Bill C-301 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and to make a related amendment to another Act (registered retirement income fund)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to remove the requirement to withdraw minimum amounts from a registered retirement income fund. It also makes a related amendment to another Act.

Fraud Against Seniors

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today in support of Motion No. 203. I will start by thanking my colleague from Richmond Centre for bringing forth this very important motion. I would also like to thank her for her many years of advocacy for seniors in the House and across Canada.

There are four major parts to this motion: first, recognizing the disproportionate effect of fraud activities against seniors across the county; second, coordinating a national response to fraud activities to ensure that seniors and vulnerable groups have the resources they need to understand the signs of fraud; third, establishing tangible recourses for victims of fraud; and fourth, working with local law enforcement agencies and the CRA to introduce legislation to combat fraudulent attacks that target vulnerable seniors.

Motion No. 203 originates from a motion I put forward a year ago, Motion No. 176, and I am especially pleased to see it being debated today. It is also very timely that March is fraud awareness month, so it is a great time to be debating the bill.

For many of the people in the House, when they approached politics for the first time, they were asked what their motivation was for running. When I submitted my nomination for my party, I told people it was to work for seniors. In my past life, when I lived in Victoria, I worked with an amazing organization called the Greater Victoria Eldercare Foundation. It looked after six hospitals for the elderly and severely disabled.

March in Victoria, through the Eldercare Foundation, is recognized as the 14th annual Embrace Aging Month and I want to take a moment to thank two people who are still with the Eldercare Foundation and doing amazing work there: Lori McLeod and Donald Clark. Besides helping with the six hospitals, they have introduced a lot of very innovative health care and aging issues and programs for seniors, which I would like to touch on briefly.

There is the Embrace Aging Month I spoke about that connects seniors to resources and activities in their communities. It has a pilot program called “ElderConnect”, a wellness navigation system to make the journey to aging easier, both in the community and in the hospital system. Eldercare Foundation has also created a program called the safe lifeline program that helps seniors stay in their homes longer as opposed to moving into elder homes. Its slogan for this month, Embrace Aging Month, is “Be Well, Be Secure, Be Connected and Be Enriched”. It looks after seniors and the most disabled in, as I said, six hospitals: the Aberdeen Hospital, which is the main one; Mount Tolmie; Glengarry; Priory; Heritage Woods; and the Oak Bay Lodge.

I started out many years ago as a fundraiser for the Eldercare group, later joined the board and became vice-president, and then I was very proud to spend several years as president of the Eldercare Foundation. I still contribute as an adviser to the board to this day.

After receiving my nomination, when I was door-knocking, one of the biggest things, if not the major thing, I heard from seniors is the unfairness of the RRIF rules, the registered retirement income fund rules that force seniors to roll their pensions into an RRIF at age 72 and start withdrawing money from that program to be taxed, whether they need the money or not.

The C.D. Howe Institute has studied this for years and has done great work. One of the things it stated about the RRIF, with the changes in lower returns but also increased life expectancy, is that there is a very real problem that seniors are going to outlive their savings. Another issue with the forced withdrawal is that it pushes seniors into a higher tax bracket. Therefore, not only are they pushed into a higher tax bracket but they have OAS, provincial and other clawbacks.

Seniors living in housing arranged in Edmonton, for example, through the Greater Edmonton Foundation, pay their rent based on their incomes. We are forcing seniors to withdraw money to be taxed, which pushes them into higher tax brackets and forces them to pay higher rents at the same time. For what purpose are we doing this? The C.D. Howe Institute said, if we let seniors leave their money in their RRIFs until they pass, the government would actually collect a higher amount of taxes in the end, rather than the bit-by-bit process right now.

From talking to seniors when I went door to door, I promised I would introduce a bill to address that issue. Bill C-301, my private member's bill, would eliminate the mandatory withdrawals. It would allow seniors to withdraw the money when they decide they need it, not when the government decides.

The Canadian Association for Retired Persons supported my bill. The C.D. Howe Institute supported my bill. However, what did the government say? The Liberal candidate who was running against me said that it is the government that should decide how and when seniors get their money. It is not seniors deciding for themselves, but that the government should decide.

One of the Liberal members who argued against my private member's bill said that we should not have it; otherwise, seniors will hoard their retirement savings. This person actually said this in the House of Commons, believing that seniors should not decide when to withdraw their money, since this would allow seniors to hoard their money. We had another person stand in the House and blatantly mislead members by stating that it would cost the government $500 million a year in lost tax revenues.

