Bill C-51 (Historical)

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed in the Budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 but not included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, which received royal assent on March 12, 2009. In particular, it
(a) introduces the Home Renovation Tax Credit;
(b) introduces the First-time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit; and
(c) enhances the tax relief provided by the Working Income Tax Benefit.
In addition, Part 1 extends the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture and sets out the regions prescribed either as eligible flood or drought regions in 2007 to 2009.
Part 2 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for multilateral debt relief and in relation to offshore petroleum resources. It also makes the following amendments:
(a) the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act is amended to implement amendments proposed by the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund;
(b) the Broadcasting Act is amended to extend the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s borrowing limit to $220,000,000;
(c) the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 is amended to clarify the purposes for which payments may be made;
(d) the Canada Pension Plan is amended to
(i) remove the work cessation test in 2012 so that a person may take their retirement pension as early as age 60 without the requirement of a work interruption or earnings reduction,
(ii) increase the general drop-out from 15% to 16% in 2012 allowing a maximum of almost seven and a half years of low or zero earnings to be dropped from the contributory period and to 17% in 2014 allowing a maximum of eight years to be dropped,
(iii) require a person under the age of 65 who receives a retirement pension and continues working to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and thereby create eligibility for a post-retirement benefit,
(iv) permit a person aged 65 to 70 who receives a retirement pension to elect not to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, and
(v) have the adjustment factors that apply to early or late take-up of retirement pensions fixed by regulation after December 31, 2010 and have the Minister of Finance and the ministers of the included provinces review the adjustment factors and make recommendations as to whether the factors should be changed;
(e) the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is amended by repealing section 37 and by permitting the approval of regulations made under subsection 53(1) before they are made;
(f) The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act is amended to provide for Crown share adjustment payments to be made in accordance with an agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia;
(g) the Customs Tariff is amended to change the conditions relating to containers temporarily imported under tariff item 9801.10.20 and to add new tariff item 9801.10.30 relating to temporarily imported trailers and semi-trailers;
(h) the Financial Administration Act is amended to require that departments and parent Crown corporations cause quarterly financial reports to be prepared every fiscal quarter and to make them public; and
(i) the Public Service Superannuation Act is amended by adding the name of PPP Canada Inc. to Part I of Schedule I to that Act.
Part 2 also amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and chapter 36 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007 to correct unintended consequences resulting from the inaccurate coordination of two amending Acts.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we were going to be debating Bill C-59, and I am the only member in this place who has report stage amendments for the bill. Therefore, I would have been the first speaker on that bill.

Despite that, I am still very pleased to have raised the points I did in my speech. The fact is that Bill C-59 is going to be before the House this afternoon. Essentially the Liberals have tried to escape the fact that they supported Stephen Harper's draconian security bill, the former Bill C-51, and, as usual, were trying to have it both ways, having their cake and eating it too, that there were problems with the bill, but they would support it and fix it after an election.

What happened after that? We waited two years after an election campaign. The Liberals promised to fix those egregious measures. They ignored the fact that in the meantime CSIS was still using the powers given to it through Bill C-51. After that, the Liberals tabled the bill in the dying days of the spring sitting, in June 2017, and did not bring it up for debate until the fall. Then when we finally got the debate on it, we had shortened committee hearings, nowhere near enough time to deal with omnibus legislation.

I respect my colleague and I certainly respect the fact that there can be an upheaval to Parliament's schedule. I would like to be making my speech and going back to my office, or doing whatever else, but this is an important issue. I do not want to hear that somehow Bill C-59 is so urgent, because the Liberals have certainly waited a long time to do anything about it.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed an honour to be sitting directly in front of you, instead of beside you, and cheering you on in your balanced decisions, to which we listened many days and many nights at this committee. I enjoyed it all.

Welcome to the new members here.

It is great to be back, and great to be back to speak to what I think is a well overdue option for our pension or income retirement system in Canada.

I should mention that I'm here with some very learned people, some from our Department of Finance—Diane Lafleur, Leah Anderson, Lynn Hemmings, and Yasir Syed—and as well from OSFI, or the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, a couple of experts, Carol Taraschuk and John Grace. John Grace and I and Lynn covered a lot of miles developing this new concept. They have been a tremendous help. Bill C-25, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, is the reason we are here.

Mr. Chair, Canada's retirement system is recognized around the world by such experts as the OECD as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among Canadian seniors and in providing generous levels of replacement income to retired workers. Simply put, our system is the envy of the world. The introduction of the pooled registered pension plan, or, as it has come to be known, the PRPP, will only build on this well-earned reputation.

