Alain Giguère

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of raising the retirement age from 65 to 67, all stakeholders, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the chief actuary of the Canada pension plan and the inspectors of financial institutions, agree that raising the CPP eligibility age from 65 to 67 is not the solution. Financially speaking, that is not the problem.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is quite right. This was done with just one goal in mind: to cut $10 billion in order to justify $10 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthy. The middle class is being asked to do without $10 billion in the future so that the government, which favours private enterprise, will be the only one to benefit.

This will not solve the problem for the people of Nortel, among others. It seems that this government does not like hearing about the people of Nortel. I am sorry, but these people lost 40% of their pensions, and the government did not lift a finger.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, talking about pensions with this government is reminiscent of the story about the grasshopper and the ant. They are the grasshoppers and we are the ants.

They clearly do not realize that the money saved through a pension plan is not a tax, but a guarantee for people to stave off poverty in retirement.

The Conservatives give money without rhyme or reason to their friends and have a party. They dance and sing using other people's money. Once the recession hits, they give the bill to the ant. The worst part is that the grasshoppers are telling the ants to let them manage their assets. Wow. That is promising. They are hoping that people will accept that. Well, no. It does not work like that.

It is unbelievable that someone who claims to be the Minister of State for Finance is incapable of understanding that savings are not taxes, but investments. The minister is incapable of understanding that.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Newton—North Delta, who is also a very good friend of mine. I apologize for letting it slip my mind.

Protecting the savings already made is also crucial. Right now, the future is bleak for Canadians. Their retirement savings are at risk. Pension plans are going bankrupt. I did not hear the Minister of State for Finance talk about Nortel, Air Canada or all his friends who suspended pension contributions in the past and poorly invested their retirees' money. They are saying that they are not responsible or to blame, and they are asking workers who saved all their lives to agree to losing half of their money.

Clearly, when we listen to the speech by the Minister of State for Finance, we understand very well that his decision is to protect and favour his friends, not Canadians. He will have nothing to worry about when he retires because he will have a comprehensive pension plan and his friends will appoint him to the boards of oil companies. However, the vast majority of Canadian workers do not prostitute themselves like that.

How can the government say that the savings generated by enhancing the CPP will not be invested back into the economy?

When people set money aside for savings, they invest it and hope it will generate interest. That is the whole point of saving. If that money is going to earn interest, it has to be invested in Canadian industries and services. That money comes right out of the pockets of all taxpayers to support immediate investment that will produce returns in order to improve people's quality of life and protect them from poverty in retirement.

Not so long ago, people who worked for Nortel and Air Canada lost 40% of their pension. The government is always asking people who save money, who have set it aside, to make sacrifices, yet it absolutely does not want employers to have to take any responsibility in this matter.

The Conservatives put forward a voluntary pension plan. They say their goal is not to take money away. Well, it is the same thing. Savings are savings. They say that workers should be solely responsible for their savings, that the employer should not have to pay and that it will ask pension fund managers for investments or partnerships.

When it is a matter of using workers' money, they have no problem with that, but when it is time for them to do what they should be doing, they tell Canadians that they are not responsible, which is about as much as we can expect from our Minister of State for Finance.

There is one important thing he does not understand. He says that this would be an economic disaster. That makes me think of the dopes in the 1900s who said that women should not have the right to vote because that would turn them into alcoholics or make them hysterical. The Conservatives keep handing us the same old lines—clearly they have put as much thought into this as usual—saying that there will be job losses, the economy will stagnate, and everything will fail spectacularly. They have no proof of that at all. When we ask them to share their analyses with us, they have nothing to offer. It takes some nerve to attack a pension plan based on the delusions and fertile imaginations of people who have nothing else to go on, certainly not competence.

Here is something I need to tell the people across the way, because clearly, they do not know it: once the proposed reform is voted in, it will take three years to implement, and contributions will ramp up over a period of seven years. That means the increase will be spread out over 10 years. The Conservatives have told us to our faces that in 10 years, under their good government, we will still be in a slump. If that is good economic management, I am sorry, but we will do everything we can to get rid of it as soon as possible. Such an open declaration of incompetence is rare.

The Canada pension plan is currently the most secure pension plan. People who put their money into it are certain to get it back. It is not like an RRSP. When you put money into an RRSP, you are investing in venture capital. You risk earning a negative return. This has happened to many people, particularly in 2008. They had less money in their pensions than what they invested.

It is also important to understand that the financial institutions that manage RRSPs factor in a profit rate for themselves. Then, they charge administrative fees. After that, they sometimes have the audacity to give themselves a performance bonus. When things go a bit better than average, they give themselves bonuses and when things go worse than average, they still give themselves bonuses, claiming that it would have been worse had they not been there. In short, investors are the last ones to get paid. Everyone gets paid before them. RRSPs are therefore not the best option.

