Bryon Wilfert

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the Alliance Party's new math, but the reality is when we reduce it every year, that means it goes down. Therefore, that is a major saving, over $860 million last year alone, to employers and employees.

I would suggest that is what Canadians are looking for and that is what this government is committed to do.

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is the government that for nine consecutive years has reduced EI premiums.

I realize the member on the other side sometimes does not pay attention but the reality is that the government has been reducing it, continues to do that and is committed. I hope the member will pay attention as we move forward after the next budget.

[Richmond Hill Winter Carnival, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the town of Richmond Hill celebrated the 35th anniversary of its winter carnival last weekend.

The Richmond Hill Winter Carnival comes about as a result of a strong community effort. The event is organized and planned by a group of eager and tireless volunteers. The carnival is funded through button and food revenues and through financial support from local and area businesses.

The mandate of the carnival is to organize a community party with events that appeal to families and residents of all ages, from youngsters to grandparents alike.

There were a variety of events for everyone to enjoy. These events included an amateur band, snowboarding, ookpik mini-putt, and horse driven sleigh rides to name a few.

The town of Richmond Hill is to be commended for this very successful event. It is recognized that it would have been entirely unable to achieve these objectives without the generous support of community businesses, volunteer organizations, town departments and individuals.

A special applause goes out to the youngsters who came out to help all weekend. These kids helped with everything from running messages to face painting. They are the community builders of tomorrow.

The town of Richmond Hill looks forward to another smashing success next year.

[Louis St. Laurent, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, February 1 marks the 119th birthday of Louis St. Laurent, a prime minister who presided over both a significant economic expansion of Canada, but also one of the most important legislative periods in our history.

Nicknamed Uncle Louis, his government record caused the Liberals to be re-elected in 1949 and 1953 with overwhelming majorities. When Prime Minister Mackenzie King approached him in 1941 to become minister of justice, he had no political experience but responded out of a sense of duty.

Canadians can reflect on his period in office as being productive and significant for Canada on the international stage.

At home he presided over the enactment of hospital insurance, the entrance of Newfoundland into Confederation, the Massey Commission on the Arts, the establishment of the National Library and the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, to name a few.

Internationally, Canada sent troops to fight for the United Nations in Korea and garrison troops in Europe. He was a strong advocate of the UN. He left a legacy of building a strong Canada both at home and abroad, lessons we can benefit from today.

Canadians need to become more cognizant of their history and to celebrate the achievements of individuals who made a difference--

[Canada Pension Plan, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today at third reading of Bill C-3, which amends the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act.

As hon. members are aware, this legislation completes the reforms to the Canada pension plan which the federal and provincial governments, as joint stewards of the plan, initiated back in 1997. Those changes were necessary because of the warnings in the early 1990s from the Chief Actuary of Canada that the sustainability of the Canada pension plan was at risk.

Governments heeded the warning and overhauled the system. Reforms included bringing forward scheduled increases in CPP contribution rates, building up a larger asset pool before baby boomers retire and investing it in the markets at arm's length from government for the best possible rates of return, and slowing the growing cost of benefits through administrative and expenditure measures.

By transferring all the CPP assets remaining with the federal government to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Bill C-3 represents the final steps in CPP reform. Hon. members will recall that a key element of CPP reform was a new market investment policy for the plan, which the CPP Investment Board was established to implement. Clearly the need existed for this independent organization.

Prior to 1999 when the CPPIB began operation, the investment policy in place for the CPP required that funds not immediately needed to pay benefits be invested in provincial government bonds at the federal government's interest rate. That policy resulted in an undiversified portfolio of securities and an interest rate subsidy to the provinces.

As members know, the CPPIB is now responsible for the development of the CPP's market investment policy. Since 1999, funds not immediately required to pay benefits and expenses are transferred to the board and prudently invested in a diversified portfolio of market securities in the best interests of contributors and beneficiaries.

The CPPIB prudently manages billions of dollars of retirement funds belonging to Canadians to the highest professional standards and at arm's length from government, with highly qualified, professional managers making investment decisions. In addition, the board is fully accountable to CPP members and governments.

I also want to mention that the CPPIB functions under rules similar to those that govern other public sector pension plans in Canada. Its market investment policy is consistent with the investment policies of plans like the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, OMERS. The CPPIB is also subject to the foreign property rule.

