Tracey Ramsey

[Canada Pension Plan, November 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, let us take a moment and talk about what pensions really look like. In Canada, there is the concept that if we go to work every day and work hard, one day we will be able to retire with dignity. Canadians planning for retirement dream about what it will be like to finally not have to go to work every day and instead do things they enjoy, such as spending more time with their family, travelling, and volunteering. This is the dream of many Canadians.

Bill C-26 would be a positive step forward in enhancing CPP benefits. This bill, when fully implemented, would increase the current level of CPP benefits from 25% to 33%. Although this falls short of the NDP's long-standing proposal to double CPP benefits, Bill C-26 is a step in the right direction. It would improve retirement security for young Canadians today.

I want to give a huge thanks to the many organizations that have been working hard for this improvement over many years. Labour and retired-persons organizations have long called for an expansion, and we congratulate them for their hard-fought win.

New Democrats have also been long calling for dignity for our seniors, the very Canadians who have built our beautiful country, many of whom are struggling in their later years with very limited incomes. We have consistently fought for increases in CPP, OAS, and GIS and will continue to do so.

The CPP is the best retirement pension deal available to Canadians. The fund is widely considered to be well managed. As of June 2016, the CPP Investment Board manages over $287.3 billion in investment assets for the Canada pension plan on behalf of 19 million Canadians, making it among the 10 largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. The CPP currently covers earnings up to a cap of $54,900; and for earnings up to this cap it aims to replace 25% of income. Maximum pensions are at $1,092 per month or $13,100 per year. For many Canadians, this only covers their basic needs.

The extended CPP would be a separate new tier. This would be added on top of the existing CPP and do two things: taking the replacement rate up to 33%, and expanding the earnings cap to $82,700. While the increase in Bill C-26 is welcome, New Democrats know that better is always possible and the government could have gone further with the percentage changes and still maintained a healthy CPP. The government could also have implemented the changes more quickly to help seniors right now. This bill could have done so much more for those who are struggling today. We need to see immediate action to help seniors and Canadians who would not see the benefits of these changes.

Retirement security is in crisis in Canada. We have fewer workplace pensions than ever, with six in 10 Canadians having no workplace pension. This means that 60% of Canadians rely on CPP, OAS, GIS, and personal savings. Most people know that seniors do not have a lot of disposable income and very few have significant savings to help. Many rely on their family to help supplement their needs and to provide them with security. Many are women who are widowed or do not have their own private pension to supplement them.

I remember a conversation I had with a widow in Amherstburg whose husband's workplace pension had been drastically slashed because the company, General Chemical, had left Canada and was now only paying a small portion of its promised pensions to retirees. She was now talking about selling her house that she had lived in her whole life because she could not live on CPP, OAS, and GIS alone.

There are many seniors in my riding who are struggling. We have a lack of affordable housing; rising costs of drugs; and increased costs of food, gas, and hydro. The list goes on and on. Seniors today are struggling, and there is so much that could be done today. The changes that are being proposed us would not take place for 40 years. Those who would see the biggest benefit from the proposed changes are millennials.

If we talk to millennials, we hear they are often not even able to imagine a future that includes a workplace pension. They are struggling to find secure employment and are often working multiple jobs to patch together a living. They do not even think about retirement because they are so focused on working to find a job.

My colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski recently brought her precarious work tour to Windsor, where we met with millennials to talk about their issues. I was crushed to hear a young woman talk about the fact she never envisions having a family or owning a home because she cannot find work. She is certainly not saving for retirement, which shows the clear need for CPP changes for future generations.

What an incredible difference we have had in a generation. It is a sad reflection on our society that 20 years ago when I began working, I was able to find work easily in a unionized workplace that had a decent wage and a workplace pension, which meant that I could retire with security and dignity. Today these opportunities are few and far between. With the decline of workplace pensions we are heading into a future in which there will be no security in later life for Canadians.

We often hear of people talking about the concept of the Canadian dream, that if people work hard for 30 years they can retire with dignity. I continually hear from the other side of the House that if Canadians just work hard enough, they too can join the middle class. This narrative is not only misleading but also insulting. Many Canadians work extremely hard every single day, but for so many reasons they are not able to save enough for a decent standard of living, let alone for retirement. They do not even think about trying to join the middle class, because they are struggling to survive today.

We can go back a generation before that. My grandfather was on the bargaining team in his workplace after he came back from serving in the war. He worked at a place called Dominion Forge. When they negotiated a retirement benefit for a 30-year-and-out contract, he became the first person to retire under that contract once it was signed. Today, we are losing these pensions at an alarming rate in Canada.

