Bill C-26 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canada Pension Plan to, among other things,
(a) increase the amount of the retirement pension, as well as the survivor’s and disability pensions and the post-retirement benefit, subject to the amount of additional contributions made and the number of years over which those contributions are made;
(b) increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% as of 2025;
(c) provide for the making of additional contributions, beginning in 2019;
(d) provide for the creation of the Additional Canada Pension Plan Account and the accounting of funds in relation to it; and
(e) include the additional contributions and increased benefits in the financial review provisions of the Act and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in relation to those provisions.
This Part also amends the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to provide for the transfer of funds between the Investment Board and the Additional Canada Pension Plan Account and to provide for the preparation of financial statements in relation to amounts managed by the Investment Board in relation to the additional contributions and increased benefits.
Part 2 makes related amendments to the Income Tax Act to increase the Working Income Tax Benefit and to provide a deduction for additional employee contributions.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are 69 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-26. Motions Nos. 1 to 69 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 69 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Madam Speaker, before I get into the substance of the debate, I would like to draw the members' attention to the fact that I am wearing the prostate cancer tie. As members are aware, November is also known as “Movember”, a month dedicated to raising awareness about prostate cancer.

Quebec has had a wonderful initiative in place since 2010 to support the Fondation du CHU de Québec, which works on prostate cancer research and prevention. Since 2010, a tie has been available for purchase for men to wear to show their support, which is what I am doing today.

This tie is a Surmesur boutique signature design, and this initiative is supported by Pierre Jobin, TVA's new anchor. I applaud him for his involvement, and I want to thank everyone in Quebec for wearing the tie for prostate cancer.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-26, and you tabled all the amendments that we Conservatives proposed, with the support of my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I want to pay my respects to you, Madam Speaker, because I have never heard my name so many times in such a short time. I am quite sure that my parents are very proud of that.

We are talking today about the Canada pension plan. It is crystal clear, because there is a huge difference between the vision of the government and our vision. The vision of the government is to pick up more money from the pockets of the people, to pick up more money from the pockets of business owners and essentially those who create wealth and create jobs, whereas our view is to give more tools to people to make their own choices on what they believe is important and to give them the tools to put money aside for retirement.

That is why we object so strongly to Bill C-26. Our parties have two opposing views. At least that much is clear. In politics, sometimes we find some good points in things that we must nevertheless oppose, and vice versa. Sometimes we find that kind of balance in politics.

In this instance, the matter is crystal clear. On the one hand, there is the Liberal vision, which involves taking more money out of Canadians' pockets. On the other hand, there is our vision, which, in contrast, involves giving people tools that enable them to make their own choices regarding saving for retirement based on their own priorities, their income, and their way of life.

Bill C-26 essentially seeks to increase the contributions that workers currently make to CPP. We are currently being taxed roughly 9.9% and the bill would increase that rate to 11.9%.

In other words, this means that the average worker will pay up to $1,000 more a year. For business owners, this means an extra $1,000 per employee. That is why we believe this is not the right thing to do. The government picking taxpayers' pockets and charging business owners more money is bad for the economy. We will have the opportunity to come back to this with some serious statistics to show the consequences.

For seniors, this bill does not change anything. They will not get a penny more and that is a fact. The other thing is that we will have to wait not two, five, 10, or 20 years, but 40 years before this measure takes effect. At the risk of being ageist, I have to say that many of my colleagues will no longer be here in 40 years. I am 52 now, which means I will be 92. I have good genes. My parents are 92 and 93 and in good health. I might be lucky, but one never knows.

People will have to wait 40 years, or two generations, before there is a direct, tangible, and real impact. That is a long time. While they wait, workers and business people will pay even more, which is not a good thing.

We recognize that there are still some seniors living on low incomes today; however, the situation has greatly improved. In 1970, about one in three retirees were living on a low income, compared to 3% today. That is quite the improvement and it is due to the personal savings measures that we established.

The amount saved by Canadians is an important factor. The best way to improve our situation is to save, and Canadians have saved more over the years. In 1990, people saved 7.7% of their income, whereas today they save about twice as much, or 14.1%.

There have been two improvements over the years: the improvement in the situation of seniors and the increase in Canadians' savings. That is why we, the Conservatives, want to move in that direction. We want to provide Canadians with stronger, more responsive, more pertinent, and more effective tools that enable individuals to make their own decisions, according to their conscience, and based on their priorities, income, and choices that suit them. The government must provide savings tools rather than taking more money out of people's pockets.

This bill will be detrimental to the economy. We, the Conservatives, are not the ones saying so. I am pointing this out today, but I am basing what I say on the conclusions of the Department of Finance, which found in a study that this would negatively impact all vectors of the economy. It forecasts reductions in employment, GDP, private investment, disposable income, and personal savings. Those would be the results of Bill C-26.

Baseball players get three strikes and then they are out. This bill has five strikes against Canadians and the country's economy. Not only does this bill take $1,000 out of people's pockets and charge business owners $1,000 more per employee, it also affects the five key drivers of job creation, savings, and wealth.

We find that unacceptable. That is why we strongly oppose Bill C-26 and why we introduced 69 amendments to eliminate 69 clauses. It makes sense. The amendments that were read earlier show our fierce opposition to every hyphen, semicolon, and letter that do not belong in this bill.

Now let us talk about some things that are quite interesting and important about the future, which is the retirement age.

As members know, people's health has improved. When Canada decided to implement the Canada pension plan a few decades ago in the 1960s, the reality was not the same as today. In the 1960s, the life expectancy of men was 68, but today it is 79. It is 11 years more than when the Canada pension plan was tabled. It is along the same track for women, whose life expectancy in the 1960s was 74 and today is 83. Therefore, the health of people is better and people live longer.

However, the government decided a month ago to cancel the previous government's decision to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 and return it to 65. This was one of the worst economic decisions made by the current government. There are so many bad decisions, but one of the worst for its long-term effects is its change to the retirement age.

In 2012, when the previous Conservative government addressed this issue, for sure it was very courageous in addressing what was a very difficult issue, and for sure realistic and responsible, because it was the right thing to do and we did it with pride. Unfortunately, the current government has failed to recognize the reality of that. This is why today it will cost Canada billions of dollars more. The current government has failed to recognize the reality of the fact that people live longer, and with that, we can achieve so much more.

Given the current circumstances, lowering the age of retirement from 67 to 65 is one of the worst decisions this government has made.

In 2012, the Conservative government made a courageous decision that was not easy to explain to Canadians. However, we made it with honour and dignity because it was realistic and extremely important for Canada's economic future. Unfortunately, this government decided to reverse that decision and change the age of retirement from 67 back to 65.

That does not make any sense, particularly when we take into account the fact that there is a longer life expectancy. When the Canada pension plan was designed in the 1960s, life expectancy was 68 years for men and 74 years for women. Today, the life expectancy of men is 79, while women can expect to live to 83.

Since Canadians have a longer life expectancy and are in better health, they can continue to work longer. However, this government decided to bring the age of retirement back to 65.

The sad part is that this was not an easy thing for the Conservatives to do. We recognize that. It was a politically difficult decision to make. However, that was what had to be done, and the measure was implemented. It became a fait accompli, and the public accepted that decision.

However, now, the government is reversing that decision, which is sad because it will have a major impact on the rest of the economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way is quite wrong in his assessment.

First, the member needs to realize that the Liberal Party platform recognized that what Stephen Harper did when he was prime minister and decided, when overseas, to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67 was just wrong. Canadians knew it was wrong. We could afford it. Parliamentary secretaries and others knew it was a bad policy decision. This government has reversed that Harper decision. We are saying that people should be able to collect OAS at 65. This is a positive.

With reference to the bill itself, there is a clear difference. This is a government that understands that we also have to think of future generations, for those who are in the workplace today, and who are retiring. We want to make sure that they have money in a retirement plan through the CPP.

From listening to the debate, one could conclude that the Conservatives, on the other hand, do not support the CPP. Would the member not recognize that the very same arguments the Conservatives are using today to say no to Bill C-26 could have been used to get rid of the CPP in the first place?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is all wrong. First, we are attacking Bill C-26 because it is a tax increase, not the principle of the CPP. We do support the principle. The reality is that it will cost people billions of dollars more, as the Liberal government will pick 1,000 bucks from the pockets of people. This is totally unacceptable.

Second, when he talks about the fact we decided to raise the age of eligibility to 67, that was the real thing to do. We had the courage to do that and we are proud of it. Why? It is because it would otherwise cost the Canadian economy $11 billion by 2030. That is a shame.

He talked about the fact he was elected under the promise of an increased CPP. Let me remind him that he was also elected with the promise of a small deficit of $10 billion. It is three times that amount. Shame on him.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech, although we disagree on many of the issues.

During the committee meetings, many of the witnesses came forward and said that a change had to be made for our future, for our children and our grandchildren, to the CPP as an important tool. It is one of three main pillars of the pension system we have going forward.

Does the member feel this is not the right time, or that we should never at any time increase the CPP for our children and their children?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is a clear difference between the fact that we Conservatives believe in the will of the people and the NDP believes in the action of the government. I do respect that, but it is not where we stand.

For us, it is better to give tools to people to make their own choices to put money aside for their retirement.

For us, the worst way to do it is to give the government the power to put its hands into the wallets of people and to pick out $1,000 a year of what they earn. Also, it is not good, as far as we are concerned, to charge those who create wealth, who create jobs, $1,000 more for every employee. It will have a bad effect on so many issues. It is the wrong thing to do.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I do know that last week the parliamentary secretary addressed the issue of what it would cost Canadians to increase their CPP on retirement by $4,000 more a year.

They keep mentioning $1,000 a year. However, at the $6 a week the parliamentary secretary mentioned, it would be $312 per year per person, as well $312 for the employer, a mere pittance of less than 15¢ an hour for the latter. I wonder if he could explain, please.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, those numbers come from the Department of Finance, the same department that concluded this measure would have a negative impact on employment, GDP, investment, disposable income, and personal savings.

We think this is a very bad bill for taxpayers and the Canadian economy.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, as you know, a stronger Canada pension plan was a key part of the promise Liberals made to Canadians when we pledged to help the middle class and those working hard to join it. Then, in June, the Minister of Finance reached a historic agreement in principle with the provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan. It is an example of the results that can be achieved when the federal government has provincial partners. The legislation before the House is the next step toward implementing the commitment to enhance the CPP.

Why should we enhance the CPP? It is because achieving a safe, secure, and dignified retirement is, without a doubt, among the most significant goals for hard-working Canadians. We know that middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever and that many are worried they will not have enough to set aside for retirement. That feeling is palpable. When we knock on doors and hold town halls to talk to people and discuss the work of government, we find their concerns to be very well-founded. Extensive analysis conducted by the finance department and provincial governments has found that around one-quarter of families nearing retirement, some 1.1 million families, face a drop in their standard of living when they retire. The middle class deserves better.

This conclusion led us to work toward our agreed enhancement to the CPP with the provinces. What are the benefits? First, there will be more money in the CPP waiting for Canadians when they retire. Once fully in place, the CPP enhancement would increase the maximum CPP retirement benefit by about 50%. The current maximum benefit is $13,110. In today's dollar terms, the enhanced CPP would represent an increase of nearly $7,000, to a maximum benefit of nearly $20,000. The Department of Finance has estimated that by strengthening the CPP, we would reduce by about a quarter the share of families at risk of not having adequate retirement savings.

We on this side of the House are proud to be able to take this bold action to support middle-class Canadians by strengthening their retirement incomes. Without a doubt, a stronger CPP would be good for the middle class and those working hard to join it, and good for the Canadian economy overall. For most Canadians, these increased benefits would come from just a 1% increase in their contribution rates. We are also making sure to give individuals and their employers plenty of time to adjust to the modest increases, making sure these are small and gradual, starting in 2019.

Today's legislation, as agreed with the provinces, would ensure that low-income Canadians would not be financially burdened as a result of their extra contributions. It would do this by enhancing the working income tax benefit to roughly offset the incremental CPP contributions, leaving eligible low-income Canadians with little to no change in disposable income while still securing them with a higher retirement income.

The enhanced CPP would simply build on the core existing CPP benefits and do so in a smart, carefully targeted, and effective way that reflects the extensive research that governments brought to the table in crafting this enhancement for the benefit of all working Canadians. Taken together, it is a comprehensive package that would increase CPP benefits while striking an appropriate balance between short-term economic considerations and long-term gains.

It is for these reasons that I call on all members of the House to support this legislation, support Canadians, and ensure that all Canadians have a safe, secure retirement.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

I would like to know why his party is opposed to creating new savings tools and would rather make workers pay more.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I formally welcome the hon. member to the finance committee. He just joined the committee and brings a wealth of knowledge.

Although we disagree on almost everything that comes up at committee, from time to time, we find an area of agreement. The CPP enhancement is not one of those areas. He mentioned the same thing that the Conservative Party mentioned in its campaign, namely, that we should increase the TFSA. The fact of the matter is that a lot of Canadians cannot afford to meet the current threshold of the TFSA.

The number one reason the CPP enhancement is needed is that 48% of Canadians in 1971 had defined benefit contribution plans provided by their employers, but only 25% by 2011, and that number is declining further. The CPP enhancement is critical to ensure that Canadians have a safe and secure retirement. I encourage the member opposite not just to delete every clause in this bill but to bring forward ideas that would help Canadians have a safe and secure retirement. I encourage his party to support this bill.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech. We certainly welcome the improvements in CPP to date, but there are many that were omitted.

The member mentioned that they talked to people, door to door, during the election, about the Canada pension plan. I would like to know if the member told people that the dropout clauses for child-rearing and for people living with disabilities were not allowed in the new bill. If so, when they had those talks, how did people respond?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the fact of the matter is this. If people retire in Canada after 2019 and they have contributed to CPP, they will have more money when they retire. That is something that all Canadians from coast to coast to coast can celebrate. It is an important development.

More importantly, on the point that the member raised, just last week, our government made a commitment that the finance minister would be talking about that very point, the dropout provisions, with his provincial and territorial partners at the triennial review of CPP. The government understands and recognizes that that is a concern, and is moving forward with the minister bringing it up and reviewing those provisions.

The fact is that people are working in Canada who need a safe and secure retirement. It is to their benefit to support CPP enhancement. I encourage the party opposite to support this bill. Members opposite know that at the end of the day we are all here to fight for Canadians, and the CPP enhancement is fighting for Canadians and helping to strengthen the middle class.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would also like to thank him for being so available to the NDP on this file. I know he attended the Standing Committee on Finance meetings.

Some issues should not be up for debate. Unfortunately, some of those issues are. In a little while, my colleague will tell us more about how the new Canada pension plan definition will have an unfair impact on women and people with disabilities.

I would like to give my colleague an opportunity to add to what he said about that.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is a man of towering intellect and has a fierce passion in advocating for his constitutes. Unfortunately, we fundamentally disagree on a lot of items.

Although I appreciate the fact that he thinks I am open to the NDP suggestion, I very much support CPP enhancement. As I have mentioned numerous times throughout this debate, the most important thing is that we are strengthening Canadians' retirement. We are increasing CPP enhancement, and all Canadians across the country will benefit from our plan.

I encourage all members, irrespective of their party ideology, to support this bill.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, on October 6, the current government introduced a flawed bill in the House of Commons, Bill C-26. It did so while being fully aware of the bill's shortcomings. It did so with full knowledge that women and people living with disabilities would be negatively affected. That the bill would omit dropout provisions already in the Canada pension plan to protect women and people living with disabilities seemed to matter very little. Getting a deal done quickly, the PR, and the photo-op were more important. Looking good was more important. Sadly, looking good is more important to the government than sound public policy that protects the rights and needs of all Canadians.

Removing the dropout provision from the CPP was a surprise to many experts who have been working on a pension reform for many years. While testifying at committee, I asked Mark Janson, a pension expert from CUPE national, if he or his union had any indication that the child-rearing or disability dropouts were on the table for CPP expansion. In reply, Mr. Janson said:

...it was a surprise to us to see they were not included. The signed document the finance ministers put out in June and the backgrounder they produced at the time said nothing about this, so it was only when we saw the legislation. During the years of talks we had not heard that this was an item to be discussed and perhaps changed.

When I asked Mr. Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, about the government's plan to omit the dropout provisions, he was very straightforward. He said:

[The] committee has a direct responsibility to amend the bill to fix that problem. This is an affront to women's equality in this country, and it is simply wrong. It was corrected in 1997, and we have no business going back and taking that away from women and people who get disability benefits. However, the department came up with a draft. They've made a fundamental mistake, in my view, and it needs to be fixed. This committee has the responsibility to fix that.

More than half the workforce today is represented by women. To tell them that they are not going to be treated equally as men in the workforce is wrong and this committee has a responsibility. Equally, the department should come back to say that it made a mistake. This will do very little, I think, in terms of the premium increase. It disadvantages two very important groups in this country, and in my view, it was never discussed during the enhancement.

It's fundamentally wrong and given what the government has said about women's equality, I don't think this was intended. It needs to be fixed.

It did not take the NDP long to discover the flaws. At first we wondered if the omission of these critical provisions was an oversight or done on purpose. How could the government leave out provisions designed to protect the well-being of such a large number of Canadians? How could the government leave out provisions originally put into the CPP by the Prime Minister's father after he discovered a major hole in the legislation? We thought that for sure the omission had to be a mistake. However, we have come to find out that it was no mistake at all. We have learned that in the haste to get a deal with the provinces in June, the current government was willing to throw the rights of women and those living with disabilities under the bus. It was a shameful move and, now that they have been exposed, the Liberals should feel ashamed and fix the bill.

I know that many members on the other side of this House realize the government made a mistake. I watch them look down and squirm uncomfortably any time that we raise the deceit in this House or at committee. However, even when they have been exposed and their mistakes are laid bare, the government and all its members still refuse to commit to fixing the bill. Many times, my colleagues and I have stood in this House and asked if the government would fix its flawed bill. For days on end, all we got back were disdain and non-answers. Not one member on the other side of this House would even admit that the bill would trample on the rights of vulnerable Canadians.

We were challenged to take our concerns to committee, so we did. The New Democrats studied the bill and we figured out how to fix it. We developed the language and the clauses needed in the bill to fix the government's mistake. In good faith, we went to committee. We listened to the witnesses, some of whom supported the bill, and some who did not. Many witnesses recognized the flaw in the legislation and urged the committee to put the dropout provisions into the bill.

During the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, I presented amendments to fix the legislation. My two amendments were all that were needed to put the dropout positions back into the bill. There were two amendments that would restore the protection for women and those living with disability. However, my amendments were ruled out of order. The only way to fix the bill would be to come back to the House and have the minister make the appropriate amendments at that time.

I moved the motion to have the committee consider making these recommendations to the House of Commons. What happened next was shocking and disheartening. The Liberal members on the committee resorted to the lowest form of procedural manoeuvring, and moved and passed the motion to adjourn debate. That meant that a motion to consider fixing the bill could not even be debated or discussed, never mind actually voted on. I could not believe it. It was a clear that a heavy-handed whip had been used. So much for the government of sunny ways, free votes, and the best intentions. It is clear that Canadians who voted for change are receiving nothing but chump change.

A few days later, I was able to bring my motion back to the committee. Again, the Liberal members of the committee proved very clearly that they were not serious about fixing the bill. Instead of even debating my motion, they used another procedural manoeuvre, which guaranteed no immediate fix for the bill. It was shameful and disappointing.

I have mentioned what happened at committee because I want Canadians to know, and I want my constituents to know, that things do not always happen here in Ottawa the way that we think they should. The government had a very easy way of fixing a major flaw in a bill it introduced, a flaw that could affect 14 million Canadian workers. It chose not to. We in the NDP now find ourselves in an awkward position. We plan on supporting the bill, but we are very concerned about whether the CPP will ever be fixed and the necessary dropout provisions included in the legislation.

So far, we have heard from the President of the Treasury Board, who said:

We are aware that more could be done in respect of the dropout provisions for disability and child rearing and, in fact, the Minister of Finance will raise these provisions at the next meeting of provincial and territorial finance ministers in December in the context of a triennial review of the CPP.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said:

Our intent is to pass the bill, as is; however, the Minister of Finance will then raise the dropout provisions at the next provincial and territorial finance ministers' meeting in December, in the context of the triennial review of the Canada pension plan.

In my view, these are both weak and non-committal statements. We have heard nothing from the Minister of Finance himself. Is he committed to fixing the legislation? Is he committed to making sure that women and those living with disabilities are not victimized for the mistake in Bill C-26?

No one knows for sure. I am not optimistic. I will believe it when I see it.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleague's concerns with regard to some of the amendments he is proposing. We are not saying we are against them; we are saying that he needs to consult with and work with provinces. If he speaks to his Quebec colleagues, for instance, I am sure they would be against a top-down approach, or maybe he wants to speak to the members who sit behind him. There are about 10 or 12 of them. I am sure they would also be against an Ottawa top-down approach.

I am just wondering whether he has consulted at all with provinces. Have any provinces come on board and said that they support this?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really surprised at that question. Actually, I am shocked. The Liberals brought in a bill, Bill C-26, that was supposed to enhance the CPP benefits for other people. We know it had to be fixed. They brought in a certain portion of it for one group of Canadians only, and omitted another group of Canadians. It is insulting.

The Liberals knew about it. They had time to fix it. Now they want to blame it on the provinces for not being there and hoping they will be in the future. Fix the bill now.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question follows up on the previous question.

The Liberals are saying that we need to negotiate with the provinces to correct this oversight. The problem is that during the negotiations that took place with the provinces, from my perspective, and I have witnessed federal-provincial negotiations in the past, the improvements that are needed were discussed only in broad strokes. For instance, in this case, we are talking about increasing premiums and enhancing benefits. I would be very surprised if, through those negotiations, everyone would agree on how that provision should be amended, a provision that affects the contribution period, as well as women and people with disabilities.

In creating this legislative measure, the federal government completely ignored the downside of this bill in its current form. Basically, it is now asking the provinces to fix this mistake, even though the federal government's own ineptitude is entirely to blame, in my view.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. Was it even talked about with the provinces, was it purposely omitted, or did the Liberals have something at the provincial level, when they met with them, that they were not going to discuss this at all, and they were told they were going to omit it.

I do not know what happened there, but I am really surprised that any province or anyone would try to take away a piece of legislation that has been in effect since 1977 and omit it for people in the future. What is going on is absolutely insane.

They admit they want to make it better and stronger, and they can do it with this piece of legislation. They do not have to go back to the provinces, unless they purposely did it when they had the meetings with the provinces and said they were going to omit it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am disappointed in the NDP. We have a CPP reform, a historic agreement, which was agreed to with the consensus of provinces, including NDP Alberta. The NDP, as opposed to recognizing the valuable, historic agreement, is trying to focus on an issue that all members are very sympathetic to, but which would require us to go back to the table.

My question for the member is: Does he believe that it is better that we not proceed with the changes and instead go back to the provinces and, hopefully, at some point in the future, come back with an amended piece of legislation, or should we do what has been suggested, that the Minister of Finance take the issue to the premiers?

However, at the very least, let us get this thing passed. It has been decades since we have improved the CPP. Now is the time for us to do it. If we can improve it, the Minister of Finance is committed to doing just that.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is asking me if I think we should now just pass Bill C-26 the way it is and hope for something in the future. My question back is: Why was this omitted to begin with? That is the whole problem.

I do not understand what the Liberals are asking. They are doing such a great job for one group of Canadians and not including all Canadians. It is the same thing that happened with their tax deduction. They forgot the group. Why was this omitted? You should make sure it is fixed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. First, time is up. Also, I just want to remind the member that he needs to address the Chair and not the individual member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-26. This is a piece of legislation that would bring peace of mind to millions of Canadians, many of them my constituents, who are worried about their retirement.

With Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, our government is fulfilling its campaign commitment to reform and enhance the Canada pension plan and help Canadians who are having trouble saving for their retirement.

The CPP is a Canadian success story and it is the right way to help Canadians save for retirement in a world that is very different from that of our parents and our grandparents.

There was a time when Canadians would work for one company all of their life and then retire comfortably with a gold watch and a defined benefit pension plan. Complemented by the Canada pension plan, they could be assured of a comfortable and dignified retirement but sadly, those days are no more. They are over.

It is very rare today to find a defined benefit pension plan outside of the public service. Today, due to costs and risks, most companies have moved to a defined contribution pension plan, which shifts the investment risk to the employee and that is if one is lucky enough to be working for a company that offers any kind of pension at all. According to Statistics Canada, in 2014 only 37.9% of employees had a pension plan and that number was trending down.

Then there is the changing nature of work today. A 2014 Workopolis study found that if current trends continue, average Canadians can expect to hold roughly 15 jobs in their careers. Indeed, 51% of people now stay in any one role for less than two years. Some of this is by choice, but some is also by necessity. Contract work is increasingly prevalent and employees are often seeking new challenges and new opportunities.

In short, Canadians can no longer rely on the traditional retirement savings methods. The onus has now shifted to employees, but the data makes it clear that Canadians are having difficulty with this new responsibility.

A report earlier this year from the Broadbent Institute found that only 47% of those aged 55 to 64 have no accrued employer pension benefits and the vast majority are retiring with inadequate retirement savings. Just half have savings that represent less than one year's worth of the resources they need to supplement old age security and the Canada pension plan, and fewer than 20% have the resources needed for five years of retirement.

According to the report, just 15% to 20% of middle-income Canadians retiring without an employer pension plan have saved anywhere near enough for their retirement. Without action, this means seniors are forced to continue working whether their health allows it or not, or are living their retirement in poverty. No Canadian seniors who have worked hard all their lives deserve to retire in poverty.

I understand why Canadians are having difficulty saving for retirement because I have been there myself. First, my husband and I saved to purchase a home in Scarborough, in the expensive greater Toronto housing market. At the same time, we set aside what money we could to put into a registered education savings plan for our two boys to save for their educations. Our first son started at Ryerson University this fall and our second son is not far behind. All along, my husband and I changed jobs and employers two times and have not had the benefit of an employer pension or savings plans.

I am privileged now as a member of Parliament to have access to an employer pension plan. While I can now worry less about my retirement, millions of Canadians are not as lucky as we are, and many of my constituents are not as lucky. I regularly knock on doors in my riding of Scarborough Centre to stay connected to the concerns of my constituents, and many of them tell me that they are worried about their retirement. For many Canadians, this is one of the most important things on their mind.

Canadians are justly proud of the Canada pension plan. Like our public health care and the Canada child benefit, it is one of those things that helps to define Canada.

It has been a long time, since 1965, when the Liberal government of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson first established the Canada pension plan. As I have said, we live in a very different world than we did back in 1965, and Canadians face a very different retirement scenario today.

If we are to help Canadians save for their retirement and ensure that our retiring seniors do not slip into poverty, we need an enhanced Canada pension plan. With its efficient administration and strong performance, the Canada pension plan is the right vehicle to use as we seek to provide enhanced retirement savings for Canadians.

With Bill C-26, we would increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% by 2025. By increasing the amount of retirement pension, as well as the survivor and disability pensions, and the post-retirement fund, we are keeping our commitment of helping Canadians secure a strong, secure, and stable retirement.

We recognize that there will be an impact on both employees and employers, which is why the changes are being phased in gradually over the next seven years, from 2019 to 2025, for these needed investments. Canadians are investing in themselves and in their future. By investing in their employees, businesses will benefit as well. An employee who does not need to worry about their retirement is an employee who is happier and more productive for their employer.

Canadians deserve to retire with dignity. Today, 1.1 million families nearing retirement are facing a drop in their standard of living, but they will be able to retire with dignity when these reforms are fully in place.

Pension reform is an issue that needs national leadership. For years, as the provinces called out for federal leadership to address this growing problem, the previous government stayed silent, while everyday Canadians retired without enough savings to live comfortably.

I am proud to be part of a government that is prepared to lead and make some difficult choices. This is what leadership is about. The finance minister has worked closely with his provincial counterparts to reach an agreement that critics said was impossible.

We do not need to worry about our retirement in this place, but the millions of Canadians we represent do. This bill is for them, and I am proud to support it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, this summer I had the privilege of meeting a lady who is doing the financial work for a number of different companies in her area. She said very clearly that if the CPP increase goes through, a number of her companies would actually be forced to lay off workers, let alone hire new ones.

My colleague gives the impression that this change in CPP would somehow eliminate poverty. I want to quote a book by the chief actuary of Morneau Shepell, co-authored by the finance minister.

Whatever the reason might be to expand the CPP, it is not to eliminate poverty. The poverty rate among seniors is now as close to zero as we can get. Yes, a little over five per cent of seniors today still have income below the poverty line.

Going back to the first comment I made, when companies are forced to lay off workers, or when companies that would like to expand and hire more workers are not able to do that, in the end we will have fewer people working. How is it beneficial if a very few people get access to a small increase in CPP but hundreds of others are actually laid off or are out of job?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, CPP enhancement is crucial to ensure that Canadians do not slip into poverty and can retire with dignity. Enhancement of the CPP will help Canadians secure a strong, secure, and stable retirement.

Allow me to share some independent commentary and reviews on our government's proposal for CPP reform.

Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star said that it was “a clever bit of work” that made sense.

Ontario finance minister Charles Sousa said, “this federal government has shown great leadership and great desire to do something of great benefit for our young people.

B.C. finance minister Mike de Jong said it was “a balanced approach to setting the objectives that were set out”.

Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, called the plan “historic”, adding “I never thought this moment would come”.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, does the member have anything to say with respect to the fact that the dropout provision has been taken out, impacting particularly women and people on disability? I know the member is a very caring individual who wants to ensure that these provisions are in place for the protection and support of women and people with disabilities in our community. Would she support the call for change from her government with respect to this?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are proud of Bill C-26, the agreement reached with the provinces, to reform the Canada pension plan and improve retirement outcomes for all Canadians, including women and those with disabilities. I agree with the hon. member that more can, and should, be done with respect to dropout provisions for disability and child bearing. I would note though that such changes will require agreement with the provinces. I understand the finance minister will raise this issue with provincial and territorial colleagues in December. I look forward to the results of those discussions.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member must realize that for the government to take the provisions out to begin with, that must have been raised at the meetings with provincial and territorial leaders. If that is the case, then the government purposely traded this for something else. If that is not the case, then it inadvertently made a mistake and should be able to move forward in restoring these provisions that were in place since 1997. Would she not agree with that?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would again emphasize that this would require an agreement with the provincial and territorial counterparts. The Minister of Finance will take that up when he meets them in December.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks on Bill C-26, let me first offer my personal congratulations to everyone in the Ottawa Redblacks organization for a great Grey Cup victory yesterday. It was one of the more exciting games I have seen. A special shout out to Henry Burris, formerly of the Saskatchewan Rough Riders, who played a fantastic game. If that is the last game he plays in this league, it is a fitting exist. It was a magnificent performance.

I have some comments to make about Bill C-26, and, quite frankly, they are extremely critical.

Let again remind members of the definition of a tax. In essence, that is what is contained in Bill C-26. A tax is defined as “A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions”.

Let us take that definition and examine what is contained in Bill C-26.

Bill C-26 purports to have CPP premiums increased. Are they going to be increased voluntarily or is it compulsory? It is compulsory. Workers and employers alone have no say in the matter.

Is it levied upon workers' incomes and business profits? Most assuredly, it is. Both employers and employees are going to be forced into paying increased premiums.

Therefore, I would suggest, by anyone's definition, that Bill C-26 is a tax. It is a tax increase. It is a business and payroll tax. This is the worst time in Canadian history to be levying new taxes.

I am not a fan of taxes of any sort at any time. However, in the position we are now in Canada, with a sluggish economy, raising taxes is absolutely incoherent to me. It makes no sense. It takes money out of the pockets of people. It reduces the availability of Canadians to save more money. It reduces the ability of businesses to expand and create new jobs, in fact, just the opposite. I have talked to many small business owners who say that a CPP increase will, in eventuality, force them to either close up shop or lay off employees to try to survive. Neither one of those two options is a good one for small business owners.

The thing I cannot quite understand is why the government is trying to pass Bill C-26 now. Frankly, it is simply not necessary. Empirical evidence backs that up.

The government suggests that Bill C-26 is a way to increase retirement benefits for those Canadians who need it most.

When we take a look at the statistics, we find that less 5% of Canadian seniors are living below the poverty line. We have made great strides over the last decades. Only 30 or 40 years ago close to 30% of Canadians were living on low incomes. It is less than 5% now. Where is the need to increase retirement benefits if Canadians themselves are not living below the poverty line?

Additionally, I would point out that Canadians are saving more money now than they ever have in the past, approximately twice the amount they saved in 1990.

I would argue that all Canadians are aware of the responsibilities that come with planning for retirement. Their financial literacy quotient is increasing, and they are taking steps to prepare themselves for retirement.

Once again, if there is no need, why does the government feel it necessary to increase CPP premiums, to put additional taxes on Canadian businesses and Canadian workers? It does not seem to make much sense.

However, I think we can safely say that the reason the government is doing this is that it is part of its DNA. That is why its members are Liberals. They live to increase taxes. This is just one more example of it.

However, what is truly troubling to me is that this paternalistic approach to saying the government knows best, that it will take care of the retirement needs of people, is not only paternalistic, it is insulting to Canadians. In effect, the government is saying that Canadians do not have the capacity to plan for their own retirement, so the government will do it for them.

I have confidence in Canadians. I have confidence that they can plan for their own retirements and they do not need to be told by any government, let alone the current one, how to go about doing that.

I would point out for members of the chamber that there are more opportunities, more investment and retirement vehicles, in the marketplace now than there ever have been before to assist Canadians in planning for their retirements. I make specific reference to the TFSA, the most important advancement in tax avoidance that we have seen since the advent of RRSPs, a vehicle we introduced when our Conservative government was in power.

The TFSA, currently permeated in the Canadian tax base by about 10 million stakeholders who have TFSAs, allows after-tax dollars to be put into a tax-free savings account. The money generated in that account over years is tax-free, and is not taxed when that money is taken out.

We introduced this new innovation several years ago when we were in government. We started with a contribution limit of $5,000 per year, the amount Canadians could put into their TFSAs. A few years later, we increased it to $5,500. Then just before the last election, we increased the contribution limit to $10,500 to allow Canadians to put up to $10,500 a year into tax-free savings accounts to help plan and prepare for their retirements.

What did the Liberal government do? It rolled back the TFSA contribution limit, down to $5,500. In other words, it took away the ability of Canadians to put an addition $5,000 into TFSAs. What was the rationale? The Liberals say that Canadians simply do not have $10,000 kicking around at the end of the year. Therefore, since they would not be able to max out their contributions, the government would reduce their ability to even try.

In other words, the government is saying that Canadians could not afford to contribute to TFSAs. What is its answer? Instead of allowing Canadians the opportunity to voluntarily put money into tax-free savings accounts, the government is forcing Canadians, who apparently cannot afford it, to pay money into a state-run pension plan that is taxable when people withdraw their benefits. Canadian investors have no ability to choose the investment vehicle of their choice.

Nothing makes sense about this whatsoever. If Canadians are going to be forced to save, why not allow them to at least put it in tax-free savings accounts? No, that is not the case. They are being forced to put it in the CPP.

Granted, I believe the pension fund managers of the CPP over the years have done a very good job. However, the point is that, as an individual, I would like to control the investment vehicles myself. I want to choose whether I want to put money into mutual funds, stocks, bonds, or other investments, rather than someone telling me what I have to invest in and what my rate of return will be.

Once again, this seems to be a pattern with the government. It has the attitude that government knows best. We have seen this before. The insult to Canadians is that Liberals do not believe Canadians are bright enough to choose wisely with their investment accounts. They believe the government is smarter than Canadian taxpayers.

We can all recall, just a few short years ago, during the federal election campaign, when the Conservative government introduced the universal child care benefit. The chief of staff of the prime minister of the day, Paul Martin, went on television and said that it was a bad idea because if the government gave money directly to parents and let them choose how to raise their children, they would blow it all on beer and popcorn. That is the attitude the current government has. It is paternalistic, it is condescending, and it is insulting. That is why, on this side of the House, we will oppose Bill C-26.

The basic difference between Conservatives and Liberals is this. As Conservatives, we believe in lower taxes, balanced budgets, and smaller governments. The Liberals believe in higher taxes, deficit spending, and much larger governments. Eventually, Canadians will see the light and that is why, on this side of the House, we will be opposing Bill C-26, and opposing it with vigour.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the fact that there are more people saving now than there were in 1990, but he neglected to mention the fact that there were also many more people paying into employer-generated pensions then that helped people save indirectly through those pension plans.

What this comes down to is that there is a great growing difference between the haves and the have-nots in this country. This is a matter of building the middle class, strengthening the middle class, and making sure that people have what they need when it comes time to retire.

My question to the member opposite is very simple. Does he believe that there is a growing difference in Canadian society between the haves and the have-nots, and does he feel it is the role of government to assist to prevent that from happening?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, my approach, quite frankly, is that I believe in individual freedom. I believe in an individual's right to make his or her own decisions rather than have the government step in and be Big Brother all the time. That is a fundamental distinction that I do not know my colleague opposite truly understands.

In other words, I believe the government is trying to find a solution for which there is no problem. Statistics bear that out. Fewer than 5% of Canadians right now, fewer than 5% of seniors, are living below the poverty line, when 30 years ago it was 30%. More Canadians are saving as they prepare for retirement. They are doing so of their own volition. They are doing so with plans they generate themselves. They are not being told, nor do they want to be told, how to invest and where to invest.

That is why I believe in individual freedom. That is why I believe that Bill C-26 is a flawed piece of legislation.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his speech. He is a very nice person and I have a great amount of respect for him.

Some members are saying that this is not the time for CPP expansion, but many of our retirees, at least in Hamilton Mountain, are suffering in poverty. The three main pillars when they went to work were the Canada pension plan, some of their own personal investments, and a private pension plan from work. However, people's private pension plans are now being eroded by bankruptcy protection. They have been wound up and they have been shortchanged. People did not have enough time to stretch it out. That is happening more frequently.

Knowing that that's one of the main pillars, does the hon. member not think we should now be putting in protections for our children and grandchildren to make sure that they do not have these problems? I know this is not going to fix everything, but it is one of the main pillars we can strengthen. Then we can work on the others.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his kind remarks at the outset of his question. From one Blue Jays fan to another, I suppose we will always have some areas of agreement as well as some of disagreement.

My answer to that would be to ask what life his children or my children or grandchildren will have if they do not have jobs. Many small business people have told me that the CPP expansion, even though the government suggests that it is a modest increase, would have an incredibly detrimental effect on their ability to hire more employees.

In fact, when we were on a tour across Canada just recently, we happened to be in Thunder Bay. I went to a restaurant for dinner with one of my colleagues. The restaurant owner, once finding out that I was a member of Parliament, started to engage me in conversation about what the expansion of the CPP premiums would mean to his business. He told my colleague and I, very clearly, that the profit margin was so skinny that with the CPP expansion, he would either have to close his doors or lay off employees. What kind of retirement would he have? What kind of retirement would his employees who might be laid off have?

There are other ways to help Canadians who need assistance plan for retirement. We expanded the GIS. The GIS is targeted to the lowest-income Canadians in this great nation of ours. We expanded it. I believe the Liberal government, to its credit, increased it by about 10%. Things can be done without increasing a job-killing tax, which Bill C-26 most surely is.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak to Bill C-26 once again. I am confident in the beneficial impact it will have on the lives of hard-working Canadians.

I like to think of the bill as an investment in our future, an investment to ensure that Canadians who have worked hard all their lives will be able to lead the lives they always wanted when they retire. More importantly, the bill is an investment in young Canadians, an investment in our future generations.

With all nine Canada pension plan participating provinces supporting this investment, it is well known that this investment is indeed necessary. By enhancing the Canada pension plan, we are enabling young Canadians to enter the workforce with confidence, knowing that when it comes time for them to retire, they can do so with a stable pension.

Throughout my first year as a member of Parliament, I have spoken with many young Canadians regarding a wide range of issues. As mentioned in my first speech on the bill, the issue of saving for retirement was consistently brought to my attention throughout these conversations. Even though they may be decades away from retirement, with fewer and fewer employers offering a workplace pension plan, young Canadians are very concerned that they will not have enough when they retire.

A 2016 survey conducted by Franklin Templeton indicated that 70% of young Canadians say that retirement makes them anxious. In a 2016 poll conducted by The Globe and Mail, it was discovered that saving for retirement is the second most pressing concern for young Canadians. Why is this? It is because today's young Canadians have grown up in households where not saving enough for retirement has been a constant fear. These young Canadians see the approximately 1.1 million families currently facing the insurmountable fear of not having enough money saved to maintain their standard of living in retirement, and they take on this fear before entering the workforce.