Until now, not all CPP assets have been managed by the CPPIB. Certain assets have remained with the federal government. These assets include an operating reserve of about $6 billion and a large portfolio of mostly provincial government bonds valued at about $32 billion. Under Bill C-3 these remaining assets would be transferred to the CPPIB over a three year period.

This means that all CPP assets will be managed and invested in the market by one independent professional investment board, a move that essentially completes the process of reforming the CPP that was initiated in 1997 by the federal and provincial governments. Let me briefly review the benefits that will ensue with the passage of this legislation.

First, consolidating all assets under the management of one organization will allow the CPPIB to develop a more coherent investment policy for all CPP assets in order to enhance rates of return and better manage risks on the total portfolio, thereby helping to ensure the sustainability of the Canada pension plan. This will put the CPP on the same footing as other public sector pension plans, providing the CPPIB's investment managers with the flexibility to determine the best asset mix and investment strategies for the CPP.

Second, phasing in the transfer of the remaining assets over three years will help to ensure that the transfer is absorbed smoothly by capital markets, the CPPIB and provincial borrowing programs.

The CPPIB is responsible for establishing and fully disclosing its investment policies and for investing CPP assets while properly minimizing risk. With the transfer of the remaining assets to the CPPIB, Canadians can feel secure that prudent, sound investment diversification, as well as increased performance, will result for the entire CPP asset portfolio.

In considering this legislation, I encourage hon. members to keep in mind that the Chief Actuary of Canada has indicated that the CPP assets fully invested in the marketplace are expected to earn a greater return and thereby grow more rapidly. In his three actuarial reports since 1997, the Chief Actuary has confirmed the long term viability and financial sustainability of the CPP. According to the last actuarial report, investing the transferred CPP assets in the marketplace will produce a benefit of about $85 billion over the next 50 years for the Canada pension plan.

As I indicated earlier, it was the Chief Actuary who first brought to the government's attention in the early 1990s the fact that CPP assets, the equivalent of two years of benefits, would be depleted by 2015 and that the contribution rates would have to increase to more than 14% by 2030 if nothing was done. At that time the Canada pension plan had worked well for 30 years, but its sustainability was becoming a concern.

As a result, following coast to coast consultations with Canadians, the federal and provincial governments in 1997 adopted a balanced approach to CPP reform so that the plan could meet the demand of the coming years when the baby boomers would be retiring. As I mentioned, those reforms included an increase in CPP contribution rates, a buildup of a larger asset pool while baby boomers were still in the workplace, its investment in the markets at arm's length from government for the best possible rates of return, and administrative and expenditure measures to slow the growing costs of benefits.

All together, those measures ensured that a contribution rate of 9.9% could be expected to maintain the sustainability of the plan indefinitely, and now, through Bill C-3, with the transfer of the remaining assets to the independent professional CPP investment board, the 1997 reform of CPP investment policy will be completed.

I would like to remind the House that Canadians told their governments during the 1997 public consultations to fix the CPP and fix it right. Canadians also told their governments to preserve the CPP by strengthening the financing, improving the investment practices and moderating the growing costs of benefits. Governments met this challenge. Now, through the measures in Bill C-3, Canada's retirement income system will be even more secure for all Canadians.

Together with the 1997 CPP reforms, the measures in the bill will ensure that the Canada pension plan will remain on sound financial footing for generations to come. I urge all hon. members to give speedy passage to this legislation.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate. I would like to thank the member for Churchill for raising this particular issue.

The motion asks us to amend the definition of pensionable employment under the Canada pension plan. The effect of the motion would be to make payments received by injured workers through the various provincial workers' compensation plans pensionable earnings used to calculate both CPP contributions and benefit payments.

Although the motion deals primarily with the payment of disability benefits, it should be noted that CPP retirement pension payments would also be affected by the motion.

The subject matter of Motion No. 197 is reminiscent of a case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999. At that time a disability claimant, who was judged to be ineligible for CPP disability benefits, claimed that the disability program component of the Canada pension plan was discriminatory and therefore was contrary to section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The claimant in this case had received payments from the provincial workers' compensation program because of a workplace injury. He later applied for CPP disability benefits but was deemed ineligible because he did not meet the CPP's minimum contribution requirements.

He claimed that the workers' compensation payments he received from the province should be considered income for the purposes of CPP. “To do otherwise”, he said, “would be to discriminate against people like him with temporary or partial disabilities”.

However the Supreme Court did not agree. The ruling handed down in May 2000 stated clearly that the disability benefits program of the CPP did not discriminate against persons with temporary or partial disabilities.