Today, our workplaces are creating divisions between new hires and long-term employees. They are pitting working people against each other. This new tier of workers is asked to accept lower wages and smaller pensions, if any pension at all. We see this in workplaces right across Canada. It is a trend that reinforces the growing problem of retirement insecurity.

When I started working 20 years ago, things were relatively good. People with a high school diploma could find a job, and many jobs paid well. People could get jobs with a pension and benefits. They knew they could start a family. Today, this is just a dream for so many Canadians. Young people are struggling to find these good jobs and do not imagine planning for retirement because they cannot even find a job today.

We have a serious problem in our country today with many seniors living in poverty. I am pleased to see that Bill C-26 would address future generations, which will certainly be necessary, because there are fewer young people today who have a job in the first place so they can put some type of personal savings away and, second, have some form of workplace pension .

What are we doing today for seniors in this country? We hear the government talk about the changes it has made to the GIS, which amount to under $1,000 per year at the maximum amount people are receiving. Seniors in my riding who get that extra amount of money have not been elevated out of poverty. They are still suffering from the high costs of medication and still cannot find affordable rent. When some people in my riding found out that seniors were going to receive that money, they turned around and raised their rent. Seniors are not seeing any benefit of that bonus.

So much more could be done today. I look forward to seeing what future initiatives will come forward in the House that would help the retired person and seniors of today.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my question is about Canadians who need this help now, seniors who cannot afford to live, cannot afford their medication, cannot afford their rent because of unaffordable housing. This will not take place for 49 years.

The member says he cares about the people in his community who are suffering right now. What measures is the government taking to help seniors today?

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon on a question of privilege on the manner in which the Minister of International Trade has been treating Parliament and due process in relation to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the EU. The flagrant disrespect of Parliament shown by the minister and her government is alarming and unwarranted, but more importantly, the impact of this disrespect has obstructed me in the discharge of my duties as a member of Parliament.

I will, through the course of my remarks, ask the Speaker to agree with my belief that there exists a prima facie case that my privileges as a member of Parliament have been breached, and I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Speaker agree with my intervention.

Before getting to the matter at hand, I would like to remind the House that obstruction in the discharge of parliamentary duties can take many forms, both physical and non-physical. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, tells us, at pages 108 and 109:

If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions...there would be a case for the Chair to consider.

I will beg the House's indulgence to provide the proper context of what has happened and give an account of events leading up to this question of privilege. I will start with the facts of the matter at hand.

To begin with, the Government of Canada adopted a policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament in 2008. That policy sets out specific guidelines and timelines on how international treaties will be presented to Parliament for debate and consideration. In section 6.2, “Tabling period for Treaties”, the policy states:

b. For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession...the Government will:

Observe a waiting period of at least twenty-one sitting days before the introduction of the necessary implementing legislation in Parliament;

On Friday, October 28, the Minister of International Trade put an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures on the Notice Paper, even before having signed the treaty. The Government of Canada signed CETA two days later, on Sunday, October 30. The Minister of International Trade tabled CETA in the House on Monday, October 31, and not 21 sittings days but about 21 seconds later, she introduced Bill C-30 to implement the provisions of CETA.

The Minister of International Trade and the government are aware of this policy and obligation to Parliament. They have respected it as recently as this fall with regard to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. On September 19, 2016, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade laid upon the table a copy of the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine and an explanatory memorandum.

Twenty-eight sitting days later, which was this morning, as it turns out, and in full compliance with the policy, the Minister of International Trade introduced Bill C-31, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. However, in the case of CETA, the government acted in direct violation of its own policy when it came to the tabling of the treaty and the introduction of the implementing legislation that followed immediately afterward.

Furthermore, the policy statement in the government's policy is as follows:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs will initiate the tabling of all instruments, accompanied by a brief Explanatory Memorandum in the House of Commons following their adoption by signature or otherwise, and prior to Canada's expression of its consent to be bound by ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

This policy provision was followed when the Canada-Ukraine FTA was laid on the table and is something we are used to hearing the minister and her parliamentary secretary announce when they table international treaties, agreements, and other similar documents in the House. The explanatory memorandum is an important piece of this process, so important, in fact, that it has its own provisions in the policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament. Section 6.4 of the policy states:

An Explanatory Memorandum will accompany each treaty that is tabled in the House of Commons.

a. The purpose of the Explanatory Memorandum is to provide the House of Commons with information regarding the content of the Treaty.

The document tabled by the minister on Monday was over 1,700 pages long, so an explanatory memorandum is particularly important in this case. Further, a long list is given of what materials must be included in the explanatory memorandum.

Among other items, the policy states that the explanatory memorandum will cover the following points.

