House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was retirement.

Topics

TaxationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Mr. Speaker, winter is here and the Liberal government is leaving Canadian seniors out in the cold with that mandatory carbon tax.

A carbon tax will increase the price of everything: housing, hydro bills, gas bills, food bills, clothing, transportation, and the list goes on and on. The fact is that many seniors are on fixed incomes and well over half a million are low income.

Why is the Prime Minister forcing Canadian seniors to choose between heating their homes or buying essential things like food and medicine?

TaxationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Québec Québec

Liberal

Jean-Yves Duclos LiberalMinister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity my colleague has generously given me to remind the House just how much of a priority the well-being of seniors is to our government.

As the member knows, in March, we announced a substantial $1,000 increase in the guaranteed income supplement to lift 13,000 seniors out of poverty. We also lowered the age of eligibility for old age security back down to 65, which will prevent 100,000 seniors from experiencing extreme poverty because of the former government's unfortunate lack of sensitivity.

Financial InstitutionsOral Questions

November 29th, 2016 / 2:55 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, Canadian small business owners pay among the highest fees in the world for credit card transactions. The government appears to understand this is a problem, as one of its own MPs tabled a bill to reinforce the government's power to regulate these fees. However, the debate on the bill has been delayed for the fourth time.

After the government chose to break its promise to reduce small business taxes, small business owners deserve answers. Why are the Liberals avoiding debate on their own bill? Is it because the government has no intention of acting on these exorbitant fees?

Financial InstitutionsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, we remain consumed with the idea that we want to improve the economy of Canada, which will help Canadians across the country and help small businesses.

We are taking multiple measures to improve our economy. We do recognize that as we look at individual measures, measures like what businesses and consumers pay for their credit card fees, we have to come up with ways that work.

The previous government put in place an agreement with the credit card companies that we have reviewed. It appears to be working. We are continuing consultations to see if it can be improved further.

Manufacturing IndustryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, London, Ontario, has been an important centre for manufacturing in Canada for decades. Despite serious challenges that have been faced by the sector since 2008, I believe strongly that there is still a bright future in store for manufacturing in London.

Would the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development be able to update the House on what the government is doing to create well-paying, good-quality manufacturing jobs in London and in Canada?

Manufacturing IndustryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Mississauga—Malton Ontario

Liberal

Navdeep Bains LiberalMinister of Innovation

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for London North Centre for his very thoughtful question and his advocacy in that region.

As he mentioned, Canada's manufacturing sector is a cornerstone of our economy. In London and other communities across the country, we are making significant investments and creating conditions for growth.

Just to put that in perspective, most recently we invested $15 million in Hanwha in London, Ontario. This is to really help with advanced manufacturing, to double capacity, and to create 85 new jobs. These are the kinds of investments we are making to grow the economy and create jobs in London and across the country.

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk a good game about the importance of nation-to-nation consultation, but they are failing.

Bill S-3 has been criticized by National Chief Bellegarde, the Native Women's Association, and the Quebec Native Women Inc. The litigant said that the first time he knew about the bill was when he was called to committee to testify. Further, the Indigenous Bar Association says it is riddled with technical flaws.

When will the minister end her paternalistic Ottawa-knows-best approach and consult with those who are directly affected?

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Toronto—St. Paul's Ontario

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett LiberalMinister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the government has been working with indigenous groups to eliminate the known sex-based inequities in indigenous registration to respond to the Descheneaux ruling.

On October 25, we introduced the legislation to address the injustices by eliminating known sex-based inequities. I apologize for my department not speaking directly with Mr. Descheneaux. I have spoken with Mr. Descheneaux now, and we will move forward on this bill, and 35,000 people will get their rights back by getting this bill through—

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

Consumer ProtectionOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, the law is clear. A bank cannot charge a client fees unless their amount is specified in the contract. That is what consumer protection is all about. If banks charge excessive additional fees for credit cards, transaction fees for cheques, or exchange rate fees, people in Quebec have remedies available to them.

The Liberals just decided that this is too much to ask of banks and will waive their requirement to respect people.

Really, how can the Liberals justify such a thing?

Consumer ProtectionOral Questions

3 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that Canadian consumers are protected across the country. We did not change any rules. Our rule is that consumer protection should be consistent across the country. That is still the case with Canadian rules.

Consumer ProtectionOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will now read a motion that the Quebec National Assembly has just unanimously passed:

That the National Assembly reiterate the importance of preserving the strong consumer protection regime enacted in the Quebec Consumer Protection Act;

That the National Assembly call on the federal government to remove the provisions of Bill C-29...that would render inapplicable the provisions of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act that govern the relationship between banks and their clients.

Will the minister of high finance listen to the National Assembly of Quebec and amend the bill?