The success of this model rests on the strength of the three pillars. The first pillar is made up of the old age security, or OAS, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, often referred to as the GIS. These programs provide a basic minimum income guarantee for seniors and are funded primarily through taxes on working Canadians. Our government has a responsibility to ensure that programs such as these are available for the next generation of Canadians as well. That's why our government will take a prudent, balanced, and responsible approach to making sure that OAS remains sustainable.

The second pillar is the Canada Pension Plan as well as the Quebec Pension Plan. These are mandatory public target benefit pension plans that provide a basic level of income to Canadian workers when they retire. There are currently 16.5 million workers contributing to either CPP or QPP. With these programs paying $44 billion in benefits per year to now more than 6.5 million Canadians, the CPP is the centrepiece of Canada's pension system. I'm proud to say that it is fully funded, it is actuarially sound, and it is sustainable for the long term.

The third pillar is composed of tax-assisted private savings opportunities to help encourage Canadians to accumulate additional savings for retirement. It includes registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans. In total, the cost of tax assistance provided on retirement savings is currently estimated at $25 billion per year.

How do the PRPPs fit into what, as I say, is a good system already?

In 2009 a joint federal-provincial research working group conducted an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy in Canada. While the working group concluded that Canada's retirement system is performing well, it also found that some modest- and middle-income households may not be saving enough for retirement.

Of particular concern were the following findings. Participation in employer-sponsored registered pension plans was declining. The proportion of working Canadians with such plans has declined from 41% in 1991 to 34% in 2007. Also, Canadians are not taking full advantage of other retirement savings options, such as the RRSP. Currently there is over $600 billion of unused room in RRSPs.

Through you, Mr. Chair, let me reassure the committee that our government recognizes the importance of ensuring that all Canadians have adequate income for their retirement. The report by the working group sent a clear signal that a gap exists on the voluntary side of Canada's retirement system.

With this information in hand, our government took immediate action to fill that gap. Over the past two years, our government's commitment to strengthen Canada's retirement system has taken me to every province and territory and countless communities across this country. In my travels, I've consulted with many Canadians, met with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and held discussions with small and medium-sized business owners as well as self-employed Canadians.

At our federal-provincial-territorial finance ministers meeting in December of 2010, after examining the various proposals that came out of the consultations, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments unanimously decided to pursue the pooled registered pension plan framework. This decision was taken because the PRPP was considered an effective and appropriate way to target those modest- and middle-income individuals who may not be saving enough, and in particular those who currently do not have access to an employer-sponsored registered pension plan.

What then are the PRPPs? They are in fact a large-scale, broad-based pension arrangement. They will be available to employees with or without a participating employer. As well, they will be available to the self-employed. This is particularly important as, incredibly, over 60% of Canadians do not now have access to a workplace pension plan. In short, PRPPs will provide these Canadians with access to a low-cost pension arrangement for the very first time.

By pooling pension savings, PRPPs will offer Canadians greater purchasing power. Basically, Canadians will be able to buy in bulk. This means more money would be left in their pockets for their retirement. The introduction of PRPPs also marks a significant advancement for small and medium-sized businesses. Small and medium-sized businesses have, until now, experienced a significant barrier in being able to offer a pension plan to their employees. Under a PRPP, most of the administrative and legal burdens associated with a pension plan will be borne by a qualified, licensed, third-party administrator.

We all understand that Canadians want their governments to work together to deliver results for them, and the PRPP is a prime example of what we can accomplish for Canadians when we do just that. Bill C-25 represents the federal portion of the PRPP framework and is a major step forward in implementing PRPPs. Once the provinces put in place their PRPP legislation, the legislative and regulatory framework for PRPPs will be operational. This will allow PRPP administrators to develop and offer plans to Canadians and to their employers.

Working together, I am confident we can get this important new retirement savings option up and running for Canadians as soon as possible. Let me quote Dan Kelly, the vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:

This can't come soon enough from our perspective. We think this has great potential.

Before I take questions from committee members, I cannot stress enough how the introduction of the PRPP is just the most recent example of this government's continuing commitment to ensuring that Canadians have a dignified retirement.

I would like to take some time before you today to highlight some of the actions our government has taken to secure retirement income for Canadians. Financial literacy, for example, is an area where we are working to improve retirement income outcomes. Obviously, a strong system depends on the ability of its users to make informed decisions. That is why our government launched the task force on financial literacy to make recommendations on a cohesive, national strategy to improve financial literacy across Canada.

Since 2006, our government has increased the age credit amount by $1,000 in 2006 and then another $1,000 in 2009. We've doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for pension income credit, up to $2,000.

We introduced pension income splitting. We increased the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs to 71, up from 69 years of age before.

