Garnett Genuis

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the member, I think if a member is quoting the government House leader, he should attribute that quotation to the House leader.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen pretty clearly today that the government thinks that the only way to care is to control, that if we care about people's retirement, we have to take their money away and save it for them instead of giving them the means to do so themselves.

In response to my question earlier, another member said that there is nothing here that takes away people's ability to save for themselves, but the reality is that this means more money off people's paycheques. The cost to employers will make it much harder to hire people and to raise wages. The government has also cut back on tax-free savings accounts, which we know are disproportionately used by people with relatively modest incomes simply because of their relative value a savings vehicle compared to RRSPs.

Why is the government cutting back on savings opportunities specifically for Canadians of relatively modest means? Why is it taking money away from Canadians? Why does it think the only way to help Canadians save for retirement is to take away their ability to save for retirement?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member.

First, I would like to know why he does not think we should instead empower people to save for their own retirement by enhancing savings vehicles, things from which the government has pulled back.

Second, this may seem like a fine point, but the government's talking points continually refer to this issue of dignity. We are talking about a quarter to a third here. I am just curious about what the word “dignity” means in this context. Maybe we could think about a secure retirement or a financially stable retirement, and we would disagree about how to get there. However, I have concerns about the use of this word, just because I see human dignity as immutable, not something that is sort of an issue of the difference between 25% and 33%. I would be curious to hear the member's thoughts on what he means by that word in that context.

[Taxation, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has refused to answer a very simple question I submitted about whether taxpayer-funded nanny services he receives qualify as a taxable benefit. The current government promises transparency but has delivered the exact opposite. Canadians have a right to know about the benefits that elected officials receive. When it comes to these benefits, whether a benefit is taxable is not a matter of discretion; it is a matter of law and the Prime Minister has to follow the law, just like anyone else. If he receives a taxable benefit from his employer, in this case from the taxpayer, then he has to pay tax on it.

The Liberal talking point on these nannies is that the Prime Minister has different needs because he has a young family. Well I would say to him that he is not the only person in this House or in this country with a young family. When most people need outside child care, they pay for it.

The Prime Minister should be prepared to answer simple questions about the benefits he receives, the Prime Minister should not expect to receive free child care at taxpayers' expense, the Prime Minister should follow the law, and the Prime Minister should pay his taxes.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I do know that this member is very concerned about small businesses in my riding, whether they be olive importers or others.

I want to ask him specifically about the impact the proposal will have on small business. We have heard of studies done and concerns raised by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We do know that a survey was done in Ontario relating to the ORPP and the negative impact it would have on small business.

This proposal leads to a loss of jobs, fewer jobs created, and wage cuts. Would it not be better to use a private savings model in which individuals could earn just as much but save more of their money? Would that not be better for small businesses in my riding and his?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that my party has a very different view of these issues in terms of the level of control that individuals should have over their own lives. Certainly when it comes to people's financial decisions, the government and the NDP are clearly very anti-choice. Their view seems to be that caring means controlling, that if we care about people's retirement, it means we have to control it for them.

I will ask the hon. member this. Is there not a way that we can care very much about people having strong and well-cared-for retirements, while still believing that people can have control over their own retirements? We can enhance savings vehicles, whether it be the tax-free savings accounts, RRSPs, or make changes to RRIFs that I know my colleague proposed, to give people more control over their own retirements while also ensuring they have the resources to retire well.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I asked this question earlier of the minister, but I do not I got an answer, so I will try again.

We have a choice here between private savings and the private savings vehicles we strengthened as a previous Conservative government, and the current government's proposal to take away more of people's money essentially to save it for them.

We believe in the importance of savings, but one of the advantages of private savings is that individuals can save up for interim projects. It is not just retirement, but they can save money for a home, buy a home, and realize the value of that home in their retirement. They can save for education, put that money into an education, which then will give them increased earning potential in the future.

Our approach, which emphasis private savings, allows people to pull out of those savings for interim investments, which then will pay dividends in the long run. The government does not allow them to do that. It forces them to save for retirement and does not allow them to use those other savings vehicles for important interim projects.

Recognizing the advantage of private savings and of incentives for private savings over this model, would the member not agree with us that a better approach would be the changes we brought in, which the Liberals reversed, such as the tax-free savings accounts and perhaps further reforms to RRSPs to make the home buyers plan more flexible? Would that not be a better way to go rather than the direction the government has gone?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have ably discussed many of the issues around time allocation. I want to ask a question specifically on Bill C-26.

