Guy Caron

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this motion.

Yesterday, the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs said that the government had no intention of debating the issue of Canada Post.

This is something of great concern to Quebeckers and Canadians. Since it is easy to forget what is at the heart of the debate, I would like to read the motion that we are discussing today, which was moved by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

That, in the opinion of the House, door-to-door mail delivery is a valuable service provided by Canada Post, and that this House express its opposition to Canada becoming the only country in the G7 without such a service.

That is what we are debating today, regardless of how the government is trying to spin the decision made by Canada Post Corporation.

It is somewhat ironic, given that in June of 2001, the House sat for days on end debating a government bill forcing postal workers who had been locked out by Canada Post back to work.

It is ironic because the government argued, and did so for days, that home mail delivery was an essential service for the Canadian economy.

Today, two and a half years later, we find ourselves in a situation where the government is washing its hands of the whole thing and arguing that the modernization and future of Canada Post hinge on this necessary move.

Members have been arguing since this morning that the opposite is true. Moreover, they have made a case that Canada Post’s decision is not only irrational and irresponsible, but it also flies in the face of the sound business practices that Canada Post should display to Canadians.

Let me remind hon. members that this decision spells the gradual end of home mail delivery and signals an increase in postal rates. The cost of a stamp is slated to increase anywhere from 35% to 55%. The goal is also to eliminate between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs, supposedly through attrition.

However, when we look at the business decisions and the strategy advocated by Canada Post, clearly the cuts will not come through attrition, but rather through the elimination of positions that, as my colleague from Churchill pointed out, are well paid. These are good jobs that come with benefits, something the government seems to want to distance itself from, not only in the public sector but in the private sector as well. The government seems to be taking an approach that adversely affects the economic security of Canadians.

We have also seen the Conservatives borrow freely from the New Democrats’ consumer protection program. We saw this in the Speech from the Throne.

The Conservative government now has an opportunity to defend consumers directly. It talks about the taxpayers. These same taxpayers who are responsible for Canada Post, a crown corporation, are also users of postal services. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is washing its hands of this whole affair, when it has an opportunity to show its commitment to consumers.

What we have here is a government that is chicken. It has others do its dirty work. Canada Post and VIA Rail are just two examples of crown corporations that have taken drastic steps to slash services to which Canadians are entitled.

The government is washing its hands of this affair by maintaining that they are crown corporations and that it does not wish to interfere with their business decisions. I wish to remind the government that while they are crown corporations, the government is a 100% shareholder in these corporations. If a majority shareholder in the private sector were to show the same degree of nonchalance as the Conservative government is showing toward Canada Post, not only would it quickly find itself with a worthless portfolio, it would be singled out by the public and the business community as totally irresponsible.

We are not asking the federal government to manage all of Canada Post’s decisions, but to argue that the government bears no responsibility even though it is the majority shareholder—not just a majority shareholder but the sole shareholder—in Canada Post defies logic, in my opinion. What I find interesting is that Canada Post announced its plans the day after the House wrapped up its work in Ottawa.

We were not able to debate this in the House. This decision has been extremely unpopular, which is clear from public opinion and what people who are concerned about the end of home delivery are saying. The government says that this was Canada Post's decision and that it knew nothing about it. That is false; the government knew.

On this point, I can quote Jean Lapierre, who was a member in this House. Today he is a political columnist, but he was the minister of transport from 2004 to 2006, so he was the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. The day after the Conservative government's decision, he was asked about it. He thinks that decision was irresponsible, because it was made without any real consultation, and that it was a Conservative decision intended to kill Canada Post.

He was also asked if the government likely knew about the decision. He said yes, and for two reasons. The first reason is that the government pays for Canada Post during times of deficit, although there have not been too many of them. However, there is one right now, and the government has to make up the shortfall, given that Canada Post is a crown corporation. The second reason is that Canada Post would not make this kind of decision. I quote Mr. Lapierre:

Canada Post would definitely not make such a drastic decision without consulting the government, because the government will have the unenviable task of defending that decision.

Once again, Mr. Lapierre is a political columnist, but he was the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation from 2004 to 2006.

The government had to know about this decision. Now it is not surprising to learn why the government was in such a hurry to end the parliamentary session, since it knew that this decision was going to be announced and it wanted to hide over the holidays to avoid having to talk about the decision.

Furthermore, the next day, apart from a press release from the Minister of Transport, no one was available to comment publicly on this unpopular and irresponsible decision by Canada Post Corporation, no one from the government or any of the 22 or 23 presidents and vice-presidents of Canada Post Corporation.

