OTTAWA – The Parliamentary Caucus of the Green Party of Canada is outraged by the decision of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) to donate to a partisan Republican political action committee (PAC).

According to research undertaken by Friends of the Earth (Canada), CPPIB made a $600,000 donation through Crestone Peak Resources, which is owned and controlled by the CPPIB.

“This donation is a clear violation of the CPPIB’s own Code of Conduct,” said parliamentary Green leader Elizabeth May. “The purpose of the 2018 donation was to assist the fossil fuel lobby in Colorado fight against environmental regulations to control fracking.”

“We have called for the CPPIB to divest from fossil fuel investments. As Canadians, our retirement fund should not be betting on the world missing its climate goals and continue to hold such high-risk investments,” said Paul Manly, MP for Nanaimo-Ladysmith. “But this is even worse. We are funding an active campaign to assist Republican candidates in the effort to stop climate action in another country.”

“For its part, the CPPIB claims the funds did not come from its coffers, but from Crestone Peak Resources,” continued Mr. Manly. “But Crestone is 95 per cent owned by the CPPIB. The Chair of Crestone’s Board is Avik Dey, who is the Managing Director and Head of the Energy & Resources group at CPPIB. Two other CPPIB employees are on Crestone’s board as well.”

The Green Party joins Friends of the Earth in demanding that the money be recovered from the responsible employees. Greens further demand that the CPPIB controlled corporation cease and desist from making public statements such as when Tony Buchanan, CEO of Crestone Peak Resources signed a full page ad in the New York Times attacking Democrats published in May 2020 just before “Super Tuesday”.

“We are deeply disturbed by the activities of a corporation wholly controlled by our pension fund board,” said Jenica Atwin, (MP, Fredericton). “We fought hard to ban fracking in New Brunswick, with the leadership of the Elsipogtog First Nation. To see Canadian funds used for political campaigning to promote fracking is unacceptable.”

The Greens support the policy changes advocated by Friends of the Earth:

That all significant investments require an Environmental, Social and Governance Report (ESG) and that all ESG Reports be made public.
That the CPPIB and all business entities it controls (public and private) be prohibited from contributing to political campaigns or industry associations involved in political campaigns in Canada and globally. Political campaigns should include, but not be limited to elections, ballot propositions, referendums or other means of influencing government decisions.
That the CPPIB be prohibited from investing in or creating private corporations not subject to public reporting.
That the CPPIB be required to recognize that the Government of Canada has declared a climate emergency and conduct a 1.5 degree stress test on the fund and present a plan to manage climate risk to the Parliament of Canada.
And finally, that the CPPIB staff involved with Crestone Peak Resources repay the $600,000 political contribution.
# # #

For more information or to arrange an interview contact:

Rosie Emery

Press Secretary

613-562-4916×206

rosie.emery@greenparty.ca

The post Greens call out outrageous misuse of public funds by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-26, a bill to enhance the Canada pension plan.

I want to start by lamenting, as I did this morning, time allocation, which is bringing this debate to a premature end. I think this is one of those times, particularly with the degree of controversy about the drop-out provisions in the bill and how they will unequally impact women in this country, when we really should have more time for debate and more time to ensure that we have all the facts.

I want to take a moment to say that if there is anything sadder than watching Liberals fall short of their promises, it is the Conservatives jumping on them for doing about one-tenth of what the Conservatives did when they had power. The use of time allocation was constant in the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I know that many who are currently heckling me were not here in the 41st Parliament, but I can assure them that we had no time to turn around before there was yet another time allocation motion. The Conservatives broke through all historical records. However, this does not excuse the Liberals for doing the same thing.

I would urge members on both sides of the House to consider what we really want in terms of parliamentary decorum and in terms of being able to address bills and get them through the House in an expeditious way while also ensuring that we do not trample on the rights of each of us here as members of Parliament to do the work we were elected to do, which is to study the legislation, provide suggestions, work together, and produce what the people of Canada want. They want parliamentarians who see the big picture and are prepared to put their heads together to come up with better legislation by taking the time that is needed.

