Bill C-26 (Historical)

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

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

Canada Pension Plan

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, as hon. members know, a stronger Canada pension plan was a key part of the promise we made to Canadians when we promised to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.

On June 20 in Vancouver, we delivered. Canada's governments agreed to enhance the Canada pension plan to give Canadians a more generous public pension that will help them retire in dignity. I would like to think that we showed everyone just how well our country can work when our governments work together, even in the face of tough challenges. We worked through our differences, never wavering on our commitment to the people we serve. In doing so, we proved that collaboration around the federal-provincial-territorial tables can deliver results.

I would like to thank each and every one of my provincial and territorial counterparts for the hard work, diligence, foresight, and principled co-operation they displayed in reaching this historic agreement on behalf of Canadians.

Now that all nine CPP-participating provinces have fully confirmed their support for implementing the Vancouver agreement, we have the obligation to carefully consider the legislation before us today, which will help make this agreement a reality. We must do so with the full understanding of what is at stake: no less than the opportunity to provide future generations of Canadians with a more generous public pension in their retirement years.

A secure and dignified retirement is certainly a top priority for hard-working Canadians. We know that middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, and many of them are worried about not having saved enough by the time they retire.

The more time we spend knocking on doors, holding forums, and talking to people in the course of our work, the clearer that becomes. We also know that young Canadians in particular, few of whom can expect to have jobs that offer a workplace pension plan, find it challenging to save enough money for retirement.

Toronto high school students aired these concerns during an open forum with me earlier this month. Their concerns are legitimate. In-depth studies by the Department of Finance and provincial governments show that one-quarter of families approaching retirement, 1.1 million families, expect their standard of living to drop significantly in retirement.

Middle-class families without workplace pension plans are at higher risk of not saving enough for retirement. One-third of those families are at risk.

Canada's finance ministers agreed with this conclusion in working towards our agreed upon enhancement to the CPP. We have developed a carefully targeted approach, which is reflected in the legislation we have before us today. Taken together, it is a comprehensive package that will increase CPP benefits while striking an appropriate balance between short-term economic considerations and longer-term gains.

What does a stronger CPP mean for Canadians?

First and foremost, it means there will be more money from the CPP waiting for Canadians when they retire. This means that they will be able to focus on the things that matter, like spending time with their family rather than worrying about making ends meet.

Once fully in place, the CPP enhancement will increase the maximum CPP retirement benefit by about 50%. The current maximum benefit is $13,110. In today's dollar terms, the enhanced CPP represents an increase of nearly $7,000, to a maximum benefit of nearly $20,000.

The enhancement we agreed upon does two things to make this happen for contributors. First, it will increase the share of annual earnings received during retirement, from one-quarter to one-third. This means that an individual making $50,000 a year in today's dollars over their working life will receive about $16,000 per year in retirement, instead of roughly $12,000 today. Second, it will increase by 14% the maximum income range covered by the CPP so that those who earn more will receive more in retirement.

The positive impact of these changes will be significant. They will meaningfully reduce the share of families at risk of not saving enough for retirement, as well as the degree of under-saving. The Department of Finance has estimated that strengthening the CPP will reduce the share of families at risk of not having adequate retirement savings by about one-quarter, from 24% to 18%, when considering income from the three pillars of the retirement income system and savings from other financial and non-financial assets.

A stronger CPP is also the right tool at the right time to improve the retirement income security of younger workers. It is an opportunity for today's hard-working Canadians to give their children, their grandchildren, and future generations a more secure retirement.

The Department of Finance has concluded that retiring in comfort will be even more a challenge for these future generations. That is, in part, because they are expected to live longer than previous generations. Also, if current trends continue, younger Canadians will be less likely than previous generations to work in jobs with retirement benefits that are paid for by their employers, and if the current low interest rate environment persists, their savings may also grow more slowly than previous generations.

In the face of these challenges, our government decided to do what Canadians do best when faced with a problem: we worked together. We worked with the provinces and territories and agreed to strengthen the Canada pension plan so that there will be more money waiting for future generations of Canadians when they retire.

However, that is not all. The legislation we are debating today also includes enrichments to CPP disability and survivor benefits. For most Canadians, all of these increased CPP benefits will come from only a 1% increase in contribution rates.

We are making sure to give individuals and their employers plenty of time to adjust to the modest increase, making sure that it is small, gradual, and starting in 2019. For example, an individual with earnings of $54,900 will contribute about $6 more a month in 2019. By the end of the seven-year phase-in period, contributions for that individual would be about $43 more per month. Furthermore, because new employees' CPP contributions will be tax deductible, as opposed to being eligible for a tax credit, Canadians will not experience an increase in tax with registered retirement savings plan or employee pension plan contributions, which are deductible and are reduced in response to this increase in CPP contributions.

Today's legislation, as agreed upon with the provinces, will also ensure that low-income Canadians are not financially burdened as a result of the extra contributions. It will do so by enhancing the working income tax benefit to roughly offset incremental CPP contributions, leaving eligible low-income Canadians with little to no change in disposal income while still securing higher retirement income for them. Taken together, these tax measures will account for $970 million in federal fiscal support in 2021-22.

Under the circumstances, it is clear that an enhanced Canada pension plan will help all Canadians, which will in turn help Canada's economy as a whole. With higher retirement benefits flowing from an enhanced CPP, retirees will have more money to spend on things such as healthy food, transportation, and housing costs. The knock-on effect of that? New jobs and a stronger middle class.

As I noted earlier, the Department of Finance undertook extensive research on the impact of a strengthened CPP. This analysis included a rigorous study of the potential economic impacts of the various enhancement scenarios being discussed with the provinces.

Our research found that over the long term, greater CPP benefits will boost demand and increase savings overall. This will boost economic output and make more money available for investment. As a result, it is estimated that gross domestic product will increase by between 0.05% to 0.09% over the long term. Employment levels are also projected to be permanently higher, by about 0.03% to 0.06%, equivalent to about 6,000 to 11,000 jobs based on 2015 levels of employment.

We can see from all of these facts that a stronger CPP would be good for Canadians and good for the overall economy. This should come as no surprise, since the CPP is a good and solid program. For over 50 years, the CPP has been helping to ensure that all workers in Canada have a minimum level of financial security in retirement. The most recent statistics tell us that 5.2 million people in Canada received $37.3 billion in benefits from the CPP.

According to a report by the Conference Board of Canada, poverty rates among Canadian seniors have fallen by 25% over the past four decades, dropping from 36.9% in 1976 to 12.3% in 2010. The Conference Board of Canada concluded that this significant reduction can be largely attributed to the implementation of the CPP and, in Quebec, the QPP.

The CPP Investment Board is similarly well-regarded around the world for its impressive record of investment performance and management excellence. The CPPIB operates at arm's-length from governments, with a mandate to invest CPP funds in the best interests of plan members. It has been acclaimed by international bodies such as the World Bank as the model of an independent, transparent, and accountable public pension fund management organization.

As the manager of a large fund program with millions of contributors, the CPP Investment Board is able to take advantage of economies of scale to deliver strong net returns. Over the past 10 years, the CPPIB has delivered a 10-year average nominal rate of return of 6.8% on existing CPP assets. This is above the 6.1% nominal rate of return identified by the chief actuary of Canada as necessary to ensure the sustainability of the Canada Pension Plan.

With this rock solid investment structure as its foundation, the CPP provides a safe, secure, and predictable benefit, which means that Canadians can worry less about outliving their savings or having their savings impacted by significant market downturns. The recently released 27th actuarial report on the Canada pension plan concludes that the existing CPP is on a sustainable financial footing, at its current contribution rate of 9.9%, for at least the next 75 years.

Bill C-26 would make amendments to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to make the CPPIB the manager of the improved CPP. Now that Bill C-26 is before us for consideration in Parliament, the chief actuary will conduct an actuarial assessment of the enhancement to ensure that it is on a sustainable, long-term financial footing.

CPP benefits are also fully indexed to prices, which reduces the risk that inflation will gradually erode the purchasing power of retirement savings. As well, the CPP is a good fit for Canada's changing job market. It helps to fill the gap left by declining workplace pension coverage and it is portable across jobs and provinces, which promotes labour mobility and reflects how Canadians currently live, work, and retire. With the automatic collection of contributions for all workers, the CPP is a simple way to save for retirement. It also provides important income support through disability, death, survivor, children's, and post-retirement benefits for eligible contributors and their families.

By supporting today's legislation, parliamentarians will not only be boosting how much each Canadian will get from his or her CPP pension in the future, we will be making a great program even greater. With 75% of Canadians in support of a stronger CPP, members will be acting on one of the highest priorities of Canadians.

I am honoured to have been able to work with our provincial and territorial partners to make an enhanced Canada pension plan a reality for Canadians. I encourage my colleagues to share in this success by supporting Bill C-26.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for his informative speech, but I have a few questions for him. It is directed by conversations we have had with the CFIB and the president of the CFIB, Dan Kelly. I want to read a couple of his quotes. I know that prior to politics, the minister had dealings with investments, so I just want to ask him these things. I am going to read two quotes today. If the minister could respond, that would be fantastic.

The first quote is this:

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

That was from the president of the CFIB, Dan Kelly.

Second, he noted:

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

I wonder if the Minister of Finance could speak about these things, because I know that the CFIB was not at the table when the government was consulting small businesses, and small businesses are part of the middle class. In my community of Elgin—Middlesex—London, those small businesses are owned by the middle class.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to provide some background on both the process that led us to the conclusion that we should work together to enhance the Canada pension plan and the impact we expect it will have on Canadians and our economy.

First is the process. We were very clear with Canadians in our election platform that we wanted to work to enhance the Canada pension plan, because we recognized that so many Canadians were finding themselves with less of an opportunity for a pension down the road because of declining pension plan participation. That led us to present that to Canadians. We then presented that to our provincial counterparts and talked about that decision and got consensus that we all were seeing the same thing: a real challenge in future opportunities for Canadians to retire in dignity.

What we came up with was an approach that was very gradual but that would lead to significant impacts over the long term. The gradual nature of that approach, starting in 2019 and going out to 2025, means that for both individuals and businesses, there is an opportunity to move very gradually and have a modest impact.

More importantly, we then did research to show that, in fact, the long-term economic impact will be positive for the economy and positive for employment. That was the research that led us to say that this is the right thing to do.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the work he has done on this CPP bill. One of the things we heard from residents across Canada during the election was that they wanted enhancements to the CPP, and they needed something drastic to happen now. However, this does not actually do anything for anyone by maximizing it for the next 40 years. What are we doing about the current pensioners who are collecting CPP now or the people on the cusp of retiring in the next 10 years?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that, as he did. We spoke to many Canadians who were concerned about their retirement outcomes. That led us to do a number of things that we think are going to have a positive impact.

First and foremost, we recognize that many seniors who are single are living in difficult situations. We took that into account when we decided to increase the guaranteed income supplement by 10%, impacting those single seniors by up to $947 and having a very positive impact on outcomes for a challenged group.

Then we looked at how we could deal with the Canada pension plan in a way that recognized some key principles. We wanted to recognize that the impact of a change to pension plans is a long-term, secular one, with declining participation, so we should be thinking about this issue in a long-term way to ensure that we help people who are going to be in a more difficult situation in the future. That long-term approach will also enable us to fully fund this advantage, which we feel is fiscally responsible.

We recognize that it will help people who are in the workforce today to save enough for the future and to do it in a responsible way that helps us have a better economic outcome for the economy and a better outcome for them over the long term.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the death benefit is currently a maximum of around $2,500, which is hardly enough to pay for a funeral and wrap up the affairs of our most precious. I was wondering if the Minister of Finance could inform us about the negotiations that have been occurring on increasing the amount of the Canada death benefit, which was advocated by the Premier of Manitoba.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we had a very good discussion with the provinces as we came to the conclusion that we wanted to enhance the Canada pension plan. We had a number of issues brought up. As the member notes, the Province of Manitoba brought up the idea that we should consider other enhancements to the Canada pension plan. In response to that, together we agreed that as the provinces and the federal government, the participating members of the Canada pension plan, do on a triennial basis, we will this December look at potential changes to the Canada pension plan.

We are currently doing research on the impact of those prospective changes on individuals and on the fiscal impact, the financial costs. As we do that, we will bring that information forward to the provincial finance ministers in December and have a discussion about the merits of additional changes.

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

Madam Speaker, what concerns me most about the government is that on fiscal and economic policy affecting all Canadians, it says one thing one day and then takes a totally opposite view the next.

The Prime Minister opposed deficits, then it turned into a $10-billion deficit, and now we have a $30-billion deficit. The Minister of Finance is the same. Before he ran, when he was a pension executive in Toronto, he wrote a book called The Real Retirement that said that retirees were much better off than most experts were saying, but today he says that people cannot retire in dignity. In his book, he said that it makes little sense to incent early retirement, yet he then rolled back old age security modernization. Today he talks about this being the right time and says there will actually be job gains. That contradicts what his own department is saying, which is that there will be job losses as a result of these reforms.

On a morning when Bombardier has just announced 2,000 layoffs, amid an economic crisis in Alberta, the flight of capital, and the imposition of a carbon tax that will make manufacturing uncompetitive in Ontario, why is the government implementing yet another barrier to job creation in Canada?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer that question. I am pleased to hear that the hon. member has taken the time to not only purchase but to read my book, which is excellent. I would encourage him to read all the chapters in the book, because he will find that my co-author and I identified some significant challenges facing current Canadians, challenges around future rates of return, challenges around declining pension plan coverage, challenges that will make it more difficult for people to save for retirement over the long term. It was exactly those challenges that we considered as we moved forward to enhance the Canada pension plan, in a long-term, fiscally responsible way, to help Canadians save for retirement. That is exactly what we have done.

Again, I would encourage the hon. member to read the entire Department of Finance report. He would see that over the long term, what we show is that there will be economic advantages for our economy and growth in jobs. We are thinking about the long term as we work on behalf of Canadian families.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I would appreciate that book signed by you. I read your book, and I believe that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Please address your comments through the Chair.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we believe that with this CPP tax hike, Canadians are taking huge risks, and many risks. First, they do not know what they are getting themselves into or what the government is getting them into. They cannot tolerate the extra risk at this difficult economic time, and they do not know if the program is properly priced and accounted for. They also do not know if the returns are worth it.

Where is the guarantee to Canadians that taking this risk will work for them and will be something they will not regret down the road?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that it was resuming debate, so it was part of his speech, and therefore he is into his speech already.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

First, I would like to seek the consent of the House to share my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, apparently the government distrusts the ability of Canadians to plan for their own retirement. There is no other reason for this ill-conceived tax hike that the members opposite like to pretend is not a tax on Canadians.

When the Canada pension plan was first introduced in 1965, it was intended to assist those Canadians who were not already part of workplace pension plans. The government apparently felt that such a plan was necessary to assist Canadians in their retirement planning.

The world has changed since then, but the Liberals still believe that we are living in 1965. They still believe that it is the role of the government to tell people what they can do with their money. They still believe that Canadians are not capable of determining for themselves what they will need financially when they retire and of preparing for retirement on their own.

As a result, we have this bill, Bill C-26, which will take money from the pockets of hard-working Canadians who have been given no choice in the matter. The benefits of this tax hike, if any, and do not be fooled when they tell us that it is not a tax hike, by the way, will happen at some point in the far future. These changes do nothing to help today's seniors who may be struggling to make ends meet.

Why do I say that this is a tax hike when the government says it is not? As the cliché goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. If the government taxes money from us and gives nothing in return, that is a tax.

The Canada pension plan receives money from two sources: employers and employees. They make equal payments into the fund, but at the end, only one of them receives a pension from those payments, and that is employees. For the employer, CPP is just one of many costs of doing business. The government, with these changes, is increasing the tax load on employers while pretending that it is not a tax.

I was a small businessman before the people of Edmonton Manning gave me their trust as their representative in Ottawa. I know what it means to be an employer and to have to pay my employees. I know first hand how much government red tape is involved in running a business. Liberals can call this increase in CPP whatever they like, but business owners know the truth. This is a tax grab. The Liberals can put all the lipstick on this pig they like, but at the end of the day, they are telling business owners to pay more money, with absolutely nothing in return.

The return for the country is something different. When business owners are faced with an increase in costs, adjustments have to be made somewhere else. The government is mandating this increase in taxes, for nebulous benefits at some point in the future, but business owners have to deal with this tax now. As I see it, they are faced with two choices in this situation. With this increase in costs imposed on them by the government, they will have to find other areas to cut back. One way would be to freeze or even cut wages so that the employers' tax burden does not increase. How this helps employees I do not know.

The alternative is that they will freeze hiring or even lay off employees. Personnel costs are a big part of doing business, and it does not make sense that the government would increase this burden on business owners. This extra tax is putting thousands of Canadian jobs at risk.

In 2015, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business looked at a similar CPP hike scenario. They found that it would eliminate 110,000 jobs and permanently lower wages by nearly 1%. It is not alone in predicting the negative consequence of an increase in CPP premiums. The Fraser Institute found that a 1% point increase in the CPP contribution rate reduces private savings by 0.9 points. That does not provide much benefit.

What does this tax mean for working Canadians? The government tells us that we should be happy, that there will be more money for us when we retire.

It assumes that Canadians are not using savings vehicles, such as the registered retirement savings plan or the tax-free savings account. That is perhaps why the Liberals reduced the TFSA contribution levels set by the previous Conservative government.

When these changes are introduced, Canadians will take home less pay every week. The government wants us to think that it is not much, that we will never notice it, but every penny less in a person's pocket makes a difference to that person.

What would the effects of this tax be as people see their pay reduced? With less money coming in, it would take that much longer for new graduates to pay off their student loans. That, in turn, would delay their ability to buy their first house. That would have an impact on the economy that perhaps the government has not thought enough about. Conservatives want to encourage Canadians to save, but by reducing their pay, we would take the opportunity away from them.

Through this tax increase, Liberals are saying they do not trust Canadians to be smart enough in how they spend their own money, so they will do it for them. Canadians have already shown that they know how to handle their own money. They do not need the government to do it for them.

We already have a retirement system that is the envy of the world. Canadians are saving more today for retirement than ever before, without this tax grab. Poverty among seniors has dropped significantly in recent years. According to Statistics Canada, the share of Canadian seniors living on low income has dropped from 29% in 1970, when the CPP was in its infancy, to 3.7% today. It is among the lowest in the world. Conservatives believe that Canadians should be able to manage their own money. It is not the role of government to do so.

Furthermore, Liberal promises on financial matters are somewhat suspect. It was only a year ago that the Prime Minister was promising to hold the budget deficit at $10 billion. We all know how quickly that promise was broken. How can the government expect Canadians to believe anything it says about CPP benefits in 2050? If the government were truly serious about helping Canadians to save for their retirement, it would reinstate the TFSA contribution levels set by the Conservative government. Treat Canadians like adults and let them choose how to save for their retirement.

It appears as if the government has decided that the CPP should be the only method of retirement savings that Canadians use, but that was never the intention. In 1964, the Liberal minister responsible for introducing the Canada pension plan said that CPP “is not intended to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government’s view, should properly be left to personal savings and private pension plans." That was a good idea then, and it is a good idea now. It is time for the government to show Canadians the respect they deserve. For the good of Canada, it should abandon this bill.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a big issue in Oakville. I knocked on doors, met with people in Oakville, and heard many concerns raised about whether people will have sufficient funds to retire on. I heard about trouble with savings due to some of the low-quality, poorer jobs that people are experiencing right now across Canada. I also heard a concern about private plans moving to defined contribution and the risk of investment, and the individual discipline to put the money into retirement instead of with the plan.

Can the member reflect on the benefits of a defined benefit plan versus the defined contribution, which is a significant advantage of the Canada pension plan?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, if we are going to call this a business case, a lot of risks are being taken. Those risks are not the choice of Canadians but would be imposed by the government on the Canadian people. It is very hard to measure when there are really no benchmarks.

A lot of what the minister said earlier did not make sense. Is he calling growth artificial inflation, in terms of making more money by taxing people and considering that growth? Canadians are taking a lot of risks. If this is a business case, it is a failure. We have to look at it very carefully, consult more, and allow Canadians to have more input, so it can be safe and sound and work for Canadians.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, what has happened is that there is a pension gap and a crisis of Canadians being able to save less for their retirement, which was worsened considerably under the Stephen Harper government.

Can my colleague explain to this House what lessons his party has learned from these failures?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon. member is talking about failures.

When we introduced the TFSA, that was a pleasure for every Canadian. We have heard that from Canadians. We have done lots in that fashion to make sure that Canadians save more and are more secure.

I am not sure what the member is referring to as failures.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was alarmed to see that Finance Canada did an analysis of this proposed CPP premium increase that said it will hurt the economy. It will reduce jobs, reduce GDP, reduce business investment, reduce disposable income, and reduce private savings.

With all of these negative impacts that are going to happen over the next eight years and no benefit for anybody for 40 years, I wonder if the member could comment on what he thinks about this plan.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a wonderful question.

As I said, the additional risks that Canadians are taking in this fashion are that they do not know the result, and they do not know the outcome of this risk that is being taken.

As for the future, I do not think anyone will be around. I hope everyone in this room will live for over 100 years, but I do not think anyone will be around to see if this is going to work. That is why the government is doing what is it doing. That is a very unfortunate method of doing politics in Canada.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Hon. member, I would invite you to come to my riding and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Members need to direct questions through the Chair.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to come to my riding to meet some seniors who are suffering today from a lack of savings and the pension plan that they have.

Given the precarious nature of employment today amongst our youth, and the massive increase in the cost of housing, my own son has been working two and three part-time jobs to try to get by. This is not a tax. It is an investment in future generations of Canadians that will allow them to live better than our seniors are living today.

Does the member deny that these facts exist? Is he completely out of touch with reality?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, as a member, I also represent people. I have seniors in my area.

I am a businessman, and this does not make any sense for any businessman. It is a tax on businesses. It is a tax on Canadians. Let Canadians save for themselves instead of taking this money away from them without their consent and without their knowing what risks they are taking.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak here today. I thank the members for allowing my colleague to share his time time with me. My colleague gave an excellent speech outlining our position on Bill C-26, introduced by the Minister of Finance.

Seniors today should be worried about what the Minister of Finance said in the House earlier this morning in his speech on Bill C-26. He claimed that they were very clear during their election campaign that they wanted to enhance the CPP. Now that we have seen the Liberals in action for a year, can we really take that kind of statement at face value? Definitely not.

Besides, what are seniors and Canadians in general supposed to think when a party says, during an election campaign, that it is going to enhance the CPP? What does this mean for the seniors in the riding of my colleague from Oakville, who said himself that people in his riding have lower incomes and there are needs to be met? They thought they would benefit right away if they voted for that party.

When people are promised an enhanced pension plan, they expect that promise to be kept sooner rather than later. They expect the government to get to work on it immediately, even if it does not make sense. They expect the party in question to keep its promises. CPP expansion will begin to be implemented in 2019 and be fully phased in by 2025.

When we talk about a long-term strategy, as the Minister of Finance did this morning, we have to put ourselves in seniors' shoes. “Long term” does not mean the same thing for someone who is 75 that it does for someone who is 50. Who are the seniors, who were misled by this government, that are really going to benefit from the CPP expansion? That is what we have to ask ourselves. The scary thing is what the Liberal government is not saying. What they are saying is nothing to worry about because they cannot be believed anyway, but what they are not saying is even scarier.

If during the last election campaign the Liberals had told seniors they were going to improve their pension plan in seven or eight years, not a single senior in my riding would have voted for them. In my riding, the average income is not very high. We have gone through some serious crises in the Thetford Mines region, including the asbestos crisis. Incomes are not very high, the miners do not have a lot of money, and out of the blue they are told that their pension plan is going to go up. Who would not want a better income, especially those who make lower wages?

Unfortunately, that is not what the Liberals intend to do. What is more, they are going to increase taxes for the these people who have limited means, stripping them of their benefits. The government raised taxes right away, and these people will be the first victims of the arrogance of the Liberals, who make all sorts of promises they may well never deliver on. I hope that we will be back in 2019 to clean up their mess. If they are allowed to continue for another four years, it will be terrible and there will be no turning back.

It is important to stick to the facts. The government has been in power one year. It is against that backdrop that they introduced Bill C-26 today. The government broke its promise to have a modest deficit and is borrowing three times the amount that it said it would. Last week, TD Bank reported that the deficit could reach $34 billion because of the economic situation.

What exactly is the economic situation? They promised to create jobs; they did not. They did not even keep their promise to improve the lives of Canadians, because the best way to do that is to give them jobs.

That is the reality. Obviously, I am concerned about the announcement that the Minister of Finance made this morning, but what is even more worrisome is that our Prime Minister is not at all concerned. There is no problem. Yes, perhaps the deficit will be $34 billion because the economic conditions are not good. Yes, the rate of growth is lower than expected and that is not good, but it is not a problem. Canadians will pay for it later.

Will there be any money left in the coffers to pay for the promises that the government made to seniors in Bill C-26? The government does not have an answer to that question because it has been improvising on everything from the start.

The government broke its promise to reduce small business tax rates. What will be directly affected by Bill C-26? Small businesses, which will also have to increase their CPP contributions. The government is promising to help businesses and create jobs, but the reality is once again a different story. The government wants to promise the best of everything; it does not talk about the worst, but imposes the worst anyway. That is the reality of the Liberal government.

Today, I can say, without question, that the Liberal government has betrayed seniors with the false promise that it would immediately improve their lives. That is the reality. When the government promises people who are 75 or 80 years old that it is going to increase their pension benefits, those people do not expect to have to wait until they are 87 for that to happen.

I heard my colleagues opposite telling us that this is going to help low-income seniors. Wrong. The increased benefits will help those with higher incomes. Those with low incomes will not benefit at all from these changes to the Canada pension plan. That is something else that is being left unsaid by the Liberal government.

We will have to learn to always read between the lines of what the Liberals are saying. Unfortunately, that is what Canadians will be learning the hard way in the coming weeks and months.

Still, people can take comfort in knowing that we are here. Our new finance critic, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent will keep a very close eye on this government, which has no qualms about imposing new taxes on the middle class and businesses. It has no problem letting the deficit grow ever larger so it can achieve its objectives. The worst part is that it does not seem too worried about it.

Higher CPP benefits mean more money coming out of hard-working Canadians' paycheques. Maybe it will help them someday when they retire, but the way things are going now, we should all be leery of the Liberal government's grand promises. As a matter of fact, I have no faith in their projections, which are not even valid for a week, let alone until 2025. Something is going to happen. The Liberals will change things, tweak things. Why? Because they messed up the math. Their projections are inaccurate, and they will not be able to keep their promises.

What really worries me is what the Liberals are going to do if they do not have the money. I would not be surprised if they use that tried and true Liberal tactic: instead of a small increase, there will be a big increase, and it will cost all of us a lot more, and poor people will still have no more than they did before.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to save for the future, as they say. Think of the ant and the grasshopper. Some things never change.

I have looked at pension contribution rates all over the world.

I was just looking at an OECD report from 2013. In fact, Canada has some of the lowest contribution rates in the world. If we look at Austria in 2012, it is around 22.8%. Estonia is 22.8% as well. In France, it is 16.7%, and even the United States had a contribution rate in 2012 of 10.4%. Mexico, really our only competitor in North America, has no contribution rate and essentially no pension plan or protection for their workers.

I really believe that we have to help our citizens save for the future, and that is one principle that I think people who are old and young can get behind. There is an old proverb, in fact, which is to look to the future; believe in the present but also have the foresight to look to the future. It is also in the Bible, with Joseph and the pharaoh saving for those lean times.

Therefore, I hope the member can realize that, in fact, what we are trying to do is to make a better future for all Canadians, thinking very long term, for seven generations.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague correctly, what he is saying is, “give me your money, because I know better than you”. My way of thinking is the exact opposite. Leave my money alone, because I know best how to make it work for me, as I see fit. I especially do not want to give any more money to the Liberals, because I am very worried about what they have been doing with our money over the past year.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made reference to many people not being able to save, or that many people are being insulted because we are telling them how to save.

When the Conservatives were in power, they had time to make adjustments to the Canada pension plan, because people were falling into that gap. Therefore, if they felt that the Canada pension plan was not the answer, why did they not eliminate it and replace it with something else?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, we worked hard on the guaranteed income supplement, which helped Canadians who really needed it. If fact, I would like to congratulate the Liberals, who also decided to increase guaranteed income supplement benefits in the last budget. It was a much-needed measure for single seniors in need. The Conservatives have always cared about the well-being of all Canadians, including the young, those of working age, and seniors alike.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government is making a number of policy choices that are intersecting and will create a huge issue for our young adults in Canada.