All told, we have provided about $2.3 billion in annual targeted tax relief to seniors and pensioners.

In addition, Budget 2008 introduced the tax-free savings account, which is particularly beneficial to seniors, as it helps them meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax-efficient basis after they no longer are able to contribute to an RRSP.

Our record also includes important improvements to several specific retirement income supports. In Budget 2008, we increased the amount that can be earned before the GIS is actually reduced. We raised that to $3,500 so that GIS recipients will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money without any reduction in their GIS benefits. Also, Budget 2008 increased flexibility for seniors and older workers with federally regulated pension assets that are held in life income funds.

In May 2009, Bill C-51 reformed aspects of the CPP to increase flexibility and fairness in the plan and allow it to better reflect the way Canadians live, work, and retire.

In Budget 2011, we announced a new GIS top-up benefit for the most vulnerable seniors. Seniors with little or no income will receive an additional annual benefit of up to $600 for seniors and $840 for couples.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan provides an additional $10 million over two years to enhance the New Horizons for Seniors program. This additional funding is enabling more seniors to participate in social events, pursue an active life, and contribute to their community. The program provides funding for projects to expand awareness of elder abuse, promote volunteering and mentoring, as well as encourage social participation of seniors.

Clearly, Mr. Chair, our records show our government is committed to the financial well-being of Canada's seniors, a commitment we've demonstrated since our first budget.

The PRPP is only the latest example of our government's continued commitment to helping Canadians realize their retirement dreams. The introduction of the PRPP not only fills a gap in Canada's retirement system but makes a system that is the envy of the world even stronger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to take questions.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you for the question.

First, with respect to the area of food safety, our government is committed to addressing the concerns identified in the report by Sheila Weatherill in order to minimize risks to food in the future. We are working to implement all the recommendations identified in the report.

Our government is working towards a strong, safe, and effective system through the modernization of food and drugs legislation. Former Bill C-51 was an important step. But given food safety issues such as the listeriosis outbreak, among others, it was imperative that we take a more critical look at the proposal in order to be confident that the legislative modernization this government is proposing is the best for Canadians. We'll continue to work to address that through the Public Health Agency and in partnership with the provinces and the territories.

With respect to drug safety, on various occasions, the committee has discussed a need for change to the Food and Drugs Act and has raised concerns such as the need for better control over clinical trials, including a drug approval process and implementing a life-cycle approach to licensing. These were addressed in former Bill C-51, and the government remains committed to these improvements.

The final point with respect to consumer product safety is that our government is committed to protecting Canadians, particularly our children, from unsafe consumer products. The Speech from the Throne recently reconfirmed the Government of Canada's intention to respect the wishes of Canadians by reintroducing the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act in its original form, which was Bill C-6 at the time. If passed, the proposed act will modernize the government's approach to consumer product safety, with important powers such as the ability to order mandatory product recalls and to quickly remove unsafe products from our store shelves. The existing act has not been updated in over 40 years. The proposal is important in order to ensure that we keep pace with our major trading partners.

In closing, I would like to say this. The legislation is so outdated that Canada depends on another country for information on unsafe products that are sold and used in our population. It's unacceptable that we continue to rely on other jurisdictions in regard to the harm being caused by unsafe products in Canada to Canadian children. I'll use the crib as an example, or the unsafe stroller that amputated the fingers of children, and so on. We are determined to work through the reintroduction of this legislation so that we have legislation that will allow us to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Thank you.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like first of all to thank you all for your contribution to our study.

The evidence we have received to date is very enlightening. It will certainly be useful for the analysis and the findings in our report. You are bound to find it useful as well.

If I may, I will ask all my questions at once. You will want to listen carefully to each question because of the time it takes for translation. I think we will save time that way.

I would like to make two statements, two reminders. The first is of course the undertaking Canada made in 1989 to eliminate poverty by the year 2000. We know the situation today; we have failed. If we acknowledge that there is poverty, we have to admit that there are factors which make poverty worse. Each of you mentioned a number of aggravating factors, such as Employment Insurance regulations that eliminate as many people as possible. One of those factors is the fact that almost 10 years ago, the federal government withdrew from social housing, for example.

I personally am very touched by your evidence, Dr. Prentice. It in fact echoes other evidence about the fate of women and children. I am a firm believer that the solutions lie in better living conditions for women and children. When we improve the conditions in which women live, we improve the conditions in which children live. I think there is a direct link. Not recognizing that amounts to not recognizing the realities of life.

However, many measures work against women. One of the latest measures, for example, is the removal of women's right to go to court seeking pay equity as part of a quest for equity. There are better things in life; that is not an example. As Mr. Cohen said, the same year the undertaking was made, the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended in order to eliminate as many people as possible.

