Guy Caron

[Statistics Canada, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government can easily grasp one statistic: two senior officials at Statistics Canada have resigned because this government muzzled them. In fact, since the arrival of the Conservatives, competent senior officials have been leaving one after the other, or have been fired for daring to contradict this government.

First it was the chief statistician and now, the renowned economic analyst, Philip Cross, is leaving because, as he made very clear, he does not agree with the Conservatives' decision regarding the census and he cannot speak freely.

This government listens to no one. It listens to no one about its megaprisons. It listens to no one about the firearms registry. It listens to no one about any—

[Statistics Canada, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, by now it is very obvious that everyone knows of the government's obsession with silencing all those who disagree with it. It is hurting Canada and Canadians. Now we learn that another prominent Statistics Canada researcher, no less than the chief economic analyst, is leaving his position after 36 years of service. He says that he can no longer express his views freely. In 2010 the agency's chief statistician resigned because of changes to the census that were imposed by the Conservatives.

The government is depriving families of information that is essential to their well-being and depriving us of brilliant consultants. Why does—

[Parliament of Canada Act, February 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-306, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (political affiliation). Like my colleagues who spoke before me, I would like to congratulate the member for Pontiac for his initiative. I would also like to congratulate the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his excellent work; he has been working on this since 1999. In fact, since 1999, the NDP has asked that members who cross the floor during their term of office go before the voters to ratify their decision. We believe that this is fair and democratic, contrary to what members of the third party, for example, might say.

It is important that we mention it. This bill makes a lot of sense in terms of democracy because the general election campaign is always the moment when voters—every four or five years, or more often in recent years—have the opportunity to mark an X beside the name of the person who will represent them for those four or five years. In theory, parliamentary tradition says that the voter votes for the local candidate. That is just a theory. In reality, and I believe that we would all agree, people vote for many reasons. Some vote for the local candidate and others for the leader of a party or for a political party and its platform.

The most recent case is that of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain who, less than eight months after the election, decided to switch parties. This case clearly showed that people are against this type of political shift. Immediately afterward, a poll was conducted by Leger Marketing in Quebec with more than 1,000 respondents. People who responded truly represented popular opinion. And yes, the poll was taken after the deed was done and reactions were heated. I can say that the opinion is the same when a public opinion poll is take before or after a similar event.

The poll indicated that 60% of the respondents felt that members of Parliament who were elected for a party should not change political affiliation. Only 32%, or less than a third of the respondents agreed with the principle, but 60% were against it. Nevertheless, since our parliamentary system currently allows it, respondents were asked whether a member of Parliament in this case should have their decision confirmed through a byelection and 70% of the people agreed. Only 22% said it was not necessary. The public wants this type of change and the latest incident clearly shows there is a public consensus in favour of an initiative like the one being proposed in Bill C-306.

I mentioned that people vote for a multitude of reasons and the hon. member for Winnipeg North said that people were voting for Jack Layton in the case of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. That is true, just as they voted for the NDP and its policies, just as they might have voted for the local candidate. This was my fourth election campaign and I know that many people in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques voted for me. I also know that if I had run as an independent, I would not have won this election.

If the hon. member for Winnipeg North, among others, who made all those comments during the earlier presentation by my colleague, is truly convinced that people only vote for the local candidate, as he suggested in his presentation, I challenge him to run as an independent in the next election and see what happens. He will not do it because running with a political party, benefiting from the resources available during an election campaign and an electoral platform that he promotes along with himself, is what got him elected, just as I was able to get elected for the same reasons.

To say that, in theory, people vote for the local candidate and that is how we should look at this, is incorrect. In practice, people clearly think differently.

It is important to understand that people vote only every four or five years and that they vote for all those reasons. If a member of Parliament changes parties, the people who voted for all those reasons feel betrayed, and for good reason. That is what happened in the riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, and that is what happened in the riding of Newmarket—Aurora, for example, when Belinda Stronach changed parties. That is also what happened in the riding of Vancouver Kingsway. Voters feel betrayed because they feel cheated out of their choice, particularly those who vote for the political party, the party leader or the platform. Many people do it. The Leger Marketing poll that I just cited also asked people what motivates them to vote for a certain person during an election.