Many people, when they put money aside privately, are not just saving for their retirement, but for interim priorities. They are maybe saving for an education, and then after realizing the value of that education, start to save for a new home, and then realize the value of that home to help them save for retirement. But the government, by restricting the eligible investments people can make in tax-free savings accounts, and by taking more money away from them and saving for them on their behalf, robs people of the ability to use their savings for interim projects, things like education, buying a home, and investing in a business.

Is this not another reason why we are much better off empowering people to save for their own futures, as well as long-term projects? Are we not better off doing it that way than by having a government-knows-best approach?

[Foreign Affairs, November 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it is a little bit frustrating, because I asked this parliamentary secretary a specific question, and we hear verbally about the government's commitment to human rights, but we almost never hear specifics.

To say that having many ambassadors where this is included in the government's mandate, respectfully is clearly not the same as having an ambassador who has an expertise and a focus on raising issues of religious freedom.

I asked about where the programming is. She identified some programming that does not at least appear from those brief descriptions to be specifically focused on religious freedom at all, and I asked, where the programming on religious freedom is. If the government is actually committed to continuing this, why can she not identify programming? Maybe it is because that programming is not actually happening anymore. In fact, the programs she identified in some cases, as she said, predate the creation of this new office.

It is just not enough for the government to verbally say these things about international human rights, but when the rubber hits the road, to actually never undertake the programming, never undertake the steps that matter.

I asked the member recently in question period to condemn violations of human rights—

[Foreign Affairs, November 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and follow up on a question I asked earlier about the Office of Religious Freedom, the government's decision to abolish it, and the still new and undefined, what we have called “office of everything”, that was dressed up as a replacement to it.

I will provide a bit of background. The Office of Religious Freedom was instituted under the previous government but at the time there were no objections, in fact, there was some support from the party represented by members opposite.

The Office of Religious Freedom was an innovative model in that it was situated within the Department of Foreign Affairs and it was very much well-positioned to work collaboratively with the rest of the department, to inform the work of the department, to listen to the department, to provide feedback, to provide training, these sorts of things. It also had its own ambassador who had the capacity to speak out publicly and advocate on the issue. The office did advocacy work and it provided training and support within the department. It also ran active programs on the ground that were making a difference in respect to promoting religious freedom.

I will say parenthetically that recently I was in the United States where I had the opportunity to meet with a senior official from the American equivalent. I cannot remember the exact title, but it is the office of religious freedom within the state department. There was a recognition of the importance of Canada being at the table on these issues, the way in which religious freedom as a human right has not been perhaps emphasized historically as much as some other rights, and how the Americans have been active on this file but Canada can bring a unique perspective coming out of our own history in terms of pluralism, and our long history of religious tolerance and accommodation. There was also the recognition that we do not have some of the baggage that maybe former colonial powers or the Americans have.

There were major opportunities for Canada to lead in this area but after taking power the government instead chose to eliminate the Office of Religious Freedom. Its new office really lacks focus. There is certainly important work to do when it comes to human rights but there is no more focus on religious freedom that the previous office provided.

If the government was interested in a focused and serious way in moving forward with some of these other human rights issues that it mentioned, one being dealing with indigenous rights abroad, which is a worthwhile thing for Canada to be involved in and speak about, then it should do so.

The Office of Religious Freedom model could have been replicated with another small separate office. There would have been more effective ways of building on the past success of the Office of Religious Freedom rather than burning it to the ground and trying to start from the ground up.

I would challenge the government on this point. If its new office is actually important, if the government is actually invested in international human rights, then why not have an ambassador? The absence of an ambassador and the fact that this new creation is simply led by a director means that it is a significant downgrade in terms of the profile of the office. It does not have the profile or the capacity to do public advocacy in the same way as Ambassador Bennett at the Office of Religious Freedom previously did. His work was praised by government members before they decided to get rid of this office.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary: Why not have an ambassador? We may disagree on the model, and we may disagree on exactly what kind of office is best, but at least why not have an ambassador? The elimination of the position of ambassador advocating for international human rights in this respect really shows the government's lack of interest in this.

The last we heard on programming was that this new office was looking for programming opportunities. I hope the parliamentary secretary is prepared to at least provide some update. What is this office doing in terms of programming that addresses religious freedom?