Douglas Young

[Canadian Embassy In Washington, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, following statements reported in the newspapers, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I looked into the matter, because obviously we have to know what is going on, and in my mind there is no doubt, based on the information we have, that no spying took place, no activity that could be described as spying, in the situation to which the American government employee is referring.

[Canadian Embassy In Washington, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this information was the result of reports following representations made by an American government employee against his superior.

The employee claimed that representations had been made to find out whether someone had been present at a breakfast.

Let us be serious when we talk about spying activities. As for myself, at this point, based on the facts that are known, I have no reason to believe that spying activities were conducted against the person in question.

[Canadian Embassy In Washington, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained very clearly that no one had engaged in spying activities in that case and that nothing wrong was done. We have no reason to believe that any illegal action under American laws took place.

We know that the allegations resulted from a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion between an American government employee and his superiors.

As for us, as the minister said yesterday, there is no government policy to spy on any official of the Quebec government or of any other provincial government.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 17th, 1997]

When the Canada pension plan (CPP) was enacted, the government was concerned that the introduction of the new plan not be disadvantageous to its employees, or members of the Canadian Forces (CF) or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). To the greatest possible extent, the introduction of the CPP was to be transparent to employees and members. When employees of the public service, and members of the CF and the RCMP became participants in the CPP, both the contributions and the benefits were integrated into each of their federal pension plans. The net effect was to provide the same retirement income for the same contributions.

On the benefits side, the integration was achieved by incorporating in each of the superannuation acts a clause defining a procedure whereby an individual's benefits under his/her basic pension are reduced by a formula which approximates the benefit that is paid by the CPP for the pensionable time under the individual's basic pension.

Thus, it is the pension plan itself, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) for members of the CF, which authorizes a reduction of the pension benefits under given circumstances. The CFSA contains in section 15(2) a provision for the pension benefit to be reduced by a formula related to the CPP benefit formula. A deduction must be made from the annuity paid under the CFSA when the contributor reaches the age of 65 years (the age at which CPP benefits were payable, originally), and when the contributor becomes entitled to a disability pension under the CPP or a similar provision of a provincial pension plan.

The decision to integrate the CPP to the various federal superannuation acts was not limited to federal pension plans. At that time, many pension plans providing coverage to private sector employees were also adjusted to integrate the benefits from the CPP with the benefits of their own private plan.

The overall effect of this integration of the CFSA and CPP benefits is that an annuitant's retirement income is more evenly distributed than it would have been had the benefits not been integrated. If the plans were not integrated, the pre-age 65 benefits would be lower to provide for a levelled benefit for life, rather than being able to reduce it at age 65 to take into consideration the income that comes from the CPP. The number of CFSA annuitants in the age group 65 years and over, affected by a reduction in CFSA benefits related to the receipt of a CPP benefit at age 65, is approximately 30,000.

The same principle applies to long-term disability plans. Typically, long-term disability benefits are integrated with other sources of disability income such as workers' compension, CPP, and other employer, government, and sometimes individual, disability plans. The objective of integrating disability income from various sources is to establish the disability income received from all sources to a reasonable percentage of pre-disability earnings. The inclusion of an integration of benefits provision reduces the costs of the disability plan to the employer. As a CPP disability benefit is often available (depending on the precise definitions of disability in the specific plan and the CPP), it is normal for the specific disability benefit of other plans to be reduced by any benefit derived from the CPP.

It is usual for plan provisions to include a clause whereby the specific plan provisions are reduced in some fashion when a CPP benefit is also being paid. In recognition of this practice as being a reasonable course, there is no provision in law to stop such wording from being written into the specific plans. Such legislation would make the design of adequate disability insurance plans much more difficult, as they would have to balance the individual's financial needs over an extended time period with income from either one or two sources, depending on age or degree of disability.

With regard to the numbers of Canadians affected by the possibility of double offsets in the event of becoming disabled while in receipt of both a pension and employment income, the department does not have data available to be able to provide such

statistics. However, the type of circumstances, for which there could be a double offset, would be rare, and the number of individuals in that circumstance would be expected to be low.