The government says it supports Canada Post's decision based on a Conference Board of Canada study published in April 2011. This has been mentioned a few times here in the House, and it bears repeating. That study, which seemed to show that Canada Post Corporation was headed towards deficits as high as $1 billion in 2020, was based on hypotheses that proved to be erroneous or inaccurate.

According to one of them, Canada Post supposedly had a deficit of $250 million in 2012, whereas in reality, Canada Post made a profit of $97 million that year. The only two years in which Canada Post had a deficit were 2011, because of the labour dispute imposed by Canada Post, namely the lockout, and 2013.

We have to modernize Canada Post, because we are living in different times. We do not deny the fact that the volume of mail has decreased, and the trend is to email and other ways of distributing mail. We are aware of that on this side of the House. The fact is that a good company that wants to take up the challenges of the future has to be able to take steps to modernize.

However, between the status quo and the hammer blow of eliminating home delivery as suggested by Canada Post, there are numerous possibilities. They include studying the possibility of providing banking services, without necessarily establishing big banks that would compete with the big six. We could also reduce the frequency of home delivery, a much less drastic measure. Instead of delivering five days a week, Canada Post could deliver every two or three days. However, these possibilities have not been explored by Canada Post.

I maintain that this decision is completely irresponsible. The government is trying to hide behind the facile excuse that it is a crown corporation, whereas the government is completely and absolutely responsible for ensuring that Canada Post Corporation complies with the mandate given to it by Canadians and continues to provide proper service.

Ultimately, it is Canadians as the consumers of services who will have to bear these radical increases in rates, which have not been explained to them, together with solutions such as the termination of home delivery, about which there was no comprehensive consultation.

I therefore implore the government to look closely at the wording of the motion, support home delivery of mail and make sure Canada can have a postal service worthy of an industrialized country that is a member of the G7, but do so in a responsible way to ensure that Canada Post Corporation can survive into the future.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the report by Caroline Desbiens, the lawyer mandated in June 2012 by the Minister of Transport to investigate the notices of objection to the proposal to repeal the Laurentian Pilotage Authority District No. 3 Regulations: (a) when is the report scheduled to be released; (b) which groups and individuals did Ms. Desbiens consult as part of her investigation; and (c) how many submissions or written notices have been sent to Ms. Desbiens?

[First Nations Elections Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is quite an important question. The government may hold consultations without ever implementing any of the recommendations that were made during those consultations.

I know that with Bill S-6, which originated in the Senate, the first nations were initially receptive to the bill. The bill was then changed. There are now a number of serious issues with the final wording of the bill that the first nations are opposed to. Their opposition was made clear in committee and also in the public arena.

The definition of paternalistic legislation is when the government is aware of the problems caused by a bill that should be prepared in consultation and in co-operation with the first nations and still tries to pass it without the agreement of the first nations.

I hope that the government will respect the meaning of real consultation and take into account the various issues raised by the first nations. The future legislation could then respect their wishes and their ways of doing things, which in many cases are traditional. If any problems arise, they could then be resolved by the community.

In a previous speech, one of our colleagues mentioned that any problems that arose during an election could be referred to a first nations community, like an appeal process, for instance. Why must the minister assume the authority to deal with these matters, rather than letting the community deal with them itself?

[First Nations Elections Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that I read my speech. I think it was quite obvious. I therefore thank my colleague for reading his question.

We are talking about a case-by-case situation. I am not familiar with the specific situation that the hon. member for York Centre is referring to. However, his question brings the whole issue into perspective.

We currently have a situation where a member took action. I am not sure whether it was in a consultation with first nations in his area. However, there is a big difference between a case-specific situation, where a representation is made by a member with regard to a local situation that may cause problems, and a situation enshrined in law, which gives the minister power to make a decision that affects an entire community, with little or no consultation.

In this particular case, I assume there was consultation. If not, I assume it was, at very least, a local situation, which required the minister to make a local decision that did not apply to the entire country. Right now, we are having a debate. Ultimately, we will vote for or against a bill that would grant discretionary powers to the government for all situations.

It is really not the same thing. That is why I do not really understand why the hon. member is asking this question. There is a big difference between anecdotal situations, situations that are resolved on a case by case basis, and situations that will then extend to an entire department.

[First Nations Elections Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House to speak to Bill C-9, which establishes an alternative electoral regime that the first nations can adopt to replace the current regime.

The bill proposes a number of improvements to the current systems, and many first nations said they were satisfied with the proposals when they first appeared before the Senate committee. This was a Senate bill, Bill S-6. In the House of Commons it became Bill C-9.

However, we know this government. Things are not always what they seem. The witnesses also raised a number of concerns about some of the measures in the bill, and most of those concerns are shared by experts.