Tme allocation is in no one’s interest here. I very much regret that the current government has brought it in now, for the ninth time. Again, for those who live in glass houses, I will remind them that it was 100 times that time allocation was brought in during the 41st Parliament.

I urge the Liberals in this place to consider what the threshold is against which they strive to achieve their goals. I would urge them not to think that their goal is to be better on any issue—the environment, climate, the treatment of veterans, criminal justice, Bill C-51, parliamentary decorum, the use of time allocation—than what Prime Minister Harper did. I want to set a really ambitious goal for them: Do better than what Prime Minister Mulroney did.

Obviously, I did not agree with everything done by the Progressive Conservative majority back in the 1980s, but I think if members go back and look at the use of time allocation, the number of whipped votes, and the treatment of issues and use that as a benchmark, they will find that they have to set their sights a good deal higher than trying to do better than the prime minister in the 41st Parliament.

Turning to the specifics of Bill C-26, I wish it did include—

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am having trouble speaking through the noise.

I wish that Bill C-26 dealt with another pension issue. There is an omission, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will get back to it in the spring budget. It is an egregious situation that affects a minority of pensioners for sure, but they are the very people we should do the most to honour. These are people receiving pensions who, through the Superannuation Act, are deprived of spousal benefits if they are veterans, retired service persons, retired RCMP members, and other retired categories of public servants and have remarried over the age of 60. They are deprived of spousal benefits on their death.

This is a terrible injustice to a lot of constituents in my community of Saanich—Gulf Islands. I know that a lot of other members of Parliament are aware of this. It is due to the most anachronistic of all pension rules. It goes back to the Boer War. It was called the “gold-digger” clause.

I do not mind saying that I am 62. I do not feel that I am so far along with one foot in the grave that the gold-digger clause makes sense. The gold-digger clause in the Boer War was that if a soldier came back from the Boer War and remarried over the age of 60, the only possible reason anyone would have married one of these soldiers would have been to get their hands on their benefits when they passed away.

Times have changed. Very healthy, vigorous adults who have a lot of life left get married over the age of 60. I have one such serviceman in my riding who received the highest medals of honour, including the Legion of Honour from the French government, for his service in the Second World War. He is now over 90, and every day I see him, he reminds me to please do something about this terrible injustice. He does not want to leave his wife destitute. Therefore, I flag that again for the Minister of Finance.

Overall, the Green Party supports the bill. We support the fact that it is expanding the most reliable and consistent way in which we can ensure that seniors in Canada have adequate savings for retirement. The Canada pension plan is the most reliable and the most sustainable of what is available.

RRSPs, for example, are a good program. I know many of us will pay into it, but the registered retirement savings plan appeals primarily to those Canadians who already have discretionary income to put into an RRSP. That taxable benefit to higher wage earners costs the tax system quite a lot of money. If we look at it as a public policy question, we see it is not clear that the RRSPs make sense.

The Canada pension plan makes abundant sense, and we know right now that two-thirds of Canadians no longer have any workplace pension. Workplace pensions are disappearing. More and more Canadians have inadequate savings for retirement, so the workplace pension plans are shrinking at the same time as we have what is sometimes called the grey tsunami. We know we have a demographic with many more people about to enter retirement.

By the way, I commend the government for returning the retirement age to 65; that is commendable. However, we do need to enhance CPP benefits. There is no question that overall the bill is going in the right direction. We know that right now the median value of retirement assets for Canadians between age 55 and 64, with no accrued employer pension benefit, is under $4,000. We know we need to augment the CPP. Only one in five Canadians have adequately saved for their retirement.

It is all well and good for some members of this place to say that Canadians should plan ahead and it is their responsibility to figure out how to save for their retirement. This is a very small cost of a public program, with the cost split between the employer and the employee, to make sure that people have adequate savings for retirement. The reason people do not put aside money for retirement is generally that they lack disposable income because the other costs of daily life eclipse their ability to set aside money for retirement.