Consumer ProtectionOral Questions

3 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, we want to be very clear. It is very important that we have rules to protect Canadian consumers. That is why we introduced the regulations without any changes. The rules are clear. Under our rules, Canadian consumers will be protected all across the country.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of someone familiar: the Honourable Gerry Byrne, Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the 2016 Governor General's Literary Awards: Bill Waiser, Catherine Ego, Colleen Murphy, Dominique Fortier, Jon-Erik Lappano, Kellen Hatanaka, Lazer Lederhendler, Madeleine Thien, Martine Leavitt, Roger Girard, Roland Viau, Stéphanie Lapointe, Steven Heighton.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House today to speak about Bill C-26. Obviously, there are philosophical differences that the government has with the official opposition. As always, I try to add something to the debate; hopefully, something that stimulates a better understanding of both sides. This place is Parliament. We are here to discuss various points of view and, at the end, there will be a logical conclusion; one that obviously serves the country. Democracy is a great thing, but it is important that people are heard.

I would like to suggest, before I get to the actual business at hand, that the government has quite a big job ahead of it, particularly as many of its policies are going to require economic growth.

As Canadians, we know we are getting older. We are living longer. Obviously, things like pension reform are always important. It is something the previous government tried to do, albeit by different means—and I will be looping back to that in just a moment.

First, I would like to again go back to the point that, if there were a stronger economy, many of the concerns we have heard from small business owners with respect to adding more payroll taxes might have been alleviated.

As we all know, it is tougher and tougher to run a business when the economy is not producing well. Of course, all of us here would like to see more jobs in our ridings. We want to see people being able to provide for their families. However, that is not always the case, particularly if the economy is stagnating.

We have seen Mr. Poloz, the governor of the Bank of Canada, downgrade his expectations for Canada's growth, on behalf of the Bank of Canada.

I think it is important that we just acknowledge that as being a fact because, as the PBO has said, the job reports are not coming in as strong as we would like, and neither is the economy.

If we are going to ask people to pay more, whether it is into a system 40 years from now or into the coffers of the government today, we always have to remember that there is only one taxpayer. If people are struggling to pay their mortgages, if people are struggling to get into the market, and if people are struggling to pay their bills and suddenly they have less money at the end of the day, they will not give to charities. They will not put money aside for savings for their children as easily because there just is not the money there.

Whether we are talking about carbon taxes, whether we are talking about CPP increases, whether we are talking about perhaps—and I have heard in the pre-budget consultations at the finance committee that some members are thinking of a sugary drinks tax or perhaps some other taxes that we have not yet thought of—at the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer, and we always have to keep in mind the ability to pay for it.

We heard from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute during the study of Bill C-26 at committee, from an economist named Mr. Philip Cross. Mr. Cross simply pointed out what we know to be true: that while there are some concerns that certain segments of our society are not saving enough—and that is usually higher earners who are just choosing not to save, and then there is also a number of, usually, single female seniors who, because they did not participate in the labour market and have lived long enough to get to a point where now they do not have things like Canada pension plan because they did not contribute as much—those measures are not there for them.

As we have seen in the previous budget the government put forward, there was some allocation to that. In fact, in the previous election, many of us on the Conservative side ran on a pledge that we should introduce a tax credit specifically for single or widowed seniors. That was all, again, to make that targeted toward those people who are greatest in need.

Mr. Cross said that these things can be addressed through targeted programs and they can be addressed through other voluntary means. There is not a savings crisis now or predicted in the future in Canada, which is something we should be proud of.

We have a multi-pillar system. Conservatives believe, unlike the NDP and the Liberals, that there should be greater choice.

Again, we have heard time and time again from the Liberal side that the Conservatives do not care about pensions or pensioners, which is not true. We just believe that people should be able to voluntarily put their money into an account that would be there to support them, and it should be of their choosing. It should not be by a forced government program.

Again, I would go back to those many seniors who visited me. They and their spouses contributed the maximum amount to the CPP but their spouses died early, so now they, the surviving spouse, are not able to access the money they expected would be available to them, that they had socked away through the CPP system, because they are already receiving the maximum CPP allowed for an individual. These individuals get no survivor or spousal benefit. If, instead of putting that money in a government-mandated system, that same couple had put it in a tax-free savings account or an RRSP that eventually became a RRIF, and one partner were to die, the other one would have immediate access to that capital. We would all expect that.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute said we should really be calling the argument what it is. There is an ideological agenda by the government. Just remember, “ideological” is not a dirty word but it is something that we need to acknowledge. We need to acknowledge it when we see the world presented in a certain way to come up with a certain solution. The Ontario Liberals ran on a pledge to create their own Ontario retirement pension plan that would be enormously costly and not in fact complement the federal CPP but would increase costs, with fewer benefits for people. The Ontario Liberals and the federal Liberals said they would fix it by going to the other provinces and basically eschewing any other efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I know you do not hail from Ontario, but I would remind you that it is important to notice the following. When we talked about pooled registered pension plans as a means for having voluntary portable pensions that anyone could take anywhere and employers could voluntarily put money towards if they wanted to participate, Ontario, unlike British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, did not go ahead with those. I would encourage the Province of Ontario that, despite this piece of legislation going through, there is still more to be done and that pooled registered pension plans were something that all finance ministers across this great country agreed to. That does not happen often.

