Debates of Nov. 17th, 2016

Pensions

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for his question.

One in four Canadian families is not saving enough for retirement. This situation is unacceptable, and we are determined to do something about it. The historic agreement in principle to strengthen the Canada pension plan will help Canadians by increasing their retirement benefits by up to 50%. We are proud to be helping Canadians improve their lives, and we will continue to make that a priority.

Public Services and Procurement

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it's been almost a month since the Minister of Public Services and Procurement told Canadians that there is no end in sight to the Liberal Phoenix pay fiasco. Since blowing off her deadline, the minister has misled Canadians on the scope, depth, and severity of the backlog. Yesterday, her officials would not even provide a timeline to resolve the outstanding 18,000 cases, and more than 200,000 transactions that still need to be processed. The minister will not commit to a deadline and she will not tell us the full number of backlog cases. What else is the minister hiding from us about the Phoenix pay fiasco?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, we take the issues of public service pay problems very seriously. That is why we have taken so many additional measures to deal with these ongoing problems. In fact, the measures that we have put in place have resulted in our now being able to deal with an additional 100,000 cases a month. We have done that on top of making sure that 300,000 employees get paid every two weeks.

Natural Resources

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even though the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is too broke to pay back the $266 million it owes the federal government, the Canadian government is increasing its debt capacity by saying that since it is broke, it will let it go into more debt. The government, with taxpayers' money, including that of Quebeckers, is going to let Newfoundland and Labrador incur more debt in order to compete with Hydro-Québec. If it cannot pay, Ottawa will pay for it, no problem.

Will this government let parliamentarians debate the Muskrat Falls loan guarantee before signing the contract with Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, working with the provinces and territories is the basis of our government's approach.

It is very positive that Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec are having a constructive dialogue on the energy issue. Developing clean and renewable sources of electricity will help us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, guaranteeing a $9.3-billion loan for 500,000 people is like guaranteeing a $144-billion loan for Quebec. That is too much money, and Newfoundland and Labrador will not be able to repay it. We will be left to deal with this debt.

[An hon. member]

Ouch.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Exactly, Mr. Speaker. Ouch.

Furthermore, this money, Quebeckers' money, will fund unfair competition with Hydro-Québec.

Will this government allow a debate in the House on increasing the loan guarantee for Newfoundland and Labrador's Muskrat Falls project, yes or no?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we are very encouraged to learn that the Government of Quebec has determined that it would be a good idea to engage in conversation with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is a very good example of two provinces working together in common cause. When provinces work together with the support of the national government, only good things can happen.

Oral Questions

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answer to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, I misidentified Madam Justice Arbour, and I would like the record to reflect her name.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you know that I have had enormous respect for you in the House in the 12 years I have been here. I come into the House to get engaged in spirited debates, and I am very pleased that the Speaker pointed out that my spirited debate with the member for Spadina—Fort York was actually interfering with other spirited debates in the House.

I very much appreciate that, and I am very sorry. We were so spirited that I forgot we were in question period. I thank you very much for your role, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for his gracious apology.

Business of the House

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government what plans it has in the way of business next week.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue our debate at second reading of Bill C-26 on the Canada pension plan.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-16 on gender identity. If time permits, we will also examine Bill C-25, the business framework bill.

On Monday, I will call Bill C-30, the CETA implementation legislation, for consideration at second reading. The bill will be on the agenda for Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. It is my hope that this bill will be referred to committee on Wednesday evening.

On Thursday, we will consider second reading of Bill C-23 respecting pre-clearance.

Next Friday, I will call Bill C-18, the Rouge national park legislation, for second reading debate.

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, and of the amendment.

Canada Pension Plan

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was the mayor of Thetford Mines, there was a tactic I often used at board meetings. A little “shh” is very effective, particularly when it comes from a member and not the Speaker. People seem to pay more attention.

I am pleased to have my colleague's attention as I speak to Bill C-26. I planned to speak about it, but this morning the government moved a time allocation motion regarding this bill. This means that many of my colleagues will not have the opportunity to speak to this bill, which, as the Minister of Finance said himself, is very important for Canadians.

At the beginning of question period, I was surprised to hear the Minister of Finance answer a question from my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and say the following about the official opposition:

We were “the party that is playing games with the Canada pension plan”.

I think the government is the one playing games with Bill C-26 right now. The government is the one playing games with Canadians with Bill C-26.

During the election campaign, I remember a number of Liberal candidates who were running and knocking on doors, telling people in their riding that they wanted constituents to know that their party was going to improve the Canada pension plan. When seniors are told that the Canada pension plan is going to be improved, they do not expect that it will take 40 years for that to happen. However, that is precisely what is going to happen with Bill C-26.

I think Bill C-26 misleads Canadians. Again, this government's strategy is to keep making commitments and then expecting others to be forced to follow through on them later. The CPP commitments will not be met for 40 years, and investments in infrastructure will be made in 10 years. There is nothing on the books for the next three years.

Passing a bill that will not kick in for another 40 years is so pressing that a time allocation motion was moved today. My question is about an issue that I have raised over and over again: time allocation. This practice illustrates the government's contempt for the democratic process.

The words I am about to say are not my own. They were spoken by the member for Winnipeg North on April 30, 2015, when he was talking about time allocation motions:

Why does the government House leader feel that the only way [to] get legislation through the House of Commons is through time allocation? By doing that, they are really saying that they do not have the ability to negotiate in good faith with opposition parties, which is not healthy for democracy inside the House.