First of all, on the Liberals' decision around housing, millennials will now have to save more to have a down payment for a house. They are also going to have an increase in terms of their CPP. They will have to pay the cost of a carbon tax on fuel. Then they're going to have a debt to pay off in 20 years that is going to be astronomical.

I would ask my colleague what the impact to our millennials and our young adults in this country is going to be in terms of this intersection of policy choices.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know. The deficit left by the Liberals for the next generation is going to be so huge that I am deeply concerned about the future of my children and all young Canadians. We know that interest rates will go up one day, and that is when the debt will have to be paid off. The bill left behind will be a hefty one, and it will cost Canadians thousands of jobs.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise today to talk about a bill that I think should receive overwhelming support from all members of this House, even though I realize that at least—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Excuse me. I believe I made an error. I am sorry. It was dark, and I did not see who the next speaker was, aside from the hon. member. He will get a second chance.

I would like to recognize the member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today 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. Bill C-26 would amend the Canada Pension Plan Act to incorporate the recent agreement reached between the provinces to enhance CPP benefits.

While better was possible, and the full effect of the changes will not be felt for another 49 years, this CPP expansion is an important first step in improving retirement security for young Canadians, and we congratulate everyone, especially labour, who worked so hard to lay the groundwork for this agreement.

We must now see immediate action to help those seniors and Canadians on the cusp of retirement who will not benefit from these changes. Government must build on the momentum of this agreement and take steps to improve long-term retirement security for today's workers.

Retirement insecurity is reaching a crisis level in Canada, as many Canadians do not have adequate savings to maintain their lifestyle upon retirement. A large part of this problem is fuelled by the erosion of workplace pension plans, to the point that six in 10 working Canadians have no workplace pension.

During election 2015, the Liberals promised to enhance the CPP. Once elected, the Minister of Finance was directed in his mandate letter to:

Meet with your provincial and territorial colleagues at your earliest opportunity to begin a process to enhance the Canada Pension Plan to provide more income security to Canadians when they retire.

The Minister of Finance met with his provincial and territorial counterparts in June 2016 and on June 20 announced an agreement in principle on CPP enhancements.

On October 4, 2016, British Columbia was the final province, besides Quebec, to officially endorse this agreement. Bill C-26 was introduced on October 6. Quebec did not sign the agreement but promised to apply some of the changes to the Quebec pension plan, which is similar to the CPP but is managed independently.

The NDP will support the bill at this time, but we feel that the bill does not live up to the expectations Canadians had for CPP reform.

Changes to the plan have been a long time in the making. The last time the CPP was altered was in 1997, although those changes were largely administrative. The most significant change in the 1997 amendments was to move the plan from a pay-as-you-go system to fully funded. This change was done to help protect the financial viability of the plan, and a recent report by the Chief Actuary of Canada shows a healthy fund that will be solvent for at least the next 75 years.

However, during a time when workplace pensions cover fewer and fewer Canadians, when Canadians have been finding it harder and harder to put away money for retirement, and when the rates of seniors living in poverty have steadily increased, there have been no increases in benefits under the Canada pension plan.

Many Canadians held out great hope that the government would make substantial changes to the CPP. Sadly, as with many Liberal promises, we are offered a loaf of bread but receive only half a loaf.

Ken Neumann, national director of the Canadian Steelworkers, summed it up very well when he said that the Liberal government's plan for a modest CPP expansion falls well short of the doubling of CPP benefits advocated for by the United Steelworkers and the Canadian labour movement. The USW is nonetheless pleased that the provinces and the federal government have agreed to a universal expansion of the CPP that will help all workers, and it will continue to push for full doubling of CPP benefits.

New Democrats, along with many in the labour movement and groups working for the rights of seniors and retirees, have long advocated that benefits be increased from replacing 25% of a worker's pre-retirement income to 50% of pre-retirement income, but no, this legislation has offered up a very modest increase, from 25% to 33% of pre-retirement income.

Although we like to see an increase, we feel that the amount is wholly inadequate, especially in terms of ensuring that our seniors do not have to live in poverty and can retire with the dignity and quality of life they deserve.

While many would be happy to finally see some changes to the plan and some increases in benefits, there are many who will be very unhappy. Those are the people who will see very little or no benefit from the changes presented in this bill.

More and more, I am hearing a lot of confusion and misunderstanding concerning who would benefit from the changes being proposed. A recent Ipsos poll found that over 25% of those who are already retired believe they would see bigger CPP cheques as a result of the deal, and more than 70% of Canadians do not realize that current retirees get nothing from this CPP expansion. These findings are totally consistent with what I have been hearing. Many retirees in my riding have asked me when they will be receiving their increased benefits. I have to break the bad news to them that this new legislation will do nothing for current or soon-to-be retirees.

The enhanced expanded CPP is a plan that would benefit a new generation of workers entering the workforce, but does little to alleviate the retirement income crisis for those approaching retirement. Those who would be the first to benefit from the fully enhanced benefits under this plan are now 16 years old. It will take 49 years for this plan to fully kick in. After the increase in premiums are fully phased in, in 2025, a person would have to pay the increased premiums for 40 more years to be fully eligible for the new maximum benefits. Increased benefits will be prorated for those 40 years as people pay the increased premium, but any significant increase for retirees is years away.

Let me take some time to talk a bit more about the specifics of the plan. Currently, the CPP covers earnings up to a cap of $54,900. For earnings up to the cap, the CPP aims to replace about 25% of that income. The maximum pension comes in at about $1,092 a month, or $13,100 per year. Contributions are 4.9% each for the employer and employee, up to the same cap.

The expanded CPP is a new separate tier. This new tier is added on top of the existing CPP. The new CPP tier does two things, phased in over the next nine years to 2025. First, it takes the replacement rate of up to 33.3% from the current 25%; and, second, it expands the upper earnings cap from today's $54,900 up to $82,700.

When the plan is fully phased in, in 2065, a worker who earns $54,900 would receive a maximum annual pension of about $18,117 by the time he or she retires. For a worker at an $82,700 income level, CPP benefits would rise to a maximum of $20,352 a year. Once the phase-in period is reached in 2025, it would take 40 years for a person to receive the fully enhanced benefit. Therefore, the first worker who will be eligible for full benefits is currently 16 years old. A person who is 59 in 2019, pays six years of the enhanced premiums, and retires in 2025 at the age of 65, would receive no additional benefit, or maybe a dollar or two.

It is important to note that much of the discussion about pension benefits relates to maximum benefits, yet only 11.4% will actually receive the maximum CPP benefits. The average benefit announced as of July 2016 was $550. In order to pay for the increase in benefits, contributions from employees and employers will increase. This increase would be phased in between 2019 and 2025. There will be two tiers to the increase. Between 2019 and 2025, those earnings which are less than the yearly pensionable maximum earnings, currently $54,900, would see their premiums slowly rise to an additional 1%. Those workers and employers would then be paying at a rate of 5.9%, up from 4.9%. In real numbers, this means that a person whose rate is set at the maximum would pay an additional $43 per month, as would his or her employer.

The second tier increase would be phased in over two years, starting in 2024. For anyone earning above the yearly pensionable maximum, theirs and their employer's contributions will rise by 4% above the current.

I know this is all very confusing, and it is going to take some time for Canadians to understand the complexities.

The bill also would make some changes to the Income Tax Act, which is supposed to help minimize the impact of the premium increases on Canadians. The CPP premiums that a worker currently pays are treated as a tax credit. An individual is able to claim a percentage of premiums paid as a non-refundable tax, which is then deducted from total federal tax payable. This would not change. These contributions would now be considered as base contributions but will still be treated the same for income tax purposes.

The increased benefits that a worker would be paying in 2019 and thereafter will be considered as additional contributions and will be treated differently for tax purposes. A worker will be able to deduct the amount of the additional contribution directly off their taxable income instead of applying for it as a credit.

The government has also included changes to the Income Tax Act in the bill that would increase the working tax benefit by 14%. The intention is to minimize the impact of increased CPP premiums on low income workers. Employers would be able to write off the increases on the CPP as a business expense, as they do now with the base contributions.

Now I would like to talk briefly about Canada's retirement income system, which is based on three pillars. These pillars are also supposed to interact or work together and are intended to enable seniors to maintain a reasonable standard of living in retirement. The first pillar includes standardized and universal public benefits, such as old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

The second pillar includes mandatory public workplace coverage, the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. Almost all working Canadians over the age of 18, earning more than the minimum amount of $3,500 per year, must pay into this. It is mandatory for employees and employers, as deemed by legislation. Contributions are split evenly between the employee and the employer, or borne fully by someone who is self-employed. The amount depends on a person's income.

The third pillar consists of an employer or a union-sponsored plan, known as the registered retirement plan. They are registered with the Canadian Revenue Agency and one of the pension's regulatory authorities, because they are subject to government support in the form of special tax measures and regulatory oversight. This pillar also includes registered retirement savings plans and other personal savings.

The problem for today's seniors is that these pillars are falling behind in terms of enabling seniors to maintain an adequate standard of living. Dramatic increases in the costs of things like electricity and housing are causing great strain on seniors' fixed incomes. Failing to take action now will have a great social cost, forcing many seniors into poverty. The number of seniors being forced to use food banks will rise dramatically.

Studies point to a looming crisis in the retirement income security of Canadians. A recent study by Richard Shillington, done for the Broadbent Institute, shows a large percentage of older working Canadians are heading into retirement without adequate savings to keep them out of poverty. The report goes on to say that half of Canadian couples between 55 and 64 have no employer pension plan between them. Of those, less than 20% of middle-income families have saved enough to adequately supplement government benefits and the Canada or Quebec pension plan. Income trends suggest that the percentage of Canadian seniors living in poverty will increase in the coming years, especially for single women who already face a higher than average rate. The poverty rate for seniors will climb at the same time as a sharply rising number of Canadians hit retirement in the next two decades. More than 20% of the population will be older than 65 within 10 years.

When releasing the report for the Broadbent Institute, Rick Smith, executive director said, “This new data on retirement savings and gaps in support makes one thing perfectly clear - we have a retirement income crisis on our hands that requires requires urgent government action now..”.

Increases in the guaranteed income supplement and these eventual increases in CPP benefits will certainly help, but much more needs to be done to help our seniors live with the dignity they deserve.

The high cost of housing and drugs, the clawback of the GIS, and the indexing of pensions are just a few immediate issues. The government needs to keep its promise to introduce a new seniors price index to make sure that the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement keep up with rising costs.

The NDP will fight for further increases to the GIS and the OAS, a national pharmacare program, and, as well, programs to enhance home care and palliative care. Much work needs to be done to ensure that workers can retire with adequate incomes and access to the services they need to meet their quality of life.

The NDP will continue to work with our labour allies, and others, to improve the lives of Canadian seniors and retirees.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the support coming forward for Bill C-26. I think, in good part, the New Democrats are recognizing something which we have recognized in many ways—and which I hope to be able to talk about it—and that is the issue of how we can assist seniors, whether it is from getting out of poverty or being able to continue to be a part of Canada's middle class, and those aspiring to become a part of the middle class. One of the ways that we can deal with that is through the CPP.

I wonder if the member would comment in terms of the process of trying to achieve an agreement with the different provinces and Ottawa. It is not a simple one. That is why many would argue it is somewhat historical to achieve this agreement, which will ultimately see seniors receiving more money as a direct result. Would the member provide his thoughts or his understanding, in terms of what needs to take place in order to get the bill to this level at this point in time?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe we all have to go Canada-wide and have consultations with the public. I believe that this is an important matter.

If what is going to happen is not addressed, with not only our retirees going into the future, but those who will be coming forward in the next 10 or 15 years, we are going to be in a crisis. Social costs will increase dramatically. This will be downloaded to the provinces, and from the provinces to the municipalities. We all have to work together to show the importance.

As I said before, I do not think this goes far enough. It has to go further. However, I know there are issues with respect to the actual costs of this program. It is very delicate. We have to make sure we do this in a manner that everybody can agree with it.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the new generation of people joining the workforce is very attuned to self-funding their pension funds and their future.

It was mentioned earlier that our government did nothing for workers, but we did have the tax-free savings account. I wonder if the member could tell me if he thinks a person working for 40 years, having to possibly pay an additional $2,200 a year during that period, would be better off taking that $2,200 a year and putting it into a tax-free savings account, versus being forced to pay that through a pension plan? When they receive it later on in life, they are going to be paying taxes on the CPP, but they are not going to be paying taxes on their tax-free savings account.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I have it right, the question is whether it would be better for a person to put the money he or she is contributing now into his or her own retirement savings plan, a TFSA, or something that would be there in the future.

From my experience, there is nothing better than a defined benefit plan. There are pros and cons in a defined contribution versus a defined benefit. One is that the money is put in up front, but it only lasts for so long, especially when people invest it and hope their investments come out strong. A defined benefit plan lasts a lot longer because the money stays there and is guaranteed to be there.

What I have noticed throughout my working life is that the younger generation does not have enough money, and basically, they really do not care about retirement at an early age. They are looking for money to keep their heads above water and it is only after 40 to 45 years of age that those workers then decide they had better do something about their retirement, but it is too late.

By investing for 40 years, yes, there are going to be increases, just like there are with a private plan. The money should not be left stagnant because then those dollars do not help. People have to look at the future and the money we are going to need.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for simplifying such a complex issue, which will take us to 2065, when I will no longer be a member of the House and will likely no longer even be walking this earth.

There is one thing that concerns me. The government spoke about taking into account maximum contributions. I do not have a percentage, but the reality is that some people cannot contribute the maximum amount to their plan.

Should the government not also be working on other issues, for example, introducing a $15-per-hour minimum wage, which would at least allow people to have a bit more money to pay into the CPP?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good point. One of the problems with the way CPP is set up now is that people have to work those years at the maximum levels and get the maximum benefit as long as they pay the maximum contributions. Unfortunately, because many plants have now been dissolved and people are losing their jobs or could be hurt, there is a gap in that area, which affects the benefits they will receive later on in life. The member makes a good point.

When U.S. Steelworkers were forced into retirement, they lost the big benefits of those jobs and their CPP going into the future. They are now looking at jobs at minimum wage and it will affect their payments when they reach age 60 or 65. A $15-an-hour starting point would be very helpful in increasing their CPP benefits when they retire.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated very much the member's comments about seniors, because there are a lot of seniors in my riding. I thought he might find it interesting to hear what the finance minister said in his book about seniors. He stated that whatever the reason might be to expand the CPP, it's not to eliminate poverty, and also that the poverty rate among seniors is now as close to zero as we can get. That is what the finance minister's book says.

I do not agree with that at all. Seniors are struggling, as the member has said, and I believe that the current program we are discussing is not going to do anything for the next 40 years. The seniors in my community right now need something else. This is not going to do anything to address their needs. I wonder if the member could comment.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a great point and I said that in my speech.

Current retirees are living in poverty, especially because of the lack of affordable housing. They are forced to pay market prices for rent on very limited retirement security, so it is causing a real problem. We have to make sure we do not fall into the same trap as we are in now. We have to do something for the next generation, that is for sure, to make sure it is not put in the same spot.

At the same time, we must improve what we are doing now for the people who are currently retired or on the cusp of retiring. I said in my speech that we must work together on this. Whether it's that the old age security is raised or the GIS is further increased, or making sure none of it gets clawed back, we have to do something now, today. I certainly agree with the member on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to indicate what a privilege it is to be able to stand in my place and talk about one of those fundamental issues that I believe Canadians as a whole are very supportive of. If we look at what would ultimately happen through Bill C-26, I would encourage all members of all political parties to recognize the historic agreement that was achieved by the Minister of Finance and the government, and to recognize that by voting in favour of Bill C-26.

The previous Conservative member posed a question in regard to the Minister of Finance by saying that the Minister of Finance wrote a book and in that book he said that raising CPP is not going to get rid of poverty for seniors. What the member does not make reference to is that the very same Minister of Finance brought forward a 10% increase to those poorest seniors in Canada by increasing the guaranteed income supplement. That will have a profound positive impact for seniors in the most significant way.

In fact, I would challenge future Conservative speakers on this issue to give me an example of a Conservative policy where they have seen such a substantial increase to Canada's poorest seniors. They would be challenged to find that. That is one of the reasons why, when we look at a policy announcement such as what we are seeing today in a very formal way in the House of Commons, we should always look at it as just one component in terms of dealing with seniors.

Let me now start with something that needs to be said. We campaigned about real change, primarily because one of the things we realized with the former Harper government was that it had lost touch with Canadians. The Conservatives in that government did not understand what Canadians wanted and expected of the government. There are a number of things that we could talk about. I could talk about the outstanding performance by our Minister of Health fighting for health care here in Canada, something which the former government did not do. Canadians see that as a positive. The Conservatives did not understand that. They did not understand what Canadians wanted.

The same principle applies here, where I can clearly demonstrate that of the Conservative Party, not only of the past but of what appears today. Now I will wait to see what happens when the vote actually takes place, but if the Conservatives want to demonstrate that they are listening to Canadians, I would suggest that they really need to support the bill.

Bill C-26 is something that is of a historic nature. It is not easy to get all the different stakeholders together and get an agreement of this nature that would see more money going into the pockets of seniors when they retire. Once implemented, it would be a significant amount of money.

Decisions of this nature do not happen overnight. I was pleased that my New Democratic colleague made reference to others, and how they actually participated in achieving what we have achieved. This is not solely a Liberal initiative. We know different stakeholders not only from labour but also from business have presented and commented on the importance of a Canada pension program. It actually reaches out to the individual, to the corporate body, to our union body, to political entities, and to many different stakeholders.

I said in the past how much I appreciate the fine work that many unions do in terms of advocating far beyond what their core responsibilities are. They think ahead not only for the individuals they represent within the unions, but often way beyond those individuals by talking about the importance of increasing CPP. I have heard presentations of that nature from members of union executives for many years. That is why when I stand up today I say that this is really good stuff.

Our Prime Minister mandated our members of Parliament on this side, even when he was leader of the third party in opposition, to represent their constituencies here in Ottawa, and it was a change. It was part of that real change, because under the Harper government, more often than not, what we saw was Ottawa being represented inside the constituencies. However, we want to see MPs representing the interests and thoughts of their constituents in this chamber, in the committee rooms, in subcommittees, when talking within caucus walls, and so forth. Bill C-26 is a reflection of that.

In essence, Bill C-26 is saying that we believe the workforce in Canada today is going to require additional money when it comes time for pensions. It is no surprise to me, personally, and I suspect that the vast majority of members of Parliament will not be surprised by that.

I remember sitting on the opposition bench arguing that we needed to do more with regard to supporting our seniors. I introduced petition after petition on this very issue, that Canadians expected us to do more. Many, if not most, probably even all of those petitions on the issue of CPP, GIS, and OAS came from residents that I represent in Winnipeg North. They wanted to see a government take action, support those pensions, and expand those pension programs where we could.

The Prime Minister gave a clear indication to the Minister of Finance that we wanted to achieve an agreement on expanding the CPP. I am forever grateful that our Minister of Finance was so successful at achieving that agreement, because it is something the government alone cannot do. We needed the co-operation and the understanding of provinces in order to make that happen.

I remember sitting on the opposition bench and feeling somewhat frustrated, because I would hear, for example, the Province of Ontario saying that it wanted CPP to be increased, but the feds were not interested. The feds at that time, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said that they were not interested. The former prime minister had no interest in increasing the CPP. In fact, he was quite prepared to see individual provinces go alone on that.

Members will remember that I said “losing touch with Canadians”. Had the then-prime minister, Stephen Harper, listened to what Canadians wanted on the CPP file, he would have found that Canadians were concerned about their ability to be able to retire and the earnings that they were going to be receiving, and that they supported en masse the need for that increase. However, the then-prime minister did not recognize that.

At the end of day, this is why I talked about the issue of real change at the beginning of my speech. It is because that is what we are seeing in the legislation before us, and members have the opportunity to participate in that real change,

There was a different attitude with the former Conservative government with regard to the CPP. We have taken a complete 180°. The Government of Canada is now saying that it wants to increase CPP and we have taken the necessary action by presenting the bill today.

I have provided some comment in terms of the number of consultations just the Department of Finance alone had. However, individual members of Parliament have also listened to many stakeholders, whether from labour, business, or indigenous people. Some individuals have taken the time to write or correspond through the Internet, or had face-to-face discussions at free meetings throughout this country on important taxation and policy ideas. I suspect members will find that many of those discussions were about the CPP, as I know that I have had many discussions on that particular issue.

Those discussions were then presented to the provinces in Vancouver on June 20, where the agreement was actually accepted. Because of that agreement, we now have Bill C-26.

In the bill's summary, we find that it would do the following:

(a) increase the amount of the retirement pension, as well as the survivor’s and disability pensions and the post-retirement benefit, subject to the amount of additional contributions made and the number of years over which those contributions are made;

(b) increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% as of 2025;

That is a significant increase.

(c) provide for the making of additional contributions, beginning in 2019;

That was accepted primarily because there needs to be an adjustment period so that businesses and other stakeholders are able to adjust.

(d) provide for the creation of the Additional Canada Pension Plan Account and the accounting of funds in relation to it; and

(e) include the additional contributions and increased benefits in the financial review provisions of the Act and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in relation to those provisions.

Why is it such an important issue for all of us to address? I would like to reflect on some issues from my constituency, and I believe that those issues can be mirrored across Canada.

In my constituency are a healthy number of seniors. It is debatable at what age being a senior begins. I was told, as I am approaching age 55 in January, that I will be eligible for some store discounts.

I have had the privilege of knocking on thousands and thousands of doors. I can think of one 94-year-old who one would think was in her sixties. She was very spry and active. Age in good part is how one feels. There are many seniors in Winnipeg North who still feel great and want to have a decent standard of living.

One of the saddest things I often run into when knocking on doors is meeting seniors who talk about having such a difficult time making ends meet. Often they will say that they have an issue of medication versus food. Their budget does not allow them to afford both. This is not just a comment I heard at one or two doors. I have heard it at numerous doors. Seniors in many ways are challenged and have to make difficult decisions related to affordability for basic needs.

We have far too many seniors who opt for buying medication, and as a result, they go hungry, which is not good for their health, or they end up going to food banks. Thank God for the food banks and the huge number of volunteers who make them happen and especially those who contribute to them. They are helping many seniors who are living in poverty. That is a real issue that we hear at the door.

I can recall one incident when knocking on doors with my daughter, Cindy. One lady answered who was virtually in tears, because she had just been hit with an ambulance bill of more than $500. She had no idea how she was going to pay that bill.

I am glad that my daughter went on to ultimately become a local MLA and has raised this issue in the Manitoba legislature.

If someone has a heart attack at home and has to get to a hospital, the person does not have much choice. That is why we need to advocate for our seniors. Situations like this are taking place every day throughout our country.

When we have the opportunity to look at the issue of pensions, we should be supportive. Constituents tell us that they have a great desire that we support our three pension programs and feel that where we can, we should expand them. An increase to the GIS will help them immensely. Some of those single seniors will receive $900 plus more a month than they received last year. That will go a long way for seniors living in poverty in getting some of the things they need.

We are talking about Bill C-26 today, but it is about the social safety net that Canadians truly believe in. If we ask our constituents what makes them feel good about being a Canadian, some common responses are related to our social safety net. What is that social safety net? It is our CPP, which is what we are voting on today. It is also our OAS, our GIS, our health care system, and our employment insurance system. These programs provide peace of mind and comfort to Canadians. These are the things we should be speaking about more, and not just inside the chamber. We should be speaking more about them within our caucuses and within our committees.

We have fantastic standing committees that have the ability to set an agenda to look at progressive and positive social ideas. We could better utilize those committees. I have argued in the past that they are the backbone of our parliamentary process.

I realize that my time is quickly running out, but I want to emphasize how important Bill C-26 is. This is a piece of legislation that should be supported by all members. If we reflect on past debates in the House on this important issue, if one believed in expanding CPP, one would have been disappointed. However, with the change in government and the commitment from the current Prime Minister, we now have a change in attitude, and the CPP will be increased. This will prevent many seniors in the future from having to make difficult decisions. It will even prevent some seniors from going into poverty.

I highly recommend that all members of the House support this legislation.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite was speaking about visiting many seniors. We all have seniors we visited. We all knocked on many doors.

However, the way his minister and his government have handled this, it does not seem that they knocked on any doors or visited and spoke to any seniors. Those seniors the member is talking about are not going to benefit at all from this tax hike. This is a tax hike on businesses first and on people next. This is going to be very costly.

True stories are not being told to those seniors, because if they were really knocking on doors and were hearing true stories, they would know that this will be a tax burden on them, on future generations, and on small businesses. This is not going to help them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is just not true.

I just finished talking about the GIS. That is real. It is tangible. Hundreds, if not thousands, of seniors are going to benefit from that program this year in Winnipeg North alone. All constituencies have seniors. All seniors who receive GIS will in fact benefit this year.

The Prime Minister indicated that he wanted us to talk to real Canadians and understand the issues and bring them back to Ottawa. The individuals I met with, whether they work as firefighters, in hospitals, or in different industries understand and appreciate it.

If they are 40 or 35 years old, now is the time to ensure that when it comes time to retire, there is going to be a substantial amount of money in that Canada pension program. That is what I mean when I say that in the future we will be preventing those people from possibly being on the borderline of poverty so that they will be able to afford the things they need to afford.

It is thinking forward. That is something the government has clearly demonstrated, whether it is on issues related to our environment or seniors. We think about people who are coming into the system as well.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the member, thanks very much. You made some good points.

One of the things I think we can agree with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the member that it is “he” made some good points, as opposed to “you”. That would be acceptable. It has to be through the Speaker.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, some good statements were made about what we are going to do now for the people and that we have help them out going into the future.

We made some adjustments to the CPP in this bill for future generations, but what about the people now?

Prior to 2012, a person had the option to retire and collect a pension at 60, or he could collect it at 70. If he collected it early, there would be a reduction, but it was needed. We did that to help people who were either forced into retirement or who could not work for health reasons or because of the environment they were working in.

Prior to 2012, we had that. It was a 0.5% per month reduction, to a maximum of 30%. In 2012, it was increased to a 0.6% reduction to a maximum of 35% at age 60. This really hurt a lot of people. It took a lot out of their pocketbooks.

I am wondering, through you, Madam Speaker, to the member, would you go to your government and ask to have it go back to a 30% maximum to help the people who, now, or coming up in the future, have lost their jobs—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have to allow for more time for other parties to have questions as well, and for answers. Again, when we are mentioning the word “you”, that is not acceptable. It should be “he” or “she” or though me.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will attempt to answer the question as best I can. We need to look at this. We have a bill dealing with one of Canada's top three pensionable issues, in this case the CPP. It is the working class of today who would benefit from this bill in a real and tangible way.

Within the last year we have also seen the Government of Canada reverse the Conservatives' decision to increase the age of retirement. We went in the opposite direction. The Conservatives had decided that in order to claim OAS, people had to wait until they were age 67. We, as a government, have reversed that position and brought it back to 65, because Canada can afford to do that.

If we look at the third component, the GIS, it has received a substantial increase, to the tune where many seniors who have fixed incomes or low incomes in Winnipeg North, probably a thousand plus seniors, will see huge increases. That is taking effect now. That is why I challenge the Conservatives or any member, because these are all things that the government has done within a year.

With respect to the specifics that the member referred to, I would suggest that he work with the standing committee, talk about it at committee, and see if we can get the committee to possibly take it into consideration sometime in the not too distant future.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a veteran member of the chamber and I would like his comments on this. The former prime minister, Stephen Harper, announced the increase in the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67 when he was not even in the country, but abroad at the World Economic Forum. It was not even announced in his campaign in 2011. There was no mention of it. Therefore, he just heaped this on some of the most disadvantaged in our country. In this case, it was central to our campaign. Canadians knew what this government was offering and voted to support our party in the last election because they knew what we were offering, which is transparency and openness.

Does the member not see the contrast in the way that both situations were handled? I am sure that Canadians see the contrast.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can recall what happened, because I was sitting on the other side with my colleague when the announcement was made. I am not 100% sure if we were in session, if it was the following day or the weekend, but the Prime Minister was somewhere overseas when we found out that he was increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67. The response from my constituents was immediate, and I would suspect it was from Canadians as a whole. They were saying, “Where did this come from?” Then the Conservatives tried to allude to there being some sort of a crisis, but one that was just not there.

