Finance Committee on June 8th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

Go ahead, Ms. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think this is such a critically important subamendment. I remember when I was first entering the job market and talking—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I apologize, Ms. Goodridge.

Please don't crinkle your snacks near the microphone. If you are going to eat snacks out of a package, please do it away from the table. Thank you very much. It's for the interpreters.

Ms. Goodridge, you can continue.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have snacks, so I appreciate that.

When I was first entering the job market, I remember having many conversations with my dad specifically about what the world looked like and how things have changed. My dad used to talk about inflation all the time. That was really important to him. He often used to take us to the store and say, “When I was a kid, what you know as a five-cent candy was a one-cent candy, and for what you guys know as a one-cent candy, we could get five of them for that.” Part of why he stressed this was that the generations did not experience things in the same way. It is incumbent on us as legislators to acknowledge that reality and to look at it.

My dad bought his first home in Fort McMurray for well under $100,000. He had a fair salary, so he could afford to have a good life and raise a family. Many of my friends had one parent who worked and that was doable. I was looking to buy a house when I graduated from university. At the time, when I went to buy my first house in Fort McMurray, had I wanted to buy the same house as my dad's, it would have been over $600,000. That was for the exact same 1,100 square foot starter home.

The reason I—

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

You have the floor, Mr. Lavoie.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I simply want to remind the honourable member who just joined us—and I'm glad to have her with us—that she has to keep her comments to the amendment. I'm not suggesting that her family isn't interesting. I have no doubt we could discuss her family and her first homebuying experience all evening long, but it would be nice if she could stick to the amendment instead.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lavoie.

Mr. Lawrence, has the floor on the same point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Sorry, but there's no interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

All right.

Is it working now?

Great.

Would you like him to repeat that point of order for you?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I wouldn't mind.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I was telling the honourable member who just joined us to get back to the subject at hand, the amendment. I'm not suggesting that her family and her life aren't interesting. I think they are, but not right now, when we're discussing the amendment. For our purposes, she should return to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lavoie.

Ms. Goodridge, as a reminder, we're on subamendment four of CPC-13. If you can stick to that particular subamendment, that would be appreciated.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Well, part of the reason I'm bringing this up is to show some of the differences in the different generational pieces. It's incredibly important to do that when we're having these conversations about why these amendments and subamendments are important and why we're bringing them forward. It is precisely because there are massive shifts and changes between different generations. Frankly, if we're not looking at what has gone wrong in the past and are just going to continue on, any changes to the CPP will have a lasting impact on the future of Canadians.

As we currently see, with any change to the CPP.... Our inboxes are not typically filled by 18-year-olds who are just entering the workforce; they're filled by people who are either at retirement or about to retire. The reason I brought that up is to highlight that in the same little community for the same house, the change is remarkable. As legislators, if we're not going to acknowledge that this exists and acknowledge that we should probably look at what it means and how the changes we're proposing are going to have an impact, then we're failing. We're not just failing as legislators today; we're failing the generations to come.

I know the Liberals are quick to point out if something is deviating from the subamendment, but the reality is that I don't think they're listening. I don't think they're listening to Canadians who are concerned about what any of these changes to the CPP are about. I don't think they're listening to the fact that these changes could have very different impacts on different generations and different pieces. I don't understand why they wouldn't want to have some kind of mandatory review. This is being done in peer jurisdictions. This is quite normal. This is just good math. It's good actuarial science. If we're not looking at some of these pieces, how are we going to be making the best long-term financial decisions?

Any changes to the CPP matter deeply to Canadians. For a lot of Canadians, this is their one and only retirement plan. If we're going to say that having mandatory reports isn't required because it's too much work and if they want to just keep it under the guise of darkness, I don't think that's going to fly very well with Canadians. That's why Conservatives are fighting for this, and it is why Conservatives will continue fighting for this.

Frankly, I don't understand. If the Liberals have a concern about this, why won't they put their hands up and speak to why they think this is a bad subamendment? They seem to have all kinds of different opinions on whether what we're saying is in line with what they want to hear, but we haven't heard them speak to this. I think that's incredibly important.

The reality is that Canadians deserve to have the assurance that this plan will serve them as well as it served my dad's generation, my grandparents' generation and the generations before that. People are paying into this plan, thinking it is going to provide them with something. With the cost of living going up as it is and with inflation being at an ever-increasing rate, the reality right now is that being on a fixed income is incredibly difficult, especially for the single seniors out there who do not have the same tax benefits and the same space as senior couples. There are so many differences.

I sit on the status of women committee, and we've heard a lot about the differences in the tax system between a single senior and a couple. That has a material impact on this. If we're not willing to look at what the generational impacts are, then we're not actually taking into account the piece that matters. When we're solving a problem, we can solve the immediate problem that's in front of us, or we can look to try to solve a problem down the road. Generally speaking, the best solutions don't just work in the immediate; they work because they take into account all of the history of this.

Madam Chair, I think it is absolutely incumbent on us that we have these reports and that we look at what the generational piece is. I would welcome some commentary from the Liberals as to what their thoughts are on this particular subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Ms. Goodridge.

Mr. Ho.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you for lending me the chair, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I did not lend you the chair.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I'm sorry. I meant for lending me the floor, Madam Chair.

Let's talk about the CPP today. The CPP is a very dynamic organization, which I've had the pleasure of studying quite a lot at school.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I think we are here to talk not about the CPP but about the amendment or the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Leitão.

Mr. Ho, stick to the subamendment, please.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you.

In response to that point of order, we were talking about the operation of the CPP before I was rudely interrupted. We are quite literally talking about the CPP today. The amendment, the subamendment and the subamendment to that are all related to the CPP, so I don't know why it would be off topic.

I have had the pleasure of studying this very dynamic organization throughout my career. This subamendment is very important. It comes down to one thing. It comes down to transparency, which is a word that doesn't seem to exist in the vocabulary of Liberals. We've seen time and time again that they do the opposite of that.

It asks the government to show Canadians.... The CPP, of course, is at arm's length from the government. The money does not belong to the government, as much as some Liberal insiders believe that the money belongs to the government. They believe you can tell it what it can invest in, maybe force it to invest in some politically-sensitive, insider-backed investments. It shouldn't be. It should be independent. It has been independent.

It's not about slogans. It's not about press releases. This is about transparency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Ho, I remind you to stay focused on the subamendment.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I appreciate the feedback on that, Madam Chair.

The amendment here is talking about a report. It's about transparency. My argument is to submit that these transparency measures are important; it's about who's going to benefit from these transparency measures.

It's not a rehashing of existing information that could be readily available. This is about disclosing additional information. Again, this is information that the CPP should have and collect already. It's just presenting it so that each generation can see the impact of the fund, the solvency of the fund and its viability moving forward.

This is in the backdrop of today's Liberal recession. Graduates now are graduating school this year, in 2026, into a recession, much like in other recessions. This is a made-by-Liberals recession. It's not as though it's a global financial crisis, where every country is impacted and governments are struggling to get a handle on it and provide relief to families, workers and businesses. We are living in a recession that is a made-by-Liberals, made-in-Ottawa recession, because we're the only country in the G20 in a recession. It's more important than ever—

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Can we get back to the subamendment, please? We are talking about recessions and the G20—