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.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2016 fall reports of the Auditor General of Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I have two reports from committee to present today.
First, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.
Mr. Speaker, second, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to Supplementary Estimates (B) 2016-17.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Status of Women, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2016-17”.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am once again pleased to stand to table petitions, this time, from people from Desbarats, Echo Bay, Searchmont, Dundas, Barrie, Niagara Falls, and many others from Sault Ste. Marie.
The petition is with respect to the Algoma passenger train, which has not been operating for some time now. The economic impact on the communities affected is quite great and property owners are not able to access their properties. The passenger train service is necessary for first nations to access remote regions of their traditional territories.
The petitioners are asking the Minister of Transport to put the Algoma passenger train back in service, in order to ensure that the mission of Transport Canada to “serve the public interest through the promotion of a safe and secure, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation in Canada” is fulfilled.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to speak up for people in the Sault Ste. Marie and Thessalon area who are very concerned about the shutting down of the Algoma Central Railway.
We have already seen, in the north, the loss of the Northlander passenger service that the provincial government said was over-subsidized at 86¢ a person; whereas, the province subsidizes urban transit at $156 per person.
In losing train service in the north, we are isolating communities, particularly along the Algoma Central Railway, where there is no other way to access these communities.
The petitioners are calling on the government to take action and show its support that everyone in this country deserves adequate public transportation.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions opposed to the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.
The petitioners note that the pipeline would change oil tanker traffic from once a week to once a day, sending unrefined oil through the Salish Sea, sensitive waters in an area where local jobs are highly dependent on a clean environment and no oil spills.
The petitioners cite also that Kinder Morgan excavating the new pipeline will create only 50 permanent full-time jobs and it may, in fact, build the pipeline using temporary foreign workers.
I recommend the petition to members of the House and urge the government, for the sake of coastal ecology and economy, to deny the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
Bill C-26--Time Allocation MotionCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
Waterloo Ontario
Liberal
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, for the third time in less than 10 days we are seeing the government shutting down the ability of members of Parliament to speak. Let us face it, that is what this is. This is not just about time allocation. It is not about the government saying it is going to allow a certain number of days and here are the days that are set out. This is in the middle of the bill being processed through the House of Commons and the Liberals are shutting down debate.
We have seen over the last couple of days the massive admiration that the Prime Minister has for dictators; the warmth and the love and, in fact, the gratitude for what dictators do. We are now seeing dictatorship in action by the Liberals under the leadership of the Prime Minister. It is disgraceful. It is disappointing. We have had only 10 speakers, and just in our party alone there are 98 members who would want to speak to this.
Can the government tell us, but more importantly, tell Canadians, what is the benefit to Canadians of shutting down the ability of members of Parliament to speak? Is this just dictatorship in its finest form?
Bill C-26--Time Allocation MotionCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
Toronto Centre Ontario
Liberal
Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, time allocation is the only tool that exists for a government to advance legislation when a stalemate exists. We have a duty to move forward all legislation, including important financial legislation, to make sure we move forward on the agenda that we have for Canadians.
I would like to just respond to some numbers. Including today, we have had eight days of debate on Bill C-26 at second reading. On Bill C-26, this has allowed nearly 70 members of Parliament, including nearly 40 Conservatives, to participate in debate so far. This represents nearly one half of the Conservative caucus.
Our government is committed to helping Canadians to achieve their goal of a safe, secure, and dignified retirement. We know that Bill C-26 would move forward that agenda in a way that would make a difference for all Canadians across this country. We are moving forward in a way that allows us to do what we know is right for Canadians.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Madam Speaker, my question is this: What is the hurry? We know that Bill C-26 is not going to have any benefit for anybody for 40 years. We know that it certainly will have a bad effect in terms of reducing GDP, killing jobs, and potentially hurting small businesses for the next 30 years. Understanding that it would do nothing to help Canadians today who are struggling in retirement and nothing good would come from it for at least 40 years, why is the government in such a hurry to take money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians and small businesses?
Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, we recognize that it is important that we deal with issues that have a long-term impact on Canadians, that help Canadians to put themselves in a better situation for the future.
We made a promise to Canadians that we would move forward and do that. By working collaboratively with the nine provinces that are signatories to the Canada pension plan, we know that we are doing what we want to do for Canadians in a collaborative way. We are doing it not only in a way that would ensure an impact over the long term, but also in a way that is gradual and recognizes that we ensure Canadians understand the slow and gradual imposition of the savings that would be in place in order for them to have better retirements.
We know this is the right approach and it is time for us to move forward.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Madam Speaker, it is the ninth time that the government brings in guillotine motions like time allocation. It is the third time in a week and a half that it has done this. So much for sunny ways.
The government is well aware of the problems with Bill C-26, a well-intentioned reform bill to fix the Canada pension plan. New Democrats have made many constructive comments, including the fact that this bill discriminates against women, primarily, who take time out to have children, and against people who have disabilities of various sorts.
How is this time allocation motion possibly consistent with the respectful procedures that the government promised in this place and that the Prime Minister was committed to addressing? How does this square with those promises?
Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, we made a commitment as a government to work collaboratively with all parties to ensure that Parliament works more efficiently. It is important that we try hard to come to a consensus on issues of importance and, in particular, how much time is required to debate issues that are important in the House of Commons.