I just want to take a minute to step back and talk about young people. We had witnesses at committee who said they understood that most seniors would not benefit from this bill. We are thinking about future generations, and that is an important consideration. But we see that young people are now going on to higher education with higher bills and graduating with higher bills. They are being asked to pay those student loans back while trying to get a job. This is a very difficult time. Now they are being told they should get used to precarious work. The reason work is precarious is that employers do not have confidence.

The Liberals have to understand that when they tell people they will be adding a carbon tax and payroll taxes, those taxes make it less attractive for people who want to hire, especially if they hear that the government and the Bank of Canada say they are downgrading the Government of Canada's economic outlook. This again makes it more difficult for businesses to hire young people. Then the Liberals are telling young people that even if they can pay their student loans, even if they can squirrel some money aside, they are going to have less take-home money that could help them buy a home. Of course, the new rules by the department of finance for mortgage qualification make owning a home very difficult.

To sum up everything I have said, the government is in a real pickle on this one, simply because it wants to have an agenda in which it is doing a lot of things that are probably well-intentioned, but in an environment that does not sustain them. At the end of the day, we are asking more of that one taxpayer, and remember there is only one taxpayer, to put up more than he or she is able to bear. If we do that, we risk what I have mentioned. It is the reason I oppose this measure at this time.

Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I sit together on the finance committee. In a time when defined benefit pension plans are going away and retirement savings are so important for Canadians and many generations to come, when the CPP is portable, fully indexed, stable, and secure and our government has reached this historic agreement with the provinces, why would the hon. member's colleagues and his party not join with us in celebrating this agreement and working together to ensure that this agreement comes to fruition, which it will, so our children would have good, dignified retirement security to look forward to?

Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do agree that anytime we can get all the provinces and territories to agree, it should be celebrated. Actually, I should not say “all the provinces and territories”, because Quebec obviously has its own system.

Again, I would go back to the point that the government is ramping up the CPP, which means that higher costs will be passed on to employers at a time when they have less to give.

If the government had a crystal ball, it might know that no one saw the economic and financial crisis of 2007-08. What happens if there is another recession, and this measure kicks in and causes even greater harm?

We are raising legitimate concerns. I do appreciate the member's contributions on the finance committee. However, we do have concerns about the government going ahead with a plan when there is so much uncertainty, and sending the wrong signal.

Again I go back to the point that the government should be focused on growth. Unfortunately, it is focused on redistribution.

Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Conservative colleague whose definition of CPP, like that of many of his colleagues, seems to differ from ours. He seems to be saying that it is a tax, while we believe it is an investment, as do experts and many others.

When we pay 5% on our purchases at Canadian Tire, that is money that we will never get back. However, the money deducted from our pay for Canada pension plan contributions still belongs to us. That money does not disappear. It belongs to the taxpayers who invested in the plan and they will get it back when they retire.

Can my colleague clarify the Conservative position? Does he really believe it is a tax, or does he believe it is an investment that allows taxpayers to have a pension when they retire?

Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, I go back to my comment about ideological filters.

Obviously, the NDP seem to be much more open to using government-imposed measures. Basically, the CPP mandates that people have to contribute to it. Let us not forget that employers have to pay that tax as part of the compulsive nature of this bill.

People may get money back in the future for future consumption. I am not necessarily saying that is a bad thing. However, I do think we should explore other voluntarily methods prior to this.

We did have an agreement on pooled registered pension plans, which would have been portable and have offered employers, if they were in a position to do so, the chance to be pay more on a voluntary basis.

Those are the things I would like to see a little more of, and I would like to see a little less government intervention in this area of Canadians' lives.

Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned one of the gaps in this current CPP plan, in which elderly women whose husbands have died cannot take advantage of it. That would have been so easy to fix. After all, the husbands paid in $1,100 that entire time. Why not give that benefit to the spouse? Could the member comment on that?

Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, the surprising thing is that I have had many constituents contacting me on that very issue. They and their spouse had maxed out their contribution rates to the CPP, then one of them died prematurely, and suddenly the spouse was without that income stream.

Many Canadians would be surprised to know that if they are at the maximum, which I think is around $1,100, they cannot have a survivor benefit. All of them were men. I am not sure why that was. When I tried to see if there were a way for us to deal with that, the previous government said it would try to help through a tax credit. It was something we ran on in the election, and perhaps the government might see it as worthy of endorsement at some point.