It could be argued that due to the fact that Canadians are living longer, the fear of not saving enough for retirement is greater for young Canadians than it was for their parents, given that they know they have to save more for longer. It is hard for me to believe that in 2016, in our country, our young adults are facing such concerns. Young Canadians entering the workforce should feel like they have their whole lives in front of them, because in reality, they do. However, currently these young Canadians are faced with the intimidating fear of not having enough money saved for retirement, something they should not worry about until much later in their lives.

According to Statistics Canada, Canadians aged 34 and under currently account for 42.5% of Canada's population, and this is expected to increase over the next 15 to 25 years. This is a significant portion of our population that cannot be ignored. It is for this reason that an enhancement of the Canada pension plan is necessary. Bill C-26 is designed to address and ease their concerns.

When speaking with young Canadians in my riding regarding this issue, I have promised that I would be their advocate here in the House of Commons, and by standing here again in support of the bill, I know I am fulfilling that promise.

Now, switching gears a bit, the members opposite have raised concerns that the bill does not benefit low-income Canadians because of the incremental increases in contributions. I would like to remind the members opposite that the bill would also provide an enhancement to the working income tax benefit, which would provide additional benefits that would ultimately offset the incremental increases in contributions. I would also like to remind them that the contributions to the enhanced portion of the Canada pension plan would be deductible.

I am well aware that the members opposite have brought forward other concerns about the bill, but I want to remind these members that our government was able to work with all nine Canada pension plan participating provinces to come to an agreement on this enhancement. This demonstrates that our government is able to effectively work with the provinces. Therefore, I want to assure the members opposite that no matter what concerns they have, our government is able to work with the provinces to make adjustments and fix any problems that may arise in the future. This is something that will be discussed when the minister meets with the provinces next month.

Like many members in this House, I come from a family that immigrated to Canada. My family, like every other, worked hard and made sacrifices so that their families and future generations would not have to face the same struggles. Ultimately, they made these sacrifices in the hopes that future generations would live better lives than they did.

In keeping with this concept, today many Canadians who have worked hard all their lives are now in their later years and are struggling to make ends meet. Many of their employers did not provide a workplace pension plan, and the current Canada pension plan is not strong or stable enough for them to live comfortably. I can guarantee that the Canadians who are currently facing these struggles do not want future generations to face the same struggles they are currently facing.

This government is working hard to ensure that this does not happen. By working with the provinces to reach an agreement and by being strong advocates during the debates in this House, this government is demonstrating its commitment to providing a better life for our country's future generations. Enhancing the Canada pension plan is an investment in our future, and I hope all members of this House feel the same way.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up the issue of young people as it relates to this piece of legislation. We have heard a lot of commentary, in particular from the opposition today, about older individuals and seniors and how fewer of them require the changes we are talking about today, but in reality, the objective of this legislation is to affect people generations from now.

The member talked a bit about when he was campaigning and talking to young people. Can he comment on how many of those young people he talked to spoke of the fact that they had employer pensions, and in particular, how this legislation could help them specifically?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, actually, when I spoke to this bill previously, I mentioned that I had gone to a lot of high schools and spoken with high school students. A lot of them were concerned that the government was literally burying its head in the sand and not addressing the fact that we have an aging population that is going to retire all at once. The students were concerned that they will have to incur that cost, so they were quite pleased to know that our government is taking these steps now instead of just punting it down the field.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the comments my colleague made was that his party is concerned about the future of young people and jobs and all that sort of thing. However, it is clear that increasing CPP premiums would actually reduce the number of jobs that are available. We have heard from many small business owners that they will not be able to expand their workforce. They will not be able to make that new hire. In fact, they may actually end up laying off some of their current employees. I fail to understand how we can square that circle of increasing CPP premiums, reducing jobs, and making it better for young people.

Dan Kelly, the president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said this:

Two thirds of small firms say they will have to freeze or cut salaries and over a third say they will have to reduce hours or jobs in their business in response to a CPP/QPP hike.

How can this member actually believe that increasing CPP premiums will increase the number of jobs available for the young people who are graduating from the high schools he just mentioned?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the increases are modest.

I would like to match his words with the words of a previous member of the opposition. The late Jim Flaherty, in 2010, said that to do nothing would condemn Canadians to not having enough money for themselves when they retire.

It was the opposition members who actually acknowledged that there is a CPP gap, but it was the opposition that failed to do something about it. Unlike the Conservatives' previous government, we have actually done it. We have worked with the provinces, and we got it right.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was going to rise to ask a question, but it seems that I will be starting my speech now. I would like to say hello to all those Canadians who are watching us right now, especially my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou.

I am very pleased to speak in the House to Bill C-26, regarding the Canada pension plan.

My Conservative colleague from Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan spoke just before me. I admire his exemplary oratory skills and aspire to achieve the same some day. He talked about how this bill is typical of this and every Liberal government since the dawn of Canada. In fact, this is about taxing Canadians even more in order to fill the government's coffers to help carry out the Liberal government's agenda.

My colleague also talked about the Liberals' paternalistic approach to everything. All the while, he was able to illustrate with clear and concise definitions that increasing CPP contributions was in fact a tax from an economic and social policy perspective. He described in detail the Liberals' typically paternalistic approach to raising taxes.

That was encouraging to me as I wanted to explain that this bill is typical of this government, one that, despite its claims, has been increasing Canadians' taxes every month since coming to power one year ago.

It cancelled various tax credits that we introduced, such as those for children's sports activities or books and educational items. It refused to move forward with its promise to lower the small business tax, which represents a tax hike. It cancelled the universal child care benefit and replaced it with a benefit that was poorly implemented and that, by 2020, will incur extraordinary costs that were not anticipated. The government did not think of indexation, for example. That is not revenue neutral.

The Liberals have also proposed the Liberal tax on carbon of 11.5¢ a litre, which will soon be implemented. They are also increasing the CPP contribution by $1,000 a year for every employee and every employer. Furthermore, they did not reduce the small business tax. They are also making it more difficult to obtain a mortgage in order to buy a home.

On this side of the House, we understand full well that the exponential growth in real estate prices in places like Vancouver and Toronto is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, the Liberals decided to draft a bill that makes no distinction with respect to the different regions of Canada in order to resolve a problem that is affecting only certain cities.

Bill C-26 is part of a general plan to raise taxes for Canadians. This bill is proof that the Liberals are saying one thing and doing another. For the past year, we have been hearing the Liberals talk about strengthening the middle class, but what we are seeing is that they are imposing more taxes on the middle class and introducing measures that will prevent the middle class from developing as it should.

We could even go so far as to say that the government is using the middle class to achieve its own ends and improve its electoral fortunes three years down the road. The government promised us a modest deficit of $10 billion a year. However, that deficit has now grown to $30 billion because of the government's poor decisions and bad management. To fill its coffers, the government has to raise taxes in all sorts of areas, and that includes the Canada pension plan.

In a nutshell, because of Bill C-26, workers will take home $1,000 less every year and employers and entrepreneurs, the people who lead the way in job creation in Canada, will have to give up another $1,000 per year.

I heard what my Liberal colleague said about seniors working hard all their lives and being entitled to a good Canada pension plan. He was talking about workers who are seniors right now. I stood up to ask him a question. Nowadays, more and more of our seniors keep working after retirement. My father-in-law retired from the Quebec public service a few years ago and is now working part-time. The higher Canada pension plan premium will be deducted from every one of his biweekly paycheques. Moreover, the changes to the Canada pension plan will not come into effect for another 40 years. Many seniors, including anyone who is currently a senior, will not benefit from the higher premiums, which are supposedly intended to reduce poverty among seniors.

I would also like to reiterate what my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent was saying a little earlier when he began the debate on Bill C-26. As he explained, what we are seeing right now are two different and opposing political and philosophical outlooks. My colleague from Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan provided a good description of the Liberal Party's vision. The Liberals think they know better than Canadians what they should do with their money and how they should use it at the end of the day. That is so paternalistic. It is in this government's DNA. It always thinks it knows better than Canadians what to do about all kinds of things, including how to invest and prepare for a comfortable retirement, if that is possible.

Conversely, we the Conservatives believe that individuals, Canadians themselves, know best what suits them to meet their own needs. That is why, during the 10 years we were in power, we took action and introduced policies that would help return as much money as possible to taxpayers, to maximize the amount of money that would stay in their pockets at the end of the year, as well as maximize the tools available to enable them, in turn, to maximize everything themselves. For instance, I think that the tax-free savings account is an excellent tool. Many people in my immediate family use that measure, as do my neighbours and constituents.

I also want to say that we should look to our ancestors. For example, my great-grandfather built his own retirement nest egg. I am not saying that we should go back to a time when there was no government plan to support those among us who forget to do our due diligence and prepare for old age. However, we must not implement measures that encourage people to neglect their needs and their responsibility to take care of their own retirement. We must always keep in mind the sage advice that our ancestors lived by. In other words, we must create our own nest eggs and ensure that when we reach old age we are able to take care of ourselves as much as possible for as long as possible.

I also think that Bill C-26 reflects two rather different political approaches. I would go so far as to say that my NDP colleagues share this same vision. Currently, every policy from this government is about short-term political gains with a view to re-election in three years, or so they think and want. How many decisions did we make in the past 10 years that were not at all popular? We still went ahead and made them anyway. We were courageous and proud to make those decisions. I am talking about increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67. That was an extremely courageous and necessary decision. I am sure that I will likely never retire. I will work until I die, as people did for thousands of years. It is too bad.

I wanted to close by saying that one of my hobbies is to watch political debates. I have watched the debates in France, England, and in Germany, and the majority of the western European countries are saying that the age of retirement needs to increase. We said that, but this government is going in the opposite direction. It is very unfortunate.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his eloquent speech. He clearly articulated the Conservatives' views, and I thank him for that. His speech was very informative, as usual.

My colleague mentioned that the government provides a minimum social safety net for those who forget to do their due diligence.

In his opinion, has the government done its due diligence regarding current seniors and future seniors like us? We have not been 16 for a long time.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the government has continued on the same path as the Conservatives in that they are increasing the guaranteed income supplement, which is a good thing. We can acknowledge that.

However, the government is preventing seniors who are currently working part-time from thriving. In my riding, most seniors that I meet work part-time. They therefore have to contribute to a retirement plan that they will not benefit from.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his fine speech. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

He spoke about DNA, and I think that is a very important issue. The approach I take is based on the principle of walking the talk. For example, the Conservative Party often says that it does not like deficits. However, that party ran a deficit in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. They do not walk the talk.

The member also spoke about the Conservative Party's long-term vision. Since we are talking about pension plans, I would like to remind him that the Conservatives sold the GM shares at a loss. That is not a long-term vision. The only purpose that served was to allow the Conservatives to tell Canadians that they balanced the budget in 2015.

Since we know that defined benefit plans are in decline in Canada, what does my hon. colleague propose? Should we do the same thing that we have done for the past 40 years or should we do things differently?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not up to me to suggest measures. The Liberals are in government. What I can say is that their current proposal will not increase or strengthen the CPP, but instead will provide the government with additional revenue to cover its poor financial management.

I would like to say to my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell that in 2007, 2008 and 2009, the world went through the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. We ran deficits at the time to weather that great storm, and we did so with the best record of all G7 countries as we created more than 1.2 million jobs and had the best employment rate of all OECD countries.

We believe that the government should follow our lead.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I hear a lot about tax breaks. This is a government that generally supports tax breaks. After all, we introduced Bill C-2, which gives a substantial tax break to Canada's middle class of hundreds of millions of dollars, and nine million plus Canadians are benefiting from that.

One could ask the question, why then, if there is so much focus on tax breaks, did the Conservatives vote against that most significant tax break?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we voted against Bill C-2 because it is a false decrease of taxes in Canada.

I would invite my colleagues to chat with Senator Larry Smith, who has done great research and has put forward some amendments at the Senate committee on finance. This is research that shows, without doubt, that the decrease of taxes will only benefit households that make between $140,000 and $170,000 per year. It will not help any household with revenue under $100,000 per year. People with lower incomes are not better off with that. That is my answer to my colleague.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker,, Carol Hughes]

Before we resume debate, I want to advise the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health that I will have to interrupt her speech and that she will be able to finish afterwards.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to talk in support of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act. This is an extremely important piece of legislation that will help millions of hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including many in my riding of Brampton West.

Opponents who are critical of this legislation often cite the fact that we have hard-working Canadians struggling to make ends meet today. I have residents from my riding calling and meeting with me on a regular basis to express how difficult it has become to support their families. Let me start with a story.

I met a couple with three children from my riding a year ago last November at a coffee shop before my constituency office had even opened. Both parents worked and the father had a second part-time job, yet this family was struggling. They were barely able to feed their children. Unfortunately, their story has become too common in our country. Canadian families that work so hard should not be struggling.

This same family visited me again a couple of months ago in September. They asked me if I could thank our Prime Minister on their behalf. The Canada child benefit that our Prime Minister has championed has taken a huge burden off this family. The increase in the Canada student grants has given this family hope that their children will be able to attend university one day.

This is just one of the many examples of families that have been positively impacted by the reforms our government has introduced to address the urgent issues facing Canadian families.

Short-term stimulus is extremely important. However, to generally serve Canadians our government must deliver for Canadians in the long-term as well. We need to give Canadians hope for their future. We need to ensure that all Canadians are given the opportunity to have a strong, safe, and secure retirement. Ensuring that all Canadians have the support of a pension plan that helps them maintain their standard of living after they retire is essential to achieving this objective.

Canadians value the long-term pension security provided by the Canada pension plan since its inception over 50 years ago by Lester B. Pearson's government. One of the harsh realities of today's economic climate is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Canadians to plan and save for their retirement years. The cost of living in Canada continues to spike sharply. Retirement savings and the pension plans of Canadians are not keeping pace. The life expectancy of Canadians is going up. As a result, an increasing number of Canadians will be forced to reduce their standard of living in their retirement years.

I have heard these issues loud and clear at the doorsteps, in our town halls, at community events, and in my constituency office. Last week, one of my constituents said that if it is this difficult now, what would he do when he retires and needs to live on a fixed income? What would his grandchildren do? How would they support themselves in their retirement? This is a real and growing concern for middle-class Canadians. As I said, the cost of living in Canada is rising. The cost of food is increasing, particularly healthy foods. The cost of leasing an apartment is increasing. Transportation costs continue to go up. These trends are expected to continue and will increasingly burden Canadian families in their retirement years.

I see that my time is up for now. I will continue my remarks after question period.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health will have six minutes remaining in her speech following question period.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1

Canada Pension Plan

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health has six minutes remaining in her speech.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue my speech on an extremely important piece of legislation.

As I was saying, last week, one of my constituents said to me, “If it is this difficult now, what will I do when I retire and need to live on a fixed income? What will our grandchildren do, and how will they support themselves in their retirement?”

This is a real and growing concern for middle-class Canadians. The cost of living in Canada is rising. The cost of food is increasing, particularly healthy foods. The cost of leasing an apartment is rising. Transportation costs are going up. These trends are expected to continue, and these trends will increasingly burden Canadian families in their retirement years.

As a result of technological advancements, Canadians are living longer and healthier lives. In 1971, a 65-year-old Canadian was expected to live to the age of 79. Today, the expectation has risen to the age 87. The numbers continue to improve, continue to rise. However, this also increases the risk that Canadians will outlive their savings.

Today, 1.1 million Canadian families with major income earners approaching retirement are at risk of not having enough saved for their retirement. This is about a quarter of families approaching retirement. We need to take action to help ensure that this trend does not continue.

Fewer Canadians have access to a workplace pension plan, and even fewer have access to a defined benefit workplace pension plan. In 1981, about 34% of private sector employees had workplace pension plans. Today, this figure is close to 24% and continues to drop.

After working hard for 40 or more years over their lifetimes, Canadians deserve better. A stronger Canada pension plan is a critical priority for middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join it. Our government has developed a responsible, long-term solution to address this issue. The enhancements to the Canada pension plan proposed in Bill C-26 will provide real and meaningful change for all Canadians.

Enhancing the Canada pension plan will give Canadians a larger public pension, helping them retire with dignity. I am proud of our government's hon. Minister of Finance, and all of the Canadian provincial finance ministers, for prioritizing an enhancement to the Canada pension plan, and for reaching a bold and historic agreement to deliver for the benefit of each and every Canadian.

Working Canadians currently receive a pension that is one-quarter of their eligible earnings. This figure could increase to one-third of eligible earnings under the proposed plan. This is a meaningful and significant change. To ensure that our most vulnerable Canadians are not held back by the changes, the working income tax benefit will be increased. The increase in the working income tax benefit will roughly offset the incremental Canada pension plan contribution for low-income workers. Only the contributors who make additional contributions will be able to receive the benefits of the enhancement.

This important feature of our nation's pension plan legislation would ensure that each generation pays for its own benefits and that our Canadian pension plan remains financially sustainable. If the enhanced Canadian pension plan had been implemented in the past, instead of the 24% of families who are approaching retirement being at risk of not having adequate retirement savings, that number would be closer to 18%. This represents a life-changing difference for many hard-working middle-class families who will likely struggle to maintain their standard of living through retirement under the current system.

The proposal would make a meaningful impact for all Canadians. This means more money to put toward living expenses for retirees, more money to put toward housing, more money to put toward food or health services such as prescription drugs, and the list goes on.

Ensuring that Canadians have more money in their pockets at retirement through the proposed Canada pension plan changes would stimulate our economy in perpetuity, creating long-term growth. Canadians have given our government a clear mandate to ensure that all workers have a minimum level of financial security as they retire.

All Canadians deserve to retire with dignity and to have the opportunity to maintain their standard of living in their retirement years. It is our responsibility to support legislation that would have such a meaningful impact on the day-to-day lives of Canadians in their retirement years.

On behalf of the residents of Brampton West, I proudly support the proposed enhancements to the Canada pension plan, and I encourage all parliamentarians to vote in favour of Bill C-26.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two specific questions for the member about this proposed pension change.

First, the government cut back on tax-free savings accounts. It is concerned about people being able to save for retirement. Why not let people save for their own retirement?

Second, the government speaks, often, about concern for current seniors. It should be frank about the fact that this program is not aimed at current seniors at all. There could be a variety of mechanisms, such as cutting taxes for seniors and cutting taxes across the board, but especially for vulnerable seniors, that would actually help seniors who need the help right now.

Why is the government increasing taxes, which reduces the capacity to save, in a way that does not actually help our current seniors at all but adds an additional burden for our businesses in the present time. Why is the government proceeding in that direction, when it has much better, more effective alternatives available?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to see reforms to the Canada pension plan. Canadians want and deserve the opportunity to retire with dignity.

Our government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has illustrated our unwavering commitment to assisting senior citizens. Our government has increased guaranteed income supplement payments for single seniors. Our government has rolled back changes to old age security, reducing the eligibility age back to 65 from 67. Our government has invested in affordable housing infrastructure.

This legislation governing the Canada pension plan requires that individuals who make additional contributions receive the increase in benefits associated with higher contributions. This reform was established in the 1990s to ensure that the Canada pension plan remains fully funded and financially sustainable.

Canadians are asking for a more secure retirement, and our government plans to do just that.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the member mentioned what a great result it is for people in the middle class with the income tax breaks, but they do not include people who make $44,000 or less with no children or their families.

She mentioned how important this bill is for the middle class looking for long-term solutions, but apparently, it eliminates people raising children and people living with disabilities. What is the long-term solution for them going forward?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 would benefit all Canadians. Canadians deserve a strong, safe, and secure retirement. Our government has demonstrated and illustrated an unwavering commitment to creating equality and opportunity for women and persons with disabilities. We are aware that more could be done with respect to the dropout provisions for disability and child-rearing to make sure that this expansion is as inclusive as possible.

However, as my colleague also knows, to make any changes to the plan, we need agreement with the provinces. The Minister of Finance will raise the dropout provisions at the next provincial and territorial finance ministers meeting in December in the context of the triennial review of the Canada pension plan.

Canadians are asking for a secure retirement, and our government is committed to delivering on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the parliamentary secretary did not answer the simple question I asked, so I will ask it again and hope she answers.

The OAS and the CPP changes the government talks about do not help current seniors. What she is talking about imposes costs on current businesses and on the current economy. We know that businesses are going to suffer. Some businesses are going to close as a result of this. However, it provides absolutely no relief or benefit for current seniors.

Why is the government not contemplating proposals that actually provide benefits for current seniors and strengthen our economy for the future? Why is it not looking at some of these more effective alternatives that empower the private sector rather than going in the direction it is going?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, a stronger national pension plan will make our economy and Canadian businesses more sustainable.

Our government has made a strong commitment to helping small and medium-sized businesses innovate and grow. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy.

As Canadians retire with their enhanced Canada pension plan, they will have more money in their pockets to spend. They will purchase goods and services from businesses and in turn stimulate our economy. This is the long-term vision we are looking at. We will continue to deliver on the commitment we made.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to speak once again to Bill C-26, which seeks to expand the Canada pension plan.

We have always known that the Liberals do not listen to anyone except their cronies. Although they like to stand up and tell us that they are defending the middle class, I have my doubts. In fact, the more they talk about defending the middle class, the more they raise taxes, and the more money they take from taxpayers' pockets, which does not help the middle class.

Every time the Liberals introduce a new bill, we can expect taxpayers to be forced to fork out more for a new tax. We all pay taxes. The government is taking even more money out of taxpayers' pockets.

The Liberal mindset is this: I am, I demand, and I think for Canadians. We on this side of the House believe in Canadians and the middle class. We believe that taxpayers need their money. We know perfectly well that Canadians, not the government, are in the best position to manage their own money.

If the Liberals had listened to what anyone other than their cronies had to say, they would realize that not everyone agrees with them.

I have some quotations from certain people to share. On May 31, 2016, the senior director of economic, financial and tax policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said:

...we're worried a big tax increase is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest....This comes at the worst possible time—an economy reeling from weak commodity prices and slower consumer spending will be lucky to eke out growth of 1.5% next year. It’s difficult to stimulate the economy while pulling money out of the pockets of Canadians.

On June 20, 2016, the president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

It is tremendously disappointing to see that finance ministers are putting Canadian wages, hours and jobs in jeopardy and willfully moving to make an already shaky economy even worse.... It appears that jobs and the economy are not particularly high priorities for the governments that have signed off on this deal.

We have been talking about seniors a lot. The basic principle is not a bad one, but seniors who are 70 years old now will not need help in 40 years. They need help right now. Seniors who are 70 now will never get this help because it will not be available for another 40 years. The Liberal government is bringing in a law that will not take effect until 2019, which is so interesting because that is when the next election happens. That is a very Liberal way of doing things. The Liberals never really cared about the middle class. They cared, as always, about themselves.

It is one thing to hold $1,500 fundraising cocktails and invite a bunch of millionaires, but the middle class is having a hard time making ends meet. The economy is faltering. All of those grand Liberal principles are just a smokescreen. The Liberals talk about giving this to people, and they think we are not politically savvy enough to see through their little game. If changes are to be made, it should not take 40 years.

It is good to think about the long term, but we also need to think about our seniors who need help now, not 40 years from now.

That is why I will be voting against this bill. It is full of holes. It is not what the Liberals say that worries me. It is what they never tell the public. They give nice speeches and make headlines, but what scares me the most is what the Liberals are not saying.

Middle-class families are being taxed to death and are struggling to make ends meet. Many of them will now have a harder time. For example, it will now be even more difficult for new graduates to pay back their student loans or buy their first home. The Liberals did away with the old rules, and now young families will be unable to buy their first home. It will also be more difficult for companies to create jobs and increase wages.

Every time I hear the Liberals talking about their plans, I worry about what they are not saying because that is what is dangerous. No one is against virtue, but the bill before us says in black and white that it will take 40 years for the system to work properly. Not even I will see that money, and I am in my early 50s. In 40 years, I will probably be too old to remember that the Liberals implemented this measure. Our seniors need help today, not in 40 years.

What is more, the same question keeps coming up: where are the Liberals going to find this money? The Liberals are giving out money hand over fist to everyone right now. However, as far as I know, money does not grow on trees. Everyone dreams of a better future, a better life, and a better situation, but that takes money. It is not always pleasant to live on credit. As taxpayers, if we were to live on credit, the bank would not hesitate to come and take our money and our assets when the bill comes due.

I would therefore like someone to explain to me what the Liberals do not understand. We will not vote for this bill as long as it does not produce an immediate effect. The effects of this bill will not be felt for a very long time. However, our seniors need help now, not 40 years from now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important every so often to reinforce what we are actually debating here. This is a historic agreement.

For many years I sat on the opposition benches hoping that some day, Stephen Harper and the then Conservative government would do something with regard to the CPP. We finally have strong national leadership and have actually seen provinces of all political stripes, meaning NDP, Conservative, and Liberal, come to the table. We have an agreement with those provinces and territories. That is what we are debating today. It is about the future of pensions for today's workers.

Only the Conservatives have determined that this is a bad piece of legislation. Why does the Conservative Party believe that everyone else is wrong and that it is the Conservatives who are right? I would suggest that the Conservatives have lost touch with reality and with Canadians.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I will be honest, this is not only about the Conservatives.

The hon. member might be under the impression here in the House that it is just the Conservatives who are against this bill. However, when we go around some of the poorer ridings, we see that people do not understand what the Liberal government is trying to accomplish with this because the money is needed now, not 40 years from now.

I am glad to know that my colleague across the way would have liked the Conservatives to do something. Unlike the hon. member, we think that makes a lot of sense. The Liberals do not believe in Canadians, but I do. I believe that Canadians are the only ones who can say what they want to do with their money, but the Liberals do not believe that because they always think they are above everyone else.

As the saying goes, when the Liberals stand up, the good Lord rests. I am sorry, but when the Liberals stand up, I sit down because I do not believe a word they say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Like her, I believe that the government could be helping seniors who are retired now. Among all seniors, 30% of women who currently live alone live in poverty. That number has tripled over the past 20 years.

Could my colleague elaborate specifically on the situation of retired women living in poverty and how this bill is only going to make matters worse for them?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

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

Indeed, I could speak at length about women living in poverty because I was poor at one point.

This bill brings into focus the situation of a segment of the population that is already struggling. The bill never refers to these people and that bothers me. We have heard some fine speeches. However, as I already said, will repeat, and will continue to say, it is what the Liberals have left unsaid that frightens me.

They never once mention women living in poverty or single women with children who struggle day after day. I know what that means because I struggled my entire life. I was a single parent when I was 28 years old and now I am a member of Parliament.

I am so proud to stand with the Conservatives for the simple reason that I have come to understand something: when you struggle in life, you end up succeeding; but if you rely on promises that are not kept, like those of the Liberals, you can go on being poor for a long time, because those promises are just empty words.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to express my support for Bill C-26. I am speaking today because I believe Bill C-26 will benefit my constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

As members know, a strong Canada pension plan was a core element of our government's bold plan to put people first and to help the middle class, because we understand that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. That is precisely what we are doing by enhancing the Canada pension plan.

Middle-class Canadians in my riding are working harder than ever, and many are worried that they will not have set enough money aside for their retirement. The Department of Finance has examined whether families nearing retirement are adequately prepared for retirement. About one in four Canadian families approaching retirement, or about 1.1 million families, are at risk of not saving enough to maintain their current standard of living.

The risk is highest for middle-class families, families without workplace pension plans are at even greater risk of under-saving for retirement. A third of these families are at risk.

I spoke with many seniors in my riding during the last election who were concerned that they will not be able to afford basic costs before they receive their next guaranteed income supplement cheque. Our government has to address this by substantially increasing the GIS, and also honouring our campaign commitment to lower the age of retirement from 67 to 65.

However, they were more concerned about their families' futures. They wanted to know their grandchildren would have the same security going through life that they had. Hearing that on the doorsteps from residents of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is why I support Bill C-26.

Younger Canadians across the country and in my riding, who tend to have higher debts than the previous generation and in most cases will live longer than the previous generations, face the challenge of securing adequate retirement savings at the time when fewer can expect to work in the jobs that will include a workplace pension plan.

We are aware of the need to help Canadians save more. Saving more will mean they are more confident about their future and about their ability to secure a dignified retirement.

I am proud to be able to say that we are delivering on our commitment to do just that. Working in close collaboration towards a common purpose with governments across Canada, we reached an agreement that will give Canadians a more generous public pension to help them retire with dignity. The goal of a stronger CPP is truly a high priority, which is shared by Canadians from coast to coast to coast, with 75% in favour of a strong public pension plan.

The challenge that government faced in drafting an enhanced CPP was that the current plan was not accumulating benefits quickly enough to meet the future needs of Canadians in the world where workplace pension coverage continues to decline.

The enhancement that the Canadian government agreed on would do two things to address this. First, it would boost the share of annual earnings received during retirement from one quarter to one third. For example, an individual making $50,000 a year in today's dollars over his or her working life would receive about $16,000 per year in retirement instead of the roughly $12,000 they receive today.

Second, the enhancement would increase, by 14%, the maximum income range covered by CPP. This means, once fully in place, the enhanced CPP would increase the maximum CPP retirement benefit by 50%.

In other words, the current maximum benefit of $13,110 in today's dollar terms would increase by nearly $7,000 under the enhanced CPP, bringing the maximum benefit up to almost $20,000.

The legislation also includes enrichment to the CPP disability and survivor benefits. For most Canadians these increased benefits would come from just a 1% increase in contribution rates. This enhancement is set to help young Canadians just entering the workforce the most. They would see the largest increase in benefits. This means that young people throughout my riding and across Canada would have a Canadian pension plan that fills the gap for those who do not have a workplace pension plan.

Having grandchildren myself, this is important for me, knowing that young people today will have a CPP that ensures their security when they grow older and eventually retire. We are also making sure to give individuals and their employers plenty of time to adjust to this modest increase, making sure it is small and gradual starting in 2019.

Today's legislation as agreed upon with the provinces and territories would ensure that low-income Canadians are not financially burdened as a result of their extra contributions. It would do this by enhancing the working income tax benefit to roughly offset incremental CPP contributions, leaving eligible low-income Canadians with little to no change in disposable income, while still securing a higher retirement income for them.

The enhanced CPP would simply build on the core existing CPP benefits, in a smart, carefully targeted, and effective way that reflects the extensive research that governments brought to the table in crafting this enhancement to the benefit of working Canadians. Taken together, it is a comprehensive package that would increase CPP benefits while striking an appropriate balance between short-term economic considerations and longer-term gains.

What does Bill C-26 mean for my constituents and Canadians across the country? Enhancing the CPP means first and foremost there would be more money from the CPP waiting for Canadians when they retire. This means they would be able to focus on the things that matter like spending time with their families rather than worrying about making ends meet. It means reducing the share of families at risk of not saving enough for retirement as well as reducing the degree to which Canadians are under-saving.

A stronger CPP is also the right tool at the right time to improve retirement income security of young workers. It is an opportunity for today's hard-working Canadians to give their children, grandchildren, and future generations a more secure retirement. Since I was elected last October, I have had the honour and great responsibility of representing my constituents in Ottawa. I have enjoyed time with young people in my riding, local schools, community groups, and other events. Their ability to save money for a secure and comfortable, dignified retirement is very important to me.

This enhancement of the CPP and this investment in Canadians would ensure future generations are secure in their retirement. This is why I will be voting for Bill C-26 and I encourage my colleagues from every party to do so as well.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said he is looking forward to improved retirement security for his grandchildren. I, too, have a number of grandchildren. However, how will it be more secure for our grandchildren if, as Dan Kelly said, two-thirds of small firms have to freeze or cut salaries, or even reduce hours or the number of jobs? If our grandchildren do not have jobs, it does not matter what the CPP will be, because there will be no CPP for them without jobs.

Also, the member mentioned once these measures are fully in place, but he failed to address the fact it will be 40 years from now. How can we really believe that these measures will help current retirees when they clearly will not be implemented for a full 40 years?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure we all remember when CPP was introduced back in 1965-66. Even then, those across the aisle said that businesses would close as a result, but look at the result today. Our seniors have a better retirement from the CPP.

My government today understands the need to enhance the CPP so that the next generation can have a decent retirement.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a couple of statements on what the bill would do for our grandchildren and children going forward. He gave us a little bit of a history lesson about when the CPP was introduced in 1966, but he never mentioned the 1977 ruling when the Liberal government at the time introduced legislation so that people dropping out of the workforce to raise children and those living with disabilities would not be penalized as a result.

Now, in 2016, Bill C-26 calls for enhancements to the CPP, but it eliminates the dropout periods for people in the future. What will that do to our grandchildren and children, and why was it omitted?

That is the main question: why was it omitted?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work our government has done with the provinces and territories to enhance the CPP. However, we are aware that more could be done with respect to the dropout provisions as a result of disability and child-rearing. However, any changes need the approval of territorial and provincial governments. The finance minister is fully aware of that, and he will bring that issue to the meeting with the territories and provinces in December.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that small businesses are the big job creators in our country. We know that for every extra $1,000 in CPP payroll taxes an employee is going to pay, the employer is also going to match that contribution. Therefore, for a small business with 20 employees, that will be an additional annual cost of $20,000 directly out of its income.

If a small business is to incur that additional cost, what does the member think that will do to its ability to increase employee wages? An employee's income is already going to be reduced by $1,000 because of the CPP contributions they will have to make. Therefore, they will get no raise and will have a reduced income. Where does he think that will leave the employees?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, and as negotiated by the Minister of Finance with the provincial and territorial finance ministers, the changes to the CPP will be phased in over seven years, starting in 2019 to 2025, to ensure that the impact is small and gradual.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-26, because it has the potential to address an issue that is so very vital to our identity as Canadians. The manner in which we care for each other is the measure of who we are as a people. We have much work to do in many areas to ensure accessible and affordable health care, child care, education, and housing for every Canadian so that none of us is left behind. We must address the shameful colonial legacy of inequality forced on this nation's indigenous peoples and ensure, as the bill before us today purports to do, that every Canadian is able to retire in dignity and security.

While the measures outlined in Bill C-26 represent incremental progress in providing retirement security for Canadians, they fall short in many aspects and completely fail in one critical regard. I would like to speak to these shortcomings in the time I have here today, in the hope that the current government will do the right thing and fix the very serious flaws in this bill.

We know that Canadians take pride in their work, the proceeds of which allow us to care for our families, raise our children, and pursue our dreams. Whether in the private sector, public service, or the military, the work of Canadians contributes to our economy and weaves our social identity. It is reasonable to expect and to hope that in a country as rich in resources as ours, when Canadians come to the end of their working careers they are able to retire in dignity and security. This is the reason we created the Canada pension plan, a system so successful that it is considered the international gold standard. We extend our gratitude to Stanley Knowles, an incredible former member of the House who proposed the Canada pension plan and pursued it so that Canadians could be safe in their retirement years.

We know, however, that the CPP as it currently stands falls short of providing full retirement security for Canadians. That is the reason New Democrats have called for what we know are affordable and sustainable enhancements and improvements to the CPP in order to ensure that Canadians are able to retire in dignity, not just now but for generations to come. New Democrats stand with the Canadian labour movement in calling for a doubling of CPP so that it will provide benefits set at 50% of pre-retirement income. That is sustainable, affordable, and necessary, especially when we consider that defined pension plans from employers, including the Government of Canada, are under serious attack.

Many Canadians do not have adequate savings to maintain their lifestyle upon retirement and the need to address income insecurity is becoming ever more urgent. A large part of this problem is fuelled by the erosion of workplace pension plans to the point where only six in 10 working Canadians have one. According to the finance minister himself, young people today face a future of precarious work in which the odds of staying in a job long enough to benefit in retirement from a private pension plan, if one exists, are slim.

The enhanced CPP is a plan that would benefit a new generation of workers entering the workforce, but would do little to alleviate the retirement income crisis of those approaching retirement today. The New Democrat platform includes a national seniors strategy to address the issues of affordable housing and home care, pharmacare, and health care, as well as income security. My Motion No. 21 calls on the government to adopt that strategy. The New Democrat member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has introduced Bill C-245, outlining a poverty reduction strategy for all of Canada. I encourage the government to consider the informed and considered proposals put forward by New Democrats on these issues, supported by extensive community and expert consultation.

Now I would like to move back to the bill that we have before us today and address the major failure of Bill C-26 to include dropout provisions for the enhanced portion of the CPP benefits it proposes.

As an activist who has fought for equity and equality of access for women my whole life, I am appalled at the backsliding that will penalize those who drop out of paid work to raise children or as a result of disability. More often than not, those penalized workers are women.

Under the current system, women receive CPP payments that are 13% less than men's. Without the child-rearing dropout for the enhanced benefits, that gap will grow. The narrow eligibility criteria and cumbersome application and appeals process create a system in which CPP disability benefits are extremely difficult to obtain. People who manage to collect CPP disability benefits should not be penalized because they have dropped out from making contributions due to disability.

Women and persons with disabilities are more reliant than other Canadians on public pensions like the CPP, after having faced a lifetime of economic disadvantages. They earn less than their male counterparts and when they raise children they have fewer dollars to contribute to the CPP and are penalized as a result. They receive far less from the CPP because it favours higher-income workers. Seniors with disabilities have higher than average expenses, and it is criminal to overlook their needs.

The special dropout provisions correct some of that systemic discrimination and are an important equity feature of the Canada pension plan. The current dropout provisions introduced in 1977 by a certain Monsieur Trudeau, and lauded as recognizing child-rearing as a value to Canadian society and our economy, do not apply to the additional or enhanced benefits that would be created by this particular legislation. One has to wonder whether the Liberals of 2016 value child-rearing and child care even less than their predecessors.

Women and persons with disabilities will suffer a penalty as a result of Bill C-26, and this discrimination will be most severe for women with disabilities. Are these the sunny ways our Prime Minister mentioned or is this part of his declaration as a feminist?

The Liberals may try to cite costs as a factor in their decision to omit the dropout provisions from the new enhanced benefits, but our very preliminary calculations show that the costs would be very low. Using the available information, the estimated cost of dropout provisions for each employee and each employer would be just 0.2% of a worker's average salary. This is a small price to provide such an important and significant benefit.

Failure to fix this problem would cost parents significantly. Calculations based on figures from Service Canada's website indicate that a mother who spent six years raising children will get between $800 and $1,200 less per year than she would with the dropout provisions in effect for her enhanced contribution.

New Democrats fought hard for changes to the CPP and for increases in CPP benefits. We welcome the changes tabled by the government, but we can and should do better. We need to address the needs of seniors today, as well as those of future generations. To that end, in addition to the measures I have already outlined here, we will continue the fight to stop the clawback of GIS benefits. New Democrats call on the government to follow through on its promise to develop a seniors price index as soon as possible.

We can do better. We must do better. Our future is literally at stake. Our reputation as a progressive society is on the line.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have talked about extensively is the importance of the government of the day getting support from the different levels of government, specifically provincial governments. We have been waiting a long time to see an agreement in place and finally have that agreement. That is why we have this legislation.

Could the member comment on how encouraging it is when provincial governments of all political stripes—New Democrat, Liberal, or Conservative—say this is a good thing for future generations and all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know absolutely that the provinces were rallying for increased CPP not very long ago. In fact, one Liberal government was going to create its own pension program, because the CPP was not enough. Now it has not had to do that, or apparently it has indicated that it is not necessary anymore.

I do know Premier Notley in Alberta is very supportive of an increased CPP. However, I would hope that the government would consider making it fair all the way around, for women and persons living with disabilities.

In this negotiation the member talks of with the provinces, what did the government give away? How on earth can we expect our country to thrive if women and those living with a disability are left out? It is inconceivable.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a very thoughtful and well-presented speech on the very important matter of the future access to CPP.

As I have shared with my colleague, I have been receiving letter after letter from constituents concerned about what is not in the CPP bill, particularly about the impacts to women who take time away from work, not earning income and will therefore get dropped out from the CPP benefits. They raise the additional concern of what happens if at some point in time they are sharing the work between two spouses, but then it does not work out, there is a divorce, and there are no CPP benefits.

There are all kinds of extrapolations we can look at where certain Canadians are going to be prejudiced by the fact that the government, in its wisdom or lack of, has decided to delete benefits that were once available more broadly to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for that observation. We know that women, whether they are divorced or face widowhood, are very disadvantaged by a reduced CPP benefit.

I would like to point out that nearly one million Canadians rely on food banks in our country. They do that because they are poor, they cannot manage, and they do not have the income they need. Of that one million, 49% are women. Almost 18% are persons living with disabilities. That paints the picture quite clearly. We are failing these groups.