According to the poll, close to 30% of people vote for a political party; 30% vote for the party platform; between 20% and 25% vote for the party leader; and only 12% vote for the strength or character of the riding candidate. During a general election, people vote a certain way for many reasons, and when a person who became a member of Parliament for reasons other than his own candidacy changes parties in the middle of his term, the people who voted for him feel cheated.

We also need to consider the absurdity of our system of electoral politics. The Canada Elections Act prohibits voters from selling their vote. It is completely prohibited, and fairly severe sanctions are imposed on anyone who decides to sell his vote or who receives undue benefits as a result of the way he votes. However, no such sanctions exist for a member of Parliament who decides to sell his seat. Examples of people who sold their seats have been mentioned. For example, there is the case of Newmarket—Aurora, where Belinda Stronach left the Conservatives to join the Liberal government in exchange for a cabinet position. In Vancouver Kingsway, David Emerson did the opposite when he left the Liberals to join the Conservatives in exchange for a cabinet post.

Are we supposed to believe that these individuals would have deserted even if the party in power had not offered such perks? Of course not. MPs can personally sell the value of their seats and receive undue benefits as a result of the position the voters gave them. Such MPs did not necessarily get the job on their own merits, but because of a variety of factors. That is the problem Bill C-306 would fix. That is what the NDP has been trying to fix since 1999.

We keep hearing about participatory democracy. Supposedly, that is how our voters want us to vote. It is difficult for each of us to talk to all of our voters. There are 85,000 voters in my riding. I have not yet met all of them. I hope I will have a chance to meet them all in the next four years, but that is a lot of people, and I feel for the MPs who represent more than 100,000 voters.

But in this case, this is a private member's bill. Every member should be able to vote in accordance with his or her conscience. But I can guarantee that if every one of us went back to our ridings to consult the people about whether the voters should have a say in this decision, which is supposed to be made by one person, the MP, the vast majority would be in favour of the MP's decision.This is important.

I see that there are very few government members here just now, and I see one member from the third party. I think that goes a long way toward explaining the problem. We have to consider a particular situation, one that arouses voter cynicism. Once again, in his presentation, the member for Winnipeg North said that we have to tackle the situation. Fine, yes, we have to deal with it. This is our chance to do that, to tackle one cause of voter cynicism. If we were to ask the people of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, they would say that recent events have made them cynical when it comes to politics.

That is why I urge members to do their job, to consult their constituents, to find out exactly what they think of this private member's bill. I would also invite them to vote according to this decision, because it is a decision that concerns them, concerns their right to vote and the value of the decision they make during the election campaign.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to speak to this issue.

The NDP plan is quite simple. It aims to double Canada pension plan benefits with minimal increases to the contributions. We are generally talking about an increase of 0.43% in employer contributions and 0.43% in employee contributions over seven years. A former chief actuary of the Canada pension plan said that from an actuarial point of view, it was a good solution and it could double the benefits with minimum impact on the private sector and employees.

I have heard the arguments that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has made repeatedly. The arguments are quite interesting, but not very logical. We are talking about an increase for the employee of 9 cents an hour a year for seven years. That is not a lot. That amounts to a $3.47 increase a week for seven years. Even for a small business, that is not a lot.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business fails to mention the economic spinoffs of this measure. If Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan benefits were doubled, the money would be reinvested in the economy. The little money the businesses would pay to improve the benefits would be reinvested in those same businesses. There could be economic growth that would strengthen the businesses, including small and medium-sized businesses. In that sense, it is the best solution for the economy and for retirees.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the very pertinent question.

The examples she has provided are pertinent and corroborated by the findings of the Chief Actuary of Canada. There is no public pension crisis in Canada: the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are not in jeopardy. In fact, if there is a crisis, it is that old age security, in particular the guaranteed income supplement, does not meet the needs of our seniors who are currently having trouble making ends meet.

My colleague is right to say that there is no crisis. The examples she has provided in this regard are all factual. When we talk about old age pensions, as mentioned by the Prime Minister in Davos, we are talking about an increase equivalent to 1.7% to 2.4% of gross domestic product at the height of the demographic crisis that is looming. Consequently, no change is needed and the Chief Actuary of Canada is in agreement. If we must review these programs, we should do so not as a budget exercise to reduce the deficit built up by this government, but in order to help the most disadvantaged retirees.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-25, which, as we know, is about setting up a pooled registered pension plan. This is an important issue today for the future economic security of retirees. Many members have talked about the 12 million Canadians who do not have a workplace pension plan. We have to deal with this issue.