First is subject matter. Second is a national interest summary. Third are policy considerations and how the treaty's obligations and their implementation will be consistent with the government's policies. Fourth are federal-provincial-territorial jurisdictional implications. Fifth are time considerations, with any upcoming dates or events that make the ratification a matter of priority. Sixth is a brief description of how the treaty will be implemented in Canadian law, including a description of the legislative or other authority under which it will fall, and seventh is a description of the consultations undertaken with the House of Commons, self-governing aboriginal governments, other government departments, and non-governmental organizations prior to the conclusion of the treaty, as appropriate.

There may have been 1,700 pages tabled by the Minister of International Trade on Monday, but there was no explanatory memorandum accompanying them, blatantly showing that the Government of Canada was negligent in fulfilling its obligations under this policy.

The government responded to a question on the Order Paper from the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster in a particularly alarming way. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster put a question on the Order Paper on May 3, 2016. Among other things, Question No. 193 asked:

With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development start drafting an Explanatory Memorandum for tabling with the treaty; (b) what deadline was given to the department in order to draft an Explanatory Memorandum; (c) will the Minister table a copy of the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and Explanatory Memorandum, and, if so, when;

The minister's honesty about violating her own policy is commendable, however alarming. She responded on September 19 by saying:

Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), Global Affairs Canada, GAC, has not been tasked with drafting an explanatory memorandum for the tabling of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA.

This question was first asked in May and was responded to four and a half months later with a response essentially indicating that the government intends to violate its own policy obligations to Parliament.

The government had time to react. The minister could have realized that Canada was in the process of negotiating a complex and multilayered treaty with 28 countries and that she would have an obligation to fulfill when she tabled the treaty, but she chose not to. Even after she responded to the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster on September 19, she still had another 42 days to instruct her officials to respect Canadians and their duly elected representatives in Parliament, but she chose not to.

Clearly, there was enough time to prepare. Europe is indicating that it is still not on board with CETA, so the timelines that are being presented to us provide more than enough time for the minister and Global Affairs to fulfill this obligation to me as a parliamentarian and to everyone who sits in the House.

On May 5, 1987, at page 5766 of Debates, Speaker Fraser stated:

The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions.

Seventeen hundred pages is a lot for any parliamentarian to digest. We need to do a full analysis. We need time to do so, and the time that is normally allocated needs to be respected by the minister for all members in the House so that we can have the full information and analysis necessary to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement.

Furthermore, the international trade committee is now being asked to pre-study the bill four days after the 1,700-page document and the 131-page bill were tabled. That is unacceptable.

I am aware that the minister's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament is not governed by the Standing Orders of the House, but given the context of what has transpired over the past week, it is undeniably true that my ability, and the ability of all members of Parliament, to properly discharge our functions, to properly study and analyze more than 1,700 pages of text, and to adequately scrutinize government proposals and legislation are being impeded by the Minister of International Trade's deliberate decision to violate her own policy.

She had time to remedy the situation regarding the explanatory memorandum, and she did not. She had time to table the treaty and wait 21 sitting days before introducing the legislation, but she did not.

I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would be the first to agree that all members of Parliament are equal in their privileges in this House of Commons and that no one should be interfered with or disadvantaged in any way in the discharge of their duties as a member of Parliament, especially by other members in this House.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that there was a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[International Affairs, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government's policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament requires the minister to present a report on expected impacts and consultations and to table proposed treaties for 21 days before introducing ratifying legislation. While the government has still failed to release a study of CETA impacts, the minister has tabled a bill to ratify all parts of the agreement, in spite of the fact that Europe has been clear that further changes are necessary.

Why has the minister violated this policy and failed to present a study of CETA impacts in the House?

[International Trade, November 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Europe has been clear that CETA cannot proceed without changes to investor state rules to protect national sovereignty.

The minister has already tabled legislation to implement CETA, in spite of the fact that she has provided no answers on compensation for dairy farmers, nothing to address rising drug prices, and no plan to fix rules that leave our environmental laws and local procurement at risk of foreign lawsuits.

Will the minister admit that there is more work to be done and commit to removing investor state provisions from CETA?

[Seniors, November 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's population is rapidly aging, and by 2050, one-third of Canadians will be over 60, facing a broken pension and health care system.

In my riding of Essex, I hear every day from seniors who struggle to make ends meet. They are worried about the high cost of living, inadequate pensions, future housing needs, and the availability of quality affordable health care. My heart breaks when I meet people who tell me about the tough choices they regularly make, like choosing between buying expensive prescription drugs or paying their sky-high hydro bills.