According to the government, this bill is meant to update the first nations electoral system. However, while almost everyone agrees that the Indian Act is paternalistic and must be replaced, one of the most controversial clauses of Bill C-9 is modelled on it.

The greatest similarity between Bill C-9 and the Indian Act is the fact that the minister is given the authority to subject a first nations community that has its own election code to this new, so-called voluntary, system by order. That led Jody Wilson-Raybould, AFN Regional Chief for British Columbia, to say the following:

...subclauses 3(1)(b) and (c) permit the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to add the name of a First Nation to the schedule without its consent; this is not appropriate. First Nations are in a period of transition and moving towards increased autonomy and self-government [where] appropriate accountability is to our citizens.

Ultimately, each nation must, and will, take responsibility for its own governance, including elections.

When he presented the bill to the Senate committee, the then minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development wanted to clarify certain myths surrounding Bill S-6. He said that the clause was not problematic because the legislation controlled its use by imposing specific prerequisites. That is a half-truth because subsection 71(1) of the Indian Act states that the minister can use the order whenever he deems it advisable for the good government of a band.

Bill C-9 specifies the circumstances under which he can do so. However, some of them could be seen as rather subjective, especially in the hands of this government. For example:

[when] the Minister is satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of that First Nation;

[when] the Governor in Council has set aside an election of the Chief and councillors of that First Nation under section 79 of the Indian Act on a report of the Minister that there was corrupt practice in connection with that election.

The main idea behind the bill is that these provisions give the minister the power to impose rules of basic governance on a first nation, rules that the first nation may find illegitimate, which will no doubt add fuel to the fire, considering the current conditions.

According to the Assembly of First Nations, this is not simply a political problem. According to the AFN, if there is one aspect of the inherent right to self-government that we can all agree on, and that must absolutely be constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, it must be the ability of our nations to determine their own method of selecting leadership. Otherwise, section 35 is meaningless.

If the right of first nations to choose their own means of election is protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, how can we justify the spirit of this legislation, which could quite simply allow the government to legislate unilaterally and to violate this right?

If I recall correctly, I believe that one of the witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee even referred to the fact that this provision could be challenged on the basis that it tramples, without justification, the right of a nation to self-determination. The government is contradicting itself by being so spiteful with this bill while claiming that it wants the first nations to become autonomous. We are still a long way from nation-to-nation dialogue.

I will quote Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada:

Canada's economic and social well-being benefits from strong, self-sufficient Aboriginal and northern people and communities. Our vision is a future in which First Nations, Inuit, Métis and northern communities are healthy, safe, self-sufficient and prosperous—a Canada where people make their own decisions, manage their own affairs and make strong contributions to the country as a whole.

That quote is from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development's website.

Some aboriginal leaders have said that certain aspects of this bill are problematic. In Canada, a chief can be elected in three different ways. Bill C-9 offers a fourth option.

The three systems we have now are: the Indian Band Election Regulations, elections pursuant to the custom code, and self-government agreements. This bill offers a fourth option.

According to Jody Wilson-Raybould, regional chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, the fact that the government is not necessarily making a distinction between the first nations that use different systems:

...[could have] an unintended consequence...that could lead to political and perhaps legal problems for a First Nation and Canada...This could mean that a chief and council, by resolution only, could overturn a community-approved custom election code. This raises some flags, and it might be seen as a step back along the governance continuum in empowering community.

In addition, a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee pointed out that the system the department is proposing is too complex. Candice Paul, co-chair of the Atlantic Policy Conference of First Nations Chiefs, had concerns about a number of aspects of the proposed electoral system.

Ms. Paul had questions, for example, about the mandate of band councils elected under the Indian Act. First nations communities are almost constantly in an election campaign, which is detrimental to the stability of band councils and their ability to develop long-term projects. She was concerned about the weakness of the nomination process, which could result in a large number of candidates—sometimes more than 100—running in the same election.

She also questioned the postal ballot system, which may be open to fraud. The process of appeal to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is paternalistic and complex, and it sometimes takes too long to come to conclusions and to issue binding decisions. Finally, the lack of specific election offences and associated penalties in the Indian Act leaves the door open to fraud, as well as to other illicit activities, such as buying and selling votes.

However, the harshest and most common criticism is about the lack of consultation with first nations. The chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band took exception to the fact that she had only a few days in which to prepare for the hearing that took place in February 2012. When she was asked to appear before the committee, she had never even heard of the bill. The community is concerned, because its elections are going on under its custom code.

However, the chief stated that:

Our First Nation, the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, is signatory to the adhesion of Treaty 6, signed in 1889. We have treaty and inherent rights to First Nations governance.