I urge my friends on the other side of the House to embrace expansion of CPP. I agree with the analysis of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. It does really good work on public policy and commends the bill as well.

That brings me to the point where I wish we had time in this place and I wish the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development could have provided, at committee, by accepting amendments, a fix to what looked initially like an oversight, and that is the dropout provisions for disability and child rearing to ensure gender parity. Both ministers have said that they can fix this problem by renegotiating terms with the provinces. I wish they had fixed it while they had the chance at committee. They still have the opportunity to fix it, if they are willing to accept amendments when we get through this process. However, at this point there has been no sign of a willingness to accept amendments, and we are left hoping for public pressure to continue what both ministers say they are willing to do by changing the terminology in the negotiated agreements with the provinces.

It is very hard to understand how this oversight has not been fixed already. The conclusion that my friends in the NDP have reached appears an inescapable conclusion. On the evidence we have before us, it appears that the bill will disadvantage women for no apparent reason other than an oversight. I did have a brief moment to discuss this with the Minister of Finance earlier this morning, and his position is that to do what the NDP asks now would result in a transfer of wealth from poorer women to wealthier women because of the way the calculation works. Unfortunately, I do not have the full facts on this. I had a 30-second conversation with the Minister of Finance, which is what happens when there is time allocation and inadequate time for debate.

I am left with the dreadful conclusion that, with the chance to bring in a really strong bill that would have no negatives attached to it, which is what Bill C-26 was when I first read it, it needs to be fixed. The NDP spotted this problem. I commend the NDP for spotting it. With that, I will close.

The post Elizabeth May: Speech on Time Allocation and Improving the Canada Pension Plan appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Old age is not for sissies,” said Bette Davis. Indeed, it is not, but the images from our childhood of what it meant to be “old” have changed dramatically. Of course, as I enter my 60th year, my perspective on what it means to be “old,” of necessity, shifts. As another popular aphorism, puts it “the hardest thing to decide is when middle age begins.” Thanks to advances in health care and a focus on healthy living, Canadians are living longer. And today’s senior has different issues and challenges than in our grandparents’ day. I see it every day, as my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands is one of those with the highest proportion of older citizens. While so much in the mass media sees only the negatives of this aging demographic, there is much to celebrate.

The group Moses Znaimer calls “zoomers” are not abandoning their love of tennis or skiing. The aging population is increasingly embracing the benefits of staying involved, especially as they give back to community through the donations of thousands of hours of volunteer work.

That is, of course, not to deny the challenges. Today’s seniors want to know that pension and retirement savings are adequate to maintain an active lifestyle. The Green Party supports expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. CPP is sustainable and reliable. It is time to review whether RRSP is working as a vehicle. Evidence suggests its uptake is very limited, it has a large impact on government revenues and yet it seems to benefit primarily those Canadians who least need it.

Staying active is challenging in a car dominated culture. An aging population increases the need for convenient, accessible, mass transit. As it becomes less safe to drive at night, seniors want access to public transit.

The most extreme challenges of aging are experienced by seniors living in poverty, a disproportionate proportion of whom are women. While the percentage of seniors living in poverty dropped dramatically from a high of approximately 30 per cent in 1976, to a low of 4.7 per cent in 2007, the poverty rates for seniors have begun to move up once again5.8 per cent in 2008. We cannot be complacent about the economic struggles of our seniors.

Meanwhile, the widely-repeated claim that the growth in aging Canadians as a proportion of our population will drive up health-care costs is not supported by the evidence. Empirical evidence suggests that the aging population is not a major cause of increased costs. According to the Canadian Institute of Health Information: “Analyses of the drivers of increases in public sector health expenditures over the last decade showed that the contribution of aging has been relatively modest. To date, system-level cost drivers such as inflation and increased utilization have played bigger roles in health spending increases,” according to Health Care Cost Drivers: the facts, CIHI, November 2011.

