Wayne Marston

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his generous remarks at the beginning of his speech. They are certainly appreciated.

There is not a member present in the House that has any lack of caring for our seniors. When I started my remarks today, I talked about the fact that this was the opportune time for all parties to come together. Oftentimes in this place there is a certain cut and thrust to the debate and once in a while it drifts into the personal. However, in this case I rest assured that hon. members here all take the concerns of seniors very seriously.

I would like to ask the hon. member about beefing up CPP, allowing more access to it and by allowing some of the people who run small businesses to be a part of it. This is part of what we are talking about today. We think it is an important way to inject some immediate funds into the system.

A lot of people on OAS and GIS have partners who have passed away and that is all they have. There must be more we can do there. Could the member comment on that area?

Could he also extend his comments somewhat on the defined benefits? If we have an insurance plan that supports them, then there will be more encouragement for companies to set those up with their employees.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the Bloc member for his ongoing commitment to workers and their families, and of course, to our seniors.

The motion today speaks about a private insurance guarantee fund. In the workplace today, defined benefit funds are under attack and some employers see them as a significant liability. From the standpoint of the workers, though, if they had an insurance program that could capture the assets should a company go bankrupt, they would probably be in a far safer position.

We know the forestry industry in Quebec has been devastated.

I would like the member's comments on the insurance plan.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, going back to our other debate, I recognize the parliamentary secretary has been touring the country and has been listening to some folks on the issue of pensions. I would argue that perhaps from the perspective of some of the seniors, the consultation was not broad enough.

In my remarks, I said that we must come together on this issue. I am certainly prepared to put aside the partisanship, and on some days it is a little more difficult than others, to speak to it.

When we consider that some seniors no longer have a partner, and perhaps have never worked and do not qualify for CPP, and are trying to exist on about $1,000 a month, we have to do something for those people in an immediate way. Even those who have worked and do not have the full value of CPP and are in the area of $1,200 or $1,400 a month, if they are lucky, are really having a hard time getting by. It is very troubling.

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. Recently on income splitting, there are sometimes situations where the income has been split and then one partner passes away. We are hearing that people are having trouble getting the income they split back. Could he respond to that?

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would rather be more specific. In the case of CPP, the losses of one year wipe out all the contributions of the last four. They do not deserve a bonus.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I spoke to the fact that there is an attitude in the corporate community that they top up their salaries with performance bonuses, retention bonuses and whatnot. It is almost like a disease. It spread through the United States, and we saw what happened with the collapse down there. To some extent maybe it has permeated to the Conservative side of this House, because the Conservatives seem to accept this as a fact.

I agree with the member that this is workers' money. The government should be defending that and demanding the repayment of those bonuses.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the capacity of the government to go after people, it could certainly go after auto workers. I am sure it could do the same in this case.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to hear that the government has a new respect for the acts that are passed in this Parliament. Perhaps all of a sudden it now want us to implement the wage earner protection act.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that when the credit card rates were going up, the finance minister said he would talk to the banks.

He should be talking to this group. He should be saying that if they have any self-respect at all they will repay the bonuses. We should not have to legislate that. This is a matter of self-respect.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am saying cancel those tax breaks that have not been rolled out yet, that have not impacted on companies, and use that money to invest in seniors.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, we should be infusing funds into the CPP and OAS to raise the amounts of the benefits payable.

If the government of the day were to cancel $1 billion of that $14 billion a year in tax breaks it is giving to corporations, that money could be infused into the public plans—