Unfortunately, the government voted it down, which is funny because in the budget being introduced tomorrow, when we look at the pre-consultations, what is in there? It is changes to the RRIF program. At least the government has admitted that this is an issue that it will address.

The government further went on and immediately eliminated the former minister of seniors program. Why was this? I am not really sure. I am pleased that Liberals have changed their minds and reinstated the Minister of Seniors to help look after seniors.

I want to look at the issue at hand, which is seniors fraud. It is one of the fastest-growing crimes in Canada and Edmonton. It is not just stereotypical seniors who are being defrauded and targeted. It is not just the frail, the elderly, those getting on or those lacking access to technology. Young, active seniors are being targeted and defrauded as well.

Recently, I did a seniors seminar on fraud at a west-end seniors association in my riding. About 120 seniors came out, and every single one of them said they had been contacted within the last two weeks by a fraud attempt. Fully 20% admitted they had been defrauded of some money.

There are big frauds. We heard about the CRA fraud today, in which people contact seniors and pretend they are from the CRA. It is quite funny that the CRA will never actually answer people's phone calls, but people think it actually has time to call people.

There is a grandma-and-grandpa fraud, in which fraudsters will follow families on Facebook. They will see grandparents posting and reposting pictures of their kids and grandkids in Mexico. They will target those seniors by calling and pretending they are the grandkids and then they will say they are in prison and they are in trouble in Mexico and ask the seniors not to tell mom and dad and to send some money.

There is the email phishing scam. Of course, we have all received the emails purporting to be from BMO, Royal Bank, Shaw, other banks and other companies, which look very professional and very real. However, fraudsters are trying either to get credit information or to hack computers.

There is the romance fraud, in which people will meet others over valid websites, such as eHarmony or Match.com. People will spend months grooming seniors and then will defraud them, asking for money for trips or this and that.

There is of course identity theft as well. There is a new one. I actually just received a Facebook message today through the Edmonton Police Service, to which I have to give a shout-out. It helps me a lot in the community by sending out officers to present fraud seminars with me. It is now warning people not to put too much information in obituaries, because people are using that for identity theft.

Like my colleague from Richmond Centre, I sent out a survey to all my constituents asking if they would support the bill. This is what they said.

Randy said, “It is not just the scam that's objectionable. I'm angry that the Fed. Govt. does nothing to stop the frequent disruptions.... Thanks for finally...[taking] action”.

“My parents are seniors or are underfunded.... Shame on the Liberals and the NDP.” That was from Darcy.

Karen said, “It's time to put Canadian seniors higher priority”.

Someone else said, “I have been called many times on my cellphone while I have been driving and told it was the CRA and I owed...money.”

Diane and Tony said, “As seniors, my husband and I have seen the incidences of online scams, banking scams and telephone scams increasing at an alarming rate. Thanks to our interest in keeping up with technology, we have avoided and reported some of the fraud attempts we have encountered. Other seniors we know have not been so lucky.”

Another said that they are aware of many seniors who are vulnerable and who have fallen prey to these scams.

I have hundreds and hundreds of examples sent in by seniors who have been ripped off and by other people in my riding who note their parents have been ripped off.

I am glad that the member for Richmond Centre has tabled Motion No. 203. I hope all sides in the House will support the motion so that we can do something about senior fraud in Canada.

An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-377, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle. I have a lot of respect for the member for the riding. We served together for a period of time on the operations and estimates committee. While we did not always see eye to eye, I believe we did a lot of great work on that committee, whether it was Canada Post or other acts, so I do appreciate her work.

That being said, this bill is not something I can support. Those watching at home on CPAC are probably asking themselves what this bill is about, and why Parliament is debating this instead of important issues of the day, such as the question we discussed earlier in question period of why there is a known ISIS fighter walking free on the streets of Toronto after happily broadcasting how he murdered innocents abroad while fighting for ISIS in Syria. Why is he busy doing press conferences in Toronto instead of being in jail?

What about the constitutional crisis created by the Liberals in their poor handling of the Trans Mountain pipeline issue? Why are we not discussing that? Why are we not debating the issue of the border crisis in the member's own riding, where we have a flood of illegal immigrants coming in from the United States? I notice that over 20% of her riding is made up of seniors. Why are we not debating palliative care or seniors issues instead of this? None of that is going to be debated. The bill is solely about changing the name of the riding. Seriously, it is just a name change.

