Debates of Nov. 30th, 2018

Poverty Reduction Act

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her comprehensive list of ideas and initiatives that she clearly supports and has been a long-time advocate for. They are measures that our government is considering, in particular around EI reform and around making sure we do more than just the Canada child benefit—for example, the $7.5 billion investments in early learning and child care, which are locked in now for the next 10 years in bilaterals with the various provinces.

As well, the investments with indigenous governments and an indigenous-led child care program are part of those long-term investments that go well beyond the Canada child benefit, which has already lifted 300,000 children out of poverty.

I have a question for the member opposite, because I have raised this issue a dozen times in the House now, and I still have not had an explanation. On page 66 of their platform, when considering the housing crisis in this country—which the party opposite spoke about prior to the last election, so it could not have been absent from their imagination as they put together a platform—in 2017, 2018 and 2019, their investments into affordable housing were zero, zero and zero. Also their spending, their attack, on homelessness—which we have doubled to $220 million by increasing it by $100 million—was only going to be $10 million a year.

Finally, the only commitment they made to the indigenous housing program was $25 million, which would have been delivered this year, and that was for all the water plants, all the schools, all the hospitals, all the community centres and all the housing, including repairs to the housing, which she spoke of as being overcrowded.

Do they regret the platform they put in front of Canadians the last time? Will they promise to do better in the next election?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one day, I will be pleased to be part of the government and to hear my colleague tell me what I am not doing to reduce poverty.

My colleague talked about EI reform, but the government needs to invest in the EI fund. The government has not put a cent into the EI fund since the early 1990s. That led to the Liberal reform in 1996 and the Conservative reform 10 years later. Today, six in 10 workers do not have access to EI.

The government is generous enough to create new programs, but it is raiding the EI fund to do so, even though it is not contributing to that fund. If the Liberals reform employment insurance, they will either have to pay into the fund or do away with EI sickness benefits and caregiving benefits. They will also have to do away with maternity and parental benefits. When women want to return to the labour market, they are penalized and do not have access to EI.

My colleague spoke about child care services. He is not talking about an affordable universal child care program, but that is what we need. When Quebec established a child care program, women were able to return to the job market. The program had a major impact.

The provinces are already doing a great deal with respect to child care. With regard to eliminating and reducing poverty, many provinces have much more ambitious objectives than the federal government. Community organizations and municipalities are on board. The provinces and territories are ready. All that is needed to truly eradicate poverty is strong leadership from the government.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Montreal has community shops called share stores. The largest is located in the riding of Hochelaga. Every share store serves between 500 and 800 households. I fear that they will be serving just as many people next year, because this strategy has no teeth.

Leilani Farha, executive director of Canada Without Poverty and UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, said that unfortunately, the CPRS does not introduce any significant new programs to address our disproportionately high rates of poverty in Canada, relying instead on the programs this government has released since 2015.

Does my colleague share my fears?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the same concerns as my colleague.

I have a short anecdote that speaks volumes. This summer, I attended a golf tournament dinner for a foundation that helps raise money for a palliative care home in Saint-Hyacinthe. One of the two co-chairs of the fundraiser, a prominent businessman in my region, said a few words. He told the 200 people attending the event, people with means, that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing and that it is their responsibility to fight against poverty. I could not believe it. When the richest people in our society realize that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing and that it makes no sense, it is time to turn things around.

The government talks about 300,000 children who have been lifted out of poverty through the Canada child benefit, but there are still 1.4 million children in need and we have to do something for them.

[Filomena Tassi, Minister of Seniors, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-87. The bill is important and needs the support of all parliamentarians. It is important because it is enacting legislation for Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy brings together the many elements of poverty reduction policies and programs that our government has introduced and implemented since taking office.

Since 2015, our government has been focused on growth that benefits everyone. We have taken concrete steps to strengthen the middle class and help those working hard to join it. Today, I would like to use my time to speak more specifically about some of these concrete measures and steps we have taken.