Virtually from day one, the Liberal Party indicated that if we formed government, we would decrease the age of eligibility back to 65. That is one of the things we did immediately upon taking office. That is part of this real change that the Prime Minister had promised. I am glad to say that whether it is reducing the age of eligibility from 67 to 65, the increase to the GIS, or Bill C-26, these are all changes that have a profound and positive impact on our seniors and future seniors.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canada's savings rate has climbed from 7.7% back in the 1990s to 14.1% today. That is according to the C.D. Howe Institute. Just the other day, Finance Canada said that the higher CPP premiums would hurt the economy by reducing private savings by 7%. Could member to comment on that, because it sounds like we are going backwards?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if this is of concern to the member, I respect that. However, I can tell him that in order to get this bill before the House today, we had to have the agreement of the provinces in Canada. Obviously, there are many stakeholders in other government jurisdictions that are following the lead that has been demonstrated by this Prime Minister and government. That is why we have the bill before us today. It is a good thing for Canada's middle class, and for those who are aspiring to be part of it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on bill C-26. We are seeing the frightening trend of the Liberal government's imposition of punitive taxes without consultation, with very little feedback from stakeholders, and with very little knowledge of the economic impact these decisions and policies are going to have on Canadian families, and Canadian small businesses specifically.

First, it started with the carbon tax, which is going to increase the cost of pretty much everything. The government has also changed the mortgage rules, which will make it that much more difficult for young Canadians to buy their first home. Now it is talking about a hike to the CPP, which is really going to hamper growth in the small business sector. These are all policy decisions that have been imposed by the Liberal government with absolutely no consultation or study of their ramifications for Canadian families, small businesses, and the provinces.

I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which has been hearing from stakeholders over the last couple of weeks since the carbon tax was announced. All of these stakeholders have said that no one spoke to them about it, that this is going to make the difference between their putting shovels in the ground in some projects, or walking away entirely. What are the ramifications and implications going to be for our energy industry, which is already struggling, if a punitive carbon tax is imposed without any data to back up the economic impacts of that decision?

Yesterday, a motion was put forward in the natural resources committee that the committee do an emergency study of the economic impacts of the carbon tax on the natural resources sector. If Liberals were that confident that the carbon tax and the CPP tax hike were going to have beneficial and positive ramifications for Canadians across the country, then, in my estimation, they would have agreed to go ahead with that study, but they did not. They unanimously voted it down, because they do not know the ramifications of policies like this for hard-working Canadian families.

They are plowing ahead with these kinds of decisions because they think these make great politics for the very vocal minority of union bosses and big companies. Those are the ones driving these decisions. They are not talking to middle-class Canadians, the ones whose pocketbooks are going to be impacted by these decisions. That is what makes these types of decisions so frustrating.

A couple of weeks ago I had an opportunity to speak at a summit in Calgary, which was titled, unfortunately, “The Employment Crisis for Canada’s Energy Professionals—A Lost Opportunity for Canada”. There were more than 200 professionals at that meeting. They were not rig workers or welders, not the people we typically associate with feeling the impact of the downturn in the energy sector. They were petroleum engineers, geophysicists, and geologists. Many of them have not had a job in more than two years.

I asked them if they or their associations were consulted about the carbon tax or the tax increase via the Canada pension plan. I asked if the Liberal government talked to their associations, which include thousands of Canadian professionals across the country. Every single one of them said no, that these things were a complete shock to them. I said there had been ups and downs and booms and busts in the energy sector for decades, and they agreed that these, absolutely, had happened many times but this was the worst they had ever seen.

We heard in question period today and many times over the last week that Alberta has been hit hard by the downturn because of low oil prices. A barrel of oil is now more than $50. A low oil price is not the only reason that Alberta is struggling right now. It is bad policy, it is inaction, it is tax increases on businesses and employers. The professionals said they do not see a light at the end of this tunnel because of the policies being put forward, like a carbon tax that is increasing indecision in the industry, driving away investment, and taking their jobs with them.

They said that intellectual capital is going to be lost because of these decisions and that they are uncompetitive globally in energy, manufacturing, and agriculture, thanks to the decision of the government to put forward a carbon tax, and now a CPP tax hike, not to mention the changes to the mortgage rules that are making it more difficult for young families to buy their first home.

My colleague from Winnipeg North was saying that when he was door-knocking in his community, he was overwhelmed by Canadians asking for these changes. I had zero. Not once did I go to a door and somebody said, “Boy, I am really looking forward to a carbon tax. I am really looking forward to a hike in my CPP taxes, and do you know what? I really hope that you make it more difficult for me to buy my first home.”

Maybe residents of southern Alberta are much more savvy, I am not sure. These issues were never raised in that campaign, so for the Liberals to say that they have this incredible mandate because of what happened a year ago, I think it is disingenuous. I think they are putting through decisions that appeal to a very vocal minority of Canadians but are not in the best interests of hard-working Canadian families.

I would like to talk about some of the things that have been said so far today about how this would help Canadians in their retirement. Having an increase in CPP is great if I have a job, but now there are more than 200,000 Canadians who do not have jobs. I have not heard any decisions or any policies brought forward by the government that would help change that.

We have vehicles in place that will help Canadians save. What I think is most important with those things, including the tax-free savings account, which the government has clawed back, is that, again, in contrast to what my hon. colleague has been saying, that is something I definitely heard at doors. Canadians liked the opportunity to save on their own terms. It is absolutely their money. They want to make the decisions on what they do and how they save with their own money.

It is definitely a step backward to look at government as being the answer to everything. If people do not know how to save, the government will take care of that for them. Canadians are much more savvy than the Liberals are giving them credit for.

We also heard, when the Liberals made the decision to claw back the tax-free savings account, that this is just a vehicle for the wealthy. Only wealthy Canadians have the opportunity to invest in the tax-free savings account. Of those Canadians who have maxed out their tax-free savings account, 60% were making $60,000 or less. Those are not wealthy Canadians. Those are hard-working Canadian families who are making very tough choices for their future.

They are putting money aside to buy their first home, which now, unfortunately, is even more difficult to buy. I would ask where the government got the information that this was a good decision. Maybe it is for Vancouver or Toronto, but it certainly is not for Calgary or rural Alberta. I certainly have not had anybody come to me and say that this is a good decision. I have had the exact opposite. Realtors, mortgagers, credit unions, young families, come to me and say that this is devastating. Now it will take them another decade to save up for that first home, which we know is one of the largest investments they will have in their lifetimes.

When I was going door to door last October, I had so many Canadians, so many residents in my riding of Foothills, talk to me about the importance of the tax-free savings account and how welcoming they were that they would have an opportunity to invest further in a tax-free savings account. As I said, these were Canadians who were making very difficult choices for their families, whether it was a first home, their child's education, or saving for their own retirement.

The key to that is that Canadians had the opportunity to make their own decisions on what they felt was best for them and best for their families and their children's futures. This is a decision, once again, where government is imposing its will on Canadians, and Canadians have not said in any way, shape, or form that this is what they want, whether it is a carbon tax, mortgage rule changes, tax-free savings accounts, or electoral reform.

I do not understand why the government feels that it should be governing with an iron fist, a sledgehammer, and imposing its will on the provinces and Canadians. This is certainly not what I heard from hard-working Canadian families or certainly folks in my riding throughout the election campaign, and even before that.

But what has really been overlooked here is the impact this would have on small businesses. It is ironic that we are having this discussion during Small Business Week here in Canada. I am hearing daily from small business owners in my riding in southern Alberta and across the province that they are struggling. I do not think it is any mystery. The Liberal government will not do anything about it except to say that it has compassion and sympathy for what is going on in Alberta. I say in response, well, do something about it and give us a hand.

Imposing a carbon tax, and now a CPP hike on small business owners, is certainly not the way to do it. We have a very fragile economy right now in Alberta, and to impose these types of decisions when we are struggling does not make any sense. Alberta was the economic engine of this country for decades and, unfortunately, that engine has stalled. Rather than giving us a lifeline, the Liberals are throwing us an anchor. This would push those small business owners off the edge.

Right now in Calgary the unemployment rate is in the double digits. The vacancy rate in downtown Calgary is at 30%. It is unbelievable to me that in a province I have raised my family in and have worked in, I can go to downtown Calgary and see 8th Avenue deserted and entire floors of business buildings and office towers deserted. There is nothing but empty desks and empty offices. Yet our top priority is to impose a Canada pension plan tax hike, which would cost business owners more than $1,000 a year per employee.

Dan Kelly, president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business notes that “Two thirds of small firms say they will have to freeze or cut salaries and over a third say they will have to reduce hours or jobs in their business in response to a CPP/QPP hike.”

When we are already struggling with an unemployment rate in Alberta close to double digits, and in some communities well over double digits, and 200,000 direct and indirect energy jobs that have been lost, we would further stress the employment numbers with these decisions. It will be more difficult for a small business owner to hire because of the increased costs from this CPP tax hike, which I do not think anyone was really asking for.

Indeed, Hendrik Brakel, a senior director at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, has said:

...we’re worried a big tax increase is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest....

This comes at the worst possible time—an economy reeling from weak commodity prices and slower consumer spending will be lucky to eke out growth of 1.5% next year. It’s difficult to stimulate the economy while pulling money out of the pockets of Canadians.

The Chamber of Commerce represents businesses across the country, as does the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. These people are raising the alarm about the impact of the CPP tax hike on small businesses at the worst possible time.

I know we talk a lot about Alberta, but the energy downturn has impacted Canadians across the country. I was in Nova Scotia a couple of weeks ago, and it was amazing how many people came up to me to say, “I was working in Alberta in the oil sands, but I had to come home, obviously, because there are no jobs. But there are no jobs for me here either”. We need Energy east. We need policies in place that will kick-start our energy industry. But instead, when it is down, we kick it with a carbon tax and now a CPP tax hike. Where does this make sense?

I am going to conclude with this. This has been my question all along: if the Liberals are so confident that these types of policies will bring a great positive change to our economy, with all these great jobs for Canadians they talk about, can they prove it? Can they show me the data? Can they show me an economic impact study they did before they announced the carbon tax and the CPP tax hike? I have not seen it. If they are so confident this is the best thing for Canadians, I ask them to show it to me.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his interesting speech. I am certain that it was heartfelt and he represents his constituents well.

However, he raised so many questions that I could not resist the opportunity to ask some questions back to him, or at least share some of the observations I made back in my own riding during the election. One is that he mocked the idea that Canadians are supportive of putting a price on carbon pollution.

I did not have a safe riding. I had to work very hard to win the riding. We spent many months, my team and I, knocking on 35,000 doors. I heard over and over again from people that they wanted two things. They wanted Canada to take a leadership role again on the international stage, which meant re-engaging with the commitments we made to deal with respect to the environment. Many times, people brought up the notion of carbon pricing. The idea is very simple, at least in the case of British Columbia: “Keep your taxes, keep your profits, but if you cause pollution, you pay for it.”

I just want to reassure the member that certainly was the case in my riding of Hull—Aylmer.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. I just want to say that I think all of us worked very hard in our ridings during the election. I hope he is not insinuating that some of us have safe ridings and are not in contact with the feelings of our constituents.

I am sure some of the constituents in his riding were talking about a price on carbon. I wish they would just say what it is. It is a carbon tax. This “price on carbon” I find ridiculous. For anybody who says the famous last words of any government are revenue neutral, I think we all know that is not going to be the case.

When he was going around to his constituents, did he tell them that it was going to be $50 a tonne? Did he tell those people at the door it was going to be 11¢ a litre on gas and another 14¢ a litre on diesel? Did he tell them that? Did he tell them, “Actually, it's not going to be the businesses that cause the pollution that are going to be paying for that carbon tax. It is going to be you paying for that carbon tax”?

Did he talk to the farmers and ranchers in my riding who are seeing their fuel prices double because of the carbon tax? This is not an area where I have public transit and my residents could take a bus. The carbon tax is going to be extremely painful for rural Canadians.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can totally empathize with him, because during the 2008 global recession, in my own community, there were huge job losses. We saw over 6,500 jobs lost in the St. Thomas area and region. I completely understand the member's concern for his constituents.

When I listened to the government speakers, I recognized that they are really confusing the Canada pension plan with what they are doing for seniors on old age security and GIS. I want to make sure that we separate those two things. They are two different pillars of retirement, so I do not want Canadians to get confused with GIS and the CPP. I just wanted to make that statement..

We talk about the CPP investment, as they are calling it, and one of my greatest concerns is that, if we are going to see job losses, we are not going to see our youth who are just graduating from colleges and universities and our young families having jobs. They will not be able to pay into the CPP anyway because to pay tax they need to have a job.

I am just wondering what his thoughts are on how we are going to help those young families and those young students get on a path so that they can have economic independence.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, for a great question and for all the advocacy she has done for her riding, and especially, for young Canadians.

My answer would be that this is absolutely backwards. Not only will these young people have a tough time finding jobs, but because they are paying into this, they will have a very difficult time repaying their student loans or saving for a first home. Youth unemployment now is at more than 16%. It will be much worse and they are going to have a much more difficult start to their professional lives.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will have a little over five minutes left in questions and comments the next time this matter is before the House.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There are five minutes remaining for questions and comments for the hon. member for Foothills.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we know is very different, between the former Harper Conservative government and what this particular Prime Minister and the Government of Canada are trying to do here, is the issue of Canada's pension plan.

The former government did not recognize and did not listen to what Canadians really and truly wanted. It was completely out of touch with Canadians and did not recognize the importance of pension programs, in particular with respect to the CPP.

What we are debating today is a piece of legislation that, if passed, will be somewhat historic in the sense that we are going to see increases to CPP, working in collaboration with the many different provinces from every region of the country. At the end of the day, the biggest benefactor is going to be the worker, and the worker who is going to be retiring in the future.

Why is the Conservative Party still so out of touch with what Canadians really want when it comes to the issue of retirement? Why will the Conservative Party not support the bill?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic that the member is saying we are the ones who are out of touch. Who did the Liberals actually consult before imposing yet another tax increase on Canadians? They did not consult anybody before the carbon tax. They did not consult anyone before changing the mortgage rules. They did not consult anyone before increasing the CPP tax hike.

I have certainly heard from constituents across my riding and from people across the country. Certainly during the election, while knocking on doors, I did not have a single person tell me that they really wanted to have their taxes increased on CPP and to have a carbon tax, and that was what they were looking for.

We had the tax-free savings account, which Canadians really appreciated. That is what I heard when I was knocking on doors, that people really appreciated the increase in the tax-free savings account, something the government, once again without consulting Canadians, decided to claw back and take away, imposing its own tax increase on Canadians.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the quick footedness of my colleague. I would like to ask him a question.

The Canadian pension plan, depending on which accounting method is used, has a shortfall deficit of between $8 billion and $24 billion. The changes the government has put forward will do nothing to alter that. Does the member think that the government is simply moving ahead ideologically and not looking at actual improvements to help keep the system on a stable and solid basis for Canadians?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question and all the hard work he has done, and to congratulate him on his new post as deputy critic for finance.

These changes are not going to do anything for Canadians right now. For seniors, baby boomers moving into seniors, this is something they will not feel for years, if not decades down the line. All this is going to do is increase the already exploding deficit that we have.

The impact in the short term is going to be that business owners are going to have to cut back hours and will not be hiring people. In a very low-growth time, this is something that is going to cost business owners and Canadians more than $2,000 a year. When we are seeing growth predicted at maybe 1% or 1.5% over the year, we need to encourage business owners to hire and grow. This is absolutely the opposite. This will discourage them from growing and hiring.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

Our government is committed to strengthening the backbone of the economy, the middle class, and those working hard to join it. It is with this commitment that our government has delivered on a number of platform promises that were made to hard-working Canadians.

I am proud to stand and 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. This legislation would strengthen Canada's pension system and was a key promise we made to ensure a secure and dignified retirement for all Canadians. I congratulate the Minister of Finance, who delivered on this commitment by working in close collaboration and common purpose with our provincial and territorial partners.

It must be noted that provincial leaders of every major political party, Liberal, New Democratic, and Conservative, worked diligently on coming to this historic agreement that would benefit generations of Canadians, including my two young children, Natalia and Eliana.

What is at stake is simple. We must strengthen our pension system to reflect the realities that exist today and ensure a dignified and secure retirement for all Canadians.

To start our discussion on the proposed legislation, I believe it is best to review Canada's retirement system as it stands today and why a strengthened CPP is required to address trends that are leaving so many Canadians unprepared for their post-work years. Today's multi-pillared system includes old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, which are paid out of general government revenues and act as a basic income floor for low and middle-income Canadians. The CPP and QPP are funded through mandatory employer-employee contributions, and, in the 1990s, the CPP shifted from a pay-as-you-go system to a pre-funded platform. Finally, we have private workplace pensions and discretionary individual savings, including tax-free savings accounts and registered retirement savings plans.

Despite this multi-pillared approach to the retirement system, a number of trends are emerging that are leaving millions of Canadians unprepared for retirement and potentially facing a material drop in their standard of living.

Extensive analysis conducted by the finance department found that around one-quarter of families nearing retirement, approximately 1.1 million families, are facing a drop in their standard of living. Furthermore, it is estimated that as many as five million Canadians do not have access to a workplace savings arrangement, and many of these middle-class Canadians are at a greater risk of under-saving for retirement. We must act to ensure that all Canadians have a secure and dignified retirement.

In addition, younger Canadians today face circumstances not faced by prior generations in terms of saving for their retirement. Canadians now entering the workforce will face the prospect of changing jobs several times in their lifetime, and a portable pension plan that facilitates job mobility is now a necessity in this changing job market.

Since the 1970s, we have seen a material decline in the overall participation in private sector registered pension plans, as well as an ongoing shift from defined benefit to defined contribution plans. Statistics Canada estimates that total private sector workplace registered pension plan coverage has declined from 35% to levels now approaching 20%. Frankly, fewer private sector companies are offering workplace pension plans, and many companies have closed or wound up their defined benefit pension plans.

Defined contribution plans are not in their exact nature true pension plans, as they expose individuals to investment risk and swings in the beneficiary's pension plan assets, and a subsequent shortfall in pension savings. Also, a low interest rate environment, which influences the present value of liabilities and has placed cash flow demands on companies to maintain solvency ratios, combined with, frankly, unfavourable accounting rules on pensions, has hastened the move by many companies away from defined benefit pensions.

Our government, in collaboration with the provinces, has taken a carefully targeted approach with this legislation to address the issues I have laid out while striking the important balance between short-term economic considerations and long-term economic gains.

What does an enhanced or stronger CPP mean for Canadians? Quite simply, it means a secure and dignified retirement for millions of Canadians. It means that individuals retiring can worry less about making ends meet and more about spending time with their loved ones, including grandchildren.

Once fully in place, this CPP enhancement would increase the maximum CPP retirement benefit of approximately $13,000 by up to 50%. In today's dollar terms, the proposed enhanced CPP represents an increase of nearly $7,000, to a maximum benefit of nearly $20,000.

The enhancement in this legislation would do two things to make this happen for contributors. First, it will increase the share of annual earnings received during retirement from one-quarter to one-third. This means that individuals making $50,000 today over their working lifetime would receive approximately $16,000 per year in retirement instead of the roughly $12,000 today. Second, it would increase by 14% the maximum income range, to approximately $82,700, so that those who earn more would receive more in retirement.

Enacting these changes with Bill C-26 would result, as estimated by the Department of Finance, in a reduction of families at risk of not having adequate retirement savings by one-quarter, from approximately 24% to 18%, when we consider all pillars of the retirement income system.

To ensure that these things are affordable, we would phase them in over seven years, starting in 2019 through to 2025, so the impact is minimal and gradual. As noted by David Dodge, former governor of the Bank of Canada, “The fundamental challenge [facing decision-makers] is how to provide for adequate retirement income for the future population of elderly people without imposing an undue burden of taxation on the working population and the business sector.”

We have struck this right balance. For example, an individual with earnings of $50,000 will contribute about $6 more a month in 2019, and by the end of the seven-year phase-in period, contributions for that individual would be about $40 per month. Additionally, and this is very important, we would ensure that low-income Canadians would not be financially burdened as a result of the extra contributions. We would enhance the working income tax benefit to roughly offset incremental CPP contributions with little to no change in disposable income, while still securing higher retirement income for low-income Canadians.

A strong CPP will be good for Canadians, and will also be beneficial to the Canadian economy overall. As estimated by the Department of Finance, greater CPP benefits would increase spending by retirees, providing for a boost to economic output. It is estimated that GDP would increase slightly, from 0.05% to 0.09%, and employment levels are projected to be permanently higher, by approximately 6,000 to 11,000 jobs, based on 2015 levels of employment. In addition, higher aggregate saving rates through enhancing CPP would increase the amount of capital available for investment.

The Canada pension plan is a solid program, and actuarially sound. It is fully funded for future generations. The most recent report noted that 5.3 million Canadians received approximately $38.7 billion in payments while contributions totalled nearly $45 billion. It cannot be understated just what advantages the CPP offers. The CPP as a retirement vehicle for Canadians is, in my view, a model for the world. These advantages include that CPP provides a secure, predictable, and stable benefit. Canadians will not outlive their savings, and benefits are not subject to shocks. CPP benefits are fully indexed to prices, so inflation will not reduce the value of a pension. CPP is fully portable, and it fills the gap of a decline in workplace pensions. Overall, CPP is an efficient way to save.

Finally, the CPP Investment Board operates at arm's length from the government, with a mandate to invest CPP funds in the best interests of plan members. It is a model that is independent, transparent, and accountable. It is well regarded around the world for its impressive record of investment performance and management excellence, with a 10-year annualized rate of return of 6.8%.

In closing, Bill C-26 is the next step forward in ensuring that all Canadians retire in a secure and dignified manner. I ask my colleagues to join with me in advancing this important piece of legislation that was brought forward in a collaborative approach between the provinces and the federal government.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments. I listened intently.

A tax is a tax is a tax, and this is a new tax on the Canadian economy that would hurt business, hurt jobs, and would actually take money out of the pockets of Canadians.

I would like the member to comment on this quote: “Whatever the reason might be to expand CPP, it is not to eliminate poverty.” That quote is from a book written in partnership by the finance minister. In his speech, the member said that this is to help low-income Canadians, yet the finance minister said it has nothing to do with that. Again, a tax is a tax is a tax. If the member would comment, does he agree with the finance minister or disagree with him?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we increased the guaranteed income supplement by approximately $947 in budget 2016, and that is going to help approximately one million Canadians who are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. In addition, with the enhancement of the CPP, the working income tax benefits will be worked in such a manner that low-income Canadians will be left better off with the imposition of the enhanced CPP than they were prior, and that will assist them in moving out of poverty.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think about seniors in my riding who are struggling to make ends meet, What comes to mind is that I met a woman during the campaign who had to make a choice between buying food or buying medicine. These are the challenges that pensioners are facing right now. I met another women who had gone to the food bank for the first time. I also went to the Port Alberni homeless shelter recently, and they said they had seen a skyrocketing number of seniors there.

Could the member elaborate on how this enhancement is supporting those people? We look at the most recent figures available, which show that 30% of single elderly women live in poverty. That number has tripled in the last 20 years. Only 4.5% of female CPP recipients receive the maximum benefit compared to 18% of men. How will this CPP enhancement plan lift vulnerable elderly women out of poverty?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the pressures faced by seniors in my riding, as well as his, so I do note his comments with a large amount of empathy. Our government is committed to helping all Canadians. We did that with the enhanced guaranteed income supplement. That was the first step, with immediate relief provided to the most vulnerable seniors.

The enhanced CPP allows future generations and current workers to save more for their retirement so that they are not put in a position where they are unable to afford the basic necessities. I applaud our finance minister for his leadership on this file, for working together with all the provinces, of whichever political stripe, and coming to an agreement so quickly into our mandate. I think we should be applauded for that and the work he is doing.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend has been involved in the investment banking sector for a long time, and he has a great deal of small businesses in his riding. I am wondering what kind of feedback he has had from small business owners with respect to the benefits of the expanded CPP to small business, as well as to all Canadians.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and good friend for his question. Small businesses want to have consumers who spend. We want to see aggregate demand in our economy. The Canada pension plan, through its payments to beneficiaries who are hard-working Canadians, and which was over $45 billion last year, will allow for aggregate demand to increase. People will have more funds to invest. It acts as an automatic shock stabilizer for our economy, and it allows Canadians to go to the small businesses in his community and my community to spend their dollars and support local and small businesses. The reaction has actually been quite favourable. They understand that people need a secure and dignified retirement.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak this afternoon about Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act. I am proud to stand today in fulfillment of one of the key election promises that Liberals made about a year ago. These changes would make life better for a new generation of retirees.

In today's dollar terms, passage of this bill would mean that the maximum CPP benefit would go from $13,110 to nearly $20,000 per annum. This would represent the single largest change in the CPP in a generation. A change of this magnitude requires the consent of seven out of the 10 provinces, and we have that.

This proposal is a long time coming. On June 10, 2010, the former minister of finance for Ontario, Dwight Duncan, wrote to the then minister of finance seeking expansion of the CPP. I would like to quote his letter, which states, “Ontario supports a pan-Canadian approach to the reform that will provide tomorrow's seniors with better, lower-cost tools to maintain their standard of living in retirement.” Notwithstanding repeated requests for action, the previous government simply failed to advance this issue federally.

The Province of Ontario decided to go ahead on its own, with the Ontario retirement pension plan. As the program was rolled out and ready for implementation, our Minister of Finance took charge and developed a newly expanded CPP program.

This is a historical development for our country. While it is not the solution for all of our pension and retirement woes, it certainly is a great leap forward. The next generation of Canadians needs to live with independence, dignity, and pride in retirement.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank our Minister of Finance and all of his provincial counterparts for reaching this historic agreement on retirement security for Canadians.

Under Bill C-26, contributions would gradually increase, starting in 2019, to a total of an additional 1% of earnings for employees and 1% of earnings for employers by 2023. For self-employed persons, contributions would also slowly rise to a total of 2% of earnings by 2023. Employee contributions would be tax deductible. For the first time since 1965, income from the CPP would increase from 25% to 33% of a person's pre-retirement income, to a maximum income threshold of $82,700.

In addition to the changes to the CPP, our government has already implemented two key changes that would help retirees. First, we increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors by 10%, to a maximum annual top-up benefit of $947. We know that Canadians work hard and deserve to retire in a timely manner, and, as such, we rolled back the eligibility for old age security from 67 to 65 years old. Even then, for many, the thought of retirement itself is highly stressful because many will not able to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living.

I want to take a moment to review the current options for retirement income. There are essentially two types of retirement funds available for Canadians. One is provided and administered by governments and the other by individuals and corporations. Most Canadians have an element of both. The public scheme includes the guaranteed income supplement, old age security, and the Canada pension plan.

I will focus on the second option, which comprises a range of registered employer programs, often set up by employers for the benefit of their employees and a host of private investment options, such as RRSPs, TFSAs, and other investment instruments.

For the generation before us, retirement was part of the life cycle. If you had a well-paying, secure job, you took retirement for granted. Workplace pensions were the norm, but with changes to the global economy, fewer and fewer Canadians now work in jobs that have registered pension plans. In fact, since 1993, the percentage of Canadians with workplace pension plans has dropped from 30% to just over 23% today. This downward trend is likely to continue.

Additionally, the trend has been away from defined benefit plans, like the CPP, which guarantees set payments, to defined contribution plans that provide pensioners with much less security. Now many Canadians are on their own for their retirement. They have to use RRSPs, TFSAs, and private investments through multiple investment vehicles, and that is if they are lucky.

The private options have several limitations. First, the current challenge in the job market is not the same as it once was. It is much more difficult for people in their twenties to find a job, let alone one with a good pension plan. In 2012, the unemployment rate for youth in Ontario was a staggering 16.9% and in some communities, including mine, it was much higher than that. If the youth in our communities have to work in low-paying jobs in which they cannot earn a good living until they are in their late twenties or even in their thirties, how can we expect them to start saving for their retirement?

Second, even if an individual has investments, they have faced a very vulnerable market in recent years. Members will recall the financial meltdown in 2008. As a lawyer at that time, I met many families who were exceptionally stressed about their future. They were worried about losing as much as 40% of their portfolios. Many, in fact, have still not recovered from that loss.

Third, there is the issue of historically low interest rates. Today, we have many retirees who saved up, were diligent, and are now facing a decade of historically low interest rates. I searched the popular portals for the best possible advertized interest rates today. The current maximum payout is 2% per annum. They are the lucky ones. For a family that worked hard and was able to save $500,000 and placed it into a bond or a GIC, the maximum payout is $10,000 per year. The chances are that historical low interest rates will be around for a while, so those with modest or even good savings will not be able to meet their needs.

I think it goes without saying that one of the major benefits of the CPP is the exceptional management provided by the CPP Investment Board. Even in these most volatile times, the CPPIB is one of the best run investment firms in the world. They have managed Canadian retirement funds for 50 years with prudence, and yet in the last five years alone they have yielded an annualized return of 10.6%.