I recall the days, not so very long ago, perhaps in the mid-1970s, when the travesty of our country was the people who were retired, particularly women, and the stories of them having to live on animal food and not doing well at all. I do not want to go back to that. I do not understand why the government would want to go back to those days.

If we look to the future, we know there will be more and more seniors. We have to ensure they are taken care of, and that includes women and persons living with disabilities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a bit of a different perspective in dealing with the legislation before us today. Just over a year ago, Canadians went to the polls and voted for real change. The reason I say that because what we are debating today is not only symbolic, but it demonstrates, in a very real way, the difference between the current government and the previous government.

For many years, when I sat in opposition, I would look to the government and the prime minister of the time, Stephen Harper, for strong leadership on the retirement file, on the issue of CPP. It was not because it was coming from nowhere. The issue was coming from many different regions of our country. Many provinces wanted Ottawa to do something with the CPP. For years, the Conservatives sat in government and chose to do nothing. They have their own mindset about how retirement should work into the future.

I have always believed that the Conservatives were not really big fans of the CPP program. Through this debate, my belief has been reinforced.

Why the real change? Since taking office, seniors have been addressed in a very real and tangible way. Today, we are talking about the CPP. The Minister of Finance reached out to the provinces, listened to what Canadians wanted, and understood the demands of what the provinces also wanted to see. For the first time, we have seen a national government demonstrate leadership by going to the table and working out an agreement among the different provinces and territories on how we can deliver on ensuring a better retirement for today's workers. I believe Canadians as a whole want to see that.

We got the job done. The government introduced the legislation, after getting a historic agreement signed off with the provinces and territories. Now we are debating it today. Future workers will benefit when the time comes for them to retire. This is about having a vision, something the previous government did not have.

I then look at my New Democratic colleagues. They seem to want to continue to give the impression that only they care about seniors. They look at ways to criticize, not acknowledging that in fact what we are doing today is a positive thing. They look for ways in which they can be critical, even though a New Democratic premier is supportive of this.

I would suggest for my New Democrat elected friends across the way that even the vast majority of New Democrat members would in fact support and say positive things about this legislation.

Is it absolutely perfect? As we know, there is always room to be better. The Minister of Finance has made a commitment to bring those issues raised on the floor of the House to the attention of premiers to see if they can improve upon the agreement. However, at the very least, the New Democrats should acknowledge that this has been in the making virtually since day one with our government. Canadians have been waiting for this for more than 10 years.

The member who just spoke said that we had to be sensitive about our seniors and their needs and made reference to food. We have to take a holistic approach in what the government is doing on the senior file. The most vulnerable seniors today are getting a substantial increase in the guaranteed annual income. Tens of thousands of seniors will be lifted out of poverty as a direct result of our government's action to increase the guaranteed income supplement. This is good news.

Again, for my New Democratic friends, they do not have to stand and applaud when the government does good things, but at the very least try to reflect reality and express the truth of the matter at hand. The matter is that our government is committed to servicing and trying to improve the quality of life, not only for future retirement needs but also for those most vulnerable seniors who find it so difficult to make financial ends meet.

I know how serious it is. While canvassing in Winnipeg North, I spoke to seniors who said that they were having a tough time deciding on whether to buy food, or purchase the medications they required or other necessities. Far too many seniors go to food banks as a direct result of this. Our government clearly understands that and has delivered on making a difference by increasing the guaranteed income supplement. However, that is not all. We still have three foundation stones dealing with public pensions. I made reference to two of them. The other one is our old age supplement.

One of the first things this government did within a couple of months of taking office was reverse the decision former prime minister Stephen Harper took when he increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. I remember it well. I sat on the other side and the prime minister was overseas when he made the announcement that we were in a financial crisis in Canada and that the government would have to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. There was nothing to substantiate it. It was a personal opinion of a prime minister who had no faith in other pensionable social programs in Canada. Within a couple of months, we reversed that decision. Now individuals know that when they hit age 65, they will be able to retire and receive old age supplements.

Today should be a happy day. This bill has received support from many different sectors of our society, in particular, our provincial governments that have signed off on enhancing CPP. The Conservatives, on the other hand, talk about why they oppose the legislation. They brought forward a series of amendments. Their argument seems to be that we should not allow for the increase in the CPP because it is a tax. Therefore, they will not support the bill.

It contradicts the actions of the Conservatives on Bill C-2. They voted against Bill C-2, which was hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for over nine million Canadians. Their arguments are not consistent with their actions. When I think of the Conservative Party's real agenda on the CPP, I believe it would be quite content if the CPP were not there. The arguments the Conservatives are using today could be used ultimately in getting rid of the CPP.

I would challenge the Conservatives to change their position and vote with the rest of the members, the Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals, support the legislation, and oppose the amendments that are being debated.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, for his very passionate speech and for the good work he does for his constituents. It does not go unrecognized.

I also want to note that I am happy he has so adequately expressed the former Conservative government's position of reducing taxes for Canadians. That certainly is a position we are very proud of: balancing budgets, reducing taxes, creating jobs. I thank my hon. friend across the way for identifying that as a Conservative platform.

My question is that in their campaign promises, the Liberals promised to reduce the tax for small business. As he also so adequately stated, this is a payroll tax. Not only will the employees experience it, but also employers. Instead of reducing taxes on small business, this will increase them.

Could my hon. friend explain how he thinks he can justify that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to talk about taxes. To me, that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about our future and those individuals who are employed having a better retirement fund in the years ahead. That is really what this debate is all about.

However, if we want to vote on the issue of taxes, all I need to do is refer the member to Bill C-2, something I have already provided comment on. That is a bill that put hundreds of millions more dollars into the pockets of Canada's middle class.

The Conservatives—and I know it is hard to believe—actually voted against it. They wanted to keep the money, not give that tax break.

Therefore, there is a bit of inconsistency in terms of the small business. Hopefully, in my next answer, I will be able to address that.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend. I know my friend works very hard in this House every day. I feel sorry for him sometimes, as I do not think he gets enough sleep. I want to thank him.

I listened to the member's good speech. He said a year ago that Canadians voted for change, and real change. I agree with that. That is what they voted for. However, they did not expect chump change, which is what this proposed bill will do. Right now, 4.5% of women receive the maximum benefits under this legislation that we have under CPP.

What real change would this proposed legislation give women, when it is omitted from the dropout period of child-raising and people with disabilities?

My other question is, why has the dropout period for women raising children and people with disabilities been omitted, and why was this not discussed when the provinces met with the federal government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that, through the Minister of Finance, a series of discussions had taken place that ultimately saw the different provinces and territories come to an agreement. To make the type of changes that are being talked about from the New Democratic Party would require the provinces and territories to come onside. Having said that, we need to also recognize that the premier of Alberta is a New Democrat, and sometimes these kinds of things go through.

Is it perfect? No, we think there is room for improvement. That is why the Minister of Finance has made the commitment to go back to the table to see if we can improve upon this.

However, let us not underestimate the value of the current agreement and how workers into the future are going to benefit by it. There is always room for—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear talk about Canada pension, I think back to when I was first elected in 1988. I had been in the retail business for 25 years in a small town in Nova Scotia. The thing that surprised me the most after I was elected was how many people I was helping get the Canada pension disability. These were not people who abused the system. These were people with real disabilities and no way to put food on the table. They depended on the Canada pension disability plan. That, to me, is an important role. It is hard to understand how people can speak against increasing the benefits of the Canada pension.

I wonder if the member would tell me if he has had the same experience with people with disabilities. Again, their quality of life goes to zero. They go broke. The minute someone becomes disabled, the first thing that happens is they go broke, and that makes the situation worse.

I would like the member to comment on the disability aspect of Canada pension.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the strength of the individual who posed the question has been well demonstrated through his electoral success, and I commend him on that.

He has identified one of those social issues that no matter what level of government people are elected to, they genuinely care about helping individuals who are in need, and they want, as much as possible, to see social programming. Our benefits programs, including CPP, for disabilities, OAS, and the GIS, are all solid programs. This is why government needs not only to give the programs attention, but to further enhance them whenever possible. We want to be able to provide that hand to try to improve the quality of life of all Canadians, especially those in society who are most vulnerable.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; the hon. member for Essex, softwood lumber; the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Housing.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in this debate and discussion on the CPP, something which affects almost all Canadians. I spoke to this bill at second reading, and it is interesting to see at report stage how the debate has gone forward, or in some cases not gone forward.

Before I get to the main body of my speech, I want to deal with an issue that the parliamentary secretary has continuously repeated, that all of the provinces have come onside to support this change, and citing the Conservative premiers, of which there are very few. It should be noted that the premier of my province, Mr. Brad Wall, said very clearly that the reason he was backing this was because he was concerned that a worse agreement was going to be put in place. This was not exactly a ringing endorsement.

As he said, he was more concerned that a more aggressive Ontario Liberal plan would be put in place. He signed on to the Liberals' changes, not because he thought it was a good idea, but to prevent something worse from happening. When someone endorses something because the person fears the government will do something worse, I do not know if the government can honestly claim that as a ringing endorsement, as was presented to the House. I wanted to note that. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will address that in questions and comments.

When looking at the overlying issue with the CPP, the Conservative Party has objections to it, and the government is pushing it forward. The reasoning is very similar on both sides, but comes to very different conclusions. The government is arguing that for the cost of living and people's retirement, this is a good bill. The Liberals are saying that the cost of living for seniors is too high and it is difficult for them to make ends meet. It is difficult for seniors to make a living, so we therefore need to make these changes so that future seniors should benefit.

Interestingly, we in the opposition, in some respects, are arguing a similar issue. The cost of living makes it difficult, and people need every cent they can get. The Conservative Party is arguing that people should be allowed to keep doing what they are currently doing with their funds and decide for themselves what they should do with their money. As has been noted, this could end up being an $1,100 hit for the average person, assuming the average person pays the maximum. While, for some people, $1,100 a year is not significant, for people whose budgets are tight, that is very significant.

As has been noted frequently in debate, there are studies by the Fraser Institute and other institutions that have noted that almost all of the increased premiums will come from savings. However, some of it will come from consumption. One way or the other, Canadians have a problem. They have a problem because they do not have enough money to pay for their necessities of life, now or in the future. Every circumstance is different, but this needs to be noted.

We are not dealing with abstracts for people at the high end of the income scale, and, frankly, this does not target people at the really low end of the income scale, because the OAS, and particularly the GIS, are used to deal with that. That is how the current Liberal government and past Conservative governments have dealt with the issue of poverty. The CPP deals more with middle-class Canadians, the broad swath, the centre, economically and socially, of our society, and their cost of living.

The question we are really debating here today is how we can make things more affordable for Canadians now and in the future. How can we make things more affordable and create a better standard of living for Canadians in the present, in the future, and in retirement? This needs to be underlined in this whole debate. The largest cost for all Canadians across the board is taxes. In Canada, over 40% of our GDP ends up getting sucked up into taxes. That is the size of it when we put everything together.

One of the reasons why seniors are struggling and having a difficult time today and why the Liberals are arguing that they need increased CPP benefits in the future is because we continually have taxes that are too high. The Liberals like to talk about the one element of tax changes that was positive in their budget, but they do not talk about the positive tax changes from the previous government that they eliminated: income splitting and assistance to families. Parents with children is one particular group that is going to be under fiscal pressure due to these changes with the CPP.

Just think about when in life people have the greatest expenses. When is the time that they have a mortgage? It is also a time that they frequently have their children. People's children are growing up, spending more money, wanting to do sports, and to do things with their schoolmates. Those are the years when people are trying to earn their peak amount of money. It is not their retirement, but their earning years.

Along came the Liberal government. First it eliminated income splitting, which was again a policy that benefited Canadians at the middle of the spectrum of our society. Most Canadians, depending on where they are in life, would have benefited from that for a good portion of their life because we know that as they go through their lives they are all in different income strata for different seasons.

When they are students they are technically very poor, maybe living in their parents' basement. Most of their income may go to pay for tuition, but they get by. They are considered poor.

The years when people are paying the maximum in CPP premiums are often when they have the greatest expenses. They need to take care of their house. They perhaps have parents to take care of. Generally that is when they have children. This is when the government again is coming after people with tax hikes and, as I noted earlier, the elimination of income splitting.

That is why we in the opposition have been referring to the CPP hike as a tax hike. It would take money directly from people, reduce their freedom, reduce their choice in what they could do with it, and give them a worse rate of return than they would otherwise have if they had invested it in private savings plans. This is something that has been documented by researchers looking at this.

For my grandpa, the CPP was a marvellous investment. He paid into it for practically the minimum number of years, and since he lived to be 92 years old he collected well above the average amount. It was fantastic, better than a 20-some per cent rate of return, which was the average for people. He made way more on his investment than he could have anywhere else.

But for people of my age, a generation Xer born in 1974 and younger, the rate of return after inflation for CPP that is invested is barely 2%. That is horrendous. People could do better. That is why we are referring to it as a tax. The government takes the money and people ultimately lose money. It drives up their cost of living.

What could people be using this money for if the Liberals were not taking it away? Electricity prices are going up, in many cases due to the wrong-headed environmental policies of federal and provincial governments. Property taxes are going up, again something that often hits people in their prime earning years with children and families the most. Inflation and various other expenses are all going up. Here we are, taking away more of people's money.

The basic argument is this. If the government is taking money away from people, not returning to them the amount that they should have and could have earned had they been able to invest and control their money privately, it is definitely a tax hike, because what people are doing with this money is subsidizing the government. It allows the government to get away with lower OAS premiums. It allows pension plans that are integrated with the CPP to get away with lower premiums. People are losing money. That is why it is a tax hike. It is a tax hike that raises people's standard of living and, as has been noted, taxes are the most expensive thing that we have to deal with in our society.

That is why I and my fellow Conservatives oppose this bill. It is the wrong policy for Canadians. It is a bad investment. It takes money out of people's pockets. That is why we as Conservatives are opposing it.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Saskatoon—University is this. If the member wants things to be more affordable, should they not ensure that people actually have money available to them in the future? Does the member not believe that planning for the future through OAS, GIS, and through CPP is a worthwhile venture? Does he believe the CPP should be planned for the future, prepared for generations to come? Or does he believe it should be scrapped altogether?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing for the scrapping of the CPP altogether, and one of the reasons is the basic inertia of the system. To redesign something purely from scratch is not necessarily the best idea. What we did in government was, instead of expanding something that was not the best, we chose other vehicles, like TFSAs, to give people better rates of return, more freedom, and more flexibility.

Therefore, while CPP was really a great deal for people who got in early, it is a bad deal for people of my generation. The entirety of CPP is a bad deal for people of my generation. However, to unwind something that substantive and large is very difficult, and there are better ways to do it, but we are where we are and so we will go forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, for some time I was the pension critic, and I did a great deal of work in terms of studying this particular question. One of the things that I learned, and which I think is quite widely known, is that investment in the CPP is the gold standard. Because of the wisdom of those investments, the return is quite significant, compared to private pension plans, which depend on the vagaries of the stock market; one day we are up and the next day we are down. Quite frankly, depending on that possibility is something that many seniors are most certainly not willing to gamble on.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that the hon. member has some dated information, because the Fraser Institute did a study, and like I said, for people my age, people born in the 1970s and later, this has been an awful rate of return.

I understand that some people prefer the security of a system where everything is more clearly laid out for them. However, different people have different views, and that is why we should give them the choice and not continually force everyone to put the entirety of their savings into the Canada pension plan. There are other things out there, like RRSPs and TFSAs.

The goal from the government's perspective is to keep people out of poverty, not to provide a middle-class income with pensions, and allow people to decide how they want to do their savings. Do they want to spend their money now or do they want their money later for retirement? This is why we give people the freedom, because everyone's situation is different.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to chuckle at the Liberals. Any time we question their plans to undertake major expansion of government programs, it must be because we are against the program entirely. Whatever happened to striking the right balance between a public pension program and also preserving space for private savings?

We have a government that is cutting back on tax-free savings accounts. We have a government that does not support those more effective changes that encourage private savings. It is not undertaking measures for current seniors, but is instead talking about future seniors by taking more money out of the economy at the present time.

Could my friend talk more about the cost that this will have on small business? We have heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and others about the significant negative impact that this will have on the economy, on the ability to create wealth that benefits seniors and all Canadians.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, labour and capital are some of the basic inputs into business. The way CPP is structured, it has the effect of a payroll tax, which is a tax directly on labour. This means it is a tax on productivity. As we tax productivity, it makes productivity naturally less productive, because the tax is slowing it. Therefore, it is making it more difficult for businesses to hire, it drives up the unemployment rate, and lowers businesses' profits. It makes a business more difficult to succeed, and therefore makes people less likely to take risks.

This is bad for the economy. Taxing productivity is the worst thing we can do if we want to grow the economy. We should target consumption, but instead the Liberals here are targeting productivity, and we are all losers for it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started with my remarks, specifically I would like to reference the previous speaker. At one point during answering questions he talked about the CPP and not using it as an opportunity to provide middle-income opportunities, yet earlier on his speech he talked about how it was the gold standard that his grandfather came to admire so much. We are left wondering whether or not the member thinks we need to move away from what CPP used to be as opposed to just arguing against what might happen or what he perceives to be happening.

When we talk about this issue, the first thing we need to identify is the fact that there are changes in the workforce. The workforce today is not what it used to be decades ago. In fact, there are far fewer people who are receiving employment pensions or pensions that are being paid for by their employers. The fact of the matter is that in the fifties and sixties, there used to be robust pensions that were set up by employers to pay into these pension plans so that people could have that security when it came time to retire. Many people did enjoy that benefit and take advantage of that.

However, even within those pensions it is changing. Those pensions that used to be so reliable are not as reliable as they used to be, as we see companies and employers starting to do things for various reasons that affect those pensions.

Not that long ago in my office in Kingston and the Islands, I had a couple of former executives from manufacturing plants that used to operate in Kingston but unfortunately do not anymore, to talk to me about what companies were doing to avert, whether directly or indirectly, paying those pensions out. That just creates less stability and less reliability of the employees to make sure they have that security when they retire, eventually.

It is not just about the changes in the workplace, it is also about young people and what they are coming to expect. Years ago young people could conceivably leave with a high school education, get a good paying job, whether in manufacturing or another sector, that provided them with a pension, that provided them with security during their employment, and then afterwards, provided them with a pension. They could live a comfortable life off that, but things are much different for younger people now.

We have pages who come to this House to help out. Sometimes I look at them and think, is it not much different for them. They are expected to get a university degree or a college degree at a minimum. The vast majority of graduates then go on to post-graduate work, and the debt they incur as a result of that is something they have to carry for many years into the future. They have to start planning to pay that back.

Couple that with the fact that more and more young people now see it more unreasonable that they will actually own a house. There are more people now than ever before who actually come to terms with the fact that they might be renting forever and not actually owning.

As a government it is our responsibility, as this legislative body it is our responsibility to make sure that our society has those reliable and predictable means of knowing that they will be taken care of in the future.

There is also another change in the demographics of then versus now, and that is with respect to the haves and the have-nots. Quite frankly, there are more people who have and many more people who have not, and the middle, in between, is shrinking dramatically. It is changing the way Canadians view that security and stability for the future.

I would submit that it is time that we take a serious look at how we can implement policy to make a change and create a greater security among Canadians. That is about planning for the future, and ultimately it is about what I like to think of as preventive maintenance.

We hear these arguments from the other side of the aisle about spending so much money, forcing small businesses to spend money, and I will get to that point in a second. The one thing we do not talk about is what happens if we do not do this. What if we do not make sure that we are setting up the security now for later? We will pay for it one way or the other.

If we do not pay for it now by making sure the proper measures are in place for CPP, or whatever other measures might come forward, later on we are going to be taking care of those people, and we are going to be paying for it then.

When I was mayor of Kingston and I was on the health board, I remember the frustration of the health unit that the government was always so unwilling to put money into preventive health care. It was always about reactive measures.

My submission is that this government is doing the exact opposite of that. This government is looking at setting up preventive measures so that generations from now, young workers are properly taken care of and have those measures. By no means is this setting up a middle-class lifestyle. This is providing the bare minimum. This is providing a small portion of what people will actually need to retire.

I also want to address another topic that has come up on the other side of the House today, and no doubt I will be asked a question about it, so maybe I will pre-empt that by talking about it now. It is with respect to small businesses. I am a small business owner. At any given time, I have four or five employees who work for our small business in Kingston. I have no problem with this small increase. We pay source deductions just like every other business does. We pay EI, CPP, and WSIB, and these are necessary to make sure that society is being taken care of. We respect that as a business.

With regard to the small increments over the six-year period between 2019-25, the question is how small businesses will deal with this. We have heard that asked in the House today. The reality is that small businesses have to look at ways they can make this work. They have to find alternatives where necessary. They have to look for opportunities where they might not currently exist. The reality is that in any business, any added cost, whether it is a cost for a product or for a service to add to the business, adds to the bottom line and ultimately adds to an increase in whatever goods or services the individual is selling.

On the point that businesses will have to close their doors, although we would hate to see that and would hope it does not happen, I would suggest that it is a very unlikely scenario.

This is something the Liberal Party ran on and talked about in the election. This should come as no surprise to anyone that we are taking serious action when it comes to CPP and that we are taking the time to make sure that future generations are taken care of. It is about providing dignity with respect to income security for future generations.

Quite frankly, this is the right thing to do. I am extremely supportive of this piece of legislation, and I know that future generations will look back on this and regard this as a pivotal shift in CPP in the direction of helping plan for people's futures.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of costing, my colleague touched on health care. I have to remind him that in terms of preventive health care, all of us will agree that this is a cost that comes from businesses and individuals to the provincial government. The Conservatives gave the provinces a 6% increase per year. The Province of Ontario used to brag about cutting health costs to 3%. I am wondering what the member's comments would be on the Liberal health minister in Ontario who did not use the money we gave him to supply health care and preventive medicine.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is very loose connection. I spoke to my time on the health board and a particular issue we had.

In any event, if the member is looking for me to say that at some point or another I have, can be, or was critical of the provincial government, yes, as the mayor of a municipality in Ontario, we obviously took positions that were sometimes critical.

I cannot recall this exact reference the member is bringing up other than to say that, yes, there are always times when municipalities have to show the provincial government if they are not happy with them. I would encourage any municipality to do that.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, during the speech by the member for Kingston and the Islands, I saw the member for Calgary Nose Hill come in, under the camera over there, and use her cellphone, appearing to take a picture in this general direction. Could the Speaker address that?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the member for Laurentides—Labelle for his intervention. I did not see anything in particular. We will have a look to see and will check. Members will know, of course, that the use of smart phones for recording video, audio, or photographs in the chamber is not allowed. I thank the hon. member for bringing it to our attention. I am not able to respond to it at this particular moment. I did not see anything that was against the rules of the House. We will take it up and see if there is anything we can do.

I was going to say, just before the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle made his point of order, that for the benefit of all hon. members, some members may have seen the last question and comment as not particularly relevant to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands's speech, and that may be true in the form of it. However, hon. members should know that when they raise a matter in the course of a speech that may not be exactly on topic with respect to the question before the House, it is absolutely relevant if another member wishes to pose a question on it. Members would probably recognize that.

By the way, I am not taking the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands' time. Questions and comments.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thanks for that clarification. I can assure you that I am not recording. I do not think I am capable.

I want to share a letter written to me by a constituent, completely unsolicited. I want to share in the House what she said:

Now with this exclusion of the child-rearing dropout provision in the proposed expansion of CPP, I'm even more concerned that those making the decisions are either inadvertently or intentionally excluding this work from the social policy conversation. If it's an error, then there is a dire need for more diverse voices and experiences to be involved with policy development, and I want to know how this gap is going to be redressed.

She has written to the Government of Canada to answer that question. I wonder if the hon. member could respond to that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the Government of Canada, so I cannot answer that question, which was sent to the Government of Canada, other than to say that, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, the Minister of Finance had indicated that there is always room for improvement and room to look at ways to do things better. He had committed to going back and having further discussions with the provinces.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious about how the dropout provisions got taken out to begin with.

If the government was at the table with provincial and territorial leaders, someone had to raise it. Did the government raise it? Did the minister raise it? Did his officials raise it? How did it come to be that it is actually not part of this important bill?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to repeat what I just said, because I think I covered it.

The important thing is to look at what this bill actually is doing. This bill will change the lives of future generations. This bill will contribute to the security of young people today as they move toward retirement. More importantly, it will contribute to their faith in a system that will have security for them later on.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today in the House of Commons from my new perch here in the back row. It is my first speech, since taking this spot, to engage with more Canadians. As I said when I was first elected and sat in the corner over there, any seat in this chamber is a true honour to occupy, and I think all members on all sides would agree with that.

I am glad to be speaking again about CPP reform and specifically about Bill C-26, because this, yet again, is an example of a government absolutely disconnected from the reality of the economy.

We have a jobs crisis in Canada right now, and this legislation would lead to fewer jobs. The finance department has confirmed that.

It is a jobs crisis of epic proportions, and the Prime Minister and the finance minister have done nothing. In fact, they have made it more difficult for employers to hire people, and I will spend a few moments talking about that.

Where is the crisis most acute? It is in Alberta, where 200,000 Canadians, families, are without the certainty and the confidence a job provides. If that alone is not a crisis, I do not know what is. I am very proud of my colleagues from Alberta who have been raising this in the House daily for the last year. We have yet to see a plan of any sort from the Liberal government.

The epicentre of our jobs crisis in Canada is in the west, which we have to remember kept Canada moving forward through the great recession of 2008-09, when Canada led the G-7 in economic growth and job creation after the worse recession since the thirties. We relied on family members in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Manitoba, and now the government is turning a blind eye to that crisis.

In Calgary, the unemployment rate is 9%. People were coming from around the world to work there because of the opportunities in the last generation. The government has no plan. The unemployment rate in Edmonton is roughly 8%, and there is not even an acknowledgement, in a serious way, of that prolonged state of affairs.

Let us look at whether this is just a global commodity cycle, which I have heard members of this government sometimes suggest, instead of their inaction. Let us look at the parliamentary budget officer's recent report on the labour market. Let us look at what the PBO found on job creation in Canada. I will quote from page 1, which really summarizes the PBO's report,

The Canadian economy created 96,000 (net) jobs from Q3 2015 to Q3 2016, which is half the average annual gain of 192,000 over the previous five years.

That is when our party was in charge of the economy, so the Liberals are not even batting half our average. I will continue.

Job gains from Q3 2015 to Q3 2016 were entirely part-time and mostly in the private sector. Full-time and public sector employment contracted.

Does that not underscore the crisis we are experiencing? Is that not a call to action for the Liberal government? When is the government going to come to grips with the economy?

The $30 billion the Prime Minister has spent to put us in deficit has created zero full-time jobs. We will hear the Minister of Innovation and the ACOA minister, who is in Mississauga, I might add, speak about jobs, but they are part-time jobs.

We remember the election, when the Prime Minister, the third-party leader at the time, said that Canada was in a recession. That was false then, and it was proven false afterward. He said he would spend no more than a $10-billion modest deficit. That was another false claim. He spent $30 billion. Why did he say he was going to go into deficit? It was to stimulate job creation. That is false. He has created zero full-time jobs, according to the PBO. This is the job crisis we are in, yet the Prime Minister is going around the world, spending our money elsewhere, and has no plan for job creation at home.

The last time I rose in the House to speak on this very subject, 2,000 jobs at Bombardier were lost, so this is not just a job crisis in western Canada; it is a Liberal job crisis.

What is worse, the unemployment rate for young people has remained fixed at 13%, which is unreasonably high. What was the response of the finance minister? It was that our young Canadians should get accustomed to job churn. That is shameful absence of leadership. In fact, I think it is the modern equivalent of “Let them eat cake”, a comment that is disconnected from the reality our young people are facing. Rather than saying “We're working on innovation jobs, working on clusters, and making sure there are more people going into the STEM fields and coding”, he said, “You'd better get used to unpaid internships and being underemployed”. That is a failure of leadership.

Why are we in this crisis? Taxes are going up on job creators and entrepreneurs, who are highly mobile. Taxes are going up on small and medium-sized businesses that have had their previous tax reduction decreased. We have a carbon tax, which on the weekend the environment minister said would make our economy more competitive, showing the height of her disconnect from reality. Today, we are discussing a payroll tax. In one year, the run up in the deficit and the taxation of people, businesses, and consumption is unparalleled in Canadian history. In fact, it would take multiple Liberal governments of the past to introduce so many different types of tax increases all in one year.

Getting back to Bill C-26, what did Finance Canada's own report say about the CPP reforms? It said that 10,000-plus job losses would result from these reforms in the bill in the coming years. We are in a job crisis. We are creating a carbon tax that would raise the import costs of manufacturers in Ontario, and the costs of farmers in the west and across the country, and of people who are hauling lobster and trying to get it sent over to Europe to be sold, and of the lumber industry. Higher costs on all those people translates into higher costs for families and seniors. Now we are doing a payroll tax that the minister's own department has said will lead to 10,500 job losses in the coming years. His own department has said so. It is staggering.

What have the leading groups that work with employers said? The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have both implored the government not to bring in a payroll tax at a time when we are trying to get corporations, small and large, to use some retained earnings to hire one or two more people. We are putting a payroll tax on them and stopping them from hiring more people, whether by a 1% increase in premiums today or a 4% increase in coming years.

As I have said many times in the House, there is no crisis in retirement savings. In fact, who claimed the media was “fear-mongering” with regard to a retirement crisis? It was the finance minister in his book with his actuary at Morneau Shepell, Fred Vettese, in a book called The Real Retirement. They said it was fear-mongering. Well, the finance minister is now relying on that fear-mongering to bring this bill forward.

Who will it help? Ipsos Reid showed that 70% of Canadians do not realize that retirees and people near retirement will not benefit. In fact, Fred Vettese, the chief actuary at Morneau Shepell, has said it will only help 8.7% of middle-income Canadians boost their retirement income. It will not help people on the low end, those we were trying to help when we were in government, with GST reductions and other things, and not people at the high end. It will only help 8.7% of people in the middle. That translates into 5% of Canadians who in the future might have some modest increase in retirement income, if they do not use RRSPs, if they do not get the value from their home, and if they do not use the TFSA that minister Flaherty brought in. Therefore, potentially 5% would benefit while 95% of Canadians would pay, and employers, whom we are imploring to hire more people, are forced to pay premiums for every new person they hire.

It is shameful, in the midst of a jobs crisis, the government is introducing yet another tax that would lead to more Canadians being unemployed.

We must stop it here. We have to focus on job creation for the future.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard one Conservative after another get up to talk about it being a payroll tax and the difficulties of enhancing the Canada pension plan.

Does my hon. colleague agree that the Canada pension plan does good for Canadian society—indeed, Canadians overwhelmingly support it—and why is it a good thing for this country?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speaking at the annual dinner in the riding of my friend, the member for West Nova, in a week and a half. I look forward to being back there.

The CPP is a good thing. None of us is saying it is not. However, if he noticed, in the last minute of my speech I spent time dissecting the crisis in retirement. There is no crisis. Who said there is no crisis? The finance minister said so in his book he was selling to Canadians. Now he is selling them something else entirely. I tried to focus my remarks on that, using Finance Canada's own statistics.

We have a government that loved to get elected in saying, “We're all about evidence-based decision-making”.

What does the evidence say? Finance Canada says that 10,000 jobs will be lost as a direct result of this bill in the midst of a jobs crisis already gripping this country, for a perceived retirement shortfall of a small group of middle-income Canadians who could be helped through TFSA enhancements, through home sales, through RRSPs, through the economy doing better and wages rising.

This bill would likely lead to a wage freeze and fewer jobs.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a great speech. It is actually one of the ones that makes a lot of sense.

My understanding is that this is a cost, not only to the employer but also to the employee, costing them somewhere up around $1,100, or maybe $800, each. Could he help us understand? For most people who are paying into it, particularly those who are just getting out of university, starting their family, buying a home, how long would it be before they actually get any benefit from it?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most alarming absences of leadership on the government's side has been in response to my friend's questions about the closure of an old processing facility in his riding that has employed people for two centuries. Yet, because the minister will not grant an exemption to that heritage property, it will be another example of a dozen or so jobs lost.

We are in a jobs crisis. We bring that to the floor of the House every day, my colleagues from Alberta, my colleagues from Ontario, on both a small and a large level, and the government is disconnected with how that affects families.

My friend is right. The premiums paid are both by people and by businesses. The major business groups have told us that in this slow economy right now, businesses will not hire people, or will freeze wages, as a result of this premium, and younger people will not see a benefit for decades.

Fred Vettese, the chief actuary of a firm called Morneau Shepell—I can say that name in the House; I cannot say the name of his co-author, the finance minister—has said there is no retirement crisis and that even this perceived CPP enhancement would help fewer than 5% of Canadians, because only 8% or so of the middle class need an enhancement. There is no retirement crisis.

If they are trying to do something for a very small subset of Canadians that would result in the unemployment of tens of thousands, that is the wrong decision and we have time to stop it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleague, and I wish him well in his leadership bid.

When I listen to the Conservatives' arguments for why they are voting against the CPP enhancement, I realize that one could use those same arguments against having the CPP today. Could the member tell us what his thoughts are on the current CPP? If he says the current system is okay, is there a situation when he would see CPP payments being enhanced? Would there be a time or scenario where they could be enhanced?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for wishing me well.

I was in the member's city a week or so ago with my friends from Interlake and Brandon at the Free Press News Cafe. People were quite open with their concerns about the carbon tax, and the farmers in the Interlake know they will be paying thousands more just for diesel. In fact, small and medium-sized businesses have little margin and the current government is going after their margins. It does not want them to take anything home and put it in their jeans at the end of the day. This is what I heard loud and clear in friendly Manitoba, and I trust he is hearing the same.

What I would remind the member of, and no one reminds the House of good Liberal virtues more than that member does, because he is up quite regularly, is the incessant call for evidence-based decision-making. When the member goes into his caucus this Wednesday, I ask him to stand up to the Prime Minister and say, “Prime Minister, Morneau Shepell's chief actuary has told us that this bill will lead to job losses while only targeting a small percentage of people, fewer than 5% of middle-class Canadians decades from now.”

If that is what we are trying to do, at the risk of potentially losing 10,000-plus jobs, why would we be doing this in the middle of a jobs crisis? It is time for the member to stand up in caucus and ask the Prime Minister to stop waging a war on job creation.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when so many people have lost their jobs or are at risk of losing their jobs in the near future, the government is about to implement a new payroll tax and take more money off the paycheques of my constituents.

For those who are listening, who may not realize what is about to happen, the Liberal government is about to increase the amount of money taken off an individual's paycheque that goes to the Canada pension plan. Also, the amount of money that their employer pays into this plan will also increase.

For many Canadians, this amount of money coming off their paycheques will make it harder to pay their monthly bills. For employers, especially small businesses, this increase to their operating costs will force many to make choices on whether to hire more people or simply to let people go.

Today I want to do two things in debate. First, I want to refute the government's primary argument for doing this, and, second, I will refute the government's assertion that this is the best policy to help Canadians save for retirement. I will point out how many of its policies are actually detrimental to them doing so.

On the first point, this is a payroll tax increase. The Liberals believe that my constituents cannot be trusted to make the right decisions to save for their retirement. They want my constituents to believe that the lowly taxpayers do not have the capacity to plan for their own savings and manage their retirement. They want them to believe that dependence on their government in their old age is the path to their security. They want them to believe that the government's seizure and control of their funds is in their best interest.

While there is a role for government in many situations, the fundamental belief in the freedom of Canadians is what sets Liberals apart from common-sense people. Liberals believe that it is only through government control that Canadians can prosper; whereas common-sense Canadians understand that the government should exist to enable our freedom, not to diminish it.

When I listen to the rhetoric around this particular bill and this particular financial instrument, I hear the government saying that Canadians are not saving enough and the government will come in and save them. I hear nothing about how the government will enable their freedom and enable their choice to be economically prosperous.

There is a huge fallacy in trying to convince the Canadian population that the best way for them to plan for their old age, for their retirement security, is to depend upon a large bloated Liberal government. I cannot believe that the government would actually put out that duplicitous comment and not believe that there would be some sort of push-back from the Canadian population.

This is why it is not the correct policy at this point in time. First, the government is creating a crisis where there is none. Certainly we need to ensure that Canadian seniors are well taken care of, that they are well looked after and honoured in their retirement. This measure will not impact Canadian seniors who are already into their retirement. In fact, it will do absolutely nothing for them. This will not increase their pension or help their prospects. Moreover, this will certainly not help their children, which many retirees are concerned about. In fact, this will disable them and disadvantage them.

I think the Liberals have been trying to sell this plan as some form of curative for pensioners who are already in retirement, and we know that is not the case. The fact that there is duplicity in the communications is so dishonest.

Let us talk about people who are planning for their retirement right now. First, there has been no formal consultation to date, absolutely none. The government has not talked to anyone. The Liberals announced this with great fanfare, hoping the Canadian public would turn a blind eye to this absolutely abysmal piece of legislation, which is based on zero financial credibility, and, frankly, zero actuarial credibility. However, I digress.

Beyond the lack of consultation, I would like to see the government commit to creating jobs for Canadians and creating the economic conditions in which people can increase their opportunity for economic growth and prosperity.

In terms of looking at policy instruments which would enable the prosperity of Canadians and my constituents, the government has absolutely failed. The bill will not do this. All this does is take away Canadians' freedom and require more dependence on the government. That is shameful.

Let us talk about these things. First, aside from the great arrogance of the government assuming that Canadians cannot save for themselves and must rely on the great saviourship of the Prime Minister and all of his wonderful gazes into the cameras, Liberals want to put in place a national tax on everything. There is the carbon tax, which will actually not reduce greenhouse gas emissions but only function as a GST, because, number one, they have not done any proper modelling in terms of price elasticity around the demand for carbon. It would only increase the price of everything for people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Liberals want to increase EI premiums, which would put a further chill on small businesses and job creation. They have put in place regulatory uncertainty for major resource projects. Anyone who is looking to invest in Canada right now is going to decide not to because of the political uncertainty, which also puts a chill on job creation. They are not doing anything to retain labour in my province of Alberta. They are allowing the best and brightest in Canada to bleed into the wind.

Liberals talk about increasing humanitarian levels of immigration without looking at the economic implications of that. They are running up a huge debt. I looked at some of the numbers that came out of the parliamentary budget office this year, and, in a non-recessionary period, the government is spending at unprecedented levels. If we are talking about the future of people's retirement, the level of debt that the Liberal government is going into is shameful. I cannot even think about this most of the time. Spending for spending's sake, rather than with any sort of outcome or goal, is not going to help Canadians with their retirement.

Moreover, the thing I find so fundamentally arrogant, in saying that only the government can help them save for their retirement with a program that might not be solvent at some future point, is the fact that the government eliminated the tax-free savings account increase that the Conservative government put in place. They said average Canadians cannot deal with that, average Canadians cannot be trusted with putting their own money into it. I know, without a shadow of a doubt, it is the people in my riding, who are now out of work in the energy sector because of the Liberal government's ideological opposition to that sector, who used the TFSA the most.

Rather than giving Canadians a vehicle in which to save their money, the government is saying it is not going to do that. It is going to take it away. Canadians are going to depend on the government and the Prime Minister and his sunny ways, because he is going to see everyone through with all of his financial acumen, his economic expertise, all of his great connections and understanding how to scrimp and save given his trust fund background. It is saying that everyone should trust in him, and he will show everyone and their children the way. Canadians do not believe that. That is hogwash.

Canadians need economic opportunity and a commitment to freedom, a commitment to understanding that it is Canadian families and workers who first and foremost understand how best to use their money. It is Canadian families who best understand what they need to do to make their families prosperous and give their children opportunities. Increasing CPP premiums, for many small business employers, boils down to a choice between one employee or two. This is at a time when the government has sent a chill through investments and is sending that sort of message. Then it is deciding to put a further chill on investment right now. It is irresponsible and garbage.

I do not even understand how Canadians cannot be infuriated with the arrogance that the government is putting forward in this bill, in saying that Canadians do not know how to spend their own money or how to save for retirement. From the bottom of my soul and with every fibre of my being, I oppose this bill. Because of the arrogance of the leftist, socialist school of thought, that the government first and foremost knows best how people should spend their money and save for their futures, I oppose this bill, and I know many of my constituents do as well.

Instead of putting this absolute pile of garbage forward, I wish the government would commit to creating economic conditions in which investment could occur in Canada and small businesses could thrive. I wish the government would push back against harmful economic practices in fragile economies like Alberta, like a price floor on labour or a carbon tax. This is the sort of economic policy that bankrupts and fails countries. I hope that my colleagues will take that into account.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member is definitely passionate; I will give her that much. However, we will have to agree to passionately disagree in terms of her approach. She emulates what many of her Conservative colleagues have been talking about. There does seem to be a distaste coming from the Conservative Party toward the Canada pension plan.