The CPP is different. First, it provides a return. In order for it to be cost-effective, that return must be about 3%. In addition to that, the CPP has the lowest administrative fees. No financial institution in Canada charges such low fees for that kind of return. I challenge the Conservatives to find evidence to the contrary. We are asking them for proof, not stories, imaginings or idle talk.

The government is not protecting Canadians' right to an effective pension system and that is unfortunate. We are dealing with people who have given up on the role of the Canadian government. The Conservatives are saying that it is not their fault if Canadians end up living in poverty as a result of their governance. It is as though the grasshopper started managing the ants' inheritance. When the grasshopper has spent all the ants' money on its friends, parties and risky investments—when it has wasted all the ants' money—it will have the nerve to tell the ants to tighten their belts.

At some point, the ants have the right to insist that their government act like their government, rather than like the government of its own cronies, senators and everyone but Canadians.

[Retirement Income Bill of Rights, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that the NDP will be supporting the bill so that the Standing Committee on Finance can discuss the Canada pension plan. This is important and serious.

I want to immediately correct the falsehoods that have been put forward by government members.

The Conservatives began by saying that they have delivered $2 billion in tax relief for seniors. Take Nortel, for example. The file was handled with such incompetence that Nortel workers lost more then $2 billion from their pension fund. That says a lot about how poorly the pension plan was managed. That is serious.

The people of Nortel worked their whole lives and lost more than 40% or 50% of their pension funds. It happened just like that. What did the government do? Nothing. That is serious. That type of situation needs to be addressed.

Here is another major falsehood. The Conservatives indicated that this was not the time to discuss the issue of pension plans. They do not know what they are talking about. The provincial proposal and the legislation concerning the Canada pension plan show that it will take three years from the moment the government decides to improve the pension plan for the change to happen. Increases to the Canada pension plan will happen over a seven-year period. It will take a total of 10 years from start to finish. Does that mean that the government is saying that the economic slump is going to last another 10 years? Is that the government's idea of economic growth? A 10-year slump?

Perhaps the government members need to understand that there is a difference between a pension fund and a tax. They are not the same thing. If they do not know what they are talking about, it would be better for them to study up on the issues instead of reading from notes prepared by the Prime Minister's Office. If the Conservatives were to do that, they would look more successful.

It is shameful that we are faced with such an astounding situation. The people who are losing their pension funds will not have the necessary income to meet their needs when they retire. However, the Conservatives refuse to talk about it.

With regard to the bill, I would have hoped that the Liberals would be better than the Conservatives, but that is not the case. The Liberals do not know what they are talking about either. It is appalling.

We have before us a bill that seeks to protect people who want to invest in a pension plan. That sounds good. It is good to know that the Liberals want to protect investors who put money into a pension fund.

However, when we look at the bill more closely, we see that it reflects a total lack of knowledge in this area. It does not make any sense. The Liberals want flexibility, but pension plans must produce a rate of return. Such plans must give a minor, quantifiable and identifiable return so that people who draw their pensions have at least 70% of their income. Math does not give the Liberals the wiggle room that they are used to. Two plus two equals four. That is always the case. The Liberals would like two plus two to equal three sometimes because then they can slip the extra into their pockets.

I would now like to explain why the bill is not viable. Subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act deals with registered pension plans. To be recognized as a registered pension plan, a pension plan must include a mandatory contribution from the employer. The Conservatives are changing the registered pension plan without taking into account that key element of the act.

The employer has to make a contribution. I did not find anything in their bill that amended the Income Tax Act. Obviously, they did not see this coming, they did not catch it and they did not even understand it.

Even if I went out of my way to explain it to them, I am not sure whether they would bother making the effort to understand. This is unfortunately what most deeply affects the Canada Pension Plan issue. We keep talking about it, but nothing gets done.

The bill refers to “other” savings vehicles without defining them. However, under section 147.1 of the Income Tax Act, a deferred profit sharing plan is determined by legislation, not a definition that says “other savings vehicles”, as stipulated in clause 2 of the Liberal bill. Therefore, there is a total lack of understanding of the relationship between pension plans and the Income Tax Act. That is not really being discussed, either.

Subclause 4(1) of the bill states that the right to accumulate sufficient pension income is subject to any reasonable restrictions. What exactly is a “reasonable restriction”? This means that all legislation addressing pensions is now subject to judicial control to define what is a reasonable restriction.