The largest single driver for increased health-care costs is the rising cost of pharmaceutical drugs. We are all too often seeing evidence of over-prescription of drugs, and registration of drugs that actually will harm more people than they help. While seniors are wrongly seen as the reason for increasing health-care costs, the reality is that seniors are particularly vulnerable to the excess use of prescription drugs.

That is not to say that our health-care system is ready for an increase in the diseases of aging, particularly dementia and Alzheimer’s. We need to significantly improve supports for family members. So often a senior becomes the full-time caregiver for their spouse. Particularly, seniors of limited means lose any potential for enjoying life as they sacrifice for their partner. Better respite programs, better supports for home care, as well as more beds in long-term senior care facilities are needed, with supports from both federal and provincial governments.

We also need to have a conversation about the loss of basic rights experienced by seniors in care. One of the most shocking trends that I have uncovered since becoming an MP is the loss of basic human rights for seniors in residential care. Shockingly, I have heard dozens of stories of seniors being denied access to family members, being placed on drugs they do not want, and even being denied the right to go home to family members who would welcome them.

And lastly, we need to grasp the nettle of the thorny ethical problem of assisted suicide and the right to die with dignity. The solutions will not be simple because the problems are complex. Nevertheless, Canadians are demanding better answers. We need to engage in a respectful, informed discussion starting with a review of the various legal regimes in use around the world. We need to ensure that discussion is grounded in bioethics and premised on an acute awareness of the slippery slope of creating the impression that some human lives are worth more than others. What we must not do is to continue to ignore the suffering of well-informed, adult Canadians who wish to make a choice to die with dignity in their own country.

Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Being old is not what it used to be appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Back in January 2001, our future Prime Minister sent a letter to Premier Ralph Klein in which he called for Alberta to exercise its Constitutional provincial powers to “build firewalls around Alberta.”  The letter was co-signed by Harper’s mentor from the University of Alberta Tom Flanagan, Ted Morton (at the time described as Alberta Senator-elect), the head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and other Alberta luminaries, including Ken Boessenkool, (described in the letter as former advisor to “Stockwell Day, Treasurer of Alberta,” who is currently none other than Premier Christy Clark’s Chief of Staff.)  Stephen Harper, who claimed top spot in the list of signatories, was at the time President of the National Citizens’ Coalition.

The letter set out what the signatories believed to be Constitutionally allowed steps Alberta should take,  including: withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan, ending the provincial contract with the RCMP,  a provincial take-over of health care decision-making, and collecting revenue for the province from income tax.  The aim of this bullish use of provincial powers was “to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach on legitimate provincial jurisdiction.”   

What a difference a decade makes.  Now Stephen Harper is so confident of the right of the federal government to insist on an over-land pipeline to a tanker route through the most treacherous waters on earth that he committed to the project’s approval and completion before the provincial government had so much as uttered a word on the project’s acceptability.  (I leave it to Patrick Brown to set out the nature of Christy Clark’s rather belated demands, but at least she has asserted that British Columbia has something to say in the matter. I leave for another day that other Constitutional objection to the Enbridge project – the constitutionally protected inherent rights of First Nations.) 

NDP leader Adrian Dix has announced he has a high powered legal panel, led by the well respected lawyer Murray Rankin, reviewing the province’s legal options.  The ugly reality is that if Stephen Harper is prepared to push this through, he can.  The Constitution allows the federal government to over-ride provincial powers under Clause 10 of Section 92.  If the federal government declares the Enbridge project to be “for the general advantage of Canada,” provincial rights are trampled.

In a recent piece in the Ottawa Citizen, Stephen Maher recalled the last time a premier approached a prime minister with the idea of requesting provincial objections be squashed through the invocation of Clause 10 of Section 92.  In 1966, Newfoundland’s first premier, Joey Smallwood, had gone to Prime Minister Lester Pearson to ask for the federal muscle of Clause 10, section 92 to force Quebec to accept transmission lines across that province to bring electricity from the Churchill Falls project in Labrador to be sold to Canada and the US. Smallwood recalled later that Pearson had begged him not to make the request because, “if you ask me I’ll have to say yes, otherwise we would not really be a country.  But I am asking you not to ask me, because we will not be able to keep the towers up.”    Smallwood did not ask and suffered the impact of a lop-sided deal to sell power to Quebec ever since.

