days in which the House is sitting after the Minister receives the report”.

With all of the inherent problems that this administration has had in terms of accountability, this is an amendment that possibly could be put in all legislation coming from the government side. We need only look at the Liberal legacy, with billions lost in HRDC, dramatic cuts to health care, an underfunded military and hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on a long gun registry that does not save lives. It is always necessary to be vigilant when government is introducing bills.

The bill also calls on the commission to prepare a yearly report detailing the status of poverty in Canada. The report would be submitted to the minister along with an estimated amount of money that should be expended annually to end poverty.

As the NDP member who spoke before me indicated, the House made a unanimous decision many years ago to end poverty. Back in 1990, I think it was said that child poverty would be ended by the year 2000. We see what has happened in these intervening years, when child poverty has increased and is on the rise and housing programs have been downgraded.

I was a part of a committee that went across the country, all the way from Newfoundland to British Columbia, hearing briefs on child poverty. Some of these briefs that were presented to us left one absolutely amazed at how people can get along on such a very small income or with such a small amount of money. It is no wonder that we have people using food banks across the country in ever increasing numbers. The hon. members opposite have the nerve to say that they have broken the cycle of poverty while on a daily basis children are going to school hungry.

It would indeed be a good idea to see a report given to the House each year on the estimated amount of money that should be expended annually to end poverty in the country.

I have no problem with the majority of this legislation. In fact, I believe we should be doing more.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition from several thousand people across Ontario. They are making the point that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that the exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment. They are calling upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.