I want to mention one of the first things we did upon coming into office. Of course, I am talking about improving the income security of our Canadian seniors. We all know that Canada's population is aging. Canada has a growing number of seniors. There are approximately 6.4 million people who are 65 years of age and over. In the 2016 census, for the first time our seniors population outnumbered the number of our youth 14 and under. In the next 25 years this number is estimated to reach over 11 million people, which represents one-quarter of the population.

Any way we look at it, Canadians are living longer and healthier lives. This increasing longevity is good news, and it should be celebrated, because it brings with it more wisdom, experience and expertise that is being offered to our communities. We are grateful for the contributions that our seniors make to our homes, our families, our places of worship and our workplaces, and we want to ensure their vibrant participation.

However, as a government, we recognize it is our duty to make sure that seniors have the support they need to thrive and to prosper. I am honoured and humbled to serve in the role of minister of seniors. When I was first appointed, the Prime Minister asked me to do something very important. He asked me to travel across the country and to listen to our seniors, their family members and organizations that work with and for seniors, and I have been doing that. I concede that income security is stated as something that is important to our seniors.

Also, let us look at the factors facing Canada's seniors today. Study after study has shown that women are especially vulnerable to financial difficulties. In fact, almost all single female seniors who live in poverty rely on government benefits as their major source of income. For a number of seniors, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are not extra sources of disposable income. For many, they are the only sources of income and are used to pay rent and to buy food.

Our government knows the facts. We have taken steps to improve seniors' income security. That is where the old age security program comes in. The old age security program, OAS, has a clear purpose, and that is to provide a minimum level of income to seniors and contribute to their income replacement in retirement. The OAS program is actually composed of a number of benefits. First is the OAS pension, which is paid to everyone who is 65 years of age and older who meets the residence and legal status requirements. Second is the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors. Third, are the allowances for low-income Canadians aged 60 to 64 who are the spouses or common-law partners of GIS recipients, or who are widows or widowers.

Recognizing income security as an issue for seniors, when we came to office we immediately repealed the previous government's measure to move the eligibility age for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67. This act, in and of itself, prevented 100,000 seniors from entering into poverty. The benefits under the OAS pension are putting thousands of dollars into the pockets of the lowest-income Canadian seniors each year.

Another of our actions was to increase the guaranteed income supplement by up to $947 per year for the most vulnerable single seniors. This improved the financial security of close to 900,000 seniors and is lifting approximately 57,000 seniors out of poverty. It was the right thing to do.

Last year we launched a new automatic enrolment for the guaranteed income supplement benefit for those who are entitled to it. The GIS provides much-needed monthly non-taxable benefits to OAS pension recipients who have a low income. As of last December, when eligible seniors are automatically enrolled for OAS, Employment and Social Development Canada automatically reviews their household income to see if they are eligible for GIS benefits. If they are eligible, they are automatically enrolled without needing to apply. There are now 210,000 seniors receiving this benefit as a result of automatic enrolment.

Each month over 18,000 individuals turning 64 years of age are automatically enrolled in the OAS pension. This means that these clients are also being automatically assessed for their eligibility for GIS without ever having to complete an application.

Our actions to improve seniors' income security does not stop there. We have also enhanced the Canada pension plan for today's workers. This enhancement will increase the CPP retirement benefits people receive when they retire. It will also provide larger benefits for contributors with disabilities, widows and widowers. This also means that contributions are increasing accordingly, typically by 1% for most people. Enhanced benefits will grow over time as people work and contribute to the plan. Today's youngest workers will receive up to 50% more from the CPP when they retire. These changes to the CPP will reduce the number of families at risk of not being able to maintain their quality of life in retirement by a quarter.

In the area of workplace pensions, our government made a commitment in the 2018 budget, restated in my mandate letter, to consult with stakeholders on this very important issue. I am very pleased to announce that last week, together with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, we announced that consultations have now been opened nationally. I would encourage all Canadians who have expertise or who wish to share a story to go online and give their valuable input on this very important matter.