The government claims to be open and transparent and got itself elected on a promise to do things differently. However, with bills like Bill C-26 for seniors, we find ourselves in the eighth time allocation scenario in less than a year. We have been here for less than a year, and there have already been eight time allocation motions.

[An hon. member]

Eight motions.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Eight motions, Mr. Speaker.

I have begun to speak in English. Soon everyone will hear me more and more in English, but not now. I will continue in French, because my speech is in French.

On October 27, 2011, the member for Winnipeg North said:

In recognition of the importance and respect of the chamber, in which we all want to represent our constituents, by not allowing ample opportunity for members of the opposition, even government backbenchers, to provide comment on bills is not a healthy environment. The government House leader has the responsibility to work with and negotiate with House leaders. Time allocation should only be brought in when the government has failed to negotiate with opposition House leaders.

Has the government House leader given up negotiating in good faith with House leaders to the degree to which the government now feels obligated to bring in time allocation as a standard procedure nowadays in the House?

Is this what it means to do things differently? The members opposite were the ones tearing their hair out to oppose time allocation motions. They kept telling Canadians that they were going to do things differently.

By moving yet another time allocation motion to pass its legislative agenda, this government is showing its incompetence. It is also showing a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and, ultimately, a lack of respect for Canadians.

The government is still trying to prevent members from participating in the proceedings of the House of Commons and representing their constituents. Once again, I refer to the comments made by the member for Winnipeg North on June 3, 2015. I have the right to do so because the government was elected under false pretenses. It claimed to want to do things differently.

However, at the rate the government is going, Canadians will soon realize that it will have moved more time allocation motions than the previous government. The Liberal Party has been in power for less than a year, the session is not yet over, and it has already used time allocation eight times, even though only about fifteen bills have been passed. About half the bills introduced have been subject to time allocation. That is unbelievable.

Let us return to the Canada pension plan. The first time I spoke about it, I said that the government had misled Canadians during the last election campaign. After Bill C-26 was introduced, I had the chance to speak to people in my riding. I asked them what they thought it meant when a campaign platform stated that the Canada pension plan would be enhanced and they would have more money in their pockets. They told me that they expected to have more money soon, in six months, a year or two years. They understand that things do not happen as quickly as we would like in Parliament. However, it is going to take 40 years.

People over 75 will reap the benefit of these measures in 40 years. Let us do some simple math: 75 + 40. Forty equals 4 x 10. Thus, 75 + 10 = 85; 85 + 10 = 95; 95 + 10 = 105; 105 + 10 = 115. People in my riding who are 75 years old today will be 115 years old when the plan enhancements take effect. However, SMEs will have to start paying higher contributions soon as a result of the Canada pension plan enhancement. That will hurt businesses.

Last week, something happened in North America, with our American neighbours, that many of us were not expecting. Something happened—

[An hon. member]

Something huge.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, something huge happened, as my colleague said. I love it when my colleagues help me speak English. By the end of the session, I should be perfectly bilingual thanks to my excellent colleagues. I will try to help them when they speak French.

Today, the government should use this opportunity to take a step back and reflect on what just happened in North America and the adverse effects these new taxes will have on our small businesses and on jobs here at home. This government has not had much success creating jobs in the past year, but it is never too late to start.

I am sure that the government did not want to hear members from my party saying the same thing over and over again, but allow me to reiterate that the government has to take its time and pay attention. It cannot impose new taxes on our businesses because the businesses do not have the means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable that for 10 years, the middle class felt forgotten by the Government of Canada, and that this change will ensure that people will no longer be forgotten, that the government will help them and it will plan for the future.

I have a question specifically for the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. If he is so concerned that his colleagues will not have the chance to speak to Bill C-26, then why is he speaking to it for the second time? He already spoke to it on October 21. Why is he speaking for the second time if he is concerned that the others will not have the opportunity to speak?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that my colleagues are questioning why I am rising to speak. I thought I was elected by the people of Mégantic—L'Érable to speak as often as necessary to defend them. That is what I am doing, and that is what I will continue to do whenever necessary.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I might think about moving to my colleague's riding if people there really live to 115. All that to say that we agree on one thing: waiting for 40 years for the system to improve is ridiculous to say the least, and this measure does not respond to immediate needs.

However, in the previous Parliament, the Conservatives were proposing pooled registered pension plans, which also favour people with high or even extremely high incomes.

What solution does my colleague propose for people with low incomes who need to improve their retirement income in the very short term?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I come from a region where, for years, we lived off the asbestos industry. I like to say that I am living proof that asbestos kills. In my riding, people live to a ripe old age because we have learned to use asbestos safely, and I think that my NDP colleagues should understand and defend that approach, while working to protect the health and safety of Canadians working in the asbestos industry.

To conclude, I also understand that my esteemed colleague misses the days when the Conservative government was in power and was making good decisions for Canadians.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his English, which has improved considerably since he was elected. Congratulations.

My question is about the example he gave of a 75-year-old retired man who will see no increase to his Canada pension plan benefits. To me, that says we should do something about the Canada pension plan faster. However, that will cost money.

If he does not like the idea of increasing benefits gradually, how does he think we will find the money to help that 75-year-old right away?