44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 18, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/18/24 11:14:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I get to my question, the member mentioned an employee who received his master's today. An employee of mine in my Hill office received two master's degrees. I do not like to be outdone by a Conservative, so I will note that. As well as having a dual master's in political science, he has been accepted into the Ph.D. program. Again, I want to congratulate my employee, Liam O'Brien.
When the member talks about moving to the election, has he spoken to the 32-plus members on his side who would not qualify for a pension when they do not get re-elected?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 11:50:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the parts of the bill that he, like us, considers very important. However, he avoided talking about postponing the elections, a proposal supposedly aimed at accommodating Canada's Indian communities for Diwali, the festival of lights.
Can my colleague look me in the eye and tell me that the Liberals are not using Diwali as a pretext for allowing 22 Liberal members and three ministers to qualify for a pension?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:49:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as is often the case with the Liberals, this is a pretty hypocritical piece of legislation. On the pretext of expanding democracy or access to democracy for senior citizens, students and so forth, we are presented with a bill that is actually aimed at allowing Liberal members at risk of losing their election to qualify for a pension.
If such a thing is even possible in the House, I would like my colleague to tell us in good conscience what he thinks of the substance of this bill. At a time when there is a housing crisis, when senior citizens are struggling and when every dollar is needed to help Canadians, what does he think of the fact that we are spending hours debating and voting on a bill aimed solely at allowing Liberal members to collect a pension? When he looks into his heart, what does he think of this?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 3:02:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Larry the plumber from Winnipeg told the finance committee this morning that the Liberal change to the capital gains tax is not fair to his generation. He is not wealthy. He does not have a gold-plated public sector pension or a trust fund to fall back on, like the Prime Minister—
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 3:02:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Larry the plumber from Winnipeg told the finance committee this morning that the Liberal change to the capital gains tax is not fair to his generation. He is not wealthy. He does not have a gold-plated public sector pension or a trust fund to fall back on, like the Prime Minister. He worked hard to build a small plumbing company, to save for retirement, for his family, and now, the Prime Minister is pulling the rug out from his retirement plan, penalizing his hard work.
Will the Prime Minister exempt plumbers like Larry from the capital gains increase, yes or no?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 5:09:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that when we form government, Canadians would be able to realize the Canadian dream.
The member is asking why we voted against some of those measures. Well, it is clear to see that we do not want to be complicit in the economic vandalism of this Liberal-NDP government, which, after the last nine years, sent two million Canadians to a food bank and made one in four go into poverty.
We are not gullible like the NDP, which needs to protect our leaders' pension like they keep doing by propping up the government. We are going to do what is right for Canadians. We would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring back that Canadian dream.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 5:12:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, the member was in the committee when a small business owner was there, a plumber, who did everything right, worked as hard as he could to leave something for his kids and their kids, but the capital gains tax is going to punish all that hard work. This member sat there, yet he would rather listen to Liberal-NDP-paid economists than everyday, hard-working Canadians. That is a problem with the government. It keeps propping up the Prime Minister to protect its leader's pension, all at the expense of the suffering of Canadians.
Second, let me remind the member that when John Manley, who was the finance minister under the Liberals, reduced the capital gains tax to 50%, what ended up happening? Well, productivity went up. Government revenues went up. Do members know why? It is because it helped stimulate the economy once again.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 6:50:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way talked about the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio, but that only matters if the government is including the assets of the CPP, the Canada Pension Plan, but excluding the liabilities for future payout. When one looks at the gross debt, we are actually the 22nd worst out of 29 in the entire OECD, and we are near the bottom of the G7.
Could the member across the way commit to using the real numbers instead of the dodgy fact or the dodgy misinformation he is using today?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 6:51:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, that is a bunch of baloney. The member talked about the Canada Pension Plan; let us talk about the Canada Pension Plan, old age security and the benefits they bring to Canadians. Let us talk about medicare and dental care.
Our government is investing in Canadians. If one factors in all those benefits in the economic formulas, however one wants to organize them, one will realize that Canada is the best country in the world to live in.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
