Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member. This grouping contains a Conservative motion as well as his amendments.
I have the pleasure to propose an amendment to Bill C-2, based on the principle of equity for all Canadians.
As it stands, Bill C-2 freezes the basic annual exemption at the $3,500 level. I wonder on which planet the authors of this bill live, but they seem not to know the word “inflation” over there. It reminds me of the George Orwell novel 1984 . Whenever the characters in that book wanted to get rid of a reality, they would ban the use of the word depicting that reality.
However, we all know that this is not how things work in the real world. Everybody knows that it is not because Bill C-2 ignores inflation and its impact on low income workers that inflation will disappear.
Bill C-2 in its present form does not provide for a review of the basic exemption. How much do you think the $3,500 of today will be worth in 2017? In 2037?
In clear terms, workers who think they can manage with this exemption will gradually get smothered by inflation.
The government pretends that freezing the year's basic exemption at $3,500 accounts for as much as 1.4% of the premium decrease, but in fact such a case cannot be considered as a real premium decrease of 1.4% since they will end up paying a higher premium on higher income.
Is this what we call creative taxation?
The government should not have the power to change a fundamental and essential program such as the Canada pension plan without explaining to Canadians all the consequences of the changes.
However, that is exactly what it is doing because it does not explain the impact of this deindexation of the basic exemption and it does not specify which Canadians will be affected.
The freeze of the basic exemption in contributory earnings will have more impact on low wage earners, particularly women, students and residents of disadvantaged areas. I should say will have, again, more impact on these people. And I thought that the message sent to the government on June 2 by several regions had been received loud and clear!
The Progressive Conservative Party strongly believes in equity. If the growth of the plan is stronger than forecasted by the last actuarial report, we could have some room allowing us to restore indexation.
We believe that there should be a mechanism to allow for a review of the year's basic exemption. Bill C-2 already provides for a review of the plan every three years. What we propose is that the year's basic exemption be reviewed also in 2006.
If we manage a return on investment comparable to the return of private plans over the next ten years, it would not be necessary to freeze the basic exemption forever. This is the only way to have some equity in this bill. We should not forget that the people most affected by the freeze on the year's basic exemption are the young, women and the self-employed, 45 per cent of whom earn less than $20,000 per year.
In fact, young people are severely affected by the reform of the pension plan. In simple terms, they will pay much more than those before them and get back only a fraction of what those before them received and will be receiving. So much for intergenerational equity.
As for women, it is a secret for no one that their socio-economic profile is generally such that they will not be able to benefit from the plan as much as men. Does Bill C-2 contain anything that may help counteract this? No.
What this government chose to include for these women is a year's basic exemption, which will gradually be eaten up by inflation. The same goes for self-employed workers who, in addition, have to bear the burden of paying both the employee's and the employer's share of premiums. The same goes for people from depressed areas struggling with horrible and outrageous levels of unemployment. The same goes for all low income earners.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Bill C-2 for these people. There is nothing in here to ensure that Canadians are treated equitably, nor, for that matter, in the employment insurance program, the other major social security program, which once was the pride of Canadians.
Instead of compensating working taxpayers by reducing employment insurance premiums by a fair amount, which would help consolidate existing jobs and create many new ones, the government stubbornly insists on offering symbolic reductions and mini-reforms.
Naturally, observers agree that this is a step in the right direction. The problem is that, when I leave my riding, in New Brunswick, and head west toward Vancouver on the Trans-Canada highway, I am also going in the right direction, but I am very far from my destination. At the rate premiums are going down, I will not even make it to Regina by New Year's day.
To conclude, we, in the Progressive Conservative Party, believe in equity for all Canadians. Since this quest for equity is also one of our fellow Canadians' most serious concerns, it is essential that a mechanism be provided for in Bill C-2, that will allow the amount of the year's basic exemption to be reviewed on a yearly basis.
And because equity is a value shared by the members of this House, I encourage them all to vote in favour of this motion.