Debates of Oct. 24th, 2016

The Environment

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the hard-working, resilient people of Shawnigan Lake who are again petitioning the government about a contaminated soil dump in their watershed. I know it is primarily a provincial issue, but the petitioners would sure like some help from the federal government, so I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

Fisheries

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of my private member's bill to strengthen the Fisheries Act, Bill C-228.

The petitioners know that moving from harmful open-net pens to safe closed containment systems will ensure a healthy west coast wild salmon population.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to pass my Bill C-228 when it comes to a vote later this year.

Animal Welfare

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. They are e-petitions.

The first one deals with support for a bill that is making its way here from the Senate, Bill S-203, on banning holding whales and dolphins in captivity.

Decriminalization of Marijuana

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is extensive.

The petitioners have done a tremendous amount of work in setting out a range of actions for the legalization and normalization of cannabis, including, for those convicted of cannabis offences, on a case-by-case basis, giving pardons and repealing section 462.2 of the Criminal Code.

I submit this petition. I can only cover some of the surface of its many recommendations.

Cross Border Shopping

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition I sponsored with respect to e-commerce and online shopping. The petition is signed by 15,257 Canadians. It was brought forward to help the debate on the level of duties when importing small goods into Canada.

Because Canadians are buying more things online, I sponsored this petition to help us discuss the current rate of duty and tax penalties across the border when shopping online, such as buying from Amazon, which has just expanded a facility in my riding this past week.

I thank all of the Canadians who signed the petition and are engaged in this debate through this process.

Falun Gong

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by many.

The petitioners state that Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres, and prisons, where torture and abuse are routine and thousands have died as a result.

The petitioners call upon Parliament and parliamentarians to do what they can in a public way to say that this is bad thing and that we have to deal with it.

Electoral Reform

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions.

The first petition is with respect to electoral reform and states that the Liberal Prime Minister has committed to changing to an electoral system that would be self-serving.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to hold a referendum before any changes are made to our Canadian electoral system.

Palliative Care

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with palliative care. It states that in the last Parliament a motion was passed unanimously calling upon the government to create a national strategy on palliative care.

The petitioners call upon this Parliament to establish a national strategy on palliative care.

Falun Gong

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present two petitions, one signed by 27 Yukoners and the other by 160 other Canadians.

Both petitions state that Falun Gong is a spiritual discipline that consists of meditation and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. Canadian lawyer David Matas and the former secretary of state for Asia-Pacific, David Kilgour, conducted an investigation in 2006, which suggested that tens of thousands of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience were killed and their organs seized involuntarily for sale at a high price.

The petitioners ask the Canadian Parliament to amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting, and publicly call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. I have notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking leave for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration pursuant to Standing Order 52, namely, last Friday's breakdown of implementation talks of the comprehensive economic trade agreement, CETA, between Canada and the European Union by the Liberal government.

Canada has been negotiating this key trade agreement in good faith for the past years with the European Union. By walking away from these implementation talks, instead of remaining at the table, the government's actions has put any future trade talks at risks. It is imperative that the government and ministers remain at this negotiating table because by failing to continue thousands of jobs are now at risk.

Given this action that occurred last Friday, I therefore formally request an emergency debate on this matter.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. These issues are certainly important, however, I do not find that they meet they exigencies of the Standing Order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Pension Plan

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There are four minutes remaining in questions and comments after the speech for the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that during the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's patrician lecture on virtue, he seemed to believe that people who did not have the income to put money aside had something to be ashamed of, that people who did not have the revenue to take advantage of the voluntary deferred revenue programs such as RRSPs or TFSAs lacked virtue, that to have virtue one required at least some wealth, and that those who did not have any disposable income should be judged by how they spent that same disposable income.

I am happy the member has never had to choose between his housing and his retirement, between his food and his medication, between his education and his immediate need for income. Those problems may not be his reality, but I can assure him that this represents the daily life of many virtuous Canadians.

Could the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan confirm that he believes that someone who simply does not have the revenue to put money aside has no virtue?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really shameful that when we try to engage in a substantive discussion of issues, the member across the way would so flagrantly misstate what I said in questions. I do not know if I should add anything to that. The record is very clear in what I talked about.

I talked about a choice between giving people the means to voluntarily control their own circumstances and the benefits of that situation and a situation in which the government tried to take away the means for people to control their own circumstances. I advanced the argument that giving people more control over their circumstances was good, not only because they would be able to leverage their greater knowledge of their circumstances for their own good, but also because it would provide them with the opportunity to practise and to deepen virtue.

That is not in any way a function specifically of a person's wealth. It is a question of whether these decisions are made by individuals or by governments. I specifically said that for those who were struggling, the better alternative was for the government to cut taxes to give more resources to those who needed it.

I am sorry to say this, but the member should really be ashamed for asking a question that way, which so deeply misstates the speech. He would be better off to listen and to pose questions that reflect what was actually discussed.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

What we have heard on the other side is that government knows best; that is big government telling people to give it their money, that it knows best. When we give Canadians options, they will make choices that best reflect their situation. However, taking away methods for Canadians to save and taxing them more are not good policies.

I wonder if my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan could also comment on this. What happens if people pass away before they collect CPP, they get zero. That is a big issue, especially when they want to pass on an inheritance or their savings to others. Maybe the member could comment on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those are all very good points from my colleague.

This is one of the advantages of the voluntary savings vehicles about which I talked. It remains an individual's money. Individuals have no disincentive to put money aside and save it because they know that money will be theirs for them to use in the future or to pass on to someone else.

