Jean Dubé

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Markham.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance tabled his bill to amend the Canada pension plan last February, he claimed to have guaranteed the future of the three pillars of our retirement income system. Those three pillars are the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, and the fiscal support mechanisms for retirement savings, such as the registered pension plans and RRSP's.

The government has indeed proceeded with some major changes to our retirement income system, but like most of the things it did in the course of its first mandate, these changes are full of inequity, lack vision and are an unprecedented attack on those people who most deserve help from the government.

Regarding old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, the government announced in its 1996 budget that it would replace these two measures by a single seniors benefit. The government made a commitment at the time to introduce a bill and start public consultations on the new benefit in the fall of 1996. A year later, still no bill, still no consultation on legislation that will affect many Canadians.

The government did not want to proceed with thorough public scrutiny of the seniors benefit before the election. What was it afraid of? It was afraid that the truth would be revealed and Canadians would realize that with the new seniors benefit, single seniors with an income exceeding $31,000 would be disadvantaged, as would couples with a combined income of $26,000.

He was also afraid we would discover that recovery of 20 percent of the benefits combined with the current rate of taxation would result in a real rate of taxation of 60 percent for middle income seniors. Nobody would want to save anymore for their retirement anymore.

In terms of tax breaks for retirement savings, the Liberals received $300 million in new taxes from seniors by deciding that the old age tax credit would be included in income. Furthermore, the 1996 budget requires Canadians to convert their RRSP in the year they reach 69, whereas in the past they could wait to do so until they were 71.

They also twice cancelled planned increases to RRSP contribution ceilings. The government has also considered more than once the possibility of taxing RRSPs. Canadians have no choice but to take other measures to ensure long term retirement income before the end of their active life. An ever growing number of Canadians have already understood and are contributing to registered retirement savings plans.

However, because of the regulations governing RRSPs, they are unable to get the best return on the market for their money. Restrictions on foreign holdings prevent them from creating a portfolio varied enough to reduce financial risk.

Now the government is asking us to approve the principles of these changes to the Canada pension plan. Although everyone agrees on the need for reform of our pensions, the government's approach contains some very disquieting elements.

According to the Minister of Finance, the current CPP contribution plan should be changed in response to the concerns of the plan's chief actuary.

This means that Canadians will have to pay $11 billion more a year in CPP premiums without the benefit of other tax cuts to offset this hike. In fact, this was such a contentious issue during negotiations with the provinces that the agreement, which was supposed to be reached in 1996, was only announced in 1997 by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Ottawa's refusal to bring down EI premiums at the same time as CPP rates go up had been the biggest barrier to an agreement. Self-employed Canadians will be hard hit by this accelerated hike in premiums as they have to bear the burden of the combined employer-employee tax rate. This means they will have to pay $3,270 a year in 2003, thus removing financial incentives.

Self-employed individuals should be provided with greater tax assistance on what normally would be the employer share of contributions. Premium increases also place a greater burden on the working poor which include women and young people.

Nowadays, there are five people of job age for every retired person. In twenty years or so, this will have changed to four workers for every retired person and, when today's young people retire forty years from now, the proportion will be three for every one.

Future generations will bear the cost of the changes, because they will have to pay higher premiums, while receiving lower benefits. The cost of changes will not be borne equally by the different generations, and this should be unacceptable to a government that says it is concerned about the future of young people. Many of them have no faith in a public pension plan and who could really blame them?

The Liberal government promised that retired people and those over 65 on December 31, 1997 would not be affected by the change. The government also promised that those now receiving disability benefits would not be affected by the measures.

When we know that 4,000 people are now waiting for their application for disability benefits to be heard by the CPP appeal tribunal, we are entitled to wonder whether the government is not trying to drag out the process so that people will receive reduced benefits under the new rules.

This may well not be the government's intention, but we must point out that it is unacceptable that those waiting for disability benefits must wait up to four years for a settlement.

This mismanagement does nothing to give the public faith in the ability of the present government to administer the CPP. This lack of faith now extends to the government's proposal to modify substantially the structure, financing and investment of the CPP.

You will forgive me for not believing what the government says about the benefits of reform. I do not question that it is sincere in wanting to rectify the problems facing the CPP. I just question its methods.

I urge the government to review the impact these changes will have on the most disadvantaged and to take action to ensure that the cost of restoring the viability of our pension plan is borne equally by all Canadians.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague very much concerning my ability to speak French.

My colleague talks a lot about the deficit. Yes, I did look in my own back yard, and in fact we are now reaping what we had sown by the previous Conservative government.

The Conservative Party inherited a debt of more than $200 billion with an interest rate of more than 21 percent. We implemented free trade. Our friends opposite voted against the GST. We implemented it. They were supposed to scrap it. They did not scrap it, it is still there.

It is our measures that put the country back on track. I can tell you, I guarantee it. It is certainly not what the Liberals did, because they did not do anything concrete, absolutely nothing at all. We will be able to say thanks to the previous Conservative government, I guarantee it.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all our party has priorities. Our priority is to create jobs. We will continue to do so and we will tell the House how we will do it. I cannot comment because it is not a priority for our party and I do not think it is a priority for the House.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, may I first thank the people of Madawaska—Restigouche who expressed their confidence in me on June 2.

