Craig Scott

[Elections Canada, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that delaying this bill as long as he has is deliberately reducing the likelihood of any changes being allowed to it.

Let us remember when, in 2008, this minister claimed that Elections Canada singled out the Conservative Party for that party's in-and-out election expenses scandal. He also claimed that Elections Canada invited opposition parties to a raid on the Conservative Party headquarters.

Now we should trust him to reshape Elections Canada. Does the minister still believe that Elections Canada targeted the poor Conservative Party?

[Elections Canada, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, consulting Elections Canada on changes should have been step one, if the government were actually serious. We know there were no consultations. A spokesperson for Elections Canada said the Chief Electoral Officer was not consulted on the bill.

The Minister of State (Democratic Reform) says he is proposing a major overhaul to Elections Canada. These will affect every Canadian. Can the minister tell us why he failed to speak to the country's top elections expert, the Chief Electoral Officer, or explain how he thinks he consulted with that person?

[Business of Supply, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on this motion by my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, which I very much support.

This is something very close to my heart. My own grandfather served in World War I. For many years I have worn this ring. He lost his leg on a battlefield in northern France. He survived many surgeries after the war, until he finally committed suicide in 1938, at which time his surviving spouse, my grandmother, was told she was entitled to only half a pension because of the manner in which he had taken his life. So I know exactly what it means to talk about ensuring that their government, when they come home, is fully on the veterans' side.

With that, I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he knows or thinks about some reports that the inability of the Department of National Defence to hire staff to be mental health workers supposedly comes down to its deficit reduction policies, such that in order to hire a mental health worker, someone else would have to be fired within the Department of National Defence. Has the member heard that, and could he comment?

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his well-constructed speech. I do appreciate the fact that he took some trouble to try to outline what he perceives as some of the benefits to community boxes that have to be taken seriously.

My concern is that Canada Post did not engage in any serious consultation, especially on alternatives, for knowing whether or not community boxes are even necessary in urban areas.

A colleague in the House across the way said that he received only three communications. I have received hundreds from my constituents. Eighty per cent of them said it is a good idea to at least explore the option of postal banking. In the Conference Board report that Canada Post relied upon, the corporation simply dismissed that option as unviable, with no reasons.

In the spirit of looking thoroughly at issues--and here I would be open to discussing community boxes in the way he suggested--I ask the hon. member if he does not think postal banking should have been seriously considered by Canada Post.

[Petitions, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from Torontonians for the Minister of Health and the House as a whole to support Bill C-356, An Act respecting a National Strategy for Dementia, which was introduced by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Diseases like Alzheimer's take a huge toll on individuals suffering from them and on their families and friends. I know this from the experience of my own aunt and from the experience of friends who just lost their mother, Sylvia Mackenzie, a woman of extraordinary strength and character. She is survived by a remarkable and loving family: David, Dan, Andrew, Lori, Kim, and Stephen. I am sure they would want to join these petitioners.

[Petitions, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to present a petition in support of victims of crime.

The signatories, from Toronto, state that a positive legacy must emerge from the loss of so many, including Kempton Howard, an inspiring young man who was dedicated to helping others in my community of Toronto—Danforth. He played a leadership role in working with youth and was murdered in Toronto on December 13, 2003. The 10th anniversary will be only days from now.

The petitioners ask, among a number of things, for a new approach to supporting victims of crime and are calling on the federal government, among other things, to create a meaningful country-wide system of public support for the loved ones of murder victims, as well as the victims of crime themselves.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the two items that he presented as alternatives are quite consistent. The idea of the phase in and the idea of, as we put it in our platform, the eventual goal of doubling are perfectly consistent. We are not saying when an eventual goal of doubling should or could be reached and this is where some of the critique across the way has to be taken into account. Exactly what are the impacts as we phase in? What kind of information do we have about when we could actually even hope to get to that eventual goal? I honestly do not see a huge contradiction or any contradiction at all and I would simply leave it at that.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I hope my hon. friend will also appreciate that exact detailed answers are not at my fingertips.

What I would say is that it is very important to note that the motion is, indeed, about a gradual phase in. It is also a political question. It has to do with the fact that the provinces and territories are ready and that they themselves have some kind of framework they want the finance minister to take seriously when they meet next week. Frankly, because of the whole question of how federalism works and my own sense that they surely have done the analysis, I would be very partial to at least starting with what they want to start with.

I would push back a little and say that we are hearing this quite exceptional figure of 70,000 jobs that are going to be lost because of something the government does not have enough information on. We are only talking about a gradual phase in without specific numbers, so how the government knows or thinks its knows that 70,000 jobs are going to be lost is, frankly, beyond me and I would love to see the numbers on that from the other side.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Yes, when they agree with us.

Let me do my colleagues across the way the honour of dealing with two critical attacks being made by the Conservative government on this position: first, the idea that this is somehow a new payroll tax; and second, that this is a risky plan that would kill jobs.

First is the claim that this is a new payroll tax. The truth is, as the Canada Research Chair on Public Finance at Simon Fraser University, Professor Jon Kesselman, has told us, and keep in mind he is one of the country's experts on payroll taxes, this is a misrepresentation. He says that the CPP is a savings plan not a payroll tax on employers, even.

It is a retirement investment plan jointly funded by employee and employer. We cannot forget the broad purpose, that it not only increases the retirement security of individuals but also the collective economic security of the entire society. This is key.

