Norman E. Doyle

[Canada Pension Plan, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, the government of that day did have a very close look at fixing the plan and made some recommendations to the parliamentary committee on finance to have a look at it.

However, it was not fixed but hopefully the Liberal government was able to look the recommendations that we made at the time and was able come to the conclusion that something needed to be done.

We all support a good, sound Canada pension plan. It is very important that Canadians have that. Under the current numbers, contributions to the plan will exceed benefits by 2021. I give the former Minister of Finance and the government full marks for doing a good job on fixing the plan. By 2010 the CPP assets will equal $142 billion and by 2050 they will approach $1.6 trillion.

We all have to be very vigilant to make sure the plan remains very sound because we do have an aging population who will be looking for the benefits under this plan by even greater numbers in the future.

However, as I said a moment ago, we have always been concerned. No matter what political party has been in power, we have always been very concerned about making sure that the CPP remains sound and viable for seniors and those of us who will be drawing from it in the future.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words to on Bill C-3, the Canada pension plan. At the outset, there is really nothing major in the bill that would necessitate our opposing it. Progressive Conservatives will be supporting the bill. I am delivering these remarks today on behalf of my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, who is unable to be here. He is on Her Majesty's business elsewhere.

The purpose of the bill is to consolidate management of all CPP investments under the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. It will no longer require the CPP to hold a cash reserve equal to three months of benefits and the bill will also make various technical amendments. As I said at the beginning, I do not believe that there is anything major in the bill that would prevent us from voting for it.

The Canada pension plan is an important cornerstone of the future retirement savings plans of most or all Canadians and certainly is one that is supported broadly by a range of Canadians. Canadians support not only the notion of a secure government pension plan but also one that maximizes their retirement income.

Generally, Canada's system of retirement savings has three main pillars. The first is universal old age security and the low income supplement. Second are the earnings based Canada and Quebec pension plans. Third are the 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 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 persons with disabilities, widows, widowers and orphans. The Quebec pension plan is quite similar in that regard.

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 were only $40 billion in the fund, while the cost of promised future benefits totalled $600 billion. Without changes, premiums would rise to 14.2% of pensionable earnings by 2030.

In 1997 Ottawa and the provinces agreed to two major changes to the CPP. The first was to increase premiums more rapidly than previously planned, but they were kept at 9.9% in 2003, which was the equivalent of $4.95 for employees and $4.95 for employers. That equalled an $11 billion increase in annual premium revenues. The plan is sustainable over the long run at next year's rate and all Canadians will receive the benefits they have been promised. That of course 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 much harder to get disability benefits.

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

Under current numbers, contributions to the plan will exceed benefits until 2021. At that point some investment income will be used for some CPP benefits. By 2010, CPP assets will equal $142 billion. By 2050, they will approach $1.6 trillion. Therefore, by the turn of this decade the CPP will be by far the largest investment vehicle in Canada.

The CPP actuary says that the changes in the bill will increase returns on CPP assets by $75 billion over 50 years. This reflects both the higher returns of a more diversified portfolio and a reduction in 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 market is one that will in the long term benefit Canadians and improve their retirement incomes. Notwithstanding what has happened in the last year or two in the capital markets, by and large the return last year on the Canada pension plan, compared to most mutual funds and investment portfolios in the last year, was actually fairly good.

Relatively good changes in accountability structures are made to the board's governance provisions with this bill. 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. That could only be a good thing. Second, there must be full accountability and reporting to Parliament, the provinces and the people of Canada. That could only be a good thing as well.

The legislation seems to be carefully crafted to effect accountability while ensuring a certain level of independence. Whether it actually plays out that way will be seen as years go by. Time will tell. However, it is a very good start in the right direction.

For example, the legislation requires 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. A committee appointed by federal and provincial finance ministers nominates candidates and the federal minister selects candidates from the committee's nomination list, in consultation with the provinces. However, at the end of the day the appointments will come by way of a final recommendation from the finance minister, only to be rubber stamped by an order in council. That may or may not produce the very best people. Let us hope it does.

