Murray Rankin

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-513, the so-called retirement income bill of rights. As I will describe in greater detail later, I have very serious reservations about supporting the bill even at this stage, but on balance, I believe that it is more important that the bill be sent to committee for careful scrutiny than it is to vote against the bill at this time.

The stated goal, as the member for York West noted, is to enshrine in law the notion that all Canadians have the right to contribute to a decent retirement plan. Unfortunately, this Liberal bill contains some very vague declarations and half measures, which we will not oppose, but does very little to actually improve the retirement security of Canadians. I will discuss the actual contents of the bill later.

In the meantime, let me talk about what the bill is not about.

Canadians are not saving enough for their retirement. No one disagrees with that statement. I am particularly worried about the younger members of our workforce.

Last January, the Prime Minister announced that he would increase the eligibility age for old age security, effectively raising the Canadian retirement age from 65 to 67. New Democrats have committed to reversing those changes, and expert bodies such as the OECD and the Parliamentary Budget Officer agree that this dramatic change was not necessary. The old age security system as it was is entirely sustainable.

By 2030, Conservative cuts to the OAS will slash $11 billion in retirement income from seniors as they raise the retirement age to 67. That amounts to $13,000 in retirement savings out of the pockets of every Canadian senior. Combined with cuts made by the previous Liberal administrations, cuts to both CPP, the Quebec pension plan, and OAS will take $26 billion in retirement income away from Canadians.

Retirement security is one of the most pressing economic issues facing Canadian families today. As many as 5.8 million Canadians, nearly a third of our workforce, are facing a steep decline in their standard of living once they retire.

The simple truth is this: a great number of Canadians are simply not saving enough. As a result, provincial governments, the Canadian Labour Congress, Canada's largest retirement group—CARP—and various financial experts have all been calling on the federal government to move forward with plans to increase the Canada pension plan.

The chief executive officer of the CIBC, Mr. Gerald McCaughey, has also been speaking out about the need to improve our public pensions, and the former chief actuary of the Canada pension plan, Mr. Bernard Dussault, supports doubling the CPP. We hope the Liberals do the right thing and get on board. So far they have opposed expanding the CPP, even though provinces, experts, unions, and CARP have all been on side.

Provincial finance ministers have indicated strong support for an increase to the CPP, yet in June, the Minister of Finance failed in his commitment to meet with provincial and territorial finance ministers to get going on this job. When will the Conservatives stop standing in the way of the reforms that so many take for granted as necessary and indeed vital?

Let me turn to this bill.

The title, “retirement income bill of rights”, is very misleading. The bill only addresses certain features of the retirement income system. It purports, as the member said, to promote certain goals, such as adequacy, transparency, affordability, and so forth, but it is entirely unclear how those goals would be achieved.

To call it a bill of rights is misleading in the extreme. What does it mean? As a lawyer, I must point out that this is no Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has no constitutional force. It has no way to render an inconsistent regulation or bill of no force and effect, as the charter can do under our Constitution, so it is rhetoric. To call it a bill of rights, or in French, une déclaration des droits, is misleading in the extreme. It is empty rhetoric.

If it is enacted, it is just going to be another statute. It might have some interpretive force, but for reasons I will describe, it is hard to believe it will have any real impact.

The bill is also very badly drafted. Sometimes it says “every individual has the right...”, and then it says “every individual must have the right...”. In French it only says, tout individu a le droit. Why are there differences in drafting? It is of no particular force and effect. Lawyers are going to have a field day with the bill as it is currently drafted.

A couple of the sections are entirely superfluous. It says it applies to Canadian legislative authority, the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. Obviously that is the case. Why put a section in? There really are only nine substantive clauses in this bill.

Let me turn to the first of them. Clause 4 says, in part, “Every individual has the right to accumulate sufficient pension income...to provide for a lifestyle in retirement that the individual considers adequate...”. What does that mean? It is an entirely subjective standard. If I believe I have a right to a Rolls Royce pension in my retirement, what does this bill say about that? It is my belief that counts, it seems to say. Moreover, clause 4 of the bill goes on to say that even that right is “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by a federal law”, except those restrictions cannot be based on “...[such] personal characteristic[s]...as age, sex, national origin or occupation”. Most of those things are already covered, and have long been covered, by the Canadian Human Rights Act, so they would make no difference and would change nothing.

As for the “occupation”, I have a lot of trouble understanding what that would mean. Is it not obvious that one's occupation will determine in part the extent of one's retirement income? Is that not a reasonable restriction? If one person is a CEO and another person is a cashier, are not their respective occupations reasonable restrictions on their retirement income? According to this bill, as I read it, that would not be the case, and so I do not know what it means.

Clause 5 discusses how an individual can “...determine how and when to accumulate pension income...”. It goes on to say, “...except that an individual who participates in a workplace plan may be required by that plan to save for retirement”. How would that change the status quo? Would it simply prohibit an employer from forbidding workplace pension plans? If so, it may be of very little value indeed.

