Evidence of meeting #45 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Disappointed as I am about the vote on the previous subamendment, we have to move forward, onward and in the spirit of collaboration.
I want to get to the crux of this. What we're trying to do in this reporting requirement is ensure—again, this is just such a fundamentally clear point—that we have accurate information being communicated to Parliament and, by extension, to the people of Canada on information that is highly relevant about the sustainability of the CPP.
When we talk about what needs to be in that report, I think a lot of things will ultimately come down to how well Canada's pension funds are being managed and invested. I cannot stress the importance of that enough. I want to assuage any concerns Canadians may have.
Mr. Lawrence dealt with this very capably earlier, as he so often does.
We have a system right now that is working and producing good returns for Canadians. I think that's important to know. One of the best ways to understand how that system is faring for Canadians is by understanding how other systems are faring and what some of the differences are between them.
To that end, I'm going to be moving a subamendment that I think would significantly enhance the reporting requirement here. It's ultimately a subamendment that will compare CPP with international pension systems and programs. I'm sure that, when we get into debate on the subamendment, we can delve into some of those things. I mention a few particular countries in the subamendment.
To give some context here on the why, I'll say this for the benefit of other members.
The goal is simple. When the minister reports to Parliament on the amendments to the Canada pension plan, the report should also tell Parliament how the plan compares with public pension plans in the U.S., Australia and Sweden, with respect to funding levels, reliance on investment income and the extent to which each plan delivers promised long-term benefits.
The context matters. The CPP does not exist in isolation. It's one of several approaches that wealthy democratic countries have taken to the same problem: How do you ensure that workers have secure retirement income? Each country has made different choices. These choices have produced very different results in terms of sustainability.
The United States, for example, has a largely pay-as-you-go system. It invests its reserves very conservatively. It faces well-documented, long-term funding pressures. Australia took a different path. They've built a system around mandatory employer contributions. You have Sweden, which has restructured its pension system, moving away from pure pay-as-you-go and introducing stabilizers to keep the system in balance—
Liberal
Bloc
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Canada's approach, which involves the use of a professionally managed globally diverse investment portfolio to partially prefund the plan, is truly distinctive and enjoys wide international recognition.
It's worthwhile to clearly state that information in a report to Parliament, because it gives Canadians a foundation to understand what we have, why it works and what is at stake when—
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I have a point of order. I am really referring to the Standing Orders now. This isn't a point of debate.
The Standing Orders, as I understand them, prevent members from proposing subamendments that are very similar to previous ones. Once the committee has considered, and disposed of, the matter, it can't be reintroduced.
I'd like to know the spirit of the rules. Perhaps we can give the clerk a moment to check that.
I'm not done. I can't be accused of abusing my speaking time today, unlike others.
I'd like to know something within the meaning of the Standing Orders. When does it become repetition to put forward a subamendment that repeats the same request contained in a previous subamendment, except with a couple of commas switched around?
At what point are such subamendments deemed to be out of order because they are too similar to previous ones?
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Madam Chair, may I make an intervention on that as part of your consideration?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
No. I'm talking to the clerk. I will turn to you when you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
We're going to consider the text of the subamendment. However, you're right. Members can't move an amendment or subamendment that's too similar to an amendment that has been moved already if the committee has already made a decision on it.
At least one subamendment today and another one moved yesterday were too similar. As a result, I said that the wording of these subamendments made them inadmissible. We're going to consider the wording of this subamendment.
Thank you very much for your remarks. Of course, we'll come back to this when we receive the text of the subamendment.
Thank you.
Mr. Lawton, you may continue.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That was, I think, a very reasonable approach. I hope that, if my colleague challenges the subamendment, you will allow an intervention on that, because I understand what he's getting at. If it comes to that point, you won't allow people to intercede—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
If the chair rules that something is inadmissible, you can challenge the chair and we go to a vote. There's no debate on that whatsoever.
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I will. I'm just saying that if someone makes a point of order, I hope you'll allow a response as you judiciously weigh the outcome.
Liberal
Conservative
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I think my Conservative colleagues know I hold them in high regard. I think that's well known. There's nothing personal about this. However, when my colleague tells me that he thinks he understands where I'm going when I speak, implying that I want to obstruct their excellent parliamentary work, I think that's an unfair criticism.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Excuse me, Mr. Ho. I did not give you the floor. Wait until I recognize you. Monsieur Garon still has the floor.
Thank you.
