Evidence of meeting #46 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 recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I'm more than happy to continue, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
—is good for the other side, as you know.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
I appreciate that.
I would ask you again and just remind you that the Standing Orders request that members be relevant. Please focus on the specific subamendment to the amendment that is under discussion right now as we're doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-30.
Thank you.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
That's what I'm focusing on, Madam Chair.
The subamendment speaks to the report. If I read it correctly, and I'm reading it right here, it says, “employers and self-employed persons at different levels of pensionable earnings—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
I apologize, Mr. Menegakis. We've actually established at committee that we don't need to reread the subamendment into the record once it's been done, so you don't need to do that again. That's repetition.
Could you focus on your arguments, please?
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
It might be repetition, but I'm trying to respond to what you're saying, Madam Chair—
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I'm trying to bring the context back.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Mr. Menegakis, please, with all due respect, this has been something—
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Wait one second, Mr. Lavoie.
I appreciate that you are joining us now, and we're grateful to have you here. Thank you for joining us.
Over the past 24 hours, this is part of the culture that has been committed to, but it's also in the Standing Orders with regard to repetition. I have made these comments to numerous other members, so I would appreciate it if you would follow those as well.
I understand there's a point of order from Mr. Lavoie.
Liberal
Steeve Lavoie Liberal Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I just want to issue a courtesy reminder to Mr. Menegakis. Care must be taken not to interrupt another speaker or the chair. It's not possible to provide interpretation when two people are speaking at the same time.
We have to let the chair speak. Afterwards, we can take turns speaking. This will make the interpreters' job easier.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Lavoie.
That's a good point. We've been doing a really good job, actually, over the past 24 hours, of not speaking over one another. I appreciate all the members who have done that.
Mr. Menegakis, you have the floor.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to get back to the amendment. I really believed I was speaking to the subamendment. You won't let me read what the subamendment says, but it does refer to the reporting on the $133 reduction in the spring economic update. That is specifically this amendment, and Canadians need to understand some context of what it is we're speaking about.
I completely concur that I've been here for only a small period of time in the 24 hours, but I'm prepared to work to midnight every day and beyond if it's going to bring some clarity and perhaps convince some of our colleagues opposite to see that the measure just doesn't go far enough.
As the amendment says here, the reporting requirements on it are not enough. They're just not enough. Canadians are looking for relief, and if we're going to complete this article-by-article or point-by-point study, it's important that we keep the context in mind. We need to explain what it is and why we're doing it.
The government's own actuarial reports show that the CPP is financially sustainable at a lower contribution rate. That's welcome news, but it also raises important questions about why workers and employers were required to shoulder these increasing costs for so many years while the government ignored the warnings about affordability.
Canadians deserve transparency. You are not going to let me read what this says, but it actually speaks to reporting—reporting on the information and reporting on the CPP—which of course will bring some transparency. You need to report it so that people can read it, understand it and see what it means to them. Hopefully, that explains a bit of where I'm coming from.
We're talking about reporting on the implications of the CPP in the spring economic update. I believe it's very important that it does get reported. It's important that it be reported in terms of how much it is and what it actually means in true dollars to each Canadian family so that we're not speaking in these nebulous terms, saying that we're cutting costs for millions of people when in fact it only gives them $133 a year. That's important information for Canadians to know. It's much better than giving them a blank remark, like “We have good news for Canadians. We're cutting your CPP.” We're not reporting it properly, but we're cutting your CPP and you're better off now because we're giving you $133 a year. Reporting on this is critically important.
There's a whole bunch of other stuff that I can say with respect to this, but I'm going to reserve my further comments, Madam Chair, until after my colleague has an opportunity to speak, because I need to drink some water as well.
I see that Mr. Turnbull is hugely disappointed that I'm coming to the end of my first intervention, but I can assure him that I have a lot more to say. I'll be happy to revisit this very point on this subamendment after my colleague has an opportunity to speak.
Thank you.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Thank you.
I jumped on the speakers list when both Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Menegakis were already there, and there's a reason I wanted to get back in. I know I've already spoken to this subamendment and there is more I could say about it, but the principal point that I want to make is actually in response to Mr. Turnbull's remarks in debate on the subamendment. He drew attention to the length of time we have spent debating this subamendment and other subamendments.
He is correct, in that it's true that we have spent a lot of time—perhaps more time than would normally be expected—on a clause-by-clause review of the bill. I think Mr. Turnbull and others who are watching—if there are Canadians watching this debate, perhaps tens of people across the country—know that.
The point is that what might not be obvious to a viewer of this committee but that is all too obvious to anybody around this table is that these things don't occur in a vacuum. It is within the power of the Liberal members of this committee to encourage a more expeditious review of this bill if they would—at another committee—not block or prevent important witnesses from testifying on Bill C-22. I think they know that we might get to.... These amendments are important, solid amendments that would improve a very flawed bill, and I'm all about improving legislation. That's why I'm here.
We might be able to do this with a little less debate if we could have the government members go back and ensure that we see the witnesses—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Mr. Kelly, that is not the purview of this committee. We're talking about the subamendment. The finance committee can't decide what happens at another committee—