The second critique or attack is that this is a risky plan that would kill jobs and we have been hearing more about this in the last two days from the Minister of State for Finance. I worry that this is very misleading to Canadians from the government. Experts have been clear that previous increases to CPP contributions did not hinder the economy and did not cause job loss.

What we are getting from the government is a wild figure being cited about job losses by the Minister of State for Finance and no evidence to support it, even when asked to substantiate it here in the House. I do look forward to hearing whether or not there is something to back up that claim.

Let me return to the question of economics. We also have CIBC economist, Benjamin Tal, telling us that the CPP is important because it would boost savings:

The CPP is a good one.... The CPP has the scale to make big investments and get better returns with relatively low cost.

That sums up in so many ways the benefits of going the CPP route, including through a mandatory approach, by increasing premiums gradually to sufficient levels. It is very important to contrast that to the plan that the government has been wanting to push, implementing the pooled registered pension plans, which are not much more than glossier versions of the RRSPs that we have now. They are subject to often very high administrative and service fees charged by banks and other institutions.

The difference between the cost-effectiveness of the CPP and RRSPs is quite astounding. I think even recent figures coming down suggest that the performance of the CPP over the last measurable cycle was well in excess of the RRSPs that Canadians are encouraged to put their money in privately.

Let me now turn to the question of need that I mentioned at the outset. We are living in an era of increasingly precarious work. Here I salute my colleague from Davenport who has been putting this at the forefront of a lot of his work in Toronto.

The fact is that more and more the work world is one where almost nothing can be counted on and this includes fewer workplace pensions. Indeed, 11 million Canadians are without any workplace pension. At the rate we are going, 60% of current youth will retire with a drop, and for many of them a significant drop, in their standard of living.

The precariousness of financial security at retirement also comes from life circumstances that mean some people have different periods in the workforce, which so often have nothing to do or anything to do with their own fault or with lack of merit. It is just the way things have turned out.

I had a note from a couple in my riding, Bill and Jean. They included this in a letter that was about something else because they felt this was so important. They said we need to increase the financial security of retirees and that CPP should look after retirees since we do see seniors not having enough CPP eligibility while they are in the workforce. Therefore, CPP should boost coverage somewhat.

It is important to note that the whole question of period of time and lateness into the workforce is something especially experienced by women in our society. I will not go into detail because everyone here understands that. It is made even worse by something that was brought to my attention by a constituent at my recent holiday party. We spoke for a good 5 to 10 minutes on this. She talked to me about ageism in the work world and how, increasingly, it is difficult to find jobs when people lose their jobs in their late forties or early fifties. That has knock-on effects for their ability to collect CPP.

It is true that the reality of the needs that are pushing us and other commentators to the gradual phase-in of increasing CPP has to lie at the bottom of this. We have to understand what the average citizen is experiencing, the stress in their lives and work lives. They know the challenges they are facing and that they need some kind of help from the Parliament of Canada.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I feel I must rise to quickly address in good faith the points made by my colleague from Markham—Unionville. The first point is that I was working straight from Hansard on the statement by the Liberal finance critic, which says:

We don't agree with a mandatory CPP increase at this time because of what still remains stubbornly high unemployment....

If that quotation is wrong compared to what he said even more recently, then I withdraw it.

The second point is that the quotation from the platform talks about an eventual goal, and our concern was that the hon. member was making it look like the motion was talking about doubling now, not just phasing in.

Those are the two points I wanted to make in response. I think maybe the general point my hon. friend made in response to my question, that we may not be so far apart, is something we could work on. I am beginning to learn from the interventions from our colleagues across the way that there may be at least some room for discussion in the sense that at least one member has backed off and said, “Of course, we are not against raising the CPP, just not now”.

Let us all talk in our speeches about the question of whether we can afford to start now, and why the need is such that we need to start now.

The motion, just so no one is under any misapprehension, says:

That the House call on the government to commit to supporting an immediate phase-in of increases to basic public pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans at the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers.

That meeting is this month at Meech Lake.

It is key to put this in the context of a package that the NDP has been proposing: first, gradually phasing in an increase in CPP/QPP benefits, by way of initiating; second, increasing the GIS to lift low-income seniors out of poverty; third, returning to the age of eligibility of 65 from the government's plan to take it to 67; and fourth, tightening up legislation to protect workers' pensions, for the few workers in our economy who now have pensions, when a company is facing bankruptcy, leaving the country, being sold or undergoing corporate restructuring.

It is in that context that we are talking about the need for a gradual phase-in of an increase. It is also important to know that the provinces and the territories see this as a pressing matter. It is not coming out of the blue. This is, at some level, about collaborative federalism.

A year ago, in December of 2012, the Minister of Finance said he was prepared to move forward, but now we have the government denying that. The provincial, territorial and federal finance ministers will meet next week with the beginnings of a plan already on the table from the provincial and territorial governments that this government now seems intent on sidestepping. That is really the question. Will the government be working with the provinces and the territories to get a start on what we are calling a phase-in?

It is not just the provinces. For example, those who do seem to know their economics, the CEO of CIBC, the former chief actuary of the CPP, have indicated that this is not only a good idea, but fully feasible. The Globe and Mail editorial yesterday talked about expanding the CPP:

It should be done, and it should be done soon.... It sounds like a tax increase. It’s not. It’s a savings plan. And it’s the best one we’ve got.

I am not saying that every time The Globe and Mail writes an editorial, it is right but it happens to be right on this one.