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

There are other 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 is required to authorize a special examination of the CPP investment board's books, records, systems and practices every six years. Perhaps there might have been some utility in the suggestion of performing examinations much more frequently.

Our political and public accountability is especially important at a time when some Canadians might be worrying 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 is one of the reasons why it is so important that the board of the Canada pension plan be chosen very carefully. They are doing very important work.

We have had and continue to have significant concerns about the way the government makes orders in council appointments. The correlation between Liberal Party contributions and an appearance in the board's order in council appointments is somewhat unsettling to say the least.

The degree to which this level of partisanship can threaten the potential quality of a board is very important.

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 influences. I hope the two latest appointments, Germain Gibara and Ronald Smith, do their jobs exceptionally well as Canadians expect them to do. Hopefully there is no reason to believe that they will not do a very good job.

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 Progressive Conservative's dissenting report, both calling for an increase in the RRSP contribution limit. That is one way in which we can defer taxes to the future as people withdraw from these RRSPs. Also, the increase in RRSP contribution limits would give Canadians an opportunity to shelter more income today than they would otherwise be able to do.

While Bill C-3 does address some much needed governance, housekeeping, administrative and technical issues, the bill does not turn its attention to any substantive change in pension policy that would actually help alleviate some of the financial pressures currently being experienced by many of our elderly, one of our most vulnerable groups in society.

In addition to addressing the structure of the CPP, the government might have done well to address some policy questions concerning seniors and how their GSI, guaranteed income supplement income, private savings and CPP are currently being administered under the all the present federal schemes. I know our party would want to make sure that the elderly in Canada do not suffer due to rigid policies and misguided principles or bureaucratic holdups.

Speaking of the guaranteed income supplement, it was just today that I had a call from a senior in the St. John's area who was appalled at a story coming out of Quebec about a senior who did not know that in order to actually receive the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, that one actually had to apply for it. I think it was in today's Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen . In other words, it is not automatically sent unless one applies.

When a senior finally does apply, the mother of all injustices kicks in. If the person qualified, say three or four years ago, Ottawa will only retroactively pay for one year, even though the person might have qualified for the benefit three or four years ago but did not know about it and therefore did not apply.

A parliamentary committee has discovered that about 380,000 people are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement but that they do not receive it because they did not apply for it. That is heart-rendering. The most needy in our society would certainly have to be people who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement but 380,000 of them did not apply for it, saving the Government of Canada $3 billion.

As I said, once they apply, the mother of all injustice kicks in, in that Ottawa will only pay them retroactively for one year even though they might have qualified for the supplement three or four years ago.

These are very important points. We support Bill C-3. Hopefully the government will pay a little bit of attention to the last issue I raised about the guaranteed income supplement because seniors are the most vulnerable in our society and they need a co-operative federal government, a government that will look at the policy and say that it needs to be adjusted and changed because it is costing the seniors of our society dearly.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 31st, 2003]

They doubled his bonus.

[Petitions, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from about 300 people in the St. John's area in my riding.

The petitioners make the point that it is the duty of Parliament, through the enactment and enforcement of the Criminal Code, to protect the most vulnerable members of society from sexual abuse.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to take all necessary measures to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a very serious criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing the law for the protection of children.

[Firearms Registry, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's gun registry has cost more than $1 billion so far. Many Canadians feel this money has been simply wasted. As $1 billion is a lot of money, let us look at it in context.

In Newfoundland and Labrador approximately 190,000 households pay an average of $8,400 a year in income tax. That means that the $1 billion wasted so far on the gun registry is enough to completely eliminate the yearly income tax burden from 125,000 average households. Put another way, the government has taken the yearly income tax payments from 125,000 families and completely wasted the money.

Given the choice of a gun registry or 125,000 tax-free families, I have no doubt what my constituents would choose.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few words on Motion No. 197. I congratulate the member for Churchill on bringing in a very good motion.

We always need to be concerned about the needs of workers, especially injured workers. We all know of many people in our own respective areas, in our ridings, who come to see us from time to time, who have many problems associated with being injured and with CPP and so on.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include worker's compensation payments.