We want pension plans to put money in the pockets of retirees, not legal firms. Once again, they did not get that and did not see it coming. They do not want pension plans to violate an individual's right to accumulate a pension on the basis of their religion, language or place of birth. That is nice, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms already guarantees that.

However, what takes the cake is when they say that there should not be an age restriction, even though the pension plan is, first and foremost, an age-based restriction. For example, people often hear that they cannot retire before 30 or 35 years of service without a financial penalty. That is an age restriction.

The Liberals are saying that there should not be one. That says a lot. I do not know who wrote that or what they were smoking, but perhaps they were smoking a bit too much.

An annotation to section 146.2 of the Income Tax Act indicates that people who have RRSPs must roll their RRSPs into RRIFs at age 69. This is clearly an obligation and a penalty based on age. This text is so weak that we could talk about it for hours. However, there are a good number of really important questions here.

Are old age security, income security and the guaranteed income supplement enough to protect our seniors? That question needs to be addressed. Are people getting enough money?

Second, defined benefit pension plans are not protected by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Retirees are not considered preferred creditors. This was a major reason why the people at Nortel lost so much money. Can something be done? Can we create a group insurance plan with regard to registered pension plans? We must discuss this. CPP and QPP premiums are about 25%. Perhaps that needs to be increased to 50%, as suggested by the provinces.

In closing, this is about RRSPs. We need to limit the management fees and the rates of return.

This is why the NDP wants to be able to discuss this bill—basically so that the Standing Committee on Finance can have a closer look at these critical issues.

[Airplane Crash of November 29, 1963, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on November 29, 1963, a Trans-Canada Air Lines DC-8 crashed near Sainte-Thérèse-de-Blainville at about 6:30 p.m.

The violent crash left no hope for the survival of the 111 passengers and seven crew members. Despite the size of the crash site and the muddy and swampy ground, all emergency services immediately began rescue operations in the hope of rescuing any survivors. We must salute the selflessness of these responders, which was honourable.

I also remember that this accident, and especially the fact that it was impossible to pinpoint the cause, led to the development of flight recorders, or the famous black boxes. Last Friday, together with family members, friends, witnesses and municipal representatives, I attended a memorial service for the victims. The service was organized by Robert Page, who lost his father in the accident, and gave us an opportunity to honour and remember those who perished the evening of November 29, 1963.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured that the member for Labrador called me a minister. I am sure that will happen in 2015.

The entire government, including the official opposition, is prepared to act quickly. However, acting quickly does not mean acting hastily. We must not take action without considering the recommendations that have been made.

Wasting our time on unproductive debates does not speed things up, just as taking time to listen to people who come to testify and then giving them an answer does not drag out the debate.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the government's representative is a bit hostile.

Mr. McLeod said a lot of things. He said that this assembly had a vision for a prosperous and sustainable territory. Did my colleague hear that? The Conservatives only hear what they want to hear. Perhaps they should also listen to what people are saying.

One day, the Conservatives will have to sit down and recognize that these people are partners. They want to become partners and that is their right. The government should listen to them and do what they are asking. They should not simply listen to what they want to hear.

In the Standing Committee on Finance, the Minister of Health and Social Services for the Northwest Territories begged for help with hospitals and with reducing the suicide rate.

What was the government's response? We are still waiting.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is one of the first government bills aimed at rethinking our entire approach to the far north. It is particularly important because the far north is poised to become one of Canada's economic engines, if it is not one already.

So much remains to be done in terms of infrastructure and support for the local population. It will be important to review all of the issues that affect the people who live in that territory.

It is quite normal for the people there to want the economy of their region to be developed in a way that benefits them first and foremost, whether from an economic, environmental, social or structural standpoint.

Canada needs to make massive investments in aviation safety. These territories are so vast that everything must be done by plane. Air transportation is therefore a fact of life, and it will be essential that we discuss it sooner or later.

I would remind the House that the riding of Western Arctic is the same size as western Europe.

When the member for Western Arctic wants to visit his constituents, he has no choice but to do so by plane. Furthermore, he cannot hope to meet with everyone in all the communities in one day, or even in one week. There are too many small, remote villages. Too often he has to travel.

The marine mapping of the area has not been done. We often talk about the Northwest Passage, but it is important to emphasize that, as a sovereign nation, Canada has not yet mapped its Arctic coastline. This poses a problem in terms of territorial sovereignty, particularly when it is disputed.

I would remind the House that Denmark and the United States are disputing Canada's right of passage in its own waters. Russia, the United States and Denmark have launched border disputes regarding the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The government needs to have a closer look at these issues.

