Finance Committee on Nov. 21st, 2012

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

—between talking about the economy and respecting democracy.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Any further discussion on clause 24?

Mr. Jean, please.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you for the opportunity. I hope the timekeeper is keeping track of my time. I don't want to go over.

One thing that I promised to do when I came here was to try to be efficient so that taxpayers would receive their proper return on investment. We in this place are quite expensive, as are the officials. That's what I would like to talk to. Taxpayers expect us to defend things for them. I've seen some defence on this side, and I've seen other defences on that side.

I'm quite offended, as I think most Canadians would be, to see the Liberals defend tax loopholes. I'm talking about Mr. Brison, and I am talking about this clause, but also all the other clauses. I'm offended that he didn't listen to the experts.

Mr. Cook brought forward testimony about the SR and ED. I asked him specifically whether or not this meant a cut. He said no. There will be a reallocation of any funds saved from SR and ED. They will be reallocated to direct payments and to direct contributions to programs. There were no cuts. He answered that and then we heard a five-minute tirade from Mr. Brison about how it's a cut and SR and ED is going to be destroyed and the end of the country is near. I take great offence at that, especially because we've heard from impartial experts that this is not the case.

I've also seen many of the recommendations made by the Jenkins report. I've had discussions with Mr. Brison and he has opposed those recommendations. I find that to be very troubling, given the situation he's in now. I understand that the members on the other side have their opinions. I think it's good to have an opinion and to make a decision on that opinion and to vote on that opinion after putting forward a reasonable argument. PRPPs, though, are just another quiver in a bunch of arrows that we need to make sure Canadians save more money. This quiver also contains the tax-free savings account, which this government brought in, together with CPP.

I am concerned about the five-minute allocation. I know that I get five minutes, but I haven't used five minutes before. We've seen Mr. Brison and the Liberals use five minutes each and every time, which is their prerogative. They are also using another method that comes to nothing less than wasting time and taxpayer money. They are filibustering and continuing to ask for recorded votes. This is their privilege; it's allowed under the rules. However, the recorded vote is in the rules for one reason, to find out where individual members stand. He is using this to waste time, as is the Liberal Party. Placed by voters at the end of the list as a major party in this country, the Liberals have taken it upon themselves to do anything they can to become relevant to Canadians. In this case, they are causing the committee to pick through 3,000 amendments. They want to make sure that Canadians know they are the tail that wags the dog, or at least tries to.

I take offence at this because it's a waste of money. It's a waste of taxpayers' money. We've let many of the officials go home. There was unanimous agreement. Many of the experts from the departments have been allowed to leave, but we still have many people here who continue to be paid and continue to put in good time. Of course, their efforts are valuable and we appreciate them very much, but they are here only because the Liberals continually do everything they can to waste time and money.

The best example of this for Canadians to see is the fact that all of the votes have been 10 to 1. That means that the NDP members have actually collaborated with the Conservatives on votes. I do not believe that our policies go together on many things. I would have to say they are on the far left of any spectrum that I would be on, but we have agreed. Why? We've agreed because of the ridiculous nature of the amendments put forward by the Liberal Party. Even the NDP cannot support them. That's how ridiculous they are.

I think this shows Canadians exactly where the Liberals are right now. They are the third party. They are looking for relevance, but they will not find it here. I would suggest they will be the fourth party after the next election, and after the following one, they will have no party at all. That would be my guess.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

Shall clause 24 carry?

[An hon. member]

I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clause 24 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 25)

I do not have any amendments for clause 25. Is there any discussion on clause 25?

I have Mr. Van Kesteren and then Mr. Brison.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have been quiet for quite some time during this process and on this side of the table, we've all spoken about the huge waste of energy and money trying to prove I don't know what, especially why we are spending time on this again, because this clause is in regard to pooled registered pension plans.

Pooled registered pension plans are something the Liberal Party has supported and has also agreed to with our government. We have heard lots from the Liberal Party with regard to the CPP and the changes that have to be made. They keep talking about the changes that were made to CPP, the upcoming change in age from 65 to 67.

