Evidence of meeting #24 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was estimate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're obviously not supporting this bill.
I have to take slight exception to the words Mr. McKay used: “larding up”. The government has an estimate based on the wording that actually exists in the bill in front of us. How many clauses are there? There are about two or three. From the actual private member's bill, it was clear to us, regardless of whether you think it's one or the other, that the likelihood that it applies only to these two companies in Quebec is not accurate. It will be bigger than what they're estimating.
Based on other insurance programs that exist through the provincial system, it may not get to the $10 billion or $11 billion, but based on the wording that is there, including the refundability piece, we need to be very cautious about supporting this bill. I will not be supporting it and I encourage my colleagues, because of the wording in this bill, not to support it either.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
Go ahead, Monsieur Bellavance, s'il vous plaît.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Contrary to Mr. Wallace, I intend to support the bill. I just want to clarify one point. Mr. Page says he has no answer to certain questions but his team met with our researchers and my assistant. My colleague, Mr. Plamondon, was also in attendance. His team had many questions to ask about the bill. Our answers to these questions can be found in his own document.
He talks about the eligible group. We explained that it includes all retirees receiving funding from a registered pension plan. We talked about qualifying conditions. The Bloc Québecois said that pension income must have been reduced due to financial distress of the sponsoring firm. Other questions related to benefits and to the refundable tax credit. I was surprised when he said that he did not know whether or not the tax credit was refundable. We are talking about a 22% refundable tax credit on the lost portion of pension income.
As to transferability to surviving spouses, his team did not ask any specific questions about that. My answer is that the tax credit is transferable, not at a rate of 100%, but part of the credit would be transferable to surviving spouses.
We gave the answers, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify this point for the benefit of our colleagues.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Yes, please.
I have some sympathy for and familiarity with private members' bills and I know how much work it is to get it from over there to here, but I can't vote on something based upon private conversations with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I'm somewhat in the position of saying a pox on both your houses; I tend to think you've done as good a job as you can possibly do given the limitations you're under, and I have a better appreciation than most for the limitations you're under.
To suggest that seniors pay, if you do the math, between $30 billion and $40 billion of the $116 billion worth of revenues generated on personal income tax is ludicrous, just ludicrous. I used the phrase “larded up” to describe the numbers the government has provided; I think they basically dumped everything in there, including the kitchen sink, and tried to scare members away.
That's the dilemma I find myself in.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
I will just remind members, especially on the opposition, that you have the numbers, so I'm not sure why you're debating this, but we will keep debating it, then.
Mr. Marston, please.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
For me, it's not the huge dilemma that it is for our Liberal friends. Many times when you have a huge schism between two points, the truth remains somewhere in the middle. I have no trouble supporting the ideal of this bill. I realize where it's going.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
We are now discussing clause 1. When examining these provisions, we first discuss substantive issues. It is important to remember that the Parliamentary Budget Officer acknowledged that he did not account for provincial legislation now protecting pension plans. That would have made a great difference and would have placed our bill in a very different context.
We are more familiar with Quebec legislation—Bill 30—which now requires 115% funding of pension plans. Ontario has similar legislation. I believe the Parliamentary Budget Officer should have underlined this point rather than analyzing the bill as if only the federal government were involved. This changes the context of the issue.
Rather than laughing at the situation because things seem to be going their way, members across should consider the case of the workers who came here to testify because they were losing their pension. This is what all this is about.
Personally, I think the maximum estimate established by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that is $50 million, is totally unrelated to the $10 billion representing the total of all pension plans. In my opinion, this is a reasonable amount even in the absence of a complete analysis of the situation in each province.
We cannot abandon people who are so distressed. If we agree on the intention of the bill, we should pass it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Merci.
All right. I'll call the question. Shall clause 1 carry?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Order. That's fine. You can ask for a recorded vote.
(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
Okay. That's five to four and that carries.
Shall clause 2 carry?
On a recorded vote?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