I gave this introduction to impress upon you the fact that our vision also includes a set of factors which create poverty and make poverty worse.

My first question is to you, Dr. Prentice. You say that work, here, is sometimes a factor in poverty. You gave as an example the gap between men and women. In Winnipeg, the gap is $7,000, and in Manitoba as a whole, it is almost $9,000. This shows that in Winnipeg, women perhaps earn a bit more and the gap is wider elsewhere. What do you mean when you say that beyond that gap, work also creates poverty in some cases?

The other question is for you, Mr. Cohen. When you did your analysis of poverty, one of the examples you gave was Bill C-51 concerning the extension of benefit periods. However, your comments were aimed specifically at people whose jobs are precarious. I am sure that — because you are very involved in the issue of unemployment — you are perfectly aware that people with precarious jobs are all excluded from Bill C-51. It's actually after five years, seven years, and so on. You know the conditions. There are no measures, and it is temporary.

I would like hear a bit of what you have to say about that, about employment insurance. What measures would be appropriate for this program to help put an end to poverty?

Ms. Fernandez, I believe it was you who were talking about detailed federal strategy. We have seen that exercise before, and we know the outcome today. On that subject, I am going to put the following question to each of you.

What should be done differently to ensure that we succeed this time? Are we not going to take the same dynamic and end up 10 years, 15 years or 20 years later in the same situation?

Canada Post Corporation Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his animated presentation because it is actually time that we became a little animated about what is happening.

We are even seeing it to some extent in regard to the CBC. The member may recall that there was a provision in the last budget, Bill C-51, whereby the borrowing authority of CBC was being increased and everybody thought that was a good thing. However, it was being increased simply because the government would not provide the resources necessary for CBC to continue to deliver services to Canadians. With that borrowing authority the government is actually cashing in the leasing revenues on buildings that it owns but does not use just to provide the cash flow that it needs. It is done just to survive. I characterize that as one of the next steps in the privatization of the CBC.

With regard to Canada Post and the re-mailer situation, I would like to ask the member if he could inform the House of a bit of the history. I ask because was told by someone, and I just want to just confirm it, how the re-mailer situation arose and what options may be available to address it either by remediation of a mistake that happened before, or by some sort of arrangement made on a one time basis to grandfather current provisions as opposed to trying to unravel what has been done.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I will repeat it. A provision in Bill C-51 seeks to reduce the retirement benefit by 2%, to 9%, for women who want to retire before the age of 65. Right now, the penalty is 0.5%.

[Nathalie Joncas]

I would just like to add one thing about the CPP and the QPP. Two reforms have been announced: one has been announced in relation to the Quebec Pension Plan, and Bill C-51 has already been passed.

If different approaches are taken, the two plans may end up not being quite so similar. Indeed, the differences between CPP and QPP have been fairly insignificant thus far. One of the important points to make is that the CPP is on a more sound financial footing than the QPP, because Quebec's population is aging more quickly than that of the rest of Canada. The effect of an aging population is thus a lot more pronounced in the Quebec Pension Plan than in the Canada Pension Plan. That may require different kinds of changes.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I am not referring to Bill C-51, because you already said that you had not been consulted.

[Danielle Casara, Vice-President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

First of all, the FTQ would like to thank the Committee for giving it this opportunity to appear today to express our views on women and pension security.

The FTQ is the largest central union body in Quebec, with more than half a million members, one third of whom are women. As a result, the FTQ represents the largest number of unionized women workers in Quebec. It is also the most representative union body, in that our members work across the full spectrum of economic sectors, including for the federal government. Together we have developed expertise in the area of pension plans, both public and private. We have been part of every single one of the struggles that resulted in improvements to pension plans in Quebec.

Over the years, the FTQ has become more and more active in this area, holding meetings with affiliated unions and training sessions, in order to mobilize our members around this important issue. The FTQ is also involved at the political level and regularly makes its views known by presenting briefs at parliamentary committees or lobbying politicians on this issue.

The FTQ is appearing today to reflect our view that public plans must be maintained and enhanced, rather than cut back, given that they are already too modest. The FTQ noted with dismay that Bill C-51 passed with lightning speed. We can only deplore the lack of extensive public consultations on the proposed changes and the insidious manner in which cuts to the Canada Pension Plan, or CPP, were slipped into a budgetary type of bill.

Furthermore, now that Bill C-51 has passed, there is a greater probability that the Quebec government will also start cutting the Quebec Pension Plan, especially in relation to people who retire between the age of 60 and 65. We think it is important to highlight the fact that the financial status of the Quebec plan seems to be even more precarious, as a result of demographics and a less robust labour market than in the rest of Canada, which means that the Quebec government may have to increase contributions in order to ensure its viability.

