Erin Weir

[National Defence, October 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, back in June, I asked why the government had not started an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter jets. At the time, it appeared to many observers that the government was set to do a sole-source deal to obtain Super Hornets. To give credit where it is due, the government has not yet purchased Super Hornets through a sole-source deal. However, to the government's discredit, it has still not started a transparent process to replace the CF-18s.

One of the key arguments against an open competition is that it would take too long. I want to put it on record that, if the government had started an open competition when I pressed this issue in June, we would now be four months into that process. If we back up a little more, part of the Liberal election platform was an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18s. If the Liberals had kept that promise upon taking power, we would now have had a year to conduct that proper process. If at some point down the road the government comes out with a sole-source deal to purchase Super Hornets or some other aircraft to replace CF-18s and says there is not enough time to run an open competition, let us remember that the government has already missed so many opportunities to do the proper process.

I am really hoping that the parliamentary secretary across the way is going to update the House on where the government is at on fighter procurement and is going to explain why the government has not yet followed through on its promise for an open competition.

However, since we have such limited information to work with on fighter procurement, I do want to address another troubling trend in military policy, the increased sabre rattling toward Russia.

This summer, the Liberal government thrust Canada into a leading role in a very provocative military deployment to Latvia against Russia. The government made this decision without consulting Parliament. I believe that, for a deployment of this nature, the government should come before the House and make the case to explain what it doing, why it is doing it, and what the exit strategy may be.

South of the border, we have the likely next president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, promising a no-fly zone in Syria. What that would actually mean, if the United States were to follow through on that promise, would be to shoot down Russian planes over Syria. In short, that would mean war with Russia.

Earlier this month, Russia conducted a civil defence drill with 40 million people. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has its doomsday clock set at three minutes to midnight. I am proud of the role the NDP has played as a voice for nuclear disarmament and peace, but this should not be a partisan issue. Canada as a whole should be working for nuclear disarmament and peace. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has obstructed UN efforts to ban nuclear weapons and continues to take a provocative stand versus Russia.

Our country needs a better defence procurement policy and less military provocation.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but what my hon. colleague has done is present a number of quantifiable statements without actually giving any numbers.

A critical question is by how much this increase in CPP contributions would reduce private savings. If every additional dollar of CPP contributions reduces private savings by 50¢, then there is still a net increase in retirement savings as a result. Really what the Conservatives would need to show to sustain this argument is that every additional dollar contributed to the CPP would remove a full dollar from private savings, and that is not at all clear, and the member has not even tried to make that claim.

It is also important to note that CPP contributions are indeed tax deductible, so there is actually a fairly immediate return to the contributor in that sense. They are also matched by the employer. The CPP is a good deal for Canadian workers.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, if the idea is that current seniors are not living in poverty, that might be true because current seniors often did enjoy good pensions in their workplaces. The problem is that many people who are currently in the workforce do not have workplace pensions and will not have security in retirement. That is why it is very foresighted to start phasing in increases to the Canada pension plan now, so that there will be better pension income for today's workers when they retire.

This is very much about the future. It is not about seniors living in poverty today; although, there are some seniors living in poverty today, and that is one of the reasons why it is so very important to improve the guaranteed income supplement as well.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canadians are not saving enough for retirement. I do not think that is the fault of Canadians. It is the result of stagnant wages and insufficient employment income.

We in the NDP have proposed a number of solutions in this House, but clearly there is a lack of retirement savings, and as I mentioned in my speech, there is also a lack of workplace pensions. Only about one in 10 private-sector employees even has a defined-benefit pension in the workplace. In response to this lack of private savings and this lack of workplace pensions, what we need to do is expand the public pension system to ensure a decent level of defined-benefit pension coverage for all employees.

Of course, I wish the government had gone further in this regard, but it is clearly a sensible move and that is why all provinces are on side with it.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, a strong pension system is a cornerstone of a decent society. Adequate pensions provide retirement security to those who build our country. Pensions reduce the extent to which seniors must draw upon other social welfare programs. When retirees spend pension income in their local communities, it provides an important and relatively stable source of consumer demand. Therefore, pensions are critical to our economy and to our broader society. That is why most other advanced countries have established robust universal public pension systems to cover all workers.

