Old Age Security Act June 7th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Laval—Les Îles for introducing this bill, which addresses a very significant problem for seniors.

While it is not illegal for guaranteed income supplement benefits to be reduced if recipients take a small amount of money out of their RRSP to prepay for a funeral, it is morally unacceptable.

The member for Laval—Les Îles tried to limit his bill to something quite reasonable and suggested a $2,500 maximum withdrawal. Once taxes are withheld—because money taken out of an RRSP is taxable—the remaining amount can pay for cremation. I am not talking about an entire funeral, just something very simple.

That is why I feel this bill is reasonable. The bill is designed to keep guaranteed income supplement recipients from seeing a drop in their benefits the following year. That is important, not from a taxation point of view, but from the recipients' point of view.

It is important to understand what these people want to do. They feel it is important not to burden the next generation with their personal problems. It is a question of dignity. They simply want to avoid problems for their children when they pass on. It is not complicated. That is all they want to do. Can we support them in this simple human wish? That is what I am asking.

We have to remember that these people do not have a lot of income. To be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, a single person's taxable income cannot be more than $16,600. For a couple, the figure is a little less than $22,000. This is not asking too much. These people are living in poverty.

What is more, we cannot forget that the $2,500 they take out is taxable. On top of that, their guaranteed income supplement benefits would be cut. According to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which oversees the program, I believe, how much money would they lose out on each month?

Depending on the individual's or the couple's income, that would be between $50 and $100 per month. That means that a person who withdraws $2,500 will keep just 20% or 25% of that amount to pay for a pre-arranged funeral. To me, this smacks of double taxation, the kind of double taxation that even the wealthiest are not subject to.

I would like to talk about costs. The Library of Parliament estimates that this would cost $132,000 for a very simple reason. Not everyone is going to rush out to pre-pay their funeral the day this bill is passed. That is not how it works. It was determined that some people would do so over the next 10 years. That is why the costs are so low.

It is important to remember that only 11% of retirees at all income levels pre-arrange their funerals, and 47% of them use their RRSPs to pay for it. That is about one person in 20, which is relatively few people. I am not suggesting that this is a measure for everyone.

Had the government listened to our proposal to get all seniors out of poverty by enhancing old age security, my colleague would not have had to introduce his bill. The problem would have solved itself.

According to the government, the Office of the Chief Actuary determined that this measure would cost $81 million plus $12 million in administration costs. The government might have exaggerated a little and spoke about $100 million. That is a lot of money.

Considering what I just said about individuals who pre-arrange their funerals and about how much of their RRSPs they use to pay for it, and considering a third element, their income, I doubt it will cost that much. It looks like somebody wanted to do the math quickly.

I would like to know how they came up with $81 million. Even more surprising is the $12 million it will cost to say that the money is not taxable income.

Some were saying that people would be receiving money from the government twice, because, on the one hand, the guaranteed income supplement is not taxed, and on the other hand, there are various public pension plans that pay benefits for funeral costs. However, as I said earlier, personally, I think this smacks more of double taxation, rather than double payments to people.

At one point, someone else said that this would introduce a new method for calculating GIS income. Basically, that is false. Technically, all this would do is stipulate that when the RRSP is cashed out for this purpose, it would not count as taxable income. It is as simple as that. Not everyone seems to understand the tax mechanisms. The RRSP counts as a deferred tax. In some cases, the government could even withdraw some money, but we are not talking about those kinds of calculations.

I would like to point out that we are talking about a population that spends 60% of its income on housing and food. These people want to make an additional effort. In fact, all they want to do is sacrifice part of their future income to pre-pay for their own funeral.

I think it is only reasonable to support this bill at second reading. As I said, the parliamentary committee can look into the real costs associated with this measure, and we can then further debate its merits at third reading. I think this deserves further consideration. A parliamentary committee could look into this matter, call in some experts and thoroughly examine the issue—all in the name of dignity for our seniors.

I would like to close by thanking my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles for addressing one of the concerns of those less fortunate. I thank him very much.

By passing this bill here in the House, we have an opportunity to show the most financially vulnerable people in our country that Parliament is here to help them. I therefore invite everyone to support this bill at second reading.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 June 7th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

When he spoke about credit unions, he spoke mainly about their size, which corresponds to their value and their revenues.

However, there is another factor that is also important. It applies particularly to caisses populaires, among others. According to the model, the transactions are carried out only by the caisses populaires and not the federations. That means that the taxes will not necessarily apply to the federation, but to the small caisses populaires. The latter will have to do all the additional paperwork.

What does my colleague think of that situation?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 June 7th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, this time I will try to get a lengthier response from the hon. member. I want to talk about organizations, including the CBC.

The Conservative government is going to interfere in the CBC's negotiations when most of the CBC's budget is allocated by the government.

Does he agree that this is unnecessary interference?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 June 7th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to draw his attention to a specific item in the bill, namely co-operatives. We know that the government has decided to treat co-operatives like the big banks, despite their very different structure.

Can he say a few words about this aspect of the budget?

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act June 6th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I find it sad that they keep breaking their own time allocation records. It is always the same story: it is oh-so-important, oh-so-urgent.

My question for the minister is very simple. If it is so urgent, if it really is a priority for the government, why did the last two versions of this bill come from the Senate?

Main Estimates, 2013-14 June 5th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River for her speech.

Is it not rather strange that after the Senate was created at the request of the provinces, they discovered it was not useful? That is rather strange.

I would like my colleague to talk about the work that needs to be done and specifically what we could do that would be better than a partisan Senate.

