House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cpp.

Topics

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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?

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

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?

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

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?

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

November 28th, 2016 / 12:45 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

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?

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

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 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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP 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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Motions in amendmentCanada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

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?