Mr. Speaker, as I promised on Monday, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Victoria. The hon. member rose to claim in the House that the House has been intentionally misled. No such thing has happened here.
Ultimately, what we have here is simply a matter of debate. The hon. Minister of State for Finance said that the proposal by New Democrats for Canada pension plan reforms could lead to 70,000 job losses in Canada, a reckless proposal in our current economy.
The finance department's analysis of a proposal to double the so-called replacement rate of the Canada pension plan, which is at the heart of the NDP proposal, would require a 5.45% increase to the contribution rate within the current range of pensionable earnings. The department concluded that such an increase in payroll taxes could see 70,000 Canadians without work.
As I mentioned earlier, it is clear that increased payroll taxes have negative consequences for the Canadian economy. However, members should not take it from me. Let me quote a third-party expert on this. Laura Jones, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had this to say:
A mandatory CPP increase, however, is a bad idea. An increase in the CPP tax takes more money out of employees' and employers' pockets....
Worse still, small businesses report that a mandatory CPP increase would force many to lower wages and even reduce their workforce.
The hon. member for Victoria was at pains on Monday to point out that the finance department's analysis covered a one-year implementation window, not his seven-year phase-in period. In fact, the Department of Finance uses one year as a simplifying assumption adopted to compare the economic impact of various CPP expansion proposals. Shockingly, the New Democrat plan would see this economic pain spread over seven years as opposed to just one. That is not something that Canadians would appreciate, so it is no wonder the member was up on a question of privilege, trying to distract from the inconvenient truth that his party's pension policy presents.
I should note that a CFIB report on doubling the CPP replacement rate, which reflects the same phase-in period as the NDP proposes, claims that up to 235,000 jobs would be lost. That is a lot more than just 70,000. In this case, the Minister of State for Finance chooses to use the numbers provided by the Department of Finance, not the higher numbers used by the CFIB. We are not only mindful of the expert finance department analysis, but we also share the concerns of small business and the CFIB.
Citation 31(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, aptly sums up the situation confronting us here:
A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
That principle has been endorsed a number of times by the Chair, including for example, Madam Speaker Sauvé in her ruling of December 3, 1980, at page 5293 of the Debates.
More recently, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, restates this principle at page 510:
In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.
Even more succinct than that is this quotation from Mr. Speaker Fraser's ruling on December 4, 1986 at page 1792 of the Debates:
Differences of opinion with respect to fact and details are not infrequent in the House and do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege.
In conclusion, this is simply a matter of debate and perspective about the walloping impact on the Canadian economy that would result from the New Democrats proposal for the Canada pension plan.
Whether these consequences for Canadians would be felt in a single year or spread over several does not change the fact that it would create serious discomfort and uncertainty for hard-working Canadians.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you can easily dispense with the complaint of the hon. member for Victoria because there is no prima facie case of privilege here.