Main Estimates 2013-14 June 5th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

On this side of the House, we have never said that we could resolve this issue by just snapping our fingers or waving a magic wand. We have always said that the institution is dysfunctional and that we will have to roll up our sleeves and find other solutions.

However, as I pointed out twice in my speech, the motion does not state that all the Senate's money will disappear, but only the portion voted by the House of Commons. The other portion, which is statutory, nevertheless amounts to $32 million. I think they can do a thing or two with that money.

Main Estimates 2013-14 June 5th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I mentioned in my speech, the notion of equality was a factor when the Senate was initially created. It was designed to provide increased representation for regions that do not have large populations. We all understand that.

However, although the original intent was a good one, the institution no longer works, and it is partisan. Instead of trying to repeat what we have done over the past 140 years by trying to reform an institution that does not work, the House should have the courage to look at other solutions.

Main Estimates 2013-14 June 5th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I should say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

This evening we are discussing a motion, a notice of opposition to a specific budget item. In fact, it is the role of the House to decide what sort of money to give out here and there. As everyone can see, there is one question and three answers. Do we need an upper chamber? Some will want to stick to the status quo, some will say that reform is in order and others will say that the Senate must be abolished.

The Senate as we know it today is an historic compromise that was made when this country was born. It is a hybrid of the British House of Lords and the U.S. Senate when it comes to its values and what its founders really wanted it to achieve. In fact, this was a matter of great debate during the Charlottetown Conference and the Quebec Conference in 1864. This is what was said at the time:

Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Senators represent regions and provinces in order to balance the representation in the House of Commons. Less populated regions have a stronger voice in the Senate so as to ensure representation for regional and minority interests.

Is that really so? Has that ever been the case on any given day? I doubt it.

At the time, only the elite could be members of the Senate. There were two main conditions. We have to go back to the 19th century. To be a senator, a person had to be over 30 and own property worth at least $4,000, which was a lot of money at the time.

Governments of all stripes immediately saw a partisan advantage to appointing senators, and the problems began. It was supposed to be a chamber of people who could make wise decisions, a chamber of sober second thought. Has it ever been that? Not often enough for our liking, because if it were truly working well, then we would not be against it. Unfortunately, history tells us that year after year, decade after decade, there have been problems with that chamber.

Allow me to quote George Brown, who said at the time that the Senate was the key to federation,

...the very essence of our compact. Our Lower Canadian friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they would have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step.

At the time, it was a founding element of Canada and the intentions were noble. However, reality soon caught up. Do I really need to talk about Senators Harb, Brazeau, Wallin and Duffy? I do not have to talk about them any more in this place, because everyone knows all about it.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that there were three options. One of them is to maintain the status quo. That is obviously unacceptable, although some still believe in it. For all sorts of reasons, they try to instill fear in us, but all they really want is to go back to the way things were and appoint people who will do their bidding. The second option is reform. Do you believe it, Mr. Speaker? Do you know in what year the first attempt to reform the Senate took place? It was in 1874. We have been talking about Senate reform for almost 140 years. Has anything happened during that time? Not really.

More recently, attempts were made in 1980 and 1990. There was the Molgat-Cosgrove committee in 1984, the Macdonald commission in 1985, and even the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee in 1992. Did anything happen? On this side of the House, we believe that the only possible solution, in light of the Senate's history, is to abolish it.

However, that is not what we are talking about this evening. I would like to remind hon. members that the Senate has two types of budgets. Even if our motion is adopted tonight, the Senate will still have a $32 million budget under laws enacted by Parliament. We tend to forget that.

Do we need a bicameral system? The provinces decided a long time ago that such a system was unnecessary, and it did not bring about an apocalypse as some people claim.

British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot once commented about the British parliamentary system that, if we had an ideal House of Commons, we would not need a higher chamber. I believe that we need to look at how we work together for the good of this country.

Is the motion unconstitutional? Some have suggested that that is the case. I would like to point out to my colleagues that one of the privileges of this House is passing a budget. Part of the Senate's budget is granted by the House of Commons. It is therefore our prerogative to move this type of motion.

As I was saying earlier, part of the upper chamber's budget is statutory. I would like to once again remind hon. members that the Senate has a statutory budget of $32 million, which is not exactly peanuts.

The problem right now is that the Prime Minister appoints people and then he washes his hands of them. There is a serious problem with accountability. The Prime Minister cannot appoint people left and right or appoint just anyone and then, when they do something wrong, say that he is not responsible and that those people will pay back the money. That is not how it works.

The Conservative government has managed to do even worse than its Liberal predecessors when it comes to political partisanship in the upper chamber. That is why we are having this debate tonight. The situation is going from bad to worse. The more time passes, the less people see the relevance of this institution. What is its purpose?

I certainly do not want to paint all senators with the same brush. It is not my intention or the intention of the members on this side of the House to say that everyone is cheating. That is not our objective. The point is that the system is not working. We have been trying to change things for a long time. There are always problems, but they never get solved. In the end, we are always left with the status quo, which everyone in the House finds unacceptable, I hope. I hope that no one in the House still believes in the status quo, otherwise we have a problem.

To conclude, I would like to quote someone people here know, Michael Fortier, a former Conservative senator. On March 2, 2013, he said:

I was very naive...I thought it would be a different place than the one I found. [In fact, he shared the idyllic view of the Senate at the time.] I found it to be extremely partisan...on both sides, including my own. And it was very annoying because these people were trying to be members of parliament and they weren't.

If I had to choose today, I would say that I'm probably closer to closing the place down. I just don't see the usefulness.

More and more Canadians feel that the Senate has no place in our system, not because it does not have a defined role, but because it does not fulfill its role the way it should. Throughout history, the Senate has been manipulated for strictly partisan purposes.