I know that my friends opposite feel that the changes to the CPP will be an additional burden on our employers and may limit job creation. Up until last year, I ran a law firm with about 20 employees at the peak of my practice. I prided myself in making payroll each and every pay period. For most small businesses this is often the test. I ran the firm for 10 years, and during this time my employees were the reason for my success. Without employees, I would not have been able to succeed, and I can assure hon. members that all small business succeed because of who they have working for them.

Most small business cannot afford to set up private defined benefit systems or extended health coverage. Most of us rely on our publicly funded and administered programs, which are the envy of the world. Between student loans, the high costs of housing and transportation, and the day-to-day expenses of running a household, there simply is not enough money to save for retirement.

That's why an expanded CPP system is good for small business. They can continue to retain good staff, be good employers, and be assured that a well managed investment board is the custodian of their and our future retirement. I contend that the peace of mind and security of a better retirement will ensure a more productive workforce.

After a lifetime of working, we must do more to ensure that people are able to retire with dignity. We cannot leave this to the marketplace alone. Governments, especially, the federal government, must lead in filling these gaps.

Today 24% of families nearing retirement age are at risk of not having enough savings to maintain their standard of living when they retire. With Canadians living longer than ever, many Canadians also risk outliving their retirement savings. By enhancing the CPP, we will reduce the number of Canadians without sufficient retirement savings.

In closing, I would like to applaud the Minister of Finance and departmental officials for introducing a bill that is so well thought out. It is a piece of legislation that is truly good for Canada. When people look back on this Parliament, the enhancements made to the CPP will certainly be one of its legacies. By taking the steps now to improve retirement security for Canadians, we can ensure that more Canadians can retire with peace of mind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech with interest.

I have to say this, though: there is an alternative to increasing mandatory premiums. That alternative would be either to give individuals the option of contributing more to their CPP and then receiving more in retirement, or to maintain, and indeed enhance, the existing saving vehicles that give people the incentives and opportunity to save more of their own money and receive a tax benefit for doing so.

The government has chosen the mandatory route, as opposed to offering more choice to individuals. It has chosen increasing mandatory premiums rather than giving individuals flexibility.

We all want to see people have a secure retirement, but can the member help me understand why we should be taking away choice from individuals in that process and not simply empowering them with the means to save for their own retirement and the incentive to do so?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the question and for always engaging on a diverse range of issues.

The CPP is a universal system, one that is available to everyone who works. We know that the management of the program itself is essential. The CPPIB, as I mentioned, has been around for 50 years. It has an enviable record of success and prudence, even in the most volatile of situations. Members will recall the 2008 financial crisis, from which the CPPIB actually came out on top. It was very stringent in its management and ensured that the funds that Canadians depended on for their retirement were secure. This is the type of investment that is required for a collective retirement future.

Of course, there are many other options available to people, and I have mentioned RRSPs, TFSAs, and other investment vehicles, which are always available to people. However, I think the studies typically show that they are not often maximized. Therefore, when it comes to a publicly run system, I think the CPP will be in the best interest of Canadians in the longer term, and will certainly be augmented by many other private options, such as RRSPs and TFSAs.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Port Alberni Shelter Society has been having a very difficult time getting money and support from Ottawa. We are seeing a skyrocketing number of seniors and new pensioners showing up day after day.

What proposals is the government considering for reversing the increasing poverty among seniors in Port Alberni and across Canada while Canadians wait for these enhancements to take place? If the member could address that, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have to go that far to find an example. My mother, a single mother who has worked for over 30 years in this country, is not that well off in retirement.

The increase in the guaranteed income supplement introduced in the budget has helped, but there is certainly a lot more that we need to do with respect to housing. It is a commitment that we as a government have. I believe that $20 billion is going forward for housing. Ideally, that will go toward senior housing as well.

The issue of income security for seniors is top of mind for us. It is one of the first things we did as part of our commitment to increase the guaranteed income supplement. Rolling back the age of eligibility for old age security from 67 to 65 will help seniors in the future. Certainly, the increased CPP from Bill C-26 will also assist.

Therefore, a combination of these programs will definitely assist, but I do share my friend's concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an emotional thing for me to speak to this bill in the House because it is the first time I am rising as the official opposition finance critic.

Last week, I had the pleasure of asking the government a number of questions, but I did not get any answers.

On this matter, let me pay my respects to the hon. leader of the official opposition for her confidence in giving me this crucially important role in the caucus and this democracy.

When we are talking about finance, we are talking about the heart of the country, because everything depends on our capacity or lack of it to pay for policies.

Also, I am very pleased to succeed, as well as I can, the MP for Milton who served so well as critic. We all know how well she served as a senior cabinet minister in the Harper government.

Bill C-26 does have one thing going for it: it shows just how far apart philosophically the current government and my party are.

That difference is crystal clear to us, because this proposed policy and bill show the Liberal vision for public money. For the Liberals, it is a good way to pick up money from the wallets of hard-working people. It is a good way to pick-up money from entrepreneurs and those who create jobs and wealth. However, Conservatives prefer to leave the choices and give the tools to citizens to have money in their pockets, to have money to put to other purposes, and especially to put money aside for their retirement.

The good thing about Bill C-26 is that it clearly illustrates the difference between our Conservative vision and that of the Liberals. The Liberal Party thinks it is a good idea to take more money from people and from entrepreneurs, but we think it is better to give people the tools to save money and put some aside for retirement.

What is this bill about? Basically, it would increase workers' contributions from 9.9% to 11.9%, and it would be 40 years before those workers see any tangible benefit.

That is what this bill would do. I summarized it pretty briefly, but since this is about pensions, and since anyone filing a tax return knows how tricky things can get when the time comes to pin down exactly what kind of room to manoeuvre the government has and what the rules are, I will talk about the specific rules in the bill.

At the moment, Canada pension plan premiums are set at 9.9% of pensionable earnings per employee, that is, between $3,500 and $54,900 annually, up to a maximum contribution of $4,959.90 a year, to be shared equally by employee and employer. I will come back to this a little later. It does not stop there, because over the next 40 years, CPP benefits will rise from 25% to 33% of income replacement in retirement in eligible cases. In order to fund those benefits, as I mentioned earlier, the government is going to raise pension plan premium rates from 9.9% to 11.9% beginning in 2019. In addition, the maximum yearly rate for pensionable earnings will rise to $82,700 in 2015, and earnings between the current and future annual maximums will be subject to a contribution rate of 8%. As a result, premiums, which are divided between employer and employee, will rise to $2,200 per worker. Obviously, those are a lot of figures and data. Many factors are at play here, so it is important that we do this right.

Now that the table has been set and everyone has the figures, let us really get to the heart of the matter and look at why, from our point of view, this bill is a bad idea. Increasing the Canada pension plan will leave Canadians with less money in their pockets. As we have shown, it could mean as much as $1,100 for some employees. That is the employee's share, but the employer's share will double that amount, for a total of $2,200 per employee who works in a plant, office, or any business. Families with two working parents will have $2,200 less in their budgets to raise their children and will have to make certain choices.

Another thing: entrepreneurs do not exactly have an affinity for this government, which imposed the carbon tax. The Liberals promised to lower the corporate tax rate from 11% to 9%, but they broke that promise. Our entrepreneurs are paying even more.

With the Canada pension plan bill, entrepreneurs will now have to spend more than $1,000 per employee. If this amounted to anything then at least we could say that everyone is doing their part. The problem is that it will take 40 years before this truly comes into effect. This changes nothing in the immediate future and does nothing for seniors who really need help immediately.

That too is the crux of the matter. There is nothing wrong with having a long-term vision for the Canada pension plan. We all know that there will be far fewer workers in the job market five, 10, 15, or 20 years from now, or so the demographics suggest. We have to take the necessary measures.

However, the necessary measures being proposed by the current government seek to take even more money out of everyone's pockets. When we formed the government, we implemented positive and constructive initiatives that were based on individual choice. That is the big difference.

Whereas this government thinks it knows what is good for people, we think that people know what is good for them, and we give them the tools to save. The TFSA is one such tool, and I will come back to that later. These two visions are completely different. What is good about this bill is that at least the burden is appropriately shared.

Let us take the example of Mr. Smith or Ms. Smith, who is employed, or even my son-in-law, whom I saw on the weekend, and who is a nice guy by the way. Some households will pay up to $2,200 more per year.

Those just getting started in life—as we refer to those who have just finished school—all have a bit of student debt, and that is not unusual. However, when they enter the job market, they want some help. They do not want to have less money in their pockets. They definitely do not want a government that imposes new rules and that will take $1,100 out of workers' pockets. That is what the government will do.

This bill is not good for young people entering the job market who have to pay back student loans. It will also be harder for young families to save enough money to go on vacation and enjoy life with new babies and so on. It will definitely be harder for businesses to create jobs and give their workers raises because they will have to shell out an extra $1,000 for each employee.

That is $1,000 less that could have gone to pay raises, $1,000 less per employee that could have been spent on training; and $1,000 less per employee that could have been spent on productivity-boosting equipment. It is also $1,000 less toward hiring people, creating jobs and wealth, making businesses even more productive, and enabling them to share all that talent and potential with the world given that our country basically relies on export. Companies will have $1,000 less to invest in their future and the future of their employees.

Our vision, which I clearly described earlier, is to trust people. We are aware of that issue and so was our government. Our predecessors, former finance ministers Jim Flaherty and Joe Oliver, considered the situation and took steps to implement measures to allow people to save and make the choices they felt were necessary, rather than having the government impose a system on them. That is the big difference between our vision and that of the current government.

Obviously, that is why we decided to increase the guaranteed income supplement. This year, the government implemented that measure. That is a good thing. Well done. It does not happen every day, but I am pleased to say that the government followed the path that we laid out when it comes to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. That was the right thing to do and the government implemented that measure in the budget.

I remember that we were doing a lot of interviews after the budget was tabled and a reporter told me point-blank that there must be something good in this budget. In that sort of situation, it is not always easy to come up with an answer and one has to think quickly. My thoughts immediately went to our seniors, because we knew that it would be a good thing to help them by increasing the guaranteed income supplement. That is what we did and the current government implemented that measure. Well done.

Another difference between our vision and that of the current government is that we invented what is called the tax-free savings account or TFSA. We are very proud of that. I remember quite clearly the moment that this measure was announced. I can still see my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, who by the way announced yesterday that he would be running for leadership of the Conservative Party. I wish him every success in that endeavour.

When he was minister, he said that people would really want that, especially people in Quebec. He was quite right, given that the tax-free savings account was one of our government's finest achievements to encourage people to save. This helped make progress on old age pension amounts. That is why we support incentives aimed at helping people save for their retirement.

The proposed measure means that the government will have to manage between $2,000 and $2,200 from the employer and employee. Can we really trust the Liberal government to manage our money? Need I remind everyone that this government was elected on a promise of small $10-billion deficits, but then presented a budget that will create a $30-billion deficit? TD Bank estimates that it could even reach $34 billion. Last week the Prime Minister said he was not really sure how this was all going to turn out in the end. Business owners are being asked to shell out $1,100 more per employee. I am not convinced that the Liberals are in the best position to properly manage public funds.

That is why we think that it is much better to trust people and allow them to make their own choices, critical choices for the future, than to take $1,100 per worker per year directly out of the employers' pockets.

If the government ever moves forward with this bill, the increase in CPP contributions will hurt the economy. There will be an estimated 0.4% to 0.7% reduction in employment, or 1,000 fewer jobs per year for 10 years. These estimates come from the Department of Finance Canada, not from a right-wing think tank.

The gross domestic product will drop by 0.3% to 0.5%, business investment and disposable income will drop by 0.3% to 0.6%, and long-term private savings will go down 7%.

That is not what we would call an economic stimulus for creating employment and wealth. It is hard to do worse than a reduction in employment, GDP, investments, disposable income, and private savings. All these economic development factors appear together in the same sentence and it is all bad news. It is hard to do worse when it comes to creating wealth and employment.

The Fraser Institute found that a 1% point increase in the CPP contribution rate reduces private savings by nearly 1%.

When Canadians workers who get up in the morning, work hard, and want value for their money realize on Thursday that they will now have $1,000 less a year in their pockets because of the government and its changes to the CPP, they will certainly not be inclined to save. We are not the ones saying it. It is the Fraser Institute.

The less people save, the more at risk they become. That is the difference between our vision and the Liberal government's. The Liberal government is telling people what is good for them. We trust people because we believe that they know what is best for themselves.

Let us talk about entrepreneurs. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 70% of small business owners do not agree with the proposed CPP hike, which could have a direct impact on their business. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, meaning the entrepreneurs who create jobs and wealth and know how to manage a company, are telling us that this is not a good idea.

Furthermore, 90% of small businesses believe it is important that public consultations be held before finalizing any agreement. Where, how, with whom, and how many times were public consultations held? We did not really get much of an answer.

A C.D. Howe Institute report indicates that the Liberals' plan will not benefit low-income earners. This independent economic institute says that their contributions will increase, but the net increase in retirement benefits will be low because the higher CPP benefits will be offset by a clawback of GIS benefits.

In other words, what the government takes with one hand, it may not necessarily give back with the other. That is the problem. That is why we established the guaranteed income supplement, and it has been a big help to those in a difficult situation. That was a positive move.

The Liberals are so much in agreement that they adopted our approach. Well done. However, Bill C-26 will take more out of people's pockets, which will put them at greater risk.

That is why Canadians do not like this bill. According to Angus Reid, only 9% of Canadians have been following this debate. That is worth noting. We are not talking about something that might happen at some point. This will affect all Canadians and all workers, yet a mere 9% of them are aware of what is going on in the House right now.

According to a poll conducted for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the majority of Canadians know nothing about the funding structure of the Canada Pension Plan. It turns out that 70% of working Canadians oppose an expanded CPP. More than one-third of employed Canadians say they cannot afford the proposed hikes. More than 80% of Canadians want the government to hold more consultations before making a decision.

That is the reality we are dealing with today because this measure will affect all Canadian workers. We have to do something to ensure that people at least know what this is about. We need to take our time and debate this important issue thoroughly.

Let us look at the situation facing seniors. According to the McKinsey firm, 83% of Canadian households should maintain their current standard of living in retirement. According to Statistics Canada, the number of low income seniors has dropped from 29% in 1970 to 3.7% today. That is the lowest poverty rate in the world. This very interesting fact deserves to be recognized.

According to the C.D. Howe Institute, Canada's savings rate has climbed from 7.7% of one's salary in the 1990s to 14.1% today. Poverty among seniors is therefore declining, twice as many Canadians are saving, and the savings rate is double what it was 20 years ago. Those are all good things.

Poverty rates among seniors have dropped and Canadians are saving more. We believe in reasonable, positive incentives to encourage saving, rather than coercive measures that take money out of taxpayers' pockets.

That is why Dan Kelly, president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said that it was extremely disappointing that the Minister of Finance is putting workers' wages, hours and jobs in jeopardy.

The chief economist at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the agreement would have a serious adverse effect on workers and the Canadian economy. According to him, the announced changes, including higher contributions, could put salaries, working hours, and Canadian jobs in jeopardy. This is not good for the economy.

Yves-Thomas Dorval, from the Conseil du patronat du Québec, says he is concerned about the new direction of the Canada pension plan and its impact on the Canadian economy. He says that there is no universal solution for encouraging retirement savings. On the contrary, this could have an adverse effect on economic activity, employment, and salaries.

As far as seniors are concerned, Charles Lammam from the Fraser Institute wrote that instead of spending political energy debating CPP expansion by falsely believing that many middle- or upper-income Canadians are not saving enough for their retirement, the focus of public debate needs to shift to finding better ways to help financially vulnerable seniors.

That is why our party opposes this bill. We do not think it is a good idea to take even more money out of workers' pockets and to force businesses to give even more money to the government.

We think that the best way to encourage people to save for a decent retirement is to give them the tools they need to make the choices that affect them. They are the ones who are in the best position to know what is good for their retirement, not the government.

That is why our government implemented positive measures, such as the guaranteed income supplement and the TFSA, which allow people to make their own informed choices. Rather than imposing a new tax on Canadians, we helped them to save for their retirement.

All this government wants to do is meddle in people's lives even more and take money out of taxpayers' pockets. We trust Canadians' good judgment. That is why we oppose this bill.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent on his new position. From my vantage point, it is always entertaining to see him present. I may not agree very much with what he says, but his presentation is very good to hear.

In the big picture there seems to be a contradiction on the Conservative side. On the one hand, the Conservatives say that putting a price on carbon will take money out of the pockets of people, people who cannot afford it and that improving the CPP will take money out of the pockets of those same people. On the other hand, we should leave the tax-free savings account at $10,000. That does not connect very well unfortunately. It would have been interesting to see how many people would have taken advantage of that huge lift in the tax-free savings account.

On top of that, household debt is high and 60% of Canadians in the private sector have no pension plan.

What does the member see the government facing in the future when all of the people who have not had the means, much less the choice, but certainly not the means to save as maybe the elite has for retirement, and simply cannot afford to live?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, we created the guaranteed income supplement, which helped those very people. It was such a good idea that we increased the amount of that benefit and the current government followed our lead and did likewise. I encourage the member to use caution when talking about the elite, since a person does not need to be a millionaire to save money. Anyone who is able to manage their money properly is able to save.

I would also like to remind the member that, if the government encourages people to save, like we did with the TFSA, they will have choices. The government wants to force people to pay over $1,000 a person per year into a program that they will not be able to access for another 40 years. We do not think that the Liberal approach is the right one, and we think that the government should instead continue with the incentives that we put in place.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's speech about the Canada pension plan and his views on it, particularly his comment about giving people more choice and the fact that the Conservatives stood for putting more money in the pockets of people. I would argue that when we look at the poverty situation among seniors, many of them do not have a choice. The level of poverty that I have witnessed in my community among seniors shows that they really have no choice. It is a day-to-day fight for them.

Studies that came out earlier this year showed that only 15% to 20% of middle-income Canadians without a workplace pension plan had saved enough money for retirement.

I also want to take issue with the Conservatives calling this a tax. This is not a tax. This would be a deferred wage for retirement years. I do not know of any tax that I pay where I would get money back later on. This is not a tax. People would be contributing to their retirement security to provide them with a meaningful income.

Furthermore, putting more money in the pockets of seniors is a good thing for small communities because seniors spend money in their communities. They often own their own homes and many of their housing assets. Putting more income in their pockets is be good for local communities.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservative members supported the pooled registered pension plans, but most of those benefits would overwhelmingly go to upper middle-class Canadians. Would the member now admit that those plans failed to improve the lives of middle and lower-income Canadians and that it is smart policy to educate Canadians about saving more? Current statistics show that this is not the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to start a fight on words. Is it a tax or is it not a tax? What I do know is that the government will take money out of the pockets of people. Maybe it is not clearly a tax, but the government will put its hand in the pockets of the people and that is not good for the wealth of the people.

That is why our government established the tax-free savings account, in which people have the chance to put money aside for their retirement. That is great. It is so great that the Liberal government should keep this program. This is not so bad.

I want to give some numbers to my colleague who said that older citizens had some difficulties. We all know some people who have difficulties.

According to Statistics Canada, the percentage of low-income seniors was 29% in 1970 and today it is 3.7%. It is Statistics Canada, not the Conservatives, who are saying this. 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 means. They know how to manage their money, not the government, and especially not this government, which wants to take money out of their pockets. That is also why our government created the TFSA, which is an excellent tool, and why we want the government to keep it.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his presentation, and I congratulate him on being named the finance critic.

I am a business owner. I have 25 employees. I have an associate who, with my daughter, is involved in running the business. This kind of measure will definitely impact my business and thousands of others across Canada.

Can my colleague tell us about the implications of such a measure for a company that has an average of 20 to 25 employees? Potentially, what would this mean in terms of staff reductions caused by the new costs of this measure?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. With this bill, the government is picking the pockets of not only workers, but also employers. I would actually like to salute all business owners, who are the real job creators and wealth creators.

A 25-person company like the one my colleague owns and operates would be taking a hit of at least $1,000 to $1,100 per employee. In other words, in the case of a 25-person company, that is $27,000 less.

For a small business with 25 employees, $27,000 would be enough to hire someone part time, provide training to the workers, or purchase equipment to increase productivity so the company can sell more product outside Canada. It could then generate even more wealth, for that is what our businesses do. I do not want to keep repeating the same argument, but when business owners are forced to shell out another $1,000 for each employee, that is $1,000 less for development, hiring, and pay raises. It is therefore anything but positive, constructive, and good for our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, why does the member believe the Conservative Party is right on this issue? Provincial governments came together in Vancouver and reached what I would call a historical agreement. This bill is in the best interests of the workers and Canadians, as a whole, are very supportive of it.

We have governments from all regions of the country, we have the national government demonstrating strong leadership on the pension front, and then we have the Conservatives who seem to be out of touch, once again, with Canadians.

Could the member explain why are all the other governments wrong, but the Conservative Party, which is out of touch, seems somehow to be correct in its mind?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my hon. colleague asked me a question. I really appreciate that he is always there and that he always has something to say, even if all we say is not good.

I cannot believe my hon. colleague from Winnipeg talked about the Vancouver meeting, the Vancouver accord. May I remind him that the Vancouver accord was based on the principle of the Paris accord. Does he not remember that the Vancouver accord was based on the fact that every province should support the decision all together, working together, and have the consultation in every province on the environmental issue?

What happened three weeks ago? The Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, dictated a new way for the carbon tax. This is why he scratched down the Vancouver accord, this famous meeting about which he talked. We have seen three ministers slam the door because his government cannot recognize, cannot appreciate, and cannot work with all the provinces.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton East.

Let me start by saying I am so honoured to rise in the House today 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.

To begin, here are a few basic facts about this program that has served so well for decades. It is a mandatory, contributory, social insurance program that provides partial income replacement for workers in Canada and their families in the event of retirement, disability, or death.

It began operation in 1966, and is overseen by federal and provincial finance ministers. Half a century ago, it took vision, diplomacy, and negotiation to reach this historic agreement. The then minister of national health and welfare, the hon. Judy LaMarsh, was the champion of this program, a senior member of the Lester B. Pearson government that brought us so many of our modern-day social programs.

The CPP covers employed and self-employed Canadians. Quebec has the separate but comparable Quebec pension plan. Contributions are collected on earnings above the year's basic exemption, $3,500, and up to the year's maximum pensionable earnings or $54,900 in 2016.

This is not the first time the CPP needed modernization. In the 1990s, as life expectancies began to lengthen and unfunded liabilities increased, the need to make important adjustments became clear. This change also required significant co-operation. Then federal finance minister, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, helped by his Winnipeg parliamentary secretary, David Walker, worked with provincial counterparts to do what was in the best interests of Canadians, and the CPP was significantly improved.

Today, again, we face the need for change. The proposed enhancement makes a couple of important changes. We will increase the amount of retirement pension from one-quarter to one-third of pensionable earnings, as well as the survivors' and disability pensions, and the post-retirement benefit, subject to the amount of additional contributions made and the number of years over which those contributions are made. We will increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% as of 2025. We will provide for the making of additional contributions beginning in 2019 and phased in gradually over seven years.

What is the reason for this change? Why have we brought forward the need to modernize and enhance the CPP?

First, a significant minority of Canadians approaching retirement age are not saving enough. Many middle-class families without workplace pensions are at risk of facing financial insecurity in retirement. Only 15% to 20% of middle-income Canadians are retiring with enough savings, according to a study from the Broadbent Institute. These individuals, now age 55 to 64, will face a dramatic drop in their standard of living, and many will fall into poverty.

Furthermore, most working Canadians today do not have a workplace pension. This suggests that in the not-so-distant future, more retiring Canadians will be at risk of falling into poverty as well. The bottom line is that the average CPP benefit is simply not enough to ensure Canadians the secure and dignified retirement they deserve. The previous government did not act, even though the writing on the wall was clear.

Second, the economy of today continues to undergo significant transformation, rendering a far different landscape than the one for which the original CPP was designed, most notably, the decline of workplace pension plans, as I have already mentioned, low interest rates on savings plans, and the changing nature of work. The latter refers to increasingly contract-based job markets.

We must recognize these changes and ensure that our social insurance programs address the ever-changing needs of Canadians. On June 20, 2016, Canada's finance ministers reached a historic agreement to make meaningful changes to the CPP. These will allow Canadians to retire with more money in their pockets. The bill would make the necessary legislative changes to implement this historic agreement.

The enhancement would be fully funded, which is a requirement of the existing CPP legislation. As a result, the enhanced portion of the retirement pension would accumulate gradually as additional contributions are made. The full replacement rate of one-third of lifetime pensionable earnings would be reached after 40 years of additional CPP contributions. It is important to note that the proposed enhancement represents a separate addition to the CPP. Benefits under the current or base CPP would continue to be paid as before, based on a contribution rate of 9.9% on earnings. The new or additional CPP benefit amounts, based on two new contribution rates of 2% and 8%, effectively serve as a top-up to base CPP benefit amounts.

Importantly, the bill would be phased in slowly over seven years with the fully adjusted contribution requirements not coming into force until 2025. This would allow businesses the flexibility and long-term planning required. Total benefit amounts would be calculated using the same formula as under the base CPP.

These changes are long overdue and were promised in our election platform, thus representing the fulfilment of the needs of Canadians to secure their retirements and to provide greater financial security to vulnerable members of our society.

It is important to note that Canadians back this change. According to a recent Forum Research poll, over 65% of Canadians support making changes to the CPP.

I look forward to continued debate on the proposed legislation and to working with members on all sides of the House to ensure its passage. Given the buy-in from provincial ministers across the country, nine out of 10 provinces, this truly represents a non-partisan, national consensus, one which I hope all my hon. colleagues can get behind and support.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am a small business owner, like my colleague from Quebec stated he was earlier. I have a partner who is running my business in my absence. I wonder if the member across the way could explain to Canadians how taking money out of the pockets of employees is going to help them to have a better standard of living today to better meet the needs of their children and their families.

Also, for every dollar that employees would be required to commit, the employer is going to have to contribute an equal amount. The Liberals already did not reduce the small business tax like they promised they would do. How would taking money out of the employers' pockets with additional CPP contributions help a business to grow and continue to create jobs and create wealth?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the answer from my colleague from the NDP across the way. It was very persuasive to me, and we are very persuaded on this side of the House. We are going to have a seven-year phase-in to allow for adjustments by businesses. As my hon. colleague from the NDP said, this is not a tax. This is an investment in our communities. It is an investment in the future of individuals.

It is interesting that the Liberal Party has always been at the forefront of investing in people and in our communities. The Canada pension plan was resisted by the Conservative Party back in 1966. I was just reading the records of the 1990 debate. Mr. Harper, in his previous incarnation as a Reform Party member, along with Preston Manning, opposed changes to modernize the Canada pension plan back then, and indeed, the Conservatives are opposing it today.

The hon. finance critic was talking about the GIS. The Conservative Party raised the age for OAS and the GIS to 67, and we have returned it to 65. That would have left many seniors in poverty.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I am going to support the bill today, but I have a lot of serious concerns.

The people of North Island—Powell River have a lot of seniors living in extreme poverty. I have talked to constituents who face challenges, asking themselves whether they should pay for their medication or eat this month, or pay for their medication or have heat this winter. Those are real concerns, so this is a good solution, potentially, for the future for someone like my 16-year-old son. However, is this the best solution for today?

Also, can we hear a little more about how we are going to invest in seniors today, and are we going to make sure that we do not see a clawback of the GIS in the future?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. It gives me the opportunity to talk about what this government has done for seniors.

As I was saying at the end of my last response to my Manitoba colleague's question, we've returned the age for the collection of the OAS and GIS back to 65 from 67. That is going to put an average of $13,000 in the pockets of each and every senior, many of whom would have been finding themselves in poverty or on social services rolls. We have increased the GIS top-up for almost a million seniors.

Also, we will be investing $200 million in seniors' housing over the next two years. We are working very hard on a national poverty reduction strategy, and I can say that seniors will be very much at the heart of that strategy.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in Ottawa after a week of travelling with the finance committee. Today's debate is a very pressing one. The changes that our government are proposing to enhance the Canada pension plan are important to every working Canadian. Not only are they important, but they are much needed.

We know that today, one in four families nearing retirement, which is 1.1 million families, risk not saving enough for retirement. In particular, middle-class families without workplace pension plans are at greater risk of under-saving for retirement. A third of these families are at severe risk. To address this, a historic agreement was reached with the provinces in June to make meaningful changes to the CPP that would allow Canadians to retire with more money in their pockets. These enhancements would be phased in over a seven-year period, starting in 2019. Once fully in place, the CPP enhancements would increase the maximum retirement benefit by about 50%.