Time allocation, as we know, is the only tool that exists for government to advance legislation when a stalemate exists. We have a duty to ensure that all legislation, including important financial legislation, is brought to a vote. We don't take these measures lightly. We remain committed to ensuring that members on all sides have sufficient and reasonable time to debate legislation in the House of Commons, but we also recognize our responsibility to ensure that we deliver on our commitments to Canadians.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, this is the ninth time the government wants to impose closure on parliamentary debates, which is really not okay. Nevertheless, I want to be a good sport. This bill does have the solitary merit of clearly defining the Liberals' vision as compared to that of the Conservatives. When faced with a looming issue, the Liberals choose the easy way out: they take more money out of people's pockets. The Conservatives would rather create tools that enable people to build up their savings.
The fact is that with this bill, people will have less money in their pockets, and job and wealth creators will have less money because these new changes will cost them nearly $1,000 per employee. A Department of Finance study showed that this move will reduce private investment, employment, the gross domestic product, and savings.
Considering how bad this looks for the Canadian economy, how can the Minister of Finance table such a bill?
Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The facts are clear. The reality currently facing Canadians is that they will have a difficult retirement in the future. That is why we reached an agreement with the nine provinces that are signatories to the Canada pension plan to improve our retirement program in Canada. We know that this will help ensure a better situation for Canadians in the future, and it will help make our economy stronger and more efficient. Those are the facts, because we did our research to make sure that this would help Canadians and boost our economy.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, this is a government that told Canadians it could run on slogans, selfies, and Hallmark card political aphorisms. However, when it is questioned about the policies that favour the 1%, it shuts down debate.
On the issue of pension reform, the tool the government is using is to try to limit the ability of the opposition to look at the serious problems. As New Democrats, we are committed to pension reform because of the pension crisis facing people in this country. Yet we find out that the government has deliberately excluded young mothers, who are going to be penalized. We have a Prime Minister who walks around calling himself a feminist, when we have policies that target women who step out of the workforce and policies that target those who are suffering from disabilities.
We have asked the government to fix it. It blows us off and says that one of the important tools it has is shutting down debate. This is not credible. This is a breach of what the Prime Minister promised.
My hon. colleague can remain a friend of the 1%, or he can actually stand up and start to speak for people who trusted the government to do something a little more honest. It can actually be a government that is a feminist government and that is willing to fix the obvious problems in the bill, or it can just shut down debate and carry on with its Hallmark card aphorisms.
Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, including today we have had eight days of debate on Bill C-26 at second reading. Again, this has allowed nearly 70 members of Parliament to participate in debate. This represents very significant percentages of both the Conservative members opposite and the New Democratic Party members opposite.
We have been very clear. The government is committed to improving retirement outcomes for Canadians, all Canadians. We are looking to introduce this measure because we know that it will improve the lives of Canadians in the future. It will be an improvement for all Canadians who are able to save in the Canada pension plan. We know that it will bring forth a better outcome in the future.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I am going to raise a larger concern. We went through ten years, and I know my friends on the Conservative benches may object to my reminding us, when we had a government that did many things the new government promised would not be repeated, including the use of time allocation repeatedly, but also in other areas of public policy.
The changes that were promised are not the changes we are seeing. It seems that 10 years of one style of policy gets us acclimatized to a certain amount of loss of democracy. I had hoped we were hitting the reset button and that we would not see the use of time allocation as frequently in this place.
Between 1914 and 1945, time allocation and shutting down debate was used seven times. While nine times in one year does not seem like a lot, when the previous government used it 100 times in one session of Parliament, the 41st Parliament, it is still against the essence of democracy in this place to shut down debate.
It is true, as the Minister of Finance says, that many parties have had a chance to weigh in on this debate. Members of Parliament in positions such as mine, in parties that are not recognized, those with fewer than 12 members, have not had the opportunity.
There are many questions to be asked about Bill C-26. The bigger question is whether the bar the new government set is to do better than the previous government or to do as well as it promised to do.
Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is an important one.
We know that we have things we need to do on behalf of Canadians. We came into office with a promise to improve the lives of middle-class Canadians and to improve the lives of those people who want to get into the middle class.
We know that the legislation we are putting forward in Bill C-26 is very important for the long-term health of our country. We cannot move forward on the things we need to move forward on if we do not have a way to manage effectively what we can put forward to Canadians.
Time allocation is the only tool that exists for government to advance legislation when a stalemate exists. We have a duty to ensure that we move forward our legislation.
We have provided eight days of debate so far on this measure. It is completely disingenuous to claim that we have not provided sufficient time for debate on this measure. We believe that it is important for Canadians, and we are looking forward to having a better outcome for Canadians in the future as a result of this measure.
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond Centre, BC
Madam Speaker, I have been in consultations across the nation with women entrepreneurs, young entrepreneurs, employees, and employers. What I found is that none of them are happy with the increase in CPP premiums.
The government says that it is good for seniors, but seniors now will not benefit from this new increase by even a cent. When I speak to seniors, they say that they do not even have a minister at the cabinet table fighting on their behalf. When I talk to seniors about how they are saving, they want the tax-free savings account. The current government has cut it down. Statistics show that it is the best way for seniors to save for a rainy day.
The job-killing CPP premium rate increase will kill jobs. Why is the minister killing jobs? Why is he doing so much damage to our seniors' savings?