In its media release, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada stated that Bill C-9 was the product of collaboration. However, according to the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, the bill was not examined by their band councils, the Prince Albert Grand Council, or the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. I am being sarcastic when I suggest that this is one more fine example of true collaboration.

The government claims that it held consultations before it introduced the bill. The government also claims to be helping first nations with the electoral model. However, it is clear now, as it has been in the past, that the Conservative government did not understand the concept of nation to nation negotiation and nation recognition.

First nations have established governance principles. Indeed, some aspects deal with governance in the Indian Act. It is also widely acknowledged that the Indian Act is extremely problematic and that the House should have a real debate on this matter.

This bill does nothing of the sort and, like many other bills—whether they deal with the economy, immigration or other issues—it confers additional rights or discretionary powers on ministers to the detriment of organizations that, in this case, want to self-govern.

In that sense, we can think of no justification for this bill and the new process that the government is proposing. That is why we will oppose Bill C-9.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada pension plan is indeed very secure. The returns are great and the administrative costs are very low.

If people invest in an RRSP with a return of 3% or 3.5% every year and administrative costs of 2%, the actual return will be 1% or 1.5%. I think it is very important to realize how useful the Canada pension plan is. The plan is also very attractive because it offers defined benefits compared to private options such as RRSPs. As a result, when we retire, we will know what we are entitled to, and the income will be constant.

RRSPs and initiatives such as the government's pooled registered pension plan are defined contribution plans. People know how much they are putting in the plan, but they never know how much they will ultimately get in return, because that depends on what happens with the economy. The fact that CPP is a defined benefit plan rather than a defined contribution plan enhances its economic security.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is very timely indeed.

There are several reasons why young people do not think about retirement. It may be because the subject does not interest them at the moment or because they do not have the means to do so. In our country, approximately 40% of all Canadians in the private sector contribute to a registered pension plan. This percentage falls to less than 30% for young people between the ages of 25 and 29.

Indeed, young people are not able to contribute for various reasons. They may not see the need to contribute now for the long term because retirement is too far away. Furthermore, they may also lack the financial ability to do so. In addition to their employment income, which is often lower for youth, we also have to consider their ability to set money aside from their wages after paying for a house, a car or other expenses.

The question is therefore extremely relevant because the current savings rate of young people is a major concern. In many cases, a measure like this one could help ensure their retirement security in 25, 30, 40 or 50 years.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker , I am pleased to rise after my colleague from Victoria, whom I would like to acknowledge and thank today for introducing a motion on a very important subject.

This motion is extremely important because it is being widely discussed, but rarely in the House. Since being elected in 2011, this government has implemented a number of initiatives—the TFSA was created before 2011—as well as private registered pension plans. However, the pension solutions proposed by the government are always individual solutions, much like RRSPs.

In contrast, we are now facing a collective problem. Some people save the full amount allowed for TFSAs or maximize RRSP contributions. Generally, it can be assumed that they are interested in building some security for retirement in their old age. They also have the means to do so, and have been more financially active in their lives.

However, it is much more difficult for the middle class and people who are less fortunate to make long-term and retirement plans. Indeed, they often have day-to-day concerns that force them to deal with their reality today before they can think about retirement. It is clear to me, to my colleague and to this side of the House that the Canada pension plan is the best vehicle to provide security in retirement. We can also include other government initiatives, such as old age security or the guaranteed income supplement, but the Canada pension plan was established more than 40—almost 50—years ago, and has proven itself. It is a portable system with extremely low administrative costs.

If someone has a pension plan in a certain company and then changes companies, the plan does not follow, unless that person goes through a whole bureaucratic process to allow for that. However, the Canada pension plan, and of course its counterpart, the Quebec pension plan, are portable and safe. In 2012, the Department of Finance itself specified in its report—and this was actually confirmed by the chief actuary of the Canada pension plan—that the system is safe for 75 years due to adequate contribution rates, and will even perform well in a future environment with greater demographic pressures. This is expected to happen over the next 15 or 20 years.

The plan is stable. We have an excellent plan, so why not make it better, and not just for people likely to fall below the poverty line when they retire? I know that we have old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to cover the bare minimum and help people who really need income after they retire.

The Canada pension plan can give them the means to be more comfortable in retirement. Of course, these people are encouraged to save up for retirement on their own, but in many cases, that is not possible or desirable for them. Right now, not even 40% of Canadians have additional retirement savings through their employer or independently.