Enhanced benefits would accumulate gradually as individuals pay into the enhanced CPP. To fund these enhanced benefits, annual CPP contributions would increase modestly over seven years, starting in 2019. I want to remind my colleagues in the House that contribution rates in Canada are much lower than those in other countries with public pension plans. In fact, the CPP contribution rate is about half of the average rate among 25 countries in the OECD that have public pension plans. This remains true even with the CPP enhancement.

What would this mean to Canadians? What would it mean to young workers in their twenties? Recently, I spoke to 20-year-old Canadians and they asked what they would get out of this CPP enhancement. Workers nearing retirement asked me if this would change their pension benefits. Low-income workers worry that any extra contributions will come straight off their paycheques. These are very good questions.

For young workers in their early twenties just starting out their careers, this will be a great benefit for when they retire. By paying into the enhanced CPP, they will have more to retire on. The modest increase in contributions would be phased in over seven years, so people working with constant earnings of $50,000 would contribute an additional $70 per year, or $6 per month, in 2019. By the end of the phase-in period, those same people would be contributing $475 per year, or $40 extra per month.

By strengthening the Canada pension plan, workers will receive more money from their pensions, one-quarter of their eligible earnings to one-third of their eligible earnings. If people make $50,000 a year during their working lives, they will receive about $16,000 each year in retirement instead of $12,000 today. That is $4,000 more right into their pockets. In addition, the enhancement will increase the point at which a person stops making contributions by about 14% in 2025.

I know that some are concerned about the increased contributions and what they will mean to their bottom lines and, most importantly, their paycheques. We thought about this and designed a gradual phase-in, so that contributions would increase modestly over seven years.

We also thought about employers in designing the enhanced CPP. We specifically designed a slow phase-in of the annual CPP contributions, with the express purpose of minimizing the impact and giving employees and employers time to adjust to these new changes.

The great news is that young workers will see the largest increase in their retirements benefits. In fact, we know that young people in general find it difficult to save. Many are working in jobs that do not have company pension plans, which means they have to save for their retirement on their own. The fact is that a tax deduction, instead of a tax credit, would be provided to the employee contribution portion of the enhanced CPP. This would avoid new CPP contributions increasing the cost of savings.

Workers in the middle of their careers or nearing retirement will still benefit from our enhanced CPP, as the increased contributions that are made in 2019 will later go toward an enhanced retirement pension plan.

What about low-income workers who are worried about the effect of increased CPP contributions on their paycheques? How will the enhanced CPP help them? I want to assure my colleagues and low-income workers all across this country that an enhanced CPP would benefit all workers, including those with low incomes.

In order to make sure that low-income workers are not burdened financially as a result of these extra contributions, the government will also enhance the working income tax benefit. The proposed enhancement to the working income tax benefit is designed to provide additional benefits that roughly offset the incremental CPP contributions for eligible low-income workers. Therefore, with this enhancement, there will be no impact on disposable income, and when they retire they will also get a larger retirement benefit payment. The bottom line is that people who are working in Canada, paying into the CPP and planning to retire after 2019, will have more money in their pockets from the CPP retirement pension benefit.

Day in and day out, in my riding of Brampton East, I speak to constituents who call me personally about the issues they and their families face. I often hear that young Canadians are having a hard time finding permanent employment and are worried about their financial future, their financial outlook, and saving for retirement. I hear from young families and established families alike, who are thinking of retirement and realizing they do not have adequate savings. This concerns me, and many of us in this House.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons estimates that roughly 600,000 seniors are living in poverty in Canada. That is more than the population of all of the city of Brampton. Frankly, it is unacceptable. Our government is doing its part to ensure that no seniors will be living in poverty in the future. We started by reversing the eligibility age of old age security to 65 and boosting the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, by 10%, to provide almost $1,000 per year more per GIS recipient. That is aimed especially at helping low-income seniors who live alone. However, that is not enough. Associations like CARP have been calling for a CPP expansion for years, and it is about time that we delivered.

We feel that this is a win-win. I urge my honourable colleagues to support an enhanced CPP, which will further help Canadians contribute to a safe and secure retirement.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the member for Brampton East's contributions to the House. He talked about the aged 20-somethings. We have heard from Dan Kelly of the CFIB that because of these kinds of increases, employers have already said that they would reduce hours or not hire. That would hurt the 20-somethings the most. Even if they are working, they would not be able to pay as much toward their student loans. They will not have as large a tax-free savings account because of the government's action, and they will not be able to put that money aside for a house. His government has also made it more difficult for young people to get into the market by pushing down the amount they can qualify for. They will have less money to pay for their student loans and less money to put down for a down payment. We know that home ownership is an important investment, It helps to provide not just housing but financial security for seniors. Why is his government not thinking of the 20-somethings?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. As a colleague and a friend on the finance committee, I always appreciate our conversations outside of this chamber. However, I want to reassure Canadians, especially, the aged 20-something Canadians, that our government has done more in the first year of our mandate than the last government did in the last 10 years of its mandate on how the 20-somethings succeed in this world.

I stand in this House as somebody who still has student loans to pay, because I was in my twenties not too long ago. Our government has enhanced the Canada student loans program, which will help more young Canadians go to school and be less in debt when they graduate. The Canada pension plan enhancement is important for young Canadians, who will benefit the most in future years, as we modestly increase this over a seven-year phase-in to increase their contributions, so that they can retire safely and securely.

I encourage my hon. colleagues across the way to support this bill.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important to ensure that our seniors have a reasonable pension. We all know that many seniors are living in poverty. Many seniors in Drummond receive less than $1,000 per month. That is no way to show respect for our seniors, who built this country and raised families.

Speaking of people who raised families, the latest available figures show that 30% of female seniors living alone live in poverty. That number has tripled in the past 20 years. That is why I want to know how my colleague would help end poverty for vulnerable senior women.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has made a commitment to seniors. Our government has reversed the increase in the age of eligibility on old age security back to age 65. Our government has increased the guaranteed income supplement specifically to help single seniors pay their bills. Our government is investing in Canadians. Our government has reduced taxes for Canadians. Our government is helping seniors provide for themselves and, most importantly, the Canada pension plan enhancements are going to reduce the number of seniors living in poverty in years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join this debate.

I have been listening with some degree of incredulity to the arguments coming from the government side and have to start with a quote, which I believe is from William Pitt, who said that “The facts of life have turned out to be Tory.”

Hearing my Liberal friends talk, they say that people are not saving enough and that if we only took more money away from them, put it somewhere else, and then gave it back to them later, that would solve the problem. There is clearly a misunderstanding on the government side about the fact that this money has to come from somewhere and that the cost of that is going to unfold.

The government members talk about a phased-in plan. However, without appreciating whether it is phased-in over two or seven years, as intended, or longer than that, the cost will still be there for individuals and small businesses. We will still very much see that negative impact.

To start, I will just review where we are in this regard.

The core of the bill would increase the amount that individuals and employers have to pay as part of their CPP deductions. This will eventually, but not for current seniors, lead to higher payouts down the line. Therefore, we are not talking about improving the situation for those currently in retirement; but in the long run, we are talking about a system that would require individuals and businesses to pay in more and pay out more in the future.

In terms of the magnitude of this change, the premiums will increase from 9.9% to 11.9% eventually; the maximum level of pensionable earnings will go up from just under $55,000 to $82,700 by the year 2025; and premiums will rise by up to $2,200 per worker, with the amount collected being split between employers and employees. These are very significant numbers. The costs are significant and will have a significant impact on the economy.

We think on this side of the House that it is a bad idea, and I am going to outline in my speech what I see as five principle reasons why this is not a good idea. The arguments are as follows. First, people can save their own money more effectively. Second, that existing savings vehicles that were cut by the government in fact provide the additional incentives and flexibility to be more useful to people involved. Third, I am going to talk about the economic costs of this plan. Fourth, I will talk about better ways to get help for seniors. Finally, if I have time, I am going to talk about the relationship between liberty and virtue as it relates to this policy.

First is the point that people are able to save more money themselves. I raised this point with one of the government members who had talked about how effective the CPP has been, which I would generally agree with, in generating returns. However, what he neglected to respond to is the fact that there are other ways this could have been done. In fact, the government could have explored a voluntary option in which people could choose to contribute more to the CPP and collect more in the future.

Of course, the Liberals could have stuck with, or chosen to enhance, the existing saving vehicles. I will talk more about that in my next point, but the Liberals have chosen not to do that, and I think they have to defend that policy. It is not enough to say that they would like people to have more for retirement. They have to actually defend the policy in terms of why it should be mandatory and not voluntary for the individuals involved.

On this side of the House, we have a general preference for giving individuals as much freedom, liberty, and ability to manage their own resources as possible, for the simple reason that people are generally in the best position to judge what constitutes their own interest, what they are going to need for retirement, what they are going to need in the present, and what kinds of investments will be best for them in the short and long terms. We prefer to believe that individuals are in the best position to judge what is going to be conducive to their own happiness rather than some external actor, in this case the state. The government is less likely to know what is good for me than I am. I think that makes a lot of sense.

This flows from the principle of subsidiarity, that those who are closest to a situation, who are closest to the practice of something, are in the best position to decide what is in their own interest. This is why we favour choice in this case. We favour giving individuals the ability to control their own retirement.

I would note parenthetically that there is some irony in the government's position, in that it clearly is not capable of showing any kind of temperance in the use of public finances, with its deficit that has ballooned beyond all proportion and beyond what it promised in the election, and yet expresses concern that individuals are not saving enough.

This particularly underlines the point that the government and perhaps governments in general are in a less well-placed position to decide about savings for the future than individuals are, and that we should give the power and the ability to individuals to make decisions about their own future.

Second, I would like to discuss existing savings vehicles, because the government has made a choice to cut back on existing savings vehicles and move in the direction of mandatory contributions rather than emphasizing individual choice.

We have in place right now in Canada two primary savings vehicles for individuals: tax-free savings accounts and RRSPs. TFSAs and RRSPs function somewhat differently, of course. With RRSPs an individual saves the tax up front. They pay the tax after they withdraw money from the RRSP at some point in the future, whereas with TFSAs they pay the tax up front, but then they do not pay tax on the interest and they do not pay tax on the money when they withdraw it. These are two different kinds of savings vehicles that may be advantageous to different people in different situations.

Our previous Conservative government introduced tax-free savings accounts and then expanded them. We increased the contribution limit to $10,000 a year. The present government cut back the tax-free savings account. It did not replace it with any other kind of savings vehicle. It reduced the capacity of individuals to be involved in private savings and it has moved in the mandatory direction found in the bill.

The Liberals' argument for cutting back on the tax-free savings account was that only rich people have resources to save. Here is the reality: over 65% of tax-free savings account holders make under $60,000 a year. In fact, almost half of TFSA holders make less than $40,000 per year, and over half of those who max out their tax-free savings account make less than $60,000 per year.

Based on the data we have, it seems that TFSAs are in fact a preferred savings vehicle for those with modest incomes. When we recognize the different mechanics of TFSAs and RRSPs, it is pretty clear why that is, because RRSPs allow us to save on taxes in advance but pay them afterwards. Those who have very high incomes but project that will have relatively lower incomes in the future are more likely to use RRSPs, whereas if an individual expects to have a similar income at their point of retirement or at the point at which they are withdrawing from their TFSA, then they are more likely to get the benefit from a TFSA.

If an individual has a very large income up front, because of the income differential between what they are earning in the present and what they believe they will earn in the future, those with higher incomes are more likely to use RRSPs, relatively speaking. Again, what is in an individual's interest will depend very much on personal circumstances and the variety of different factors that inform their tax situation.

Generally the numbers suggest that TFSAs are not a savings vehicle exclusive to the rich. In fact, they are more likely to be used by those with of modest or lower incomes. That is an important point.

There are a variety of ways the government could consider further expanding the use of voluntary savings vehicles. It could go back to the original amount, the $10,000 a year that we had in place at the time of the election.

I recently met with the Canadian Real Estate Association, which I think has a good proposal for expanding the home buyers plan. A lot of people could withdraw more money from their RRSPs to make an initial investment in buying a home. These kinds of changes to these voluntary savings plans could encourage and increase their use.

We have these existing savings vehicles that I think work very well and create good economic incentives and opportunities for people to make these sorts of investments, and yet the government has made a particular choice to move away from these vehicles, to cut the ability of individuals to invest in them, and has instead moved in this mandatory direction. We think that does not show a proper appreciation for the value of individual liberty and freedom with respect to people's own funds. It also misses the practical opportunities that come with these existing savings vehicles that are working very well.

We favour the incentives of voluntary opportunities that come with things like TFSAs and RRSPs, and we see the value in continuing their use and expanding their effectiveness.

Third, I would like to discuss the specific economic problems that come with the plan that the government has proposed, in which we levy a higher payroll deduction on individuals. I would call it a payroll tax. Some members say it is not a tax because the person will get some of it back in the future. Hopefully, that is true of all taxes, that we enjoy some benefit from all taxes. However, this is money that the government requires be deducted and whether or not we call it a tax, it certainly behaves like a tax in an economic sense insofar as it introduces a certain disincentive.

If I am an employer, with the introduction of this new tax, it will become more expensive for me to hire someone. That will create a marginally greater disincentive to hire that person. In fact, there was a survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has been very vocal on this issue. They represent small business owners. Here is what it found when it did a survey on the ORRP, the precursor within Ontario to the CPP increase. It found that 69% said they would freeze or cut salaries and 53% of businesses indicated they would have to reduce positions to address the increased costs of hiring. That is a really significant impact. More people will likely be unemployed and people will have their wages cut.

I would ask the members of the government, is it worth it? When we have the alternative of voluntary savings, there is no disincentive to employers or individuals working at their voluntary savings, which they control themselves, but that disincentive does exist with the mandatory savings. So, we are getting nothing instead of something.

I want to read a quote specifically from the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about this plan. He said:

It is tremendously disappointing to see that finance ministers are putting Canadian wages, hours and jobs in jeopardy and willfully moving to make an already shaky economy even worse.

That is what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is hearing from its members. That is what it is hearing the impact of this change would be.

The members across the way need to think about the fact there are better alternatives in place with voluntary savings, and that the plan they are proposing will have real substantial costs for business.

My fourth point is that there are better ways to help our seniors.

When we were in government, we pursued tax reductions to make life more affordable for seniors. We said, instead of the government taking more of their money and making decisions about their future, we should be giving tax reductions back to seniors.

Here is what we did when we were in government. We increased the age credit amount by $2,000; we doubled the pension income credit; we introduced pension income splitting; we enhanced and increased funding for the new horizons for seniors program; we launched the Canadian employers for caregivers action plan; we expanded the targeted initiative for older workers; and we undertook measures to protect the seniors who were using financial services.

The government talks about the GIS. Importantly, when we were in government, we increased the amount that the GIS recipients can earn through employment without any reduction in their GIS benefits, increasing the amount from $500 to $3,500. We increased the age limit for the RRSP to RRIF conversation to 71 years of age from 69 years age. We also established the tax-free savings accounts; and we introduced the largest GIS increase in over 25 years, which gave eligible low-income seniors additional benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples.

There are things we can do through the tax system, through tax reductions. However, we can see a difference in philosophy here. The government wants to take control away from seniors and manage more of their money for them. We want to give those resources back to seniors.

The final point I want to make is about the relationship between liberty and virtue, and I think it is an important one, perhaps one of the most under-discussed aspects of this issue.

The government wants to increase state involvement and, therefore, reduce individuals' involvement in retirement planning by expanding the mandatory CPP deduction. However, the underlying objective is replacing private savings with state collection and distribution. This has a negative impact on the development and practice of those virtues that make for a strong society.

As I have argued before, we should generally seek to give to individuals the greatest possible amount of liberty, because individuals can best judge their own interests and are best positioned to be the most responsible managers of their own affairs. At a practical level, individuals generally know their own affairs better than anyone else.

I think there is a deeper and perhaps more profound arguments for liberty, both in general and in this specific case—a more important argument than practical effectiveness.

Liberty, in general, can play a critical role in the development and practice of the virtues. A virtue is a positive quality of character, perhaps the most famous being the four cardinal virtues highlighted by various ancient thinkers: prudence, courage, justice, and temperance. Though there may be disagreement about the origins of these concepts, and though they are rarely explicitly discussed in this place, I think we would all accept their importance. A society characterized by wisdom, courage, justice, and self-control is naturally a better society. It is one in which people have the means to more effectively pursue their own happiness and the happiness of others and one in which strong and good communities can fulfill functions that the government otherwise would have to.

Virtues are like muscles. A person who has never had to exercise self-control, for example, will be less likely to know how to exercise it when a situation arises when it is necessary. The more a virtue muscle is used, the stronger it gets.

I generally doubt the ability of government to make all wise decisions. Even if I had more faith in the wisdom of the state, I would still wish for a society with as much liberty as possible, because a society in which the state removes all possible temptation, occasions for injustice, need for courage, etc., is certainly a worse society, because it is one devoid of the practice of virtue, practise that will always be necessary in one situation or another, practise that is necessary to make perfect.

It is clear from some of the comments made by advocates of an extended pension plan that many of those motivating this change actually want to create a society in which private savings for retirement are not necessary, one in which the practice of putting money aside for the future is not necessary, or at least is less necessary, because the government is doing it for them. This removes one of the most vital ways in which many people learn and practise the virtues of prudence and temperance. The process of denying ourselves things we want in order to save for the future is certainly challenging, but recognizing the need for saving and learning to do it helps one become a better person: more wise, more temperate, and more self-controlled. The qualities of character or virtue one learns by saving money are important and useful. They help us develop prudence and temperance in other areas of life.

Any government policy that purports to remove the need for people to develop certain virtues, I would argue, is deeply injurious to the social good. By robbing people of the means to save through this payroll tax, and by communicating to people that they no longer need to save, the current government would take away tools that I see as vital for the creation of a good society.

I do not want people to have savings decisions made for them. I want people to be able to make decisions to save on their own; yes, to receive some support to do so, to receive the agency, and to receive support if they are not able to or choose not to but also to receive the incentives and the information to make prudent decisions with respect to their own money and to live, by the way, in an economy that allows them the opportunity to live well into retirement if they do so.

I do not think we are yet at a point where everyone has the opportunity or the ability to save as much as he or she needs to pursue a good retirement. That is why we need a stronger economy. That is why we need to continue to create opportunities for small business. That is why the tax-cut changes we made that make life more affordable for seniors are very important. Those things are critical for helping all seniors.

I will say this, as well. An economic system with more liberty more properly reflects the dignity of individuals, because individuals are capable of making prudent decisions about their own financial future and should be given the ability by government to do so. They should not have that pulled away from them.

I will say to the government that perhaps instead of removing space for the individual practise of virtue, the government can apply prudence and temperance in its own financial management. Indeed, the hallmark of a good society is one in which the government is more focused on practising the virtues itself than on micromanaging the lives of others. Again, a good society requires virtue, and liberty provides critical opportunities for the development and practice of virtue.

Just to review, here are the points I have made today.

First, I have made the point that people can save money for themselves. It is perverse to hear the Liberals say, “People are not saving enough for retirement, so we will take more of their money away and then give it back to them later”. What they should be doing instead is looking for ways to give people back more of their own money, and indeed, giving them the incentives and the opportunities to save more of their own resources.

Second, I talked about the existing savings vehicles that are in place and that were cut by the current Liberal government. Those include existing savings vehicles like RRSPs and especially tax-free savings accounts, which we saw cut back on, which are used effectively. The government should be looking for ways of expanding them. Again, I mentioned a proposal for the expansion of the home buyers' plan. We can use those existing savings vehicles to very good effect.

Third, I talked about the economic problems associated with the government's proposal. In fact, what they are talking about is going to cost jobs, hurt wages, and hurt small business. It will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy overall.

I talked about there being better ways to help seniors by cutting taxes.

Finally, I talked about how having a voluntary, as opposed to mandatory, system of savings is positive from the perspective of creating a good and virtuous society.

I look forward to questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before going to questions and comments, I just want to remind everyone that we are going through debate, and it is nice to see everyone getting along, being very cordial, but the hum kind of gets up, and it makes it very difficult to get those questions out there.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite, and my fear is that his parents may have read way too much Ayn Rand to him as a child as a bedtime story. Failing that, perhaps he is on economic steroids and a drug test might be in order.

I heard a description of the CPP as a tax, which it is not, and then I heard that low-income families and low-income wage earners are going to be taxed at an unfair rate and will not be able to save as a result.

I realize that the member may have been paying into CPP for only a short period of time, but is he aware that the CPP is scaled to income and that low-income Canadians who do not have the capacity to save benefit the most from this program, particularly when they retire? Under our government, there is a 10% increase for single seniors, the poorest group of seniors. They are going to get that money immediately as a result of the steps we have taken to make sure that people can retire with dignity in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was worried for a moment that my friend was channelling his inner Donald Trump, but fortunately, he stopped after the drug test suggestion and did not go any further. It was interesting that he drew from some of my comments about virtue ethics that I have an interest in Ayn Rand. He might want to reflect on the philosophical differences between those two traditions.

More to the point, what I emphasized in my remarks was the choice we have between the mandatory and voluntary routes. We favour the voluntary route. What I said specifically about low-income Canadians is that the cuts the government made to the tax-free savings account have a disproportionate negative impact on low-income Canadians. I shared some of those numbers very clearly. Those who are of modest incomes are more likely to use tax-free savings accounts because of the differential impact of RRSPs, on the one hand, and TFSAs on the other. One of the stats I quoted was that more than half of those who maxed out their tax-free savings accounts are making less than $60,000 a year. I see the member shaking his head. I encourage him to go to fin.gc.ca. The numbers are there.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments the hon. member made, and I am having a hard time not having an emotional reaction, because it is very insensitive and an affront to suggest that seniors have made a choice to struggle in retirement. As a matter of fact, we have a regulatory regime that requires that certain payments be taken out of our paycheques, and we need to have the protection of deferred wages legislated. I will tell him why.

Some of the future seniors who will be struggling are making choices right now to remove money from those same savings accounts to help their children with student loans, because it is brutal, when it comes to collecting those student loans, when people are in the workforce. The way the member has portrayed the situation is very unrealistic.

Does the member understand that the GIS fund is actually taxpayer funded and that the more seniors who do not need an income supplement, the better it is for taxpayers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my colleague's contributions in this House. With greatest respect, I would ask her to check the record in terms of my speech, because I at no point said that people make a choice to struggle or anything remotely similar to that.

The point that is perplexing to me is that members from the government and the NDP say that people are struggling to save for their retirement, so let us take more of their money away and do it for them. I do not think that respects the autonomy of individuals, whether they are doing well or whether they are not. I do not think it respects their autonomy or their own capacity to plan for their own future.

I think we are better off using tax-free savings accounts, again, a savings vehicle that is more likely to be used by those who are of modest means. We are better off doing what our government did, which was increase the guaranteed income supplement. We made some of these changes to try to address the issue of affordability for seniors, and I listed the many substantial changes the previous government made to make life more affordable for seniors.

What is at issue is the lack of respect for the autonomy of those individuals by individuals in other parties. They think that if individuals are not saving enough, the solution is for the government to take more of their money away. I do not think that is a solution. If individuals are not doing well, we should not be taking more of their money away. In fact, we should be looking for ways to pass resources back to them. That is exactly what we are better off doing. That was the proposal we had. That is what we had in place with the expanded form of the tax-free savings account.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The time for questions and comments will resume after question period. There will be four minutes remaining.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There are four minutes remaining in questions and comments after the speech for the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that during the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's patrician lecture on virtue, he seemed to believe that people who did not have the income to put money aside had something to be ashamed of, that people who did not have the revenue to take advantage of the voluntary deferred revenue programs such as RRSPs or TFSAs lacked virtue, that to have virtue one required at least some wealth, and that those who did not have any disposable income should be judged by how they spent that same disposable income.

I am happy the member has never had to choose between his housing and his retirement, between his food and his medication, between his education and his immediate need for income. Those problems may not be his reality, but I can assure him that this represents the daily life of many virtuous Canadians.

Could the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan confirm that he believes that someone who simply does not have the revenue to put money aside has no virtue?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really shameful that when we try to engage in a substantive discussion of issues, the member across the way would so flagrantly misstate what I said in questions. I do not know if I should add anything to that. The record is very clear in what I talked about.

I talked about a choice between giving people the means to voluntarily control their own circumstances and the benefits of that situation and a situation in which the government tried to take away the means for people to control their own circumstances. I advanced the argument that giving people more control over their circumstances was good, not only because they would be able to leverage their greater knowledge of their circumstances for their own good, but also because it would provide them with the opportunity to practise and to deepen virtue.

That is not in any way a function specifically of a person's wealth. It is a question of whether these decisions are made by individuals or by governments. I specifically said that for those who were struggling, the better alternative was for the government to cut taxes to give more resources to those who needed it.

I am sorry to say this, but the member should really be ashamed for asking a question that way, which so deeply misstates the speech. He would be better off to listen and to pose questions that reflect what was actually discussed.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

What we have heard on the other side is that government knows best; that is big government telling people to give it their money, that it knows best. When we give Canadians options, they will make choices that best reflect their situation. However, taking away methods for Canadians to save and taxing them more are not good policies.

I wonder if my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan could also comment on this. What happens if people pass away before they collect CPP, they get zero. That is a big issue, especially when they want to pass on an inheritance or their savings to others. Maybe the member could comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, those are all very good points from my colleague.

This is one of the advantages of the voluntary savings vehicles about which I talked. It remains an individual's money. Individuals have no disincentive to put money aside and save it because they know that money will be theirs for them to use in the future or to pass on to someone else.

That is another very good reason why the voluntary approach is a better approach for society, as opposed to the government knows best, government takes it away and gets to spend it, approach.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I am delighted to be here for this very important, and I would call it historic, debate. The changes our government is proposing to enhance the Canada pension plan are important to every working Canadian and would have a lasting impact for generations to come.

Not only are the changes important, they are needed. We know that today one in four families nearing retirement, that is 1.1 million families, risk not saving enough for retirement. This is even higher for middle-class families. A third of middle-class families without workplace pension plans are at a risk of not saving enough for retirement. It is estimated that the proposed enhancement debated today, once fully in place, would reduce the share of families at risk of not having adequate retirement savings from 24% to 18%. This is close to 300,000 Canadians who would be lifted out of post-retirement income insecurity.

For families at risk, it is estimated that the average gap between retirement income and income required to replace 60% of working income will decrease by more than half, declining from $8,300 to $3,700, which represents a substantial increase in income security for the remaining 18% of retirees.

This enhancement will be gradually implemented over seven years, beginning in 2019. Retirement benefits, which will gradually increase as people contribute to the enhanced CPP, will be funded by a slight increase in annual contributions over seven years. The slight and progressive increase in CPP contributions will minimize the impact on employers and employees and give them time to adjust.

I want to remind the House that contribution rates in Canada are much lower than those in other countries with public pension plans. In fact, the CPP contribution rate is about half of the average rate among 25 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, that have similar public pension plans.

Even with the CPP enhancement, this rate would be just over half the average OECD rate. Accordingly, a person who earns $50,000 a year would contribute approximately $70 more per year, or $6 per month, in 2019. By the end of the phase-in period, those same people would be contributing $475 per year, or $40 extra per month to benefit from the enhanced CPP.

By strengthening the Canada pension plan, workers would receive more money from their retirement pension. The amount would increase from one-quarter of their eligible earnings to one-third. This means a person making $50,000 a year over a 40-year career would receive $16,000 each year in retirement instead of the current $12,000. That is $4,000 more each year right in the pockets of workers.

A more modest earner, one averaging about $35,000 a year, would receive almost $3,000 more a year above the $8,500 currently provided by today's CPP.

In addition, the enhancement would increase the point at which a person would stop making contributions by about 14% in 2025. This increase in eligible earnings would further increase the retirement benefits that all of these Canadians would receive.

This enhancement will give more Canadians access to a public pension plan. It will also give low-income workers more incentive to work because they will receive higher benefits. Low-income workers will benefit in the short term because they will have more disposable income, and in the long term because they will have a better retirement. A total of 6,000 low-income workers will be lifted out of poverty in the short term.

Additional great news is that our younger workers would see the largest increase in their retirement benefits. Younger Canadians often find it difficult to save in safe, reliable, and efficient ways. Many are working in jobs that do not have a company pension.

Workers in the middle of their careers or nearing retirement would also benefit from enhanced CPP as the increased contributions made in 2019 and beyond would go toward an enhanced retirement pension.

However, the Canadians who will benefit the most from this enhancement are those who do not currently have access to a private pension plan. The advantages of public plans are considerable because they effectively protect against financial and longevity risks, they are transferable between businesses and provinces, and they are administered at a low cost to businesses and workers.

