Mr. McDonald, would you say the same thing?
Evidence of meeting #15 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transit.
Evidence of meeting #15 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transit.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
October 6th, 2011 / 11:15 a.m.
President, Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce
Yes. We certainly would be supporting no tax changes, no increases at all. That's what we have advocated through the federal campaigns and we support that.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Our government has basically been a government that has said we have to get back to balanced budgets to get rid of our deficit. Having said that, we haven't done it like the Liberal government did previously, by cutting transfers to provinces and cutting transfers to health care.
Do you feel we are on the right track in light of the economic activity that is going on right now? Or do you think something should change?
11:15 a.m.
President, Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce
Well, I know that we were most interested in where the deficit and debt reduction plans were going. The identification is that by 2015 there was some talk of getting back towards a balanced budget. We thought that sounded reasonable and was within a balanced approach of maintaining no tax increases and delivering on the tax cuts that were promised. We do feel that it is obtainable.
11:15 a.m.
Vice-President, Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce
Yes. I would agree with Mr. McDonald's assessment. I think we made that point in our budget brief: that we support the plan Minister Flaherty is on with respect to returning to a balanced budget, particularly without cutting—I made this point earlier—payments to the provinces, and to individuals, I believe. We certainly hope he keeps that commitment moving forward.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
So going to the 2012 budget, you would view that as a main pillar: to try to make sure we work towards the deficit reduction by 2015.
11:15 a.m.
Vice-President, Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce
That is a reasonable assessment, yes.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Okay, and again, that is based on information we have in front of us today.
11:15 a.m.
Vice-President, Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce
That's right: based on the information we have available today.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Okay.
Are there any other items you would like see in budget 2012? I know that we probably have only 15 seconds, but are there items that you think should be and must be there?
11:15 a.m.
Vice-President, Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce
Beyond what is in the brief, probably not. There may be some minor issues, but I think these are our key priorities. We've identified them as our priorities moving forward.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our guests.
I want to correct the record on something. When I was talking about a consensus on the $130 billion, I was talking about a consensus among the witnesses of the first panel that now was the time for the Government of Canada to consider investing in infrastructure. Notwithstanding what Mr. McDonald or Mr. Sinclair just said, you'll recall that the Paul Martin government, along with Jack Layton, negotiated moneys instead of a corporate tax cut, to put those moneys into transportation. Some of those moneys went to Windsor. I know in Hamilton we wound up with more buses, as an example of what you can do.
In regard to the date of when the deficit is addressed, we're suggesting they extend that date. The FCM has called for addressing some of the $130 billion infrastructure deficit, so we're pleased with the fact that the government is locking in some money. Write this down, because we are pleased with some of that dedicated money.
I want to go to Mr. Tufts just for a second, now that I've kind of diverted a bit. You're talking about public pension plans. I would suggest to you that OMERS has been very successful. But one of the things that's been lost in the conversation is the fact that pension assets are deferred wages. They should belong to the employees involved. We can debate the percentage of income that gets replaced. I understand you think it's way too high for the public sector, but there's been a move in our country away from defined benefit plans to defined contributions, and the Canada Pension Plan is one of the most successful defined benefit plans.
The Liberals want to talk about their supplementary plan. What we said is that you should phase in an increase to the core assets of CPP in order to, in 35 years, double the monthly benefits. If we're losing defined benefit plans across the country, would you not see this as a secure way of protecting Canadians?
11:20 a.m.
Founder, Fair Pensions for All
It's one option. It's not the preferable option in my opinion. I prefer the PRPP option. I have some concerns about the whole of the pension moneys in Canada being socialized and some of the long-term implications about these huge pools of pension money that are going to be in the hands of public sector unions or controlled by them—
11:20 a.m.
NDP
11:20 a.m.
Founder, Fair Pensions for All
The government.... There's $800 billion in Canada in public sector pension plans, and that's—
11:20 a.m.
Founder, Fair Pensions for All
It's invested, a lot of it outside of the country, I might add. I think that's something the unions need to address.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
The other thing about the PRPP is that, just a week and a half or two weeks ago, we had a 7% loss in our market. If you were about to retire at that point in time, you'd have had a critical problem. One of the concerns we have going forward is protecting our retirees when they come in, and that's why, again, we talk about the portable CPP and the fact that it's a defined benefit and it's well managed.
11:20 a.m.
Founder, Fair Pensions for All
Yes, there's certainly a risk that's there. I think the people who are in the system today need to be responsible for their own retirement. When you point out the losses that have occurred in the stock markets, I'd like to point out—on that $800-billion pool of public sector money that's out there—that the stock markets are down 20% this year. The United States has just introduced the Twist program, which is going to keep bond rates very low. The loss is 20% in the hole in the stock markets, and it's going to decrease the value of those public sector pension plans another $160 billion. There's no way the current taxpayers or employees can make that up, so all we're doing is pushing that obligation ahead into the future for other generations. We have to find a way of dealing with that issue.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
The other side of the coin, sir, is when the market goes back up. It does come back up. And a lot of the pension plans, like the teachers' plan, are invested in land and property. We could debate, and I don't really want to get into that.
I want to go back again to the point about public transit. In Hamilton I forget the number of buses we saw on the street, but the fact that the government of the day paused and stopped a corporate tax break and put that money back in is evidence of the outcomes we could have. What do you think of the possibility of this government deferring a tax break to the corporations, especially when they're the top-end corporations?
