SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 334 - Jun/18/24

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Jun/18/24 1:51:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. The Liberals call it Bill C-65, the electoral participation act, but maybe it would be more accurately titled as the “Help our friends qualify for a pension act.” Perhaps that was an unwritten part of the deal by which the New Democrats have propped up the incompetent Liberal government for two years, two years that have shown us this was not a good deal for Canadians. The NDP pharmacare program only covers two types of medication, which is not what Canadians were promised. It is just another broken promise, like so many the NDP have supported. Now, though, there would be guaranteed pensions for those first elected to the House of Commons in the general election of 2019, pensions they would not qualify for if the 2025 election were held at its scheduled date of October 20, 2025. What a reward for propping up the Liberals. This bill, rather than encouraging electoral participation, would delay the day when Canadian voters can hold parliamentarians to account in a federal election. In the process, it ensures that taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars in pension payments that might not have been required. The government tells us that the next election cannot be held as scheduled on October 20, 2025, because it conflicts with Diwali, a festival celebrated by many Canadians. The Liberals want to move it a week later, to October 27. It is merely a coincidence that 80 members of Parliament would qualify for a pension on October 26, 2025, a pension they would not qualify for if they were to be defeated on October 20 or if they choose not to offer themselves to the voters once more. Of course, just about every day is a holiday or a special occasion for someone. October 20, 2025, is Guatemala's revolution day. It is also Heroes' Day in Kenya, Jamaica and the British Virgin Islands. For Jews, it is Sukkoth. Let us not forget the date is also International Chefs Day and World Osteoporosis Day. Serbia will be celebrating Belgrade Liberation Day on that day. In Vietnam, it is Women's Day. In Ukraine, it is breast cancer awareness day. Those are all dates worthy of celebrating, even if the Liberals do not mention them as important enough to mention as a reason for changing the fixed election date. There is no perfect date for an election, no date that does not conflict with something else for some people. That is why we already have advance polling in place. Even more, those unable to get to an advance poll can vote anytime at the returning office in their riding. No one is being forced to vote on Diwali. Who is the government trying to fool? The date change is not about Diwali; it is about securing pensions. If that were not the case, why not move the date earlier in October or even into September? The Canadian Taxpayers Federation tells us that the change means 80 additional MPs would be eligible to collect a pension. The estimated lifetime pension costs, should all 80 of those members lose their seats or opt to retire rather than face voters, is $120 million. We already know that $120 million means nothing to the Liberals. Having saddled Canadians with record deficits and the biggest national debt in our history, they apparently do not see that as an amount worth worrying about. What they do not seem to realize is that people care about government spending. Canadians understand debts must be repaid. Canadians know it is ludicrous to pay more on interest to service the debt than we pay on health care. Canadians realize that such a fiscal irresponsibility needs to stop. It is also too bad that Liberals and their NDP allies seem incapable of grasping the simple math involved. As custodians of the public purse, the $120 million should make us pause and think before supporting this legislation. However, neither the Liberals nor the NDP have shown any understanding of the value of a dollar. They seem to believe that government can spend and spend, and who cares if it is our grandchildren or great-grandchildren who have to pay the bills. All that matters is that they get their pensions. I am sure that once I am finished and the floor is open to questions, some brave Liberals or New Democrats will point out to me that there are many Conservatives who would benefit if the bill passes. That is true, but Conservatives are united in their opposition to the legislation, even those who stand to benefit if it passes. This is a matter of principle and honour. Conservatives do not believe in changing the rules to benefit themselves. I would like to list the names of those who are set to benefit from the legislation. The Canadian people need to know who would make money from the change. I think those names should be in the record of the House; however, the rules prevent me from naming them. The rules and conventions of this place, as it is sometimes the case, allow members to pretend that the truth does not matter. What Canadians do know is that when the former members of Parliament receive the pension cheques, money that came from Canadian taxpayers, they will have the former members' names on them. They will not be addressed to “the minister of the environment” or to “President of the Treasury Board”. Nowhere will the cheques read “payable to the parliamentary secretary” or “payable to Minister of Environment and Climate Change”. Whether they are for the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona or the member of Parliament for Don Valley North, the pension cheques will have their names, the names of real people, but under the rules, I cannot mention those names here. No wonder so many Canadians are fed up with this place and feel that all politicians are hypocrites. I should point out that any member who would be affected by the date change, anyone who was first elected in the general election of 2019, would be in a conflict of interest if they vote in favour of the bill. The Conflict of Interest Act is quite clear: ...a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests. [Furthermore] no public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest. No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall, in his or her capacity as a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, debate or vote on a question that would place him or her in a conflict of interest.

1218 words

Context: House Hansard - 334 - Jun/18/24

Mr. Darrell Samson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 4:45:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very important question. We realize that since COVID it has been challenging out there. Affordability is a big issue. Our government has been focused on supporting Canadians through various programs. Two that I want to speak of are our Canada child benefit and the early years benefit, which are helping young families prior to children's entering school, and then afterward, helping them and supporting them. Those are two big programs in my riding. I would like the member to share how people in his riding are responding and sharing some feedback on affordability when looking at some of the investments we have put in place to support families.

119 words

Context: House Hansard - 334 - Jun/18/24

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Jun/18/24 5:11:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had the benefit of being in the same finance committee meeting as my hon. colleague this morning where I heard the same evidence about the capital gains inclusion rates. Of course, most of what my hon. colleague has just said in here was simply contradicted by the evidence, including that there is zero evidence that the capital gains inclusion would have any negative effect on job creation in this country. The member seems to be opposed to raising the capital gains inclusion rate. I am wondering if he can explain why the Mulroney Conservative government raised the capital gains inclusion rate in 1988 from 50% to 66.67%, and then again, in 1990, to 75%. Were the Conservatives wrong about the capital gains inclusion rate then, or are they wrong now?

134 words