Stephen Harper has already hinted that he is prepared to use the federal over-ride power.  In a January 2012 interview he said, “What I think I’d make clear is that I believe selling our energy products to Asia is in the country’s national interest.”

In addition to the Constitution, the prime minister has a precedent of expropriation.  Back in 1999, the federal government expropriated the seabed under the Nanoose torpedo testing grounds when British Columbia decided to end the contract allowing testing.  In that case, the Expropriation Act was used.  225 square km of BC territory was expropriated to allow the military tests to continue.  That was a first, but would Stephen Harper get away with expropriating the whole territory required to build the Great Pipeline of China?

Commentators like Stephen Maher will say that so long as BC objects, no federal government will force the construction of pipelines over provincial lands, nor force ports to accept high risk supertankers for bitumen and diluent.  And it is true, that to force such a thing would tear at the heart of Confederation and do real damage to our sense of ourselves as a nation.  But that does not mean Stephen Harper won’t do it.  No previous Prime Minister was sufficiently reckless and ruthless as to shut down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote he knew he would lose.  The Prime Minister has promised Beijing this project will proceed.  He has declared that those who oppose the project are “radicals.”  

Has Stephen Harper abandoned the idea that provinces have rights?  Is he prepared to ride roughshod over the wishes of the vast majority of British Columbians?  Has he reversed himself or is it merely the case that provinces only have rights when they seek to promote fossil fuel expansionism, never to manage such development?

Perhaps it is time for Mr. Harper’s former colleague, Mr. Boessenkool, to brief Premier Clark on how to build a firewall.  And maybe he could remind the Prime Minister of how he once urged provinces to resist and object “to an aggressive and hostile federal government … encroach(ing) on legitimate provincial jurisdiction.”

The post British Columbia “firewall” anyone? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

To start off its study on Bill C-25, Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies testified and answered questions from MPs on the proposed legislation.  The minister focused on the low administrative and financial burdens PRPP’s impose on small businesses, as well as the fact provincial governments have privately expressed support, as key benefits to the plan. However, opposition members pressed the Minister on why he did not pursue more options with the framework of the Canadian Pension Plan, which would guarantee savings amongst all Canadians.  There was some debate between the government and the opposition as to whether the competitions between financial institutions to offer PRPP’s would drive the administrative costs down below the levels of the CPP.  When the Committee resumes after the coming break week, it will hear from other industry stakeholders regarding Bill C-25.

The post Standing Committee on Finance (FINA) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Following the memorable historical plunge from a high place experienced by former PM Brian Mulroney over threats to alter our pension plans (“Good bye Charlie Brown”), I can only imagine the shock of Conservative backbenchers at home in Ottawa when their boss stepped out on the ledge in Davos.

The contradictions flew back and forth, (the Conservatives spin machine claimed media was incorrectly interpreting his remarks, and then clarifications ensued that pensions would be changed.  Each contradiction was prefaced with “let me be clear.”).

As the dust settles, it seems increasingly clear that Budget 2012 will include a change in which retirement age shifts from 65 to 67.  I had a more or less clear reply from Minister responsible for Seniors, Alice Wong, on this point when I put the question to her in the House.  The only real question about Harper’s intent remaining is whether the changes will be sudden or gradual and over what period of time.  My bet is that the budget will tell 50 year olds to be prepared to work another 17 years.

The question we should be asking is: is this necessary?  The Parliamentary Budget Officer says “no.”  The PBO report issued February 8 states that, having off-loaded 2 % of health care costs on the provinces, Ottawa has room to absorb the bump created be retiring baby boomers.  In fact, the PBO report says we can increase OAS.

Some commentators are wondering why Stephen Harper would risk changing basic entitlements to OAS.  Many assume he both protects his base and keeps his election promises.  This might be a good time for the seniors who lost their savings with Harper’s reversal on taxing income trusts (Halloween 2006) to brief those counting on retirement at 65.  We can push back and protect Old Age Security.  It is time to mobilize. This is no time to retire from activism.