Clause 7 would require retirement income plans to provide a “full, accurate and timely disclosure of...[all] material risks...”. Presumably, if consumer protection legislation to that effect does not already exist, that may be of some value.

Clause 8 would codify common law. All it says is that those providing investment advice could not have a conflict of interest. I assure members that is pretty well standard in the industry. It is hard to believe that would add any value.

The bill goes on to say a number of things about training and financial literacy that are all very useful, I suppose. However, greater clarity would be achieved if the laws the bill refers to were actually amended themselves, rather than putting pious statements in this other bill.

This bill contains very little of substance that would address why Canadians are struggling to save for their retirement. Portions of the bill refer to transparency of plans and access to information. That would certainly be helpful, but it is regrettable that the bill is mostly made up of grandiose proclamations of retirement rights, which would do very little to change real people's lives.

New Democrats are committed to addressing retirement security needs of Canadians. We have made strong commitments to strengthen our pension plan system and to ensure that Canadians have a secure retirement. This bill would do nothing to change those fundamental issues. It also fails to include any reversal of the Conservatives' retrograde changes to the old age security and guaranteed income system, which will leave seniors more vulnerable at the time of their greatest needs.

In conclusion, I hope that by introducing this bill the Liberals are not demonstrating that they think window dressing is sufficient to address an issue that affects the future retirement security of Canadians. New Democrats are proposing real solutions, such as increasing the CPP and reinstating 65 as the age for accessing old age security. We will support this bill and hope we can strengthen it at the committee stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess my first question to the member would be as follows. She said that the bill would just set goals to which governments should aspire. I think those were her words.

How exactly would the bill legally compel any change of government behaviour? Where are the justiciable standards that would create a better nest egg for people in their golden years?

[Pensions, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want the Canada pension plan improved. They do not want more studies. The provinces agree. Seniors agree. Experts agree. Why are the Conservatives standing in the way of progress?

With Canada's population rapidly aging, ensuring a secure retirement is a major policy challenge. Provinces and experts agree with the NDP: strengthening CPP is the prudent thing to do, and reform now will avoid painful consequences down the road.

Canadians are rightly worried about their retirement. What is the minister waiting for? Why will the government not act?

[Pensions, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, between 2010 and 2036 the number of seniors in Canada will double, and Canadians are facing a crisis of retirement insecurity.

The provinces are in agreement that increasing the Canada pension plan is the very best way to ensure that Canadian seniors will have a secure retirement; so when will the minister stop putting up roadblocks and start working with her provincial colleagues on a concrete proposal to boost CPP rates?

[Access to Information, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yes, Conservatives have set a number of records, but none I would brag about.

The Conservatives committed to spend $50 million, they say, on access to information matters, but the Information Commissioner says that she does not know where the money was spent. She said: “My office has been cut. Some offices have been cut, certainly in their ATIP shops, and some departments have been cut to the point where they can't produce the documents”.

We are facing a crisis here. Can they tell us how much has actually been removed from ATIP budgets in the last two years?

[Access to Information, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Information Commissioner pulls no punches in her report on access to information. She writes about failure and even says that “the integrity of the federal access to information program is at serious risk”. I repeat, “serious risk”.

At the very least, can the government tell us how many access to information employees were transferred to other tasks last year?

[Electronic Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak in the strongest terms possible in support of Motion No. 428, moved by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

He has been a leader in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in trying to come up with measures to improve Canadian democracy and to renew it. This is but one of the many examples that one could cite, and I salute the member for his concern for revitalizing Canadian democracy.

This measure, which seems such a small step, is definitely a step in that direction. Canadian democracy needs renewal. I say that because of the shocking statistic that just 39% of Canadians aged 18 to 24 voted in the last federal election, yet when we look at people in that age demographic, we see how plugged in they are. They are truly the digital generation.

However, this tool that would revitalize democracy for that generation may not be passed, if I understand what my friends across the way are saying.

What does this motion do? It simply asks for the committee on procedure and House affairs to be given the opportunity to examine this proposal and report back in no more than 12 months.

It is a measure that has been looked at elsewhere in parliaments over time, and it has been used, as the member has stated and others have stated, in other democracies around the world. It is part of American democracy at many state levels, and of course at the White House, as we were told. Quebec has had it as a feature. The United Kingdom has had it as a feature.

My friend the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley spoke about the potential cost of such a measure. Of course that ought to be considered and I am sure it will be considered, but what is the value against that cost of a more engaged population, a population particularly of younger Canadians, who seem so alienated, sadly, from our democracy? That, I say, is a value that we cannot put a price on. This is an important tool in that direction.

The same member spoke about the Accountability Act in glowing terms. Well, this is about accountability. I know about it from the experience of working many years ago with the justice and solicitor general committee. The current Minister of Justice was a backbencher serving on that committee, and I was a consultant who came up with 100 recommendations to improve the accountability measure that was called the Access to Information and Privacy Act.