Even the United States set up a public social security system that is more generous than the current Canada pension plan. Here is Canada, I believe we made an historic error. We set up a public pension system only as a complement to workplace pensions. The CPP replaces only about a quarter of employment earnings, on the assumption that employees have another pension from their employers. That assumption has been severely tested in recent years, and I would suggest that the Canadian approach to pensions is actually very similar to the American approach to health care.

This reliance on the workplace for benefits has many pitfalls. Workers can lose benefits if they change jobs or if their employer goes bankrupt. The aggregate costs of administering separate plans in each workplace, or separate accounts for each employee, are far higher than administering a universal plan that covers all Canadian employees. In any case, we are at a point where only about one-tenth of private sector employees have a defined benefit pension plan in the workplace.

Of course, we can and must do more to safeguard workplace plans where they exist. One idea would be to enact a national pension benefits guarantee fund, as exists in the United States and at the provincial level in Ontario. This is something the Government of Canada could try to initiate for the whole country that would serve as a backstop to workplace pension plans.

However, the fundamental solution is to enhance the Canada pension plan to provide more defined benefit coverage for all Canadian employees, regardless of where they work. The CPP is universal, efficient, portable between employers, and indexed to inflation.

We in the NDP, and our allies in the trade union movement, have advocated doubling CPP benefits over time to replace half of employment income. The government's plan to eventually expand the CPP to replace one-third of employment income does not go far enough, but it is a significant step in the right direction. I am proud of the role New Democrats have played in the House to push the government to follow through on its promise to improve the CPP.

The federal-provincial agreement reached on the CPP is so reasonable that even Saskatchewan's right-wing premier, Brad Wall, signed on to it. To provide a bit of context, in the months before the deal, Premier Wall had been the shrillest opponent of expanding the CPP. When commodity prices were high, it was not the right time to enhance the CPP, according to Mr. Wall. When commodity prices were low, he again said that it was not the right time to expand the CPP. Indeed, in response to falling oil prices, Premier Wall's priority was to argue against improved CPP benefits rather than in favour of improved employment insurance benefits for laid-off resource workers.

There is quite a contrast with our neighbouring province in this regard. In Alberta, Premier Notley made a very strong case for extended employment insurance benefits. As a result, that benefit extension was provided to all Albertans. In Alberta, we had effective advocacy by the provincial government for better EI benefits.

In Saskatchewan, we had a right-wing premier going on a crusade against expanding the CPP. He completely ignored the issue of employment insurance. As a result, the government left half of Saskatchewan out of extended EI benefits and, even after having added the region of south Saskatchewan, it is still excluding Regina.

Workers in my city are paying the price for a lack of effective advocacy from our Premier. However, even though Premier Wall was so hell-bent on opposing an expansion of the CPP, even he came around to sign on to this important federal-provincial agreement.

It is really quite striking that premiers of all stripes, including a very right-wing premier, as I mentioned, have signed on to this reasonable compromise, and yet in this House, the federal Conservatives are opposing improvements to the Canada pension plan. I really think it speaks to just how out of touch the Conservatives are with the reality of working Canadians, that they alone are standing up and opposing any kind of enhancement of the CPP.

While I would certainly argue that this bill is an important step in the right direction, obviously it is not sufficient. Obviously, much more needs to be done to help current retirees and to help lower-income working people. We want to see the government do a lot more to improve the guaranteed income supplement for seniors.

I would note that, in the proposed bill, the enhanced portion of the CPP is actually a separate line on income tax. Might there be a way of exempting the additional benefits from the GIS clawback? That is just one idea that could perhaps help lower-income seniors.

Another idea would be to expand the working income tax benefit as a way of compensating lower-income employees for any cost of increased contributions. The government has said it is going to do this, but we absolutely need the details. We need to see something concrete for working Canadians.

On balance, I think this is a good bill. The NDP is going to support it. However, definitely the government can and should do more.

I would like to briefly respond to some of the points made in the last speech by my hon. colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. He suggested that, instead of expanding the CPP, we should just increase the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts. However, voluntary savings are not working. Canadians are not even filling up the TFSA contribution room they already have. That is why it is important to expand the CPP. Just further increasing the contribution limit to the TFSA would not help all the Canadians who are not meeting the current limit. It would just help the very affluent who have the extra money to put into that account.