My question is not that difficult. It is one that I started with the member's colleague who spoke prior to her. It is in regard to CPP in general. Can the member give the House any circumstance whatsoever where she could envision CPP being enhanced? If not today, is there another situation where the member would support it, or is she just outright against any enhancement? Is the Conservative Party outright against any enhancement ever of the CPP?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, in order to enhance my constituents' retirement prospects, I am not looking just to the CPP. I want them to make more money. I want them to have more job opportunities. I want them to pay less tax. I want them to have more efficiency in government. I do not want them to have to see large debt loads for no reason, brought up just for vanity projects. I do not want my constituents to have to pay more in taxes because I have an environment minister who wants to rub shoulders with elites in Davos. I do not want my constituents to have to pay more in a payroll tax for something that is never going to benefit them in the future.

This is the great Liberal fallacy, that somehow government can produce more freedom for economic opportunity for Canadians. It is this fallacy that the government is putting forward that will end in its electoral defeat.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was talk about how can we make this better. A lot of the member's business owners are saying they do not want it. However, when we were at the committee stage, we had a lot of organizations, such as the labour groups and the Canadian National Association of Federal Retirees, saying that because big corporations are not getting into the defined benefits plans or they want to get away from them, the only solution at this time in the three pillars is to expand the CPP. It would not fix all, but it was one of the ways to help our children in the future.

I am wondering, is the member saying that these organizations are wrong, or we have to look at other ways? What I heard is that the TFSAs are not working and the defined contributions are not working.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, any time the government members tell us there is only one way to solve a problem, and it is the government's, we should be wary.

Some of the feedback that has been brought forward in terms of the efficacy of this particular policy instrument has included that the full new benefits will not be available until at least 39 years after 2025, when the initial implementation of the CPP expansion has been completed. There are questions about the accrual of $1 trillion in assets. Where can one invest $1 trillion today in a prudent fashion that will still earn adequate returns?

Will participants understand that his new tier does not bring guaranteed benefits? What will happen when they have to freeze or even reduce benefits and contributions? Is this politically feasible?

How will small plans respond? Will they respond just by closing? Many of these plans are well administered, and we should not create incentives for them to terminate.

What about a new working income tax benefit? Is that fair? Have we targeted the correct audience for this reform?

The bottom line is that there are many different ways that we can look at the question on how to incent Canadians to best save for their retirement. Certainly one of the best ways we can do that is by providing them with employment opportunities and a prospect of a government without severe debt, none of which the current government has any intention of doing.

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

Madam Speaker, for many years now, the NDP has been fighting tirelessly for improvements to the Canada pension plan, so I can only be happy that it is finally happening. I would like to say that I will be supporting the main motion at report stage. However, I have to oppose the Conservative motions seeking to remove practically every clause in the bill.

Retirement insecurity is reaching crisis proportions in Canada, since many Canadians have been unable and are still unable to save enough throughout their lives to maintain the same standard of living once they retire. At the end of the day, over 6% of seniors are living in poverty. We in the NDP believe that this increase is crucial in order to ensure that our seniors can retire with dignity.

Bill C-26 proposes adding a separate new tier to the current CPP. This new CPP tier would be implemented gradually over the next nine years, until 2025, and basically does the following two things: first of all, it raises the income replacement rate from 25% under the current CPP to 33%; second, it raises the earnings ceiling from where it is today at $54,900 to $82,700.

Once the transition period is complete in 2025, it will still be 40 years before people receive the full enhanced benefit. The first workers who will receive the full benefit are now 16 years old. Someone who is 59 in 2019 and who makes higher contributions for six years before retiring in 2025 at the age of 65 will receive no additional benefit.

It will take time for the changes to come into effect. The NDP believes that certain measures should be taken immediately to help seniors and Canadians on the verge of retiring who will not benefit from these changes.

The government needs to leverage the energy generated by this agreement and do what it takes to improve long-term retirement security for today's workers. It must respond to Quebec's concerns about the impact of this enhancement on low-income workers.

The NDP will keep fighting for other increases to the guaranteed income supplement and old age security as well as the national pharmacare program and the program to improve home care and palliative care.

As is often the case with the Liberals, when we take a closer look at their proposals, we quickly realize that everything is not always perfect. In fact, we need only look at some of the details of this bill to realize that some things are not as we would like them to be. One of them is the child-rearing dropout provision. That is a failure. As the NDP critic for families, children, and social development, I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding and accepting that the Liberals have not kept this child-rearing dropout provision, which is currently in the CPP. This measure ensures that women are not penalized for having left the labour market for a period of time in order to raise children. The Liberal bill also eliminates a similar clause for people who have received disability benefits under the CPP.

It is all very well to increase CPP benefits, but that is not all that should be done. The NDP worked very hard for the CPP to become a reality, and we are going to work very hard to ensure that this bill is not inequitable.

Do members know why I am talking about inequality? It is because women are penalized for having children. Only 4.5% of women receive the maximum amount of benefits. I was really shocked to learn that because we have a Prime Minister who brags at every opportunity that his government supports women and that he is working hard to improve gender parity.

The Prime Minister is squandering an opportunity. I think it is safe to say that he has missed the mark. On the contrary, his government's bill is creating more inequality. It is not right. The fact that the Liberals do not even see the problem makes even less sense.

What we need to keep in mind is that 63% of low-income seniors living alone are women. Does the House understand how high that number is? We in the NDP think that this is unacceptable.

I see this reality in my riding. I see many seniors struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month, and they only make it thanks to the incredible commitment of community organizations back home such as St-Hyacinthe volunteer centre or the Acton Vale volunteer centre. They help our less fortunate seniors every day. Through their engagement and drive, these volunteers make seniors feel less isolated, get them to socialize, and help them continue making an invaluable contribution to the community, which in turn helps improve their quality of life and that of all our fellow citizens. Through their work, they constantly reflect the values of our wonderful community: independence, sharing, caring, loyalty, respect, dignity, and solidarity.

These two volunteer centres have been working with all of the other organizations in the Saint-Hyacinthe region for many years in order to promote volunteer work and help overcome the many challenges associated with meeting the community's growing needs. It is their desire to always want to do more for others that makes such a big difference.

It is time that the Liberal government followed suit. As the Prime Minister has said, in 2016, we cannot allow women to receive fewer benefits because they had to leave the labour market for a time to go on maternity leave. Allowing this to happen basically amounts to gender discrimination. It is unthinkable to give senior women 30% lower benefits than men.

Enhancing the CPP is one step, but more must be done to correct its flaws and injustices. The NDP wants to do more for people. That is why we believe in developing a holistic vision and improving Canada's socioeconomic safety net. That is what we are trying to do with my Bill C-245, which would create a national poverty reduction strategy to make things better for our seniors throughout their lives, not just in retirement.

That is the kind of holistic vision we need to develop to achieve a more inclusive and just society that leaves nobody behind. Doug MacPherson, national coordinator for the Steelworkers Organization, agrees. He welcomes the proposed CPP changes, but says they are an inadequate response to the critical situation facing many working Canadians when they reach retirement. He added that the government, which prides itself on passing evidence-based legislation, obviously failed to see the situation clearly this time around. Mr. MacPherson also said that it should be clear the current system has some serious flaws that the proposed Canada pension plan changes will not fix.

Let us work together to help all seniors, but above all, our senior women.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about this worldly vision, more of a holistic approach, dealing with the issue of poverty.

I appreciate what the member is saying, but I would remind her that two specific measures have been announced in the 2016-17 budget. The first is the Canada child benefit program, a program that will literally lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty. The second is a substantial increase to the GIS for Canada's most vulnerable, in particular single seniors. Again, this substantial increase will lift tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty.

I know the NDP voted against the overall budget, but could you give a clear indication of whether she supported those two initiatives?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I cannot give you that indication, but I am sure the member will be able to respond.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Madam Speaker, taking a holistic approach specifically means taking into account the consequences of the measures we adopt, rather than being satisfied with going forward one case at a time.

What I said in my presentation is that we could think about the future of the CPP, but it was also important to help the seniors who are retired now and living in poverty. We cannot say that it does not matter because we are doing something else.

Taking a holistic approach means ensuring that all of our measures meet people's everyday needs.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about statistics and the percentage in terms of the lesser amount women would receive in CPP once they retired. Could she comment on the impact that this reduction in benefits means to the life of a Canadian senior woman?

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, the whole issue of women is very important.

Throughout women's careers, there is one thing on top of another that all have an impact on their retirement. First of all, underpinning everything, women's wages are lower. In addition, when they choose to have children, and more often than not, it is not a choice, they have to stop working for long periods of time. All these things affect their retirement.

That is why, as my colleague emphasized, when we are making decisions regarding the Canada pension plan, it is important to consider the situation facing women and correct the inequalities that hurt them when they retire.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am rising once again to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, at third reading. I feel strongly that this will be one of the largest tax increases in Canada's history and it will disproportionately impact middle-class Canadians.

During the second reading debate, I was asked a question by the member for Avalon concerning my comments made at that time, that this CPP increase was a tax hike given that if contributors to the program died before they were eligible to claim CPP benefits, the entirety of these accrued benefits would not flow to their partners or their dependents.

The member for Avalon pointed out that because he, a sitting member of parliament, was receiving CPP survivor benefits, this major CPP contribution rate hike was not a tax.

I would like to make a couple of observations regarding the member's assertion.

Only persons who are not collecting CPP pensions are eligible for the survivor benefit. These individuals can qualify for up to 60% of the contributor's retirement pension if the surviving spouse or common-law partner is not receiving other CPP benefits.

Even under the most generous of circumstances, the spouse or common-law partner of someone who had paid into the CPP his or her entire working life would only be able to collect a maximum of 60% of his or her pension, and this would not be done as a lump sum payment but rather in instalments.

If a family experienced a tragedy where both the contributor and his or her spouse or common-law partner were unable to collect CPP benefits, these full benefits would not be passed on to the children or grandchildren.

On the other hand, if that same person had consistently contributed to a registered retirement savings plan, the entire value of those contributions would be passed on to his or her next of kin, regardless of whether that person had his or her own CPP pension.

As the member knows, RRSPs invest in securities that hold similar risk profiles to investments made by the CPP Investment Board, so the risk of losses are comparable to the CPP.

I would assert, once more, that this is a tax hike. There is really no way around that.

For greater clarity, let us look at the dictionary definition of the word “tax”, which is “A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits”.

The CPP contributions are compulsory. They are being levied by the government on income, and they are going to be used by the federal government to provide for pensions. Therefore, it is a tax.

Also, the Liberals are not being forthcoming with the actual size of the increase in CPP premiums they would be imposing on contributors. The Liberals should call a spade a spade and admit that it is a tax hike and tell folks making more than $54,000 just how much more they will have to pay out of each paycheque.

Today, Canadians are contributing 10% of their income between the basic exemption, which is $3,500, and the maximum pensionable earnings amount, which is $54,900, into the CPP. When the bill is fully implemented, contributions on income between the minimum threshold and $54,000 will increase from 10% to 12%. CPP contributions on income between $54,000 and $82,000 will increase from zero to 12%. CPP contributions on incomes of $82,000 and above would increase from zero to 8%. That is hardly a gentle push to save more.

This would one of the largest single-year increases in taxes for middle-class Canadians in Canada's history, and it would be middle-class Canadians who would be bearing the largest increase in premiums relative to their income.

Every Canadian making more than $54,000 would see the percentage of each paycheque that would go to the CPP increase by significantly more than 2%.

Many will see their contribution rates rise by up to eight percentage points. That is 8% more of each paycheque they will not take home. Anybody who claims that increasing CPP contributions by eight percentage points will not have an impact on a family's bottom line is just wrong.

In a country like Canada where credit is fairly easily available, people can replace the income they will lose from the increase in mandatory contributions through greater borrowing. There are a number of Canadians who will not be able to reduce their overall household expenditures by 8% to maintain a balanced budget and may be put in the position where they have to borrow in order to continue to afford their mortgage or car payments, for example. While it is unwise to borrow money to offset any decrease in income by an increase in CPP premiums, it probably will happen.

For folks making above $54,000 per year looking to pay off their mortgage as quickly as possible, or individuals who may be looking to pay off their student loans earlier, the reduction in take-home pay will have a real impact on how quickly they can pay off their debt. Are people really better off if they are putting aside more money for retirement instead of paying off their mortgage or their debts more quickly?

This legislation would not increase take-home pay. It would not create new money. Therefore, an increase in payments in one area of household expenditures necessitates a decrease in another. Unfortunately, with the recklessness that the Liberals are entering Canada into long-term structural deficits, they do not seem to realize that families have to stick to a budget and make ends meet. The buck stops there.

Folks in my riding have also pointed out that higher payroll taxes negatively impact the competitiveness of businesses. One area it will really hurt is self-employed individuals who will have to pay both the employer and employee portion of the CPP. Therefore, they will have less capital to put back into their businesses.

A financial planner from Martensville made the following point to me, which I hope the finance minister will take seriously. He said that he encouraged those young people who came to him for financial advice to start saving even just a small amount for their retirement while they were young. However, he said now these same young people would be forced to divert that small amount to the CPP rather than their own savings and retirement plans.

With this CPP tax hike, the Liberal government is actually discouraging young people from saving by taking the small amount that they might have been able to put into a TFSA or an RRSP and taxing it away. If we want Canadians to save for their future, why would we take away their choice on how to do just that?

I am hopeful that all those new nominally independent senators will undertake due diligence and not simply rubber stamp what is clearly ruinous legislation to middle-class Canadians. The CPP is a contribution program. An increase in benefits is only made possible by a corresponding increase in contributions. Depending on their circumstances, Canadians may or may not get back what they put into the program, as I mentioned earlier in my comments. Every household will have to adjust to the reality that the government does not trust it enough to save for its retirement and can only begin to worry about what the Liberals plan to do next to make Canadians, who knows, eat more vegetables, exercise more regularly, and the list goes on and on.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

While I understand the Conservative position that we should ask less of the government, I cannot help but ask my colleague the following question.

All of us in the House today, perhaps the Conservatives less than the rest of the members of Parliament, can see how there will be benefits in 50 years. However, everyone agrees that there is nothing for an urgent situation, now. The fact remains that the Conservative approach did not seem to work in 10 years, since so many seniors are heading to a system where there will be great insecurity.

What does my hon. colleague have to say about that?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out something I have said time and time again, that Conservatives do believe in reasonable evidence-based policies to help Canadians retire with dignity.

I know I mentioned these statistics in earlier speeches, but according to Statistics Canada, the percentage of low-income seniors was 29% in 1970, and today it is 3.7%, so clearly this is a significant improvement.

The best way to prevent poverty in old age is to give people the tools they need to save money and to let them make their own choices, based on their own needs and means. They know how to manage their money, not the government, especially not this government that wants to take money out of their pockets.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have made it very clear that they will not support this bill. I can appreciate that. If it were up to the Conservative Party, the bill would never see the light of day. We saw some of that with their moving some 60 amendments to the bill.

Is there a time or situation in the future when the Conservative Party would support the enhancement? We understand that today, the Conservatives want to kill the bill and will debate it endlessly, but the issue is, will there ever be a time that the member could see the Conservative Party supporting an enhancement to the Canada pension plan?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I learned early on when I became a member of Parliament is never to speculate. Therefore, I do not want to speculate on whether or not there would ever be such a time.

What I can say today about the CPP is that from 1966 to 1986 the contribution rate was 3.6%. These original contributions were far lower than what is being contemplated today at 11.9%. At 11.9%, the government is replacing private sector retirement plans, which was not the intent of the original legislation.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her wise words. Being from Saskatchewan, I know she understands what the Liberal government has done to the coal industry. It has created the potential for huge job losses in a town called Coronach, where there is a mining company and a power generation company. Could she expand a little more on how jobs will be affected by the CPP changes and how they will accommodate that?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is a payroll tax. When I was in my riding during our break week in November, I heard this over and over again. It is a payroll tax that will increase the cost of doing business for everyone, and it will have an impact on their bottom line. The facilities in the member's riding will be no exception.

I found it very interesting to hear one of the members on the government side basically shrug off these concerns and say that some businesses would have to increase the prices of what they are producing, or their services, or they might need to close their doors. I would say that Canadians will be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. Unfortunately, the time is up.

The hon. government House leader has a point of order?

Bill C-26—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

The House resumed from consideration of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, obviously there is quite a bit of surprise and disgust in the House at what we have just seen take place from the government side. This is the second time that we have had the invocation of closure on the same bill. The Liberals did not want to let every member who was interested speak to it at second reading, and they do not want to let every member interested in speaking now speak to it at report stage. It is critical that we have a full airing and discussion of the bill.

Perhaps not every bill before the House requires the same amount of debate and discussion, but this is one of critical importance. This is a piece of legislation that will kill jobs, that will kill businesses, that will make it harder for families to make ends meet. This is a bill that very much ignores what ordinary people and business leaders are telling us in the House we need to do. Rather than giving it a proper airing, rather than having a full discussion, again we have a notice of closure motion, and I know we will be discussing this further tomorrow.

As I reflect on the points that I wanted to make, I appreciate that unlike many members on this side of the House, I will actually have an opportunity to speak to this. When I think about this, as I think about many of the other bills that we discuss, I think about my children. My daughter Gianna is three and a half, and my son Judah is just over one, and I think about what the bill will mean for them in the long term, as they move eventually into adulthood, as they try to live well economically and in other respects, and as they move toward retirement. What can I do, as a legislator, that will pass on the best possible country to my children?

That means having a strong society, a strong culture, but what can we do when it comes to the economic sphere that will position my children well? I think we can do what we know builds to a strong economy. We can encourage the kind of economy that is growing, that is creating jobs and opportunities. That does not mean an economy in which the government controls everything. That means an economy in which we have a robust private sector that is creating jobs and opportunity for my children and for other people, now and into the future.

The fundamental mistake of the bill is that if we care about people's well-being, about people's economic situation, and we care about their retirement, the natural conclusion of caring is control. If the government cares about people's retirement, it has to control it. It has to take more of their money and put it aside for them. Our view, as the Conservative Party, is unique within the House, in that we believe that caring does not require control. We can care about the economy and yet recognize that a strong economy requires a strong, and, to some extent, regulated, but not an overly controlled private marketplace, because that is where wealth and opportunity are generated. That is where the creative ideas that spur economic growth come from. That is the source of the innovation that will allow my children to have a better standard of living than I do. It is a strong private sector that creates those long-term opportunities.

Repeatedly, we are accused by other members of the House of not caring about retirement, of not being interested in a stronger retirement situation for our seniors. However, the difference is not one of caring; it is one of control. We understand that just because we care does not mean we need to control. In fact, the best expression of care for people's well-being in the context of the economic realities we experience, is giving people control over their own retirement, but at the same time giving them the tools that allow them to succeed and do well. That can mean, as we did when we were in government, strengthening tools like the OAS. It can mean providing significant tax cuts for seniors, bringing in income splitting for seniors. As we committed to in the last election campaign, it was having a single seniors tax credit. We significantly increased the age exemption, for example. We brought in a full host of tax reductions for seniors that allowed seniors to live in a stronger economic position.

However, caring does not mean controlling. We cared, and we handed control over to individual seniors in terms of their own retirement. That was our own unique approach, but other parties believe that if we care, we have to then advocate for more government involvement.

Then, when we advocate for this balance between the existing CPP as well as stronger savings vehicles and tax cuts for seniors, they say that we must oppose the CPP in its entirety, as if there is this inescapable binary between the big expansion the Liberals have proposed and complete abolition on the other. No, we think that we have a system that is working fairly well, not perfectly, but that the enhancements can come in really identifying those who need the help the most and providing them with core supports and tax reductions, but always leave our seniors in control of their retirement and do not put in the process undue burden on our businesses. This is the connection. In trying to control people's retirement, the government is raising taxes on small business. It is introducing new higher payroll taxes for our small businesses. This will hurt economic growth. It will kill jobs, kills businesses, and reduce opportunity. It will reduce the opportunities that are available for my children and everyone else's.

I want to make another specific point about the contradiction in the logic that we are seeing from the government. On the one hand, the Liberals are introducing a carbon tax. They say that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce carbon. They say that if we do not like something, we should tax it in order to reduce it. That is their argument. On the other hand, today we are debating a bill where they would increase the tax on employment. Therefore, if their view is that a tax is a disincentive, then surely that applies as much in this case as it applies in the case of their arguments with respect to a carbon tax. They cannot have it both ways. If a carbon tax is their strategy for reducing carbon, then what is a tax on employment but a transparent measure that will certainly, perhaps not intentionally, be a measure that will have the effect of reducing employment?

On this side of the House, we oppose increasing taxes on Canadians. We strongly oppose this new tax on employment. We think we can more effectively support people by giving them the resources themselves. We also oppose the carbon tax. It will reduce production and hurt the economy, and it will not actually increase the efficiency of production. It will simply chase those emissions across borders. It will not have the impact that the Liberals desire. However, the Liberals really have to reconcile in terms of their own economic logic whether or not they think a tax is a disincentive. If they think a tax is a disincentive in the case of carbon, then the same principle exactly applies when it comes to employment.

Finally, I want to underline that we have a choice here. We have advocated strengthening private savings vehicles and providing tax reductions as an alternative that helps current and future seniors, but does not hurt our economy. One of the major advantages of private savings is that it actually allows people to use those savings in a more flexible way throughout their lives.

Most people I know save for different major projects throughout their lives, which then helps them economically in the future. People might save up for post-secondary education. That post-secondary education allows them to have a greater earning potential. Then they save up to buy a home, and they might save up for a small business, or for some kinds of personal investments, which then build up to that savings for retirement. They can realize the value of that education throughout their life, with that home if they choose to sell it, or perhaps if they choose to sell that small business.

Therefore, private savings give individuals greater flexibility whereas a government-controlled savings mechanism, like the Liberals are talking about with higher taxes and then future disbursements, means that the government is taking money away from people, and they do not have the opportunity to use those savings throughout their life. They do not have the opportunity to make those investments, get an education, a home, or a business, which are things that help them and generate a stronger economy.

As I think about my children, Gianna and Judah, and what this bill means for them, I am going to strongly oppose the bill knowing that we are better off caring but not controlling.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raised an interesting point that I had not heard raised before with regard to comparing the carbon tax and what the Conservatives, in this instance, say is a payroll tax.

The member mentions that that would be a good example to show that we are not being consistent. However, in fact, on this side of the House, we do not believe that the Canada pension plan imposes a payroll tax. It is the Conservatives who are saying it is a payroll tax.

Therefore, I would like the member to understand that if it is payroll tax and that is going to mean that job creators are not hiring people, then that obviously means that it does affect behaviour. Taxes affect behaviour. Conservatives are the ones who think it is a payroll tax. Therefore, the carbon tax would affect behaviour and consumption.

I would like to turn the member's argument on its head. The Conservatives are the ones who are saying it is payroll tax, when on this side of the House we say see it as an investment in Canadians' future.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the carbon tax, I believe it will affect behaviour but the effect will be to send industry over the border. It might affect Canadian emissions, but it will not affect global emissions. It will not actually address the problem.

I will just say this. The Liberals do not want to call this a tax. Whether or not we call it a tax, the fact is a tax by any other name smells just as bad. The economic impact of this is that it acts like a tax, even if the Liberals want to call it something else. If the government charges an extra fee, a deduction, a new made-up word, a levy, or something or other on top of something else, that creates a disincentive for it.

Most economists would use the word “tax”. I am agnostic on the word, but fundamentally, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other experts tell us very clearly what the impact will be. It will kill jobs. It will kill businesses. It will hurt wages.

We know that that is the impact, again, regardless of the language the government wants to use.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to return to the issue of whether we call this a tax or not.

Part of what Canadians are going to work for is not just wages for today, they also want to retire eventually. Their pension package is part of the wage package. To call the CPP increase a tax increase would be the same as calling their wage a tax. When such a broad definition of taxation is used, it just kind of stops making sense. If every cost incurred by an employer is a tax, that would not make any sense at all.

Canadians are going to work. They want to defer some of their wages in order to be able to take their retirement. This is a sensible way of doing that. I do not think calling it a tax adds anything to this debate. In fact, I think it really obfuscates what Canadians are going to work for. I do not think the debate is moved ahead at all by referring to the CPP increase as a tax, just as debates about wages would not be advanced if we suddenly started calling people's wages “taxes”.

I wonder what the member thinks about that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to point out the strong attention that our friends on the political left pay to redefining language away from the clearest possible wording.

As I said, members can call it a tax, a levy, or a deduction. Here are the facts: if there is a mandatory portion of a person's pay that the government is taking away from them, it does not have to be called a tax, but economically it behaves like a tax. Economically, it introduces a disincentive relative to the person's previous position. It means that compared to prior to the deduction, they are relatively worse off and relatively less likely to engage in that behaviour, because the amount they are taking home as a result of it is less.

That is the basic economic logic here. Again, it does not matter what the members call it, but the behaviour of it is exactly the same.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to take up a certain point in this debate that I do not think has got quite enough attention.

We often talk about the fact that the proposed CPP increase would not do a lot for seniors today, and that is likely true. It is in the nature of the plan. Pensions plans are about building for the future, and if we want to do something for seniors today, there are other things we can and should do, but the fact that the CPP would really only benefit people 40 years from now is just saying that it would benefit the young people who are entering the workforce today. I do not see that as a vice of the proposed increase at all.

Though there are some problems with the bill, I want to take a moment to put on the record that with the increases to the CPP, the virtue of the bill is that for young people who are facing a different work environment than my parents did and, frankly, than my grandparents did, the CPP has a lot to offer.

It has a lot to offer in a couple of ways. One, and I think the most important one, is the portability of the plan and the fact that it goes from employer to employer. No matter what province an individual is working in, they and their employer will continue to pay into the CPP, and that is a cumulative benefit that they will receive over their entire life.

I think there is real advantage to that in a labour market that we know is changing and is causing young people today, first, to have trouble finding work in the first place. When they do, it is not long-term, permanent work. Young people today will not only be changing employers many times, but will likely change careers many times.

The idea was that an individual would find a company pension. That was part of the three pillars of retirement savings planning when CPP was brought in. People would have a public pension, a company pension and their private savings, which were meant to represent only a third of what they would need to retire, because people at that time recognized that asking people to save for the entirety of their retirement was in all likelihood setting the bar too high.

The company pension was meant to be a pillar. We no longer have that. Even if some young Canadians today are lucky enough to get hired by a company that does offer some kind of pension scheme, it is very unlikely they will stay with that employer for 25 or 30 years. That means it will be hard for them to receive the full benefit of that pension plan.

Even if they are employed for 20 or 30 years by a couple of different employers with their own versions of retirement plans, whether some kind of defined benefit plan, although those are disappearing very quickly, or different defined contributions plans or pooled RRSPs or whatever the mechanism is, in order for them to receive their retirement benefit and their income, they will have to be in touch with and interacting with multiple financial institutions and plans to cobble together that income that at one time would have come from one comprehensive company plan and the CPP.

The CPP can step in to play an important role for young people who are struggling to find and keep employment and who would like to retire one day. The fact they are working on contract and are not guaranteed work past eight months, or a year or two years, does not mean they want to keep doing that for the rest of their lives. In fact, I submit that many of them would be very happy to sign on with a company that promised them long-term employment with good benefits and a pension plan that they felt they could rely on.

That is a really important benefit. The cost or the direct financial details aside, this is a good way for young people facing a very challenging labour market to be able to put together some kind of pension plan that provides a defined benefit. In the private sector, defined benefit plans are disappearing. It seems another one disappears every day, but it is important, if an individual wants to be able to plan for their retirement, to have a sense of how much income they will have.

We know from the experience of 2008 that the situation can change very quickly when all of the risk is put on the individual and the market goes south, for reasons beyond the control of any one particular Canadian. It means that their retirement savings can disappear overnight.

The retirement savings that were kept by the Canada pension plan did not disappear overnight. If they are like most Canadians, who unfortunately had a lot of their retirement savings disappear overnight in the stock market, I think most people would be glad to know that what they did put into the CPP would still be there for them, and gladder still, if that were a more significant percentage of their overall retirement income.

It is a benefit in that it follows people around, and that is important for young workers. It is a benefit to them too in that it provides a kind of core defined benefit around which they can plan the rest of their retirement savings.

We have heard a lot of members talk about the role of individual responsibility and the importance of savings. As a principle, it is impossible to impeach that. It is important for people to take responsibility, but one way they can do that is by making collective decisions and electing governments that have proposed and are implementing a good public pension. I do not see this as government taking away people's money and planning for them. I see this as Canadians making decisions about who to elect, based on platforms that have to do with collective decision-making.

The CPP offers a better retirement alternative than many Canadians would be able to find in the private sector. That is true in part because it shares the risk across all working Canadians. It is true in part because it has some of the lowest administrative fees. It is true in part because it is a fully portable plan. It is also true because one of the deceptions in the position of Conservatives in the House, when it comes to individual savings, is that somehow all Canadians are equal in the access that they enjoy to plans that provide good returns. I do not think anyone who has any knowledge of retirement savings could honestly get up in this place and say it does not matter how much money people have to invest in a mutual fund or with a particular financial planner or adviser to determine what rate of return they get. We know that all they have to do is walk into a bank and they will be told that if they have $25,000 instead of $5,000 they can get a higher interest rate on their savings account. That principle continues to apply, and those returns continue to increase exponentially with the amount of wealth people have.

When it comes to the CPP, all Canadians are treated equally, and their savings dollar goes just as far whether they are saving a bit because they get paid $14 an hour, or a lot because they are they paid $50 an hour. There is a basic issue of fairness. No one is saying that the CPP should be 100% of Canadians' retirement income, but it needs to be an important pillar and there is an important issue of fairness there that needs to be addressed.

Fairness in the CPP is an important principle and it is one of the reasons that we in the NDP have been disappointed that certain provisions instituted by previous Liberal governments, previous Trudeau governments for that matter, in order to ensure fairness for the CPP, are not present in this round of increases for the CPP. I am speaking in particular about dropout provisions for women who have to leave the workforce or decide to leave the workforce because they want to spend time with their children and do not want those years counted toward their overall benefit because that would punish them in terms of the benefit that they get out of the CPP. Likewise, I am speaking about people with disabilities who also may have to take time out of the workforce and do not want those years counted toward their overall benefit because they did not earn very much in those years, obviously, if they were not working to their full potential. That is a principle of fairness that traditionally had been recognized by Liberals, and it has been unfortunate to see that the current Liberals refuse to recognize that principle of fairness in the CPP.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain has done a great job of identifying what I hope was an oversight by the Liberals. If it was not an oversight, that is even worse. If it was an oversight, I do not think the Liberals have handled it very well because what they should have done was admit that they made a mistake, that they missed that, and made a commitment to return to the table and secure the appropriate changes before ramming this bill through. Instead, they decided to use time allocation hoping they could bust it through before Canadians started paying attention. I think that is shameful, and I was sad to see it. I do want to commend, once again, my colleague from Hamilton Mountain, who identified the problem and offered amendments in committee. When those amendments were not accepted because they have financial implications and the government would need to champion them, the member moved a motion calling on the committee to recommend to the government that it undertake to do that. Even that was shut down. It has been very disappointing to see the Liberals not continue what, until now with the current government, had been a tradition of Liberals' recognizing that basic principle of fairness with respect to the CPP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been very clear that there will be another round of talks with his provincial counterparts about what to do in the future regarding CPP.

The member seemed to be disappointed with the time allocation. Yet we know the Conservative Party has made a commitment to defeat the bill. The best way for the Conservative Party to defeat it is to ensure that it never sees the light of day, to continue talking and talking. The Conservatives have demonstrated that they can talk endlessly against this bill and it would never come to a vote.

Would my colleague rather the legislation pass or allow the Conservatives to ultimately kill the bill?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I usually defer to experts in subject areas, and I know the member for Winnipeg North is an expert in talking endlessly. However, in this case I am afraid I cannot. It is often the case that opposition parties oppose government bills. In this case, his argument would be a lot stronger if the government would fix some of the basic problems with the bill that the member for Hamilton Mountain has identified.

Essentially, what he is saying is that the Conservatives are willing to give the Liberals all the time they need to fix the bill. Instead, the Liberals have used time allocation and will pass it without the fixes. The member's position would be much stronger if Liberals would fix the bill and then we could have this debate again.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I asked this question of the member previously, and I hope he has had a chance to revise his answer.

Seniors today know that this bill will not help them one iota, not a bit. How do we tell seniors today that this bill is not going to help them?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, this was the point that I was trying to address in the first part of my speech. We need to take measures to help seniors today, which is important. There is a range of things we could do, whether it is investments in affordable housing, or raising the GIS or OAS. A national pharmacare program would be a great benefit for seniors, but we do not hear the Liberals or Conservatives talking about that.

The point I was trying to make was that we should be thinking of this as a policy for young people, and that was not a bad thing. It is okay to make good policy for young people in our country as well. While there are a lot of things we need to do for seniors, I do not think it is a reason not to proceed with this particular change simply because it, in and of itself, does nothing for seniors. This is a policy for young people. That is okay. When we talk about pension planning over 30 or 40 years, that inherently will be for young people. That much time is needed in order to have an effective and successful retirement plan.

We are having the conversation, and this is going to benefit my children. I am very happy to vote for something that will be of benefit to them, even though it will not benefit my grandmother.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague who always delivers such eloquent speeches.

I would like his opinion on something that is going through my mind. The Liberals are boasting about a bill that is nothing more than a long-range 50-year plan.

It would be like me telling my two-month-old daughter that I was going to put $1 a month away for her education and in 20 years it would amount to a lot of money. That is sound management, but it is nothing to write home about. The truth is, there are serious problems that need to be addressed right away.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, there certainly are serious problems that need to be addressed.

We have to do something about affordable housing, health, and drug prices. It is good to adopt measures for young people, but that is not an excuse to not deal with these other problems. We must not choose just one or the other of these issues. We must address them at the same time.

The House resumed from November 28 consideration of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak to the enhancement of the Canada pension plan because, once again, the government is providing the middle class with a concrete solution to help it get ahead.

It is important to recognize that retirement levels have dropped in Canada in recent decades. In 1977, 43% of Canadians had a defined benefit pension plan. In 2012, only 27% of Canadians, or just over one-quarter, had this same type of pension plan.

If we look only at the private sector, that number drops to 11%, or just over one in 10 people. There is also another reality that we have to face: too few young Canadians are saving for their retirement, for all sorts of reasons. One in four families approaching retirement age, or 1.1 million families, might not be saving enough money to maintain their current lifestyle when they retire.

What is even more worrisome is the number of families without a workplace pension plan. One-third may not save enough for retirement.

The government cannot let Canadians live with such uncertainty. That is why we are taking action in concert with the provinces and territories. We must collectively ensure that all Canadians can retire with dignity.

Therefore, the issue is what the government, the provinces, and the territories have decided to do. We started with the fundamentals. We increased the amount of the pension benefit. When the new CPP goes into effect, the amount at retirement will represent one-third of pensionable earnings. At present, it represents one-quarter.

Take, for example, a mother who earns $50,000 a year. When she retires, she will collect approximately $16,000 every year under the new plan, instead of $12,000. Then, the maximum level of pensionable earnings, that is the earnings used to calculate the final amount of the pension, will go up by 14% by 2025. This means that the maximum annual CPP benefit, which is currently $13,110, would go up to $20,000 in today's dollars. Under the enhanced CPP, the maximum benefit will go up by almost 50%.

Another interesting thing about the Canada pension plan is that it is funded entirely by workers' contributions. For most Canadians, the contribution rate will go up by just 1%. In addition, employee contributions to the enhanced portion of the CPP will be tax deductible, while other CPP contributions will remain eligible for a tax credit.

There is a mechanism to compensate low-income workers for CPP contributions. They may be eligible for an enhanced working income tax benefit. Their retirement income will be higher, but their family's budget will not be affected by higher contributions.

The new plan will be phased in over seven years from 2019 to 2025. The government is giving workers and businesses time to prepare for the changes. Canadian families know that they can count on us to safeguard their quality of life and their future responsibly.

I should point out that the enhancement complements other vehicles already available to Canadians that enable them to pay less tax: registered pension plans or RPPs; registered retirement savings plans or RRSPs; pooled registered pension plans; and tax-free savings accounts.

I want to emphasize that the changes we are proposing today are not about ensuring the long-term survival of the Canada pension plan. According to the Chief Actuary of Canada, the plan is already safe for the next 75 years. The purpose of these changes is to encourage Canadians, especially young people and future generations of Canadians, to save more for retirement.

In closing, I want to summarize the main advantages of the enhanced CPP.

Once the enhanced CPP is fully implemented, the maximum benefit will have increased by nearly 50%.

The CPP provides secure and predictable benefits, which means that Canadians can worry less about exhausting their savings or having their savings affected by the vagaries of the market.

CPP benefits are fully indexed to the cost of living, which reduces the risk of inflation gradually eroding the purchasing power of retirement savings.

The enhanced CPP is adapted to the job market, because it helps close the gap resulting from the lower coverage offered by employer pension plans. In addition, it is portable, so to speak, and follows workers from one province to another, which promotes labour force mobility.

The CPP has millions of contributors, which is a crucial factor, because it makes it possible for the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to take advantage of economies of scale in order to generate healthy returns.

Future generations of Canadians can rest assured. They can be assured that, when they retire, the Canada pension plan will still have enough money to pay benefits. This means that they can focus on what matters to them, such as spending time with their families or enjoying their pastimes. Above all else, there is one thing that illustrates the enhancements of the CPP: Canada is at its best when all the governments work together. Today, members have a historic opportunity to raise the bar for future generations of Canadians when they retire. That is why we must support this bill.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her passion about pensions and the importance they play in the lives of people.

What does the member think about the fact that people with disabilities who live on disability income and women who choose to leave the workforce to raise children will not be granted the CPP enhancement that all other workers will? How does the member feel about the fact that we will be voting on a bill that in essence is sexist?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her shared commitment to those people who need greater pension security. It is incredibly important to recognize that with this bill, we would be helping thousands, if not millions, of Canadians achieve greater retirement security.

I have knocked on doors in my riding of Burlington. In fact, this past weekend I knocked on the door of an individual who, although retired, was unable to maintain her quality of life with just CPP and OAS. She talked about how important it was to ensure we made these enhancements.

I want to make it clear that all Canadians who contribute to CPP will receive this enhancement. The base, as the minister mentioned, will maintain that dropout period. It is important that the minister will raise this issue with his provincial counterparts when he meets with them, so we can not only ensure that the enhancement goes through, but that we continue to improve and ensure that Canadians have access to retirement security.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am curious about the enhancement. Could the member explain why the general dropout provision was included in the enhancement, but the enhancement for child-rearing and people with disabilities was omitted? What was the reason for that? Why would the minister have to go back to try to get this back in when he could have done it right away?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to focus on why I am really excited about the CPP enhancement. It is really important for me, as a young Canadian, that we encourage young Canadians to save. I have spoken to many of my peers across Burlington and across the country who have told me that they are worried about their retirement because they are not likely going to have access to defined contribution pension plans.

It is incredibly important that we make this enhancement for future generations so that they will have the retirement security they need as they age and move into retirement.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about knocking on the door of a senior in her riding this past weekend. I wonder if she explained to that senior that she would not get any benefits from the CPP enhancement until 30 or 40 years down the road.

Has the government done any analytics of the economic impact of a CPP tax hike? Small business owners in my constituency of Foothills tell me that this will cost jobs. They are not going to be able to afford additional hires when a carbon tax and a CPP tax hike are added on. This will make it hard on employers to expand and grow.

Could my colleague tell me if there have been any studies or analyses done on the impact the CPP tax hike would have on jobs?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course research and analysis have been done.

The member's question gives me a great opportunity to mention that my mother is visiting today and is in the gallery. She is a small business owner—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The parliamentary secretary knows that she cannot identify anyone who may or may not be in the audience.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, my mother is a small business owner and she has made it clear to me that she understands this is not a tax but a pension contribution and that it is important for Canadians all across Canada to make sure they have good retirement security. Many small business owners in my community have said the same thing.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess this is our last opportunity make the comments we want to make on this particular bill.

It is obvious, in listening to the government, that it is totally stone deaf to any of the suggestions that might be coming forward. However, that does not mean to say we should not keep trying. There is always a glimmer of hope that someone over there might be listening.