As stated by the Minister of Finance last May, as part of the triennial review of the plan, the CPP “[...] remains on a sound financial footing”. That is why they “[...] agreed that the contribution rate would remain unchanged at 9.9% of pensionable earnings”.

In light of that, we are extremely concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the work led by Mr. Jack Mintz, who is to present his report at the next annual meeting of the Finance Ministers in December in Whitehorse. That group has the mandate—and you know this better than we do—to propose a new vision to Finance Ministers of what the Canadian retirement system should look like based on the current reality. We would therefore like to use our remaining time to share our thoughts on what the Canadian retirement system should look like, particularly from the standpoint of women.

In terms of goals, the Canadian retirement income system should ensure that all women have a decent minimum income, that they are able to maintain their standard of living during retirement and that this income will be protected from inflation, particularly considering the fact that, as a result of their family responsibilities, women more often end up leaving the labour market or slowing down. In any case, women already earn less than men do right from the outset.

For the FTQ, the key to proper coverage for women is improvements to public plans, which alone can attain the objectives cited above, especially considering women's high level of dependency on public plans. Indeed, on average, women derive 54.4% of their retirement income from public sources, compared with 38% for their male counterparts. For additional information, you may wish to look at the table appended to our brief.

In a nutshell, women need public plans. The last 40 years have shown the limitations of a system that relies on the voluntary participation of employers in supplemental pension plans, or on the capacity of all taxpayers, whatever their income level, to save enough for their retirement. In actual fact, according to statistics published by the QPP, the coverage rate of supplemental pension plans in Quebec is stagnant at about 40% of all workers. We know that a very small minority of taxpayers—the most wealthy ones—are alone in claiming the lion's share of the RRSP tax deduction.

The most significant reform that could be introduced would involve increasing the CPP/QPP replacement rate, which is currently 25%, ideally to 50%, as proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress. That change would be capitalized and be implemented gradually over a period of 30 to 40 years.

Because the CPP/QPP coverage rate is almost universal, in the short term, this reform would raise the income level of women in retirement. There is no doubt that current provisions related to the care of children under seven and the non-inclusion of the lowest income years for the purposes of calculating the pension—15% which will soon be 17%—should be maintained and should apply to this new component. The FTQ is also in favour of raising the amount of maximum pensionable earnings from 100% to 125%, or even 150% of the average industrial wage, so that an enhanced CPP would cover a larger proportion of the working population.

Incidentally, the positive effect of this approach would be to significantly enhance income security prospects, on retirement, of workers with non-standard jobs, the majority of whom are women, as you know.

For the FTQ, any expansion of CPP/QPP should involve defined benefits, but certainly not defined contributions, and even less so a voluntary contribution plan. We are of the view that only a public defined benefit plan would guarantee women income security over their lifetime, the risks of which would be assumed by successive cohorts of plan contributors.

On that specific issue, the FTQ shares the opinion of Mr. David Denison, President and Chief Executive Officer of the CPP Investment Board, who recognized the major weaknesses of a defined contribution plan, and I quote:Contributors would be individually subject to market risk during their contributory years, and especially to the prospect of not having enough savings to ensure an adequate level of retirement income if they reach retirement age after a period of poor investment returns, such as we have recently experienced;Likewise, contributors would individually bear the risk of outliving their savings; andThe task of explaining investment options and investment performance to millions of individual account holders would be demanding and could still fail to generate suitable investment choices and outcomes.

Having said that, if it was decided to increase the CPP/QPP replacement rate, the FTQ would, in principle, have fewer objections to the idea of introducing a voluntary contribution component to the CPP/QPP, as a means of complementing the 50% replacement rate that would be guaranteed under CPP.

Beyond the benefits for all working women, we expect that the gradual introduction of this measure would mean less pressure on those employers who sponsor supplemental pension plans, as these plans would play a reduced role in terms of future service at least, because of the higher replacement rate under the public plans.

If the FTQ's preferred option were to be selected, we think it would be necessary to enhance benefits under the basic plans during the transition. For example, the Canadian Labour Congress is recommending that the Guaranteed Income Supplement be increased by 15% so that no senior has to live in poverty. Indeed, the FTQ wants to commend the federal government for raising the income exemption from $500 to $3,500 for GIS. However, we believe that exemption should not be limited to employment income, but rather, apply to all income.

We would also like to point out that, for a Quebec woman taxpayer over the age of 65 with an income of between $17,000 and $21,000, a $1,000 withdrawal from her RRSP currently results in a reduction in the GIS amount and increased taxes and contributions of $800, leaving her only $200 net after all is said and done, which is hardly likely to encourage someone to save for retirement.