The motion we are debating today takes us back to some of those issues that were debated in that case.

Today we are being asked to amend the definition of pensionable employment in the federal CPP legislation so that the payments by provincial workers' compensation plans would be included as employment earnings under the CPP.

The Supreme Court concluded that the CPP did not discriminate against persons with temporary or partial disabilities because the current definition of pensionable employment did not include workers' compensation benefits.

Therefore, as we consider today's motion, we should keep in mind that the Supreme Court has already turned down the argument that has been presented.

It might also be helpful for the House to understand some of the technical implications of the motion.

For example, if we agree with the motion, we could be agreeing to a potential increase in CPP contributions for both employers and employees. Asking employers to pay further employment related contributions on a workers' compensation benefit that the employer has already paid may be perceived as unfair. In fact, employees and employers have already seen an increase in contribution levels that was brought in as part of the CPP reform in 1998.

Adopting the motion would mean that the workers would be required to pay CPP contributions on their workers' compensation payments. If workers were required to pay CPP contributions, their net income would actually be lower.

It hardly seems logical to argue in favour of reducing the net income of workers who are most likely already in lower income circumstances precisely because they are disabled and cannot work to earn a fulltime income. Yet reducing the net income of disabled workers could be one of the outcomes of the motion if it were to become law.

Another concern is that the proposed motion is inconsistent with the earnings related philosophy of the CPP. We must remember that the basic purpose of the CPP is to replace lost earnings in the event of death, disability or retirement of a wage earner. That is why coverage under the plan is based on the earnings from employment. Workers' compensation benefits are not earnings from employment.

Amending the definition of pensionable employment, as the motion requests, would be contrary to the basic principle of earnings replacement, a principle that is the heart of the Canada pension plan.

Moreover, if we were to include workers' compensation payments as pensionable employment income for the CPP, we could open ourselves up to pressure to include other forms of income support such as employment insurance or social assistance payments that are not in fact earnings from employment. Based on the logic of this motion, even CPP payments themselves would be considered pensionable employment.

Taken to the extreme, we could even face pressure to include any kind of non-employment earnings in the base for the CPP such as lottery winnings, inheritance or stock market gains. Who knows what kind of precedent we would set, and that is a very important point, if we were to move away from the basic definition of pensionable employment that is serving us so well now.

In other words, from both a policy and a legislative standpoint, there are many reasons why this motion is not technically sound.

We understand and share some of the concerns of my colleague across the way. In fact, in addition to the disability program of the CPP, the government has brought in a number of new measures such as tax changes and community support programs to help meet the needs of persons with disabilities in Canada, and we will continue to do everything we can in this regard.

In my view this motion is not the best way to help Canadian workers who have become disabled.

[Canada Pension Plan, December 13th, 2002]

My colleague says it is a good balance. It is very important to maintain balance, both domestically and abroad. Again, we want to make sure of this. Obviously the objective is important in terms of making sure that it is consistent, and consistent with other plans. That is why I will not support the amendment of my colleague across the way: It would not be consistent. I have already said that in 1999 we increased it from 20% to 30%, so we are continually reviewing the foreign property rule. It is not as though we have not responded to this issue. In fact, we are continuing to do so I think in a very responsible way.

We need sustainability. Sustainability is very important, as I have said before. If we had not increased the dollars that were going into the plan from contributors, the benefits would have gone up while the amount of money going into it was going down. It would have dried up. What has happened is that the rates will go up faster than they otherwise would have, but not as high as they could have because of the prudent, responsible and appropriate steps taken by the government.

On this side of the House we recognize the issue of the foreign property rule. We recognize that we have increased the percentage, but I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to take the steps outlined across the way. I would urge hon. members not to support this amendment.

[Canada Pension Plan, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, shortly I will address the amendment before the House, but I first want address the Canada pension plan. We and the provinces have been joint stewards of this plan initiated back in 1997 in terms of the reforms. In the early 1990s, the Chief Actuary of Canada questioned the sustainability of the Canada pension plan. This government, along with its provincial partners, heeded that warning and we now have reforms that of course bring forward a schedule of increases in CPP contribution rates. We are building up a larger asset pool before baby boomers retire. As we know, the fact was that the moneys were not keeping up and the pool would have dried up. Therefore, investing in the markets at arm's length is another important requirement, which we have in this legislation. As well, slowing the growth costs of benefits through administrative and expenditure measures is very important.