This particular bill, more than any other bill the government has brought forward, emphasizes the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. We have heard time and again from speakers on this side of the House that Liberals believe it is their job to ensure that they take care of people; and how they take care of people is by sticking their hand in their pockets, taking out more taxes, and building up a fund. Among the majority of people I talk to, young people, their first comment about the Canada pension plan is that they have doubts it will even be there when they need it.

I try my best to assure them that the Canada pension plan does have an investment board that is investing their dollars, I believe, wisely. Certainly, though, there is a greater risk with this enhanced portion of the Canada pension plan, because finance officials told us at the finance committee meeting that the enhanced plan has something like a four times or five times higher risk than the current plan, because it is predicated on a certain return on investment. The current plan is primarily funded by employer and employee contributions.

We have to rely on a continued strong investment by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board for this to be sustainable down the road. I am confident that board is the right investment tool, but we have all seen what has happened in the past, relative to the economic downturns. It needs to be acknowledged that this is a much higher risk plan than the current plan that exists today.

Getting back to the basic differential of Conservatives and Liberals, during the past 10 years a number of initiatives were taken by the Conservative Party when it was in government to help Canadians save for the future. However, they were to help Canadians not force Canadians. The Conservative government brought forward a proposal to double the amount of money that one could put into a tax-free savings account. What was one of the first initiatives of the new socialist Liberal government? It was to roll that back.

The government also talked about allowing Canadians to voluntarily contribute into a Canada pension plan enhancement. That, again, has been tossed by the wayside.

The other thing that the government is failing to realize—and in fact I would say it is being disingenuous to young people—is that we have a hard-working, young, entrepreneurial, millennial population in this country who understand they need to save. The government continues to kind of paint them all with the same brush, saying that somehow people are not saving.

Young people I know are investing in ways that can ensure that their future retirement funds will be there. They do not want the government taking money out of their pockets, and then the government, through the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, running that high risk of investing their money.

The government is standing up, and I heard it again from the previous speaker, and saying that young people cannot be trusted to save for the future. I am quoting what I think I just heard from the previous speaker: the government cannot let Canadians live in uncertainty.

We live in uncertainty every day. Comments like that are disingenuous to Canadians, to young Canadians, and these members who make those statements, frankly, should be ashamed of themselves.

I want to get back to the basic difference between Conservative views of the way Canada operates and the Liberal view.

We have heard an awful lot about small business. That particular member who just spoke may very well have been talking to some different small businesses in the greater Toronto area, but the businesses that came before the finance committee from across this country—whether it was the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, whether it was Canadian taxpayers, whether it was chambers of commerce, or whether it was small businesses as we travelled across the country listening to their concerns—are very concerned about this extra cost that is being added to their bottom line. That is not even taking into account such things as the carbon tax, which is going to be coming into effect right around the same time.

I know in the case of Alberta, we have a situation where the government is increasing the minimum wage to $15 by 2018. It is this piling-on effect that government does not seem to take into account for small business. It will readily admit that small business is the creator of jobs in this country. If the government were imposing a carbon tax, imposing higher taxes for Canada pension plan, and at the same time, honouring the commitment it made in the election campaign to reduce small business tax, then maybe we could think about supporting some of these initiatives. However, it reneged on the promise to cut the small business tax, and now, it is layering on tax increases.

I think the government will pay the price down the road because small businesses are not going to create the jobs. Again, it is government thinking by the Liberals that, somehow, government creates jobs. That will eventually do the government in.

I would like to summarize what we have been through over the past period of time.

We have had a finance minister who has brought in a budget that did not even come close to his leader's election campaign promise of a small deficit of $10 billion.

The Liberal election promise was also that within this mandate it would balance the budget. We have seen no signs of that.

In fact, my colleague who is the finance critic has asked the Minister of Finance at finance committee—I think it is up to 12 times now, including yesterday—when the budget will be balanced. The finance minister has no idea when the budget is going to be balanced. I think he is waiting for the next promise from the Prime Minster. There may be some help on the way. I wonder if we are not going to start to take some lessons from some foreign countries that were ruled by former dictators, because a lot of what I am seeing is the government starting to look like some of these foreign dictators, because we have not only these initiatives that are being pushed through relative to tax increases, but we also have a government that decides, if it cannot get its own way, to bring in closure. We have seen that again today. Is this the ninth or tenth time in a short sitting of the House of Commons that closure has been brought in?

We saw the Liberal members shutting down any debate at the finance committee. The NDP member for Hamilton Mountain attempted to get something on the table. He was unsuccessful because one of the members of the committee called for adjournment and, with the majority of the committee in favour, the committee adjourned. We had, I think, about 15 minutes to talk about this bill at committee stage. Now the government turns around and brings in closure.

I think the government has to take a strong, hard look at itself and ask what kind of government it is offering to Canadians. It keeps talking about looking after Canadians' future.

I think one of the things it should be looking after is the ability for all of us, as representatives of our constituents, to have the opportunity to make these comments in this assembly and try to ensure that, if something is not happening that we believe is in the best of interest of Canadians, we have the opportunity to express ourselves. The current government is taking it away from every one of the members in this assembly.

I will not support this legislation.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his impassioned speech. He spoke about our side of the House not trusting our youth to save. It is not a case of trusting them or not; it is a case of whether they have the ability to save, given the climate that exists today.

If you come to my rural riding in eastern Ontario and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is probably best not to use the word “you” as opposed to just addressing the Chair. Thank you.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague.

When I travel around my riding, I meet so many seniors who under the present system are living in poverty because that system does not support them. Today, given the precarious nature of employment, given the high level of student debt, and the high cost of living, there is an inability for individuals to save because they do not have the opportunity to be able to. They are just trying to make ends meet.

For the member across, is it not better to help them protect their future by investing in that future rather than just leaving it to chance that things are going to improve and they are going to have the ability to save?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That question is through me, of course.

The hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is just typical Liberal speak, where we have to make sure we have everyone protected. I understand now why our Prime Minister likes some of the foreign leaders so much because we are moving toward that kind of a government.

I am 67 years old. I was fortunate enough to live in the generation that created the greatest wealth this country has ever seen. I have confidence in the generations that come behind us that they will do even better than we did. For the government to say that young people cannot or will not save for their future is disingenuous to our young millennials in this country today.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and I think that they demonstrate that there is indeed no stalemate on the issue of debating the Canada pension plan enhancements, which has been portrayed today as a reason for time allocation. I was appalled to hear that at the committee level we apparently had only 15 minutes of debate about this. I am appalled. I know that the hon. member and I may not agree on the direction and the purpose of CPP, but I would like to hear about the issue. If we are going to discuss enhancements, was the member disconcerted that persons who are living on disability pensions until their regular pension kicks is a fairly regular situation? Was he at all concerned that people, especially women, who opted out of the workplace so that they could rear children for a period of time were left out and that this was not explored—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I share the member's concerns about the government putting the boots to debate because that is exactly what did happen at the committee stage and it is happening here in the House as well.

The position of the Conservative Party in the official opposition is simply this. We do not agree with the bill and so we are not supporting any clause within it. That is our position because we believe there are better ways for people to save other than the government sticking its hand into the pockets of taxpayers and small business employers.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech and I appreciate that many millennials like to save. They want to, but I wonder what my hon. colleague would say to my peers who are between the ages of 25 and 35 today, who are making between $35,000 and $40,000 a year and just do not have that extra income to put away, and are worried because they do not have stable employment, they do not have a pension, and this is great way for them to make sure that they will have some retirement security moving forward.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, no one knows about young people who are unemployed more than us as representatives of the city of Calgary, so I am not going to take any advice from someone from the Liberal side who has every opportunity to help some of these young people who are not employed, to create jobs in this country by doing some things that we have mentioned such as cutting the small business tax. If Liberals cut the small business tax as they promised in the election campaign, then businesses would create jobs, not the government and thereby people would be working and saving for their own future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before we resume debate, I know there was some question about how I had pick the speakers. I want to remind the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, in case he was not in the House when this occurred, this is an extract from Debates of November 3, 2016. The Deputy Speaker at the time said:

As Chair occupants, we recognize that the time for questions and comments is often the most valuable time for an exchange between members. In accordance with the procedures and practices, we will do our best to ensure that time is generally afforded to the members of the parties who are not associated with the member who has just spoken but not to the exclusion of that party....

That is the way we will do it. We will also be attentive to members who are particularly present during the day and paying attention to the debate to ensure that as many members as possible can participate....

It goes on. I just want to indicate that if there are a lot of people rising from the party that has not been making the speech, those people are being recognized first. If no one is getting up, we will of course recognize members from the party that has just made the speech.

If the member is not in agreement with that, I will certainly take that to the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker of the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, the goal of a stronger Canada pension plan is truly a high priority that is shared by Canadians from coast to coast to coast, with 75% in favour of a stronger public pension plan. By making this priority a reality, we have the opportunity to demonstrate what Canadian federalism can accomplish when governments work together openly and constructively.

Helping Canadians achieve their goal of a safe, secure, and dignified retirement is a key part of the Government of Canada's plan to help the middle class and those working hard to join it. As part of this plan, the Government of Canada is committed to working with all provinces and territories to enhance the CPP to ensure that future generations of Canadians can count on a strong public pension plan in their retirement years. This is precisely what we are doing by enhancing the plan.

We know that middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever before, and many are worried that they will not have set aside enough money for their retirement. The Department of Finance has examined whether families nearing retirement are adequately prepared. About one in four Canadian families approaching retirement, or 1.1 million families, are at risk of not saving enough to maintain their current standard of living, and the risk is highest for middle-class and middle-income families. Families without workplace pension plans are at an even greater risk of under-saving for retirement. In fact, one-third of these families are at risk.

We are aware of the need to help Canadians save more. Saving more will mean that they are more confident about their future and about their ability to secure a dignified retirement.

There is a particular concern regarding younger Canadians who tend to have higher debt than in previous generations and who, in most cases, will live longer than in previous generations. They face the challenge of securing adequate retirement savings at a time when fewer expect to work in jobs that will include a workplace pension plan. Further, a prolonged period of low interest rates could mean that young workers will face lower returns on their retirement savings, which means that they may need to save even more than in the past.

I am proud to be able to say that we are delivering on our commitment to help Canadians save more for retirement. Working in close collaboration and towards a common purpose with governments across Canada, we reached a historic agreement that would give Canadians a more generous public pension to help them retire with dignity.

The challenge that governments faced in crafting an enhanced CPP was that the current plan was not accumulating benefits quickly enough to meet the future needs of Canadians in a world where workplace pension coverage continues to decline. The enhancement that the Canadian governments have agreed to does two things to address this.

First, it would boost the share of annual earnings received during retirement from one-quarter to one-third. For example, an individual making $50,000 a year in today's dollars over his or her working life would receive about $16,000 per year in retirement, instead of roughly $12,000 a year today.

Second, the enhancements would increase by 14%, which is the maximum income range covered by the CPP. This means that, once fully in place, the enhanced CPP would increase the maximum CPP retirement benefit by about 50%. In other words, the current maximum of $13,110 would, in today's dollar terms, increase by nearly $7,000 under the enhanced CPP, bringing the maximum benefit up to almost $20,000. The legislation also includes enrichments to CPP disability and survivor benefits.

For most Canadians, these increased benefits would come from just a 1% increase in their contribution rates. We are also making sure to give individuals and their employers plenty of time to adjust to the modest increase, making sure that it is small and gradual, and it would start in 2019.

Our plan is also fiscally sound. The chief actuary released a report in late October that confirmed that the contribution and benefit levels proposed under the CPP enhancement, agreed by Canada's governments on June 20, would be sustainable for the long term, ensuring that Canadian workers could count on an even stronger, secure CPP for years to come.

What does Bill C-26 mean for Canadians? First and foremost, enhancing the CPP means there will be more money from the CPP waiting for Canadians when they retire. This means they will be able to focus on the things that matter, like spending time with their families, rather than worrying about how to make ends meet. It will mean a reduction in the share of families at risk of not saving enough for retirement, as well as a reduction in the degree to which Canadians are under-saving.

The Department of Finance has estimated that by supporting and ensuring royal assent of Bill C-26, parliamentarians would have the opportunity to reduce the share of families at risk of not having adequate retirement savings by one-quarter, from 24% to 18%, when taking into account income from the three pillars of the retirement income system and savings from other financial and non-financial assets. Therefore, the enhanced CPP builds on the core existing CPP benefits. It does so in a smart, carefully targeted, and effective way that reflects the extensive research that governments brought to the table in crafting this enhancement for the benefit of working Canadians. Taken together, it is a comprehensive package that will increase CPP benefits while striking an appropriate balance between short-term economic considerations and long-term gain.

I would encourage hon. members to support the timely passage of Bill C-26 through the House to help the government increase the confidence of Canadians in their future.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the one problem I am having is justifying the fact that even the finance department that the Liberal government looks to for advice is indicating that there will be a reduction in employment of 0.04% to 0.07%, or about 1,000 jobs per year over the next 10 years, for a loss of 10,000 jobs in total to the economy.

When we speak to our constituents, we often hear owners of small businesses say this tax will certainly have a negative impact on their ability to expand, with no opportunity to hire more people, and that in some cases it will lead to layoffs.

Could my colleague comment on the immediate negative impact this measure would have on jobs in Canada?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it will have the opposite effect. Small businesses are the ones with the least ability to provide adequate pension or retirement programs and plans for their employees. It is exactly for those type of employees that this new enhancement will be of the most benefit and provide the most security, because it is the small employers who are not necessarily able to provide company retirement pension plans. Therefore, it is even more paramount that we adequately secure the retirement of employees who are working in small businesses. This enhancement will come at a very low cost and help small businesses secure employment for their employees, secure retirement for them, and provide a benefit that exceeds what they were offering before. I think it is a better inducement for them to retain their employees, and I do not think there will be an adverse effect on their employment abilities.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of reforming the CPP is very important for this country. The New Democrats are committed to doing whatever it takes to get a good process in place.

Our concern is with respect to the government's declaring a stalemate with respect to our asking questions about the real and clear problems in this bill. There is a danger of government slipping very quickly into arrogance when it comes up with a bill that has problems, rather than the government working with the opposition.

I am talking about the dropout provisions that particularly target young women who step out of the workforce to have children, or persons with disabilities. Young women suffer time and again in the workplace because they are the ones who step out to have children. In the 1977 changes to CPP under the then Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau, we had provisions that identified the need to make sure that women would not be affected when they stepped out of the workforce. However, the current government has decided to exclude these provisions.

Therefore, I am asking my hon. colleague this. Why is the government shutting down debate on such an important provision that we can fix if we work collectively?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been very rigorous and thorough debate on this bill. I believe there have been well over 70 or 75 speeches on this bill on both sides of the House. It has been rigorously debated and thoroughly fleshed out. It is also important sometimes for the government to move forward with its agenda. It would be in the best interests of the House to get on with a vote.

I have heard a lot of debate in the House on this bill and a lot of concerns from the opposition and members of the New Democratic Party have been very valid, but the case has been made and it is time for a vote, appropriately timed, as debate may end shortly.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned after closure has been imposed on debate that the member can recommend that we accept this bill as written when it would discriminate against women raising children and people with disabilities. How can he support such a bill that would cause an injustice in the future?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very tough situation and a lot of the concerns have merit, but when an agreement is reached, with the buy-in of all the provinces, we have to look at the whole picture. Perhaps this may come up again. I agree that the issue of people with disabilities and women raising children is valid, but the overall concept of this enhancement would make Canadians much better off.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-26 today. However, I find it unfortunate that our speaking time has been cut short. I became involved in politics to represent the constituents of Jonquière. I took on this role to uphold everyone's democratic rights. Whether we agree with the government or not, we are here to ask questions on behalf of Canadians in order to determine where our society is going.

First of all, I would like to thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for his excellent work on Bill C-26. He worked very hard, especially in committee, to raise the issues that I will discuss in my speech.

This bill would amend the Canada Pension Plan Act to incorporate the recent agreement reached between the provinces to enhance CPP benefits. While a better outcome was possible, since the full effect of the changes will not be felt for another 49 years, our young Canadians will benefit. Unless something changes along the way, when my young boys reach retirement age they will benefit from the changes we are debating in the House. I have to say that, as a mother, I find it a bit funny to say that. My boys will get older and benefit from this measure.

We must now see immediate action to help those seniors and Canadians on the cusp of retirement who will not benefit from these changes. The government must build on the momentum of this agreement and take steps to improve long-term retirement security for today's workers. It is all well and good to have changes that will come into effect in 49 years, but there is no denying that many seniors who are about to retire or who are now retired are grappling with financial insecurity. Unfortunately, they do not have enough income to live on, in other words to pay rent or eat properly. Still today in my riding, some seniors cannot afford a decent retirement home when the time comes to move into one.

Retirement insecurity is reaching a crisis level in Canada, as many Canadians do not have adequate savings to maintain their lifestyle upon retirement. A large part of this problem is fuelled by the erosion of workplace pension plans. Six in ten working Canadians have no private pension plan.

The NDP supports the bill, even though we feel that it does not quite meet Canadians' expectations regarding CPP reform. New Democrats, along with many in the labour movement and groups working for the rights of seniors and retirees, have long advocated that benefits be increased from replacing 25% of a worker's pre-retirement income to 50% of pre-retirement income. However, this legislation has offered up a very modest increase, from 25% to 33% of pre-retirement income.

Although we do like to see an increase, we feel that the amount is wholly inadequate, especially in terms of ensuring that our seniors do not have to live in poverty and can retire with the dignity and quality of life they deserve.

While many would be happy to finally see some changes to the plan and some increases in benefits, there are many who will be very unhappy. Those are the people who will see very little or no benefit from the changes presented in this bill. The government needs to leverage the energy generated by this agreement and do what it takes to improve long-term retirement security for today's workers. It must respond to Quebec's concerns about the impact of this enhancement on low-income workers.

The problem for today's seniors is that these pillars are falling behind in terms of enabling seniors to maintain an adequate standard of living. Dramatic increases in the costs of things like electricity and housing are causing great strain on seniors' fixed incomes.

Failing to take action now will have a great social cost, forcing many seniors into poverty. The number of seniors forced to use food banks will rise dramatically.

We talk about young moms a lot in the House. I want to talk about my best friend, Nathalie. Since I was elected, we have not spent as much time together as we used to because of my new responsibilities, but my friend Nathalie has been on my mind since Bill C-26 was introduced. She is a young mom who, together with her husband, decided to raise her children, to be there for them and to stay home with them, but also to work on her own personal growth by doing other things, such as volunteering with her local farm women's group.

I really admire this young woman because she is caring for her children and making a good life for them. She and her husband made some tough choices. She stays home, which means less income for the family, but the two of them feel it is very important to provide a good quality of life to their two young daughters.

However, I am disappointed by a major flaw in the bill. I fail to understand why the government simply will not help mothers like my friend Nathalie by immediately making the necessary changes. It would be so easy for us to do and it would help these mothers when they retire. Why do we penalize young mothers who decide, together with their spouse, to stay home to raise their children? We are talking about our future generation.

It is great that child care services are available to women like me who have a career. That is wonderful. However, it is not right to penalize women who stay at home to help their children become the adults of tomorrow because a bill fails to meet their needs. That is unacceptable. We must immediately rectify this as part of the new improvements.

It is easy to change a bill. We would just have to change a subclause, two or three lines maybe. Why is the government so bent on penalizing young women? I cannot stand by that.

The Canada pension plan is being improved and will benefit future generations, as I said, including my children, but not for another 49 years. I talked about our seniors earlier and I am quite concerned about what will happen to them now.

My parents are retired. They worked their entire lives to make a decent living in order to be able to pay for their house and groceries and to help me with my children. In fact, my parents look after my children when I am here in the House and am working on behalf of all Canadians. I am proud to be here for them and to do this work every day. However, when I meet with people from my riding of Jonquière and see the inequalities among them, I start asking myself serious questions. We have to find ways to take action now.

The NDP is recommending further increases to the GIS and the OAS, a national pharmacare program, and programs to enhance home care and palliative care.

We have much more work to do to ensure that workers can retire with adequate incomes and access to the services they need to have a good quality of life. The NDP will continue to work with our labour allies and others to improve the lives of Canadian seniors and retirees.

I will end my speech there. I hope that the government will listen, especially to women, like my friend Nathalie, and our seniors. I am thinking of Ms. Tremblay who devoted her entire life to looking after her granddaughter, a person with reduced mobility who needed very special care. We must consider these people because they, too, will need us in retirement. It is our responsibility and our duty as parliamentarians. It is also the government's duty.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the government is listening to Canadians, whether it is to increase the guaranteed income supplement, reduce the age of retirement from 67 to 65, or the bill before us today. The bill was achieved because of the co-operation and strong national leadership. Governments of all political stripes, even the New Democratic government in Alberta, signed on, recognizing the value of the legislation.

The change that the member is requesting is not as easy as she seems to imply, and the NDP knows that. The Minister of Finance has clearly indicated that he will bring this topic forward at the next discussion among his cohorts at the provincial level.

My question for the member is with respect to the issue of trying to get the bill passed. Would the member not recognize that if it were up to the official opposition, the Conservative Party, the bill would never pass? Does she believe we should succumb to what the Conservatives want on this bill?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

We agree on one part of the bill. However, I am wondering why the government did not introduce a comprehensive bill that includes women, mothers who decide to stay at home to raise their children. That is a full-time job. When they retire, they will not be able to collect the new enhanced benefits. Why are they being penalized?

Before introducing a bill, the government could have assessed the overall situation. My colleague from Hamilton has already proposed amendments and he made suggestions in committee. Why not make these changes now instead of later? We have a job to do. I choose to believe that, before introducing bills or amendments, the government takes every step possible to ensure that they are fully in line with the needs of our families.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague.

I am troubled by the government's decision to limit this debate. There are clearly a number of problems with the bill, particularly with regard to the fact that people with disabilities and young women are being excluded from the enhancement. This could have a significant impact, particularly for women who depend on the drop-out provision when they leave the labour force to raise their children. I find that odd since the Prime Minister claims that his is a feminist government.

My question is simple. How can a government that claims to be feminist move forward with a bill that undermines the retirement of young women in Canada?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

That was 2015. This is 2016, and the government calls itself feminist. We have had to set the record straight on that a number of times in the House.

The new enhanced benefit in Bill C-26 will not help young women.

The same applies on the labour front. So much has been done in pursuit of pay equity, but the bill will not take effect for another 18 months. Pay equity is more than 40 years overdue.

How can the government call itself feminist? “Feminist” is a great little word, but the government has to walk the talk. I think that Bill C-26 makes it clear the government is not really feminist.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's question.

The Liberals call themselves feminists, but they also say they are putting young people first and talk about how important it is to listen to them and meet their needs.

My husband is currently at home. What will happen when he is old enough to collect retirement benefits? He has been at home for two years. He will not be allowed to exclude those two years from his pension calculation. The Liberal bill is further jeopardizing the future of young people.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

Her remarks are interesting. What I forgot to mention is that more and more young fathers are playing an active role. I want to emphasize this, because it is becoming increasingly common, which is great.

Bill C-26 does not encourage young parents, whether the father or mother, to stay home. The bill ignores fathers and mothers who choose to stay home to raise their children. In those cases, the enhanced benefits will not be calculated, which I think is appalling. This does nothing to help our young people create a better future for themselves and make good decisions regardless of their financial situation in order to give their children a good upbringing. How people help their children and the values they want to instill remain their choice.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege to speak to Bill C-26, which I agree is one of the most important bills of this government, not just for the people of my generation but also for the next generation.

There are 11 million working Canadians without a workplace pension plan. As well, if we talk to people in the food banks today, they will report that a lot of working families are availing the help of the food banks.

When we combine the fact that 11 million working Canadians are without a workplace pension plan and a lot of working families are going to food banks for help, we know that when these families retire, they will retire in poverty.

We already have a lot of issues with the growing number of seniors. Just to give one example, in eastern Ontario, 2.5% of the patients account for close to 35% of the total hospital expenses. In this 2.5% of patients, close to 50% of them are seniors. The issues related to seniors are already costing us a lot. We have to take adequate steps so the seniors of the future years are well covered.

This bill, an act to amend Canada pension plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, and the Income Tax Act, as I mentioned earlier, is the most important thing. Let us summarize what the bill would do.

The bill proposes to amend the Canada pension plan to increase the amount of the retirement pension as well as survivors and disability pensions and the post-retirement benefit, subject to the amount of additional contributions made and the number of years for which those contributions are made; increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% as of 2025; provide for the making of additional contributions beginning in 2019; provide for the creation of additional Canada pension plan accounts and the accounting of funds in relation to it; and, finally, include the additional contributions and increased benefits in the financial review provisions of the act, and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in relation to those provisions.

I know this on its own cannot operate and deliver the results, so there are other related acts that need to be amended. Therefore, part 2 of the bill seeks amendments to the Income Tax Act to increase the working income tax benefit and to provide a deduction for additional employee contributions.

The first part of the act also proposes to amend addition Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to provide for the transfer of funds between the Investment Board and the additional Canada pension plan account, and to provide for the interpretation of financial statements in relation to amounts managed by the Investment Board in relation to the additional contributions and increased benefits.

As I mentioned earlier, middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried they will not have enough money for their retirement. A lot of working Canadians have no workplace pension plan. Each year, fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pension plans on which to fall back. For this reason, we made a commitment to Canadians to strengthen the Canada pension plan to help them achieve their goal of a strong, secure and stable retirement.

Earlier this year, Canada's Minister of Finance released a historic agreement to make meaningful changes to the CPP, an example of federalism at its best.

The more than one quarter of Canadian families nearing retirement, about 1.1 million families, who are facing a drop in their standard of living will be able to retire in dignity as a result of this enhancement. This deal will boost how much Canadians will get from their pensions, from one quarter of their earnings now to nearly one third, which in my opinion is quite significant and is a necessary change we need to address.

To make sure these changes are affordable, we will phase them in slowly over seven years, from 2019 to 2025, so the impact is small and gradual. Every Canadian deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. Through this announcement, we have taken a powerful step to help make that happen.

There are certain facilities that are available to plan for retirement. One is the RRSP account, which is available to every Canadian. We note that there is a huge gap. A lot of Canadians are eligible to make contributions to those accounts but are unable to make contributions because of the cost of living.

One of the ideas a friend from the opposite side of the House pointed to is financial literacy. While I agree that financial literacy is an important component in achieving this result, we also need reasonable, tangible ways and means to make this possible.

To conclude, I repeat, there are 11 million working Canadians without a workplace pension plan. A lot of food banks are seeing working Canadians. Keeping that in mind, I think we should all support Bill C-26.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I did not hear the member talk about was jobs.

He talked about the middle class and said that “middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever”. He also talked about workplace pension plans to fall back on not being there as much as they should be. However, the government's policy is to cancel jobs. With its policies on energy, it has destroyed my area in southeast Saskatchewan by ruining good-paying, middle-class jobs that had sustainable pension plans. They are being wiped out because of the policies of the government.

How does the government sit there and talk about putting in a CPP program that will not support these people, because they have no jobs?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite brought up the issue of jobs. We are making historic investments in infrastructure in this country. All the investments we make will go toward creating new quality jobs.

Here is a fact. There is something on the job front taking place. Many Canadians have to manage with not just one job but more than one job simultaneously. This is going to continue in the future. We have to take steps today so that when young and middle-age Canadians retire, they will have an adequate pension to retire on.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one point and then ask one question. I think it is important that much of the discussion from the government, when we are talking about pension benefits, relates to the maximum pension benefits people will get. However, only about 10% of the folks who actually receive CPP get the maximum benefit. Generally, the statistics are that almost three times as many men as women get access to those maximum benefits.

Knowing that fact, was the member not dismayed to hear that women who leave the workforce to raise children and those living on disability incomes are not going to receive the maximum benefit, as we originally thought, as they were excluded from the bill?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the bill can always be improved, and I hope that the finance minister, in his next meeting with his provincial counterparts, will look into some of the shortcomings of the bill and that they will be addressed in the future.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that according to McKinsey & Company, 83% of Canadian households are on track to maintain their current living standards in retirement. Statistics Canada says that the share of Canadian seniors living on low incomes, which I think is called the LICO, has gone from 29% in 1970 to 3.7% today. In fact, not just seniors but regular Canadians are doing a great job of saving by themselves. They do not need big government intervention to tell them how to save.

What will happen, though, with this CPP increase, this tax on payrolls, is savings substitution. The saving that would have happened in the private sector will be moved over to the public sector and controlled by the government.

What does the member have to say about savings substitution, the phenomenon in economics whereby instead of saving by themselves, people expect the government to do it for them?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member forgot the number of problems faced by seniors today. The hon. member seems to indicate that everything is so good that we do not need this bill. I have to completely disagree with him.

Today, in Ottawa alone, there are 10,000 people on the waiting list for affordable housing. We understand that a lot of seniors today face problems in maintaining their day-to-day living. Seniors of tomorrow, as I mentioned, will have a much bigger problem.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-26, a bill to enhance the Canada pension plan.

I want to start by lamenting, as I did this morning, time allocation, which is bringing this debate to a premature end. I think this is one of those times, particularly with the degree of controversy about the drop-out provisions in the bill and how they will unequally impact women in this country, when we really should have more time for debate and more time to ensure that we have all the facts.

I want to take a moment to say that if there is anything sadder than watching Liberals fall short of their promises, it is the Conservatives jumping on them for doing about one-tenth of what the Conservatives did when they had power. The use of time allocation was constant in the 41st Parliament.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that many who are currently heckling me were not here in the 41st Parliament, but I can assure them that we had no time to turn around before there was yet another time allocation motion. The Conservatives broke through all historical records. However, this does not excuse the Liberals for doing the same thing.

I would urge members on both sides of the House to consider what we really want in terms of parliamentary decorum and in terms of being able to address bills and get them through the House in an expeditious way while also ensuring that we do not trample on the rights of each of us here as members of Parliament to do the work we were elected to do, which is to study the legislation, provide suggestions, work together, and produce what the people of Canada want. They want parliamentarians who see the big picture and are prepared to put their heads together to come up with better legislation by taking the time that is needed.

Time allocation is in no one's interest here. I very much regret that the current government has brought it in now, for the ninth time. Again, for those who live in glass houses, I will remind them that it was 100 times that time allocation was brought in during the 41st Parliament.

I urge the Liberals in this place to consider what the threshold is against which they strive to achieve their goals. I would urge them not to think that their goal is to be better on any issue—the environment, climate, the treatment of veterans, criminal justice, Bill C-51, parliamentary decorum, the use of time allocation—than what Prime Minister Harper did. I want to set a really ambitious goal for them: Do better than what Prime Minister Mulroney did.

Obviously, I did not agree with everything done by the Progressive Conservative majority back in the 1980s, but I think if members go back and look at the use of time allocation, the number of whipped votes, and the treatment of issues and use that as a benchmark, they will find that they have to set their sights a good deal higher than trying to do better than the prime minister in the 41st Parliament.

Turning to the specifics of Bill C-26, I wish it did include—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am having trouble speaking through the noise.

I wish that Bill C-26 dealt with another pension issue. There is an omission, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will get back to it in the spring budget. It is an egregious situation that affects a minority of pensioners for sure, but they are the very people we should do the most to honour. These are people receiving pensions who, through the Superannuation Act, are deprived of spousal benefits if they are veterans, retired service persons, retired RCMP members, and other retired categories of public servants and have remarried over the age of 60. They are deprived of spousal benefits on their death.

This is a terrible injustice to a lot of constituents in my community of Saanich—Gulf Islands. I know that a lot of other members of Parliament are aware of this. It is due to the most anachronistic of all pension rules. It goes back to the Boer War. It was called the “gold-digger” clause.

I do not mind saying that I am 62. I do not feel that I am so far along with one foot in the grave that the gold-digger clause makes sense. The gold-digger clause in the Boer War was that if a soldier came back from the Boer War and remarried over the age of 60, the only possible reason anyone would have married one of these soldiers would have been to get their hands on their benefits when they passed away.

Times have changed. Very healthy, vigorous adults who have a lot of life left get married over the age of 60. I have one such serviceman in my riding who received the highest medals of honour, including the Legion of Honour from the French government, for his service in the Second World War. He is now over 90, and every day I see him, he reminds me to please do something about this terrible injustice. He does not want to leave his wife destitute. Therefore, I flag that again for the Minister of Finance.

Overall, the Green Party supports the bill. We support the fact that it is expanding the most reliable and consistent way in which we can ensure that seniors in Canada have adequate savings for retirement. The Canada pension plan is the most reliable and the most sustainable of what is available.

RRSPs, for example, are a good program. I know many of us will pay into it, but the registered retirement savings plan appeals primarily to those Canadians who already have discretionary income to put into an RRSP. That taxable benefit to higher wage earners costs the tax system quite a lot of money. If we look at it as a public policy question, we see it is not clear that the RRSPs make sense.

The Canada pension plan makes abundant sense, and we know right now that two-thirds of Canadians no longer have any workplace pension. Workplace pensions are disappearing. More and more Canadians have inadequate savings for retirement, so the workplace pension plans are shrinking at the same time as we have what is sometimes called the grey tsunami. We know we have a demographic with many more people about to enter retirement.

By the way, I commend the government for returning the retirement age to 65; that is commendable. However, we do need to enhance CPP benefits. There is no question that overall the bill is going in the right direction. We know that right now the median value of retirement assets for Canadians between the ages of 55 and 64, with no accrued employer pension benefit, is under $4,000. We know we need to augment the CPP. Only one in five Canadians have adequately saved for their retirement.

It is all well and good for some members of this place to say that Canadians should plan ahead and it is their responsibility to figure out how to save for their retirement. This is a very small cost of a public program, with the cost split between the employer and the employee, to make sure that people have adequate savings for retirement. The reason people do not put aside money for retirement is generally that they lack disposable income because the other costs of daily life eclipse their ability to set aside money for retirement.

I urge my friends on the other side of the House to embrace expansion of CPP. I agree with the analysis of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. It does really good work on public policy and commends the bill as well.

That brings me to the point where I wish we had time in this place and I wish the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development could have provided, at committee, by accepting amendments, a fix to what looked initially like an oversight, and that is the dropout provisions for disability and child-rearing to ensure gender parity. Both ministers have said that they can fix this problem by renegotiating terms with the provinces. I wish they had fixed it while they had the chance at committee. They still have the opportunity to fix it, if they are willing to accept amendments when we get through this process. However, at this point there has been no sign of a willingness to accept amendments, and we are left hoping for public pressure to continue what both ministers say they are willing to do by changing the terminology in the negotiated agreements with the provinces.

It is very hard to understand how this oversight has not been fixed already. The conclusion that my friends in the NDP have reached appears an inescapable conclusion. On the evidence we have before us, it appears that the bill will disadvantage women for no apparent reason other than an oversight. I did have a brief moment to discuss this with the Minister of Finance earlier this morning, and his position is that to do what the NDP asks now would result in a transfer of wealth from poorer women to wealthier women because of the way the calculation works. Unfortunately, I do not have the full facts on this. I had a 30-second conversation with the Minister of Finance, which is what happens when there is time allocation and inadequate time for debate.

I am left with the dreadful conclusion that, with the chance to bring in a really strong bill that would have no negatives attached to it, which is what Bill C-26 was when I first read it, it needs to be fixed. The NDP spotted this problem. I commend the NDP for spotting it. With that, I will close.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from the leader of the Green Party. She mentioned that the NDP has spotted a problem. There are issues that the Minister of Finance has clearly indicated that he intends to raise going forward. The bill we have before us is a bill that has been negotiated among the different provinces and the national government. Both she and I sat in opposition for many years, watching the Conservatives virtually ignore a very important file to Canadians; that is, an increase to CPP.

The question I have for the member now is this—and I know she is very knowledgeable about the rules and process and so forth of the House. When we have an official opposition that is in complete opposition to a particular bill, and its intention is to kill the bill, would she not agree that sometimes it is necessary to use time allocation as a tool; that if we forfeit that tool and do not use it, ultimately, the official opposition will be able to talk indefinitely, thereby potentially even killing the bill? Would she not, at the very least, acknowledge that, at times, there is a need to use the tool known as time allocation?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in a position where I believe it is the role of the House leaders for all the main recognized parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the New Democrats. I think time allocation, when used in this place, is a signal of failure of the basic mechanisms of this place. I do not think it should ever be used, with all due respect to my friend the parliamentary secretary.

If we cannot get bills through the House in the normal process—and I do not see great delays in this process on this bill. We have only had eight days, and the government says, “Look, we've had eight days”. To the average Canadian and to me, as someone who is trying to stay on top of all legislation in this place—and I know I have been very preoccupied with having the honour of serving on the Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform, but it is not possible to be at committee. I read the bill. I thought I understood it. The NDP spotted this problem, which I think is a real problem. To find time to fix that would be preferable rather than to bring in time allocation.

This example comes more easily from the U.S., so I do not insult anyone here. The Republicans decided in Obama's first administration, “Whatever he wants, we say 'no'”. That is not good governance. That is hyper-partisanship.

I hope we never come to that place, in this House.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put forward a couple of points for her consideration. In order to help current low-income seniors, there are many much more direct mechanisms that put money back into their pockets. I think we did some of them—tax reductions for seniors and expansion of the OAS—and more could be done along those lines. Those kinds of reforms would actually give money back to seniors. They would not involve taking more money away from them for government to control them. I think she knows that we favour a model that emphasizes giving money back to people, and private savings.

One of the biggest advantages, as I see it, to encouraging private savings is that they create a mechanism for people to invest in interim projects. Someone could put money aside, use that money for an education, maybe to buy a home, and then realize the value of that, subsequently; whereas, if there is a government-controlled plan, the money is taken away and is put in a separate fund from which that individual cannot draw, or use at all for interim projects, until retirement.

On that basis, would she not consider that there are more effective alternatives to helping people save for interim projects, as well as for retirement, than just going with this sort of government control, all to a government pot kind of approach that is being put forward in this bill?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my friend the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that there are other ways to more directly help low-income seniors, but that does not escape the fact that the CPP is long overdue for enhancement. We really do need to recognize that.

The parliamentary budget officer, a number of years ago, reviewed it—I think it was in 2011—and found that our CPP planning is one of the most sustainable and durable programs for retirement savings. Expanding it makes sense. At the same time, there could be much more done for low-income seniors. There is no question about it.

I commend one of the things the Harper Conservatives did, which was income splitting on pension benefits. That was a real benefit to many seniors. However, we really need to have more of that top-up for low-income seniors who are in poverty. That could be boosted right away. At the same time, I do support Bill C-26.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today and over the past few days, we have heard the same as we have heard in previous debates on this legislation. The fundamental difference is that ideologies in the chamber become more and more evident every day.

Differences in opinion are good and, in fact, are foundational to our Westminster style of Parliament. However, what we are seeing from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is a trend that is deeply troubling. Whether it is the Liberals in government or as individually elected members of Parliament, they still think that they know better than their constituents and all ordinary Canadians. Conservatives believe that Canadians know what is best for them. For the Liberals and NDP to imply that they know better than ordinary Canadians is an insult. Canadians are in the best position to make their financial decisions, and those include decisions related to their retirement.

We saw this difference in perspective most clearly recently when the Liberals clawed back the tax-free savings account contribution limit. The TFSA is a phenomenal vehicle for personal savings. For retirement, it could be used to make a lump-sum mortgage payment, maybe do an urgent home repair, or maybe even finally take that long-awaited vacation, but the important detail is that it is completely tax free.

We have all heard the saying that Liberals have never seen a tax they do not like and the NDP has never seen one it does not want to hike, but if the government thinks it can increase payroll taxes on Canadians because it has decided to blow through its election promise of a supposedly small deficit, which has now grown to over $30 billion, it can expect strong opposition from the Conservative Party and many other Canadians.

The Liberal government has spent much of its time patting itself on the back for its openness and transparency, but let me share what Canadians actually believe about the CPP and what this legislation would change. Liberals have been slow to correct these misconceptions. So much for transparency.

Forty per cent of Canadians actually think the government pays into their portion of CPP, and nearly three-quarters of Canadians do not realize that current retirees would not benefit from the proposed expansion. In fact, nearly one-quarter of current retirees wrongly believe that they will see larger CPP benefits as a result of the proposed expansion. Most Canadians are not aware that it would take up to 40 years of increased premiums in order for workers to see the full impact of these increases to their CPP benefits. I would like to know what efforts the government is making in addressing these misunderstandings. Will it be open and transparent and point out upfront that it will take 40 years for the additional CPP benefits to be realized?

As a former small business owner, I know the real effects that these CPP premium increases would have on small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. In committee two weeks ago, Ms. Monique Moreau, director of national affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, shared a compelling statement as it relates to the impact on small businesses.