If people are at home watching CPAC right now, they are probably a bit more engaged than regular Canadians and would know that last week we passed changes to the names of other members' ridings. The Chief Government Whip had a bill passed, which has already gone through the House and is with the Senate, so that MPs can change the names of their ridings at will. They would not need a special private member's bill; they can just change the name.

My colleague from Calgary Signal Hill wants to change the name of his riding to Calgary West. He can go ahead and do it. I have joked in the past about changing the name of my riding from Edmonton West to Edmonton West Edmonton Mall, to honour West Edmonton Mall, the world's largest mall, which is in my riding. I mention that because, again, just last week we were able to change the names of over a dozen ridings, and it took the House just 60 seconds to do so. My point is that we do not need a private member's bill to change the name.

When MPs first get elected, at the beginning of the legislative period, they draw numbers for the order of introducing private members' bills. Those with low numbers get a chance to get their private members' bills heard and debated in the House. I drew a relatively low number and introduced Bill C-301, a bill that would reduce taxes for all seniors across the country. Unfortunately, the bill was shot down by the Liberals.

Because of time constraints, only about half of the members of Parliament will get their private members' bills introduced, debated, and heard in the House. Only about half of us get a bill through. The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle was lucky enough to have that, but, instead of introducing a bill that would actually help Canada and her constituents, she wastes valuable legislative time to debate a bill to change the name of her riding, which is not even needed, because we have procedural rules to change it.

I see that today the Liberals brought closure on a bill once again, this time to limit debate on Bill C-76, where we are debating the ways we are going to conduct our elections. The Liberal bill would allow foreign funds from Tides U.S.A. to flood into Canada to alter our electoral outcomes and attack our democratic process. The bill would allow people who have not set foot in Canada for over two or three decades to still be able to vote and help decide our electoral outcomes.

We have only one hour of debate on the serious issues that affect our democracy, and yet we have just spent four hours to discuss a name change that could have been done simply with an email to the government whip. Again, I have great respect for this member, but I believe it is a great waste of Parliament's time, and it just shows once again the mixed-up priorities of the Liberal government.

Seniors

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to Motion No. 106, the Liberal motion on seniors. I emphasize the word “Liberal” because this motion is just another example of the Liberals putting forward empty, feel-good and, frankly, do-nothing motions. I am sure the member had good intentions behind the motion. He has given it a very grandiose title, “establishing a national seniors' strategy”. Someone reading it might actually think it had teeth or represented actually helping seniors.

Here is the problem, though. Motion No. 106 does nothing but highlight the lack of seriousness that the Liberal government has when it comes to addressing the needs of seniors.

The superficial nature of the motion is disrespectful at its core, because it makes light of a serious issue by failing to provide any concrete language or measurable outcomes. Hard-working Canadian seniors deserve a concrete commitment and timeline from the government regarding the development of a national seniors' framework.

I want to highlight a couple of items in the motion.

Number one is to “recognize that seniors...make up a demographic that requires ongoing attention”. It seems a bit obvious.

Number two is that the government should “point out that it is working hard to [improve] the lives of seniors”. Here we have a motion from the Liberal government saying we should point out the great job we are doing for seniors.

Motion No. 106 is frustrating for its lack of tangible outcomes. It is even more frustrating that it comes after several attempts to help seniors from members on this side of the House that were rejected outright by the Liberal majority, pretty much for the reason that it was not their idea.

We have asked for a return of the ministry for seniors and a real, concrete national seniors' strategy over and over again. My colleagues, the member for Langley—Aldergrove and the member for Richmond Centre, and I have personally submitted numerous petitions asking for reinstatement of the ministry for seniors, which existed before being cynically cut by the current government.

My own private member's bill, Bill C-301, the RRIF financial security act, focused on tax relief for Canadian seniors.

The bill was supported by the NDP, by financial experts who provided clear evidence that the bill would help seniors without hurting government revenues, by the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, and most important, by Canadians across the country. With broad support from Canadians, one would expect that this would be reflected in this House. However, the Liberals, including the member for Nickel Belt, voted against seniors and against that bill.

On February 14, Liberal members of the HUMA standing committee voted down a neutral motion calling for the committee to study seniors' issues. They just recently voted down a motion asking for a study of seniors' issues; yet, here we are, days later, discussing a Liberal motion on seniors. It makes me wonder why the government has so suddenly changed its mind. Is it because the government is so politically motivated it cannot see the benefit of voting in favour of an opposition motion?