Finally, the department is not aware of any legal challenges to these practices. Besides an amendment to the different federal superannuation acts to remove the CPP reduction provision, the department is not aware of any other legislation which would require changes to eliminate this plan design practice from other pension and disability plans.

Question No. 101-

[Somalia Inquiry, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the due process the hon. member refers to was established in March 1995, had its mandate extended three times, the third time just recently by the government, asking the commission to report by June 30, a substantially longer period of time than was originally foreseen when the inquiry was put together.

What I am saying is that the government had to make a decision. We felt it was in the best interests of everyone concerned that we move on and deal with the specific issues facing the Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence.

The very due process that the hon. member now speaks so highly of is the one he said nearly a year ago should be ended because the utility of the commission had been exhausted.

I know it is difficult, and I did make a mistake last Friday, but at least I recognize when I make a mistake and I try to correct it. I urge the hon. member to do likewise when he recognizes that perhaps he has made a mistake.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, as I said on Friday, I had made a mistake when I used the term murder in the plural to describe the situation that occurred in Somalia in March.

As a matter of fact, as a result of that mistake having been brought to my attention by the press after I left the House and not actually brought to my attention in this place, I returned.

I checked the first edition of the blues to make sure of exactly what I said. I understood that I had made a mistake. I came back to the House at the very first opportunity and made the clarification.

I want to welcome my hon. friend back to the House after what I know was a difficult period with his health. Just to make sure there is no confusion in my mind, I would like to make sure that the hon. member can explain to me why in April 1996 he was quoted as saying: "There is now sufficient evidence of problems. The utility of the commission has been exhausted. The taxpayer's money should now be spent on a criminal investigation".

What is the position of the hon. member with respect to the Somalia inquiry today?

[Somalia Inquiry, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this question is very important, there is no doubt. When I make a mistake, I try to avoid making a second or a third one.

I do not want to prejudice or cause any prejudice to the inquiry based on the testimony it has already heard or on testimony it may hear in the future. I do, however, make a commitment to my hon. colleague and to all the members of this House that, once the commission is finished, and the conclusions and recommendations have been made, obviously, the government will have to look at the whole issue in order to decide how best to react.

I interfered in an area I had no business in, on Friday, but I do not intend to do so today.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I said last Friday, I clearly made a mistake by linking the incidents in Somalia and by describing the incident my hon. colleague is referring to as murder.

Obviously, murder was the conclusion reached in the case of the Somali killed following torture. In the case of the two Somalis who were shot, where one died, I apologize as I did Friday before this House for having mistakenly linked the two incidents.

I think it would be quite inappropriate for me today, just as it was on Friday, to make this sort of link until the whole issue has been examined and the conclusions of the Somalia inquiry are presented at the end of June.

[Points Of Order, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House very much for your indulgence. I think it is a question that needs to be addressed.

The reason that I came back at the very first opportunity to clarify this is because I do not believe that any of us can draw conclusions with respect to the nature of the incident. What the judicial proceedings have demonstrated is that in one instance there was a death that has been described and was determined as murder.

The other incident which involved a shooting and killing of a Somali citizen is still a question that needs to be resolved. That is why I want to make sure that I was not speaking of murders, in the plural, but making sure that I was as accurate as possible for the benefit of the House and for all of my colleagues.

[Points Of Order, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for clarification.

I want to explain a matter very briefly. Often in this House, whether in question period or in debate, we can totally and unintentionally provide information or give a response that is not entirely accurate.

As I was leaving the House I was reminded by members of the press that today in question period I had referred to incidents in Somalia, to which I have referred many times, as shootings, as killings and as murder, as has been suggested by questions and responses.

I want to apologize to the House and to my colleagues if in any way I mislead anyone by linking the two incidents in Somalia in the sense that I said "that Canadians are fully aware of what took place with respect to the murders by shooting or by torture". The torture death obviously is a totally separate incident from the shootings of the two Somali citizens and that shooting resulted in the death of one of them.

As I recall to the best of my information, on two instances in question period today I spoke of murders, in the plural. Obviously there is one incident that can be described appropriately as a murder. The shooting that resulted in the killing of a Somali citizen is another matter. I did not want under any circumstances to leave that kind of impression with my colleagues or with anyone else who is following this matter.