Finance Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm going to be fairly clear here that members should speak to the amendment or they'll be ruled out of order.

Go ahead, you're next.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate Ms. O'Connell's intervention in regard to the Canada Pension Plan amendment that she's presented today. Again, I think it's important for members to note that it was dropped in only one of the two official languages, in this case being English, and not in French. I certainly hope that the government would make considerable efforts in the future to show respect for this parliamentary committee when it makes a motion and then submits it in only one language.

Government has considerable resources, as you know, Mr. Chair, being a former minister of the crown. Departments have budgets and they have parliamentary committees. I think perhaps members aren't aware that those resources are available to government ministers. Obviously, this particular motion is in touch, Mr. Chair, with what we heard from Minister Brison today, as he obviously made an announcement on this. For there not to be some sort of coordination here, where they could submit this particular motion that I'm speaking to right now, Mr. Chair, without submitting it in both English and French, I think is a little rich.

Getting back to the comments that Ms. O'Connell made, again, the substance of the motion here completely changes what Mr. Duvall originally moved. While I've made the point to you, Mr. Chair, that I don't agree that this should have been found in order, I'd also like to point out that when the member made the motion, it's unfortunate that she decided to take it that our opposition to this government's bill is somehow related to hating pension security for seniors. That's the furthest thing from the truth. In regard to the motion itself, I think we need to be very focused. We need to talk about exactly what is here.

I made reference earlier that the NDP put forward a different motion, and that I don't think it would cause any issue at all for the government just to simply vote. Actually, I'm going to give the opportunity to the government members right now. Perhaps, having heard my compelling argument, they might want to retract this motion, and then we can go to the point of perhaps finding a friendly amendment, or perhaps they will just simply vote against Mr. Duvall's original motion and submit one of their own without having to basically procedurally pull the carpet out from under the NDP. I would hope that Mr. Duvall would make these points and, again, perhaps have some conversation with the government side. There could be a friendly amendment that could come out of this, or maybe not.

I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, but the important thing here is that while the Conservatives have said that we don't support the current legislation, that doesn't mean we're against the Canada Pension Plan. It means we're just against the current approach. Again, the bill codified that. We were very productive yesterday, I believe, in committee before the member abruptly called for an end to debate, and now we know why. It is because she wanted to bring forward this motion today.

Again, getting back to that, on this particular motion, the fact is that even though the Conservatives didn't support the NDP's amendments, or wouldn't—the ones that you called out of order—we want to see a very good and healthy process, which includes good and healthy debate here at this table.

Both Mr. McCauley and Mr. Aboultaif have raised some legitimate concerns. They're not regular members of this committee, but I think they've raised a number of concerns that are within the motion as it stands. Therefore, I would like to hear back from Ms. O'Connell, if she is willing to retract her motion. Perhaps there could be a friendly amendment that could be found with Mr. Duvall. I would look to government members here to see if they're willing to do that. I think that would be an important step of reaching out.

Obviously, they agree with the intent of what the NDP is proposing or else they wouldn't be making statements in the House about this and then presenting a motion, Mr. Chair, which I'm speaking directly to, at this time, in this place.

Maybe Dr. Duvall has some further comments on this, I can't say, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have Mr. Duvall next on the list.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Do you have him next?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have him next.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I really appreciate your confirming that, Mr. Chair, but I would like to see if any of the government members would like to retract the amendment to the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Duvall.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

As I said at the beginning, I strongly have to vote against this amendment because it takes away the clear things that I was trying to do in my original motion. It would take the intent away.

I heard my friendly colleague, Ms. O'Connell, say before that, if we want to do it in a meaningful way, then to support her amendment on this and not just have this in a symbolic way. I find that very frustrating because, if I read her amendment, it says to raise the issue of child rearing. That's all it's doing; it's just raising it.

What I'm asking is that this committee make a recommendation that should have been done in the first place. We shouldn't even be here discussing this. It was omitted. Maybe it was a mistake, and that's fine, but something could be done now. I'm making that recommendation and not raising the issue and deferring this for another couple of months, which shows Canadians that we're not really doing our job here as a committee.

I'm just kind of frustrated after listening to the minister today in the House say that the bill could be stronger. He admitted that. I thought it was really good. That's why I'm here today trying to resume this and asking for your support, as we all believe that's what should be done. As Liberals, as Conservatives, and as New Democrats, we know that this is an injustice, not including these people. It's not symbolic. It means we're doing some action, and we're doing the things that are right for Canadians.

Again, I cannot support this, Mr. Chair, because it takes out exactly what I was trying to put forward. All it does is defer it to another period of time, and it just raises the issue, where ours makes a recommendation to the House, to the government, of where we feel the bill could be stronger, as the minister said today.

Then that's their decision. We're not doing anything else. We're not putting additional costs on them. We're not saying anything. We're making a recommendation to him of what we heard and what people would like to see.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Aboultaif next.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Yes, if I'm negotiating this, I would say this amendment is a joke. It's like child's play, to be honest with you, trying to take advantage of a situation. If you don't want to support the motion, you come out and you say you don't want to support it. We're wasting our time here completely because no one in their right mind would look at this motion and think that amendment is just.... It's a blame game and a total waste of time, Mr. Chair. This has to stop right now. This is a total waste of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Are we ready for the question?

Mr. Duvall.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I certainly don't want to say the amendment is a joke, but it's disappointing. I'm just having trouble understanding why they want to change the whole context of this, to raise the issue instead of actually doing some business, as this committee was structured to do, and make those recommendations.

I heard in the House during the debate that people would like to see those changes. My own colleagues of the Liberal Party are all saying, “Let's do it”, so we're trying to do it. However, they come up with an amendment that actually destroys everything that we're trying to do and just prolongs the situation.

Mr. Chair, I would like her to withdraw the amendment and just vote on my main motion because that's what we're supposed to be doing. That's what Canadians asked us to do. It was a big mistake. We have to put it back in order, and I'm hoping they will support me.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. McCauley, my apologies, I went to Mr. Duvall.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks. We're past time. I'll just put a motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You can. If you want to put a motion to adjourn, I have no choice but to adjourn.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I move that we adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is the meeting adjourned?

[The Clerk]

If there's a majority....

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Do we have to go to a majority vote?

[The Clerk]

Yes, you have to put the question out—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Well, no, we're beyond the time. We have to adjourn.

Just check it out. I don't want to make a wrong ruling here. I believe that if someone asks us to adjourn when we're beyond the time frame, and we're half an hour hour over....

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes. Go ahead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

We are past the allotted time, and I think you have to seek unanimous consent to continue to have this great discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The clerk and I are having a dispute on this. I think we need unanimous consent to continue the discussion once we're over time, do we not?