The seniors who built Canada deserve dignity and respect. They deserve a long-term plan of action that will ensure a decent quality of life for seniors now and in the future. As the number of Canadian seniors increases, we need to ensure that our institutions and vital public services are strong and ready to meet the challenge of providing necessary services effectively and efficiently.

I urge the federal government to adopt a national seniors' strategy and take practical steps to strengthen pensions, increase access to affordable medication—

[Dairy Industry, October 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his compliment to the trade committee, of which I am vice-chair.

I know well the amount of consultation that has taken place on the trans-Pacific partnership. Unfortunately, what is missing for Canadians, and certainly for Canadian farmers, is consultation on CETA. The Liberal government adopted a Conservative-negotiated deal, slapped a gold star on it, and said that it is the best deal it has ever seen, yet it is not bringing this deal to the Canadian people. Where is the same consultation with Canadians on CETA?

I am happy to hear that the parliamentary secretary is a dairy producer himself. I could not agree more that supply management is incredibly important. As a matter of fact, when the trade committee was visiting the eastern provinces, we heard that they will lose half their dairy farms under CETA and the TPP.

The government needs to stand up on behalf of farmers, and that starts with action. The words are done. They have been nice, but what farmers are looking for is action.

[Dairy Industry, October 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, back in June, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food why the Liberal government has backed away from its commitments to Canadian farmers. There are three specific commitments that I would like to focus my comments on during tonight's debate.

The first one is compensation to farmers and fishers under CETA and the TPP. Today, we heard a hint from the government that there would be some type of compensation package, but, largely, farmers and the fishing community have been left to wonder whether the previous Conservative commitment would be honoured. In fact, when the budget was presented this year, they were quite concerned when it was not part of the actual budget.

We would like to know whether these commitments will be made. The TPP and CETA chip away at supply management, and farmers deserve an answer as to whether this compensation will be available to them.

The second issue I would like to address is the inaction on diafiltered milk. The fix to this problem is simple and quick. The trade committee and the agriculture committee have heard this. The trade committee held an emergency meeting this summer, on August 3. I joined my colleagues and opposition members in pushing for this meeting, because it is critically important that the dairy sector receives some understanding on where the government is at on diafiltered milk. It needs action.

When the Minister of Agriculture appeared before the trade committee on September 20, he refused to give specifics on how this issue would be fixed. The minister actually asked for more time of the dairy farmers and the supply management. This is so incredibly concerning because Canadian dairy has lost $220 million because of diafiltered milk alone.

We want an answer on the inaction of diafiltered milk for farmers in our country.

The third thing I would like to focus on is why the inaction on PACA? This is the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.

Earlier this year, I tabled a motion in the House calling upon the government to implement a payment protection program similar to PACA in the U.S., so that Canadian fruit and vegetable growers could export their products south while knowing they have legal recourse if they do not receive payment.

This was a Liberal campaign promise, so it is really quite shocking to see a lack of action on this particular file. It would help the produce and vegetable growers, certainly, in my region in southwestern Ontario. My riding of Essex has many of these producers and being able to have PACA as a way to ensure that they would receive payment for goods that are crossing the border is incredibly important. However, after a year in government, we hear complete silence on PACA.

Farmers really deserve an answer on these very important issues. They have been largely left behind by the government, and the government has been silent on these very important issues.

The questions that I have focus on the compensation. Where is it? When will it be coming, so that farmers can be certain that they will have some type of protection? Why inaction on diafiltered milk, when there already is clearly a path and an understanding of the way to fix this problem that is costing dairy farmers? Why the inaction on PACA, something that was a campaign promise?

Canadian farmers are tired of the silence from the government. We have seen them here protesting on the Hill in anger over the silence that they have heard from the Liberal government. It made many campaign promises to them but has yet to follow through with them.

Why are Liberals backing away from their commitments to Canadian farmers?

[Ethics, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, if these cash for access fundraisers do not break the law, then clearly the law is broken. The Prime Minister is defending this cash for access scheme even though it clearly violates his own ethics rules.

Today, the Ethics Commissioner called these fundraisers unsavoury and said, “One wonders whether indeed people are getting unfair access.”

Since his ministers are not abiding by his rules, and the Prime Minister refuses to enforce them, will he now allow the Ethics Commissioner to enforce these rules for him? Yes or no?

[International Trade, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today Belgium made it clear that it will not accept CETA if it includes investor-state rules. These rules give foreign companies privileged access to sue governments in exclusive courts over environmental protections, worker safety, or any other laws a company feels may threaten its profits, and yet these rules are still part of the draft agreement.

Europeans want this deal fixed. Canadians want this deal fixed. Will the minister commit to removing the investor-state provisions from this deal?