In its speech from the throne, the government repeated its promise to apply any budget surplus equally to new program spending and to reducing the debt and taxes.

This promise left me very sceptical, naturally. In the Atlantic region, we are used to fine promises from the Liberals. That is probably why so we elected so few.

I was all the more sceptical of the Reform Party's wanting to talk about financial management. Until very recently, they were still loath to set specific figures and objectives for their financial management plan.

The reality is that, if this government can point to a balanced budget today, it is because it has made deep cuts to social programs and abandoned its responsibilities to the provinces.

Now the government is peering into its crystal ball and talking about better days ahead. This is small comfort to those who have paid the price for its lack of planning and vision over the past four years.

In my own riding, close to 50 percent of the population is unemployed or receiving income support. The changes to employment insurance brought in by the Liberal government have had a devastating impact.

The situation is so bad that it is a rare day in my riding office that I do not hear tales of despair from my constituents.

You may think I am trying to be melodramatic in this august place, but this is the sad reality our constituents live with.

I will be the first to admit that there are no easy solutions, but I will also be the first to say that solutions there are. They can work if the government takes the trouble to listen to people, to think, to give some thought to the long term, and to show some compassion, while behaving in a financially responsible manner.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the smaller deficit is largely the result of an increase in revenue, low interest rates and reduced payments to other levels of government. During their first term of office, the Liberals preferred to shift the burden of the deficit to others, rather than cut back on their own spending.

The government has forgotten that it is the average Canadian who is footing the bill for its decision; not the provincial, federal or municipal levels of government. In Canada, there is only one taxpayer.

And despite the recent propaganda about good financial management, Canadian workers and those on small incomes will always be stuck with the bill. As proof, I point to The Fiscal Monitor , a Department of Finance publication. In July, the minister was boasting about a $1.4 billion surplus in May 1997. This was due in part to an increase in employment insurance premium revenues (up $0.3 billion) attributable to the acceleration of monthly payments.

We have often pleaded with the government to reduce employment insurance premiums. To use what was once designed as an insurance to provide temporary income as a deficit cutting measure is unacceptable. This government has no mandate to impose an outright payroll tax. It is just plain wrong.

I have argued that reducing employment insurance premiums by 70 cents per $100 of income would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It would stimulate the economy and give Canadians the much needed tax relief they deserve. But then again, why would the king of Bay Street listen to me, a young Conservative MP from rural New Brunswick?

The Minister of Finance may not want to listen to me or my colleagues, but maybe he will listen to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other organizations which agree that reducing employment insurance premiums by 60 cents for example would create 170,000 new jobs. Those are the kinds of measures Canadians need, not just empty words and promises.

With this motion, the Reform Party wants to convince us that it has the monopoly on reason where proper financial management is concerned. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

The Reform motion clearly demonstrates their lack of concrete ideas on the question. They are very much like the Liberals in this, full of vague promises and no set objectives. Why does the Reform party want to waste its time debating something that is so simple? Taxes are quite simply too high. The problem must be addressed, now or never. Why wait for the near, or more distant, future? The Reform solution is to reduce taxes only when a budget surplus has been attained. That means that Canadians will notice no difference from the Liberals, where their pocket books are concerned.

The Progressive Conservative Party is the only party willing to act today. We are the only ones who want to give Canadians a reduction in their tax burden starting right now. The budget surplus we are about to have is built on the sacrifices of all Canadians, and they all deserve to reap the consequences.

Even though we speak of tax cuts for Canadians, our approach to managing the fiscal dividend is responsible. The leader of our party, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, has warned that the tax and cut government of the Liberals' first term has been replaced by the tax and spend government in the second. Unfortunately I think he may be right.

We are pleased there is a balanced budget on the horizon but the Liberals must be held accountable. This short term performance is not a permit to open the floodgates of government spending. If this government truly believes in its performance, it will have no problem committing publicly to it. Specific benchmarks must be established now.

This means that, first of all, we must have legislation calling for a balanced budget; second, objectives must be set for reducing the debt, based on a specific debt to GDP ratio; and third, there must be specific stipulation of the amount to be put into reducing the debt. Employment insurance premiums are far too high and constitute a direct tax on jobs. The government must, with no further ado, reduce employment insurance to $2.20 per $100 of insurable earnings.

Those are some concrete proposals aimed at putting more money back into Canadians' pockets and at putting this country's affairs in order.

I am setting the Liberal government the challenge to listen to reason and to implement our proposals, for the sake of our country's future.

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government is going to let the Minister of Finance take money from Canadians instead of stopping the waste of their hard-won earnings.

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development explain to us why his government is intent on punishing a generation of Canadians in retirement when it has taxed them to death during their working years?

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will.

In the Speech from the Throne the government announced that it planned to go ahead with the seniors benefits, which discourages retirement savings, attacks middle income seniors and earners, and punishes women.

Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us what his government has against Canadians who work, who want to work and who want peace of mind and security in retirement?

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, over the years the government has continuously picked the pockets of Canadians through high employment insurance premiums.