It is extremely important to look at the various options. With all due respect to my colleague from Markham—Unionville, the motion does not mention specific accounting aspects. It does not mention contribution levels or benefit levels because we want the House to agree on the principle that the Canada pension plan—and the Quebec pension plan, we hope—should be able to accommodate the growing need for a secure retirement.

There are other elements in addition to contributions. We can also talk about the existing contribution limit. Contributions are withheld from earnings ranging from $3,500 to about $51,000. In the United States, contributions are withheld from income up to $113,000 U.S. We should think about where income comes from. We know that it will take income or at least contributions or parameters like these to cover higher benefits in the future.

When financial planners recommend adequate retirement income, the say that between 60% and 80% of average income earned during a person's working life should be enough to cover the cost of retirement.

Right now, the Canada pension plan covers about 25%. Some other models and proposals suggest increasing benefits to cover 35%.

We know that the Canada pension plan will not cover 60%, 70% or 80% of a person's working income, but if we can increase it by 10%, that alone would make a big difference. Once again, it would make a big difference for all Canadians, not just the poorest and those who end up struggling once they retire, but also for the middle class and even the upper middle class.

In that sense, it is incredibly important to debate this issue now. There have been meetings of finance ministers. Even before the 2011 election, I followed the meetings that took place in 2009 and 2010, which dealt with critical and fundamental issues. I believe that at the December 2010 meeting, almost all the provinces and territories agreed to expand the Canada pension plan. Since I know people who were involved in the process, I know that at the last minute, the federal government intervened to convince certain provinces to withdraw from the plan. In the end, the government proposed its registered pension plans for companies.

These solutions may be adequate in the short term and under very specific circumstances. However, what we are currently trying to do is to provide the broadest possible coverage and ensure that the Canada pension plan is as useful as possible to as many people as possible.

I have heard the arguments coming from the House and organizations on the economic aspect. People are saying that this is not the right time. The Minister of Finance has said this repeatedly. He is saying that expanding the CPP will reduce growth. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, among others, has expressed its concerns and reservations about the potential increase in premiums, which could lead to an increase in benefits.

This assessment is always done looking at only one side of the equation. People are always talking about the impact an increase in premiums would have on employers and employees. However, they do not consider the impact of being able to put more money into the pockets of people who will often invest directly in the economy.

As a general rule, retirees are no longer saving for their retirement. Those who had the opportunity to buy a home have already paid for it in full. The government would therefore be providing additional benefits that would, once again, often help the middle and lower classes. Overall, people will spend that money, which will boost the economy. The increase in premiums would not jeopardize small and medium-sized businesses and the business world by taking money away from them. On the contrary, it would result in more investments in the economy. This is one way to more effectively oil the economic machine.

As a result, I did not hesitate for a moment in supporting the motion by my colleague from Victoria, because we need to talk about this motion. It needs solid support in the House.

Since this discussion started, I have seen some positive signs from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I hope they will be able to see for themselves the benefits, not only for Canada but for all savers and ultimately our retirees, of reaching unanimous agreement on this subject.

That will send a message not only to the Canadian government, but also to all the provinces and to their finance ministers who will be meeting on this issue, that we have to find a solution.

The federal government cannot make the decision alone. It needs the consent of many of the provinces and a large part of the population. If the House can send that clear and unambiguous message to the provinces and the federal government, they will be much more likely to reach an agreement that, in the long term, will benefit all Canadians and all Quebeckers, assuming that Quebec would do likewise with the Quebec pension plan.

Depending on the principles used, this would also be an inexpensive way to stabilize the economy. As my colleague mentioned, he has several options on the table. We need an agreement on what direction to take. Then we can leave it up to the provinces and the federal government to determine the best way to carry this out. We hope to be involved in that process.

[Employment Insurance, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge her to say that to the people of eastern Quebec and the Maritimes. It is easy for her to stand there in her Armani suit and pretty pink blouse and insult people.

Farmers and Quebeckers in general know that the unemployed are people just like the rest of us, people who are going through a difficult time. It is also a difficult time for seasonal industries. These people are not taking advantage of the system to go spend time on Cuban beaches, as the member for Beauce alleges from his ivory tower.

As if ignoring the concerns of the agricultural community were not enough, did the government really need to insult the unemployed as well?

[Employment Insurance, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the tourism minister came off sounding very pleased with himself in front of Quebec farmers. He seems to think that the people who are having their employment insurance benefits taken away just need to stop flaunting their Speedos on Cuban beaches. One would have to be quite heartless and have a lot of nerve to say that to these farmers, who have been watching their qualified employees slip between their fingers since the Conservatives implemented their reform that is an attack on seasonal industries.

Will the Conservatives start listening to concerned farmers and employers instead of insulting them?