In conclusion, the FTQ shares your concern with respect to the importance of ensuring that the Canadian retirement system provide income security and respect the dignity of Canadian workers who retire. We would just reiterate our strong preference for extensive public consultations in Canada with respect to potential solutions, and we resolve to make an active and constructive contribution to that consultation process.

Thank you very much for your kind attention.

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

I appreciate both those comments, and I think they're both very valid. I remember Terry Toller, who did consumer education in grade nine, teaching how to do your income tax returns and skills that we never forget.

I want to get one quick question in. The one thing I am a bit confused over are the changes under Bill C-51. As I understand, they are just actuarial adjustments. So come 50 and your decision to retire at 60, 65, or older, it's not that there are reductions; it's that there are adjustments in terms of the equity since it's paid out over a much longer time. Could someone straighten me out on that?

Thank you.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

That's very interesting.

Madame Lizée, I have a question for you. You talked about the concern you had about the increased penalty for early retirement, and we see that in Bill C-51. I wondered if you had a concrete proposal, any idea about how we could encourage people to retire later without penalizing those who retire early. Was there something you had in mind in regard to that?

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

It is not much, indeed. Especially since defined benefit schemes, particularly in Canada, have dropped in value quite significantly due to the current economic crisis.

My next question is directed at Ms. Rose-Lizée.

You spoke a lot about Quebec. You referred to the Régie des rentes du Québec, and the CPP, but they are two completely different entities. I always say that things are different in Quebec from the rest of Canada, given that we have child care and pay equity systems in Quebec.

You also referred to Bill C-51 which was introduced by the federal government and which deals with the budget implementation. There were a couple of sentences about the Canada Pension Plan slipped into it. Also, you said you tabled a document for the Quebec National Assembly in which you are calling for certain things, and you did likewise at the federal government level.

Could you elaborate on this?

[Ruth Rose-Lizée]

I've been advising women's groups for 30 years. In the summer, we provided the Minister of Finance with our comments on the proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan as set out in Bill C-51. So, in essence, I am also speaking on behalf of the 13 other women's groups in Quebec, including the Fédération des femmes du Québec and several other major groups.

I'd like to address three points. First of all, I'd like to refer to the Canada Pension Plan and to the proposed amendments to it as found in Bill C-51. I'd also like to address the proposed creation of a voluntary account, in the manner which was discussed earlier on by my two colleagues. Then, I would like to refer to specific demands from women's groups to enhance their retirement income. Finally, I would like to conclude with a few remarks on statistics which would allow for gender-based analyses to be carried out.

I have also sent to your analyst, Ms. Julie Cool, a brief we tabled before a parliamentary committee in Quebec, having to do with a change to the QPP. This document contains a great deal of statistics and information on women and pensions in Quebec. However, it has not been translated.

Bill C-51 seeks to cut pension benefits for all individuals retiring before the age of 65 by increasing actuarial adjustments. First of all, we are very worried by the fact that this legislation has received practically no media coverage and that no specific parliamentary committee was struck to address the issue, nor have there been any broad-ranging public discussions on it. We are convinced that it will disproportionately affect women rather than men. In Quebec, we know that women retire earlier than men, often because they stop working to care for a spouse, an older person, someone who is ill, or a parent, or because their spouse is retiring and they decide to retire at the same time despite the fact that, in general, they are younger than their spouses. We therefore see no reason for cutting benefits. We believe that would in fact lead to greater poverty for seniors, especially women.

We are not very enthusiastic about the voluntary contribution measures precisely because they are voluntary. Moreover, we believe that it will become an additional tax advantage for the wealthy who are already saving enough for their retirement whereas middle class individuals who contribute a modest amount to their RRSPs do not do so enough to ensure continuing income upon retirement. They would still not be contributing enough to make a difference.

Rather, we support improving mandatory premium-based public plans like the CPP and the QPP. We believe once this becomes the modus operandi for employers and staff, people will adjust. We would also like to note that our contributions and benefits, here in Canada, are far lower than those of European countries, for instance.

Let's get back specifically to measures to assist women. We have also found that only a public plan can consider the fact that people do contribute to a country's economic growth through unpaid work.

There are already three ways to take this contribution through unpaid work into account within the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. First of all, a woman who is responsible for a child under the age of seven and whose contributions are less than her average contributions over the course of her career can exclude these years from her pension calculations. We believe that this right of exclusion should be converted into an inclusion, in other words that pension credits should be allocated automatically; we would suggest they represent 60% of the maximum insurable earnings, because those who benefit the least from this measure are, for instance, women with several children and who, therefore, tend to re-enter the workforce less, or often work part time. The automatic allocation of credits would meet the needs of these women, based on the number of children they have.