On the surface it seems to be a very reasonable proposition in my view. If an employee is injured on the job, the employee leaves work hopefully for a temporary period of time to effect recovery and if need be, rehabilitation. During that period the worker receives workers' compensation benefits to offset wages lost which may be due to downtime, injury, illness, and so on.

The details of a given workers' compensation program varies as we are all very much aware. As the member pointed out in her speech it varies from province to province.

In Newfoundland and Labrador for example, an injured worker receives 80% of the net income before the injury. That is subject to a ceiling of about $45,500. The net income is the employee's gross income also, which is quite good. It is the gross income less the usual deductions, including the employee's CPP contributions.

I can see the logic of an employee wanting to maintain his or her CPP status. It makes sense. Hopefully after a period on workers' compensation, the worker returns to work and is then automatically faced with a gap in pensionable earnings for the time that the worker was off work.

The net effect of that is to lower the value of the Canada pension when the time comes for the person to draw Canada pension. Being able to submit CPP premiums while on workers' compensation would quite naturally help maintain the value of the Canada pension that the worker would eventually draw.

It is very important that an individual have a maximum Canada pension. A lot of workers in the workforce today, for example construction workers, do not have very good pension plans. They depend to a large extent after retirement upon savings and the maximum Canada pension. It makes sense to have a good Canada pension plan available for the worker when he or she eventually retires and draws it.

Employees of members of Parliament pay into the federal public service pension plan which may be appropriate to their status or rank. If a member's employee has a long term injury or illness, the employee can avail himself or herself of a long term disability plan which is wonderful. Upon returning to work the employee is allowed to make pension contributions retroactively. I did not know that until recently. It is to keep an unbroken record of pensionable service.

For example, an employee with 28 years of service and two years on long term disability would eventually be able to draw a Canada pension for 30 years of service. The employee would be able to pay for the two years that the employee was off work.

I cannot see why a similar arrangement could not be developed for people who have temporary absences from work and who have to go on workers' compensation.

Long term disability payments and workers' compensation payments are forms of wage loss compensation, income in lieu of wages, so why not make that kind of income pensionable? It makes sense. It would give the individual a maximum Canada pension when he or she eventually drew it.

There are a few little glitches that would have to be worked out. I mentioned one of them to the member for Churchill a moment ago. There are a few factors involved that could be worked out in committee, brought back to the House, voted upon and passed. We have to maintain a reasonable balance when we are talking about all this.

What I am talking here is that CPP premiums are paid by the employee and the employer. The employer's contributions are often referred to as payroll taxes and are regarded by many as a disincentive to the creation of employment.

Many employers pay the premiums grudgingly because it is the usual cost of having an employee. If an employer has 20 employees, naturally the employer pays quite a high bill in CPP contributions. I can only imagine that the employer, especially an individual who has a small business, would be less than eager to submit the employer's contribution for an employee who is not on the job.

The employee may not be on the job which is fine, but in the meantime, the employer has to hire a replacement worker. Of course it falls on the employer's shoulders to pay the CPP contributions for the replacement worker. It would also fall to the employer to pay the contributions, if this motion went through in its original form, for the individual who is off work as well. We have to maintain a balance because there are a lot of expenses that the employer has to look at as well.

These are little glitches that we can talk about here or in committee. I am sure we could arrive at some reasonable conclusion that would be okay as far as the member for Churchill is concerned and as far as an injured worker is concerned. We have to maintain a certain amount of balance for the employer and the employee.

Apart from the concern that I mentioned a moment ago, I have no problem with the concept of deeming workers' compensation payments pensionable income for the purposes of the Canada pension plan. The Canada pension plan could be the only source of pension income a worker might have. The worker may have the kind of job that does not have a great pension plan other than the CPP which the worker will depend on eventually.

It is certainly a concept that warrants full and detailed consideration by an appropriate committee of the House. Hopefully the motion will pass.

I know members opposite have some concerns about it as well but I am sure they can be worked out to the satisfaction of all members. I think the average injured worker today deserves that kind of respect and consideration.

