John McCallum

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that last comment by the parliamentary secretary, I must admit I have a bit of sympathy for him because in the lottery of jobs, he has drawn the shortest possible stick at this point. He is left in the position where, out of that vast Conservative caucus, only two members get up to defend the Prime Minister: the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary. It is a sad state of affairs for which he is not responsible.

However, my question has to do with income trusts. I cannot believe he would talk about the subject of income trusts, which brings such huge discredit to his leader and his party. The allegations he mentions against two of my colleagues were totally unfounded. It happened some eight years ago. No charges were ever laid, so it is completely baseless.

The reality is that the Prime Minister, during the election campaign of 2005-06, promised repeatedly there would be no tax on income trusts. Then what did he do on that black Halloween day of 2006? He changed his mind. He raised taxes on income trusts to the point where hundreds of thousands of Canadians lost hundreds of millions of dollars overnight, turning many former Conservatives into non-Conservatives. It was a total breaking of a solemn commitment made by the Prime Minister, leading to massive losses by millions of hard-saving Canadians, who have, in many cases, not recovered from that.

I know the member is desperate for defences, but how does he have the nerve to bring up income trusts as a matter of defence against his Prime Minister?

[Ethics, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, all those people from Oak Ridges—Markham did not send their member here to defend fraud, which is what he is doing today.

Negotiating an agreement with Mr. Duffy is not acceptable conduct from a member of the bar.

Has the government or the Minister of Justice contacted the Law Society of British Columbia and the Law Society of Upper Canada to ask them to investigate Mr. Perrin's professional conduct?

[Ethics, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary secretary mused about what the residents of Markham want from their government. I can tell the member that they certainly do not want the Prime Minister's hand-picked, taxpayer-funded lawyer negotiating a backroom deal to hide who was actually paying Mike Duffy's expenses and then deleting all the email evidence afterwards.

Who deleted Mr. Perrin's emails? Who instructed them to do so, and what were they hiding?

[Crisis in the Philippines, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I am afraid my hon. colleague over there is a bit deluded. She might not have heard, but I commended the government for sending the DART. I said overall the government was doing a good job in the short run. My concern is for the long term, that the government will not stay there for the long term. However, I am with her on the DART.

She talked about immigration and I thought we were talking about the Philippines. Instead, she drags out her PMO talking points, which are absolutely false, on immigration. As I have made clear in the House, in the last five years under Conservative rule, the average waiting time for family class immigrants has gone from 13 months to 34 months. That is almost a tripling under Conservative rule. The waiting times, as I indicated, for live-in caregivers from the Philippines, which is what we are talking about now, is over three years. For parents and grandparents, it is over five years. This is dramatically higher than it was five years ago.

These PMO talking points about Liberals and immigration are utterly false and the challenge for these Conservatives is to get their own act together on immigration and bring down these terribly high waiting times, which are wreaking havoc on the new Canadians of this country.

[Crisis in the Philippines, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I think that is another illustration of the point that the devil is in the details. Perhaps what he is alluding to is that as a consequence of this disaster, there may be more people in such situations in the Philippines than there were before. They certainly need assistance and they may be part of the group that should be prioritized, to use the word that the government is using, to come more quickly to Canada or else to receive aid in the Philippines from Doctors Without Borders or one of our aid agencies.

I certainly agree that cases like that at the time of a crisis such as this are frequently very urgent in nature, so whether the assistance is on the ground in the Philippines through an NGO or to come quickly to Canada, in either case speed may be of the essence and there ought to be a high degree of urgency. I commend the government overall for responding quickly, but in particular areas such as my colleague raises, there may be a need for speedier action than we have so far observed.

[Crisis in the Philippines, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I completely agree with my colleague that we should also extend our sympathies to the Filipinos here in Canada, not only to those in the Philippines.

My colleague expressed very well the depth of our sorrow and our condolences on the occasion of this tragedy. I would like to address what one might call more practical or more concrete issues.

As has been said by others, we do think that the government has provided a reasonably good reaction in the short term. It is a reasonably good reaction in terms of direct contributions and matching contributions. As a former defence minister, I was also pleased to see the quick deployment of the DART and of the helicopters.

However, I do not think it is enough to look at the short term; we must also look at the long term. The tragedy the Philippines has experienced is so big that it will take five years, even 10 years, to rebuild the affected areas. The danger is that, once the media are no longer there, governments might lose interest in the situation and stop sending assistance to the Philippines after a short while, whereas the needs will last for a very long time.