Hon. members will recall that a key element of the reform was a new market investment policy for the plan, and the CPP Investment Board was established. Clearly the need existed for an independent organization, and I stress that because it is very important to note the independence of the board.

Prior to 1999 when the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board began operations, the investment policy in place for CPP required that the funds not immediately needed to pay the benefits be invested in provincial government bonds at a federal government interest rate. That policy of course resulted in an undiversified portfolio of securities and an interest rate subsidy to the provinces.

Fortunately, now that we have the CPPIB, we have an investment market policy. Since 1999, the funds that are not immediately required to pay benefits and expenses are transferred to the board and are prudently invested in a diversified portfolio of market securities in the best interests of the contributors and the beneficiaries.

I would point out that we have an all star board of directors, with its members recommended by provincial finance ministers in conjunction with the federal Minister of Finance. They manage prudently, as I have said, billions of dollars on behalf of Canadians. The board is fully accountable to CPP members and to governments through annual reports and material on the website, again making sure that although it is at arm's length from government it is accountable to Parliament and to the very people who benefit from the plan.

It is a market investment policy that is of course consistent with other pension plans. One might think of OMERS, the municipal employees retirement system, or the Ontario teachers' pension plan, which some members are familiar with.

It is important that certain assets have remained with the federal government. These assets included an operating reserve of about $6 billion and a large portfolio mostly made up of provincial government bonds valued around $32 billion. Under Bill C-3 these remaining assets will be transferred over a three year period to the CPPIB. That of course is very important. As I have said, we have an outstanding board made up of investment professionals, people who know how to invest money, and they are doing it in a prudent fashion. That again is important for all members to note.

Here we are developing a more coherent policy in terms of investment, which I think is important for those who will benefit from this plan. A point that must be stressed is that it puts it on the same footing as other public pension plans, providing CPPIB investment managers with the flexibility to determine the appropriate mix of investment strategies for the Canada pension plan, which again I think is important. It is also important to remember that the transfer of the remaining assets over the three year period will help to ensure that the transfer is absorbed smoothly by the capital markets and the CPPIB in terms of the provincial borrowing programs as well.Again, this is extremely important.

The amendment being proposed here has to do with section 37 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. The issue is one of the foreign property rule. I will not support the amendment, because in terms of government policy the 30% limit strikes a balance between two important objectives that I think the House should be aware of: ensuring that there is a significant portion of tax assisted retirement savings invested in Canada and providing diversification opportunities for pension plans and RRSP owners. The government is conscious of the need to maintain an appropriate balance. The minister certainly is aware of achieving those objectives and making sure that the impact is appropriate. The foreign property limit was increased from 20% in 1999 to its current 30%.

In fact, I will provide some background history for those members who may not be aware of this. During the initial period of the reforms in 1997, as I have said, expanding the foreign property rule was in fact part of those very discussions. It was a key recommendation from the Senate banking committee from its review of the legislation.

We know that initially in the 1971 budget it was at 10%. Of course what has happened over the years is that we have increased it to 20% and now to 30%. I think that is prudent. I think that makes a lot of sense. Again this is in keeping with government policy. I think it provides the objectives we need in terms of the plan.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the gentleman across the way and I want to clarify, in particular, the issue of the disability tax credit. It is a tax credit that since 1996 has provided more than $1 billion in assistance and $4 billion in programs.

The member more than suggested that the minister did not listen to the House in terms of the New Democratic Party's motion with regard to the disability tax credit. That is utter nonsense.

I want to refer the hon. member to a November 29 press release from the minister in which he clearly said that the issue was off the table in terms of the proposals of August 30. The minister has now instructed the department to go back for further consultations with the affected groups. I want to make it very clear to the member that in fact the minister has been very supportive and did in fact support it by taking it off the table. I responded to that at an earlier time in the House.

The member talked about urban issues. As he knows, this government was the first, 10 years after the national infrastructure program sat and languished, to endorse it in 1993, a proposal that the parties on the other side did not support. I would like his comments on the funding issue.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that on this side of the House when we make constructive comments and present the facts, we are being unduly partisan and on the other side when those members make comments, they are not partisan at all.

I find it rather interesting when that party talks about good governance and good fiscal management. Bad fiscal management would have been to take the $42.5 billion deficit we found in 1993 and extend it. In fact we eliminated it. We did not extend it. We eliminated it. Bad management would be to have EI premiums go up even further from $3. In fact, no, they went down. I do not know what is in their water--