Our government is looking for a solution that works, not a Band-Aid solution. This is a decades old problem. We recognize the seriousness and the complexity of this problem, and we are working to get this right.

Seniors are an important part of our communities, and our government places enormous value on their contributions. We know that when a senior can contribute to society, everyone benefits. Seniors have so much to contribute, and we want to encourage them to continue to make these worthy contributions. It is only fair that they get the recognition and support they need so they can have the secure retirement they deserve and can look forward to the years ahead. Bill C-87 would help us do just that by enacting legislation for Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. It is up to all of us in this House to decide whether they want to contribute to the well-being of Canada's seniors. It is my hope that all parliamentarians will vote in favour of this legislation.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about senior poverty rates. As I understand the data, it is actually identical to when we took office. The one thing that I have not seen is a reduction in the poverty rates for seniors.

I also find it absolutely stunning that the government has a bill without anything in the annex. It is kind of like today, when we heard that the government is going to have child welfare legislation and introduce a bill someday. Here we have a bill introduced that really does not have any teeth to make meaningful difference for people on the ground. As we analyze what the government does, its ability to talk without making a real difference for people in communities who are suffering is quite stunning.

[Filomena Tassi]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, our government has invested $22 billion across all programs since we have taken office. This has resulted in lifting 650,000 Canadians out of poverty.

With respect to the issue she raises of seniors, which she knows is close to my heart, the stats according to Canada's official poverty line of the MBM method say that in 2015, we were at 5.1% and in 2016 at 4.9%.

However, we recognize that there is more work to do and that is why this legislation is so important. This legislation is taking the bold move of recording, of coming up with a poverty line and committing to that line. I have had constituents and others talk to me about the importance of committing to a measure and then tracking it. That is exactly what we are doing in this legislation.

With respect to seniors, the OAS and the GIS rollback from 67 to 65 has prevented 100,000 seniors from going into poverty. As well, we had the GIS increase, the bump-up, which lifted 57,000 seniors out of poverty. It is just unfortunate that the Conservatives did not support either of those two measures. However, we are going to continue to work hard to ensure that our seniors receive the secure future they deserve.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question about this important bill. However, I am disappointed that the government voted against Bill C-245 introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Her bill proposed bringing in a national anti-poverty strategy and was far better than the government's.

When we were debating my colleague's bill, the government said it was not good enough and that it would do better. Now we have a bill in front of us that is less ambitious than my colleague's, including when it comes to the proposed method for measuring the extent of the problem. The government has decided to use the market basket measure. Under the old method of measuring poverty, there were 828,000 seniors living in poverty in 2016, while the new method indicates that there are 284,000 seniors living in poverty. This new calculation tells us that 600,000 seniors no longer live in poverty when in reality, they still do on a daily basis.

Why did my colleague decide to use the less ambitious method for measuring poverty in Canada?

[Filomena Tassi]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am working on my French and I think it is important to eventually get to the point where I am bilingual. I will continue to work on that.

This is a very bold plan. The market basket measure also takes into consideration other services like health services. I would say that our government is committing to a very bold plan. The plan is to reduce poverty by 20% by 2020 and by 50% by 2030. If we look at the Canadians who are living in poverty now, we will be at 10% by 2020 and 6% by 2030. Ultimately, we would like to see it at zero per cent.

We will continue to work hard to ensure that our government's programs and policies keep this in mind and drive the poverty rate in our country down.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the people in my constituency of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for giving me the honour of speaking on Bill C-87, the poverty reduction act. This is an exciting time.

Canada is a great nation and many people want to immigrate to this great country. We continue to focus on and work hard toward a just society, but we want the wealthiest Canadians to pay their fair share and to do a little more to help the middle class, by helping to create opportunities for those in the middle class and those striving to be part of it. We need to make sure there are safety nets in place so that people do not fall below the poverty line. We have a responsibility to help those below the poverty line join the middle class. That is the focus.