In support of private savings, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier also made the point that those savings would be reinvested in the economy. However, the same is true of funds contributed to the Canada pension plan. Those funds would also be reinvested. While certainly savings and investment are important, that is by no means an argument against expanding the CPP.

As I pointed out in questions and comments, this money does not go into government coffers. Unlike the EI fund, the CPP truly is a separate fund with its own administration that does not appear as part of the government's budget.

In summary, this proposal is an important way of ensuring retirement security for all Canadian employees.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier said that the government wanted more money in its coffers, which is probably true.

That being said, I would like to ask the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier if he understands that the Canada pension plan is a separate fund. It is not part of the government's budget.

[Employment Insurance, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would thank the member across the way for his candour to the point of bluntly stating that no more regions will be added to extended employment insurance.

This is terrible news for workers in Regina who have been laid off due to the same downturn in oil prices that has afflicted all other parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta. What we did not hear from the member across the way was any sort of rationale or explanation for why Regina was left out when every other part of Saskatchewan and all of Alberta were included.

I would also ask the member across the way in his final minute to let the House know what if anything the member for Regina—Wascana did to advocate for workers in our city and to make the case for Regina being included in the benefits extension.

[Employment Insurance, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to again ask why the federal government continues to exclude Regina from extended employment insurance benefits.

The federal budget extended EI for certain regions in response to the drop in oil prices, but it left out Edmonton, south Saskatchewan, and Regina. The NDP challenged these exclusions, and the government eventually added Edmonton and south Saskatchewan, but the government has still left out Regina.

Of eight EI regions across Alberta and Saskatchewan, seven are currently getting extended benefits. Regina is the only one that is not. This anomaly has real consequences for laid-off workers and their families.

I spent this past summer knocking on doors and talking to constituents in Regina—Lewvan. I met many people on employment insurance who were about to run out of benefits. If they lived in any other part of Saskatchewan, they would have received a benefit extension.

Last month, Statistics Canada provided data that confirmed what I heard on the doorstep. On September 22, Statistics Canada reported EI figures for July, the first month of extended benefits. As expected, the number of recipients jumped, with extended benefits kicking in. Between June and July, the number of people receiving benefits rose by 23% in Saskatoon, 26% in smaller Saskatchewan cities, and 29% in rural and northern areas. Similarly, the number of Albertans receiving benefits jumped by 24% in that month. However, the number of workers in Regina receiving benefits dropped by 8%.

Regina was the only part of Saskatchewan or Alberta excluded from extended EI benefits, and Regina was the only part of either province where the number of recipients fell. Is that a coincidence? I think not.

This summer, laid-off workers in Regina were running out of EI benefits as the extension kicked in elsewhere. We have to ask why the government has chosen to continue excluding Regina. We also have to ask about the deafening silence from Regina's other members of Parliament.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle sent out a press release about the exclusion of south Saskatchewan, but has said nothing about the continued exclusion of Regina itself. As a candidate for the Conservative leadership, perhaps he cannot advocate for a better social safety net. The member for Regina—Wascana is the most senior cabinet minister in Saskatchewan or Alberta, yet our city is the only part of either province left out of the benefit extension. What has the member for Regina—Wascana done to advocate for laid-off workers in Regina?

It is not too late for the government to do the right thing by including all of Saskatchewan, along with all of Alberta, in extended employment insurance benefits.

[Canada Labour Code, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière spoke strongly in favour of a secret ballot vote to determine whether employees wanted to unionize or not, but why stop at employees who have already signed union cards? I want to know if my colleague would support a system where all Canadian employees, at every workplace, would periodically have the opportunity to vote on whether they want a union.

[Canada Labour Code, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, when I asked whether the government would support anti-scab legislation, the answer was that the government supported a tripartite process, which sounds sensible, unless what it means is that employers would have a veto on anti-scab legislation.

The other response we have heard in previous debates is that the government would only consider anti-scab legislation as part of a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code. Could the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge tell us when his government is going to begin that comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code?