The enhancement of the CPP is therefore an inclusive policy that is good for the middle class for several very important reasons. This enhancement offers all Canadians the opportunity to benefit more fully from a public plan. It increases low-income Canadians' incentive to work. It reduces poverty among low-income workers, and it improves the income security of our seniors.

We believe that all Canadian workers will benefit from this enhancement, particularly the middle-class and those working hard to join it.

I invite my colleagues to enthusiastically support this historic opportunity to enhance the Canada pension plan, a measure for our country and all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the whole package in dealing with seniors, today we are talking about CPP and this historic agreement of the minister and this government with other provincial jurisdictions, which is good for CPP and good for future pensioners. We also saw through the cabinet issue dealing with the guaranteed income supplement that there is a substantial increase, especially for Canada's poorest of seniors. We will see some single seniors receiving upwards of $900 more a year as a direct result. Then we have the OAS, the third pillar to our pension program, where this government has made the decision to return it back to the age of 65. The Harper government increased the age to 67. We have returned it back to 65.

Would the minister not be of the same opinion that we have a government that is in touch with what Canadians want and expect when it comes to pensions?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker I would like to congratulate my colleague for making it very clear that we are not only concerned about the present circumstances of our middle-class families, but we are looking to the future to make sure that families and our citizens and our workers, when they retire, have the income security that they not only deserve but also want.

It is a great fortune for us in the House to stand here today at this time to celebrate this historic change in the CPP. We will remember this because the impact of that magnificent change will be felt and celebrated for many years to come.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding in Courtenay—Alberni, we have a disproportionate number of elderly women who are living in poverty, women who are going to the food banks for the first time, pensioners who are struggling to make ends meet. They cannot even afford to buy medicine. Some of them are going to homeless shelters. The most recent figures available show that 30% of single elderly women live in poverty. That number has tripled in the last 20 years under Conservative and Liberal governments. Only 4.5% of female CPP recipients receive the maximum benefit compared with 18% for men.

How will this CPP enhancement plan help lift vulnerable elderly women out of poverty? In our communities where we are having this homeless problem, we are not getting the support we need for homeless shelters. We need that, so if the member could answer the question it would be greatly appreciated by the people in my community.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and welcome this opportunity to say that this enhanced CPP is also going to lead to an enhanced disability and survivors benefit. We know how difficult some of our senior women find it when they become widows, when they find themselves both in economic and social insecurity. This enhancement to the CPP will serve to support the income and social security of all members of a family and both members of a couple.

This is good news for workers. It is also very good news for all members of a family who depend on one worker's earnings and savings.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time today to speak on a topic that is very important to many Canadians.

During last year's general election, I knocked on many doors and visited with many residents, and many asked about the enhancement of the CPP. After years of hard work, Canadians have earned a secure retirement, but because of continued escalations in the cost of living, many wonder if that secure, dependable retirement will be possible in the future. As the costs of bills rise, fixed incomes stay stagnant. To address this disparity, we made a commitment to Canadians to strengthen the Canada pension plan to assist in securing a strong, secure, and stable retirement.

In order to make meaningful changes to the CPP, we need a significant change in the approach from the previous government of the past 10 years. The more than one-quarter of Canadian families approaching retirement and 1.1 million families who are facing a drop in their standard of living will be able to retire with dignity and confidence as a result of the enhancement to their CPP provided for in Bill C-26. This first major reform of CPP benefit levels since the establishment of the CPP in 1966 is without a doubt timely in its design to address the futures of our children and grandchildren.

Seniors today are benefactors of prudent planners of the Pearson government in the mid-1960s and of the Paul Martin government in 1997, who realized that times and opportunities were changing. They accordingly made adjustments to retirement funding and investment therein for seniors.

The first CPP in 1966, the GIS in 1967, and the CPP Investment Board in 1997 were pivotal changes to simplistic tax-based earlier plans initiated in 1952 with the inception of Canada's first pension called old age security. Now it is time to adapt our pension to the fluctuating, unpredictable conditions that prevail in everyday life, conditions that will dominate the lives of those approaching retirement and the experiences of our young people.

Contemporary global economic and social conditions have been radically altered from those experienced and encountered by current retirees when they were in the workplace or raising young families. An evolution of financial and social conditions, even for my peers, has rendered some of their future economic planning ineffectual and erratic.

Our young people, as we often hear, frequently make due with contract jobs, short-term jobs, if they are lucky, or jobs below their education with sometimes no benefits. They face expensive, almost unattainable housing; an inability to save regularly or under-saving; no stable retirement plan beyond RRSPs, which they cannot afford to tend; and relatively low rates of interest on any savings.

Bill C-26 would help young people address those challenges and cope with the ever-changing, unstable conditions of life by shaping a firm, reliable pension plan with a reasonable enhancement of the current plan. It is something they can count on. An updated CPP is one way that the government can assist these young people in arranging for their senior years with a fully national plan.

Already this government returned the retirement age to 65, as the right place for a meaningful retreat from the workplace. Young Canadians just entering the workforce will see the largest increase in benefits. This is the right place for a meaningful phased-in enhancement, as these young adults and their descendants will be the most vulnerable to the labour market in the 21st century.

The provisions of the enhanced plan would increase how much Canadians will get from their pension, ultimately, from one-quarter of their earnings to fully one-third. This will be a good boost for many Canadians who do not have workplace pensions to look forward to.

The previous government, for over 10 years, refused to address the needs of our most vulnerable, but this government sees the enhancement as a priority and has set it up in a logical, progressive way.

Bill C-26 is easy to support in the way that it sets up the enhancement. With this gradual phased-in approach, contributions are shared by both the employee and the employer based on the yearly maximum pensionable earnings of the employee with the specified contribution rates. By 2025, the enhancement would be fully phased in, as the making of the additional contributions is provided for in the bill commencing in 2019.

The vision of this government in establishing the provisions of Bill C-26 is level-headed and logical, balancing modest increases of contributions by employees and employers with stable results and appropriate counterbalancing taxation deductions for all participants. In Bill C-26, this government understands economic vulnerability, especially of our children and grandchildren, to the consequences of societal change. Accordingly, it focuses its priorities on pension remediation with an equitable realistic approach.

So far I have addressed the Canada pension plan alterations, as well as concurrent tax changes represented in Bill C-26. The third aspect that is the subject of amendment in Bill C-26 is the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. The amendments for the investment board are necessitated by the practicalities of the other two changes. Because of the alteration to the mode of acquisition of pension funds, the staging of additional contributions, it is necessary to supply suitable instruments and modus operandi to provide for the transferring of increased contributions and in the preparation of statements.

Bill C-26 links the board to the new additional Canada pension plan account. This alteration, however, is a reflection of the positive outcomes of the enhancement phase. The investment board, an arm's length independent entity accountable to Parliament, is responsible for the workability of the plan. The board is in charge of the investment, the monies, and the contribution phases of the enhanced plan, as well as the regular contributions.

With the enhanced plan, there would be more money to invest because more has been contributed. Accordingly, pensions would increase. The Department of Finance has declared that once fully in place, the CPP enhancement would increase the maximum retirement benefit by about 50%. For example, the current maximum is $13,110. Compare that with the enhanced CPP with a maximum benefit total of nearly $20,000. Whereas early quasi-pensions in the 1950s were funded by taxes, current ones rely on good, long-term investments of employee and employer contributions.

It is a big contrast from the $40 a month or $480 a year, even in 1952 dollars. Investment is how all Canadians can save for retirement today and sustain the CPP through the instruments the government initiates and modifies. Bill C-26 would confirm the adjustments to the role of this board that is so instrumental in helping Canadians have a decent retirement.

The enhancement of the CPP is vital and most helpful to our youth. lt would also significantly reduce the share of families at risk of not saving enough for retirement. Canadians are assured of a dignified retirement.

The enhanced CPP would provide for the first substantive change to our national retirement scheme. The time has finally come to do something about retirement security. Yes, the time has come for the House to adopt this well-conceived and formulated bill. In all respects, I stand behind Bill C-26.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of the government today on CPP changes, something that is not at all evidence based. It is strictly a public policy to garner votes.

Why have the Liberals not been more up front with Canadians? It is going to be 40 years until the entire contributions of this change to CPP is realized by seniors. It will not even kick in until 2025, so today's seniors will not benefit from any of these changes. They are being sold this bill of goods by the Liberals without any opportunity to benefit from CPP enhancements.

The main issue that Conservatives have with the bill is the way it would impact small and medium-sized enterprises. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that this would force more and more businesses to make a decision as to whether they hire new people, maintain what they have, or lay off people to deal with the increased contributions they would have to make in this whole process.

I would ask the member to speak to how this would hurt small business and employment in a situation where the economy is stagnant under the current government. There needs to be an increase in job opportunities. First, will Liberals listen to small business and change the way they are going to go about getting employer contributions for the CPP?

Second, would they reinstate other savings mechanisms that were in place, like the tax-free savings account? The tax-free savings account limit was $10,000, helping Canadians save money for their retirement, along with their RRSPs. It was well embraced by Canadians, especially seniors. Will they bring that back up to $10,000 rather than reducing it to $5,500?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's question.

What I have heard from the Conservative member has been a vigorous attack on our CPP and on the enhancement of the CPP. The member, in his question, spoke about seniors. Well, there are millions of seniors who are today benefiting because somebody made the right decision in 1966 to bring forward a CPP.

I would like to know if that member were in the House at that time, if he would have voted against the CPP. The CPP, I know in my community, is held as a Canadian value, one that provides support for millions of Canadians. This is the right time to enhance the CPP.

If the member cannot see that, how the labour market has changed and how that is affecting our young people, and today make the right decision, the same way they did in 1966, then the member does not have vision or foresight into our future.

I am proud of the decision we are making to enhance the CPP and of how it will better the lives of millions of Canadians.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member across the way what he sees as some of the ways that we can reverse the increasing levels of poverty among seniors today.

As we know, the CPP enhancement, which we do support, will not be fulfilling its full intent for almost 50 years. What would the member envision would complement this momentum that we are starting here today?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors, and provide support in a very comprehensive way. That is why our government came forward with an increase to the GIS.

I met a number of those soon-to-be retired seniors who were feeling a lot of anxiety when the previous government was looking to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. We have repealed that. I thank the member for her support on that.

Now with the enhancement of the CPP, looking at this holistically, it is a virtuous circle. We have to be prepared, especially to help those who are most vulnerable. With the enhancement of the GIS, I am glad that many of those very vulnerable seniors are seeing at least a $900 increase to their income.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for North Island—Powell River.

Today I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada pension plan and other acts.

Today is a very important day. Every day spent in the House of Commons is very important, but today is especially important because we are talking about our seniors and how to show them the proper respect. They are the ones who built our country. They are the ones who raised our families. They are the ones who created and protected our culture. It is very important to show them the respect they deserve.

Every year, I tour the seniors' residences in my riding and I am always saddened to hear seniors talk about how worried they are about their precarious financial situation. They tell me they worked their entire lives and now they are receiving the minimum, roughly $1,000 a month. It is incredible to think that after working their entire lives, seniors are receiving barely $1,000 a month. That is why it is very important to talk about it and to do something about this situation.

Therefore, I would like to congratulate the Liberal Party for finally understanding, as did the NDP, that the retirement age had to be brought back to 65. The Conservatives wanted to increase it to 67. As a result of the NDP's many efforts, the Liberal government understood that that was not the way to go. Therefore, it changed the retirement age back to 65, which is a good thing.

Although it would have been possible to do better, we should mention that enhancing the Canada pension plan is an important first step in improving retirement security for young Canadians. We congratulate everyone who was involved in improving the CPP, especially the unions, who worked very hard to lay the foundation for this agreement. Nevertheless, steps must be taken now to help seniors and Canadians who will be retiring soon and who will not benefit from these measures. The government must examine this issue. It must build on the enthusiasm created by this agreement and take the steps required to improve the long-term security of today's workers when they retire.

We also need to start paying attention to something else, namely, retirement insecurity, which is beginning to reach crisis proportions in Canada. In fact, many Canadians have not saved enough to maintain their standard of living in retirement, and for various reasons. Sometimes their wages were too low, so they could not save. My constituents are asking me a lot of questions these days about the fact that people who work full time at minimum wage cannot make ends meet.

If you really think about it, that is a very serious problem. Some people work full time at minimum wage and are forced to turn to charities in order to provide for their families. That is not normal, and that is why it is important to have a closer look at this issue.

Much of the problem can be attributed to the erosion of pension funds offered by employers, to the point where, at present, six out of ten Canadians have no pension plan from their employer. Of course, some can set money aside through RRSPs, but not everyone can do that. As I just mentioned, some people who work full time for minimum wage are having a hard time making ends meet and providing for their families, so they cannot invest in RRSPs, and these are people who are working—they are not lazy. Instead, they sometimes have to turn to charities for help. Unfortunately, this is a very real situation that needs our attention and must be dealt with.

As I said earlier, the maximum pension benefit is $1,092 per month, or $13,100 per year, which is really the bare minimum for survival. People who collect that much in a year do not live high off the hog. Far from it. They live below the poverty line and have trouble making ends meet.

As I said, seniors are people who devoted their lives to our country, to raising Canadian families, and to sharing our culture. When we see what is happening to them, it is clear that they are not getting the respect they deserve, unfortunately.

We would also like the government to further enhance the Canada pension plan to offer our seniors a more dignified retirement. That is really important. The NDP is also calling on the government to stop trying to convert public sector defined benefit pension plans into undefined pension plans. People work very hard and expect a decent retirement income, but they are being offered undefined pension plans, which can increase or decrease in value depending on the vagaries of the stock market.

That is a problem. Look at what happened in 2008. That did not seem to wake anyone up because the measures that should have been implemented to prevent such situations have still not been adopted. Unfortunately, this could happen again. That is why it is important to have secure pension plans to ensure our seniors' well-being, as well as our own well-being in the long term.

We also need a long-term vision for our seniors, not only when it comes to the Canada pension plan but also when it comes to health. Right now, the Liberals are maintaining the Conservatives' bad decision to cut $36 billion in health transfers over the next 10 years.

As they say, as you get older, your body starts to give out. Seniors have more and more health problems. That is to be expected, but we need good health care services. The Liberals are not going to achieve that by making $36 billion in cuts, like the Conservatives planned to do, quite the contrary. We need to think about seniors. We need to think about our family caregivers.

I always think of my mother and my sister, Suzanne Brodeur and Maryse Choquette, who do amazing work with the elderly in a seniors' residence. They are so devoted. I often say that an MP has to be devoted, but what those women do in the health care field is true devotion.

Housing is another factor. Thirteen thousand dollars a year does not cover much in the way of housing. That makes access to affordable housing extremely important. I know that the Drummondville municipal housing office is working hard to find more housing for seniors. Without accessible, affordable housing, how can seniors survive on such a low income?

According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities:

Some cities are already showing a significant and growing need for seniors’ social housing. Seniors are on social housing waiting lists and are at risk of becoming homeless.

Some seniors may even become homeless because we failed to take proper care of them.

I would like to congratulate the Liberal government on taking the first step toward making things better for seniors by lowering the pension eligibility age to 65 at the NDP's urging. I would also like to congratulate the government on enhancing the Canada pension plan, again at the NDP's urging. However, there is still a lot of work to do. The government needs to see the big picture and further enhance the Canada pension plan right away for everyone currently living below the poverty line. Housing and health care have to be part of the equation. The Liberals should cancel the $36 billion health care cut immediately because it is totally unacceptable.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his good work. I have had an opportunity to work with him in the past in committee, and I know he is very passionate about these issues.

My question for him today is regarding the following. As the Liberals move forward with these changes to the CPP, he mentioned that they really are not doing anything for seniors.

One of the challenges I have in my community, a manufacturing community in Ontario, is that we are seeing some government policy changes that are really starting to affect our competitiveness. We have in Ontario the highest electricity rates in North America. We are seeing that affecting our manufacturers. We have lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs.

The Liberals are putting in a new carbon tax, which would make us less competitive, and now with the CPP implementation at this time, it really means that anyone who wants to do work in Ontario or this part of Canada is at a disadvantage versus those who sometimes are literally 10 miles across the border, whether in Michigan, New York, or other states.

What are his ideas for actually solving the problem of some of our seniors today, while keeping in mind the necessity of Canada remaining competitive in this global marketplace?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed have the honour of working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I am always shocked to hear my Conservative colleagues say that a price on carbon is a tax on carbon. A price on carbon is an investment in a low-carbon economy. It is quite different.

Even though the Liberals' plan is far from perfect, everyone who wants the government to invest in the environment can agree on one thing: transitioning to a low-carbon economy cannot happen without pricing carbon.

That being said, as far as the Canada pension plan is concerned, it is true that the Liberals must absolutely think about all the SMEs. My riding, Drummond, is another riding that depends a great deal on SMEs.

The Liberals have introduced some tax deduction measures. I will not list them all, but they ensure that employers and employees alike do their part, put money aside for improving CPP. The adverse effects can be mitigated by the fact that this is considered a tax credit, as it currently is by the way. This is an investment in the Canada pension plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity over the years to table many petitions of what my constituents and, I would argue, all Canadians want to see, the stability and potential strengthening of our pensionable programs. I referring to the guaranteed income supplement, old age security, and what we are debating today, the CPP.

When we think specifically of the CPP, it is one of those fundamental free pensionable programs in which all Canadians feel fairly confident and want to see benefits from in a very tangible way. Could he provide some of his thoughts on that package of three programs, and how government needs to attempt to move forward with all three of them?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is extremely important that we continue to enhance the Canada pension plan, as I said in my speech. I agree with the Liberals on that, and I said this was a first step in the right direction.

However, we still need to remember to tackle certain important challenges. As my colleagues said earlier, women tend to be much poorer in retirement than men at this time. A lot of women receive smaller pensions than men. We need to come up with solutions to this urgent problem.

A broad range of measures is needed to do that. However, $36 billion in health cuts and inadequate investment in affordable housing are not going to help matters any. A whole series of solutions are needed. I therefore congratulate the Liberal government for this first step, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak on Bill C-26. I will be voting in favour of it.

I am very proud to represent the riding of North Island—Powell River, which is full of hard-working people from many sectors, largely the resource sectors. It is in a wonderful place of transition right now. I do know that all the hard-working people in my riding work hard towards a good retirement. That is a priority for all them.

In my riding, I take a lot of time to speak with seniors. Earlier this year, I was really proud to travel around Campbell River and go to several different seniors centres the day before Canada Day. I have to say that I really appreciated Carol Chapman and the Canada Day planning committee who worked so hard to allow dignitaries to go into these homes annually and to be with the seniors the day before, and really get an opportunity to speak and chat with them.

It was heartbreaking in some cases to talk to senior constituents of mine who have multiple challenges as they age, including concerns about how they are going to make ends meet and afford their medication. That is a reality in this country and my riding.

This bill will take 49 years to reach full implementation. My son just turned 16 in June, and he will be experiencing the full benefit of it. However, the reality now is that many seniors are living in poverty, and that number is growing in my riding. On a weekly basis, constituents are contacting my office to share their real challenges. The truth is that Bill C-26 will not address these issues. My office hears about seniors who are making choices between purchasing medication, buying food, paying for the heat, or figuring out how they are going to pay for transportation.

This is not a discussion that seniors should be having in a country like Canada. In the numerous town halls I have held on seniors issues in the riding, seniors say that what they really want to see is a national pharmacare program. These seniors were very clear that affordable medication would be a real change for them and would make a real difference.

There was also a clear demand for a national seniors strategy. I can see why. Nationally, we know what is happening. There is a Broadbent Institute study and analysis of the economic circumstances of Canadian seniors, and it tells us a startling story. The study found that 47% of Canadians aged 55 to 64 are without an employer pension plan. It also found that roughly half of Canadians aged 55 to 64 are without a workplace pension and have less than $3,000 saved for retirement. The poverty rate of seniors has increased from a low point of 3.9% in 1995 to 11.1% in 2013, or to one in nine seniors.

One of the particular privileges of being a member of Parliament is that we get to speak to and be in our communities. I was heartbroken when one person who had worked with the homeless population for over 30 years made time to come to see me to tell me that in the last three years he had seen a startling change. For the first time, seniors were walking through the door, telling him stories of being at risk of homelessness. Seniors, people in their 70s, were couch-surfing.

How can that be in Canada? How can it be that seniors are now seeing homelessness as one of the options they have to face at a time when we should be taking care of them?

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, we are seeing these issues increase. For example, in Campbell River, where the overall population is projected to increase by about 16.3% by the year 2030, the population of people 75 years and older at the same time is expected to increase by 128%. In the Comox Valley, where seniors 80 years and older are currently 4.7% of the total population, there will be an increase to 7.4% by 2031. Most startling, in the regional district of Mount Waddington, the overall population is expected to decrease by 9.8% by 2030, while the population of seniors 75 years and older is expected to grow by 263%.

Powell River, with 23% of its population aged 65 and older, has the ninth largest population of seniors out of 10 locations across Canada. The issues of seniors in my riding are real and growing.

This bill is a start for my child, but it is not a solution for the people I serve. We know that only 11.5% of CPP recipients currently receive the maximum benefit, and for women it is only 4.5%. These numbers are telling us an important story why we need to see a CPP increase. As Susan Eng, the former executive vice-president of advocacy at CARP, said:

So why is a CPP increase needed again? Canadians are not saving enough for retirement and government can help. Those braying “Too bad for them!” need to realize that every pension dollar reduces the need for taxpayer-funded payments like Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplements or even welfare.

The other reality is that young workers are facing a more precarious work environment than ever before. Many people are facing the reality of a patchwork approach to employment. Seasonal, part-time, and temporary work is precarious work, and people are putting these kinds of jobs together to try to support themselves and, in many cases, their family.

The reality is that only four out of 10 people have a workplace pension plan. I have had young families speak to me about the debate they are having whether to save for their children's education or for their own retirement. That is shameful in this country. The majority save for their children's education. They should not be having this debate.

Sadly, I also have constituents who have to go to the food bank weekly just to feed their family. They cannot afford food and have challenges paying for their housing and everyday costs. How will they put away money for retirement? A tax-free savings account will not make their life easier.

I spent many years in the non-profit sector. The people who work in that sector are tremendously passionate about the people and organizations and services they provide, but very few of them have workplace pensions. When we look at the return on investment we get from those non-profits, it seems the right thing to make sure that the people who work for them get a return on investment for their retirement.

Poverty is also not very good for business. In the world in which we live today, with so many financial challenges, there will continue to be challenges for many in the future, such as small businesses. People who have lower incomes spend money locally. This bill would mean less abject poverty in the future, and that would result in more local spending.

Bill C-26 is a start, but I still have many concerns. I want to know how the current government is going to address the erosion of workplace pensions in Canada. How will the current government address the increasing levels of poverty among seniors while we wait for these enhancements to take place? This bill would not address the 30% of single female seniors who are currently living in poverty. How do we lift them out of poverty now? Seniors deserve better. This is a step in the right direction, but it can be better. The people of Canada and the people of my riding deserve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech and her support for this bill. I agree there is always more that can be done, and I would like to give her this opportunity to tell us the following. In a perfect world, what would the perfect policy for seniors look like?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. In response, I will just outline what was already in my speech.

What we need to do is to put forward a policy with a national framework around seniors. They are a growing population in our country and we need to make a plan. One of the realities is that we are not working with all of our partners provincially, territorially, and municipally. We need to get together and figure out how we are going to create these solutions.

These issues often arise most powerfully in municipalities and regional districts, and in towns and villages across our country. I am very impressed by what they do every day to make a difference, and I thank these communities for stepping up, but we need a national strategy in which all of the partners work together to make a difference for people who are suffering today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her very heartfelt speech about her community. It is obvious that those folks are lucky to have an MP who is so in tune with their primary concerns.

I do agree that this CPP enhancement is good news, but it is very troubling to know that, when you think about it, her son will be the one who could benefit from this change to the system. In my region of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, the number of people on the wait list for affordable housing will soon top 2,000. The wait lists are extremely long.

Is my colleague really hopeful that this government will be willing to work on this issue in particular, given that housing is still the biggest single budget expense for most people, especially seniors?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always accused of being an optimist, and I think sometimes that is a positive life choice. I am hopeful. I am guardedly hopeful. This is the reality in the communities that we serve. Across this country, housing is a bigger and bigger challenge. Affordable housing is devastating.

I have talked in this context to many seniors who have to make terrible choices. Recently, I talked to a woman whose husband is in care, and 90% of his pension is going to pay for him to be in care. Her housing, her life, is totally at risk. She is only getting 10%, from a time when women stayed home for a longer period. We need to have that national strategy, so we can look at issues that are facing seniors and we can provide a rounded approach on how we move forward in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about the CPP and the importance of investing for the future. The member made reference to a young person and how the benefit will be there, but she also put a great deal of emphasis on poverty, and seniors in poverty. Would she acknowledge that in the last budget we saw a substantial increase for the guaranteed income supplement? Well over 10,000 seniors in poverty will actually be lifted out of poverty. Would she acknowledge, when we deal with seniors' issues, that it is much more complex than just the one issue of the CPP? The CPP that we are debating today is one step forward, but we still need to improve where we can.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the young person I was speaking of was actually my son. His name is Kai. He just turned 16 in June, and he is six foot three. That is who we are talking about.

I am always appreciative of people listening and trying to help people out of poverty, but there are some parts that are left out. When we look at what is happening in my community, a largely resource-based economy, with many seniors and people retiring in a beautiful location, what we really need is a pharmacare strategy. I am glad that some of those steps are being made, but they are not the solutions that are long reaching. If we look at medication and what families are struggling with every day, we really need to have a solution that is based on making medication more affordable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora.

The average age in my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, is among the highest in the country. According to the 2011 census, the average age was 49.5. It will surely be more than 50 according to the 2016 census. In some communities, homes are listed at less than $40,000 and are not even selling at that price. Young people are leaving the region in droves and seniors are only staying in retirement. We have many challenges and we welcome many changes for seniors. As a government and as a party, we like to plan for the long term and not just for tomorrow.

Therefore, I am very pleased 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. There are several reasons for that.

This bill is the promise of a better future. It also reflects the government's commitment to help Canadians achieve their dream of a more secure retirement. This is a long-term project. It is a project for the future and for young people who are currently preparing to enter the labour force. This next generation will also be assured of a dignified retirement. We are acting for a future that goes beyond any election cycle to help those who will come after us.

We are building on what was accomplished by the decision-makers of the 1960s who created the Canada pension plan, enhanced old age security by creating the guaranteed income supplement, and implemented measures that, in the long-term, would significantly reduce poverty among seniors. What is more, we are here in a true spirit of federalism because the agreement to enhance the Canada pension plan or CPP comes from a real spirit of co-operation with the provinces, who approved the approach.

Is the enhancement of the CPP necessary? Absolutely. It is essential, and I will explain why.

Middle-class Canadians work hard, but they still do not feel as though they are making any progress. One in four families who are approaching the age of retirement may not be able to save enough money to maintain their current lifestyle when they retire. That represents 1.1 million families. We had to take action.

We also have to accept the fact that fewer and fewer companies are offering defined benefit pension plans and that fewer Canadians have such a plan. It is a major challenge for Canadian families and it is time we dealt with this.

The agreement we reached with the provinces will increase the retirement income of Canadians who are in this difficult situation, and also promote economic growth and create jobs.

How will the CPP expansion work? There are two key things to keep in mind.

First, the CPP currently replaces a quarter of Canadians’ average annual earnings. The new CPP will replace a third. Future retirees will therefore have more money in their pockets. Take Mila for example. She is a mother who has earned on average $50,000 a year during her working life. Under the current plan, she will get $12,000 when she retires. Under the new plan, Mila could get a little more than $16,000.

Second, the maximum level of pensionable earnings will go up 14% by 2025. That means the maximum annual CPP benefit, which is currently $13,110, would go up to $20,000 in today's dollars. Under the enhanced CPP, the maximum benefit will go up by almost 50%. It is clear that these changes to the CPP will make life better for retired Canadian workers and will help them achieve their goal of a strong, secure, and stable retirement.

How much will this cost? For most Canadians, the contribution rate will rise by just 1%. Take Kevin, for example, who earns about $55,000. His contributions will increase by $6 per month in 2019. Once the progressive implementation is complete in 2025, Kevin's contribution will have gone up by about $43 per month. That minor increase will be largely offset by his higher retirement income. With the enhancement, Kevin will collect approximately $17,500 per year in today's dollars in CPP benefits, which is about $4,400 more than under the current plan.

I should also mention that contributions to the enhanced portion of the CPP for wage earners like Kevin will be tax deductible and that a tax credit will continue to apply to employees' current CPP contributions.

