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.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Do you know what? We've been on this for so long—since Monday—that I'd forgotten I was the mover of CPC-13.
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I know someone else who needs parliamentary education.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Maybe some of us need reminders too.
Chair, I'm delighted that you were there to correct me before I tried to move a subamendment. You're correct. I can't move a subamendment, so I won't.
I'll just finish off with a few more words about the amendment itself before I invite others at the table, who may have subamendments. In fact, maybe government members have a subamendment of their own that they wish to propose, since they don't like CPC-13. They signalled that they won't support it, but I hope that's not because they oppose better transparency and accountability. I hope that's not the reason. If there is another reason they don't support CPC-13, I hope they might have their own subamendment.
When I'm done speaking, we'll see who is able to catch your eye to propose something, so we can get past this roadblock on CPC-13—so we can find the right subamendment that will allow us to move forward with our day.
With that, I'll end my own intervention now and cede the floor to whoever else might have a subamendment to my amendment.
I turn it back to you, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I appreciate that, because we have been on CPC-13 for 12 hours now. We might not always—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Yes, it does seem longer.
I understand, Ms. Goodridge, that you are next on the speaking list for CPC-13.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank my colleague Mr. Kelly from Calgary for his thoughtful remarks.
While the government members have been relatively silent, other than raising a handful of points of order every so often, they have indicated that they do not like this amendment. To try to find some common ground and some space, I recommend that we amend CPC-13 in the following—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Ms. Goodridge, you are not able to move a subamendment, because you are not a member of the committee, and you're not replacing a member of the committee. We'll have to move on.
Mr. Lawrence, you're next on the list.
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Here's another person who needs to learn more about Parliament.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
I apologize. It's probably my reappearance that caused Ms. Goodridge to be unable to introduce it.
I will introduce it. It is that the amendment be amended by adding after proposed subsection 43.1(1) the following: “(1.1) The report prepared under subsection (1) and the report prepared under subsection (3) must include a plain-language explanation of any projected reduction in Canada Pension Plan assets resulting from the amendments contained in this division, including the explanation that lower projected assets do not necessarily indicate reduced pension security if assets remain sufficient relative to projected obligations.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. That amendment is inadmissible. It is too similar to subamendment 2, which you proposed earlier. Thank you.
I have Ms. Cobena on the list.
Conservative
Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to move an alternative subamendment, which reads is that the amendment be amended by adding after proposed subsection 43.1(1) the following:
1.1) The report prepared under subsection (1) and the report prepared under subsection (3) must include representative examples showing the estimated annual impact of the reduction in contribution rates on employees, employers and self-employed persons at different levels of pensionable earnings, including earnings of $50,000, $70,000 and the maximum pensionable earnings for the relevant year.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
If you could please submit that in writing, we will take a brief suspension to await translation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Colleagues, we are resuming.
Ms. Cobena, you have the floor on subamendment eight to CPC-13.
Conservative
Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to start by commenting briefly on a comment from a member opposite. The comment was around the subamendments, which require clarification for the reporting, being considered red tape. I want to speak to that, because there is, of course, a very important difference between red tape and transparency and additional information for Canadians. It is important to not confuse the two, and not only for the government to not confuse the two but also for Canadians to understand that there is, in fact, a big difference between the two.
Red tape is actually a topic that comes up quite often in my discussions with entrepreneurs and small businesses. Of course, in the context of a small business, it is important to them, because it's when the small business owner spends hours filling out forms that, sometimes, might never be read. As you can imagine, that is a great source of frustration, because there are resources that are being invested. Oftentimes, people have to be hired just to fill out forms, and then they lead to nowhere. For example, it is when a farmer, a manufacturer or an entrepreneur has to navigate layers upon layers of approvals, permits and paperwork, just to do what they already know how to do. Red tape slows down investment, discourages innovation and makes it harder to create jobs.
On the flip side, though, transparency is something entirely different. Transparency means giving Canadians more information and the information that they need to not only understand whatever goes on in the government, and the initiatives and policies of the government, but also hold their government accountable.
We do hear that there is, oftentimes, a bit of a disconnect between the two. Transparency means publishing clear data on taxpayer dollars and on how these taxpayer dollars are being spent. It means reporting on whether or not programs are actually achieving objectives. It means allowing Parliament and Canadians to see the results of government decisions, so when—
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I know that the member opposite is talking about taxpayers' dollars. It's interesting that we've been in the committee for 21 hours with the Conservatives' filibustering. That seems like a big waste of resources to me.
Liberal
Conservative
Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
One, red tape, burdens the productive economy, and the other one, transparency, strengthens democracy. When we are asking for more information and clarification and asking questions of officials on behalf of the people we represent, it strengthens democracy.
For instance, the owner of a machine shop in Newmarket should not have to fill out 20 pages of compliance in forms upon forms, simply because the government likes to do paperwork. Taxpayers absolutely deserve to know whether a $1-billion government program is delivering results.
In fact, greater transparency can help reduce red tape. When the government publishes better data, measures outcomes and openly reports results, we can identify which regulations are working, which are failing and which should be eliminated altogether.
This is a big issue, too, in terms of regulations. There is this sentiment that whenever there's a new policy and a new initiative from governments, more regulation is layered on. Oftentimes you see additional regulation one upon the other, but there's never a comprehensive analysis to streamline it and remove regulation. All this falls on the shoulders of Canadians and business owners. The goal should not be more paperwork. The goal should be better information, which is what we're aiming to do with the subamendment.
Let us, in what we're doing here, try to reduce the burdens on those creating the jobs and building our economy, while increasing accountability for those spending public money. That is not a contradiction, Madam Chair. It is good government.
This common theme of transparency and plain-language reporting is important, because Canadians deserve to know what policies actually mean—not just what the government chooses to call them. Here, we are studying Bill C-30, the spring economic statement implementation act. In the spring economic statement, the government uses the altered definitions of capital investment to include spending that most Canadians would recognize as subsidies, or tax expenditures and transfers. The numbers look better on paper. It makes the numbers look better on paper, but the underlying spending does not actually change.
To take a step back, these changes in definitions were initially implemented in the first budget that was tabled, which was budget 2025. They are now being carried on to be used here within the spring economic statement.
The subamendment follows the opposite principle, in fact. Instead of changing the labels, it requires clear examples showing what a CPP contribution reduction means for a worker earning $50,000, $70,000 or the maximum pensionable earnings. It translates the government policy into real dollars and cents for Canadians to understand.
I just want to ensure that we are having this discussion within the right context. Of course, in the last election, the Prime Minister promised that he would balance the operating budget within three years. That was a campaign promise, and that was a serious promise. It was meant to reassure Canadians that after years—a decade, really—of rising spending, rising deficits and taking on an incredible amount of debt, this Prime Minister would bring fiscal discipline back to Ottawa, particularly because there was a focus on the Prime Minister's résumé.
Canadians wanted to believe that that was, in fact, true, but I don't think Canadians could have imagined that balancing the operating budget would mean inventing a new definition of capital investment, moving spending out of the operating budget so that the numbers look better only on paper.
In budget 2025, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was able to quantify that relabelling, and we know that it was around $94 billion of operating expenses being relabelled as capital investments. We know that there is no capital formation from a number of those.
We're about to see the FIFA World Cup kick off later this week, and an example that we can draw from that is that the spending for security for FIFA is being labelled capital investment but will lead to no capital formation.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I don't know what security investments for FIFA have to do with reporting on CPP contributions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.
Wait one second, Mr. Kelly.
Ms. Cobena, please stick to the subamendment at hand, which is on reporting requirements when it comes to a report on the Canada pension plan.
Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.