Debates of Nov. 28th, 2016

[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, NDP, 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 installments.

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 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, NDP, 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 and 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 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?