Originally published in the CARP publication CARP OnlineAction

The post On Old Age Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[hwtxv0qtcGI]

I want to mention something. I hope the hon. member will not mind. The hon. member for York Centre made the same error. I would like to remind us all that we in this Parliament are the Government of Canada. The Prime Minister and the cabinet are Privy Council members, but as a Parliament we are the government. We too often refer to Conservative Party members, whose membership makes up all of Privy Council, as though they are the whole of government. We here as opposition members are also government.

In the view of the hon. member and in the view of the Conservative Party members, would Bill C-25 work for the mobility of workers? About half of Canadian workers have had five or more employers since they started working. Would this plan be viable when the contributions from employers are voluntary and when workers are so mobile?

Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the member makes an excellent point. The new reality of working is that people move from job to job. The days of private pensions have been pretty much deep-sixed. However, people can bring CPP contributions with them.

I do not see anything in this bill that is different from RRSPs except the claim that employers can contribute. If employers really wanted workers to stay, they would say, “Hey, come work for me and I will contribute to your RRSP.” That is not going to happen.

We have a system that works, that is mobile and that people can take with them. Then we have this chimera that is being held out there. The government is trying to push it through as quickly as possible because my dear colleagues in the Conservative Party could not go home and sell this to their people.

The post Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (B) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[IM4EvKKbEa4]

Does the hon. member think we can expand CPP right now to deal with those people who do not have pensions?

Hon. Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I hope we can. The CPP is a joint plan. It is run jointly by the federal government and the provinces. I agree with the hon. member that we have to recognize that the economy of the past, where people went into the workforce after high school or university and thought their jobs were for life and that they had secure pensions, has changed. Thirty years ago, who would have thought that Nortel would be gone, or that companies we relied on and thought would be there would not be there?

I see my colleague from Sudbury looking at me. When I first started working in Ontario in the 1970s there were 18,000 hourly employees at Inco. There were 15,000 at Hilton Works in Hamilton. Those days are gone. We have to recognize the need for change. The public sector needs to step up with a flexible plan. Until we get the provinces onside, the best we can do is to have some sort of competition for the proposed private plan. We have to recognize that we still have a long way to go to get to a better situation for our current workers and future retirees.

The post Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation reports that the tax increases will result in employees taking home $142 less on average each year.  “Canadians are already struggling to make ends meet and their budgets are extremely tight. Any decrease in salary is significant,” said May.

The Green Party of Canada has long advocated a significant decrease in payroll taxes.  Finance Minister Jim Flaherty himself has noted that reduced payroll taxes helps the economy and job growth, stating in November 2007 that lower employment insurance premiums “liberate the forces of investment and stimulate further job creation across Canada.”

“Mr. Flaherty has obviously changed his tune,” commented Ard Van Leeuwen, Finance Critic for the Green Party of Canada.  “This tax hike makes it more difficult to hire full-time salaried staff for small business employers, leading to more unstable temporary and short term positions.  For families, it means more pressure on parents to work longer hours and more overtime to make up for the inability to hire additional staff.”

Corporations will receive a further federal cut of 1.5%, to a new low of 15%.  In 2000, the general rate of taxation on corporate profits was 29.1%. By 2006, when the Harper government came into office, the corporate tax rate had been cut to 22.1%. All through the recession, the Conservatives have continued to cut the corporate tax rate.

“Corporate tax cuts do nothing to help struggling companies.  They only help those already making a healthy profit.  Rather than taxing businesses for having employees, it would be better to tax profit.   We should reward hiring over excess profit-taking,” said Green National Revenue and Ecological Fiscal Reform Critic Erich Jacoby-Hawkins.

“Big business reaps the reward of Harper’s tax policy while the average family continues to struggle.  Something is not right in that equation,” said May.

The post New Year Tax burden increases for Citizens, decreases for Corporations appeared first on Elizabeth May.