We can therefore proudly say that Canadians will have more money in retirement thanks to the new CPP. Furthermore, the budgets of low-income workers will not be affected, because the working income tax benefit will also be increased to offset the premium increases.

I would like to add that our government has decided to give everyone time to prepare for the new provisions. The changes will implemented gradually over seven years, from 2019 to 2025. This is the responsible way to go, to make sure that businesses and workers have time to adapt.

We are taking into account the problems that exist at the provincial and national levels. We have engaged with each province to discuss their particular situation, and we will continue to do so. We took steps to ensure that we could implement these measures in a way that will not hurt businesses, because we want the owners of businesses of all sizes to be assured that the government will implement these changes to CPP without harming the functioning of the Canadian economy.

As I said in my introduction, the government is creating a better future for Canadians, especially the middle class. This will have a much broader impact on all Canadians, because it is important to have a long-term vision. Higher CPP benefits will lead to greater domestic demand, which will stimulate the Canadian economy. Since savings will grow, more money will be available for investment, also thanks to the new CPP.

As a result, we expect the gross domestic product to increase by 0.05% to 0.09%, which represents approximately 6,000 to 11,000 new jobs. Quite simply, an enhanced CPP means more savings and a better retirement.

Middle-class Canadians will then be able to focus on what matters most, such as spending quality time with their family and friends, rather than worrying about not being able to make ends meet. It is important that we plan for the future.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague opposite talking about the average age of people in his riding and the relatively low household income.

Obviously, his riding is not made up exclusively of retirees, even though the people who live there will retire someday. His riding is also home to entrepreneurs.

What does my colleague have to say to those entrepreneurs who will have to contribute to the plan, along with the people they hire? There is the potential for job losses in his own riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not worried about job losses. I am proud of increasing pensions for the future.

Planning for the future is an important strategy. It goes hand-in-hand with the enhancement of the guaranteed income supplement. It is part of a larger plan to improve the situation of seniors. If we did not make those plans 50 years ago, where would we be today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

There is no question that everyone is happy that the government is moving in this direction and that it has made major financial plans over 50 years. We need to ensure that those plans remain viable in 50 years for the 16-year-olds who are about to begin working.

That being said, can my colleague talk to us about the vulnerability of seniors in his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the seniors in my riding have a lot of concerns. I do not come from a wealthy riding. Even though Mont-Tremblant is located in the middle of my riding, there are 42 other towns that have less money, so everyone is concerned about improving the situation of seniors.

This will be the third program we improve, after making changes to two programs. If we had managed to get everything done, we could just walk out of here. However, there is still a lot of work to do, and I am not afraid to work to build a better future for our seniors.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

Could he tell us more about the personal benefits to Canadians of the increase in additional contributions to the Canada pension plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, this measure will definitely help people in the future by providing them with more money. It is an extremely important program for everyone's long-term future. I mentioned the figures in my speech. It is a significant increase, and that is not the only thing we could do.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague.

One of the things my own children want to make sure of is that I stay financially healthy so that I never live with them, so I understand how important this is. They say that they lived with me for 20 years, and that was enough.

You have mentioned one side of it, but again, the job creators of our communities are small businesses. I have had many small-business people talk to me about their concerns about this, because they are fighting on a fine line to stay in business, and they find this another piece that is going to create difficulty for them in staying in business.

In response to that, you have not mentioned anything about the small businesses and the costs there will be for them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before going on to the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, I just want to clarify. I am sure the member for Bow River did not mean that I did not mention anything. I just want to clarify that for everyone in the room.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be fair, you had not mentioned it either.

I think there is an opportunity for businesses to plan ahead. This would not even start for three more years and would not be at full scale until 2025. Businesses have an opportunity to prepare for this change. It is not a huge change, from that side of things.

The important thing is that we are planning for the future so that our seniors, later, are able to take care of themselves, like our ancestors, if we can call them that, planned for us today. I think it is very important that we do this work and do not slow down or slack off on it.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his contribution today. He, like all members in the House, realizes how important Bill C-26 is to society and to ensure the growth of our economy well into the future.

Today many Canadians are worried that they will not have enough money for retirement. We all heard this when we were knocking on doors during the campaign. Middle-class Canadians I know who have worked hard their whole lives are working harder than ever but are still concerned that they will not be able to afford retirement. This is wrong. This is not a great policy for Canadians, and we should all make sure we make the necessary changes today so that retirement income exists in the future. That is what Bill C-26, in essence, is all about.

The facts tell the story. Fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pensions to fall back on. The days of working for one company for 35 to 40 years, although a romantic notion, I am afraid are over. That is the reality we face. We can all harken back to Mad Men. I know everyone here enjoys Netflix, and I am sure everyone here has watched an episode or two of Mad Men. Those days of working for one company for an entire career are over.

That may be good or it may be bad, but the consequence of that reality is that there are no company pensions to look forward to at the age of 65, when we punch out of work on the final day, say goodbye to all our friends from those 40 years, get our gold watch from the boss we probably never really got along with, and ride off home into the sunset to put our feet up on the footstool, have a cold beer, and ponder the next 20 years of our lives, wondering when the kids are going to call. That does not exist. That is not the reality for so many Canadians.

Perhaps it should be, and perhaps we wish it would be, but wishing and hoping does not put food on the tables of seniors. We need to make sure that we are responsible as a government and make decisions today that, yes, are difficult and challenging, but they are decisions that will help in the future, and not only seniors.

I think we all hope to be seniors. Some of my colleagues already are, but I hope to be one some day. I want to make sure that I live in a society, a country, and an economy where everyone can live with dignity and can afford to not only buy the necessities of life but to contribute to the economy.

This is right, not just for social reasons but for economic reasons.

For businesses to thrive in any economy, they need consumers. Consumers need to have money. Seniors who do not have money cannot consume and therefore, small businesses, big businesses, and medium-sized businesses are limited in the amount of profit they can make, because the market is smaller than it ought to be. This is why Bill C-26 is important. This is about the future of Canada and Canadians, but it is also about the economy of the future, and I am happy to be part of a government that has introduced Bill C-26.

We made a commitment to strengthen the Canada pension plan to help all Canadians achieve a strong, secure, and stable retirement. Those three words are important. Strong means that people do not have to worry from day to day. Strong means remaining active participants in Canada's economy. Strong means not relying on our children, grandchildren, or food banks for groceries or asking someone to help pay our rent, keep our hydro on, or pay our monthly bills. That is important, I am sure we can agree, to Canadians.

Canadians also need a secure retirement. Canadians are living longer, which means that retirement will be longer. We do not want Canadians to be in a position of dreading that their money will run out before they do. That is not ideal. That is not a secure environment and is not what anyone in the House would want.

We also want a stable retirement, which in my opinion means that Canadians can enjoy retirement. Canadians who have worked for 40 years, who have grown our economy, who have put children through college and university, who have bought houses, cars, automobiles, washers and dryers, clothes and groceries, all the things that sustain and grow the Canadian economy, deserve to live with stability and peace of mind in their waning years. The sad truth is that too many Canadians are not living under these circumstances today. That is what Bill C-26 is trying to address. We would be hard pressed to find anyone in this House who does not agree with at least the goal of Bill C-26, which is to ensure a stable, strong, secure retirement for Canadians and a strong economy well into the future for Canadians.

The other issue is that demographics are making this more urgent than ever. More than one-quarter of Canadian families nearing retirement today, which is 1.1 million people, will face a drop in their standard of living and will not be able to retire with the dignity they deserve. This demographic reality should make all of us realize that something needs to be done. In my opinion, Bill C-26 does exactly what needs to be done.

There is always change, but it needs to be done moderately and modestly. This bill achieves those goals. We want to make sure that these changes are affordable. We will phase them in slowly over seven years, from 2019 to 2025, so that the impact is small and gradual, which is an important component of this bill, one that ought not be overlooked.

This deal will boost how much Canadians would get from their pensions, from one-quarter of their earnings now to fully one-third, which I think is an important facet of the new legislation that needs to be fully appreciated. It makes this bill strong social policy and strong fiscal and economic policy.

We know that this deal came about because of the agreement in principle reached among all the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, which we hope will be working toward something similar. This is important. It is an important element of today's debate that we could get an agreement in principle, with the number of provinces and our diversity and diverging points of view on so many policies. With many topics in Canadian life today, it is hard to find any consensus. I will not say that it was easy, but we have reached an agreement in principle now, and that needs to be given some weight when we consider how we will vote on Bill C-26.

Whether we live in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, or any of the three territories, I think we can all agree that we deserve the right to retire with dignity. We deserve the right to retire with stability. This is inarguable. I think the best approach to get there is what we see in Bill C-26.

I would submit that anyone who cares about seniors today or tomorrow, who cares about Canada's economic integrity well into the future, and cares about Canada's economic integrity well into the future, would be hard pressed to vote against Bill C-26. Every Canadian deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. Through this enhancement, we have taken a powerful step to make that happen. Let us not lose this chance, this historic opportunity, to make sure that all Canadians, today, tomorrow, and well into the future, retire with the dignity they deserve and have earned. To do anything else would be foolhardy.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member would get a 10 for a big finish.

I appreciate my colleague's vote but in some ways he painted a very dire picture of what is happening in retirement. He talked about wanting to retire and said that we deserve the right to retire in dignity, which is what he wants to do. He wants to put up his feet and retire in dignity. The problem is that McKinsey and other people have done studies on this and I would like to tell the House some of the things that they have said. For example, 83% of Canadian households are on track to maintain their current living standards in retirement. According to Statistics Canada, the share of Canadian seniors living on low incomes dropped from 29% in the late 1970s to 3.7% today.

I agree with my colleague that we all want to live with dignity in retirement. However, I would suggest that by far the majority of Canadians are doing that. Canada is one of the best countries in the world for seniors to live, seniors with pensions and seniors with savings.

My fear with the legislation is that the government is using a big hammer for a small problem. The CPP, as important as it is, is only one strong pillar of our retirement. It is not the main pillar of our retirement. Savings such as tax-free savings accounts, RRSPs, and private pension plans are all part of a comprehensive strategy for retirement.

In a time when our economy is slow, would taxing small and medium-sized businesses and taking money out of the pockets of employers not hurt the economy?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite listening to my contribution as intently as he did. I was not standing up to paint a dire and bleak picture of Canada. Of course, we are lucky to live in Canada. We should all feel blessed to live in Canada.

Whether we use the McKinsey numbers that say 83% of people are doing well in retirement or the numbers that I quoted, which say 1.1 million Canadian families, or 25% of the population, are worried about their retirement, I am talking about how we are going to deal with the 17% or 25% of Canadians who are not going to have a dignified retirement.

It is fine to say the majority of Canadians are doing well. It might be fine for the member opposite, but it is not fine for me when I look into the eyes of those people who ask me what they can do for their retirement. I agree that Canada is a great place to live. Many Canadians are living a great retirement but unfortunately many are not. That is what the legislation is trying to address. The number of have-nots is going to grow, based on demographics and based on where we are today and where the trends are going.

Our government is trying to make sure that 83% number gets bigger. Why can it not be 90%? Why can 100% of Canadians not live a dignified retirement, a stable and secure retirement? Why should that not be the will and the dream of everyone in the House? I for one think it should be. It is the better approach and it is the outcome Canadians deserve. We all agree that better is always possible and when it comes to pensions that perhaps is the place where we should prove it the most.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that everyone should have the right to retire with dignity, and that the Canada pension plan should be enhanced. More and more people have precarious, temporary, or part-time jobs. Those people do not have a pension plan and that includes many young families.

I would like to know what this government is going to do for those people who cannot draw a pension.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga asked a good question. I share her concern about those who are not able to participate fully in Canada's economy as it is today. I agree that those people are going to have trouble. People are precariously employed when it comes to preparing for their retirement. The legislation would not necessarily address those people specifically, but it would help address the people who are perhaps being left behind by the current system and improve it.

I look forward to working with others, perhaps from my colleague's party, to help other people who might be getting left behind by the current system.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in this place to speak on behalf of my constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot against Bill C-26, known simply as the Liberal CPP tax hike. I think—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. There was a slip-up on my end. I have to read the deliberations that will take place tonight. I will interrupt for a minute and then we will go from there.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; and the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, National Defence.

I thank the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot for his understanding. He may proceed.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was starting to wonder if it was something I had said or done, but thank you for allowing me to come back and say some more about the important debate we are having today.

I introduced it by saying that this is another tax increase. It is a payroll tax increase. We will go into that a little later. I want to talk about why we would say that.

Perhaps the Liberals have read the reports. I mentioned previously in my question the McKinsey report finding that four-fifths of Canadians are on track for a good, adequate retirement income. The report also says this compares very favourably with other developed countries. However, the Liberal government has said, “We have one-fifth of the people that we can help, but let's hit everyone with the tax. Let's hit small business and every employee, and let's see the coffers go up in the CPP investment. We will just do what we can to increase taxes.”

This is at a time when our economy is faltering. The problem is timing. Is this a good time, over the next five years, to invoke new taxes and hit the pocketbooks of employers and employees? I would say it is not. In fact, every time we turn around there is another story in the papers about our finance minister meeting with economists, trying to figure out why our economy is not growing.

Is there a retirement crisis in the country?

The Canada pension plan is but one pillar of a very strong, strategic pension retirement strategy that every Canadian should have and that the government believes Canadians should have. The first pillar is a strong, solid CPP.

The second pillar is the OAS and GIS. This pillar is there for lower-income Canadians. In fact, our government enhanced the guaranteed income supplement. This government has said it is going to do the same. Those are areas where we can effect change for that other fifth, or that other 3.7% who are living not in poverty but below where we would like to see them living in their retirements. Is there a crisis with CPP? I think there is not.

The third pillar, I never hear the Liberals and New Democrats talking about. That pillar is personal private investment. It is things like RRSPs and tax-free savings accounts.

I was privileged to serve with Minister Flaherty and Minister Oliver on the pension file and dealing with CPP. Our government wanted to be certain that Canadians had a dignified, secure retirement, so we did things like bring forward the pooled registered pension plan, where those 60% of Canadians who do not have a pension plan could be part of a pooled pension plan that would be administered by the provinces.

We brought forward things like the tax-free savings account, making certain that Canadians could put $5,000 a year in a TFSA and watch it grow. They could watch the power of compounding interest. Then we saw that 60% of Canadians earning under $60,000 were topping up their tax-free savings account, so we doubled it. We took it to $10,000. By far, a large majority of the people investing in the tax-free savings accounts were pensioners, seniors. They were putting their savings in there and watching the power of compounding interest work for them.

We also brought forward pension income splitting for seniors, and pension income splitting. All of these the Liberals said they would either cut back or eliminate. They are going to get rid of the way people save. Why is that? It is because the Liberal way is the big government way: let the government look after them in their retirement.

I have fears about what will happen, even now with some enhancement, if people stop saving.

In 2013, the total household net worth of Canadians was $7.7 trillion, split almost equally among pension assets, CPP, QPP, RRSPs, employer pensions. Also included in that were real estate equity and other financial and non-financial assets. It was pretty diversified. Most Canadians had a good portfolio when it came to their retirement.

However, I have heard over and over today members say that people are scared about their retirement, that they are uncertain about their retirement. That may very well be the case, because who knows how long one will live? Who knows how much money is enough?

I know people who will actually do better in their retirement than they have done through many years of working if they sell their home and downsize. They will have a better income in their retirement, but they are still fearful. One does not know the amount of time or the amount of money needed.

This bill would take money out of the pockets of those Canadians over 40 years and it would leave them with very little. It is not like another pension plan where, when I pass away, all my savings from CPP go to my wife. That is not what happens. She gets a very small portion of the dollars I may have invested in it over 40 years. Then, when she passes away, how much out of this pension plan is passed on to our estate, to our children? Zero. It is not the greatest pension plan in the world when we compare that with just about everything else.

Is it a needed pillar? Absolutely. There are some who depend on it, and we absolutely want that pillar strong.

The Liberals feel they can solve the pension crisis when there is no pension crisis and they will do it by taking money from everyone and putting it into a fund. When I am gone, it goes back into the CPP and it stays there. It is certainly not the best investment for our retirement.

Currently, CPP premiums are set at 9.9% of an employee's pensionable earnings, between $3,500 and $54,900 per year, up to a maximum contribution of $4,959.90 per year, split evenly between the employee and the employer. Eighty-three per cent of Canadians households are on track to maintain their current living standards according to the study by McKinsey, which I already referenced.

According to Statistics Canada, the share of Canadian seniors living on low income has dropped from 29% in the late 1970s to 3.7% today. It is among the lowest in the world. We should be encouraged. The member for Newmarket—Aurora says that if there is only one senior living in poverty, we need to do something to help. However, we can actually be proud of this.

Do we have to help the 3.7%? Yes, but let us do it in a measured way. Let us do it in a way that will not hurt our economy more than what we have right now. When I was in cabinet, that was one of the other things we were encouraged by with Canadians.

Canada's savings rate has climbed from 7.7% of pay in 1990 to 14.1%, today. That is according to C.D. Howe. People are starting to realize that if we encourage them toward their own private portfolios, the tax-free savings account, the RRSPs, pool registered pension plans, they will invest in those things.

The Liberals cut back those measures. Why? I am thankful they did not cut the pension income splitting for seniors like they had said they would do However, they do not believe that personal incentive and initiative should count, that big government will look after them. It is a typical socialist plan and strategy to have people sit back and let government look after them. However, Canadians are catching on and savings rates are going up. We need to ensure that the poorest Canadians are looked after with a strong OAS and GIS.

Finance Canada's analysis shows that the higher CPP premium will hurt the economy. I want to speak to that for a few moments. Right now our economy is hurting. In Alberta, right now we have a crisis not only in the gas and oil sector, but we have a crisis in agriculture where 40% of the crop is under snow. We saw a little of that many years ago in September, but when we come into November, there may be a writeoff of many crops that are under snow. Be aware of that.

Small businesses are being hurt by the low price of gas and oil. They know that many of the businesses are laying off employees and employers are scrambling with incentives to stay such as job sharing, and so on. They are frustrated that their incomes are dropping and that they cannot keep their employees busy. Then they hear the government is coming in with a new carbon tax, a tax on everything.

We heard where 100,000-head feedlots were shutting down and one of the reasons they were shutting down was because of the red tape, the carbon tax, all these extra taxes that the government was throwing at them. Now the Liberals have come with another scheme with the CPP. It will cost every employee more. It hurts the economy.

In many of the discussions we had with finance ministers from across the country they all said that we should wait until our economy was strong, that we should move forward with CPP enhancement when the economy was strong. Our finance minister meets every week with economists who keep trying to explain to him why our economy is slowing down and not meeting expectations. The Liberals' answer to that is another tax.

It is poor strategy in my opinion. It is a strategy that will not help seniors. I have seniors who call to tell me they think it is all right to have a CPP enhancement. I tell them that not one nickel will go to them, that it will help them 40 years down the road. It will not reach the full enhancement until 2025. No seniors today or no one close to approaching their senior years will benefit from the bill. It is a bill that will help someone who is 20-years-old today and it will only help marginally and it will hurt magnificently. It will hurt because it will hurt the economy.

A CPP tax hike will reduce employment by 0.04% to 0.07%. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business represents over 100,000 small businesses. It said that if Liberals moved ahead with CPP enhancement, many of those businesses, and I think it was 60% of them, would either cut hours or cut employment. A high percentage said that they would not hire any new workers. If they have another increase in expenses, if they see another input cost expense, they will not hire new employees and they will cut hours or cut employment.

If people want a strong, dignified, secure retirement, they had better have a very secure and dignified job today. If people do not have a job, there is no dignified retirement. That is the problem. We have a government that is driving this economy into the ground and more and more people are being laid off and unemployed.

Our problem is that we have a government that does not recognize what we need to do to have an economy that moves ahead strong.

Finance Canada's analysis indicated there would be 1,050 fewer jobs per year for 10 years. It would reduce the GDP by 0.03% to 0.05%. It would reduce business investment. It would reduce disposable income of the average employee. It would reduce private savings by 7% over the long run. Why? Because there are Canadians today who will say that because of a CPP enhancement, they do not have to put money into my RRSP, or top-up they tax-free savings account, or save. The CPP, OAS, and GIS will look after them. That is not the message we want to give to Canadians.

According to the CFIB, a full 70% of small business owners disagree that the enhancement would be modest. They see this as having a big impact on their businesses. I would remind the government that 90% of the jobs created in our country are created by small and medium-sized business. They say this is not a modest increase.

Ninety per cent of small businesses think it is important to have a public consultation before anything on this is finalized. That is according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. A paper released by the C.D. Howe Institute shows that the Liberals' CPP plan would not benefit low-income workers, that they would see their premiums go up. Yet their net increase in retirement benefits would remain low since higher CPP payments would be offset by clawbacks in GIS benefits.

Canadians are unaware of the implications that this CPP enhancement would have. Angus Reid found that 9% were following the debate, and very few understood what was meant. The CFIB Ipsos survey found that the majority of Canadians did not know the design of CPP and how it worked. In fact, it found that many people believe that the government paid into CPP, whereas we know it does not. It perhaps pays into the GIS and OAS, but not into CPP. Many Canadians, we know, always like the idea of an enhancement until they realize the government is taking money from one pocket and putting into the other. It is stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Typically we do not have any complaints from Paul when that happens; it is usually Peter.

The government is determined to push Bill C-26 through. It is a majority government so obviously it can do that. The Liberals are going to go ahead without the consent of employees and employers. They are going ahead contrary to what the provincial finance ministers said, which was to wait until the economy was strong. There is more education needed for the average worker and for firms. There are many other alternatives, and I wish I had more time to speak on that.

Regarding the tax-free savings account, at one time many people asked why the government would even go there. They said that it could not work, that it would not work. We found out that 12 million people bought into it, 2 million people maxed out on it, and 70% of them made under $75,000 and 60% under $60,000. Low and middle-income Canadians were seeing the benefits of this. Why does the government not grab some of that and say that it can do these thing, but it will also enhance the way Canadians can save?

We want a secure, dignified retirement for all Canadians. These are not the measures that will get us there.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had many discussions over the last five or six years about what is the best way to enhance the Canada pension plan or to provide some secondary vehicles to encourage people to save for tomorrow. The same rhetoric I have heard for the last five years is the exact same thing. The member's government introduced the pooled pension plans, thinking that would be a positive alternative. Clearly it was not. We clearly saw that very few people took that up.

I understand the ideology difference but without the CPP, thousands of people today would be in real poverty. A small amount of money per month from the employer or from the individual builds up for a better pension for people tomorrow. How can the member possibly object to that?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, philosophically and ideologically, I object to higher taxes all the time. I stand here because I believe that we need to lower taxes on Canadians. We need to put more money back into their pockets. We need to give them the ability so that they can depend on a solid CPP, and that is what we have at this point. They can depend on the solid pillar of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. However, we also have to be certain that we are allowing them to save as well.

Are the other two pillars stand-alone pillars? There is no three-legged chair that can stand on two legs. We have to make sure that they are all secure.

The member referenced pooled registered pension plans. Again, it is another idea thought up by the Conservative government, along with the tax-free savings account and income splitting for seniors and others, which depended on the buy-in of the provinces.

We had provincial buy-in. We had some provinces that were buying into it fairly quickly, and others were trying to manage the legislation. Ontario said that it would buy into the pooled registered pension plan. Now some of those provinces are wondering if they have to do that if we are going to start enhancing the CPP.

With pooled registered pension plans, unlike the CPP, when something happens to me, with my estate, my wife and children will see the benefits of my savings. With CPP, my wife will get very little of the survivor benefit, very little of what I had accumulated over 40 years. However, I do not hear governments objecting to the fact that all of this pooled money will come back to the big pension plan.

We need to keep money in the pockets of Canadians.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to ask a question of the hon. member. I stress that what we are talking about here with CPP enhancement is not wealth management. Therefore, this pillar definitely is important.

It is nice to hear about how in certain circles that one moves in, everybody is doing okay so there is not a crisis in retirement. To have Canadians hear that is a disservice. We do know that reports like the McKinsey report, which I have done extensive research on, is calculated using the value of retirees' real estate as well. In an area like mine, where real estate values are not as high as, let us say, in the GTA, people do not have that nest egg.

However, guess what? Our pharmacare, which is nonexistent, is something that hangs in the air for us and is very oppressive. Our medicine costs are the same. When one has to go to the lab and get extra blood tests, those costs are the same. Nursing home costs are the same, no matter where one lives. However, the fluctuation in our values in retirement mean we are going to have a certain percentage of Canadians who are not able to maximize and leverage their real estate.

Therefore, it was disconcerting to hear all day today, this lack of understanding on what that pillar of CPP is supposed to be achieving, and what personal investment is supposed to achieve. There is a clear difference there. For us to be using the time here today to confuse Canadians about what this really is, is alarming to me.

I would like to hear the member's plan for how the Conservatives would address the exponential increase in poverty among elderly women, especially single women, in the last 20 years.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, listen to what Statistics Canada said.

Statistics Canada said that in the late 1970s, 29% of Canadians were low income, seniors living on low income. That number of 29%, by 2014, had dropped to 3.7%. The member over here will say that we do not care about the 3.7%. He better believe that we do. That is why we brought forward measures specifically to those 3.7%, the GIS, TFSAs, OAS enhancements. They are the reason that we did those things.

I will commend the government today if it will continue to move towards enhancement of survivor benefits. We did some; I think there is perhaps more room for that measure to be done.

However, we again have a Liberal government, working together I believe with the NDP, who would say that we need a sledgehammer for a very small problem. I hear the NDP saying that oh, it is not a small problem, it is 3.7%. Typically Canadians are better off today than they were in the seventies. We have to continue to enhance it.

I am not saying that we should never make any adjustments, but I am saying that when our economy is like it is now, the last thing we should be looking for are ways to increase taxes on the average Canadian, the middle-class Canadian, the low-income Canadian. The last thing we should do is to say that the government is taking more. It is doing it with the carbon tax. It is doing it with payroll tax increases. It is continuously doing it with measures that mean that Canadians do not have disposable income. That is why we will continue to see household debt rising.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has really defined the problem.

I have been listening to the speeches in the House today, and they are saying that retired single females are having a real problem. Well, my colleague explained really well that what the Liberals are trying to do is not going to help anybody who is suffering today.

The challenge I am hearing with the youth in my community who are looking for jobs is that they do not trust the government to look after their savings moving forward. With the way things are going right now, with the job losses, especially out west, and in manufacturing in my community, they want to know what the solution is for the government moving forward. Is it going to end up devaluing people's savings and investments in real estate?

I want to talk to my colleague about an issue that is being missed by the Liberals and the NDP. It is about competitiveness and how this incrementalism that is being put forward in government policy is affecting our competitiveness, especially in Oshawa and for manufacturing, whether it is the highest rates for electricity in North America that we suffer from in Ontario, or this carbon tax that the government is bringing in, or now with the increase in payroll taxes.

Could the member explain to the NDP and Liberal members why this is so harmful to attracting new business to our country, when countries that we compete with do not have these burdens?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my friend.

First of all, I want to say that one of the things our Conservative government did, among all of our consultations, was that we listened to what seniors said, and not just on one issue but on many. When they said they would like us to reduce the minimum withdrawal requirements from the RIFFs, another measure we gladly did, it meant they could stretch their portfolio over a much longer period of time, until they were 85, 90, 95 years old.

The member talked about competitiveness. We have a presidential election going on in the United States. If members could stand to watch any of it, they will have heard talk about jobs going to Mexico, jobs going everywhere else. Why is that happening in the States? Jobs will go to where they can be competitive, to where they can have an advantage.

We have seen it in the provinces. We have Premier Wynne here, who has a problem on her hands. She is watching manufacturing leaving because it is not as competitive anymore as with other provinces. This is a massive problem. Competition, competitiveness, productivity: all of this can hurt.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition for recently naming me the spokesperson for work and opportunity for the Conservative caucus. I will approach this issue and all issues by breaking them down into those two constituent parts, work and opportunity.

The reason that those two things are so important is because they will determine the well-being of our people. The best anti-poverty program is a good job. The greatest social safety net we have is a strong family and a strong community. I am here today to talk about how we can use the power of work and opportunity to lift people up, particularly people who are less fortunate. It is through that prism that I will comment on the government's proposed increase in Canada pension plan payroll taxes.

Let us start with the impact of that policy on work. What will be the impact on work? First, it will make it more expensive to work. Anybody who has a job and receives a wage will pay higher payroll taxes. According to one estimate, it will be as much as $2,200 in extra payroll taxes, and that will be matched by the employer. It would be $2,200 per household, and an equivalent amount for each contribution by the employee will then be paid by the employer.