Bill C-15 deals specifically with the transfer of certain powers from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The NDP applauds and approves of this important first step. We hope that it will not be the last. It will allow these communities to take charge of their own futures, which only makes sense. Local officials, elected by the people, are in the best position to understand the specific problems and difficulties these communities face with regard to housing, infrastructure, access to drinking water, educational institutions and the preservation of their culture. These are all rather important things. In this regard, it is true that we support this first step.

Of course, we hope to be able to present amendments. We hope that all of the committee members will listen to what we have to say so that recommendations are considered on their merit and not on the basis of a party line, which all too often results in a failure to listen to the witnesses who appear before the committee.

The Northwest Territories know best how their resources should be used, and they should have the final say in that regard.

These people will have to ask themselves the following questions: should we empty our mines in 10 years or should we extract the materials more gradually over a period of 50 years in a way that is more advantageous to the local community?

How will the waste generated from the development of these natural resources be disposed of? These issues are of particular interest to the Northwest Territories. They do not want a small but immediate gain at the cost of a huge environmental, generational and financial deficit later on.

I sincerely believe that if all hon. members explained this bill to their provinces, it would not pass. We would not allow our respective provinces to be limited in the ways this bill will limit the Northwest Territories.

I would like to remind hon. members that there is a significant limitation on the transfer of powers and revenues from development. The Government of the Northwest Territories will keep up to 50% of the revenues from the development of resources on public land and the Government of Canada will keep the rest. On the one hand, the government is saying that the territory is entitled to only 50% of the spinoffs and, on the other, it is saying that the territory can receive a set maximum amount.

I would like to know whether any of us would agree to let such a limitation be imposed on the government of his or her province. I can guarantee that the answer would be a resounding no, from British Columbia all the way to Newfoundland. This is probably the most questionable feature of the bill. Fortunately, this is just the first piece of legislation. In five years, it will be accompanied by other laws and a review of our overall approach to the far north as it relates to first nations communities.

I will tell this House right now that these people will not agree to have the government give them just part of the whole. If they have a right to democracy, then they have it fully and completely. Infrastructure should be tailored to their needs. As for airlines and distribution centres, they want them at home because they want these jobs to be created at home. This makes sense, because these are well-paying jobs, just like the jobs in the mines.

Currently, the business practice is to establish a mine and a residential centre—not a town or hospitals, but rather a huge hotel where the mine's employees stay for two weeks and then take a plane home to Montreal, Sept-Îles, Toronto or Windsor, where they stay for another two weeks.

Therefore, northerners do not have these jobs and do not benefit from them in any way; everything is shipped by air or by boat from the large ports of Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax, or from major airports like Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton. How do they benefit from this? Aside from seeing the ships carrying ore go by under their noses, there is no advantage for them.

We will therefore support this first step because it is useful and, at least, finally gives this government the authority to assume and define the interests of the local population itself.

I would like to remind the House that global warming also affects the far north. Moreover, and all meteorologists agree, nowhere in the world does global warming have a greater impact than in the Canadian Arctic. Global warming can even damage infrastructure. If we put a road on the permafrost as it thaws, the road will be destroyed.

I thank all the members for listening to my speech and I hope they will listen just as carefully to the witnesses' recommendations.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard some fine statements about the economy. The problem is that we currently have almost as many unemployed workers as we did at the height of the recession in 2008. Since the Conservative government came to power, 80% of Canadians have seen their incomes drop. It is all well and good that Canada is progressing, but the more Canada progresses, the poorer most Canadians get. Obviously, as poverty increases, so does the use of food banks. Canadians are being forced to turn to charity in order to survive.

Can my colleague explain how these Reagan and Bush style policies have hurt Canada?

[Ethics, November 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there was not one political observer, regardless of his affiliation, who did not criticize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister's sorry spectacle. That speaks volumes about the judgment of the Prime Minister, who chose this member as a parliamentary secretary. You know things are bad when you starting missing the member for Nepean—Carleton's antics.

The party in power is facing serious criminal allegations. People could go to prison, and he is clowning around. He is mocking the very idea of accountability and transparency.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is insulting the intelligence of his constituents, Canadians and his colleagues. This has become clear in the House. Members who have not yet sold their souls to the amateur wheeler-dealers in the Prime Minister's Office are not very comfortable with the idea of applauding their colleague.

I encourage my colleagues who still have some respect for the House, for our institution, to join me in telling the parliamentary secretary to stop his antics and answer the questions.

[Ethics, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister keeps saying that the Prime Minister is prepared to co-operate fully with the RCMP.

If that is the case, why were Benjamin Perrin's emails deleted, as the RCMP report indicates? Is this not precisely an example of a total lack of co-operation?