My point is that while we can in general support the government for its short-term action, we have to be equally concerned about the long run, which will last for at least five years or ten. After the media attention has gone away and the television cameras are no longer on, will the government still be there, providing the necessary assistance for the longer term reconstruction of those devastated islands, which we have seen so graphically on television but which will not remain on television for that much longer?

I combine these long-term concerns for reconstruction with the long-term concern mentioned by my NDP colleague from Ottawa Centre regarding climate change. While I commend overall the government for short-term reaction, I believe as well that we must not lose sight of the longer term, neither in terms of the dollar needs for reconstruction and health care nor on the issue of climate change.

That was my first point. I will wear my immigration critic hat to talk about the second point. Once again, the government has good intentions. However, as the saying goes, the devil is often in the details. If we look at the details, we cannot be at all sure that their intentions will really help the situation.

For instance, in terms of immigration, the government intends to take speedy action in sending assistance to those in significantly affected regions and to prioritize their cases.

However, this is where the devil could be in the details. For individuals in significantly affected areas, their cases will be prioritized. That sounds good, but what does it mean?

Let me put on the table the waiting times today for parents and grandparents from the Philippines is 99 months. For children, it is 15 months. For skilled workers, it is 18 months. For provincial program people, it is 12 months. For family live-in caregivers, many from the Philippines, it is 39 months. These are very long times. For people from the affected areas, does that mean they will be prioritized to the extent that wait times will be reduced from 39 months to 38 months or to 10 months, or to two months?

While the ideas put forward by the immigration department are laudable, I think we need more meat. We need to know before too long how many extra people will be let into Canada from these so-called prioritized areas.

We in the Liberal Party, and I as the immigration critic, will certainly be wanting to get more meat in coming weeks. I know it cannot happen overnight. How many more Filipinos will be allowed to come into this country as a consequence of this new policy, and what does their prioritization mean in terms of actual wait times for people from affected areas?

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my facts are right from his website. Liberals cannot be blamed for a tripling of waiting times in the last five years under the watch of Conservatives.

I say to members that they would not like it if their families were forced to remain overseas for two to three years, were not allowed to visit Canada, and did not have a clue when or whether they would be reunited with them.

I say to the minister, speak the truth and act to deal with this cruel reality facing so many new Canadians.

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, over the past five years, on this Conservative government's watch, wait times for family reunification have skyrocketed, jumping from 13 months to 34 months. In some cases, wait times have increased by 400%.

People are having to wait two or three years to be reunited with their spouse. How many marriages can withstand such a test? When will the government do something to address this human tragedy?

[Retirement Income Bill of Rights, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of the bill put forward by my colleague. I would to take this opportunity as well to correct some of the misstatements by the NDP and Conservatives on this matter.

I think my NDP colleague does not really understand the limitations of a private member's bill. What this would do is set out in law the legal framework, the bill of rights. It would also address issues of financial knowledge and literacy. However, he seems to imply that this means it is the only Liberal policy. That is far from the truth. A private member's bill, he should know, does not allow expenditure of funds. The Liberals have very concrete proposals outside the scope of this law that do involve funding and which would improve the pension situation of Canadians.

As for the Conservatives, it was amazing listening to that speech. It was eight minutes of boasting about previous Conservative measures with virtually nothing about pensions at all, except a litany of what the Conservatives had done, but nothing whatsoever about the problems and challenges of the future facing Canadians as the population ages.

Let me just remind the House of some of the problems that the Conservatives have failed to address. Then I would like to speak about some of the Liberal proposals, which my NDP colleague has studiously avoided.

Members may not know that 75% of Canadians working in the private sector do not have access to any pension plan, except those provided to all of us by the Canadian pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. These three provide a maximum income of some $27,000 per year, although the great majority of people receive significantly less. Experts tell us that Canadians in the private sector earning between $30,000 and $100,000 who plan to retire in 20 years will not have enough retirement income to cover necessary living expenses. Those are enough statistics to give us the idea that we have a problem. We have a challenge in our country about our future pensions, a challenge that the Conservatives studiously ignore.

Let me now come to proposals for dealing with this problem.

First, a Liberal government would certainly repeal the idea of increasing the age for the old age security from 65 to 67. Contrary to what the government says, the chief actuary and other experts say that the current system is indeed sustainable. There is no need to move in this direction.

Second, even if we wanted to save money, this is the most heartless, cruel way to do it. By raising the age from 65 to 67, we deprive people who may have had hard-working physical labour and cannot work longer of not only old age security but also of GIS. It hits hardest the weakest and most vulnerable members of Canadian society and will throw them onto provincial welfare.