We believe the same should apply to individuals who stop working to care for disabled or ill adults, a task which is often women's work as well, in 75% to 80% of cases.

The second measure regarding women has to do with surviving spouses' pensions. In Quebec, they are more generous than elsewhere in Canada, but on the other hand, the orphan's pension is lower. In our brief, we would suggest decreasing surviving spouse benefits to help fund the measure I will refer to in a moment. In the past, surviving spouses' pensions were designed to consider the fact that when women got married, they would have children. So, the purpose was to consider the fact that women cared for children. But, increasingly, there is no automatic correlation between marriage or cohabiting and having children. So, we prefer measures that directly recognize the work women do with their children.

Finally, the third measure which would put women's pensions on a somewhat even playing field with those of men is the sharing of credits which is governed by family law in the various provinces. We believe that that is a good measure. It ensures fairness within a couple. That said, in Quebec, we have data on the number of cases of sharing and what that means and for whom, yet in the documents I consulted from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada—

The House resumed from November 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is not a lot left to say after hearing my colleagues from London—Fanshawe and Timmins—James Bay speak to this issue, but I would like to add a few notes.

I do not think the Conservatives are going to like my presentation as much as they liked some of the others about the lack of action and erratic nature of the Liberal Party. That is a matter of public record. Certainly the byelection results last Monday show that most Canadians agree. We saw a collapse of the Liberal vote across the country. In New Westminster—Coquitlam, as everyone well knows, the Liberals did not even get their deposit back. That is a seat they used to hold. Now, west of Toronto they have a handful of seats and east of the West Island of Montreal they have a handful of seats. Basically, they have been reduced to two areas of the country. I do not doubt they will be competitive in those two areas, but generally speaking, the Liberal Party simply does not reflect Canadian values and where Canadians want to go.

On the harmonized sales tax which is gouging Canadians in Ontario and British Columbia, the Liberals simply say that they are supporting it. Sure, they support it; it is a great idea to rip $500 out of the pockets of each and every person in Ontario and British Columbia.

Enough about the Liberals. I think the verdict from the electorate in four parts of the country was very clear. The verdict also was very clear in New Westminster—Coquitlam. The issue of the harmonized sales tax was front and centre in that campaign.

The Conservative Party dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars of partisan Conservative material into the riding. It spared no expense. It simply flooded the riding with partisan political advertising. The Conservative Party sent in its members of Parliament and ministers. It had a good local candidate. What the government was saying was that British Columbians should not be concerned about the HST.

The verdict from British Columbians was clear. In what was a very competitive riding, there was a landslide for the NDP. Fifty per cent of the vote went to the NDP. A split that was only 3% went to 15%.

If we apply the results of the byelection in New Westminster—Coquitlam across British Columbia, there are a dozen Conservative MPs in B.C. that would lose their seats. There is also a handful of Liberals left in B.C. and they would lose their seats.

My point is this. For the Conservatives to say that somehow the HST is not an issue and that British Columbians should just forget about it as it will be imposed come hell or high water would be a serious mistake, because British Columbians said no to the HST last Monday. That is something that will have an impact whether we talk about Abbotsford, Kamloops or any other riding in British Columbia.

The Conservatives, working with Gordon Campbell, trying to force the HST on people is simply not going to wash. I hope they will heed the very clear message from the byelection in B.C. and that they will step back from the brink on this because British Columbians do not want the HST.

I need to mention that the reason the NDP is supporting Bill C-51 is to try to save the government from itself. With a great deal of pomp and circumstance last spring, the government announced the home renovation tax credit and the first time homebuyers tax credit.

Particularly with regard to the home renovation tax credit, the Conservatives went out and picked up buckets of money from the Canadian taxpayers, ran off to build their signs and put up their Internet ads and all their partisan ads that are paid for by taxpayers, but they forgot one thing. They forgot the paperwork. They were telling Canadians to use the home renovation tax credit, that they would actually get their money back, but the Conservatives did not do their paperwork. They did not actually introduce the legislation for the tax credit. Can anyone believe that? Can anyone believe how irresponsible a government would be to tell Canadians to do their renovations and then the government does not do the paperwork to put the tax credit in place?

All of those Canadians who in good faith saw the buckets of money the Conservatives put into those huge signs that they love to put up everywhere, the Internet ads and all the other ads that they put in with taxpayers' money, thought that meant the Conservatives had done their paperwork, but they had not. If this bill does not pass, people will be left high and dry, having budgeted for the home renovation tax credit, having budgeted to make those renovations. Because the Conservatives did not do their paperwork, we would essentially be having people go even further into debt.