It is hard to believe that in Canada one in eight Canadians is below the poverty line. We talk about all the great things that are happening, but we still have more work to do. Throughout my speech, I will indicate the many areas where our government is focusing investment on different initiatives to ensure that we are helping, as I said, those below the poverty line, those striving to join the middle class and middle-class Canadians.

We have set clear targets in this bill. We have committed to reducing poverty by 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2030. To do that, we must have a baseline for poverty to monitor whether people are above or below the baseline. This is the first time we have had a baseline and an automatic review as we move forward so that we can make the adjustments required.

This act would establish a national advisory council that would give advice to the minister and monitor the activities on the ground, where funding is going and whether it is achieving the objectives we have set. We are also going to consult. The advisory council will consult with all Canadians, including academics, communities, indigenous peoples and people living below the poverty line. They are very important.

There is transparency in this bill. Each year, we will have to report to the minister on the progress happening on the ground. As well, the advice of the council to the minister will be made public. That is transparency. We will report the progress made toward our targets and whether the minister is following through on the advice being given to him. Those are clear steps.

When I talk about a just society, as I indicated, we need to make sure that the wealthiest Canadians are paying their share and that we are lifting up those who live below the poverty line. We need to make sure that we are helping those striving to join the middle class. We need to ensure that we create opportunities so that the middle class can continue to prosper and that more people can contribute, including the wealthiest Canadians. It is important to have safety nets to ensure that people in the middle class are not falling below the poverty line.

There are three very important pillars that are part of this bill, and that is what I want to focus my speech on. What have we done, what are we doing and what will we do to ensure that all Canadians live above the poverty line and that all Canadians have opportunities?

Let us look at what we have done when it comes to the first pillar, which is basic needs. Shortly after coming into power, we introduced the CCB, which contributes directly to families with kids to help them. In my riding alone, $5.2 million per month is received by families through the CCB. That is $60 million a year. That is happening across the country. It is very important.

We have invested $40 billion over 10 years in a national housing strategy. In the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, 155 units have been built in the last year and a half. That is an investment of over $1 million.

On affordable housing, our government is focusing on vulnerable people: seniors, veterans, families fleeing domestic violence, and people with disabilities. Homelessness is very challenging as well. The veterans affairs committee is now discussing homeless veterans and how to ensure that we can identify them and help them. One key avenue is housing.

We have done other things to support our veterans. The Canadian Forces income support, the caregiver recognition benefit and the war veterans allowance are major investments to support our veterans.

The second pillar is education. Education is the equalizer. Therefore, we have invested in early learning. We have invested $11 million over three years in Nova Scotia alone. We have invested in Canada student grants and loans for low-income Canadians to support these individuals.

We have invested in veterans with the education and training benefit. It is $40,000 if they have six years of service and $80,000 if they have 12 years of service.

We have invested $450 million in indigenous skills and employment. There is also a youth employment strategy, a women's apprenticeship incentive, pay equity legislation, and of course, the accessibility legislation debated a couple of weeks ago.

I need to speak about black Canadians. In my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Preston is the oldest black community in Canada, and we have the biggest black cultural centre in Canada.

The last pillar is the safety net to ensure that people do not fall below the poverty line. We introduced the new Canada workers benefit, which has seen two million Canadians lifted into the middle class.

We reduced the wait time for employment insurance from two weeks to one week, and we introduced the parental sharing benefit, which is an five additional weeks for parents.

Finally, we have made enhancements to the Canada pension plan, because we know that Canadians today do not have access to benefits and pensions like they did before. This will help them with a strong Canada pension plan.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his passion. His voice is practically still ringing in the House.

I am going to ask a very practical question. Looking at the reality in my riding, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I see that there are 14,000 people who earn less than $10,000 a year and 36,000 people in total who earn less than $20,000 a year. I represent a riding where roughly 80% of people are renters. One-third of them spend more than 30% of their budget on housing. I am talking about real poverty. Unfortunately, most of the money in the Liberal plan to build social and affordable housing is not going to flow until several years from now, but these people need help now.