It's never mentioned, of course, that those changes will not come into effect until, I believe it is 2023. This government has seen the necessity to act upon something which not only we, but economists also have said is a looming train wreck. Consequently, we have given people a long measure of time to prepare for that.

To supplement that and to narrow the gap between what is increasingly evident, the disparity between the public sector pensions and the private sector pensions, and often there is no pension for someone in the private sector, this government has introduced the pooled registered pension plan. We are here tonight, not because there's much disagreement or relevant change to this budget, but as a measure to slow the process down. I think Mr. Jean is correct. It's becoming increasingly more evident that the Liberal Party wants to become more and more relevant. That's unfortunate, because the Liberal Party has a long history of relevance, but this is certainly not the way to do it.

This is a measure that is important to Canadians. The people and businesses that I have talked to in my riding welcome this. They welcome this as an opportunity for businesses that don't have the deep pockets of some of the larger corporations or those that are funded by taxpayer dollars, and I'm speaking specifically of the public pensions. Those that are at a disadvantage are able to use this measure to offer pensions for their employees. Oftentimes they are mom and pop shops.

Here we are tonight going through these amendments. We've got a humongous, thick booklet of amendments. I don't know what to call many of them. In this particular case, this is a clause that should be carried rapidly.

I don't know if the opposition is in favour of this, but for the Liberals, who have requested a registered vote, to ask for that when they will undoubtedly vote for this clause is again an example of wasting time here on the Hill. As was mentioned before, we've got people who would much rather be at home with their families. Clerks, members of Parliament, the library of Parliament analysts are getting a little tired.

I guess we need to go through this process. I just wanted to express my disappointment. I hope that the Liberals will see a way to speed this up, do the right thing, and move through these areas that don't need to take this kind of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The outfall, the logical corollary, of Van Kesteren's and Mr. Jean's argument is that “Gosh, this democracy thing is really expensive. If we shut the thing down altogether, we could save a hell of a lot of money”—which would be entirely consistent with this government's approach to Parliament.

The reality is that we wouldn't be here at this hour tonight if the government had actually introduced a budget bill that was focused on fiscal measures—the budget—rather than on all kinds of other, unrelated areas.

When you have conservative commentators such as Andrew Coyne attack the government for its disrespect for democracy with these massive budget bills, these omnibus pieces of legislation, and when you look at the Prime Minister's statements on legislation that was not nearly as varied or as diverse....

I quote the Prime Minister from March 25, 1994, when he said: Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles. That was on a piece of legislation that was not as diverse in its effect or as disparate in the number of agencies, departments, pieces of legislation, and regulations affected.

Furthermore, this is from the same government that won't provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information on its government expenditures or cost and that was found in contempt of Parliament in the previous Parliament for its failure to provide to Parliament the costs of its legislation.

I couldn't help but notice that Mr. Van Kesteren waited to mention the changes to public service pensions until the public servants had left the room. The reality is that public servants are proud of their service to Canada—they choose public service—and there has been no government that takes as many gratuitous swipes on the floor of the House of Commons at public servants and the unions that represent them as this government.

Beyond that, Mr. Chair, they're also citizens. They are just as committed to democracy as any other citizens. I can tell you that those public servants—some of them are sitting here now, but those who were sitting here earlier tonight—are concerned about the lack of respect for democracy.

Again, on PRPPs, we believe.... I think Mr. Jean said it was another quiver in the arrow. I'm trying to understand that; I thought it was more like an arrow in the quiver. In any case, the reality is that it's a very small arrow and a fairly inaccessible quiver that only a few Canadians have access to. What we should be concerned about is the people who don't have access to adequate retirement savings. That's what we're not addressing.

Mr. Van Kesteren was talking about changes to OAS. First of all, OAS was sustainable before, on its current track. We got that information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and from the OECD and from Department of Finance figures. If it were not sustainable, there are ways to make it sustainable that would be progressive, and not by punishing low-income Canadians. Again, 40% are making less than $20,000 a year; 53% are making less than $25,000 a year.

Maybe we could address the issue of clawbacks, if it were not sustainable; maybe we should be making it more of a benefit for truly low-income Canadians and clawing it back at an earlier level. These are just some of the types of discussions we would have, if we faced a crisis.