The average Canadian family over the past 20 years of Liberal and Conservative financial mismanagement has seen the family debt load double. That is a crisis. Many of the families who sorely needed renovations to their homes got them on credit. The NDP, because we are the conscience of this Parliament and often the only party that actually reads the legislation being brought forward, realized that if we did not adopt the bill, Canadians who in good faith went through the process would be stuck with the bill, and that is simply unacceptable.

On the home renovation tax credit, on the first time homebuyers tax credit, on the income deferral for farmers, on the working income tax benefit and on all those measures announced in pomp and circumstance, we are voting yes because we simply believe that Canadians need to see government keep its commitment.

We are appalled that the Conservatives did not do their paperwork, that they just ran off with their partisan advertising rather than do the first step, which most responsible Canadians would do, which is after they promised something they should introduce the legislation to make it real, but no, they did not do that. They spent all their time running off with buckets of money and putting up signs to advertise themselves. They got those big cheques with the big Conservative “C” logo on them and they ran around the country showing them, but they did not do step one, which was to introduce the legislation.

Of course, we will be voting for this in an effort to save the government from itself, but does that mean it has a blank cheque, as the Liberals have done 80 times? Does it simply mean we will let the Conservatives do anything they want? Certainly not. We have been very, very clear.

For example, the harmonized sales tax will have a profound negative impact on Canadians living in British Columbia and Ontario. The governments are in damage control. We saw the Conservatives and Liberals in Ontario announce that they are giving Timbits that are HST-free, but it is absurd to give back a few pennies when they are ripping $500 off the average individual, and $2,000 off the average family of four.

When they take all that money in a tax shift to appease the biggest companies in the country, the companies that love to offload their money and their jobs into the Caribbean, or Houston if it is an energy company, they are essentially saying to ordinary Canadians that they have to pay for this massive tax largesse that they are giving out for free. There is no performance required. The companies do not have to keep jobs. They can shed jobs; they can cut jobs; it does not matter. They will give those companies a gift in Ontario and British Columbia. It is a gift from the Conservative government to the biggest companies and there is a shift in the tax burden, because we always have to balance our books. As a financial administrator in the past, I know that well. The money has to come from somewhere. The Conservatives said that they would give all this largesse and ordinary British Columbians and Ontarians will have to pay for it.

It does not only impact the families. Two thousand dollars for an average family is a horrible impact. That is why the results in New Westminster—Coquitlam were so clear. Any time there is a byelection, or if there is an election in the spring, it will be the same verdict coming back to the Conservatives, unless they reverse engines and pull back from this phenomenal unjust tax imposition, this tax shift on the backs of ordinary Canadians.

We have said we will not support the HST. We will vote against it. Unlike the Liberals and the Conservatives who are working together on this, we will simply fight the penalty of the HST because of what it does to ordinary families, and also for what it does to community businesses.

In my prior life before coming here, I was very fortunate to be honoured with two business excellence awards. I have worked with the local Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trade, and I have worked in the business community with social enterprise. I believe profoundly that community businesses need to have the tools for growth. The NDP's approach has always been to provide an educated population that provides that additional level of productivity to ensure that community businesses prosper, because when families prosper, community businesses do. We do not believe, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals, that we offload money to Houston and the Caribbean and that somehow magically creates a strong economic development initiative here at home.

What we are saying is when there is more support for health care services, more support for social services, when people in the community have a higher quality of life, that has a positive impact on community businesses.

The HST does exactly the opposite. By ripping off ordinary British Columbians and ordinary Ontarians, there are people in the community who have less money to spend. I have not talked to a single small business owner in Burnaby or in New Westminster who supports the HST. I have talked with the hairdressers and barbers who are really concerned because, of course, there will be an increased tax on their products. I have talked to people who are involved in restaurants, not just in the Lower Mainland but also in places like Kamloops and Calgary. They are concerned that when we have an HST increase like that, essentially their clientele has less money to spend and it affects the community business and starts a vicious spiral downward.

For those reasons, this is not a blank cheque for the Conservative government. We are saving the government from itself on Bill C-51, but we are going to be fighting in this House to ensure that the HST is not brought in. British Columbians have very clearly told the Conservatives to stop the HST. British Columbians have told them to roll back this misguided, irresponsible attempt to give even more big business largesse and tax credits to the largest companies and to put the focus where it needs to be, on a better quality of life for Canadians and on more supports for community businesses. That is where we want to see this government going. We are going to vote yes on this bill, but the Conservatives are on notice that they have to start acting responsibly.