What does my colleague have to say to these people who need social housing now?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is important to recognize that we have built over 14,000 buildings for housing. That is extremely important. It is also important to note our many other investments. We cannot address poverty with just one strategy. All the other strategies I mentioned in my speech are extremely important. There is another point I want to make, but I am going to say it in English to be perfectly clear.

Do not let perfect be the enemy of good.

This strategy might not be perfect, but it is very good. We will keep working to ensure that future plans are excellent.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was just doing a little research, and I see the Netherlands has probably the lowest rate of poverty among seniors of anywhere in the world. In Canada, back in 1976 about 36% of seniors were on the poverty role, and now that has dropped considerably down to the level where we are today. Noting that, the only way the Netherlands can keep its numbers down is by supporting its seniors by way of pensions. Everyone gets a pension.

I wonder why the Liberal government, in its Bill C-87, did not address the issue of pensions for seniors who have lived in Canada for at least 55 or 65 years of their life.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that there is no question we are challenged with a changing demographic in the sense that there are more seniors today, and as we move forward there will be even more. My riding had the biggest increase in the number of seniors in the last five years in Nova Scotia. Therefore, we have to do much more for seniors.

In the example the member gave, the Netherlands is also the country that has the third or fourth highest taxes in the world. We have to be careful to find a balanced approach, and it is many prongs that will do that.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I also note that one of the taxes the Netherlands has is a carbon tax, but we will put that off to another day and another debate. The Netherlands too has priced pollution and also is eliminating cars in the downtown core by 2030. The Netherlands also has an incredibly aggressive housing program.

I wonder if the member opposite could reflect on the fact that we have spent $5.6 billion so far and we have 14,000 units of housing approved, under construction or built. Particularly when it comes to seniors, 12,000 of the 60,000 units that will be built under the national housing strategy are dedicated for seniors, including 20% of the units being universally accessible for people to age in place and age comfortably, if they have disabilities now but also into the future. I wonder if the member could also reflect on whether those programs are things that the member opposite supports and sees as important ways to reduce poverty in this country.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. We have invested $5.6 billion. There is no question that I am seeing it in my riding with seniors and housing, but as I indicated, we are also answering to many vulnerable people. We are also speaking about veterans, seniors and people with disabilities. The investment is very high, but it is over time because it takes time to build these units as we move forward.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, who is always very lively when he speaks in the House. However, I find it unfortunate that he has once again demonstrated that the Liberals are spending with abandon. They do not have a plan and they are certainly not getting results.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-87, an act respecting the reduction of poverty.

On November 6, 2018, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development introduced the poverty reduction bill. According to the summary, the bill “enacts the Poverty Reduction Act, which provides for an official metric and other metrics to measure the level of poverty in Canada, sets out two poverty reduction targets in Canada and establishes the National Advisory Council on Poverty”.

I want to begin by telling the government that poverty exists in Canada. They can implement measures, set up an advisory council and create organizations that will assess and consult, but I can say right now, on November 30, 2018, that poverty still exists here in Canada. Unfortunately, one in six Canadians are living in poverty. I think it is important to consider that and to implement the measures necessary to meet these people's real needs.

The act provides for the creation of a national advisory council on poverty. This council would be considered a full-time committee and its members would be employees of the Government of Canada. The government is adding a layer of bureaucracy and expenses that will serve its machinery before serving the poor. That is the unfortunate part of the bill being introduced today. We are not against helping the poor, on the contrary, but we should be looking after them and not the Liberal machinery of government.

There is no need to bring in legislation to change how the government measures poverty. We all know that there are poor people in Canada. What concrete action will be taken tomorrow to improve the comfort and quality of life of these Canadians who have the right to be respected? This could have been done quickly and concretely with the structures already in place. However, the government prefers to put in place measures, mechanisms and structures.

Creating an official poverty line could help the government because it creates an illusion. We know that this government likes to wave a magic wand and use smoke and mirrors. However, we know that there are no results and that we are light years away from seeing any, just like a balanced budget.

I remind members that during the 2015 election campaign, the government told Canadians that it would run a small deficit and then balance the budget in 2019. We have no idea when the budget will be balanced, so I am compelled to say that the government misled Canadians.

