Finance Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

I just want to read the motion out again to remind everybody. The motion read:

That the Finance Committee make a report to the House recommending that the government amend Bill C-26 at report stage in order to include child rearing and disability drop out provisions like those present in the existing CPP.

I'd like to talk to it, Mr. Chair.

This is a critical piece of legislation that we have found has been omitted in the enhancement part of the Canadian Pension Plan proposal on Bill C-26. We have heard from witnesses many times that this should not happen, that it's an inequity considering the existing CPP.

The Liberal government back in 1977 saw the inequity in that and changed the actual legislation to make sure that people raising their children and people with disabilities were not being penalized.

It's very important that this committee work together. I believe that everybody agrees that these people shouldn't be omitted and that we move forward with a recommendation from this committee at the report stage. That's all we're basically asking. I ask all my friends in here to support this because, as each day goes on, people are getting very concerned that it's not part of the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Ms. O'Connell, you are next.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague for raising this issue and bringing this forward. In doing so, I'd like to offer the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after “government” with the words “raise the issue of child rearing and disability drop out provisions at the next Provincial and Territorial Finance Ministers meeting in December, in the context of the triennial review of the Canada Pension Plan”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, far be it for me to continually defend the NDP; however, I would say that this motion substantially changes the NDP motion. Unless the member views it as being a friendly amendment, you're basically taking the entire original motion and replacing it with something else. That should be instantly ruled out of order, in my humble opinion, but I won't be challenging you on it today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Listen, it would be the first time we ever made an error. The amendment that we distributed wasn't in both official languages, so we really should have asked permission before we distributed it. But it is before you now, so I'm going to let it pass unless there's a major complaint.

It is in the same subject matter, and I'm going to say the amendment is in order. You can still challenge the chair if you like.

The amendment is on the floor.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Duvall.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

I strongly disagree with this. I think it's our job to be doing the work for Canadians that we're supposed to do.

On Bill C-26, the proposal, we've all heard...and even many Liberals have said that it was a mistake and they'd like to see it back in there. This is basically saying, “On the condition of whatever happens at the territorial and provincial meetings”. I believe the committee has heard the witnesses who came here very strongly.

All I'm asking for is that this committee recommend at the report stage to see if the minister would like to change it then, or add something else, but it's only at the report stage. That's all we're doing. It shows that we're working together and we're working for Canadians to make sure nobody is excluded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have Mr. Aboultaif, then Mr. MacKinnon, and then Mr. Albas.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I don't understand this. I must be missing something here. You're replacing all the words after “the government” with what?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

With “raise the issue of child rearing...”.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

But it's not in here. We don't see it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Do you see what's in brackets, Ziad?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll read it, if I can make it out. It says:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after “government” with the words “raise the issue of child rearing and disability drop out provisions at the next Provincial and Territorial Finance Ministers meeting in December, in the context of the triennial review of the Canada Pension Plan”.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

That's the amendment, I guess. That's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's the amendment, yes.

Mr. MacKinnon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the amendment proposed by my colleague. All of us here, myself included, appreciate Mr. Duvall's contribution as well as that of our friends from all the parties in the House. I think we need to take a step back to think about the work we've done and what we are about to accomplish here.

This is the biggest enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan since its creation in the 1960s. The enhanced plan will ensure young and old alike have income security. We will be giving them more benefits and increasing their income on a very gradual basis as the measure is phased in over a number of years. We must recognize the contribution made by the provinces and territories, not to mention that of our government and the Minister of Finance. In one fell swoop, we are going to deliver income security to generations of Canadians in their retirement years. Of course, we are not going to change the provisions allowing parents to take paternity or maternity leave and subject them to a loss of income. The minister is committed to addressing all of those issues, as he should, during the triennial review of the Canada Pension Plan.

On this side of the House and committee, we are thrilled with the enhancement. Frankly, we are amazed at the Canada-wide consensus that emerged during the meetings and negotiations between the Minister of Finance and his provincial and territorial counterparts.

At the very least, I hope the New Democratic Party will join us in applauding this great stride forward in the fabric of Canadian society. Tremendous though this progress may be, some advancements need to be made one at a time and are achieved only as a result of negotiations between multiple partners, in this case, the provinces and territories.

We should be celebrating this accomplishment, an incredible feat by the government. The Minister of Finance worked closely with his counterparts. We wish him much success when it comes time for the triennial review. We hope other advancements will be possible, and that's what my colleague's amendment will ensure. I am pleased to support it, as are the Liberal Party members. I would like to think that the members of the New Democratic Party, too, will celebrate this great stride forward in the fabric of Canadian society and the income security of Canadians for generations to come.

For that reason, I am in favour of the amendment put forward by my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to thank Mr. MacKinnon for taking me back to a time warp at second reading where we just heard the government continue to congratulate itself. Next time you do that, sir, I expect an eggnog by the Christmas tree, because that's the only way I'm celebrating this time of year.

Instead of going back and arguing again about the same things we heard at second reading, this is a motion specifically.... Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I can't believe you've ruled this in order. I've never seen it where a motion gets gutted as effectively as this. Yesterday, we saw the government side close debate. Then they come forward with a complete transformation of Mr. Duvall's motion. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that this was accepted as in order.

If you don't support his motion, it should be voted down, and then you present your own. I think that's the correct way to do it.

You know what? You voted down every single one of his.... Pardon me, we didn't even get a chance to hear his amendments on it. You're going to be doing the same thing anyway. You've already said it's going to be part of the triennial review. Why not just simply go ahead, either with his motion, or if you don't like the way that it's worded, vote it down, and then we can have a proper motion that's more favourable to the government?

This little, sly shuffling of intents of motions, completely, so that the government seems to be snatching victory out of the NDP's mouth, I think, is just a bit.... Actually, we should all be beyond this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Duvall.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

First, I don't know why this came in the way it did. It's not even in both official languages, and I don't even know why we're accepting it.

Second, I'm very happy to hear the Liberal statement that they applaud some of these recommendations coming forward, and now all we're doing is putting the pressure back on the provinces to make a decision that we, in Canada...and that's what we got voted to be here for. You made proposals in Bill C-26, and that was doing an enhancement. We appreciate that, but there is a clause that we omitted and it's very important and critical, and the government in 1977 knew of that problem and they corrected it. They didn't go back to the provinces. They made that change, so why are we doing this, or prolonging it, and saying, let's leave the pressure on the provinces?

All we're asking for is a recommendation from this committee to go back to the report stage. That's all we're asking, that we recommend that this be amended in Bill C-26. That will happen, but to put all this other fancy little language in there, and prolonging it, is kind of embarrassing.

I'm hoping that the Liberals over there, my good friends, will support the motion of doing the committee work that we're supposed to be here to do and not put it onto the provinces.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just think that at the end of the day the Minister of Finance does have an agreement with multiple partners, and those are the provinces and territories. There is a discussion that's far larger than just this committee that also needs to happen at that level among those ministers of finance in order to understand some of the financial implications. At the end of the day, if we're going to be running a government that does good dealings with all our partners, we really have to take their views into consideration.

I suspect that there are very few governments in this country, either in Manitoba, British Columbia, or Ontario, that would deny women the right, but there is a procedure and a process that we have to go through in order to attain that ultimate goal. We're all very supportive of child rearing and disability dropouts but there is that process we have to respect.

For me, it's very important that we do things in a good way, so I'm supportive of this motion from Jennifer O'Connell because I think it's the right motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The amendment to the motion.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The amendment to the motion.... I think it's a good way to move us forward in a good direction that I think the Minister of Finance can work with, and work with our partners at the provincial and territorial levels.