Laurie Hawn

[Canada Labour Code, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to seek unanimous consent of the House to return to tabling of documents so I could table a report.

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the proposed legislation.

There is no question that the men and women of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP deserve Canada's deepest gratitude. I will refer mainly to the Canadian Forces but all comments would apply equally to the RCMP. In return for the sacrifices they make to defend us, our country and sovereignty, we have a responsibility to care for them, a responsibility that begins the moment they enlist and carries right through until long after they have donned their uniforms for the last time.

Nobody understands this responsibility better than our government. In looking back over our record since we took office, I do not think anyone could question our support for the Canadian Forces. We would never settle for a retirement plan that shortchanged the men and women who serve Canada.

I would like to support this bill, I really would, but I cannot because it would be dishonest and irresponsible to do so. I would not be able to look myself in the mirror if I was simply to bow to my own emotions and ignore the facts of the case, as the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has chosen to do. Frankly, I do not expect him to know the facts intuitively, but I would have expected him to do better research on the issue. It is easy to play the hero when one will never have to deal with the consequences.

This is off topic of the real issue of the bill at hand, but it is relevant to a complete understanding of the situation to appreciate that the mover of this bill has an appalling record of voting against measures that would actually help serving or retired members of the Canadian Forces.

The Liberals will also support this bill even though they know it can never be implemented and if they were government, they would be doing exactly the same thing we are. For them, it is simply the politics of trying to embarrass the current government.

The Canadian Forces pension plan is flexible and generous, and compares favourably with some of the best pension plans in the country. It has many desirable features, including its survivor benefits and the basic pension formula. It is fully indexed to the cost of living. It also has very generous early retirement provisions.

When CPP was introduced in 1966, employers recognized that paying into two completely separate pension funds could cause undue financial hardship. To avoid this, many employers, including the Canadian Forces, chose to integrate their plans with the new CPP.

Employees then had two premiums to pay and they collected two benefits, but the total cost of the two premiums was the same as what employees had been paying for their company plans alone prior to the introduction of CPP. Likewise, on the receiving end, the total pension benefits they collected remained much the same. This whole issue has been totally misrepresented and is based on emotion rather than facts.

Let me provide the facts. Canadian Forces members pay 25% of the cost of the plan while Canadian taxpayers pays 75%. Canadian Forces members can retire at almost any age so long as they have met the years of service requirements of the plan.

When they retire, they get 2% per year of service based on their best years of annual salary and they get it immediately, regardless of their age. Other people, including members of Parliament, do not collect their pensions until age 55 or later. Service members collect that 2% until they turn 65 when CPP kicks in, as set out in the 1965 agreement between the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Canada pension plan when the two were integrated.

The pension that a CF member receives prior to age 65 is made up of two parts. One part is the lifetime benefit that will continue for the rest of the member's life and the secondary bridge benefit is designed to bridge the retirement income of the member and provide a smooth income flow between the CF retirement age and the age at which he or she will collect CPP.

The bridge benefit is calculated in such a way as to be similar to the anticipated CPP benefit at age 65. At age 65, the bridge benefit disappears and is replaced by CPP according to the manner in which the member has contributed.

People talk about a clawback. There is no clawback. There is no clawback, as evocative and popular as that word may be. At age 65, the bridge benefit disappears and is replaced by the other pension that the member has paid for, the Canada pension plan. The total pension is now from two sources, both of which operating exactly as they were set up and in accordance with how much a person has contributed.

In most cases, CPP will be equal to or greater than the bridge benefit but that will depend on what members have done between retirement from the CF and when they turn 65. If members do not contribute to CPP at an appropriate level because they do not work at that level until age 65, the CPP that they have earned may well be less than the bridge benefit. They get what they pay for.

If they take CPP early, as early as age 60, they will double-dip the CPP and bridge benefit for that period. That is a good thing. When they turn 65, the bridge benefit will disappear. They will lose the double-dipping and their continuing CPP will be at a reduced level because they took it early. Obviously, in that circumstance, the total pension will be less after age 65.

All that said, if we run the numbers, it is generally beneficial to take CPP early and enjoy the double-dipping, but they need to plan for it. It is a personal choice and the decision is entirely within the control of plan members.