We all know of problems within our own ridings and our own districts. There are horror stories where people have these kind of problems and cannot get them worked out. I congratulate the member for bringing the matter before the House.

[Employment Insurance Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to say a few words today on Bill C-206, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

We are told that the purpose of the bill is to allow a person who receives employment insurance to care for a family member with an impairment, or who loses a job because of the conflicting demands of the job in the workplace to get up to 52 weeks of employment insurance.

Many groups across the country, especially in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would support this bill because it takes a great deal of pressure off the already ailing health care system. Also it gives us an opportunity to see something very rare in this country. It gives us the opportunity to see the provincial government get a break and probably the opportunity to upload onto the federal government for a change. That would be a very positive step indeed.

I was very disappointed to hear that the Alliance will not support this bill. This bill would help out families right across the nation. The Alliance tries to be known as a party of the family, but it has no intention of supporting the bill, which is shameful.

I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, who initiated this bill. I wish I had done it instead of him but I do want to congratulate him for it because it is a very good move indeed.

In general, we can support this initiative as a party. I have always been in favour of laws and policies that respect and enhance the well-being of the family which is one of society's main building blocks.

The bill has some very good points. It restricts the role of caregiver to that of a close family member: a spouse, a common law partner, a child, a grandchild, a sibling. This is very positive. In other words, strangers need not apply. The bill covers family matters. It is not extended to the commercial home care enterprises. That is good because it protects the integrity of the bill itself.

The impairment involved must also meet the requirements of the Income Tax Act. If the government's definition is as strict as what it uses for the disability tax credit, we can be assured that we are not in any danger of having a major run on the EI account.

The caregiver has to have a major attachment to the workforce. In other words, someone who barely or rarely qualifies for EI benefits cannot use the caregiver provisions as a method of getting up to 52 weeks of employment insurance benefits.

The provision is not open-ended. A person cannot draw EI under this provision for more than 52 weeks in total in one or more periods over a two-year period. The bill makes provision for an extension of the 52-week period if a doctor certifies that the care provided is necessary for the health and safety of the person with the impairment or it has made it possible for the person with the impairment to avoid becoming an in patient in a hospital or a long term care facility.

Finally, the bill requires any wages earned during the caregiver period to be deducted from the weekly EI benefits.

This is a good bill. I am hopeful the government will see fit to support it. I understand the bill will go to committee. Who knows, maybe a few changes will be made at that juncture.

In view of the fact that the government has been thinking out loud of late as to the possibility of covering home care under medicare, this bill certainly is in line with that thinking. It has the additional benefit of the home care being given by a close family member, which is very important to the individual receiving the care.

I want to revert to a part of the bill that requires a doctor's certificate for an extension of benefits over and above the 52 weeks stipulated over the two year period. It is not made clear in the bill, and hopefully it will be when it gets to committee, that a doctor's certificate is not required initially for the individual to get home care. That is one little thing we will probably have to look at. Hopefully when it is in committee some adjustment will be made.

It is a very good bill and we have absolutely no hesitation in supporting it. The bill will provide compassionate home care for family members. It will save money in the health care system and it will not be a very serious burden on the EI account. Unless and until home care is covered under medicare, this is a very good first step.

[Health Care, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for many years Canada's publicly funded health care system was the envy of the world. In the beginning the federal government paid 50% of the cost of provincially delivered health care services and had the moral authority to insist on a truly national health care program.

However the federal government drastically cut health care funding to the provinces, resulting in a dangerously downgraded health care system. Now paying only 14% of the costs, Ottawa no longer has the moral authority to insist on national standards.

The federal government has recently indicated it will put more money into health care. Accordingly, it is essential that the Prime Minister reach agreement with the premiers on a renewed and modernized health care program.

Canadians expect their leaders to work co-operatively to restore our health care system as one of the hallmarks of our citizenship.

[Petitions, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from approximately 100 people in the St. John's area who make the point that non-embryonic stem cells, known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress and do not have the rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to focus our support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Petitions, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from about 100 people in the St. John's area who make the point that non-embryonic stem cells, also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus legislative support on stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.