m federal general revenue, to be re-
Ceived by the recipient pensioner as tax
able income.

__ The second part of the above state-
_ Ment perpetuates the myth that we are all
_ €qually responsible for the maintenance
_ Of a stable and balanced economy. This
_ Position is stubbornly maintained despite
a. the fact that the top income 20 per cent of
Our population dispose of nearly one-half

Of our national income, while the bottom
| 20per cent receive less than 5 per cent.

| ~ The Green Paper makes no reference
to the fact that in 1970 a federal white
| Paper set out the aim of downgrading the
_ Universal Old Age Security pension and
Upgrading instead the Guaranteed In-
Come Supplement. Originally this GIS

_ Was meant to be an interim system of
| Payment on a means-test basis to ease
__ the ten-year long phase-in of the wage-re-

from the Old Age Security Act.

(3)-a) Amend the Income Tax Act to
exempt Old Age Security (OAS) pension
recipients with less than $18,000 per
annum income, from paying any per-
sonal income tax

-b) Institute a progressively. accel-
erated personal income tax on highest
income brackets so as to recoup their
share of the universal OAS pension via
the tax system.
ee

With respect to earnings-related pen-
sions, much-less than one-half of our
labor force are covered by employer-
sponsored pension plans. What is even
worse, only a fraction of those who are
so covered will ever collect any bene-
fits. This is particularly evident in cur-
rent circumstances facing millions of
jobless workers, because of the absence
of vesting and portability.

financed by a pay-as-you-go system
rather than on a funded basis. Members
of the big business committee claim
that expansion of the public plans would

remove an important source of invest-

ment capital from the private sector.

“Aside from the fact that it is not
funded, the CPP is a perfect plan,’’ says
Mrs. Andrea Vincent, President of the
Ass’n of Canadian Pension Manage-
ment, a pension industry and big busi-
ness study and information group. “‘It is
portable, it has survivorship benefits,
inflation protection and it’s universal.
Butit is not actuarially sound and it’s not
funded. Basically business fears that a
funded CPP/QPP would put enormous
sums of money into the hands of the
Government. Government could start
investing it for control of companies or
for social reasons as opposed to business
reasons,’’ Vincent says.

en sep 2 a Nr SN I a AI At PART SRS a ee as a eT

lated Canada and Quebec pension plans.
Instead it has become a permanent vehi-
Cle to be used for the gradual phase-out of
universal and non-contributory Old
Age Security pension.
_Another important point not men-
| Uoned in the Green Paper is the fact that
the Old Age Security pension was frozen
at $100 per month in 1973, which is the
€ upon which the current indexing is
anchored.
The Green Paper makes no hard pro-
Posals or firm federal commitments on
Pension reform in this area. As one ex-
ample, all it says on the much debated
- Minimum income for single pensioners is
the situation ‘‘will be improved as
S80on as resources permit’, presumably
‘Ough the means-tested GIS, since no
More increases have been made to the
Universal Old Age Security pension since
3. No information is given as to the
_ Methods by which increases will be
‘troduced or the amount of any such.
Since this is the area that is exclusively
Under federal jurisdiction it is a matter of
STeat concern that the federal govern-
Ment do not have more to say in this area
of pension reform, particularly since this
'S the area where the question of poverty
$s to be tackled seriously if anything at
all 18 to be done to mitigate this evil in our
_ “apitalist society.
Old Age Security
We Propose:
(1) Lower the pensionable age to 60 for
Men and to 55 for women and those in
ous .and strenuous occupations.
(2)-a) Amend the Old Age Security Act
‘0 increase the universal Old Age Secur-
ty (OAS) pension to $650. per month,
Y indexed to compensate for inflation
and, to be kept above the poverty level as
_ ©Stablished from time to time by statis-
tics Canada.
-b) Remove the hated means-test

LL PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOVEMBER 9, 1983—Page 7

The labor movement regards private
pensions as deferred wages, and rightly
so. Unions, in negotiating pensions
have often foregone wage increases. Yet,
and despite the fact that workers have
always paid fully for the benefits to
which they become entitled under pri-
vate pension plans, both the law and the
practice of employer-employee rela-
tions have tended to deal with private
pension plans as though they belong to
the employer. Employers have felt free.
to introduce or amend private plans uni-
laterally, and; they have exercised the
unilateral right to administer pension

plans and name the trustees of pension —

funds. This practice must be stopped

-and governments must take steps to in-

sure that workers have a say in the
administration of their own pension

. plans.