However, the NDP—myself included—believes that the government's proposed solution is a very bad idea. It will distract us from good solutions, and we will end up with a program that does not meet its stated objectives. Let me explain why.

So far, many members have talked about how the economic crisis highlighted the weakness and vulnerability of private pension plans. I am well aware of this because, in my previous life, before becoming an MP, I dealt with very sensitive situations where pensions were at stake, such as the AbitibiBowater employees' pension. Now other companies, such as White Birch, are having problems. In those workplaces, pensions are typically defined benefit plans, not defined contribution plans. These are real pensions that provide economic security, but the present economic climate is undermining that security.

That is what is happening to the Canada pension plan, a defined benefit plan that provides people with economic security because they know how much they will get once they stop working. With defined contribution plans, people do not know how much they will get. That is up to market fluctuations, and it is one of the weaknesses of the government's proposal.

The government often says things to suggest that it accepts the argument that the public pension plans are solid and secure programs; these include the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. It is essential to provide Canadians and Quebeckers with economic security, but the pooled registered pension plan proposed by the government does not do that.

Before getting into the major shortcomings of the proposed pooled pension plan, I would like to address one of the arguments that has been raised many times since the beginning of the debate: that we have no choice but to move in this direction because the provinces have refused—the necessary consent was not given by two-thirds of the provinces. That argument is a fallacy.

I followed the issue when I was in my previous position and I also followed the Kananaskis meeting where this was discussed. I would like my colleagues to refer to an article from the Globe and Mail that was written on the eve of the Kananaskis meeting. I will read it in English because the article is in English.

Provinces are planning to fight for enhancements to the Canada Pension Plan at a key meeting on Monday, setting up a showdown with the [federal] government over how Canadians will fund their retirements.

Just days before federal and provincial finance ministers meet in Kananaskis, Ottawa made a surprise move to reject CPP enhancements for now in favour of a new privately run savings vehicle.

Ontario's finance minister, who is quoted in this Globe and Mail article, said he did not think the provinces would oppose it. In the same article, the only province to oppose improving the Canada pension plan was Alberta. It was possible to get approval from nine provinces at that time. Since the government announced that the option of improving the Canada pension plan was not on the table, the provinces wanted to try to make the meeting worthwhile by proposing any option that might seem like progress. That is what is being proposed right now. To say that we have no choice but to take this direction because the provinces have said no is a fallacy. It is not true. It is baloney.

The Canada pension plan has several major flaws. Now we are talking about another voluntary plan. It will be introduced in a workplace and it will be optional. People will be able to opt out if they want. In other words, it will be a voluntary program. Tons of voluntary programs already exist, including group RRSPs and the more recent TFSAs. Both of these plans offer tax incentives to encourage Canadians to invest. Yet only 30% of Canadians invest in RRSPs, despite the significant financial incentives. It costs the federal government a fortune in tax expenditures. So why do only 30% of Canadians invest in RRSPs? Why do 70% of Canadians not invest? Because they do not have enough disposable income to do so.

I can also talk about TFSAs. Some 40% of Canadians invested in TFSAs last year. Half of that 40% earn $100,000 or more a year. For them, this program in another tax loophole. In the end, over 60% of Canadians are not investing in TFSAs, despite the advantages of the program, because they do not have the disposable income needed to invest. So, there is a good chance that low-income employees will not have enough incentive to participate in the proposed program because they need all of their income to meet their basic needs. Many of the employees who have the program available to them will opt out for that reason. The reason many voluntary programs do not work, despite tax incentives, is because people need to have enough money to invest.

We compared the management fees of the program proposed by the government to those of the Canada pension plan. Management fees associated with the CPP are less than 0.5%. Private plans, such as mutual funds, are also a form of pooled investment, since everyone has a share of the overall envelope in a mutual fund. The largest mutual funds do not benefit from any economy of scale. Management fees range from 2% to 2.5%. This may not seem like much but when a mutual fund generates a return of 3% to 3.5%, the 2% to 2.5% in management fees must be deducted from it. If the Canada pension plan delivers the same return as a mutual fund, only 0.5% must be deducted. Thus, the Canada pension plan already provides a return that is 2% greater than private plans like the one the Conservative government wants to implement.

