Finance Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Grewal.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

I'd like to call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The question has been called—

No, I'm told you can't do that. Debate has to go on until it's complete.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Until when?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Sorbara.

I'll explain that as soon as I....

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to compliment and echo the comments made by Mr. Ouellette in supporting Ms. O'Connell's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

In terms of calling the question, there is no putting the question on this kind of a motion, I'm told, in committee.

Mr. Duvall.

Then we'll have the vote.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I just want to emphasize that all we're doing, this committee, is making a recommendation. We're not changing it. We're not putting amendments in it. We're putting a recommendation that it should be amended at report stage. It could be a yes or a no, but we as a committee, knowing what we're up against, should be working together. If we all agree to it.... It's not that the minister has some kind of problem with an agreement. We don't know that. All we're doing is making a recommendation from what we heard from our witnesses.

That's all my motion asked for. The amendment is completely irrelevant to what my main motion dealt with. It takes away the onus and our responsibility as a committee. It's a simple recommendation. It doesn't have any weight, only that the minister consider at report stage. That's very important and we should be unanimous on this. Not to be is kind of embarrassing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Albas.

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

I'd like to just go back and look at what this amendment says. It says that the finance committee make a report to the House of Commons recommending the government “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”.

That's something the government can do at any time anyway, on its own. His original motion was just to make a recommendation to the House that these provisions be included. Again, to me this seems to be more where the government has said, okay, an issue has been identified, and we'll just try to fill it with this. I don't see what the rush of government is on this. These CPP enhancements wouldn't be in place until, what, 2019? What is the absolute rush?

I'd like to hear from some of the members on this. I'd also like to hear from members on why they wouldn't support Mr. Duvall's original motion and instead proposed this one. Maybe Ms. O'Connell could mention why she's put this forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further debate, or are we ready for the question?

Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find this quite rich, actually, coming from my Conservative colleagues, who said yesterday, before there were any motions, that they would not support CPP at all. This indignation about the importance of this enhancement over the issue of child rearing and disability dropouts seems quite ironic to me, considering they don't support CPP enhancement at all.

While I appreciate the member's comments, and his speaking up for the NDP....

You spoke yesterday, saying you don't support any of it, so I find it rich that you're a champion for women or persons with disabilities.

As well, there's the suggestion that the original motion is better because this one sends, if I heard it correctly, a meaningless report to the government. I would much rather act in meaningful ways, and meaningful ways means that the minister takes this forward. It is the responsibility of the minister to work with his provincial colleagues. If there are enhancements that need to be done, if there are improvements that need to be done, they actually get done—not through some symbolic gesture from the NDP, quite frankly.

Mr. Duvall, I respect you a lot. I really appreciate the comments you've made. I think you're doing the job of raising these issues, but I would much rather deal in meaningful ways, and if change needs to happen, then change can happen with those.

Frankly, I will not take advice or guidance on fighting on behalf of women or persons with disabilities from members who said at the onset that they don't support any of it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Aboultaif, and then Mr. McCauley.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

It's unfortunate, to be honest with you, to hear this tone from Ms. O'Connell, as if we're heartless.

First of all, in principle we don't agree with the bill because it's a tax. In our opinion, it is a tax. We're not going to debate that here. We're discussing a motion, a very reasonable motion.

If you're not going to commit to a motion even here, through the committee, that means...because the NDP were talking about it all day yesterday. They were talking about and raising this issue in every speech. Probably they won't even be supporting Bill C-29 unless those amendments are there.

The bottom line is that you're not giving them even this very little improvement they're asking for. I think they're asking for something logical at this stage, and for you to come and just change their motion is not fair. We're just trying to explain ourselves here, sitting around this table, and I believe there's a point of logic that needed to be raised. That's why we're defending it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. McCauley is next, and then Mr. Duvall.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments, and I appreciate your desire to push ahead with it. I do have to agree with my colleagues. I was very pleased to sit with Mr. Duvall and get to know him on the Canada Post tour, and I have a lot of respect for him. Although we don't necessarily share the same political views, I very much believe that he shares with all of us in this room a desire to help Canadians. I watched him stand again and again, and ask for hours on end in the House about this adjustment that they'd like to see made. I think we can say very clearly that we didn't get a clear answer back. We just heard, “You hate CPP, if you don't support us”.

I'm very disappointed that we can sit here, and every time we bring forth something you disagree with, we get lobbed at us, “Oh, you hate CPP”. I think when I spoke about this bill, one of the members stood up and said, “Why do you hate CPP? You'd like to destroy it altogether”. We're not going to get any further forward if every time we have a disagreement with something, one side, instead of agreeing to discuss it, immediately sets out to destroy it.

I also pointed out you used the words, “I think it's rich” that we want to discuss it. I will use these exact same words. Just last week, we had a private member's bill in the House supported by financial agencies, think tanks, and also the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, which would help every single senior today, not 40 years down the road when this bill suggests and not some fantasy that the OAS is going to change tomorrow, which this government seemed to be peddling. Without even getting a chance to discuss it, members of your government, one of them right here, stood up and said, “We will not support it”. The NDP would support it. CARP supports it. Without even, as the NDP was saying, pleading, letting it get to discussion, your government arbitrarily, for partisan reasons, said, “Hey, let's just throw it down.”

Again, it's very rich for your folks to say, “We're the only defenders of the handicapped. We're the only defenders of CPP.” It's very disingenuous and it does all of us a disservice, when we're elected to be here to support and represent all Canadians, to sit there and try to shout down opposition or gut someone's amendment on the suggestion that you're the only defenders of CPP. I think it's very wrong and against democracy.

I just do not understand the purpose of not allowing his motion to stand for a vote or your having to gut it. I think it's very incorrect.

Getting back to the CPP thing, we very much care for seniors. I was the head of a foundation for six hospitals for the elderly in a past life, which is why I put through the very important and very widely supported private member's bill to assist all seniors, which I hope the Liberals will have a change of heart with and support for all seniors.

The reason we did not support Bill C-26 fully—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

A point—

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

You're no longer talking to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I was just going to say that. I think you're straying a little from the amendment. I hear you.

Could you speak a little closer to the amendment, Mr. McCauley?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

If I could get around to it, sure.

I just wanted to address the issues that Ms. O'Connell brought up, which were not about the amendment and which were attacks on our integrity and our support for—

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

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm sorry...your attack on our support for seniors.

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

Can you let the man finish?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think if you allow one party to stray from the amendment, then I think we should be allowed to answer that.