In budget 2008 our government changed the formula for calculating the lifetime benefit and the bridge benefit. This resulted in increasing the lifetime benefit portion and reducing the bridge benefit portion. That means that there is less bridge benefit to disappear when the retiree turns 65. This is obviously to the benefit of every CF retiree. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and the NDP Party voted against that measure.

In my case, I retired at age 47, with 31 years of service. I have been collecting my 62%, indexed since age 55, ever since. When I turn 65, in three more years, my bridge benefit will disappear and it will be replaced by CPP. Because I have worked full time since age 47 and made maximum contributions to CPP, my total pension will actually go up by about $300. The pension plan works as advertised, and we are getting exactly what we paid for.

There are several misrepresentations out there. Comparing the CF pension plan and the parliamentary pension plan is apples and oranges. Both plans operate in accordance with how they were set up and paid for, and no one has been exempted from anything. The parliamentary pension is straightforward and there is no bridge benefit for an MP who retires before 65. Since there is no bridge benefit, there is nothing to be replaced at age 65.

MPs do not collect their pension until they turn 55, unlike the CF member who collects it right away. Also, MPs have zero input into these matters. There is no exemption for anyone and this red herring is simply put there to stir up emotion and resentment where none is justified. It is inaccurate and it is dishonest.

It was pointed out that we had no input into the integration of CFSA and CPP in 1966 and that we were not properly briefed. First, the CF is not a union. We do not get to negotiate pay or pension plans. Second, I cannot remember what we were briefed on in 1966, but I can guarantee that I was not paying attention anyway. I was too busy going through pilot training.

Ultimately it is every member's personal responsibility to understand his or her pay and benefits and there is always information available.

There are lots of emotional arguments put forward about how much CF members suffered and sacrificed during their careers, and that is valid, but they are emotional arguments. While we undoubtedly did have a lot of family disruption, and I certainly experienced that, and we were expected to be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, I personally helped to bury several dozen friends, we signed up for that.

That is why we have such a generous pension plan, which we are allowed to collect immediately upon retirement. It is also why we have such excellent health care and dental benefits for the rest of our lives and survivor benefits for our families.

Emotional arguments may be fun to raise, but they do not take the place of properly constituted and financed plans that operate exactly as they are supposed to. People like the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore never concern themselves with details like, who pays? In their socialist view, government simply pays. We know exactly what that means.

The one-time cost to implement this bill for the CF and RCMP would be $7 billion. In addition, someone would have to pick up the 2.2% per year in future contributions. For a member making $50,000 a year, that would be an additional pay deduction of $1,100. That would not be too popular.

People like to wave around petitions that they say contain over 100,000 signatures. If somebody says “The government is unfair, you deserve more money”, will people sign his petition? Of course they will. However, people should ask themselves why clearly people-people, like Rick Hillier, Ray Henault, Paul Manson, Al DeQuetteville, Fred Sutherland and many other three and four star generals, are not making this an issue. It is because they know it is not legitimate.

The mover of this bill stated that members of the CF and RCMP could use their EI contributions to fund his proposed changes to the pension plans. He argued that members make EI contributions but are not eligible to receive benefits. He is wrong. Members of the CF can and do collect EI benefits and they are subject to the same rules and restrictions as other Canadians.

If a member of the CF is asked to leave early, he or she may be eligible to receive EI. As well, CF members are eligible to collect EI while on maternity and parental leave. Put simply, my hon. friend is incorrect. There are no surplus EI benefits that could fund the proposed changes and all this would do is take away EI benefits from members.

I said earlier that the Canadian government has a responsibility to care for the members of our military and RCMP, but we also have a responsibility to Canadian taxpayers, who already pay approximately 75% of the CF plan's pension costs. That responsibility is through the sure, careful stewardship of the money they entrust to us.

Fortunately our duties to CF and RCMP members and to Canadian taxpayers are not incompatible. As someone who has been collecting a force's pension since I was 47, I can assure members that our plan provides a generous return for our premiums.

I am proud of my service and I am proud of the people with whom I served. I am also very proud of the men and women in uniform today. They do amazing work. I will try not to be too hard on the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. I will give him credit for sincerely caring about our service members, but this is not the right or responsible way to proceed. Bill C-201 should not be supported.

[Foreign Affairs, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Abdelrazik's case is a complex matter. It began under the watch of the previous Liberal government, as I have said. He is on the United Nations Security Council's 1267 list, associated with people like Osama Bin Laden from al-Qaeda. There is a process that will enable Mr. Abdelrazik and his lawyer to seek a delisting from that list.