The Conservatives have a long record of supporting our seniors. There are accomplishments that we are proud of, and accomplishments that are being eroded thanks to the reckless tax-and-spend approach of the current Liberal government.

Our seniors have worked all their lives, paid taxes, paid into pensions, and paid into the CPP. They are trying to live out their golden years with a living wage and savings to prepare them for unanticipated expenses.

Conservative policies focused on empowering seniors to choose how they want to live their retirement years and providing help for those who need it. We expanded the GIS and the compassionate care program, and provided tax breaks to caregivers. We invested $1.4 billion in 2011 to reduce the number of Canadians in a housing need through a federal-provincial framework assisting almost 184,000 homes. We invested $1.25 billion in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's affordable housing centre, creating over 25,000 new affordable housing units.

We introduced tax-free savings accounts and expanded the annual maximum to $10,000 to help working Canadians save more for their retirement. Millions of Canadians use TFSAs, with the vast majority earning low and middle incomes. Yet the Liberals could not wait to reduce the TFSA limit and punish those who dared think that hard-earned and saved money should be enjoyed by those who earned and saved it.

The previous government introduced income splitting for seniors and lowered the mandatory withdrawal rate for registered retirement income funds.

It is a long record indeed. These are evidence-based policies that benefit every senior, with remarkable returns leading to the lowest poverty rate among our seniors in decades. It is a record to be proud of. However, more can always be done. The previous government dedicated an entire ministry to helping seniors. Unfortunately, the Liberals scrapped the ministry and currently have no cabinet representation for seniors.

We have a minister of youth, who I will note sits and refuses to answer questions posed to the minister of youth, but nothing for our seniors who have spent decades working and paying taxes. That was another in a long line of inexplicable Liberal decisions.

Both my party and my colleagues in the other opposition parties bring forward initiatives to help seniors, to lower taxes, and to provide relief for the vulnerable in Canada. I do not always agree with my NDP colleagues, but I happily support any sensible ideas they put forward to help Canadians. However, in response, the government consistently votes against them and blocks them from coming into force for what I can only assume are crass political motivations.

The problem is that although the Liberals might score a political win, vulnerable Canadians who need our help lose. These Canadians lose because the government would rather play politics than support something they did not come up with first.

It is no surprise to anyone that our population mix is changing drastically. One in six Canadians was a senior last year. In 12 years, one in four Canadians will be a senior. There are now more Canadians 65 years of age or older than those under the age of 15. The ratio of workers to seniors is going to fall from 4:1 to 2:1 in 2030.

This drastic demographic shift has created an important need to prepare for the care of aging Canadians, changing program priorities, and government delivery. This is not just a concern for old age security but for the future of our health care system, and how the provinces are to cope with the massive growth in seniors who will be accessing the already overloaded health care system. An assessment of government readiness to care for an aging population needs to begin now.

I want to go back to Bill C-301, about which I briefly spoke. It was an immediate solution to help seniors today and in the future, and was broadly supported. It was not just empty rhetoric and talking points. I received hundreds of responses from Edmontonians who were counting on the current Liberal government to remove the mandatory withdrawal structure from the RRIFs. I have correspondence from seniors in Toronto, Ottawa, all over British Columbia, and Calgary, all supporting removing mandatory minimums. I have an endorsement from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, representing over 60,000 seniors, in support of removing mandatory withdrawals. However, I suppose this was not a Liberal initiative and therefore was not worthy of this Parliament.

I can go on and on about the conduct of the members on the other side of the House, pretending to stand up for middle-class Canadians. Middle-class Canadians do not want taxes, or corporate bailouts, or long-winded talking points. They want jobs and they want to see the money that they put into the government coming back to them. In the case of seniors, they want assurances that the system they have been paying into is there to help them when they need it.

It is getting more difficult by the day to believe anything the government says in the House. It constantly boasts about wanting to be collaborative, looking toward the future, and changing the way things work in this place. Then it does the exact opposite of what it preaches.

I support evidence-based policies that meaningfully help our most vulnerable. However, I do not support Liberal moves of cynical, self-congratulation to cover up the fact they have voted down every proposal we or my opposition colleagues have brought forward simply because of where we sit in the House. I also do not support empty, do-nothing motions that will not help seniors today or in the future.