As a side note, the Canada pension plan delivered a return of 15% in 2010 and 12% in 2011. On average, private plans in Canada delivered a return of 10.5% in 2010—from which 2% to 2.5% must be deducted—and 0.5% in 2011. We are talking about a total cumulative return of 27% over the past two years for the Canada pension plan and a return of only 11% for private plans. If there are any doubts about the effectiveness of the Canada pension plan as compared to private plans in the past two years, a time of economic uncertainty, this fact should dispel them.

With respect to economies of scale and management fees, Australia has a super fund very similar to what the government is proposing. About 10 years after setting up the super fund, Australians discovered that there were no economies of scale and that management fees were the same as for private funds, such as mutual funds.

I have already briefly addressed the third element, defined contributions.

Fourth, this distracts us from the real solution that the NDP has proposed: enhancing the Canada pension plan. Gradual premium increases would make it possible to double benefits, thereby ensuring a secure retirement for Canadians. That would be a true financial security program.

I do not have enough time to point out all the advantages of this solution. I hope that someone will ask me a question about that in the next five minutes. This is the right solution. This solution would also provide economic stability because beneficiaries would spend their bigger pension cheques. After all, they no longer need to save. The money would be reinvested in the economy to play a major role in battling economic uncertainty and fuelling the economy.

That makes our solution far better than the vague one the Conservatives have proposed.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo repeated something that I had heard in previous speeches. I have already asked this question, but I have not yet received an answer, so I will try again.

The member mentioned in her speech that the economies of scale offered by pooled registered pension plans will lower management costs, but I have yet to see proof of that.

Can the member tell me where she got her numbers, given that the largest private sector mutual funds in Canada, which have many, many contributors, still have management costs on the order of 2% to 2.5%, which is much higher than the CPP's management costs at 0.5%? Instead of just telling us that the management costs are expected to be lower, can the member point to any studies clearly showing that such costs for this program will really be lower?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's excellent speech. What strikes me, negatively of course, about the government's arguments is that the program set out in Bill C-25, that is, pooled registered pension plans, comes in response to Canadians' lack of savings and the difficulty they have saving. Let me remind the House of some facts: 70% of Canadians do not invest in RRSPs despite the tax incentives; 60% of Canadians do not invest in TFSAs; and of the 40% of Canadians who do invest in TFSAs, 20% earn $100,000 or more.

So we already have voluntary systems that Canadians do not use. The government's response to this is to propose another voluntary system, rather than examine the reasons why Canadians do not have enough disposable income to save, either because people do not necessarily have the income or because they want to use their income for household expenses considering their low income. The system therefore seems to be inadequate.

I wonder what my colleague has to say about the government's response, which I think is a little off the mark, considering the current situation, that is, insufficient incomes.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague concerning her excellent speech. Various people have said that the program provided for in Bill C-25 would be adapted to local conditions, and that nothing else can be done with respect to the Canada pension plan.

There are a lot of optional programs available that offer financial and tax incentives, such as RRSPs, group RRSPs, TFSAs and so on. The government can increase CPP contributions for all Canadians, but when it comes to RRSPs, for example, only 30% of Canadians contribute. Despite tax incentives, 70% of Canadians do not have the means to invest. Forty per cent of Canadians invest in TFSAs, but half of those investors earn over $100,000 per year. Very few Canadians earning less than $100,000 have been motivated to invest.

Will the voluntary participation plan provided for in Bill C-25 solve the problem of the 12 million Canadians who do not have workplace pension plans?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government sure spent a lot of time tooting its own horn in that speech, but I am not sure why it is so proud of itself. I believe I heard a couple of points about Bill C-25 that I would like to address quickly.

They say this program would not cost much. The first thing I would like to know is how they can be so sure that this kind of program will minimize costs. After 10 years in effect, the management fees of a similar program in Australia were about the same as other stock investment programs, such as mutual funds. To my knowledge, there is not a single scientific study or argument that clearly proves this will be the case.

Let us not forget that Canada pension plan management fees are less than 0.5%. Retirement plans that invest mainly in the stock market tend to have management fees in excess of 2%. Management fees for pooled registered pension plans will probably be pretty close to that.

The second thing I want to say is that we already have a lot of optional programs: TFSAs, RRSPs, group RRSPs. This is an optional program like the one proposed by the Liberals.

I would like to know how this program can meet the needs of the 70% of Canadians not currently contributing to an RRSP despite its attendant tax advantages.