Representing more than 109,000 small and medium-sized businesses, the CFIB is worried about the negative impacts on these businesses. She shared that its monthly poll on small business confidence dropped in September and October, now sitting at 57.7%, as opposed to the 70% where they would like to see it. She said:

Small business owners don't have money hiding under the mattress waiting for government tax hikes. If CPP/QPP is increased, even if it results in higher future benefits, two-thirds of business owners indicated they would feel pressure to freeze or cut salaries, while nearly half would be forced to reduce investments in their businesses. This impact comes at a time when the government is trying to encourage innovation, investment in business, and job creation in small firms.

The results of these changes in CPP premiums might not be as visible in business operations with just a few employees, but if we start to look at businesses with 15 or maybe 20 employees, the costs that these changes would impose could be crippling, causing layoffs, wage freezes, or even closure of businesses.

Ms. Moreau went on to say:

...if employed Canadians had extra money to save for retirement, they would first invest in RRSPs and TFSAs over other savings vehicles such as the CPP/QPP. Small business employers also favour such saving vehicles if they have the opportunity to contribute toward the retirement savings of their employees.

If the government is trying to help Canadians save more for retirement, only 18% of Canadians are choosing mandatory CPP increases. There is a variety of other options available, including reducing taxes, creating new incentives for savings, and allowing employees to voluntarily contribute to their own CPP/QPP. Putting pressure on financial institutions to lower their management fees for retirement savings vehicles is also an important consideration.

It is clear that not only are Canadians for the most part unaware of the changes the government would make to CPP, but those who are aware are misunderstanding the impact of these changes. For those who do understand, the large majority seem to drastically oppose these changes in favour of other measures.

Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, also shared his concerns at committee, noting, as I have, that it is a classic case of government believing that it, rather than Canadians, knows what is best for Canadians. Aaron touched on a very important point in his opening remarks. He said:

It is also important to stress here that, when we are discussing income security for seniors, income support is often conflated with income replacement. CPP, of course, is a program where the yield you receive depends on what you pay in. Enhancing it, therefore, does nothing for people who are not paying very much into it in the first place. It does not give people extra money. It simply shifts the money from the current day into the future.

This is very troubling. We know that household incomes are stagnant and that in many sectors wages are frozen or shrinking. What Canadians do not need is another tax that shrinks their take-home pay. This would have effects on spending and investing habits, and would ultimately hurt our already fragile economy.

Furthermore, it is true that since CPP is geared to income these changes would not help lower-income Canadians. A paper released by the C.D. Howe Institute shows that the Liberals' plan for CPP would not benefit low-income workers. They would see their premiums go up but their net increase in retirement benefits would remain low since higher CPP payments would be offset by clawbacks in GIS benefits. These changes would also not help Canadians who are facing rising unemployment. In fact, it seems like the changes being made today would make life harder for those who are trying to enter their field of work. The Department of Finance analysis shows that the Liberal government's plan to increase CPP would hurt job creation and the economy as a whole. Quoting directly from its information, these changes would reduce employment by 0.04% to 0.07%. That is 1,050 fewer jobs every year, which means, over a 10-year period, 10,000 Canadian jobs that would not be created, as a result of this CPP increase. This is from the Department of Finance.

Do the Liberals really believe that the changes they propose, which would have no benefits today or in the near future and would have minimal benefits for Canadians retiring 40 years from now, are really worth the job losses today and decreased investments for jobs for tomorrow?

In closing, it is worth noting once again that the Liberal Government of Canada does not know what is best for Canadians and that the Liberal government should provide Canadians with all of the choices they deserve in making their own retirement decisions. The government needs to immediately return the annual contribution limit to the tax-free savings account and promote its use through advertising and educational programs. This is a fantastic savings mechanism that does not lock in people's savings that might be needed in case of an emergency, unlike CPP contributions, which they cannot access as needed.

For the benefit of the survival and success of small and medium-sized businesses, I urge my colleagues to reject Bill C-26.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way failed to mention the way that this government is looking out for all Canadians, specifically middle-class Canadians in the early years of their life, those working hard today who are looking toward their retirement in the future, as well as seniors who deserve the respect and financial security that they have earned over a lifetime. He failed to mention the Canada child benefit, which not only is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty in this country but is helping families. In Atlantic Canada alone, it will inject $600 million into the economy over the next two years. He failed to mention our return to the qualifying age of 65 as when old age security can be sought for people in retirement, and the top-up of the guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income single seniors.

Why would the member not mention investment in the early years, investment in the late years, and investment in the CPP for hard-working Canadians so that they can enjoy retirement well into the future?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity this summer to visit New Brunswick and different parts of Atlantic Canada. People in those areas are also concerned about this proposed CPP increase. I spoke to a lady who is the accountant for a number of small and medium-sized businesses and she said unequivocally that increasing CPP premiums from 9.9% to 11.9% would have a drastic negative impact.

I would love to applaud all of the positive initiatives that my colleague suggested but it is hard to do that when I realize that they will come at the expense of my children and grandchildren. They will be paying $10 billion more in interest per year than what is being paid today simply because of this unbelievable supposedly small but rather explosive $30-billion deficit. If we were not borrowing to finance some of these things I might be able to applaud the government, but under the current circumstances this is not the direction to be going in.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague represents a riding in Ontario and I represent a riding in Alberta. As this discussion has been shaping up over the last few years one of the data points was the ORPP, the provincial precursor to this program. There was a lot of concern among small businesses in Ontario, and we heard it even in Alberta, about what the impact of the ORPP would be and now what the impact of this proposed expanded CPP would be. A lot of data was collected from small businesses that showed what a devastating impact the new payroll tax had in Ontario and now would have across the country with the federal government essentially applying different areas of the Kathleen Wynne plan to all parts of the country.

Could my colleague tell us a bit more about the impact that these expanded payroll taxes would have on small businesses in his riding and across the country? Maybe he could to some extent draw on the experience of the ORPP and what that means in general for job creators and ordinary working people across this great country.,

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that when the Ontario government proposed its enhanced retirement plan specifically for Ontario there was a large push-back. The government heard loud and clear that this was not the way to go. Many small businesses indicated then, as they have now, that this was not the way to go. In a recent news release from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, many small businesses indicated that this was not the way to go, that two-thirds of small businesses would have to freeze or cut salaries, and over one-third say they would have to reduce hours or jobs in response to these increases. That would not change whether it was the ORPP, the Ontario retirement plan, or the CPP.

The troubling part about this question relating to Ontario is that many times in the House over the last few days the Liberals have indicated that they have the approval of all provinces on this. Of course they are going to get approval, and if it is going to be imported anyway, if we are going to do an Ontario one, it is better to have one that is right across the nation. Small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario have spoken clearly: this is going to be devastating for investment in jobs of the future.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join this debate since this is actually the last time we will be able to have this debate on Bill C-26 in this House.

I want to start with something I used in the last session, a Yiddish proverb. “With money in your pocket, you are wise, and you are handsome, and you sing well too.” I am sure the Minister of Finance has a great singing voice. However, this proverb speaks to how money is best left in the pockets of Canadians, of the people who actually earned it through hard work, having a job, either working for themselves or fulfilling someone else's need.

What the government has done today by shutting down debate after a mere eight days does a great disservice both to the discussions so far on this bill and the interventions other members have made. This debate on the Canada pension plan is important. It is with respect to a proposed law that will amend that which will impact Canadians for many generations. Therefore, having 20 days, 25 days, or 30 more days of debate is absolutely worth having on something that will have an impact on future generations 40 years down the line.

I also think it is shameful that the Minister of Finance called this debate a stalemate so far. It is a commentary by a minister of the Crown on the work that we do on behalf of our constituents here to loyally oppose the government's agenda, to bring new ideas, and to raise points for future consideration and possibly for amendments that the government could bring to its own bill, either at committee or second reading, wherever it chooses to do that. Therefore, debate in this House is not a stalemate; it is an enriching process of what I will call crowdsourcing of new ideas. We are the crowd sent here by our constituents to speak to ideas and to offer them up to the government. Therefore, it is not a stalemate, and I very much think the government should realize we are not here as an audience, we are not here to spectate while it passes legislation. Her Majesty the Queen has given us the constitutional authority to loyally oppose, and that is what we will continue to do. Therefore, I very much look forward to the Minister of Finance not using such terminology.

I also want to point out that it was an internal finance document from his own department that said that this bill, the expansion of the CPP, will be a drag on the economy until 2030, and that it will suppress employment growth until 2035. I come from a province where we have a jobs crisis. The Speaker knows this. I had asked for an emergency debate last week on this because 122,000 energy workers are out of work. However, there are very many people who are underemployed, people who have been furloughed. Normally, they have a job, but they are just not being paid, and they are not being captured by the unemployment figures. When people are not working and not earning an income they are not paying into CPP, so it really does not matter. None of this will help any of the people if they do not have a job in Alberta right now because we have a jobs crisis.

There is also an open question that remains unanswered on the administration costs of layering on this new CPP program on top of the old CPP. It is not clear how much that will cost in the long term, over the next 40 years, and how much its management and administration will eat up the savings of Canadians.

Jack Mintz is a very well-respected tax specialist, a former professor, and a former head of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. He wrote a piece entitled, “What the TFSA limit increase really means for future governments”. Although that was on TFSAs, he had a lot of great points on savings, and the behaviour and psychology behind saving as well. He brought up the fact that what many future governments will be looking at is a tax rate with a low-interest environment and 100% on inflation-adjusted returns. What we will find is that the tax rate will have a huge impact on the savings themselves, how we save, and what is deducted off our savings, so there is an open question there on people's incomes, how they save, and what they will see on their tax returns. They will get nothing from the CPP on it there.

He went on to say that a one-size-fits-all rule is of little help and that for a lot of Canadians, the need for a comfortable retirement depends entirely on individual circumstances and preferences. That is an important consideration too. Not everyone retires in the same way or with the same model. Not everyone chooses to simply stop working entirely. There are a great many people who choose at 65, 70, 75, or even earlier if they take early retirement, to work part time, and to maybe volunteer in their community or at their faith-based institution, at a church or at a temple. They may also choose to change career paths later and choose the concept of retirement around 65 years of age to choose a new career they would like to pursue. Therefore, not everyone chooses to simply stop working.

A point I have brought up in previous debate here, and a question I asked one of the members of the Liberal government caucus, is this concept of savings substitution. There is a study by the Fraser Institute that shows that forcing Canadians to save more, using the government's concept of “more”, would lead to a decrease in private voluntary savings with little or no increase in overall savings.

Savings substitution is a real danger to both the government's plan, but in general also to our economy and to people's independence from government.

People should be allowed to choose how they retire. They should also be allowed to choose how they save and what type of investment vehicle they want to use. A lot of people have chosen to save in real estate, and real estate has provided the best returns over the last two generations to those who have chosen to go down that path.

One of the very first things my wife and I did was to purchase a condo, because we knew that would get us onto the property ladder. It allows people to save. They put aside money because they are trying to pay off mortgage interest and trying to put money away toward the principal. It is a mechanism that allows them to choose saving, but to choose it in the way they want to do it.

When the previous Conservative government introduced TFSAs, then doubled the maximum amount people could put away, it was a way of showing Canadians they could choose another model to save on their own, one that is tax-free. We should stop taxing the savings of Canadians and forcing them to put more toward this layered CPP on top of another CPP. The administration fees for this are another form of taxation. We send money to Ottawa, to the government departments for some work to be done. That is a form of taxation. That is what our taxes go toward.

Building equity in housing has consistently been the best thing for saving, for youth especially. By buying a property they are getting onto that saving ladder.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the rate of return. The annual rate of return, reported by the CPP Investment Board, is actually quite low, and the younger one is, the worse off one is. For those who nominally put money into the CPP because they were forced to do so back in the 1960s and 1970s, they will get the best rate of return. I look at the pages in this chamber. They will have the worst rate of return. My generation and their generation will be worse off because the rate of return is so low, sometimes falling below 2%. That is because of record low interest rates, which are really driving this low rate of return. Also, administration fees cannot help but be higher.

No one cries for a job that is never created. No one cries for an investment return that never happens. What we always talk about here is the give and take, this job here or that job there, the taxation of incomes on one side and how government chooses to spend it, versus the individual who chooses to spend it in a certain way.

What the government is doing with the CPP increase is substituting for the person's choice on how they will save. That substitution will have worse results at the end of the day, especially for the next generation, because the rate of return will be so low. If someone chooses to invest in a property or in investments where they could earn a higher rate of return than the government is able to achieve, why can a Canadian not make that choice? Sure, the government will say it is one size fits all, that we are guaranteed a return. The higher the risk the higher the return. Canadians can choose to take a higher risk. With risk, of course, can come disappointment. They could lose their investment. Their retirement may not be as certain as they thought it would be, and they may have to adjust their goals and plans. That is why everyone should be doing financial planning for themselves. We should be encouraging people to not be dependent on the government.

The Fraser Institute noted this as one of the five myths of the Canada pension plan. Myth number 4 was “The CPP produces excellent returns for individual contributors”. They are thin margins.

There are a great many seniors who are better off today than they were pre-2006. They are better off thanks to the previous Conservative government's work to try to ensure they had a solid retirement. Lots of reports have shown this. Statistics Canada has said that the share of Canadian seniors living on low income has dropped from 29% in the 1970s to 3.7% today, which is among the lowest in the world.

The Human Resources Institute of Alberta is responsible for HR professionals in the province. It has said that consistently, across the board, only about half of all organizations offer employment pension plans and group RSPs with employer-matching plans. That means half of all employees in the province of Alberta may lose the opportunity to continue investing in their employee pension plan or group RSP, because they do not have the money to invest in it and see that matching funding by their employer. They simply will not take advantage of it.

I oppose the bill, and I encourage all members to oppose it as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Conservatives have decided to vote against this important piece of legislation, but not necessarily surprised. Their record on voting when it comes to seniors is not positive. The former Conservative government increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. Our government reversed that and brought it back to 65. The Conservative Party voted against the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for some of the poorest seniors, the most vulnerable seniors in our country. Today, when we think about the future, when we talk about what is going to be taking place years from now and making sure there will be a decent rate of retirement, once again we have the Conservatives saying no.

The Conservative Party has really lost touch with what Canadians are thinking. Why is the Conservative Party, from the member's perspective, so far out of touch with the reality of what Canadians really and truly want to see? Canadians want to see good, fundamentally strong pension programs. Political parties from every region of the country have got on board with this, except the Conservative Party of Canada here in Ottawa. Why?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will not surprise the House, but I am happy to disappoint that member by voting against this bill.

Let me set the record straight. To answer the preamble about what the previous Conservative government did, it introduced pension income splitting for seniors; twice it increased the age credit; it increased the GIS benefit for recipients who chose to work; it doubled the pension income credit to $2,000; it took 380,000 seniors off the tax rolls altogether; it increased the age limit for RRSPs to RRIF conversions from 71 to 69; it established October 1 as the first national seniors day; and actually, unlike the Liberal government, we had a minister of the crown looking after seniors' issues, which the government has not done.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to hear that the Human Resources Institute of Alberta has continued its great work after the election.

I want to ask the member if he could comment a little more in response to some of the arguments we are hearing from the other side. It is almost as if the Liberals are always begging the question, saying repeatedly that the CPP is overdue for expansion, as if it were obvious that we needed to take more money out of people's pockets and have it controlled by the government.

In reality, we have not heard substantive arguments why this is better done by the state than individuals. If it is a matter of individuals not having the resources themselves, and many of these arguments deal with current seniors who are not even touched by the plans, then we can deal with this via tax cuts, expansion of the OAS, and other more direct measures.

What is wrong with giving individuals control over their own retirement? We have not heard arguments against that. I wonder if the member could even speculate why the government is simply asserting that an expansion of the CPP is overdue without explaining why Liberals think government should have the control instead of individuals.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is always well-informed when asking questions and in his interventions in the House.

In a previous life, I was a policy adviser. Pensions was one of the files I worked on for the then Alberta minister of finance, the hon. Ted Morton. It was one of the files I really liked working on, as well as the securities file.

At the time, I remember those conversations around the table, during federal-provincial-territorial meetings of the ministers, staff, and civil servants who were there. It was not a given back then that the best thing to do was to introduce another big government solution to saving.

I have brought up the point of savings substitution repeatedly, and I have asked it of many Liberal government caucus members. What do they think will happen? There have been studies done by the Fraser Institute that show, directly, that there will be a huge impact on private savings. What will happen is that all of the money a person was going to save privately through whatever vehicle they chose, either property, real estate, the stock market, or an employer pension plan, will be reduced or eliminated and substituted by the government plan.

What I think the government wants to do, though, is in the long term to try to use that money for perhaps an infrastructure bank, to somehow invest it on Canadians' behalf, and probably with very questionable rates of return. The rate of return is really where the savings come from. I just do not think the government is able to do a better job than Canadians at investing their own money.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. It is a great honour to speak to initiatives that are very close to a lot of our hearts. I know it is close to mine. We are talking about the proposed changes in Bill C-26.

I think it should be noted again that these changes will not take full effect until 40 years have passed and will take money out of the paycheques of hard-working Canadians and put thousands of jobs at risk.

It needs to be re-stated that these changes will not provide relief to our seniors. If we want to give relief to our seniors we could start with the high cost of electricity in the province of Ontario and the failed policies that have resulted in those things. Those are the real issues that are causing poverty among our seniors today.

We are going in a little different direction. I have not heard this said yet, so I will talk about someone else the bill will hurt. We know it will hurt employers. Employers are the ones that do the hiring. They are the ones who make those higher CPP payments. It will hurt employees, because they will no longer be employed. They will not get those job opportunities. The one group of people who will really hurt the worst is the poor. I have not heard that discussed by the opposite side, and surprisingly by the other party on the left.

What about the poor? The poor are the ones who need jobs. We talk so much about how we need to help the poor today, but if we want to help a poor man or a poor woman, give them a job. This particular legislation puts a death knell to that.

We have a good organization in my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, the Chatham-Kent Workforce Planning Board. We had a meeting with them. They are involved in job creation and are doing their part. We heard some encouraging statistics, because the rate of unemployment is dropping in Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

In a former life I had a business. I was a car dealer. I got to work for who I think is probably the smartest guy I have ever met in the car business. He is an actuary. He was a graduate of the University of Toronto. He used to tell me that it is all in the numbers and that I should check the numbers. Subsequently, I have kind of been a number miner.

When I looked at the Chatham-Kent workforce statistics, they showed first of all that we had the large employers and the small and medium-sized businesses. There were some really discouraging statistics. First, we have only two employers who employ over 500 people in the riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington. The other group is shrinking too.

However, we all know who does the hiring. It is small business. There was a group of businesses with zero to 100 employees. Which group was the largest? Let me just clarify this so members can understand my question. Of that group of businesses that employ from zero to 100 people, which segment was the largest hiring group? I have asked this question of a number of people and we get some varying answers. Some went as low as three employees. Do members know what it is? It is the segment with zero employees.

I was shocked when I saw those numbers, but I am not that shocked when I see legislation like this, because an employer will hire someone when he does a good job. If an individual is a finishing carpenter and the demand is such that the business is getting more work and it makes sense to hire another employee, then they have a whole lot more managing to do, but they will pay that employee what he is worth.

Oftentimes, those people who are at the entry level do not have that value yet. Members can check the statistics for themselves. It is shocking to see that more and more people are doing it on their own. They are not going out and hiring. Who does that affect? It affects the poor, the disenfranchised, the ones we often call the generational poor. It is generational poverty.

My wife and I love parades. When we go down King Street and get into the east end in our home town of Chatham, we get the marginalized people. These people oftentimes do not have the privileges we have. Life is a bit tougher. A lot of them do not have jobs or have not had jobs for a long time. It is those people who will be affected. It is those people who will not be hired. The sad thing is that this continues on generationally.

If the cost of hiring an employee was such that it made sense for that carpenter, plumber, electrician, or whoever to hire, they would. The economy is growing, but the problem is that we put these restrictions on people and we do not realize who it is hurting.

We hear so much in the House about the middle class. I am part of the middle class too. However, we should be talking about the poor. The poor do not necessarily vote for me. However, we should be talking about those people. They are the people who have no voice. Those are the people who look for jobs and cannot find them, or just give up. If we talked about those people, if we have a heart for the people who do not necessarily have a chance, I think we would be talking about something else when it comes to CPP.

I have an idea. Let us have a universal pension plan. I have talked about this with a number of people. We have universal health care. Imagine talking to our neighbours or other people in our home towns who need knee replacements. However, because they do not have a universal pension plan, it will be two years until they can get their knee fixed. However, for us, it would be two weeks. We do the same thing in our pensions. If we really wanted to make change and affect the economy, we should talk about a universal pension plan.

Years ago I had the privilege of working on the finance committee and I got to know a man by the name of Bill Tufts. He is involved in an organization called Fair Pensions for All. Bill and I talked about what would happen if we took all the CPP, OAS, GIS contributions and all of the government's contributions to pension plans, threw it in a big pot, and divided it among all the people who were retired. Every woman and man in our country would get $24,000 when they retired. There is a real solution. If we really wanted to help the poor, if we really wanted to make some changes, there is a universal pension plan right there.

I know that might be a pipe dream, but I am concerned that this legislation would further exacerbate the hiring abilities of employers today. Although that is tough and although it is going to make it rough on employers, it is especially going to make it rough on the poor.

I fear that for the coming generation, more and more it will be impossible for us to hire those who need the jobs, those who will move from their poor status to a higher status, to the middle class, the one we all talk about so much in the House.

I hope members on the other side, because ultimately this will go vote, will consider the damage this will do to our economy, the damage it will do to that group, and ask their government to make the changes and not let the bill before us pass.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the poor voted heavily for me. I would like to ask him about the child benefit to help the poor, to enhance their lives, and to help them join the middle class.

Regarding senior citizens, he talked about electricity. I would also like to remind him that electricity is a provincial issue. As a member of Parliament, nothing makes me prouder than the government helping senior citizens. They have worked hard all of their lives and deserve to live out the remainder of their lives with decency and dignity.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that the poor voted, and that could be.

I mentioned electricity because I remember, after the election, the two leaders dancing on the stage in glee. I am talking about the leader in the province of Ontario who implemented this. If the Prime Minister has any influence, I would ask him to beg the premier to stop this madness.

The other thing I want to add, talking about the poor, is that the government has a habit, which is getting worse and worse, of borrowing money. This is money that the poor will pay for in years to come, and it is going to get a whole lot worse. Therefore, the member should not talk to me about how the government has helped the poor. What the Liberals are doing, in essence, is giving them a death notice.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

Earlier he mentioned a $24,000 universal benefit that everyone should get. As I was on my way to the House of Commons this morning, commentators were saying on the radio that according to a CIBC study, anyone who earns less than $25,000 a year is considered to be living below the poverty line. Right now in Canada, one in five jobs is part-time. That is not a choice; it is because there are not enough full-time jobs.

My colleague mentioned $24,000 for retirement. How will that do any more to help our retired seniors, when that amount is considered to be below the poverty line?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really puzzled by the question. We are talking about $24,000 for every woman and man. This is just a suggestion, but I am showing there is a real possibility. That is compared to $12,000. Let us not forget that this legislation will not come into effect for about 40 years. If we really want to do something, this is the direction we should be going. We could provide relief and help the poor in a real and positive way.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities]

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

He spoke a lot about jobs, job creation, and creating jobs for the middle class and the less fortunate. This morning, I had the opportunity to announce historic investments in mills that continue to provide jobs and create new ones. Our plans include innovating so that we can create jobs for the less fortunate, who will be able to receive a pension in the future.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the historic investments our government is making today to create jobs for the middle class and the less fortunate.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I will ask a question in response. What jobs? We have not seen any jobs. It has been a year. We have seen massive spending by the government, $30 billion, and it continues to grow. I am waiting for the jobs. I am waiting for the announcements in my riding. The former government was very active in that respect.

With respect, I am not hearing any announcements. I do not see that money being spent. I certainly do not see the result of whatever is happening in jobs.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise to speak in support of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act.

Let me outline the purpose of the bill.

It would, among other things, increase the amount of the retirement pension, as well as the survivor's and disability pensions and the post-retirement benefit, subject to the amount of additional contributions made and the number of years over which those contributions were made. It would increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% as of 2025. It would provide for the making of additional contributions, beginning in 2019. It would provide for the creation of the additional Canada pension plan account and the accounting of funds in relation to it. It would include the additional contributions and increased benefits in the financial review provisions of the act and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in relation to those provisions.

For the benefit of the House, let me provide a number of reasons why the government has put Bill C-26 forward.

We are concerned about the long-term retirement security for those Canadians who have worked hard all of their lives and expect, rightfully, that they will enjoy security in their retirement years.

The fact is that middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried that they will not have put away enough money for their retirement. Fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pensions based on defined benefits or defined contribution plans to fall back on. To help those Canadians achieve their goal of a safe, secure, and dignified retirement, in the face of these challenges, the Government of Canada is committed to working with the provinces to strengthen the CPP.

Co-operative efforts as joint stewards of the program led to Canada's Minister of Finance reaching a historic agreement, in principle, on June 20 to enhance the CPP. All of my colleagues on this side of the House were very proud of that accomplishment.

What would this agreement mean in principle for Canadians?

Once it is fully in place, the CPP enhancement will increase the maximum CPP retirement by about 50%. Right now, the current maximum is just a little over $13,000, which is not enough by most living standards across the country. In today's dollar terms, the enhanced CPP would represent an increase of nearly $7,000 to a maximum benefit of nearly $20,000. Enhanced benefits will accumulate gradually as individuals pay into the enhanced CPP.

Young Canadians, and this is a group about which I know all members of the House are concerned, just entering the workforce would see the largest increase in benefits.

To fund these enhanced benefits, annual CPP contributions would increase modestly over seven years, starting in 2019. For example, an individual with earnings of about $54,000 or $55,000 would contribute about an additional $6 a month in 2019, an amount that should be manageable for most hard-working Canadians. By the end of the seven-year phase-in period, contributions for that same individual earning that same income amount would be about an additional $43 per month.

To ensure that eligible low-income workers are not financially burdened as a result of the extra contributions, the Government of Canada would enhance the working income tax benefit, an existing benefit that is designed to keep people in the workforce and encourage others to join it.

Enhancing the CPP will significantly reduce the share of families at risk of not saving enough for retirement and a degree of under-saving.

The CPP will always be there for Canadians because it helps to fill the gap for those who do not have a workplace pension plan, and it is portable across jobs and provinces.

Canada's retirement income system provides a balance of mixed public pensions and voluntary savings opportunities to enable Canadians to save for their retirement. The retirement income system is based on three pillars.

The first is the old age security program, which was altered under the last administration in an attempt to extend the age of eligibility to receive the full benefit and appreciation of that plan to age 67. Again, I am very proud to say that among the first measures this government took was to rescind that extension and restore the old age security program eligibility age to 65, something that was met with great support in my riding and, I dare say, right across this country.

The CPP and Quebec pension plan is the second pillar. They provide a basic level of earnings replacement for workers. They are financed by contributions from workers, employers, and self-employed individuals.

The third pillar is a voluntary tax-assisted private savings opportunity. Some examples include registered pension plans; pooled registered pension plans; registered retirement savings plans, commonly known as RRSPs; and tax-free savings accounts. Individuals and their employers may contribute to these savings vehicles on a voluntary basis.

In addition to saving through the retirement income system, Canadians may also choose to draw upon other financial and non-financial assets for retirement income. These include, for example, financial assets held outside of tax-assisted registered plans, housing equity, and small business equity.

Let me say a few more words about the current Canada pension plan. The CPP is a contributory public pension plan that provides a basic level of earnings replacement. With these revisions, as I have said before, we would see modest increases gradually over the course of a number of years at a pace that most hard-working Canadians would be able to absorb.

Let me say a few more words about why it is that we are enhancing the CPP. As we have looked closely at the situation of Canadians as they approach their retirement, we understand that middle-class Canadians are working harder and harder. The Department of Finance has examined whether families nearing retirement are adequately prepared for retirement, based on household income and wealth data from the 2012 Survey of Financial Security. Families are considered to be at risk of under-saving for retirement if their projected after-tax income at retirement does not replace at least 60% of their pre-retirement after-tax family income.

Although Canada's retirement income system has served many Canadians well, the Department of Finance has estimated that almost 24% of families nearing retirement age are at risk of not having adequate income in retirement to maintain their standard of living. This suggests that roughly 1.1 million families approaching retirement age will not have enough money to maintain their standard of living when they retire; hence the enhancements.

I will just take my last few moments to indicate to the House that recently the Minister of Finance had the occasion to come to my riding of Eglinton—Lawrence to meet with my constituents to speak personally about this historic achievement. What was most distinguishing about this visit was that we visited with constituents who are on either side of the age continuum. We visited first with seniors to speak about enhancements to the old age security program and to the GIS program. Then we went to visit with high school students at Lawrence Park Collegiate Institute.

It is truly for them where the focus of this program lies, which is the future, to provide retirement security not only for present day seniors but also for hard-working young Canadians, and I am proud to say that by passing Bill C-26 we will have accomplished that goal. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about enhancing the retirement benefits for seniors, but for them to actually have retirement benefits they have to have a job to contribute into CPP or their retirement plan. The Department of Finance, to which the government is listening for advice, or should be listening, indicates very clearly in its analysis of the bill that it would reduce employment by 0.04% to 0.07%. That is 1,050 jobs per year over 10 years, 10,000-plus jobs lost. How can these people who do not have a job ever hope to retire with a meaningful pension if they have never been able to pay into one?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague works hard on behalf of his constituents and brings informed debate to the House. Let me say unequivocally that this government is a government that believes in creating jobs. We believe in creating jobs by supporting Canadians with tax cuts for nine million Canadians. It was an unfortunate and regrettable occasion when my friends across the aisle did not support us in our first measure. We wanted to provide tax relief. My friends across the way often talk about how providing tax relief creates jobs. That was the first thing that we did—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Raised taxes on small businesses—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We did not, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. I see my hon. colleagues are getting excited. It is perhaps because they agree with all of what I am saying.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw my colleague's attention to the glaring oversight that is present in the bill, and I am sure he is already aware of it: the fact that the bill does not include the dropout provisions for child-rearing and for disabilities. When we first brought this up, we got non-answers from the government, and then finally we had an acknowledgement from the President of the Treasury Board that there indeed was a problem.

With such a glaring oversight in the bill, why is his government shutting down debate on the bill, and why are they ramming it through before we have had the chance to properly fix the bill?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not shutting down debate on the bill. As a matter of fact, there are 55 sitting days between September and December. We have allocated a substantial amount of that time for debate on the bill. We have heard from more than 70 members on the opposition side. We continue to listen for new arguments, which we have yet to hear, but I am quite proud to say that we have had a robust debate. We will continue to have a robust debate, and I look forward to the contributions from the opposition as to how we can continue to enhance long-term retirement security; and it begins by supporting Bill C-26.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that such a nice guy could say such ridiculous things. He knows that the Liberals have increased virtually every single tax there is for businesses. I want to ask a simple question about this. He says it is about the present, but he knows that this will not impact present seniors. He says it is about the future, but he knows and businesses are telling us that this would reduce long-term GDP, reduce the health of the economy.

If he wants to help people save for retirement, why not empower them through the tax reductions and savings vehicles that we proposed, which would create jobs and help people save for their retirement, rather than what he is proposing, which would kill jobs and, I would argue, certainly not help people save for retirement and, in any event, make it harder for them to do so on their own without government control.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I agree with the part about my being a rather nice colleague. I have to disagree with everything else my colleague said, and he knows why.

That is because this government did pass a tax cut for nine million Canadians. We created a Canada child benefit, which will benefit nine out of 10 Canadian families. We have an innovation strategy, which will create jobs for youth. We have implemented retirement security, which will benefit seniors today and benefit young Canadians tomorrow. I am proud of all of the work this government is doing, and we will continue to do so. I look forward to the day that my hon. colleague sees the light and starts to support some of the measures on this side of the House.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to participate in this debate as the representative of Timmins—James Bay. This discussion on improving the retirement system is very important for our country. Canada is obviously facing a crisis with regard to financial insecurity in retirement because many Canadians have not saved enough to maintain their lifestyle in retirement.

The NDP is prepared to work with the government to enhance the plan, but I am troubled by the government's decision to limit debate because there are clearly a number of problems with this bill. I am particularly concerned about the fact that young women and people with disabilities will be excluded from the enhancements in this bill. This could have a major impact, particularly for women who depend on the drop-out provision to be able to raise their children and who currently receive much lower CPP benefits on average.

I remember that in 1977, prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau promised that young women would be included in the CPP reform of the day. However, the new Prime Minister forgot that promise. This is not how a feminist government should behave. The NDP will work to change this situation and stand up for the interests of young workers, particularly young female workers.

My grandfather, Charlie Angus, never had a pension. He died on the shop floor of the Hollinger mine. He was 68 years old. In those days, people worked until they died. My grandmother lived upstairs in our little house. There were three generations of us living in that small house. I remember her saying, when she received her Canada pension cheque every month, “The NDP fought for me to get this”.

At that time, of course, the Canada pension was limited. Seniors tended to live with their families. At that time we had a growing, robust private pension plan that was starting to really change the quality of life for Canadians. My father was 42 years old when he finally joined the middle class. He saved all of his money so that when he died my mother, who was a secretary, would be able to live a good quality of life. She is able to live a good quality of life because of their savings and their pensions.

Our younger generation does not have that same stability. Younger workers tell me about the triumvirate of insecurity that is facing them now. They are coming out of school $60,000 and $70,000 in debt without the possibility of paying it off even at today's interest rate. They talk to me about housing, especially in urban areas, and the incredibly high prices they have to pay while trying to pay off their student debt. Then of course, there is the rising precarious nature of work, with more and more people working on contract.

My Conservative colleagues are always talking about letting people choose how they want to save their money. They talk about RRSPs and everything else. That is great if people have money. Conservatives look after their friends, so they tend not to understand what it is like. If contract workers put a bit of money aside and then find themselves in between jobs, they have to eat into those savings. A good friend of mine says people in Toronto are one bike accident away from poverty because they are living in the perpetual cycle of contract work.

As a nation we have to find a way to start changing this situation. I am certainly pleased to see that the government is willing to address the fact that CPP has not kept up and that the vast majority of people are not even getting the maximum contributions. Even if they did get the maximum contributions, it is not enough to live on.

I am concerned about the exclusion of the dropout provisions in this legislation, which would leave out, in particular, young women and people with disabilities. In 1977, then prime minister Trudeau, the elder, when his government was reforming CPP, talked about the importance of making sure to protect the interests of women who stepped outside the workforce to raise children. Young women are already enormously at disadvantage in work. Men tend to get promoted, because it is known that women will take time out in childbearing years.

It affects her overall income. We need to protect their pension contributions, especially as more and more women, at that age, are living alone. They need that support. We are seeing that 30% of women are now living in poverty. It is increasing year by year. Yet, only 4.5% of women are able even to get the maximum CPP payment, and only 18% of men get it.

This is a system that should work, but is clearly not working. What does that mean? I see people in my riding affected by this. I recently spoke to a man who is 68 years old and is going back to work underground in a hard rock mine because he does not have enough for him and his wife to live on.

We need to look at dealing with this. I am concerned that the government has chosen to ignore the issue of the dropout provisions. This is something we can fix in the House. I am very disturbed that the government has shut down debate on this.

To hear the finance minister tell us he is somehow at a stalemate in the House is shocking. It shows a dismissive arrogance. I suppose that maybe at a certain point, members of Parliament are going to have to pay $1,500 and go to the CEO of Shaw or Rogers or some other company to meet with the finance minister one on one to share our concerns.

It is during debate in the House that ordinary people get to talk to the finance minister. For him to say there is a stalemate on this issue is absurd. New Democrats, particularly my wonderful colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, have brought forward ideas on how we can fix this. Leaving young women behind is not a feminist action by a Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist.

We see a government that believes it can run on slogans, selfies, and Hallmark card political aphorisms, but within the House we have to be able to find ways to work together to address problems. This is not about a weakness in the government. For any government that brings forward legislation, there will be problems. The role of the House of Commons is to suggest how we can fix these.

Fixing these dropout provisions for people with disabilities and young mothers is a way of making this a more progressive response. Is it enough? No, it is certainly not enough. The pension crisis and the pension insecurity in this country is a very serious issue. We have to start dealing with issues at the ground level of student debt. We have to deal with issues of social housing. We have to deal with issues of the clawbacks to the guaranteed income supplement for senior citizens. We have to talk about the number of people who cannot pay for their dental work.

However, that is an ongoing conversation we can have. What we need to talk about right now is the CPP, which is clearly insufficient to meet the needs of 2016 and the next generation of workers. We also need to say that, yes, this does something right, but it is also doing something very wrong.

It is penalizing young women who will be stepping out of the workforce to have children. When the government does that, it will be putting in place a systemic injustice for young mothers who, when they grow to retirement age in coming years, will have suffered more in terms of their earnings. If we look at it now, we can see the trajectory with 30% of women retiring in poverty today. We should be trying to diminish that level of poverty, not augmenting it when it is a clear problem that can be fixed.

I am worried about my colleagues on the other side getting very dismissive about debate, getting a little arrogant—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order.

My apologies to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. We are not done yet. We still have another minute and a half. It is way too noisy in the House.

Order, order. It is way too noisy in the House. We still have a minute and a half left for the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. I appreciate that we are just before members' statements and question period, but there is just way too much noise. I could barely hear the hon. member. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay does have the floor. He has a minute and a half left. We will go to him now.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for you. I was worried that my hon. colleagues were not listening just as I was getting to the real point.

The real point today has been fascinating. I have seen my hon. Conservative colleagues invoking the poor. We know the Conservatives are in trouble when they start to say how much they love the poor. I am seeing my hon. colleagues on the Liberal side saying they are feminists while they are leaving young mothers behind.

We can certainly do better than this. We need to work together to fix a flawed bill so we can go back to Canadians and say that in the House we can actually make positive change for the better.

The government is shutting down debate and saying it is somehow at a stalemate just because people are exposing some of the bogus lines its members are coming up with. The government's argument is not credible. It is certainly not how we need to move forward in 2016.

As always, Mr. Speaker, you have my greatest respect.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Pension Plan

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House today to speak about Bill C-26. Obviously, there are philosophical differences that the government has with the official opposition. As always, I try to add something to the debate; hopefully, something that stimulates a better understanding of both sides. This place is Parliament. We are here to discuss various points of view and, at the end, there will be a logical conclusion; one that obviously serves the country. Democracy is a great thing, but it is important that people are heard.

I would like to suggest, before I get to the actual business at hand, that the government has quite a big job ahead of it, particularly as many of its policies are going to require economic growth.

As Canadians, we know we are getting older. We are living longer. Obviously, things like pension reform are always important. It is something the previous government tried to do, albeit by different means—and I will be looping back to that in just a moment.

First, I would like to again go back to the point that, if there were a stronger economy, many of the concerns we have heard from small business owners with respect to adding more payroll taxes might have been alleviated.

As we all know, it is tougher and tougher to run a business when the economy is not producing well. Of course, all of us here would like to see more jobs in our ridings. We want to see people being able to provide for their families. However, that is not always the case, particularly if the economy is stagnating.

We have seen Mr. Poloz, the governor of the Bank of Canada, downgrade his expectations for Canada's growth, on behalf of the Bank of Canada.

I think it is important that we just acknowledge that as being a fact because, as the PBO has said, the job reports are not coming in as strong as we would like, and neither is the economy.

If we are going to ask people to pay more, whether it is into a system 40 years from now or into the coffers of the government today, we always have to remember that there is only one taxpayer. If people are struggling to pay their mortgages, if people are struggling to get into the market, and if people are struggling to pay their bills and suddenly they have less money at the end of the day, they will not give to charities. They will not put money aside for savings for their children as easily because there just is not the money there.

Whether we are talking about carbon taxes, whether we are talking about CPP increases, whether we are talking about perhaps—and I have heard in the pre-budget consultations at the finance committee that some members are thinking of a sugary drinks tax or perhaps some other taxes that we have not yet thought of—at the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer, and we always have to keep in mind the ability to pay for it.

We heard from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute during the study of Bill C-26 at committee, from an economist named Mr. Philip Cross. Mr. Cross simply pointed out what we know to be true: that while there are some concerns that certain segments of our society are not saving enough—and that is usually higher earners who are just choosing not to save, and then there is also a number of, usually, single female seniors who, because they did not participate in the labour market and have lived long enough to get to a point where now they do not have things like Canada pension plan because they did not contribute as much—those measures are not there for them.