Mr. Abdelrazik is at the embassy in Sudan. He is getting consular service. He is being well taken care of in the embassy.

The matter is currently under litigation, before the courts this week, and we cannot comment further.

[Foreign Affairs, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, everybody is entitled to their opinion. The fact of the matter is that the situation has not changed. Mr. Khadr is receiving consular services. He is being attended to in a humane way. There is a process underway. We intend to let that process go to its conclusion. We will support the result of that process whenever it happens.

[Foreign Affairs, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our position on this has not changed. Mr. Khadr is facing very serious charges. There is a process that is underway in the United States. It is a process that President Obama has endorsed. It is a process that we intend to let continue to its conclusion. The matter is before the courts and we will say nothing further.

[Foreign Affairs, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Abdelrazik's case is a complex matter. It began under the watch of the previous Liberal government.

Mr. Abdelrazik is on the United Nations Security Council resolution 1267 list as an individual associated with al-Qaeda and is therefore subject to a travel ban and asset freeze.

There is a process that allows Mr. Abdelrazik and his lawyer to seek his delisting. Mr. Abdelrazik is at our embassy in Sudan. We continue to provide him with consular assistance.

As this matter is currently under litigation and is therefore before courts this week, we will not comment further.

[Foreign Affairs, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that Mr. Abdelrazik is on the resolution 1267 list as an individual associated with al-Qaeda.

The UN resolution 1267 Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee was established for the purpose of overseeing the implementation of sanctions imposed on people who are associated with terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, terrorists such as those who perpetrated the horrific acts of 9/11, which killed 25 Canadians.

This government strongly supports the fight against terrorism and takes seriously its responsibility for the safety and security of its citizens as well as our international obligations under the United Nations.

This matter is currently before the courts. We cannot comment further.

[Foreign Affairs, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Russian government expelled two Canadian diplomats. What is unfortunate about this is the Liberal Party's foreign affairs critic showed no outrage or concern that the Russians had arbitrarily expelled two Canadian diplomats. Rather, he said that Canada was being too aggressive with Russia.

The Conservative government is standing up for Canadian sovereignty and the national interest. While the Liberals did nothing to protect our sovereignty in the north, this government is taking real action. Do the Liberals really believe they should be siding with the Russians and against Canada on these important issues?

While the Liberal leader muses about international public parks for the Arctic, we are investing in icebreakers, Arctic patrol ships, research stations and Arctic training centres for the Canadian Forces. We are not afraid to stand up and defend Canadian interests, be it against Russia or any other country. We hope the Liberal Party will do the same, rather than adopting a blame Canada attitude.

Instead of siding with the Russians, why does the Liberal leader not side with Canadians and drop his plan to raise taxes?

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, again I listened with interest to the cluelessness and lack of true knowledge of what is going on, or maybe the member just does not care.

Is my hon. colleague aware that it takes less than half of the water to generate a barrel of oil today than it did about 10 years ago? Is he aware of the billions and billions of dollars the companies themselves are spending to develop new and cleaner technology and better ways of extracting oil out of the ground or does he simply not care? Is he aware that the greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands account for less than 5% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions or does he just not care?

The resources in Canada are an accident of geography. Alberta and Saskatchewan have large oil and gas reserves. That is an accident of geography. All of Canada benefits from that. Quebec has hydroelectric power. That is an accident of geography. All of Canada benefits from that.

One thing I would like to see is oil and gas discovered in Quebec. I wonder how long the attitude of self-righteous pomposity would last if that happened.

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we sit here day after day listening to people in that corner of the House demonstrate their wilful cluelessness about what is actually going on in the oil sands in Alberta, the wilful cluelessness about the progress that has been made by the oil companies, the government and people who take the environment responsibly.

I have a number of questions for my hon. colleague across the way. Does he have any idea how many jobs are created by the oil sands and the resource sector in the province of Quebec, that have been created in the past, and will be created in the future?

Does he have any idea how much money goes into pension funds in Canada, the Canada pension plan, the Quebec pension plan, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan?

Does he have any idea of the amount of taxes that pay social programs in the province of Quebec and the rest of the provinces that come out of the oil patch in Alberta? Does he have any clue about the benefits?

I wish he would stop being clueless about what is actually going on.