That is another very good reason why the voluntary approach is a better approach for society, as opposed to the government knows best, government takes it away and gets to spend it, approach.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I am delighted to be here for this very important, and I would call it historic, debate. The changes our government is proposing to enhance the Canada pension plan are important to every working Canadian and would have a lasting impact for generations to come.

Not only are the changes important, they are needed. We know that today one in four families nearing retirement, that is 1.1 million families, risk not saving enough for retirement. This is even higher for middle-class families. A third of middle-class families without workplace pension plans are at a risk of not saving enough for retirement. It is estimated that the proposed enhancement debated today, once fully in place, would reduce the share of families at risk of not having adequate retirement savings from 24% to 18%. This is close to 300,000 Canadians who would be lifted out of post-retirement income insecurity.

For families at risk, it is estimated that the average gap between retirement income and income required to replace 60% of working income will decrease by more than half, declining from $8,300 to $3,700, which represents a substantial increase in income security for the remaining 18% of retirees.

This enhancement will be gradually implemented over seven years, beginning in 2019. Retirement benefits, which will gradually increase as people contribute to the enhanced CPP, will be funded by a slight increase in annual contributions over seven years. The slight and progressive increase in CPP contributions will minimize the impact on employers and employees and give them time to adjust.

I want to remind the House that contribution rates in Canada are much lower than those in other countries with public pension plans. In fact, the CPP contribution rate is about half of the average rate among 25 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, that have similar public pension plans.

Even with the CPP enhancement, this rate would be just over half the average OECD rate. Accordingly, a person who earns $50,000 a year would contribute approximately $70 more per year, or $6 per month, in 2019. By the end of the phase-in period, those same people would be contributing $475 per year, or $40 extra per month to benefit from the enhanced CPP.

By strengthening the Canada pension plan, workers would receive more money from their retirement pension. The amount would increase from one-quarter of their eligible earnings to one-third. This means a person making $50,000 a year over a 40-year career would receive $16,000 each year in retirement instead of the current $12,000. That is $4,000 more each year right in the pockets of workers.

A more modest earner, one averaging about $35,000 a year, would receive almost $3,000 more a year above the $8,500 currently provided by today's CPP.

In addition, the enhancement would increase the point at which a person would stop making contributions by about 14% in 2025. This increase in eligible earnings would further increase the retirement benefits that all of these Canadians would receive.

This enhancement will give more Canadians access to a public pension plan. It will also give low-income workers more incentive to work because they will receive higher benefits. Low-income workers will benefit in the short term because they will have more disposable income, and in the long term because they will have a better retirement. A total of 6,000 low-income workers will be lifted out of poverty in the short term.

Additional great news is that our younger workers would see the largest increase in their retirement benefits. Younger Canadians often find it difficult to save in safe, reliable, and efficient ways. Many are working in jobs that do not have a company pension.

Workers in the middle of their careers or nearing retirement would also benefit from enhanced CPP as the increased contributions made in 2019 and beyond would go toward an enhanced retirement pension.

However, the Canadians who will benefit the most from this enhancement are those who do not currently have access to a private pension plan. The advantages of public plans are considerable because they effectively protect against financial and longevity risks, they are transferable between businesses and provinces, and they are administered at a low cost to businesses and workers.

The enhancement of the CPP is therefore an inclusive policy that is good for the middle class for several very important reasons. This enhancement offers all Canadians the opportunity to benefit more fully from a public plan. It increases low-income Canadians' incentive to work. It reduces poverty among low-income workers, and it improves the income security of our seniors.

We believe that all Canadian workers will benefit from this enhancement, particularly the middle-class and those working hard to join it.

I invite my colleagues to enthusiastically support this historic opportunity to enhance the Canada pension plan, a measure for our country and all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the whole package in dealing with seniors, today we are talking about CPP and this historic agreement of the minister and this government with other provincial jurisdictions, which is good for CPP and good for future pensioners. We also saw through the cabinet issue dealing with the guaranteed income supplement that there is a substantial increase, especially for Canada's poorest of seniors. We will see some single seniors receiving upwards of $900 more a year as a direct result. Then we have the OAS, the third pillar to our pension program, where this government has made the decision to return it back to the age of 65. The Harper government increased the age to 67. We have returned it back to 65.

Would the minister not be of the same opinion that we have a government that is in touch with what Canadians want and expect when it comes to pensions?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker I would like to congratulate my colleague for making it very clear that we are not only concerned about the present circumstances of our middle-class families, but we are looking to the future to make sure that families and our citizens and our workers, when they retire, have the income security that they not only deserve but also want.

It is a great fortune for us in the House to stand here today at this time to celebrate this historic change in the CPP. We will remember this because the impact of that magnificent change will be felt and celebrated for many years to come.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding in Courtenay—Alberni, we have a disproportionate number of elderly women who are living in poverty, women who are going to the food banks for the first time, pensioners who are struggling to make ends meet. They cannot even afford to buy medicine. Some of them are going to homeless shelters. The most recent figures available show that 30% of single elderly women live in poverty. That number has tripled in the last 20 years under Conservative and Liberal governments. Only 4.5% of female CPP recipients receive the maximum benefit compared with 18% for men.

How will this CPP enhancement plan help lift vulnerable elderly women out of poverty? In our communities where we are having this homeless problem, we are not getting the support we need for homeless shelters. We need that, so if the member could answer the question it would be greatly appreciated by the people in my community.