Those recommendations have never seen the light of day, despite the fact that they were the subject of unanimous approval. It was an effort toward greater transparency that has been lost. The Accountability Act, to quote Macbeth, is “...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” unless measures of this sort are taken in conjunction with it to put meat on the bones.

I know that other members of the Conservative backbench support initiatives of this sort. They are strongly in favour of moving us toward a more accountable and transparent democracy, and I salute the member for Edmonton—St. Albert as one of those, although I understand he is no longer a member of the Conservative caucus, perhaps because he still believes in the accountability of which the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley spoke.

I also salute the member for Burnaby—Douglas for going to the trouble of spending the money to get a survey to find out whether Canadians care about this issue. I am pleased that over 81% support or strongly support an initiative of this sort. That, it seems to me, is telling.

All we are saying is to give it to the committee so that the committee can have a look at it and come back to Parliament with ways to make it work.

My friend talked about frivolous petitions like Star Wars that other jurisdictions have encountered. I am confident that parliamentarians would be able to figure it out and make it work. We are practical, pragmatic people. Canadians would make this work because we want it to work and because we need to find ways to engage our youth.

We talk about marginalized groups that are strongly in support of this measure, and there are many such groups. That is critically important, but I am focusing my attention on the need to engage youth, because I am very concerned about the functioning of our democracy going forward. This is the digital generation, as I say, and they need to have tools of this sort to make it work.

I am so pleased that my friend pointed out the support of people like Preston Manning and Ed Broadbent. When parliamentarians from across the spectrum have both spoken so passionately in favour of this measure—from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, or from both sides of the political spectrum—it is indicative and demonstrative of the support that initiatives of this sort are getting and will get from Canadians of all political stripes.

I have worked with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation as part of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, on which I had the honour to serve, and it is strongly in support of this measure because it believes, as the Conservatives say they believe, in accountability.

I also see that Leadnow, which has done so much to promote environmental responsibility in British Columbia and across Canada, has also said very clearly that it fully supports bringing electronic petitions to Parliament, as “it will help strengthen the voice of Canadians and enable them to reach decision-makers more effectively”.

I particularly salute Leadnow because it has been so effective in engaging the youth of whom I have spoken before.

In conclusion, I urge all members of Parliament to examine this measure carefully and fairly. It is only an effort to get it to the committee to do the job required. It already has built-in mechanisms, so we would not have frivolous petitions as a consequence. It would help engage the youth of Canada and, as I say, restore and renew democracy, particularly for those young Canadians who have lost hope in our system.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member has put these cuts in the personnel of the Canada Revenue Agency in a very interesting context and much broader context. She talked about parks, climate change, family farm regulation and so forth.

The cuts the government has made to public services to Canadians are having real impact. I know the Conservatives like to say that these are back office jobs that have been cut and we should not worry, that it will not affect their fight against tax havens. That is what they say in the context of CRA.

In my community of Victoria, I keep getting seniors telling me that they do not have telefile anymore. There is no front counter service. That has all been cut. It is as if we are supposed to believe, with the millions and millions of dollars that have been cut and, if I use the government's figures, 2,568 more people will be cut after the budget goes through, that this has no consequence in the real world.

What do the Conservatives think we are? Of course there will be consequences and the examples the hon. member has given on climate change and parks are just examples that we could replicate throughout Canada Revenue Agency's experience just as much.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of money that the same organization, Canadians for Tax Fairness, has indicated every year is lost bears repeating. Its study shows it is $7.8 billion. The Tax Justice Network, of which it is a part, has done enormously good work around the globe in trying to come up with a figure. As I said, the Conservative government refuses to even try to measure that tax gap.

I think the reason the government does not see this as a problem is that it does not see it through the lens of investment. If it characterized this as making an investment of a few billion dollars in return, maybe that would get through to it, maybe then it would see that this could be an investment well worth making.

It is an issue of fairness all right because that $7.8 billion would, as my hon. friend said, allow us to reach Tax Freedom Day months earlier, because that $7.8 billion would now be available, even some portion of it, so we would have more money so Canadians would achieve tax fairness a few weeks or months earlier.

There are fairness issues and there are equity issues, but there are simple bottom line issues. If the government saw it as an investment, maybe then it would get it.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree entirely with my colleague's thoughtful intervention.

It is a matter of some sadness to me that the government's rhetoric is all about going after tax evaders, all about a crisis and tax havens and so forth. The government announced a while ago that it was going to put $30 million over five years, having already cut 2,000 people from the job and $250 million. We are now supposed to believe this serious action.

What Canada is doing is an embarrassment at the international level. The Globe and Mail reported on it recently. The Financial Post has reported on it. It is not me that is saying it.

Canada has to get on board with automatic tax information exchange agreements, measuring the problem, doing the kind of things that Mr. Cameron, a Conservative prime minister, wants to do, not just talk and do so little.