As we have seen in the previous budget the government put forward, there was some allocation to that. In fact, in the previous election, many of us on the Conservative side ran on a pledge that we should introduce a tax credit specifically for single or widowed seniors. That was all, again, to make that targeted toward those people who are greatest in need.

Mr. Cross said that these things can be addressed through targeted programs and they can be addressed through other voluntary means. There is not a savings crisis now or predicted in the future in Canada, which is something we should be proud of.

We have a multi-pillar system. Conservatives believe, unlike the NDP and the Liberals, that there should be greater choice.

Again, we have heard time and time again from the Liberal side that the Conservatives do not care about pensions or pensioners, which is not true. We just believe that people should be able to voluntarily put their money into an account that would be there to support them, and it should be of their choosing. It should not be by a forced government program.

Again, I would go back to those many seniors who visited me. They and their spouses contributed the maximum amount to the CPP but their spouses died early, so now they, the surviving spouse, are not able to access the money they expected would be available to them, that they had socked away through the CPP system, because they are already receiving the maximum CPP allowed for an individual. These individuals get no survivor or spousal benefit. If, instead of putting that money in a government-mandated system, that same couple had put it in a tax-free savings account or an RRSP that eventually became a RRIF, and one partner were to die, the other one would have immediate access to that capital. We would all expect that.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute said we should really be calling the argument what it is. There is an ideological agenda by the government. Just remember, “ideological” is not a dirty word but it is something that we need to acknowledge. We need to acknowledge it when we see the world presented in a certain way to come up with a certain solution. The Ontario Liberals ran on a pledge to create their own Ontario retirement pension plan that would be enormously costly and not in fact complement the federal CPP but would increase costs, with fewer benefits for people. The Ontario Liberals and the federal Liberals said they would fix it by going to the other provinces and basically eschewing any other efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I know you do not hail from Ontario, but I would remind you that it is important to notice the following. When we talked about pooled registered pension plans as a means for having voluntary portable pensions that anyone could take anywhere and employers could voluntarily put money towards if they wanted to participate, Ontario, unlike British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, did not go ahead with those. I would encourage the Province of Ontario that, despite this piece of legislation going through, there is still more to be done and that pooled registered pension plans were something that all finance ministers across this great country agreed to. That does not happen often.

I just want to take a minute to step back and talk about young people. We had witnesses at committee who said they understood that most seniors would not benefit from this bill. We are thinking about future generations, and that is an important consideration. But we see that young people are now going on to higher education with higher bills and graduating with higher bills. They are being asked to pay those student loans back while trying to get a job. This is a very difficult time. Now they are being told they should get used to precarious work. The reason work is precarious is that employers do not have confidence.

The Liberals have to understand that when they tell people they will be adding a carbon tax and payroll taxes, those taxes make it less attractive for people who want to hire, especially if they hear that the government and the Bank of Canada say they are downgrading the Government of Canada's economic outlook. This again makes it more difficult for businesses to hire young people. Then the Liberals are telling young people that even if they can pay their student loans, even if they can squirrel some money aside, they are going to have less take-home money that could help them buy a home. Of course, the new rules by the department of finance for mortgage qualification make owning a home very difficult.

To sum up everything I have said, the government is in a real pickle on this one, simply because it wants to have an agenda in which it is doing a lot of things that are probably well-intentioned, but in an environment that does not sustain them. At the end of the day, we are asking more of that one taxpayer, and remember there is only one taxpayer, to put up more than he or she is able to bear. If we do that, we risk what I have mentioned. It is the reason I oppose this measure at this time.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I sit together on the finance committee. In a time when defined benefit pension plans are going away and retirement savings are so important for Canadians and many generations to come, when the CPP is portable, fully indexed, stable, and secure and our government has reached this historic agreement with the provinces, why would the hon. member's colleagues and his party not join with us in celebrating this agreement and working together to ensure that this agreement comes to fruition, which it will, so our children would have good, dignified retirement security to look forward to?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree that any time we can get all the provinces and territories to agree, it should be celebrated. Actually, I should not say “all the provinces and territories”, because Quebec obviously has its own system.

Again, I would go back to the point that the government is ramping up the CPP, which means that higher costs will be passed on to employers at a time when they have less to give.

If the government had a crystal ball, it might know that no one saw the economic and financial crisis of 2007-08. What happens if there is another recession, and this measure kicks in and causes even greater harm?

We are raising legitimate concerns. I do appreciate the member's contributions on the finance committee. However, we do have concerns about the government going ahead with a plan when there is so much uncertainty, and sending the wrong signal.

Again I go back to the point that the government should be focused on growth. Unfortunately, it is focused on redistribution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Conservative colleague whose definition of CPP, like that of many of his colleagues, seems to differ from ours. He seems to be saying that it is a tax, while we believe it is an investment, as do experts and many others.

When we pay 5% on our purchases at Canadian Tire, that is money that we will never get back. However, the money deducted from our pay for Canada pension plan contributions still belongs to us. That money does not disappear. It belongs to the taxpayers who invested in the plan and they will get it back when they retire.

Can my colleague clarify the Conservative position? Does he really believe it is a tax, or does he believe it is an investment that allows taxpayers to have a pension when they retire?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to my comment about ideological filters.

Obviously, the NDP seem to be much more open to using government-imposed measures. Basically, the CPP mandates that people have to contribute to it. Let us not forget that employers have to pay that tax as part of the compulsive nature of this bill.

People may get money back in the future for future consumption. I am not necessarily saying that is a bad thing. However, I do think we should explore other voluntarily methods prior to this.

We did have an agreement on pooled registered pension plans, which would have been portable and have offered employers, if they were in a position to do so, the chance to be pay more on a voluntary basis.

Those are the things I would like to see a little more of, and I would like to see a little less government intervention in this area of Canadians' lives.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned one of the gaps in this current CPP plan, in which elderly women whose husbands have died cannot take advantage of it. That would have been so easy to fix. After all, the husbands paid in $1,100 that entire time. Why not give that benefit to the spouse? Could the member comment on that?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the surprising thing is that I have had many constituents contacting me on that very issue. They and their spouse had maxed out their contribution rates to the CPP, then one of them died prematurely, and suddenly the spouse was without that income stream.

Many Canadians would be surprised to know that if they are at the maximum, which I think is around $1,100, they cannot have a survivor benefit. All of them were men. I am not sure why that was. When I tried to see if there were a way for us to deal with that, the previous government said it would try to help through a tax credit. It was something we ran on in the election, and perhaps the government might see it as worthy of endorsement at some point.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-26 and the proposed changes to the CPP, as this is not only a very important issue to me personally, but also to my constituents and the very many business owners I have consulted across our country.

The government has failed to recognize the negative impacts this change would have on our economy. The CPP tax hike will take money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, put thousands of jobs at risk, and do nothing to help the seniors who need it.

Let me explain what is happening with regard to Bill C-26. The Liberals are encouraging misconceptions that these changes would help our seniors, our youth, and our businesses. This could not be further from the truth. I have heard from small business owners across Canada who have stated that changes to the CPP will mean that they will hire fewer people. They will opt to spread the workload across the current number of employees to offset the increased cost of payroll. When I hear from our job creators and community builders that further increases to payroll costs will mean they will hire fewer workers, it means we must listen. Our economy cannot afford to lose more jobs.

I met with young entrepreneurs in the summer soon after the proposed changes were announced. Already these young leaders saw what the payroll tax would do to their own incomes and employee paycheques. Our young people are struggling to pay off school debt and make ends meet. Reducing the amount of money they are receiving today will only magnify this problem.

We absolutely need to encourage our young people to invest, but let us equip them with long-lasting tools and knowledge that will empower them to save through many different means.

As I mentioned in one of the questions I asked in the House, a study by the Fraser Institute from May 2016 projected the real rate of return for CPP investors to be only 2.1%. It states, “Canadian workers retiring after 2036...can expect a real rate of return of 2.1 percent from the CPP”. This means that the majority of our workforce contributing to the CPP is only making a real rate of return that is barely above inflation. To make matters worse, when they withdraw those CPP funds, they once again will have to pay income tax on them.

Finally, I would like to talk about Canadian seniors. My colleagues know that our seniors are very important to me. As the minister of seniors in the former government, I spent five years working with organizations, health care workers, and hearing from seniors themselves on actions the government needed to take to assist them.

One of the primary ways seniors have chosen to save and the option many have found most helpful is the tax-free savings account. Unfortunately, it has now become very clear that the Liberal government did not consult our seniors when they chose to scale back the TFSA. Now the Liberals claim to be assisting our seniors when the reality is that the proposed changes to the CPP will not provide a single cent to our current seniors.

One common argument for these changes is that they will assist some of our seniors in poverty. These changes will do nothing to reduce seniors' poverty.

In June, a writer of the Financial Post stated:

Whatever the reason might be to expand the CPP, it is not to eliminate poverty. The poverty rate among seniors is now as close to zero as we can get.

The writer goes on to explain that fewer than 5% of seniors who fall under the poverty line are those who either are not eligible for old age security or who have not applied for the guaranteed income supplement.

It is exactly for these reasons that when I was the minister for seniors in the Conservative government, I empowered the cities to look after homeless seniors and help them apply for OAS and GIS and to administer the funds for them so that these seniors would have food on their plates and roofs above their heads. With the Liberal government, this good policy has gone.

We know that the CPP is not a means to solve poverty, and we know that TFSAs help our seniors save. Why is the government choosing to do the exact opposite of what our seniors need?

Canada's retirement system is based on three pillars: first, the CPP; then the OAS or GIS; and finally, tax-assisted savings. It is important that each of these pillars is put to Canadians. When we place too much emphasis on one, the system becomes unbalanced and does not effectively serve those who need it.

Canadians are good at saving their money for retirement. McKinsey & Company state that 83% of Canadian households are on track for retirement savings, and the C.D. Howe Institute reports that savings rates have nearly doubled since 1990. What seniors need now is protection from financial abuse, an enhancement of their financial literacy, and the ability to live within their means. What they do not need is a carbon tax, which will increase their cost of living, including heating their homes, buying groceries, and meeting other basic needs.

Let me complete this debate with what I have heard from women entrepreneurs from coast to coast to coast. They want their significant others to be able to share the rewards of their hard work when they retire. A CPP increase will not help them do that. Putting their money into sound investments will.

Young people in Vancouver hope to save enough money to buy their first home. Taking home less money will never enable them to do that.

In summary, the proposed CPP will provide none of the solutions the Liberals claim it will. Instead, our job creators will be forced to hire fewer workers. Our young people will have a harder time paying down debt, and our seniors will continue to be left out of the equation.

I know that members on this side of the House will continue to fight for our job creators and evidence-based policy. I cannot say the same for the members opposite, and I will vote against Bill C-26.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the Conservative Party has lost touch with Canadians in terms of what Canadians expect Parliament to do. They value our pension programs, whether it is the OAS or the GIS.

Today we are talking about the Canada pension plan. When the member across the way decides to be critical of the government on this initiative, she should be aware that this is an agreement we have with all the provinces and territories of all political stripes. It is only the Conservative Party in Ottawa that thinks it is a bad thing.

Why does the member believe that her party is so offside with what Canadians and all other political entities want?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, what we are doing is not embracing something that is harmful to our economy, harmful to our seniors, and harmful to our young people.

When a policy is drafted, it is not only for the benefit of that specific party but for the benefit of all Canadians. The Liberals have not consulted all the business owners who will be paying into it. They have not considered all the young people who will be paying into it and yet not reaping from it. They have not spoken to seniors, who have told us that this is not exactly what they need.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, what we are talking about today is extremely important. We meet with seniors in our riding offices all the time. They tell us how hard it is to make ends meet on CPP alone. Sadly, those who get CPP only are living in poverty.

The most recent figures show that 30% of single senior women live in poverty. That is totally unacceptable. Unfortunately, it is often women who end up in this situation.

I want to ask my hon. colleague whether she thinks we should be doing something to improve the situation for our seniors who are living in poverty. We cannot stand idly by. We must do something. What does my colleague propose? The Liberal government proposed measures that are weak and flawed, but does my hon. colleague propose that we do nothing at all?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly what I said in my speech. We need to help those seniors who are in poverty. One reason is that some have not even applied. Second, they are not able to administer their own funds. That is why I empowered the cities to look for these seniors, including women who are in great need and are on the poverty line.

Unfortunately, the current government does not even have a minister who can speak on behalf of the women, on behalf of the seniors, who really need the help. That is exactly why we are fighting against Bill C-26, which would not help those women at all.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague's opinion in this area, because she was the minister of seniors previously and is now the critic for small business.

I am interested in understanding what impact she sees Bill C-26 having on small business.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, what small businesses would not like to see right now is a payroll tax hike. There are other taxes the Liberals promised to reduce, like the small business tax, but they did not follow up on their promise. Small businesses are having a tough time paying more taxes, and there is now yet another one.

These job creators are not being given the opportunity to reinvest. We are not giving them opportunities to hire more people. These are our job creators. Bill C-26 simply does not help small business people at all.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has just given a very good demonstration and a very good speech on what motivates the official opposition to oppose Bill C-26.

During the previous speech, our government colleague from Winnipeg North said that the Conservatives were, to use his words, “out of touch” with Bill C-26.

We are indeed out of touch because Bill C-26 is totally out of touch with seniors and the people it is supposedly designed to help. In fact, it will be 40 years before Bill C-26 produces any results. The results will not come right away.

The government is in such a hurry to pass a bill that will have an impact 40 years from now that we have once again been presented today with a time allocation motion. In tabling yet another time allocation motion to get its legislative agenda through, the government is demonstrating its incompetence. It is also demonstrating a real lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and, ultimately, for Canadians. The government continues to try to prevent members from participating in the proceedings of the House of Commons and from representing their constituents in this place.

It was well put, was it not? Those were the words of the member for Winnipeg North. He said them when he was in the opposition and the government tabled time allocation motions. This member talks a good deal in the House, so much so that he seems to forget what he said in the previous parliament. Today, what used to be good for Peter is no longer good for Paul. That is what it looks like.

Regardless of what was said by the member for Winnipeg North, we must remember that this government was elected on a loud and clear affirmation that it would be a different government. It is succeeding, because it will probably become the government that has reneged the most on its promises in the entire history of the Parliament of Canada. That is where this Liberal government is headed.

First of all, this government will impose a Liberal tax on carbon, which is going to be very expensive, in addition to costing thousands of jobs in companies of every sector. Despite having committed to reducing corporate income taxes from 10.5% to 9%, this government does not seem to want to act on or keep that promise—not in the slightest.

The government had promised just a small deficit of $10 billion, as if $10 billion could be a small deficit. It was already a very big deficit, and we are now being told that it will not be a very big deficit of $10 billion, but rather an enormous deficit of $30 billion. What is more, the finance minister is unable to tell us when we will get back to a balanced budget.

With Bill C-26, not only has the government enticed seniors with visions of their pension plan being enhanced now, but it has also made them believe that it has their own good at heart. Their own good and their own property, which the Liberals have gone after so they can administer it themselves. The government is giving them nothing right now, since it will be 40 years before the system works.

In a document released by his office entitled “Open and Accountable Government”, the Prime Minister himself has laid down certain ethical rules and rules on gaining access to ministers in order to represent any views. This is known as preferential access, and this government is very clear on this matter: there must be no preferential access, or presumption of preferential access, to ministers.

Unfortunately, what we have seen from the start is that the Prime Minister himself is breaking his own rules. I understand that seniors unfortunately do not have the money required to go and meet the members of this government in order to present their views, for it seems that is the way to get responses and results. That is the new Liberal tax, the tax on meetings with ministers. That is what one might call this new policy, this new method of getting what one wants from the government.

Let us return to Bill C-26. Seniors were promised that the Canada pension plan would be enhanced. That promise has been kept, but we have to read between the lines, as we have to do every time the government presents us with something. The reality is that this measure will take full effect not in two, five, 10 or 20 years, but rather in 40 years. In 40 years, I will be 90 years old. Life being what it is, many of my colleagues will no longer be here, like most of the seniors who are expecting an increase to their pension plan.

In the 2016 fall economic statement, the government laid out “a plan for middle class progress”. In that program, we read about Maya, an example of a Canada pension plan success story. To reach people more effectively, the government decided to use concrete examples. According to this document, Maya is a young graphic designer who is working hard to establish herself in her field. She earns $55,000 a year, and thanks to the CPP enhancement announced in Bill C-26, in about 40 years, when she retires, Maya could receive $17,500 per year.

In other words, since Maya will have benefited from an increased Canada pension plan and she will have been told not to save, because the CPP would do that for her, once she has worked all her life and contributed to our economy, she will receive $17,500 per year. Maya is a success story in the eyes of the Liberal government, but in fact she is an example of Liberal failure.

What Maya is being told is that the government will manage her retirement savings for her and enhance the pension plan, and thanks to the government, instead of earning $55,000 a year when she retires, she will earn $17,500 a year. They say that will afford her a decent living and that this is an example of a Liberal success story. On the contrary, it is a failure caused by their desire to manage every aspect of people's lives.

Consequently, when we see the term “success story” in the government’s fall economic statement 2016, that is to be taken with a grain of salt. If people follow Maya’s example, in 40 years young hard-working middle-class Canadians are going to have difficulty making ends meet, because they will have put their entire fate in the hands of the government, even though it is common knowledge that no one is in a better position than we ourselves to manage our own money.

Bill C-26 also wants to increase workers’ current contributions to the Canada pension plan. At present, that plan takes 9.9% of our income, and this bill will increase that rate to 11.9%. In clear terms, that means that the average worker is going to pay up to $1,000 more every year. That means an additional expense of $1,000 per employee for every small business.

Despite all that, a study by the government’s own finance department shows that these increases would have harmful impacts on all economic vectors and not just on one small component. It predicts a drop in employment, gross domestic product, private investment, disposable income, and above all, personal savings, of which I have spoken from the beginning.

Those, then, are the consequences of Bill C-26. In addition to taking $1,000 more from people’s pockets and imposing on business people an additional burden of $1,000 per employee, this bill is going to affect the economy, job creation and savings. Finally, it is going to compromise wealth creation in Canada. That is what we are denouncing.

I could talk about the government’s position on plenty of other things, but I must conclude by saying that we are going to object to Bill C-26.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I was very much intrigued by the member making reference to the days when I was in opposition. I can assure the member, when I was in opposition one of the things I talked about was how important time allocation was as a tool in order to get government agenda moving forward. I even acknowledged that while I was in opposition, I must say.

I am sure he would concede that the Conservative Party here in the House of Commons has made the decision that it wants to stop this bill. It is going to be voting against the bill. It does not think it is a good idea, even though the vast majority of Canadians, all the different provincial governments, and even the New Democrats and the Green Party are all saying yes, that this is a bill we should be voting in favour of.

The Conservatives, who have lost touch with Canadians, I must say, have decided to oppose this legislation. They are prepared to talk and talk if they believe it will kill the bill.

Does the member not agree that the Conservative Party has made a poor decision to vote against this, because it seems to be the only entity in the land that has seen fit to do so?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, when the hon. member says official opposition MPs talk too much despite being the member who has uttered the most words in this place since we were elected to this 42nd Parliament, that leaves an odd taste in my mouth. The member for Winnipeg North himself has said that the government's use of time allocation illustrates its contempt for the democratic process, in all cases—no ifs, ands or buts. Those are his own words.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question like I did this morning on Twitter, where he said the same thing. He said, “Ninth time allocation motion. How shameful.” Actually, he used the term “gag order”, but whatever term was used, he still criticized this ninth time allocation motion by saying it was shameful and that the government lacked transparency.

I therefore reminded him that, in the past, his own government imposed over 100 time allocation motions. I asked him if he thought the current government would break that record, and his answer seemed to imply that the Liberals were well on their way to doing so. In any case, at the current rate, this government will not beat the previous government's record.

Can my colleague explain to the House why the Conservatives are now criticizing the use of time allocation motions when the previous Conservative government used time allocation over 100 times?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would urge my hon. colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to reread my tweet, because all I said was, “Ninth gag order by the Liberal government in less than a year. So much for the promised transparency”.

Did I say it was shameful? Did I say anything other than, “So much for transparency”? No, I did not. Members wishing to quote somebody in the House should make sure to quote them properly.

The point I am making is that the government was elected on a promise to do things differently; yet, it jumped at the first opportunity to silence the opposition with a time allocation motion.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquent speech. Earlier, he talked about a young woman who would collect $17,000 in 40 years. That is pretty much peanuts.

Can he explain why the government is in such a hurry to pass this budget?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the enhanced plan will benefit people in 40 years, but they will be taxed now. This government wants to take taxpayers' money now and not give them anything back for 40 years.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak somewhat in support of Bill C-26, though New Democrats have some serious concerns and amendments that we would like to once again raise. It is unfortunate that this debate is happening within the framework of the government once again invoking time allocation, which is shutting down debate. New Democrats have identified a serious error in this legislation. We wish the Liberals had acted on our suggestions to amend and that we had more time to discuss why they are reluctant. However, I will start with the positive.

Bill C-26 incorporates the recent agreement reached with the provinces to enhance Canada pension plan benefits. It is a very important step in improving retirement security for young Canadians and we congratulate everybody, especially our friends in the labour movement who worked very long and hard to lay the groundwork for this agreement. This is a success.

When fully implemented, the new CPP expansion would replace 33% of pre-retirement income. That is up from the current 25%. This action is needed. Retirement security is reaching crisis levels. Many Canadians do not have adequate financial security to maintain their lifestyles upon retirement, and this is particularly fuelled by the erosion of workplace pension plans, to the point that six in 10 working Canadians have no workplace pensions.

New Democrats have fought consistently for increases to the CPP, old age security, and the guaranteed income supplement. This bill would benefit a whole new generation of workers entering the workforce, but more is needed. This bill does little to alleviate the retirement income crisis of those now approaching retirement and the full effect of the changes would not be felt for 49 years.

Much more needs to be done right now to help lift seniors out of poverty and to help them live with the dignity they deserve. There are high housing costs, high drug costs, the clawback of the guaranteed income supplement, and the indexing of pensions. New Democrats want the Liberal government to keep its promise to introduce a new seniors price index, to make sure that old age security and the guaranteed income supplement keep up with rising costs and, in particular, to recognize that single elderly women are particularly living in poverty in this country, which is shameful.

Here is the big mistake in this bill. Bill C-26 does not contain the child-rearing dropout provisions that exist in the current CPP, so that parents, mostly women, are not penalized for time taken out of the workforce to raise children. The Liberal bill also fails to replicate a similar existing dropout provision for people who receive CPP disability benefits.

This is how the CPP already works in this regard. The benefits that people receive are based on an average of earnings from the time people are 18 until they retire. To accommodate periods where people may have low or zero incomes, the plan now allows for the lowest eight years of earnings to be dropped from the calculation, and that exemption is referred to as a dropout. That rule applies to everyone. Everyone who now qualifies for that will continue to. They should be assured that nothing will change for people already in this category.

Right now, on top of this basic exemption, there are two other specific dropouts. One is for disability, so that people receiving disability benefits are allowed to drop up to eight years out of their calculations. The other dropout is for child-rearing, where people can drop up to eight years, while they were bringing up their children and their income was reduced or zero, from the calculations of their benefits. However, in the new plan that we are debating today, these dropouts would simply apply to the calculation related to base benefits, not to the calculations of the additional or enhanced benefits.

The original dropout provision for child-rearing was introduced with much fanfare in 1977 by the government of Pierre Trudeau. The Liberal government of the day included this line in its 1977 throne speech:

You will be asked to consider amendments to the Canada Pension Plan which would further recognize the value of the contribution made to the family and society by both marriage partners, in the event that one remains at home to raise children while their partner works outside the home....

My friend, Iris Taylor, from Nanaimo described this. She said, “My sister Diane Wiebe along with her husband Art, raised three wonderful, hard-working, well-educated taxpayers. Diane was a stay-at-home mom until the youngest left home. Neither parents had jobs with pensions, so when they retired they solely lived on savings, CPP, and OAS. In fact, both worked part-time to cover living expenses until their passing at 70 years. My sister was always appreciative of CPP factoring in her years at home with children into her CPP pension payment.”

The effect of losing this could be significant, especially for women who are overwhelmingly the ones who applied for the child-rearing dropout and presently receive a much lower average CPP benefit. The NDP ask was that the government restore it for the new CPP enhancements and that it do it now. We have debated every day in the House, asking the government if it would work with us to get this fixed. My colleague from Hamilton Mountain basically laid out all the groundwork at committee. All the Liberals needed to do was pick it up and run with it, but they chose not to.

In the House, we invited the government to amend its own bill. At committee, the New Democrats moved two motions to include the dropout provisions for women and those living with disabilities. However, the Liberals were not reasonable in looking at our amendments and ruled them out of order. When we tried to make a motion to have the committee recommend to the House that the provisions be put into the bill, the Liberals moved to adjourn debate. They kind of cut and run. It was very strange.

In case the Liberals might try to cite cost as a factor in their decision to omit the dropout provisions from the new enhanced benefits, our very preliminary calculations show that the cost would be very low. Using available information, it looks like the dropouts might cost each employee and each employer 0.2% of a worker's average salary. That is a very cheap price to pay to provide such an important and significant benefit.

On the other hand, looking at the calculations on Service Canada's website, the failure to fix this program could cost parents significantly. A mother who spent six years raising children would get between $800 to $1,200 less each year than she would otherwise.

Again, we have time allocation on the bill so we are not able to debate this fully. Again, this is inconsistent with previous Liberal positions. Here is what the Minister of Transport was quoted in Hansard in 2012 as saying:

Slowly but surely, Canadians are beginning...to question what the government meant when it promised...to be open, transparent and, most of all, accountable. I believe Canadians are beginning to feel that there is a contradiction between what has been promised and what is actually being done by the government.

This is déjà vu. That was the Liberals talking about the Conservatives, but now this is just how the Liberals are acting. It is very disappointing.

Hammering home again how important this program has been for Canadian women, June Ross from Nanaimo wrote to me and said, “The credit for my child-rearing years was seven years. That credit helped my pension to increase. ln my view, the child-rearing credit should have also been applicable to the old age pension as well. The woman who did not work outside the home and therefore was eligible for only the old age pension is punished yet again. As you are no doubt aware...we women have lesser pensions than our male counterparts because our work outside the home had very little value placed on it. Our hourly wages were very low...therefore, our pensions are much lower”.

Again, the Prime Minister likes to call himself a feminist, but when we point out that the Liberals' legislation is penalizing young women workers who would qualify for this in the future, they suddenly have nothing to say. The Liberal government should immediately agree to our proposal and live up to its feminist rhetoric. It should amend the bill so future generations of stay-at-home mothers and the disabled are not penalized. Please do the right thing, amend your bill and I will vote in support of it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address the comments to the Chair and to avoid “you” or “your”, so it would be the government.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised. I thought the NDP was going to vote in favour of the bill. If that is not the case, it would be unfortunate.

I think the member has forgotten, or has chosen not to raise the issue, the importance of working with our provinces. I sat in opposition for many years, waiting for the Harper government to do something on the CPP. For the first time in many years, we now have a government that is demonstrating leadership. It brought all the provinces together and an agreement was achieved. Then we brought forward the legislation.

I understood the NDP was going to support it. There is an idea that there are some changes that would ultimately improve the bill, but it requires the provinces to come onside. I believe the Minister of Finance indicated that we would be raising this issue with the provincial ministers at the next meeting.

Would the member acknowledge that many different stakeholders have looked forward to this change for many years? Does she not believe it is worthwhile supporting the bill?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I, along with the New Democrats, intend to support the bill. It is important for the country. We have pushed for it much longer than the Liberals have.

My whole presentation is around us trying to work together to correct a flawed bill. We cannot believe that the government intends to leave out disabled workers and stay-at-home mothers in the future. This is why it is extremely discouraging not to talk this through and amend the bill now. Why would the government, when it has taken all this time, want to put forward a flawed bill?

The Liberals should be showing leadership with the provinces and territories. I certainly did not see any media that suggested our provincial and territorial leaders did not want to extend these benefits to stay-at-home mothers and the disabled. Again, the government has shut down debate, so we cannot discuss it.

I will quote the parliamentary secretary in 2015 on time allocation. He said:

The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians.

I agree with him.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that it is a flawed bill. The amendment on the dropout clause being adopted is one idea. I presented an idea a few minutes ago on how we could immediately address the issues for elderly widows by ensuring that when their spouses were deceased, they would get the CPP benefit. Would the member support an amendment like that?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear the details of my colleague's proposal, but we absolutely have an epidemic of poverty among elderly women in our country. There are a number of ways to get at that, and I have named some of them in my speech. Certainly, advocacy organizations, whether around basic annual income, and a little more money in the pockets of seniors would address food insecurity and help with the cost of prescription drugs.

We would like to see the government take leadership on a multitude of fronts. If we make elderly women better off, then we would save money in health care and all kinds of places. It is the right thing to do.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent. She pointed out that too many seniors are still living in poverty, unfortunately.

Only 4.5% of the women who collect Canada pension plan benefits receive the maximum benefit, whereas 18% of the men do. That is why measures like those we have today to improve women's quality of life are essential.

Why are the Liberals rejecting our amendments?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of places where the difference in the New Democrat platform and the Liberal platform were unrecognizable. We were certainly pulling in the same direction. We had hope for our constructive proposals for amendment. Our initial belief was that the Liberals must have left these pieces out in error. We have tried to be as constructive as we can. We want the Liberals to fix these losses. If they did, it would certainly be better for women of the future.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, and I am especially happy to have this opportunity to rise in the House knowing that many members will not have a chance to express themselves because of the government's decision to once again limit the time for debate.

Apparently we will have to do like Chinese billionaires and shell out $1,500 to buy time with Liberal ministers to get them to listen to our concerns. That is really too bad, but that is what it has come to.

I would like to start with something we know to be true. People often say that Canadians are not financially prepared for retirement and could end up living in misery because they do not have enough money. They do not have enough cash in the kitty to fund the retirement they want, a retirement they can really enjoy that does not include frequenting soup kitchens.

This is a serious problem, one we need to tackle at its source. If Canadians are not investing enough for their retirement, perhaps it is because they do not have the means to do so. Although salaries have gone up over the past few decades and interest rates are currently very low, the situation is not perfect for Canadians. That is because such a large portion of their income is taken away by the various levels of government in the form of sales tax, premiums, permits, licences, and income tax. There is no shortage of words to describe how the government picks the pockets of the middle class.

If we want Canadians to be able to plan for their retirement, we need to give them the means to do so. I know this is hard for the members over there to understand. This means giving Canadians greater flexibility so they do not have to hand so much over to all levels of government, until they have almost nothing left to plan for their golden years.

The government loves being generous with other people's money. I would remind members that it is generous with taxpayers' money, including corporate taxpayers. Despite the Liberals' shameful $25-billion deficit, which has not created any wealth, they are not putting any tax dollars into this plan.

However, this will come at a cost to the Canadian economy. This is a glorified tax on businesses and Canadians. The Liberal government unilaterally decided what Canadians will do with an even bigger part of their salary. Our deficit experts are introducing yet another payroll tax.

Instead of working to create wealth, they are undermining it. In many cases, these costs mean the difference between profitability and hardship. Every business, big or small, will be affected by this measure.

I know what I am talking about. I am a businessman and have been a business owner for 21 years. I know all about costs and obstacles to hiring. The more governments drive up the costs, the less appetite there is for hiring. It is as simple as that.

That amount can be significant for large companies with several hundred employees. Production costs for the same output will go up by $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 or more overnight, and we haven't even talked about the carbon tax the Liberals are going to tack on. The future is not bright for our businesses. It is going to take a lot more than a Care Bear stare to grow our economy.

The finance minister's officials confirm our fears about the changes in Bill C-26: the proposed increased contributions will have an adverse effect on job creation. For a government that said it would base its decisions on science, facts, and sound advice from the public service, it is sad to see the Liberals act in this way. They are listening more to Kathleen Wynne that to experts on this. It seems that the Butts and Telfords of this world have more pull than finance department experts.

I have some examples. According to officials at the Department of Finance, the measures proposed in Bill C-26 will have an adverse effect on job creation.

Over 10 years, the drop in job creation will be between 0.04% and 0.07%. These are jobs lost, not created. There will also be a drop in GDP of between 0.03% and 0.06%. A drop in GDP is not synonymous with job creation. There may also be a drop in corporate investment of between 0.03% and 0.06%. When companies invest less, there are fewer jobs for Canadians. There will also be a decrease in disposable income of between 0.03% and 0.06%. Canadians with less money in their pockets means less money to keep our economy going. There will be a 7% drop in long-term private savings. Once again, this measure is supposed to encourage saving for one's old age. However, it will accomplish the exact opposite. People will have less money.

The government is gambling that by increasing taxes it can solve everything. The Liberal government is reverting to its old habits: it thinks that it should not let Canadians manage their own money because they will buy beer and chips instead of investing in their future.

On this side of the House, we believe that Canadians are smart enough to invest in their retirement if we give them the means to do so by cutting taxes. If they do not invest, it is because they do not have the means. If we give them the means, they will invest.

The Fraser Institute reports that a one percentage point increase in the CPP contribution rate reduces private savings by 0.9%. The Liberals' measures only shift the problem rather than resolving it. It is worrisome that 70% of small business owners do not agree that the proposed increase is a modest one and that it will have a limited impact on their businesses. SMEs are Canada's main employers. Could the government listen to them?

The decision to increase contributions was made without consulting Canadians. It would be interesting to consult those who are going to pay for this decision: the public and the employers.

In short, to resolve the problem, the government is proposing to take money away from Canadians who already do not have enough to make ends meet.

I would like to read a quote by Hendrik Brakel, the senior director of economic, financial, and tax policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. On May 31, 2016, he said:

Here at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we’re worried a big tax increase is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest...

This comes at the worst possible time—an economy reeling from weak commodity prices and slower consumer spending will be lucky to eke out growth of 1.5% next year. It’s difficult to stimulate the economy while pulling money out of the pockets of Canadians.

These people need the government to give them a break, not foist another tax on them.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a question for him about the usefulness of public pension plans.

According to most of what the Conservatives say, they seem to neither appreciate nor promote a robust public pension plan. I would like my colleague to acknowledge the fact that there may be consequences when there is no public pension plan, as the Conservatives seem to be proposing, or when the plan is weak.

In fact, with a weak public pension plan, not everyone saves or puts money aside for retirement. Who will look after those seniors living in poverty? The government.

Poverty greatly affects the health care system. Again, the government is the one that supports people living in poverty at the end of their lives.

Can my colleague acknowledge that, in any case, if there is no public pension plan, it is the government that will see to the quality of life of our seniors? Consequently, it is better to put money into a robust public pension plan that will make retirement possible, without the government interfering too much in the lives of pensioners.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, the youngest member of the House of Commons, who will have the opportunity to benefit from the money that will be invested in the program today. In 40 years, he will still be young. We, however, will be very old.

The question concerns the philosophy of the Conservatives compared with that of the NDP or the Liberal government. It is a fact that we do not have the same philosophy or the same way of seeing things. Listen, we have introduced programs, such as the TFSA, for example, and ways for people to save. Our philosophy is this: leave the money in taxpayers' pockets so they can invest it themselves.

My response to my colleague is that we prefer to allow people to manage their own investments. We want to give them the means to make investments; we do not want to tax citizens and businesses thousands of dollars for 40 years, in addition to slowing the economy and job growth. It all comes down to mathematics. As we see it, Liberal mathematics do not work.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I remind the hon. member that all questions and responses must be directed through the Chair.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle has the floor.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, but I would like to follow up on a question from my colleague from Sherbrooke.

I would simply like to know if the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles believes that the CPP, like all government programs, has to exist, or if he would rather they were abolished entirely.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

As a Conservative, I am not necessarily in favour of doing away with all of the existing programs. Some of the programs that are in place are effective. They are good programs. We even increased the guaranteed income supplement for seniors at the time, before the government changed.

That is not the issue. The issue is that there has to be a balance. The problem right now is that there is no balance. The Liberals are imposing an additional tax on employees and employers for a program that will not produce results for 40 years. It is a matter of balance. What is more, the government needs to know what investments to make and when.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my observation is that, during the 10 years that the Conservative Party was in power, income disparity grew and the pension gap really rose, so there were a couple of mechanisms that the Conservatives brought forward: the tax-free savings account, and the pooled retirement pension plans.

I would be interested to know the member's observations on how successful those were, because what I have heard is that they were mostly taken up by middle- and high-income people and not the low-income Canadians we are trying to protect.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, as Conservatives, we were fortunate to form the government for 10 years. Maybe one day the NDP will form the government, but the Conservatives and the Liberals are the ones who have been in office until now. That is what is happening now, and that is what will happen in the future.

The Conservative government's measures were effective. We balanced the budget, and we left as much money as possible in Canadians' pockets. That is the most important thing for us.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, which would have consequences for all people and communities across Canada with very real costs that would not deliver the promised benefits, and at a time when job losses are escalating with not one single net new full-time job created in Canada during the past year under the Liberals. Government must work with entrepreneurs, job creators, and employers and not against them.

The Liberals often claim to be committed to public consultations, so their failure to listen to Canadians about this bad plan is rich. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently confirmed that 83% of employed Canadians do not support this payroll tax hike, and more than 80% agree that they want the government to consult them on it. However, the Liberals are pushing it through, banking on Canadians believing the Liberal spin and misinformation.

According to the same CFIB study, 40% of Canadians think the government pays for part of the CPP, and 70% of Canadians believe current seniors would benefit, which is how the Liberals are selling it; but of course, both notions are completely false.

It is galling that the Liberals are exploiting the anxieties of young Canadians about their futures, the urgency of people nearing retirement who are worried about financial security in the next stage of their lives, and the challenges faced by retirees who are struggling now to make ends meet on fixed incomes, by selling this punitive increase as the responsible and shared value of helping people save for retirement and implying that it would help retirees now, while pretending there will be no negative or damaging consequences.

Both employees and employers would bear the cost of this hike that would take more away from job creators, harming their ability to grow their businesses and invest in their employees. As it would force small businesses to reduce staff or pay, in order to stay afloat, or increase prices for their products or services if they can, it is employees and customers, all of us, who truly pay for it.

The Liberals should walk their talk on fact-based decision-making. Many experts and extensive studies conclude that expanding the forced retirement pension plans on small business owners would likely result in a decrease in private sector investment, a decrease of labour force, and an increase in inflation. These are important warnings that government should heed, because in Canada small businesses comprise 97.9% of all privately owned businesses and employ 70% of Canadians working in the private sector.

In Lakeland, the people and businesses are struggling. Job losses are escalating, even though entrepreneurs are doing their best to keep going. The damage from the downturn and bad government policies is rippling through all sectors and across Alberta. This payroll tax hike would just make things worse and add costs for employers at an already enormously challenging time.

Small business owners across Lakeland oppose this expansion, because it is yet another tax hike. Whether it is an increase in employment insurance premiums, a carbon tax, or the proposed CPP hike, families and businesses in Lakeland cannot afford the Liberals' agenda.

The owner of a Vegreville window and glass company explained to me that not only would this be bad for the employee and the employer, but it would reduce our economy. Businesses cannot raise prices; the only way is to lower input costs, which is limited to the employee. Tough choices would have to be made, as every input cost is increasing: electricity, insurance, base product costs, which cannot be decreased. It would lead to fewer workers and fewer hours. Negative effects on our economy would be far reaching, as raising prices does not and will not work. Government would harm businesses and workers with this move.

It is clear that this plan would lead to wage freezes, reduced benefits, or even layoffs. Job creators in Lakeland are cautioning exactly what others all across Canada are telling the Liberals. This hike would hurt their ability to invest in and to expand their businesses, to hire and to compensate their employees, and to start new ventures. These consequences would ricochet through the whole economy.

A co-op grocery store in Vegreville might have to increase membership fees. A bookstore owner in Lloydminster might have to lay off a hard-working employee, and a student in Edmonton might not get that pay raise at work, needed to pay for school.

Each one of these situations has profoundly different impacts on communities. That membership fee increase at the co-op might be the last straw for a single mother, forcing her to choose between necessities for her family. That former bookstore employee, who volunteered with the Girl Guides of Canada, teaching kids important life skills and values, would have to participate less in order to look for more work. The student in Edmonton might have to take a second job, taking more time away from her studies, hampering her academic performance, and limiting her potential. This combined with a job-killing and price-hiking carbon tax would devastate communities even more.

What does this mean for average Canadian families and why should they be concerned? Studies show that some households will pay up to $2,200 more per year as a result of this hike. That is enough to take a course and upgrade credentials for work on the rigs, or to transition into something else, a season of minor hockey, or a once-in-a-lifetime bucket list vacation for two. All for what?