If the government did have to save money, and we do not believe it does, a better more humane way would be to reduce the maximum income level at which one collects OAS from something over $100,000, which it is today, to a lower figure. That would be a better, more humane way to do it than raising the retirement age. However, our view is we do not have to do either because the system is sustainable.

That is the first action by the Conservatives on pensions, which is completely negative, retrograde and will hit the most vulnerable.

The second is their pooled retirement plans, which the Conservatives have introduced with great fanfare, but which are really nothing more than a glorified registered retirement savings plan. The take-up by provinces has been minimal. The guarantees against excessive charges by the private sector are non-existent. The inadequacy of these proposals are such that provinces have been led to propose increases to the CPP to the point where I believe two provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, have said that if the government will not go ahead with the CPP enhancement, they will make their own provincial pension plans.

That, as experts tell us, is distinctly a second-best solution compared with an increase in the national plan, but they are so frustrated and aware of the challenges, which the federal government fails to address, that they are going to go this route on their own should sufficient numbers of provinces and the federal government not agree to go with the Canada pension plan.

In order to deal with this issue of inadequate pensions, the Liberal Party previously proposed a supplementary Canada pension plan. It would be a voluntary plan involving auto-enrolment so that a high proportion of individuals would likely participate. Since the last election, we have evidence from the U.K., which has introduced a similar plan with good enrolment and with minimal cost. In other words, this could be a good solution to our future pension challenges.

One major advantage it would have over the government's pooled plan is cost. This would be a government plan with costs equivalent to the Canada pension plan, significantly less than one percentage point per year, compared with private sector plans, which are one, two or even three percentage points per year, a much higher cost.

As experts have shown us, a fairly small difference in those costs, between say 1% and 2.5%, can cause a reduction in one's pension in the order of 25% to 30% because of the power of compound interest. As I have said previously, let a thousand flowers bloom. Let the supplementary Canada pension plan proceed to provide competition with the private sector. Let it put forward its best products and let the consumer decide whether to go with the private sector or the supplementary Canada pension plan. I think that would provide more choice and better options for Canadians to deal with their retirement challenges in the future.

Finally, we are also very interested in the proposals currently being put forward by Prince Edward Island, and supported by Ontario, to expand the Canada pension plan, if only because the government's actions are so totally inadequate. Some reaction is necessary, whether it is a supplementary Canada pension plan, as we propose, or a moderate expansion of the existing Canada pension plan put forward by a number of provinces. As I said, certain provinces are even prepared to have their own provincial pension plans should this one not materialize.

Both an expanded CPP and our previous proposal for a supplementary CPP have the advantage of low cost, 1% or less per year, and that, compared with the private sector alternative favoured by the government, would produce materially better pensions in the future for Canadians.

In summary, I believe that my colleague's bill is a good bill. I think it provides a legal framework setting out Canadians' rights, a bill of rights. It also deals effectively with the financial literacy issue.

It is not a panacea, as my colleague would be the first to admit. Private members' bills cannot spend money, just as the NDP's bill on housing strategy does not have any money either. That is not the function of private members' bills.

However, when the member's bill is combined with other proposals, first of all, not to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67, and also to go with either a supplementary CPP or a moderate expansion of the existing CPP, then the bill, in combination with those actions, would provide a groundwork or a good start in dealing with the pressing pension needs of Canadians.

Contrast that with the Conservative speech, which did not even acknowledge future problems, let alone make proposals on how to deal with this problem. Contrast that with the NDP speech, which, while that member supported our bill, seemed to have a false or inflated idea of the eligible or permitted scope of private members' bills in general.

When we put all these things together, I am very pleased to support the bill.

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let me start out on a positive note. I know Senator Plett, a real true-blue Conservative, former president of the Conservative Party, great loyalist to the Prime Minister. He was honest. He said that he wanted to see due process. He is voting against the government's motion in the Senate. He is one Conservative parliamentarian who has stood up to the boss and who has expressed his feelings honestly. This coming from a person who could not be more Conservative.

I know that the Conservative members of Parliament are feeling uncomfortable about this. They were particularly uncomfortable when the Prime Minister accused Nigel Wright of deception, because people across this country have been standing up for Nigel Wright and are embarrassed by the Prime Minister's statement.

I basically agree with my colleague that with a few exceptions, and I could name a few more, by and large the Conservative members of Parliament are not standing up for what is right for Canadians. They appear, at least in public, not to be pushing their leadership to come clean. I doubt very much they will support our motion that the Prime Minister should testify.

However, if the Prime Minister is telling the truth and he has nothing to hide, then why should the Conservative members of Parliament not support the Liberal motion?