As matters stand now, employers see
pension funds as a source of capital
accumulation, as a source of investment
capital. Some see pension assets in-

~ crease by a factor of 15 times by the year

2,000, adding a potential of $1-trillion to
the savings and investment stream.
What is at stake in the pension reform
debate is, who is going to control these
assets. Some have even gone so far as to
suggest that if the government-spon-
sored Canada and Quebec pension plans
are expanded, the fund should be man-
aged by the private sector, which has
(sic) ‘‘a proven track record’’ in the
management of pension assets. — (To-
ronto Globe and Mail Report on Busi-
ness, March 5, 1983). :
Aside from the big business argument
that the economy capt absorb the ae
of improved pensions, the opposition 0
seloues groups to the Canadian Labor
Congress proposal to double the Canada
and Quebec Pension Plans hinges on the
fact that these pension plans are

But while private industry argues that
the CPP’s noninvestment policy re-
moves money from the system, there is
just as much opposition to the aggres-
sive investment techniques of the
Caisse de Depot et Placement du
Quebec, the agency that invests funds
from the Quebec Pension Plan.

No matter how much the private-sec-
tor pension schemes are reformed, they
will never be able to provide entitle-
ments that are locked in as soon as
people start work, are portable from job
to job throughout their working lives,
and are fully indexed against inflation
when they retire. =

Only a comprehensive public pension
plan can do these things, which is why an
expansion of the Canada and Quebec
Pension Plans is now a most urgent neces-
sity. One would have thought that a
rationally thinking government would
have made this a key issue in its Green
Paper advocacy of better pensions for
Canadians.

Unfortunately, not only has the
government failed to do this, but Health
Minister Monique Begin herself, has
publicly boasted that reform of the pri-
vate pension system is the most im-
portant social issue facing the govern-
ment in this decade.

In terms of priorities, we totally dis-
agree with this statement, which in our
view ignores the realities of the situation
we find ourselves in and the role which
our federal government must be forced

‘to face up to in the interests of the

people which it is supposed to
represent.

Earnings-Related Public Pensions
At present the earnings-related and
mandatory public pension plans, i.e. the
Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the
Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) applies only

Te Sot ee ee ee ee ee a

to earnings below the average industrial
wage,-and provides maximum benefits
of 25 per cent of that amount, which
means $4,142 in 1983.

- There is today a general consensus ~
across the country that calls for a doubl-
ing of this amount so that the CPP will
provide benefits of up to 50 per cent of
previous earnings. This proposal is
being advanced by organized labor, so-
cial agencies, women’s groups — in
fact, almost everyone except employer
organizations and the private pension
industry.

Our party supports this proposal toex- _
pand our earnings-related public pen- —
sion system to 50 per cent of pre-retire-
ment earnings up to the average indus--
trial wage.

Our proposal for an expanded CPP
and QPP, when combined with the
above mentioned universal and non-
contributory Old Age Security (OAS)
‘pension, should thus provide working
people, upon retirement, with 75 per
cent of their pre-retirement earnings if
they earned an average industrial wage;

- higher if they had lower earnings and

lower if their earnings were higher than
the average industrial wage. aa nae

Second, we propose optional retire- —
ment at 60 years of age at 75 per cent of
the average industrial wage, with the
option to retire at 55 for women and for
workers in heavy industry.

Third, we call for provisions to be
made for working women, dependent on
work for a living or caring for a home,
while not able or eligible to contribute to
the CPP orthe QPP, toreceiveapension |
at pensionable age. For this purpose the |
government should provide funds from
general revenue to cover cost of pen-
sions equal to pensions provided for
those making contributions while in the
labor force.

We agree with the listing of pension
problems and deficiencies of the pen-
sion system as far as women are con-
cerned in the Green Paper. But the pro-
posals for improvement in the situation -
are totally inadequate. The federal —
government does possess sufficient —
power and resources to solve this prob--
lem providing the political will is there
to do it. :

Employer-Sponsored Pension Plans —

All contributions to _ private
employer-sponsored pension plans
must be vested in the employee from
day one and regardless of age.

All credit accumulation must be port-
able from one employer to another or
credited to an employee’s Registered
Pension Account, as proposed in the
Green Paper. ;

Provisions must be made for joint —
employer-employee trusteeship and
administration of private sector pension |
funds on request by employees and/or
their union, with employee veto power
over the investment and use of accrued _
interest on such funds — which legally —
must belong to the employees, as the
equivalent of deferred wages.

Provisions must also be made for sur-
vivor benefits in private as in public
earnings-related pension plans.

In the same way there must be pro-

‘visions within both public and private

pension systems to guarantee an
adequate income for handicapped per-—
sons regardless of age.

As the Green Paper states in Chapter
6 — “The Costs of Reform’’ — ‘‘The
benefits that ultimately come out of a
pension system are directly related to
the contributions that go into it.”’

No one knows this better than the
working people whose hands and brains
applied to our means of production and
resources produce all wealth in the
country, including — not only wages —
but rent, interest and profits as well.

This is precisely why the collective
voice of the working people of Canada —
must now be heard and heeded in the
bitter struggle for better pensions for —
working Canadians in their final retire-
ment years. s