The consequences for businesses will not help seniors now, contrary to what the Liberals have been telling everyone. It will take 40 years for the CPP expansion to even provide marginal benefits, if the program even still exists. Businesses and families will be paying the price for this made-in-Ottawa disaster the whole time. I would understand of course if it helped seniors today but that simply is not the case. Canada's demographic transition is under way and the timing of this change will hurt both businesses now at the very worst time and will not even benefit baby boomers.

Reducing red tape and cutting taxes would help those who create the majority of Canada's middle-class jobs. If Canada is to maintain its competitive edge, increase productivity, and spur innovation, legislators must constantly strive to improve the conditions for doing business, not make them worse. This means understanding how government policies affect everything job creators, contractors, and entrepreneurs do. Increasing Canada's international competitiveness is also vital to the success of small businesses and their hard-working employees.

Our philosophy as Conservatives is that Canadians' money belongs to them and not to the government. Reducing and lowering taxes equals more jobs because the more than one million small businesses from across the country are unable to continue to expand, invest, and employ.

So far the Liberal philosophy of borrow, tax, and spend is failing. Earlier this month Canadians received the shocking news that during October, 23,000 jobs were lost. That is one job every two minutes. Canadians expect and deserve more from the government. The previous low-tax plan was stimulating growth, jobs, and savings, and not on the backs of future generations.

There are other measures the Liberals could have taken to help Canadians save for their retirement. They could increase RRSP contribution limits. RRSPs have been successful at allowing Canadians to save for retirement and prove that when we work with the private sector instead of against it, goals like secure retirements can be achieved.

The second is the tax-free savings account. If the government wants to encourage Canadians to save, why on earth would the Liberals reduce the amount they can contribute to the most versatile savings and investment tool? The flexibility of a TFSA recognizes that Canadians have different savings needs and can plan for their futures. We are not a one-size-fits-all country and a one-size-fits-all solution will not work.

The “Ottawa knows best” approach is failing. Despite what the Liberals think, Canadians are smart enough to make their own decisions when it comes to retirement savings and what solutions work best for them.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the speech by my colleague from Lakeland there is a question that I feel I need to ask. In my opinion, the government has an obligation toward its citizens, toward the short term and for the long term to ensure the well-being of the population going forward.

I am wondering if the member for Lakeland believes the government has an obligation directly to its citizens and if so, what exactly that obligation is.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, so far the government is making things worse for the people who create jobs, who start businesses, and who allow Canadians to support themselves and their families. At the very least when the government is making a change like this, it should consult Canadians and it should consult the people who would be impacted the most.

What is alarming about the government pushing through this change is that even Finance Canada's own analysis shows that higher CPP premiums would hurt the economy. My colleague went through some of this earlier. Studies show that this would reduce employment, with more than 10,000 fewer jobs per year for 10 years. It would reduce GDP, reduce business investment, reduce disposable income, and reduce private savings. Experts and institutes from all over the country are coming out against this reform.

The member can talk about the government's responsibility to its citizens but on this change, it is clear that the government is failing.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

The Conservatives’ philosophy seems to be to have no public pension plan. Very well, we accept that vision insofar as it is their choice to give Canadians every voluntary opportunity to save money for their future and their retirement.

That being said, it is a fact that in many cases people find themselves in a situation of extreme poverty when they retire. The government then has to step in, unless my colleague thinks, on the contrary, that the government should not step in to meet the needs of Canadian citizens and instead should leave them on the street. That may be her position, to leave them out on the street and do nothing to help them.

However, if she thinks that we have to help our fellow citizens who are living in poverty, does she believe that, in any case, it is the ultimately the government that will have to pay for certain poverty-related expenses in our country?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, here is what Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre said:

Instead of expending political energy on debating CPP expansion in the misguided belief that many middle- and upper-income Canadians are not saving enough for retirement, the focus of public debate should be on how best to help financially vulnerable seniors.

That is what the focus of this debate should be. However, today we are debating the CPP hike that the Liberal government is ramming through; it is stifling debate, and has not consulted on it with Canadians.

All of us in the House should actually listen to Canadians and what they have to say about it.

We already talked earlier about the fact that Canadians want to know more about this program and that the Liberals are banking on their misinformation and their spin to sell this bad plan to Canadians. Seventy per cent of employed Canadians oppose a CPP expansion if it means a wage freeze. Over one-third of employed Canadians say the proposed increases are unaffordable. Fewer than 20% of Canadians say they would opt to put more of their savings into the CPP.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would just point out that in the retirement savings universe there are many choices. There are RRSPs, tax-free savings accounts, and so on, so we preserve choice at all times.

Would the hon. member not agree that the middle-class tax cut and the child benefit free up money for families to invest in RRSPs if they would like, or other vehicles?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe in maximizing the choices and opportunities for Canadians to save and to provide for themselves, their families, their futures, and their communities. What is clear is over the last year under the Liberals' failed plan is that the roadblocks and the policies of the Liberal government are crushing the middle class and dismantling the economy. We know that in fact because not one new full-time job has been created in Canada, and that is the worst possible situation for Canadians who want to provide for themselves and their futures.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Canada pension plan is the bedrock of our public retirement income system in Canada. Millions of Canadians rely on it today, and many millions more will rely on it in the future. It is one government program that touches virtually every Canadian.

It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to ensure that the CPP is not just in place for future generations, but also to ensure that it is strengthened so that all Canadians can retire with dignity. After a lifetime of hard work, Canadian families deserve to retire comfortably.

We know that the CPP is an integral part of many people's retirement plan. With fewer and fewer Canadians having a workplace pension to fall back on, its importance is only growing. Our government recognizes the importance of the CPP. That is why we have made a commitment to strengthen and enhance the plan. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, worked incredibly hard with his provincial counterparts to reach a historic agreement to make important and meaningful changes to CPP. As a result, more than one-quarter of Canadian families nearing retirement, about 1.1 million more families, will be able to retire with dignity.

Every week, in my constituency office in Cambridge, my staff see seniors who are struggling to make ends meet. We try our hardest to ensure that they are receiving every benefit they are entitled to; but the fact of the matter is CPP needs to be enhanced. I know how much an expanded CPP would mean to the people of my riding. I can think of thousands of retirees who rely on CPP to fund their retirement and to stay productive members of our society.

I want to take a moment to talk through several key provisions of the bill and speak directly about how I would anticipate those changes enhancing and benefiting the lives of my constituents in Cambridge and, frankly, of constituents across this entire country. I think it goes without saying that CPP needs to be enhanced, in that it needs to see an increase in the amount of retirement pension that Canadians receive. With Bill C-26, however, the enhancements would go further than that. Canadians can expect to see increases to the survivors and disability pension provisions, as well. As our population ages, those survivor benefits ensure that a lifetime of paying into CPP still has benefits even after the death of a spouse.

The increase in Bill C-26 would ensure that the maximum level of pensionable earnings is increased by 14% by 2025. That level of support would be unprecedented in Canada, and it would arrive just as many more Canadians are retiring.

I know that these provisions come with additional costs, but they also come with additional spinoff benefits that would reach deep into our economy. In this case, the benefits would far outweigh the costs. As retirees are unable to participate fully in our economy and many withdraw more and more because of lack of retirement savings, those individuals are not full participants in everything Canada has to offer. This has some very direct issues; for example, not being able to afford things like food and medications. Those concerns are heartbreaking and well-documented, and one of the reasons there is currently a strong push for national pharmacare and increased support for food banks and other emergency social service providers. We see these cases in my office in Cambridge every single week.

However, not having enough retirement savings also causes many seniors to withdraw in many other ways, as well.

I can think of many seniors in my riding who choose to participate in fewer events, to go out less, and to stay in more because of lack of funds. These have several direct and negative effects. We know that seniors and retirees live better and longer lives when they socialize more and when they remain active. For many seniors, this means having the financial ability to go out, drive, and participate in events. Even if these events are low-cost, which many events for seniors are, it is critical that we create a society where they are financially able to continue participating for as long as they are able.

That activity or social time saves health care costs, mental health costs, and housing costs. More importantly, it allows for aging with dignity.

Since the Second World War, the number of company-provided pensions has fallen at a significant rate. This is due to a number of contributing factors, each of which is worth exploring but none of which is likely to be reduced in the short term. StatsCan says that in the 1970s about half of all men had defined benefit pension plans. Now, in 2016 we are at about half that number. That is a significant decline, but is even more significant when we consider the very large population bubble that we call the baby boom. When we consider the rates of company-provided pensions for younger people today who are not part of the baby boom generation, the rates are significantly lower.

I have used men as an example because the work dynamics were significantly different in the 1970s. Women have historically had fewer workplace pension plans and never crossed even the 50% threshold. We know this is causing an impending crisis, one this government is taking steps to fix. Enhancing CPP would allow the young people of today, those who are least likely to have a workplace-provided defined benefits plan, to see a significant increase in their retirement incomes.

It is also worth noting that this new plan would have no major infrastructure costs because the CPP infrastructure is already in place. This means that the new system would be much easier to put in motion, be more easily adopted by Canadians, and would fit within our existing policy structures. All of these reasons would make it cheaper, easier, and better to implement than many other ways to enhance post-retirement income for Canadians. I applaud the government for working to achieve increased CPP benefits.

We currently have more seniors than kids in Canada. I want to take a moment to go back to considering what happens when retirees and seniors withdraw from the system. The benefits and issues are not only in terms of mental health and health care, but also in terms of their significant impact on our economy. The longer a senior is able to participate fully, he or she is able to contribute to the economic robustness of our society. The longer seniors are able to participate fully, the more likely they are to volunteer and remain an economic force in our society. Obviously, solving these long-term demographic trends is not the duty of the CPP solely, but I believe it is the right place to start. It says that we are taking this seriously and are working toward solutions.

I have mentioned in the past that prior to my working in this wonderful profession that we find ourselves in, the people of Cambridge knew me from the YMCA. Prior to working for the YMCA, almost all my involvement was working with youth. The YMCA offers a number of programs for seniors. It is interesting because the span of the demographic that we call seniors can be as wide as 30 years. If we take that same age range and put it at the beginning of life, we are talking about infant, toddler, preschooler, school-aged child, teenager, young adult, and adult all within that same 30 years. We have to be thinking outside the box when it comes to seniors. They are living longer, but they are living differently as well. This approach that we have reached with the provinces is an amazing first step.

I will leave it with one final thought. No matter what the House decides on the CPP, and I am asking everyone to carefully consider supporting the plan laid out in Bill C-26, we will still have a long way to go toward ensuring that all members of our society are prepared for retirement.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to and want to thank the member for his work as the chair of our human resources committee. He is a compassionate person, and I appreciate his bringing up the issue of seniors.

It is interesting that he talked about the YMCA. In the Vancouver Sun yesterday, there was an article about seniors. It talked about 69-year-old John Young, a former business instructor with the YMCA. He was homeless after having slept on a couch in a friend's one-bedroom apartment for the past three years trying to make ends meet with a $1,600-a-month pension. He used to be able to teach people how to start a business, and now he finds himself homeless.

Approximately 20% of seniors in British Columbia are living on a low or fixed income and having a very difficult time living. Increasing the GIS helps a bit for some in need, but it does not solve the problem.

Would the member care to comment on John Young and his predicament and how changing the age of eligibility for the OAS to 65 does not help. How can we help John and other seniors?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, through you I would like to thank the member for his continued support and passion for seniors. He definitely keeps them front of mind at our human resources committee, which I am thankful he is a member of.

I agree 100% that there are so many more things that we need to do. I do not think we have suggested that Bill C-26 or increasing the GIS will solve everything. However, they are pieces that will help move the needle in the right direction.

The hon. member knows that we are working diligently in the human resources committee on a study of poverty. He has ensured that seniors have been a key factor in that study. I look forward to continuing to work with the member on that study, and hopefully coming up with some ideas so that the individual he spoke of does not have to rely on all of these services and can live with dignity.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

A number of my colleagues and I have detected a major error in the bill. When parents have a child with a disability or an illness, the current pension plan allows for dropping certain years of their contribution to the pension plan from the calculation of the amount they will be paid under the Canada pension plan. However, this does not appear in the bill before us, although it does exist at the present time.

I would like to know when my colleague plans to fix this situation. Clearly it has not been resolved in committee or in the House.

When does the government plan to correct this flagrant error in the new pension plan that it is now proposing in the House?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the member, as I will be responding in English. My French is just not there yet. However, I am working on it. I am taking lessons, and hopefully I will be able to respond in French in the future.

I understand the question. I have heard the question many times. We have to recognize that this is a historic agreement. The fact that this has been done in the House in essentially our first year in government is a testament. Is it perfect? No, I do not believe it is perfect. However, I also believe that we will be sitting down with the provinces to work out some of these key issues. As I said in my speech, this is a start, not an end.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Canadian Heritage; the hon. member for Lakeland, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is very kind.

Pensions are important, and I am always reminded that we must prepare for the future. There were stories told in my family about indigenous people out hunting the buffalo on the prairie with the buffalo jumps. After the kill was done, the men and women would work together with the children to collect the meat and tan the hides. There was hours and hours of work to prepare for the coming winter. The children were asked to look for fuel and would toss over the buffalo dung to dry to get ready for the winter.

I am also reminded of the western view on this, where the grasshopper and ant have to prepare for the future. One enjoys himself and the other does not.

Therefore, when I was considering this problem on the finance committee, I often thought of it as something about preparing for the future, but it is also related to the idea of poverty, which is a huge problem in our society.

In March 2015, Statistics Canada showed that Canadian household savings was at a five-year low of 3.6%. To give a frame of reference, in 1982, the savings rate of Canadian households was 19.9%. Therefore, we are just not saving enough. We know that we should. We know about these stories. We hear these stories in our homes and we teach them to our children, yet it seems that we do not take the time to actually do it ourselves when it comes time to think of our long-term, 40-year futures and how we are going to retire.

Members might ask what my interest is in this. Well, obviously, I am a citizen and am always interested in the future. I am also on the finance committee with some fabulous colleagues. We have been studying this issue for over a month, preparing, listening to witnesses, considering testimony, and even studying the bill itself.

[An hon. member]

A whole month.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, Madam Speaker, a whole month.

I am also interested in this because of my mother. My mother did not lead a very easy life. She grew up in great poverty. She also had some mental illness. We grew up in poverty with her. However, she never had a company pension plan. She never really worked in some of those jobs that one needs, and she was seemingly always poor. When she died at 58 years old, she was looking forward to being 65 years old, the day she would get her Canada pension plan. She would get the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, and she would break out of the poverty barrier in this country. However, she never managed to get there, which is unfortunate. I always have her in mind when I think about the future, because I know there are many other Canadians who face similar issues.

I have enjoyed the process of studying this bill and the process of “making sausage” for the House, but the CPP is simply not a tax. I have heard my colleagues on the opposite side categorize this as a tax, but it is not. It is a form of savings for the future.

In committee, I had the opportunity to ask the opposition what our nation would be like if we did not have the Canada pension plan. What would our country be like if Canadians could not look forward to a day when they could have a form of savings to rely on when they were retired? Well, we would have 44% of all seniors in this country living in poverty, because that is what we had in 1950 before the Canada pension plan came into effect. I have heard the arguments made by witnesses and by the opposition on why we should not do this, but those are the same arguments that were made in the 1950s on why we should not have the Canada pension plan. I have had the opportunity to read Hansard from that period.

Today, we have some of the lowest rates ever of seniors poverty in our country, and for that I am very grateful, but we can always do better. How does Canada compare to other nations in the world? How do we compare to OECD countries?

I looked at pension contribution rates around the world and at a report that was put out by the OECD in 2013. In fact, Canada has some of the lowest contribution rates in the world. Our contribution rates for our Canada pension plan is 9.9% currently and it is going up to 11.9%.

If we look at Austria, in 2012 it was 22.8%. In Estonia it is 22.8%. In France it is 16.7%. Even the United States had a contribution rate in 2012 of 10.4%. Therefore, I do not believe we are losing our competitive advantage by investing in our future. In fact, we are still very competitive with the United States.

The only country we have a really large trading partnership with that does not have a pension plan is, in fact, Mexico. It had no contribution rate in this 2013 report. I asked the opposition in committee if we actually want to be like Mexico. Do we want the same form of protection for our workers and fellow citizens that they have in Mexico? I think we all know the answer to that. We are very happy to be living in Canada. We are very blessed.

I believe that it is important for us to be saving for the future. It is one principle that I think people, whether young or old, can get behind. There is actually an old proverb: look to the future but believe in the present. Have foresight and look to the future. It is also in the Bible, where Joseph and the Pharaoh saved during the good years for the seven lean years. It is something that is taught to all of us, and I hope we always remember it.

In committee, I heard testimony from lobbyists, representing some very important companies, who presented flawed data. For instance, one survey they presented to the committee said that Canadians prefer using the tax-free savings account and registered retirement savings plans over having a larger Canada pension plan. The options offered in the survey were the tax-free savings account, the registered retirement savings plan, personal savings, other investments, CPP, and voluntary retirement savings plans, but there was no option of a defined company retirement pension plan, an RPP, a benefit pension plan provided by an employer. It is unfortunate that it is not offered to employees in this country. I am sure we already know what the response would be. Most employees would like to have a company pension plan, but unfortunately, they have been declining.

A Statistics Canada survey shows that from 1977 to 2013, total RPP coverage went from 35% to 24%. It is declining. Fewer and fewer people have access to company pension plans, and that is unfortunate. If private companies are unwilling to take up that slack, it falls to us to make sure we provide for the most vulnerable in the future.

In committee, the third opposition party has been talking about the issue of women. The Liberals have raised this issue as well in committee. In fact, my esteemed colleague from Pickering put forward a motion calling on the finance minister to speak to the other ministers of finance across Canada to raise the issue of equity in pensions for women. This is a long-term process. This pension plan will be in effect in eight years, so we have time to prepare for the future. We have time to make sure we get this right.

We also need to take the time to work with the provinces, our provincial partners, because they are our partners. We cannot unilaterally say that we are going to change this by ourselves or that it is only for us to decide. That is not how our government works. We work in consultation and through discussion. Though it may take a little longer, at the end of the day, there is more buy-in and it is more positive for more people.

I think of the young pages in the House. I think of young people. This pension plan will not benefit me, because in 40 years, I am going to be well into my eighties, but it will benefit the pages. They will see the full benefit of this Canada pension plan. That is truly thinking for the future, thinking for seven generations, thinking long term. That is what we need most in the House, not short-term political gain but a long-term vision for our nation.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about a vision for the long term. We know from the study by McKinsey & Company that the problem we are trying to fix is the 17% of Canadians who cannot afford to retire. We know who those people are. We know that they are elderly widows and people who are lower income, including some of the people we have talked about today, such as single mothers, disabled folks, etc.

We know who the people are. We know what the problem is. Why did the government choose to ignore doing something for those people to fix their problem today, which the Liberals could have done, when they only have a three-year mandate, instead of implementing something that Finance Canada says is going to be bad for 30 years and will not have a benefit for 40 years?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, at committee, I do not believe the finance department said it would be bad for 30 years. We should not look at the CPP by itself. We have to consider all the measures the government is taking. One of the very first measures of this government was including une bonification, or looking to increase the guaranteed income supplement and old age security for the seniors most in need.

This impacts a lot of women and a lot of men as well. It is no longer going to be always about dividing men and women. It is going to be about poverty in the future. It is going to be about those who have education and the ability to profit from the system we have created. We have to make sure that all of us have the ability to profit from that situation.

We have taken a long-term approach but also an approach that looks at all sorts of instruments to improve the level of poverty for all Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the situation of our seniors living in poverty has to be improved. Such poverty is absolutely unacceptable. People talk to me about this often in my constituency. It is totally revolting to see how seniors manage to survive on the little they have.

One of the important things that the NDP has proposed is the importance of retaining the child-rearing dropout provision and the dropout provision for persons with disabilities.

Why did the Liberal government not agree to keep these two dropout provisions, which allow seniors to have a better pension and help lift women from poverty, among other things? Unfortunately, it is often female seniors who find themselves living in poverty.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance addressed this issue. A Liberal motion called on the Minister of Finance to take a much closer look at these issues with finance ministers across the country and work with them. We had an opportunity to really enhance the plan, so we had to take steps right away. Everyone was in agreement, so why wait for someone to object? We had to strike while the iron was hot, so we did. That does not mean we are done striking. It means we are ready to press on and make sure the people who need protection get it.

We want to make sure that women who raise children get this protection because they are the ones who need it most, not women who earn $200,000 or more because they probably already have that kind of protection. We cannot transfer money from the poor to the rich. We have to make sure that everyone has the same advantage. That means we want everyone to be on a level playing field.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to talk about the amendments the government is planning to make to the CPP. I call upon all my colleagues to consider all the debates we have heard on this issue over the last many days.

One of the things that strikes me the most in this debate is that we are failing to recognize the achievement of reaching an agreement with all nine provinces that have opted into the CPP. It is rare in Canada that we have provincial-federal agreement on an issue as broad and comprehensive as this in a way that has brought everyone together. This is one example of co-operative federalism that works.

Even my own province of Quebec has agreed to look at these changes and to incorporate them as best it can into the QPP. For me, this agreement, by itself, the nature of the Government of Canada talking to the provinces, is a success story.

What I have heard an awful lot of is that it is either this or that. I have heard people talk about this taking away people's obligations and their opportunities to save for themselves. I have heard from the other side the importance of government acting on behalf of people and protecting them.

In my view, we need to have a balance. People need to take responsibility for themselves. I agree that people should be contributing to RRSPs, and people should be contributing to TFSAs. I have been lucky enough to do that, but I also know that there are other people in the country who have not been lucky enough to be able to do that. Whether because of family obligations or the fact that their salary gives them just enough to survive on week to week, they have not been able to save for retirement. Does that mean they have no such responsibility? No, I do not agree with that. Everyone has a responsibility.

However, at the same time, all parties in the House have agreed that the Canada pension plan deserves to exist. If we agree that it deserves to exist, because we need to have a balance to protect people to a certain extent in retirement, we obviously then agree that at certain times in history, the Canada pension plan needs to be updated. I think the real debate I am hearing is whether this is one of those times that the Canada pension plan needs to be updated.

Some of the statistics I have looked at show that, on balance, among all the G20 countries, Canadian households seem to have the highest debt. The Canada pension plan covers a smaller percentage of retirement income than similar pension plans in other countries, including our neighbours, the United States.

The wage ceiling of the pension plan, at $54,900, is well below what the wage ceiling is in comparable pension plans. When I was the mayor of Cote St. Luc, for example, we noticed that the wage ceiling for our pension plan was one of the lowest on the island. We were at exactly the $54,000 level. We increased that to $82,000, because we recognized that since we had not adjusted the wage ceiling for decades, we were no longer allowing people to provide for themselves in retirement.

The increase from approximately one-quarter of one's earnings to one-third is a valuable improvement. I believe that there are facts in hand to justify the increase to the CPP at this time.

I want to tackle one issue I have heard as well in this debate. One of the things I have heard that is very interesting has been the argument that this is a payroll tax on employers and that it will inordinately impact small businesses. I do not see this as a payroll tax, because in the end, the amount employers are asked to give is going to the employees for their pensions. In a sense, it is saying that the employers are compelled to give the employees a salary increase, to some extent, because they are contributing more to the employees to protect them in old age, but I do not believe that it is actually a tax.

For the many years I was involved in private business, which was my entire career until I was elected to the House, my company never once looked at our obligations under the CPP to determine whether we would hire employees in Canada versus other countries. What we looked at was how easy it was to terminate an employee and the average cost of engaging an employee in this jurisdiction versus others, all things taken into consideration.

Canada was usually, if not always, a good choice based on the fact that we had relatively flexible regimes in place. I do not think this is going to change the idea of whether a Canadian employer is going to engage an employee.

I do think this will help a certain group of people in retirement. I agree with all that has been said. This is not a measure that will help current poor seniors. The increase to the GIS certainly will do that as will other measures the government has put in place. However, this regime change is for a long-term benefit. This will help those people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s today, not people who are today in their 70s, 80s, already retired, or on the verge of retirement.

A government needs to take into account comprehensive solutions to problems. This is simply one of them. However, if we do not act, and I will not invoke biblical references like my colleague from Winnipeg, when we can, we will face the same problem with the Canada pension plan years from now, when an increasing number of people will be entering retirement and falling into poverty because they have not adequately been able to save for their retirement.

As such, this change to the Canada pension plan is a good change.

I agree with my colleagues in the NDP that certain proposed amendments would be very important to look at going forward. I do not think the intent was to harm people who were outside of the workplace. I appreciate that my colleagues on the finance committee are working to encourage the minister. I know he has already announced his intention to work with the provinces to further change the CPP.

When we have an agreement on 90% of the points, I do not think a deal should fall because we then have disagreement on 10%. Let us get the 90% done, and then let us come back to the 10% afterward.

I support these measures. They are good changes to the CPP. I encourage all my colleagues to consider this philosophically. If we support the CPP and we agree that at certain times amendments should be made to the CPP, why not support the long-term benefits we are giving to the future generations by changing the CPP?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in the House on Bill C-26.

Does he think that the government has a duty to ensure that our seniors, most of whom worked hard and paid taxes all their lives, have a well-deserved retirement and can live with dignity at the end of their career, once they are retired? As a government, we must not let our seniors live in poverty.

Does my colleague think that a strong, solid public pension plan will in fact ensure a good standard of living for our seniors once they are done working and are ready to just enjoy life after many years of hard work?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question.

Yes, absolutely, an enhanced pension plan will help give our seniors a secure future. It is important to note that the government has already improved the guaranteed income supplement by 10% this year. In other words, poor seniors will have almost $1,000 more in their pockets. However, we need to do more.

As my colleague said, and as I said in my speech, the changes to the Canada pension plan will help future generations. We need to think of those generations when we make changes today.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, people who come into my constituency office are very happy and proud that our government has the foresight to make changes to the Canada pension plan, adjustments that will help people save and will protect retirement savings in the future.

I am surprised that all the party opposite can offer is the tax-free savings account, and that this is a vehicle for savings for seniors. I challenge the party opposite to go to a priority neighbourhood and ask seniors how many of them are saving for the future through a tax-free savings account. The answer is really none.

The party opposite's answer was to actually double the tax-free savings account, double something that only 6.7% of Canadians actually maximized, which is mind-boggling to me.

People in my riding are very happy with the upcoming amendments to the CPP. What response is the member getting from constituents in his riding?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, from what I am hearing, most residents in my riding, whatever their income level, are pleased with the proposed changes to the CPP. I note, however, that many residents in my riding are also happy with the TFSA. I personally make use of it. It is a good vehicle.

The question that was raised was whether the TFSA needed to be doubled. I agree that at this point it did not need to be doubled because only 6.7% of Canadians were maximizing their use of it. However, that does not mean I do not also agree that the TFSA is a good vehicle and that people do have an obligation themselves to save for retirement.

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

Madam Speaker, I again thank my colleague.

I agree with what the member said about the tax-free savings accounts. It was certainly absurd to increase the contribution limit, given the numbers the hon. member just mentioned.

However, the Conservatives seem to think that this is a tax. Does my colleague see it that way as well? It is more of an ideological question, like the one I asked my colleague earlier.

I believe this is not a tax, but a retirement savings investment by the employer and the employee. This money does not disappear into government coffers, like a sales tax does, for example. We get this money back at retirement. This is an investment, not a tax like the GST.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague from Sherbrooke. This is not a tax.

As I said in my speech, I see the employer's contribution as a sort of raise for the employee, since that money will go to the employee and not the Government of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today to speak to our bill on the Canada pension plan.

I am from Nova Scotia and represent the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, which surrounds the two cities of Halifax and Dartmouth.

This is federalism at its best. I am shocked that the Conservatives are not on board with this important initiative. That was the problem with the last government. Over the last 10 years, there was no co-operation, no partnership, no collaboration of any kind between the provinces and the federal government.

I remember the former prime minister showing up in Newfoundland or in B.C. on a number of occasions, not even advising the premiers of those provinces that he was going to make an announcement. It was unbelievable.

This initiative is a clear indication of how strong our government is in working in collaboration with the provinces and territories. This was not an easy thing to do. This took a lot of hard-working individuals doing what was right for Canadians.

This is not a tax. This is an investment in Canadians. We should be proud of the fact that we are taking important steps toward ensuring that Canadians will be able to retire in dignity.

Let me talk about our youth. We have had experiences and opportunities that they will never have. Most people in here, including myself, have workplace pensions. Today, many businesses do not offer workplace pensions.

When I was young, a pension did not mean much to me because retirement was too far away. However, five or 10 years ago I started to think about whether I had invested enough money and would I have a pension that would allow me to do the things I would like to do when I retired. Young people today may not have the same opportunities. Over the last 10 years, the gap has continued to expand. Instead of pension funds increasing in value, they will probably be worth a lot less when our youth retire. That is even more important.

The United States has predicted a possible shortfall in its social welfare program if it does not invest. We are saying that we need to ensure that Canadians can retire in dignity. We need to ensure that our youth are able to put more money aside. This is an investment in their pension fund, which is extremely important.

This is not an investment where people need to put in everything in year one. This is a seven-year process. Canadians will invest in the CPP gradually. What is the end product going to be? People on CPP today receive approximately $13,110 a year, and that amount depends on the salary they have received while working. With this new plan, they would receive approximately $20,000. That is close to a 50% increase, which is very impressive when we look at how it is going to be structured.

As my colleague said earlier, Quebec, which is not a part of this plan, is looking at implementing some of the pieces of this government's plan, or possibly implementing it all at the end of the day. That is extremely positive.

Let me talk about the OAS. The former government said that Canadians are living longer, so it would not give them their pension at 65. It did not matter if they planned to retire then. No, they would have to work until they were 67; it would not give them their old age pension at 65. This government committed to returning to the retirement age of 65. We did that shortly after forming government, which shows how we were able to move quickly on our commitment.

Let us talk about CCB, the child care benefit. Throughout the campaign, that was the main issue I was hearing about, and I covered approximately 22,000 houses. Young families were out there struggling and needing support so they could provide for their families. That is an extremely important issue, and I was impressed because I asked young couples about the cost for young kids, whether they were struggling, and how we could help. They said that what we were proposing was exactly what they needed. It was to increase the child care benefit by an enormous amount and it would be tax-free. That is what is important, tax-free. That means they would not be taxed on the extra money they would receive from the government to help them as a family. That was a key point for young families.

The other piece that we have to keep in mind is seniors. When we talk about seniors, we brought forward also the 10% increase, which brings almost $1,000 to low-income seniors and single seniors. It is a multiple approach to ensure that we are helping the middle class. That is what it is all about, helping the middle class.

I could spend hours talking about infrastructure, which is one major strategy that will ensure job creation. We need to renovate, we need to improve what is out there, and we need to build, and the infrastructure investments are pieces. It is not just happening in one area. This is an investment that is taking place across Canada, in all parts, in all provinces.

When we put these pieces together, it becomes more and more obvious that we are a government that cares about its people. We are a government that cares about the middle class, youth, and seniors. We are a government that made commitments, and we are delivering on those commitments. I am extremely happy to support the government's CPP initiative.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I have already said, every year we meet seniors who tell us that the pension plan is not very generous and that it must be enhanced. Therefore, the government's desire to enhance the CPP is good news.

However, the Liberal government has made some mistakes with its approach. One of them is not stressing the importance of keeping the dropout provisions. We currently have dropout provisions that ensure that years spent outside the labour market raising children do not count in the calculations. There are also dropout provisions for people with disabilities, who can no longer earn income when they are unable to work.

Why did my hon. colleague not support these requests? Why did he not work with his team so that we could keep these two dropout provisions, which are extremely important when trying to keep women, seniors and people with disabilities out of poverty?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This agreement was put together by the provinces, the territories and our government. It is not perfect. However, our minister has already indicated that he intends to raise this issue with the provinces and the territories at their next meeting, which is coming up. Our intention is to support Canadians in every way possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, even though he spent half of it talking about other things. I have a hard time understanding why the Liberals think it is so urgent to pass Bill C-26.

They are saying that it is so urgent that we pass Bill C-26, that they had to move a time allocation motion. That is what the government did this morning. I did not support it. Nevertheless, there have been three or four Liberals who have spoken on the subject.

If Bill C-26 is so urgent, why do Liberal members keep rising to speak to it? I would like to know the reason for this double-talk.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is important to remember that we want to tell Canadians about the CPP enhancement and how it will help them. It is our responsibility to speak and move things forward so that we can implement these measures. Our government made promises, and we must work to pass this bill. That is what we are doing.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I would like him to elaborate on how Bill C-26 will help Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Obviously, this is an investment. Canadians will benefit from it for years to come. It is one of many extremely important social initiatives that our government has put in place to help Canadians. It is another part of our government's plan to ensure success in this area.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure for me to be addressing the House on this issue of Bill C-26 on behalf of the residents of Davenport.

I love meeting with the residents of Davenport. I have, over the last few months and since I was elected, constantly met with them. The groups of people I most enjoy are seniors. They are not shy about letting me know what they are thinking, what they are worried about, whether for themselves or for their families. They always joke with me. They often say to me, “When is the Prime Minister of Canada going to give me a raise?” They talk to me about the increasing cost of prescription drugs. They talk to me about the increasing cost of everyday life. They also tell me that they are worried about their children. I also have spoken to many of the middle-class Canadians who work in my riding, and they tell me that their pension and saving for their pension is one of the things that most worry them.

That is where I am going to start, by just reminding us all of some of the facts.

We know that middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever and that many are worried that they will not have enough set aside for retirement. I have heard that time and again right across my riding, and I am sure that is a message that is heard right across this country in every riding. We know there has been extensive analysis conducted by our finance department and by provincial governments, and they have found that around one-quarter of families nearing retirement—some 1.1 million families—face a drop in their standard of living when they retire. This is absolutely something worrisome. We also know that, according to Statistics Canada, in 2014 only 37.9% of employees had a pension plan and that number was trending down.

We know from the Broadbent Institute, which put out a report earlier this year, that 47% of those aged between 55 and 64 have no accrued employer pension benefits, and the vast majority are retiring with inadequate savings for retirement. We also know from that same report that just 15% to 20% of middle-income Canadians retiring without an employer pension plan have saved anywhere near enough for their retirement. Therefore, we know that there is a huge worry. We see the statistics. We know that Canadians currently are not saving enough for their retirement, and we know that action needs to be taken.

There was a commitment from the Liberal Party in the last election that we were going to improve the Canada pension plan, and indeed that is what we are proposing. I am very proud that our Minister of Finance met with his provincial counterparts earlier this year, and in June came up with a way to enhance our Canada pension plan. I just want to say that it is not easy to be dealing with all the provinces. I note that the Ontario government had its own pension plan enhancement that it was planning to put into place. I know there were a number of other provinces that were further down the line in terms of what they wanted to do. I know this was a huge effort on the part of our Minister of Finance. It was a huge coming to the table by all parties, all finance ministers from all provinces right across the country. I just want to say that it was wonderful leadership and a wonderful show of co-operation right across this country to actually enhance the Canada pension plan and to really be thinking about the future of all Canadians in every province.

Next, I will take this opportunity to say what the enhancement of the Canada pension plan means and what changes are being proposed. I am going to be heavily using information from a wonderful CBC news article that I happened to be reading, because it makes it so easy to understand and I want to make sure I am explaining it in a way that makes it easy for people in my riding of Davenport and all Canadians to understand what we are proposing.

The first thing is that there would be an increase in premiums. The increase would be for both the worker and the employer. Under the proposed enhanced plan, the CPP would replace fully one-third of a person's pre-retirement income, up from the current 25% replacement rate, up to a maximum amount of earnings that would also rise quite a bit.

Currently, a worker and an employer contribute 4.9% of the worker's income to the plan. The proposed change would increase it by one percentage point. So, it would go up to 5.95%. It will be phased in over five years, beginning in 2019. By the time the higher premium is fully in place in 2024, a worker earning around $50,000 a year on average would pay roughly about $25 a month more in premiums, or almost $300 a year.

That is just an idea of what is going to happen to our premiums. There would also be a bit of an increase on the employer's side. We are working to try to better save for our future retirement.

What happens to benefits? How will Canadians benefit from this increase? What does this actually mean?

In plain terms, a middle-income Canadian entering the workforce and now earning around $50,000 a year would in the future receive a pension of around $16,000 a year in retirement, instead of what they would currently be receiving, which is around $12,000. That is according to Finance Canada.

I should note, though, that younger workers will be contributing at the higher rate for a longer period of time, the 5.95% I was talking about, but it is an investment in their future, as my colleagues have been saying, and they also stand to gain the most when they eventually reach retirement age.

I know that constituents in my riding of Davenport will be very sad that the current CPP enhancements will not be positively impacting them, but we do have a number of different programs we are putting into place that will benefit them moving forward.

There is one other thing I wanted to mention because I thought it was an interesting fact. There was some concern by a number of people that the increase in the CPP premiums would impact lower-income Canadians. As a result, the Minister of Finance and his provincial counterparts have agreed to an expansion of the existing refundable tax credit known as the working income tax benefit, to offset any higher premiums. The maximum payout for this program is currently $1,800 for a family earning less than $28,000 a year.

We want to make sure that we are protecting lower-income Canadians and so have been very thoughtful in trying to make sure that not only will this benefit future generations, including helping middle-class Canadians and youth to invest in their future and their retirements, but will also include protections for those on the lower end of the salary scale in Canada.

There has been a lot of concern about the impact on small business. I have a lot of those small businesses in my riding. I know they were very happy to hear that it would be implemented over five years. I think they appreciate that there would be enough time for them to plan, organize, and arrange for the future. So while I believe there will be an impact, I think overall it would be beneficial to our businesses, to our workers, to our economy overall, and to Canadians in general.

In conclusion, I encourage everyone in the House to vote in favour of supporting Bill C-26. It would benefit youth, it would benefit families, and it would ensure that future generations would be more secure in their retirement.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just heard what the member opposite said and would like to correct her in many ways.

I have been consulting entrepreneurs across the nation. I have been consulting seniors in my own riding and across this nation. I have been speaking and listening to seniors for at least five to six years. This is not what they are telling us.

There is a misconception or misinformation. The Liberal government is trying to say it is good for seniors. No, not a single senior would benefit from the CPP hike.

Then there are the young people. I have talked to and listened to young workers. They do not want this because, after 40 years, they want their own money so they can decide where to put it for the best investment.

The Liberals are not doing anything good for seniors, they are not doing anything for the youth, and they are killing jobs.

My question is, how can you treat our small business people like that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the member to address the Chair and not use the word “you”. It will save a lot of headaches.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, while seniors may not immediately benefit from this enhanced CPP, I will say that when I talk to seniors, they care about their grandkids, their children, and the future of their families. They love to hear about the Canada child benefit and that we are enhancing the Canada pension plan for their kids. They want their kids to be secure in their future retirements. It gives them great comfort to know that. Therefore, I know they see this as very positive.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Davenport, whom I think made very persuasive arguments for this bill. She also said something very important in her response to the member for Richmond Centre, which I think is true, that seniors do care very much about the future of their families and that this is about guaranteeing security for everyone going forward.

That said, why have the Liberals been so tone deaf to the mistake in this bill to penalize women who drop out of the workforce to provide child care, or people with disabilities? How can we move forward with this without making sure that those provisions, which were in the original CPP, are maintained in this expansion?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, in general, the changes to the CPP would be beneficial to all Canadians, women and men.

If there are additional enhancements that need to be made, I know there are ongoing discussions between the Minister of Finance and his provincial counterparts. I do not think this is going to be the last of any supports or changes that might be made to our pension system. I am sure we will continue to fill in any perceived gaps and make enhancements as we move forward.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have asked this question of other Liberal members before and I do not know if I have had an answer to it, so I will ask the member as well.

She spoke specifically about youth. One of the advantages of private savings over public savings is that it allows people to invest, spend that money on interim projects, and then leverage those investments for the future. For example, I could put money aside now, then use it for post-secondary education, and realize the value of that for a home or small business. The disadvantage of government-controlled savings is that people cannot invest in interim projects. Their money is taken away from them and held by the government until they retire.

Is that not one of the many obvious disadvantages, especially for youth who are trying to save for more than just their retirements but also many other, different things along the way? Is that not a disadvantage of the government's approach? Would we not be better off creating private savings vehicles that Conservatives have advocated as an alternative to this expansion?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important to have a balance of different approaches that would help youth save for their future. It is good for them to have private vehicles to invest in for their retirement, but it is also extraordinarily beneficial and absolutely necessary for government to help youth, middle-aged Canadians, and older Canadians to save for their retirements.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 69. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #157

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 69 defeated.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that, the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #158

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6:35 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.