But if it is not for sustainability, why is the government doing it? If you look at the measures now, Mr. Van Kesteren said the PRPP will help—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brison. Unfortunately, your time has expired. Thank you.

I will then ask, shall clause 25 carry?

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On division.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

On a recorded vote. Sorry: it's late.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I said on division, so we're carrying it on division.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

All right.

(Clause 25 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I am going to suspend and call for another brief health break.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order, and encourage colleagues to take their seats, please.

We dealt with clause 25; therefore, I am moving to clause 26.

(On clause 26)

Amendments LIB-45 to LIB-60 are all within this clause, and this clause 26 addresses the overseas employment tax credit.

Speaking to this clause, we have Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Over the last little while I've had the opportunity to listen in. I must say it's hard to listen to a lot of the things that have been said from the other side of the committee room and not necessarily be able to participate in providing some comment or feedback.

I realize that this particular clause deals with the overseas employment tax credit, and there is a series of amendments that we're trying to get the government to be sympathetic to, as we go through this particular clause. But in listening to some of the feedback and some of the comments, especially when we were talking about the civil servants, when we were talking about why it is we're going through this process, there were a number of thoughts that went through my mind and I think it's important to put things in a proper perspective, Mr. Chair.

As much as possible, I think it's very important that we recognize that we are here this evening because, in good part, there is an attempt from the Liberal Party to say to the government that what you are doing is wrong; that this particular budget bill is historic in the sense that never before have we seen such abuse of democracy inside the House of Commons.

It's unfortunate that the government hasn't recognized to what degree they have actually abused the system, Mr. Chair. In good part, that's what this is about. We are bringing forward amendments to different clauses. Now it just happens to be the overseas employment tax credit. At the end of the day, we hope to see some of these amendments actually pass, but we need to recognize that opposition parties today and in the past have taken actions through procedures to try to emphasize where the government has gone wrong.

It's unfortunate that the government tries to portray something that's not necessarily true. What is true is that never before in the history of Canada have we had to deal with a budget bill of this size, of this magnitude. It is changing so many pieces of legislation, not only the overseas employment tax credit, Mr. Chairman, but numerous pieces of legislation, and it is unprecedented.

I believe, at the end of the day—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Jean on a point of order.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I really apologize for interrupting, but I just wanted to point to the relevance of this particular issue.

Is he talking about the amendments, which of course are many more pages than the bill itself? The Liberal amendments, I mean. I just want to confirm if he is talking about the 3,000 amendments, because that's more pages than the budget bill. So if he's complaining about the length of a bill—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're getting into debate.

The point of order is with respect to relevance. Obviously, as members well know, relevance has been interpreted very broadly by speakers for many years. There are 16 specific amendments in this specific clause. It's dealing with the overseas employment tax credit. So I encourage members to speak to these amendments and this clause as directly as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I sat, as I say, for quite a while listening to government members trying to say why it is we are wasting taxpayers' dollars, because they don't believe in democracy inside this chamber. I sat patiently and I didn't interrupt when they had the floor and they were waxing on about how bad the Liberal Party was, when in reality, Mr. Chairperson, it is in fact the government of the day that has been abusing the House of Commons. They've taken an approach at passing budget legislation that is second to no other government's in the history of Canada. This particular amendment is one of many amendments. As the member Mr. Jean points out, there are some 3,000 amendments, which again one could ultimately argue is likely unprecedented. We don't know for sure. I couldn't tell you. I haven't been around long enough to say that it's unprecedented.

But if you introduce a bill of this nature, I would suggest that members should not be surprised that there'll be a reaction—not only a reaction but a very negative reaction by Canadians as a whole.

If you sit down with your constituents and you talk to your constituents about what it is that this particular Minister of Finance is doing, you will hear that it is disgraceful.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now hear from Mr. Adler, please.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I'm delighted to be participating and to be speaking on this amendment on the overseas employment tax credit.

Mr. Lamoureux spoke about effects and consequences. I'll tell you something: the consequences of our economic policies have led to 840,000 net new jobs being created since July 2009.

The World Economic Forum has rated our financial institutions the soundest for the fifth year in a row. The OECD just two weeks ago said that Canada has the soundest economic policies—