Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I have to voice my displeasure with the comments made by the member of the Liberal Party. Of course, as we all know from finance committee, we've done a number of things to try to help Canadians, including doing things through the pooled registered pension plans, which the Liberals have said that they do not support. They've said in the last six hours that they want to ensure that tax loopholes remain open so that Canadians—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I hope this is a point of order and not a point of debate. Is this a genuine point of order on procedure?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Brison, you know that's not a point of order. That's a point of debate.
I will return the floor to Madam Glover.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To correct the member from the Liberal Party, the amendments he's put forward in the last six hours have tried to undermine the PRPP, a system that would be available to over 60% of Canadians who currently do not have a workplace pension plan.
I would say to all members of the committee that as we sit here tonight and we listen to some of the regurgitated commentary by the Liberal Party, I ask myself how do we sit here as parliamentarians and continue to listen to this nonsense knowing there are over 50 public servants sitting here waiting to do their part to improve our country. Canadians at home don't see them, but I want Canadians to know, Mr. Chair, that with regard to this clause and with regard to this bill, there are some hard-working folks here. We appreciate everything they have done. We appreciate their patience as we listen to this nonsense.
I want to assure Canadians that on this side of the table, we do not agree with this kind of delay tactic with regard to the implementation of this very important bill. These clauses are here so we can protect the interests of Canadians.
The Liberal Party members have said tonight that they do not want to close tax loopholes, which is atrocious. They've said they do not want to allow the PRPP system to move forward, a system which would give Canadians without pension plans the option of saving for their retirement. The Liberal Party members have said they don't even understand their own amendments. They've put forward 3,000 of them that they've tried to vote down from even being considered here tonight. When they had an opportunity, they voted to send all these different topics from a budget bill to different committees for extensive and fulsome study. The Liberal Party is the only party that stood up and voted against doing so, and yet they're standing up again tonight trying to convince Canadians otherwise.
Canadians will not be fooled. I hope Canadians are watching this tonight because these 50 public servants sitting here, who should be appreciated for all they've done to make sure this bill helps Canadians and makes our country a better place, ought not to be put through this. Canadian taxpayers ought not to be put through this. Every moment of delay is another dollar out of a taxpayer's pocket.
As I look around this room and I see how many members of Parliament and how many clerks and how many analysts and how many translators and how many public servants are in this room listening to this delay for the sake of delay, it crushes me to know that Canadians are being robbed at this very moment by those who are supposed to be prudent parliamentarians with their interests at heart. It's despicable. It is not protecting the long-term interests of our country. I would urge the Liberal Party to stop this nonsense, to get on board to protect this country, because if the Liberals think 35 seats is just a fraction, I can't wait until the next election. I can assure them that Canadians are not going to forgive this one and the Liberals won't be left with many seats, except for maybe one.
Thanks.
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
No, I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 23 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Yes. I want to pick up on Ms. Glover's point about the officials. It's almost 11 o'clock. As I understand it, once midnight comes, the officials can go. Many of the amendments we're dealing with are not substantive. I don't anticipate that we're going to need to ask the officials anything in the next hour, so from our side we'd be happy to let the officials go. It's only an hour, but they might appreciate getting out of here before midnight rather than after.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that comment very much, and I do apologize to our officials this evening. I'm sincerely sorry on behalf of the committee. I'm told that if it's a majority vote by the committee we can release the officials. It was a point of order, but perhaps I'll ask for a motion.
Mr. Brison, do you have a point of order on Ms. Nash's point of order?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Yes, I would agree with what Ms. Nash said, and I have no difficulty with that, but I think it's almost insulting to our officials to assume that they're not citizens. As citizens they are probably concerned about the fate of democracy under this government. This government tells Canadians that you have a choice.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
You can choose democracy behind door number one or the economy behind door number two.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Brison, I'm sure you'll make those points during debate.
I'm going to ask whether I have majority support for allowing the officials to leave. Of course, they can stay if they wish, but I assume from the laughter in the crowd that not many of them will.
Do I have majority support for that? All in favour?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Again, I thank you so much for your patience tonight. You are released.
(On clause 24)
I have no amendments for clause 24. Is there discussion on clause 24?
Mr. Brison.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Ms. Glover for her advice. I appreciate very much her advice when she said that the Liberals have not supported the PRPP initiative. We actually have, but we've also expressed concerns that the PRPP initiative does not do what the government says it would do in terms of transforming Canada's retirement savings framework. The fact is that people who can't afford to participate in an RRSP are unlikely to benefit from a PRPP, which is why we have proposed an additional vehicle, a voluntary supplemental CPP.
There is a bigger concern that I have. This is a time when we know that income inequality is an issue that 75% of Canadians believe is an important one. We need to be designing our retirement vehicles and our public policy around retirement, particularly with the demographic shift that we are undergoing in such a way that it benefits low-income Canadians. What frustrates many of us is that every measure the Conservatives propose will benefit people who are actually doing fairly well. Income splitting is one of those areas.
In a perfect world, when books were balanced and you weren't dealing with ongoing deficits and challenges and having to cut social investment in areas of equality of opportunity, you could be frivolous in this, but at a time when these challenges are before us, I think we should be very careful in how we provide tax expenditures.
The PRPPs, like RRSPs, we support them, but we don't believe they go far enough in terms of addressing the significant gaps in the retirement savings framework for Canadians.
The other issue, Mr. Chair, is that if you look, going forward, at the measures the Conservatives take when it comes to retirement provisions, when it deals with low-income Canadians or lower income Canadians, they perversely go in the opposite direction. The change to old age security moving the qualification age from 65 to 67 is going to have a disproportionately negative effect on the lowest income Canadians. Forty per cent of the people who qualify for old age security make less than $20,000 a year. Fifty-three per cent make less than $25,000 per year. Yet, we are saying to those people when it comes to old age security that they have to wait another couple of years. For someone collecting GIS—and to qualify for GIS you have to qualify for old age security—it will cost that person around $30,000. Can you imagine taking $30,000 out of the pockets of low-income seniors at a time when you are proposing income splitting and PRPPs? Nobody at this table can benefit. The disproportionate benefit will go to people who already have some retirement choices.
Contrary to what Ms. Glover said, we do support the PRPP as an additional retirement vehicle, but we do not think it actually addresses the bigger challenge, and that is retirement security for low-income and lower middle-income Canadians, which in a civilized Parliament we ought to be most concerned about, the country's most vulnerable. The Conservatives may have figured out that's not where their votes are so it doesn't matter, but I think it does matter. You don't just create public policy around the people who are voting for you.
In terms of Ms. Glover's other advice to us—
Liberal