More than 1,000 people representing organizations from across the country attended workshops and breakout groups on more than 40 topics, with the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. Once again, the people who work with organizations and with the less fortunate have solutions, and they are saying that this bill does not meet its objective.

Our leader, the Leader of the Opposition and member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, introduced a bill supporting new parents. This bill would have eliminated taxes on maternity and parental benefits. This is one of many meaningful measures. The Conservatives are working to help real people: workers and the less fortunate.

We can work with them to find meaningful solutions, instead of creating organizations and structure, which creates more red tape, since public servants must be hired. Money is being thrown around everywhere, but it is not going to the right places. I can suggest measures. All my colleague from Québec has to do is ask and I would be happy to make some suggestions.

The Liberals are also hurting Canadian families by cancelling measures. They say they want to help the poor, but the got rid of income splitting and tax credits that helped Canadians families, such as the children's fitness tax credit and the post-secondary education credit.

Conservatives are ready to get behind measures that work. The government is proposing measures to “evaluate” and “consult” and “look at options”, but nothing is really happening and poor people are entitled to help from the Canadian government. These are respectable people.

We need to raise overall standards by creating jobs, enabling these people to achieve their goals, respecting them, and giving them incentives to go to work so we can elevate our society as a whole. These people can participate in society, and I am ready to work with them, but the government is not creating a system that can make that happen. On the contrary, it is creating structures. It says it wants to help the least fortunate, but unfortunately, it is spending recklessly. Its approach makes no sense.

I will give an example of the Liberal government's wastefulness. The Liberals spent $500,000 on developing a logo, trademark and name for an agency to help the less fortunate around the world. Wow. The advisory council is simply an aid agency, but the Liberals decided to spent $500,000 on its image and not on helping the poor, the less fortunate, or our constituents. This government is all about image.

In addition, it spent $4.5 billion to buy an old pipeline. Imagine how many people could have been helped with that money. Then, the Minister of Finance invested $210,000 on producing a budget cover. Plus, on September 19, the government led by our member for Papineau treated itself. It bought 86 bottles of wine, 196 beers, six small bottles of vodka and no less than $143,000 in food. All of that was consumed during a short trip abroad. What about the poor? What do they get?

As for the vacation with the Aga Khan, that cost $127,000. That is the amount we know about, but it is possible that more money was spent. We do not really have an accurate picture of the situation. On top of that, the Prime Minister's tweet that said “Welcome to Canada” is going to cost Canadian taxpayers $1.1 billion because of the illegal immigrants crossing the border. I can give plenty of numbers. In his speech, my colleague talked a lot about numbers and sums of money. I can give those, too, but I can prove that it is wasteful spending.

We agree that solutions need to be found. This coming weekend, many organizations in my riding are hosting holiday food and toy drives. I am proud to say I will be attending drives in Saint-Augustin and Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier on Sunday morning to raise money for the poor. That is what meaningful action looks like. This government is incapable of taking action and keeping its promises. It always gives only in theory, which is unfortunate.

We will be voting in favour of the bill at the next stage, but I hope the government is listening to what I am asking it to do, which is improve the bill so that it directly benefits those most in need.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite aware that the House is normally reluctant to circumvent the PMB process by giving unanimous consent to PMB bills. However, today we are faced with an extraordinary situation, where the next bill we are about to debate, Bill S-234, has no sponsor and will be killed if it does not get unanimous consent.

Since this bill is also totally uncontroversial, I am hoping we can pass it at all stages without using any more of the House's most precious resource, which is time.

There have been discussions among the parties, and I hope to get unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-234, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act with regard to the parliamentary visual artist laureate, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sorry, but there is no unanimous consent.

At this time, the House still has not designated a sponsor for Bill S-234, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act with regard to the parliamentary visual artist laureate. Accordingly, pursuant to the statement I made on Monday, September 17, the bill will be dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(c).

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, it being 1:32 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:32 p.m.)