That deals with the second half of the work dimension. Not only will it be more expensive to work, it would be more expensive to hire. When it becomes more expensive to hire, understandably less hiring happens. That is particularly the case for small businesses, whose ability to take on marginal costs like payroll taxes is lower than that of larger firms.

This is particularly important because new evidence has emerged this month showing that small and medium-sized firms are vastly outpacing big business when it comes to hiring people. A report from Scotiabank said:

Annual payroll growth among small firms (fewer than 100 employees) averaged 1.4% from 2010-2015, significantly stronger than the 0.9% increase among large firms (500 or more employees), though lagging the 2.0% gain among mid-sized firms (100-499 employees). Small firms generated more than 500,000 net new jobs over this period, or 45% of national payroll gains.

In other words, small companies were responsible for half of the net new hiring that occurred between 2010 and 2015, and large businesses, the kind that the Liberal government likes to associate with, are not generating jobs in the same numbers as the small and medium-sized enterprises. This new payroll tax will make it more expensive for the small companies to hire people, and therefore they will do less hiring.

Anyone who has been out in their communities and talked to small electrician firms, small construction companies, local mom and pop shops, will say they are hearing of the increased burden of government that applies every time a small business tries to hire someone, whether it is restrictive labour laws, higher payroll taxes, provincial and municipal building code restrictions, or the endless volumes of paperwork that a small business must complete for the mere crime of creating jobs and providing goods and services in a community. All of these burdens make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to hire and grow their payroll, and this new payroll tax will make it harder still.

Let us be clear. The government has argued that the CPP payroll tax increase is not a tax at all. It argues that it is simply deferred income, that it goes in one end of the CPP machine, and that when the person retires, it comes out the other. That is not the case for small business. The entrepreneur will pay an increased premium, but he or she will get absolutely nothing in return for it. Their pension will not go up as a result of the increased payroll tax. Their costs will simply go up.

The reality is that they do not have spare change sitting around waiting to throw at the government, so they will have to make difficult decisions. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has already said that many employers will either cut wages or jobs to make up the extra cost from new tax burden.

That is how this new tax will affect small business in particular, but what about businesses in the export market? Canada is a trading nation. Without exports, we do not have an economy.

I look at the struggling manufacturing sector in Ontario, already hammered with literally tens of billions of dollars in inflated electricity prices imposed by the provincial government to reward well-connected, so-called green energy firms. We look at the new carbon tax these firms will have to pay just to keep their factories operating, and now they will have to pay new contributions to CPP. Large manufacturing firms, particularly in the auto sector, have already warned that this triple whammy will make it more difficult to create jobs here in Canada.

We have a global supply chain where investment goes to where the returns are, and if the returns on hiring Canadians are lower because the costs are higher, then these firms will just build and hire somewhere else. They have lots of options. Other places around the world are competing fiercely for opportunities and jobs for their people, and they are doing it by lowering taxes and streamlining red tape. The government is doing precisely the opposite of that, so we can expect that this new and expanded tax on jobs will mean fewer jobs and less work.

As the critic for work and opportunity, I think that is terrible. We need to expand job opportunities for people by lowering the cost of hiring. If we do that, then entrepreneurs, large and small, will come here and hire in record numbers. That is the agenda we should push.

Let me remind our colleagues across the way who say we need to have more contributions to the CPP, that if someone loses their job, the contribution they make to their CPP retirement is zero. They get absolutely nothing put away in a rainy day fund, in their retirement nest egg. If we want to ensure that people have enough money to retire, we have to make sure they have a chance to work so they can contribute to their savings in the present day rather than taxing them out of a job.

Let us move to the second part of my new duties as critic and spokesperson on the issue of opportunity for Canadians. What kind of opportunity will this proposal bring to the Canadian people? The government says that we need to increase the mandatory contributions to CPP because people cannot afford to save for their retirement. Let us think about that for a second: people cannot afford to save for their retirement, so we will force them to save.

If the government's position is that no one has any money to set aside at the end of the month, then how will they afford to pay this new tax? It has to come from somewhere. It is not magic. The amount that the government is proposing the average family contribute is $2,000. If Canadians do not have $2,000, what will they do when this new tax kicks in? They will not have a lot of options.

In fact, options are precisely what we should be providing them. We should live in a big, opportunity filled free enterprise economy where Canadians get to choose what is right for them. That is what free enterprise means, and that is why it is the greatest poverty fighting machine ever invented.

Prior to the current government's taking office, we as a Conservative government introduced the tax-free savings accounts. The government does not actually understand the purpose or the use of those accounts. It has suggested that tax-free savings accounts are merely a tool for the rich. They are exactly the opposite. It has been proven that RRSPs tend to be weighted more in that direction. TFSAs are weighted to favour low-income people. That is because low-income people often do not have access to the biggest tax-free savings account that has ever existed in Canada, which is the capital gains tax exemption on a primary residence. We have long had a tax-free savings account for real estate so that we can grow the value of our property infinitely without paying any capital gains tax at all as long as it is our primary residence. What about low-income people who do not have a primary residence but who instead rent because they have never been able to afford a down payment? A tax-free savings account is precisely the equivalent for them. It gives them the ability to save tax free through equities and other savings instruments the way that more affluent Canadians already have saved tax free through the ownership of a principal residence.

Lower income people pay a lower marginal tax rate because they are in a lower tax bracket. As a result, an RRSP does not necessarily save them as much money when they contribute to it. Therefore, if their marginal tax rate is somewhere around 20%, an RRSP contribution does not defer nearly as much either in percentage or absolute terms as if they were a millionaire, like the finance minister, and pay a marginal tax rate of 48%. The millionaire would save 48% whereas the working class person would only save or defer 18% or 19% on an RRSP. With tax-free savings accounts, not only do the savings accrue over time but the accounts also exempt a low-income person from having eventual GIS and OAS benefits clawed back later in life because TFSA earnings are exempt from that clawback. Therefore, lower income people can retain the GIS and the OAS while they take gains out of their tax-free savings account.

The government will say that low-income people never contribute in the first place. Actually, the statistics from Finance Canada prove exactly the opposite. The average income of a TFSA contributor is $42,000. Maybe the government does not consider that middle class. Its so-called middle-class tax cut did not give a penny to anyone earning below $45,000 a year. I consider that middle class. At the very least, the people who earn $42,000 a year are working hard to join the middle class, and TFSAs are one way to help them do it.

Of those who actually maxed out their tax-free savings account, the average income is about $60,000 a year. Our friends across the way will say that it is impossible for someone earning only $60,000 to max out a $5,500 tax-free savings account. That is because the Liberal government does not understand when and how people contribute to those accounts. They do not always do it out of their income but out of big life events. When a spouse dies, an elderly survivor may want to put the inheritance in a place where it will not be taxed. That is why he or she would take that inheritance and put it into a tax-free savings account. If a senior gets too old and can no longer climb the stairs in his or her large multi-level house, if he or she disposes of the house and moves into an apartment, he or she has turned a hard, real asset into a liquid asset and can put that money into a tax-free savings account. That is why the people who have maxed out TFSAs are not all rich. They are often people with low incomes who have had major life events that cause them to turn their assets into cash, and they want to turn that cash into tax-free income. We wanted to give them the opportunity to do that, which is why we created the tax-free savings account, and that is why we increased the amount people can contribute to it.

On the other hand, the government wants to force everyone to contribute through the CPP, arguing that this instrument is the only way people should be allowed to make contributions to their savings. However, we are increasingly finding data that shows that it is not the best savings instrument compared to the other alternatives out there in the marketplace.

In fact, a recent study by the Fraser Institute demonstrated that the 1.07% management cost of running the CPP is quite high. It is not low, as was argued earlier. It is actually quite high, and Canadians, increasingly, can access exchange traded funds with the click of a mouse on the Internet, from very reputable firms like Vanguard, iTrade, or others. These funds are massively diversified, with extremely low management costs, much lower than the CPP. In fact an investor can own the entire American stock market, the entire Canadian stock market, and even the entire worldwide stock market and be diversified into every single company that exists and is publicly traded on planet earth, with a management expense ratio lower than the current CPP's.

Warren Buffett was recently asked how he would encourage the average investor to prepare for their future. Given that most people do not have the time or expertise to pick one stock at a time, he suggested exchange traded funds because of their extremely low management expense ratios, because it costs so little to invest in them, and because they diversify so widely it protects the investor against major losses.

That is just one vehicle, but there are all sorts of other vehicles available to people if they so choose. I am not here to offer them financial advice. I think most of us in this place struggle just to plan our own financial futures. However, we do acknowledge the cornucopia of opportunity for people out there in the private sector, and that Canadians are smart and wise enough to make those decision for themselves. They should not be robbed of those decisions by a government that thinks it knows best how they ought to prepare for their future. That is exactly what this government is doing by forcing people to invest more money in an expensively managed CPP savings account.

I conclude by turning the attention of the House to a column recently written by Kevin Libin in the Financial Post, who said:

So what if a new report by Morneau Shepell, the human resources firm once chaired by our current federal finance minister, finds that the new enhanced CPP doesn’t significantly tackle all that much—and, in some ways, makes our retirement system even worse.

The article goes on to say:

Even Bill Morneau, before he was a politician and still worked at the human resources firm that bears his family’s name, co-authored a book with Vettese that repudiated—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I see the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Island rising on a point of order. I started to detect this commotion. I did not hear. Perhaps the member could enlighten me.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, entirely inadvertently I am sure, the official opposition advocate for opportunity used the opportunity to use the personal name of the Minister of Finance. I think he will regret that. It's just a hunch.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The hon. member for Carleton may recall, and for the benefit of the House actually, when the name of another member appears in a citation one cannot use the name, even if in doing so you are doing it indirectly through a citation. So even in a citation we essentially rule that out of order.

The member will then, I am sure, substitute and use the appropriate name, either the title, or the member's riding name.

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sorry, I am new here.

The quote states:

Even [the finance minister], before he was a politician and still worked at the human resources firm that bears his family’s name, co-authored a book with Vettese that repudiated “fear-mongering media stories” and “overblown” worries that Canadians were under-saving.

Now, he’ll force Canadians to save more for their retirement whether they want to or not, or whether they need to or not. Eventual changes to benefits from 25 per cent of covered earnings to a third, and a heightened ceiling on covered earnings from what would have been $72,500 in 2025 to $82,700, will result in some Canadian workers paying as much as 40 per cent more in CPP contributions by that date—up to an additional $2,200 a year deducted from their take-home pay, according to Finance Canada’s backgrounder.

The finance minister opposed precisely what he is now implementing and enforcing on Canadians.

At the end of the day, if Canadians want to contribute more to a large, diversified savings fund, there are hundreds of options available to these millions of Canadians. We as government should not impose our will upon them and their retirement savings plans. That is why we on the Conservative side instead favour voluntary options, low-tax plans, rather than high-tax schemes, to free people to make the best choices for their lives and their futures.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, who has a new job title. The first two letters are J and O. I would suggest he add some more components to his job title, with kids excepted and seniors with nothing. In other words, the joke is on him.

That was not the best joke in the House today. Handwriting is not my long suit.

I keep hearing the other side talk about the 17% who do not. They say that a job is the best social program. Is the member really suggesting that kids go out and get a job if they need daycare? Is he really suggesting that seniors go back to work if they do not have the funds to retire? Is the job really the best social program for everyone, or are there some people who need support? If that support is needed, should that support not lift them out of poverty rather than keep them there?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, kids do not make contributions to CPP. I am not sure if that is something the hon. member proposes, nor do people who are out of work make contributions to CPP. If he is saying that this is a solution for long-term unemployed Canadians, he should check the rules of CPP, because those Canadians cannot contribute in the first place and therefore they accumulate no benefit under the existing system or any future one the government may propose.

Nothing in the member's proposal would expand retirement benefits for unemployed Canadians. Nothing. Let us just be clear on that.

My comments were that yes, I believe that the best anti-poverty program is a good job and the best social safety net is a strong family and a strong community.

As it relates to child care, we on this side believe that families are best able to make their own child care decisions. That is a debate we had long ago when we were discussing whether to have a daycare program or give direct benefits to parents. That is a debate the Conservative Party won, because the Liberal Party has now adopted our position on that with this new child benefit.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, poverty in Canada costs us between $72 billion and $84 billion a year in increased health care costs and an increased need to take care of those who are the most vulnerable. As elected officials, it is our job to look out for the most marginal, to try to reduce costs, and to look at a harm reduction strategy that will save taxpayers money.

When we look at the statistics the Conservative Party talks about when they talk about people living in poverty, they say that it is between 3% and 4%. When I look at statistics for seniors, 15% of single seniors are living in poverty, and 30% of single senior women are living in poverty. When we look at the most recent figures and talk about the 30% of single women living in poverty, that number has tripled in the last 20 years.

What plan does my colleague's party have to help lift the most vulnerable elderly women out of poverty? This is not just life circumstance. There is a lot of life circumstances for 30% of single elderly women to be living in poverty.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one person living in poverty is one person too many, and we here should produce policies that free people to pursue opportunity and escape the terrible state that is an impoverished life. That is why I am so proud of the progress we have made in this area. Back in 1996, 15% of Canadians lived below the low income cut-off line. In the most recent year on record, 2014, that number dropped to 8.8%. That is a spectacular decline, and most of it, by the way, happened under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper.

The reason it happened is that we rewarded hard work, particularly by cutting taxes for low-income people who were entering the labour force. We brought in about $35 billion a year in tax relief, which the parliamentary budget officer said was overwhelmingly directed at low- and modest-income people. We brought in the working income tax credit, a benefit that helped people get over the welfare wall. We raised the personal exemption to take hundreds of thousands of people off the tax rolls. There were people who literally had their federal income tax burden lowered by 100% under the previous Conservative government. We need to continue to lower taxes and create opportunities to make work pay and give people expanded opportunities so that we can defeat poverty once and for all.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks will be the impact of this new tax on businesses, especially small businesses. I will say once more that I am a business person. I know that it is going to have a serious impact on me and, unfortunately, I have no say in it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for one thing, these changes will not benefit businesses. They will have to contribute more, but CEOs, company owners, and entrepreneurs will not be able to collect more in retirement. For businesses, there is no upside to the contribution.

Unfortunately, this measure will force some companies to implement hiring freezes, pay cuts, or, in worst-case scenarios, layoffs. That is what will happen. Businesses do not get money for nothing. They have to earn it by working.

Also, there is only so much money to go around. If the government imposes another tax, that will reduce the amount of money available to pay wages and hire Canadians. That will be the fallout of this tax hike.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that Canadians found out that the age at which we could retire and qualify for CPP had been changed unilaterally by a prime minister speaking to us from a great height in Davos.

I am looking forward to seeing improvements to the CPP, but I know they are not enough.

I have one of the ridings with the highest proportion of seniors of any riding in this country. I hear from my constituents that they do, on a daily basis, make choices on whether they can afford their medications, which they do, particularly for ailing partners. Quite commonly, elderly Canadians are spouses of elderly Canadians with inadequate care for dementia. At the same time, I have many constituents who know that even though their partner served in the Canadian Armed Forces, because they remarried after the age of 60, they will get no pension.

There are real concerns in the lives of seniors. I think this is one opportunity to improve that circumstance.

I would ask the hon. member why his government did not do more to address these issues.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I just finished saying, our government did plenty. We saw a record decline in poverty, including seniors' poverty, during the leadership of our prime minister. In fact, it was the biggest decline, on record, of any prime minister. There was a bigger decline in poverty under Stephen Harper than there had been under the previous seven prime ministers combined.

My question is why she does not do more. She has been a great advocate of these schemes that take money from poor, low-income seniors and give it to wealthy insiders, like the Green Energy Act in Ontario, which the Auditor General of that province said took $47 billion in overpayments to well-connected, multi-millionaire insiders, including one who is a former president of the Liberal Party, and that drove up electricity costs, particularly hammering the poor and seniors on fixed incomes.

I have literally had people come into my office saying, “I have no idea how I'm going to pay my energy bill, because my electricity bill keeps skyrocketing and my income does not”.

Those kinds of policies, which have favoured the rich, have favoured the well-connected, and have favoured the insiders, have come from people like that member for the Green Party, who has supported them. It is outright hypocrisy that they continue to stand in their places and claim that they are so concerned about the well-being of the poor, when they are robbing low-income families blind to give to the most well-connected and undeserving millionaires in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands rising on a point of order?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I rise on a question of privilege.

I cannot help it if other levels of government use the word “green”. We can check, but the Green Party of Ontario did not support those policies, and I personally—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I take the hon. member's intervention. However, it is not a question of privilege. It is probably a matter of debate. From time to time the member will have the opportunity to weigh in on those points.

Before we resume debate, I wish to inform the House that five hours have passed since the beginning of the first round of speeches on this matter. As a result, speeches will now be limited to 10 minutes and questions and comments to five minutes.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate today on Bill C-26, often referred to as “big CPP” by the many Canadian small business owners who abhor yet another payroll tax being imposed on them by the Liberal government. As a former small business owner, I can speak firsthand of the many reasons I strongly oppose this legislation.

Let us be honest that no matter how we slice or dice it, this legislation would increase the cost to an employer of hiring a worker. It would also increase the cost to employers of the workers they already employ. Let us also be honest and recognize that job numbers coming from Statistics Canada are not encouraging. Likewise, we know that projections from the Bank of Canada are being lowered for economic growth at the same time the Liberal government is imposing a top-down national carbon tax that will drive costs up on employers and small business owners alike. Likewise, we know that the Liberal government has also reneged on its promised small business tax cut.

Let me recap. In a relatively short period of time, small business owners in Canada have had the costs of their existing workers increased by the Liberal government. The government has also increased the cost of hiring new workers. It will be increasing their operating expenses as a result of a national carbon tax, and it has not followed through on its commitment to business tax cuts. It has done all of this at the same time that job numbers are looking bleak and our economic growth is being downgraded.

This may sound like a bleak picture, but the reality is that everything I have just stated is factually accurate and true. It is no wonder that investment has also declined. It is also no wonder that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business strongly opposes this additional payroll tax. It is no wonder that close to 20,000 of the federation's supporters signed a petition opposing these Liberal-imposed increase in costs in general. We must keep in mind that many Canadian small business owners now compete with other small business owners in the United States, where there is no national carbon tax and where the government is not drastically increasing the costs of small business owners.

The Prime Minister looks down on small business owners. He has stated directly that “a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes”. As a former small business owner, I can tell the House that this comment by the Prime Minister is, to put it into parliamentary terms, a foul smelling, crusty batch of nature.

The reality is that small business owners are not wealthy Liberal elites and, by and large, these people do not pay $1,500 a plate for private access to the finance minister. The fact is that many small business owners from time to time struggle just to meet their payroll, and some even work a second job. Typically, they do not have the luxurious benefits of the public sector. I mention this final point because we should never forget that it is from the private sector that we take so that we can afford to have the public sector. An expanded CPP would take money out of the private sector.

I just heard an argument that this money would ultimately return to the economy when workers retire. However, let us not overlook the fact that not everyone lives to age 65. For them, their families, and their estates, an expanded CPP would do very little. Likewise, even for those who only live a few years beyond 65, that transportability of CPP to loved ones, kids as an example, would basically be negligible. People could pay these hugely increased costs their entire working career and potentially get very little to no benefit from them whatsoever.

However, that is okay for the big CPP pension board, because the cost to administer CPP has basically gone through the roof. As the national columnist Andrew Coyne has recently pointed out, staffing has increased at the CPP Investment Board from five in 1999 to around 1,200 today. Likewise, operating costs have gone from $3 million in 2000 to $803 million in 2015. External management fees have risen from $36 million in 2006 to $1.25 billion in 2015. These are just a few alarming indicators.

To be clear, I am not being partisan about this. These things have happened under both Liberal and Conservative governments alike. However, under a Liberal government obsessed with consultations and reviews, it is curious that this big CPP is being imposed on Canadians with zero consultation with groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and no review as to how administration and expenses are rising so dramatically for the CPP.

Of course, we have heard the finance minister and the Prime Minister tell us that Canadians are not saving enough for their retirement, which is why they believe having the government do it for them through this big CPP is the answer. When the Liberal government reversed the $10,000 annual maximum contribution to the tax-free savings account, it did so arguing that down the road they were worried Canadians were in fact saving too much.

Now here is the thing with the tax-free savings account. Unlike the CPP, with the tax-free savings accounts, those funds, lifetime savings I might add, are fully transportable. This means that one's kids, spouse, and family all benefit from one's lifetime of savings instead of having that money sucked into the growing administration a of big Canada pension plan. To be clear, a tax-free savings account did not penalize employers who are job creators. Therefore, in reality, we have a Liberal government that one day says it is worried Canadians are saving too much so we better cut back that tax-free savings account, and then a few days later it says that Canadians are not saving enough so we better bring in big CPP.

It is not unlike what the current government has recently done with new mortgage qualification rules. People in Summerland and West Kelowna, in my riding, have phoned me and emailed me and said that this makes home ownership a goal that has been stretched down the line. This is a sad thing, because people work hard. They want to succeed in life, and home ownership is one of the ways we can do that.

Let me be clear. A home is how one can build equity for retirement. If anything, the government should be focused on measures that increase the supply of housing to help increase affordability. More home owners mean more equity for those home owners down the road, and less need for an expensive payroll tax like big CPP.

One final point I would like to raise, going back to the government's argument that people are not saving enough and thus let us impose big CPP to do it for them, is whether it has ever occurred to the Liberals to ask why people are struggling to save. Well, I have an answer, and for a growing number of Canadians, the answer is too much taxation. Governments, at all levels, continue to add more and more taxation, leaving less take-home pay.

In the irony of ironies, the tax-free savings account which, let us not forget, is entirely funded by our net after-tax pay, has now been reduced by the Liberals. It is like the current Liberal government and the Prime Minister have created what I believe is a war on equity. At the same time, let us not forget that it is the same Liberal government that is adding massive amounts of new debt.

Yes, I know the finance minister loves to the use the term “investing”, but regardless of how we wordsmith it, that investing that has created this massive pile of new Liberal debt will down the road have to be paid. Each month we pay interest on our debt. In fact, the amount of the federal government interest on the debt we pay right now is close to what the Canada health transfer is to the provinces. While provinces all squabble for more health care transfers, we can all collectively look the other way, but that interest on debt is rising at alarming levels.

Therefore, down the road, we are going to see a problem, collectively. Either we are going to see more increases in taxes, reduced government services, or possibly a combination of both. That is maybe the real reason that the Liberal government supports big CPP, so that our future retired Canadians will have more capacity to absorb inevitable increased taxation as a result of today's Liberal debt being added to at near record levels.

The bottom line is that I would like to ask all members in this place a simple question. Where exactly will small business owners get the money to pay for these dramatic increases in labour costs?

The reality is that for small business to stay in business, we all know that income has to exceed expenses. In a small business, one's income comes from one's customers. When one's costs rise without a corresponding increase in sales, one goes out of business. That is the message that the government is sending to small business owners across this great country.

I would ask all members in the House to listen to the objections of the CFIB and oppose this damaging measure that would harm employment. Those who are unemployed do not contribute to CPP because they draw down from EI and other government-funded programs. Now is not the time to be expanding big CPP, and that is why I strongly oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question. The member referred to housing as a very good source of investment for retirement, and he is not wrong. However, in Quebec, homes are owned by about 60% of the population, so 40% do not have that asset. To cash out on that asset, they have to cash out of the house, which means that they are either remortgaging it or selling it so that they then have nowhere to live but have a wonderful pile of money. TFSAs and RRSPs can only be contributed to if people have extra money to do so.

My question for the member is pretty simple. Does he believe the government has a role in helping people who do not have the money to invest themselves?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple premise. Let us say people are working and earning low incomes. We would be taking money away for their consumption today. Maybe they want to hire a math tutor for their sons or daughters, or maybe they want to invest in going back to school, those kinds of things that make us wealthier and smarter down the road. They cannot access those. In fact, they have put that money into the future, where there will be other benefit programs like old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, which track with inflation. They are going to have more money down the road, but they have less money right now. That really cuts off their ability to do other things, like I said, in education or investments in themselves.

I have heard from young families in Summerland who are being told they cannot qualify for the larger homes that they have been saving for. This has been tough on young Canadians who want to start families and want the same benefits that many of us here have had.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the hon. member can assure me that he understands that in order to pay for the increased benefits to CPP, the increases will have to be phased in gradually over a number of years. The reason we are doing that, as he stated, is that home ownership is threatened. It is threatened by precarious work, which I believe is one of the reasons the CPP enhancement is timely for the younger generation that is experiencing the precarious work reality.

I am wondering if he can reassure us that he understands the phase-in for this CPP enhancement.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has talked about precarious work, so I am glad that we are also talking about it.

First, if people do not have jobs, they cannot contribute to CPP. I just confirmed that the parliamentary budget officer still projects that this year's budget, which was set by the government to raise 100,000 new jobs, will only raise 60,000. There are less small businesses willing to hire young people because of things like CPP and carbon taxes.

I would love to be able to say that we are able to take these small amounts over time, which would be the logical thing, but that is not what is happening. What happens if there is another recession in five years when these things start to kick in full bore? Will the government actually rescind those things or will it be ideological? We just do not know. We do not know what the future is. I do not believe this is the best way to go forward, but I appreciate the member's point.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that both the member and I understand is small business. I was a small business owner myself. We are doing a study on poverty in the human resources committee, and we always expect a certain demographic to pay more, but there is a point at which that particular individual or business just cannot do it. Eventually something occurs and the inevitable happens.

The Conservative government proposed an 11%, 10% to 9% small business low corporate tax rate because those are job creators. The member spoke a bit about the negative potential of this, but what could possibly happen if small businesses are simply taxed too much?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Like I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, if they cannot sell to their customers at competitive prices, the customers will go elsewhere. Eventually, if they cannot find new customers willing to pay what their costs are, they will go out of business.

We talked about precarious work. What happens when it becomes too precarious for small businesses to employ young people? What happens when it becomes so precarious for larger corporations that they say the province or country they are in is no longer competitive? I am worried that there will be Canadian oil sands companies operating in Mexico and other jurisdictions rather than here in Canada. Why? We are not cost competitive and that is a shame.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak to this important issue today.

New Democrats were first to fight on behalf of an enhanced Canada pension plan in this century, launching a multi-faceted plan that would have ensured retirement security for Canadians back in 2009. While we are supporting the current level of enhancements, we nevertheless understand that for many retirees it will be inadequate. That is why we will continue to fight on behalf of all present and future retirees so that they can retire with the dignity we believe they deserve.

Canadian retirement income, and in particular enhancement to CPP, is one of the defining issues of a generation. Juxtaposed with the precarious work issue, we know Canadians are facing a retirement income crisis that must be addressed. The enhanced CPP would benefit a new generation of workers entering the workforce, but it would not alleviate the retirement income crisis of those who approach retirement.

An expansion of the CPP is the right way to modernize the retirement income system for the 21st century. The CPP is universal, providing pension benefits to all workers earning more than $3,500 throughout their working life. The pension benefits follow us from job to job and for periods of self-employment as well. These attributes are important, given that this is a generation of workers who are more likely to change jobs many times over their working lives and less likely to have a workplace pension plan. Add to the mix the proliferation of low-paying, precarious jobs, along with increasingly high student loans, and we begin to see that there is a real structural impediment to saving for retirement.

Given the urgency of this situation, it has always been difficult to listen with a straight face to the Conservatives declare that the CPP enhancement is a tax. A tax that pays us back later, is it? I do not think so. Like all real pensions, the CPP is a deferred wage. It is income that will be received later, and tax will be paid on that income later, by the way. It is disingenuous to continue referring to this enhancement to the CPP as if it were a negative, as if it did not matter that people would be in a better position to retire with financial security in the future.

Also, increasing the CPP now is a great way to diminish future reliance on the taxpayer-funded guaranteed income supplement, so this enhancement would actually be good for the taxpayer. Increasing CPP is largely a no-brainer as the plan performs very well and its administration costs are kept low. Low operating costs mean more of the money Canadians contribute through their CPP premiums gets invested, which means higher returns, which means more money for retirement incomes. The high administration fees charged by the retirement plans sold by the financial industry eat into future savings. In fact, an extra fee of 1% can cut into lifetime savings by as much as 25%. The typical fee charged for mutual funds in Canada, of 2.3% for example, can slash returns in half.

The CPP was created to be a universal pension program, meaning it belongs to everyone. Everyone pays into it when he or she works and everyone gets a pension from the CPP when he or she retires, fair and simple. The CPP provides a lifetime benefit that maintains its value over time as it is indexed. There is no need for people to fear that they will outlive their retirement savings or that those savings will be reduced by inflation as they age.

Currently, the CPP covers earnings capped at $54,900. For earnings up to the cap, the CPP aims to replace about 25% of the income. Therefore, the maximum pension comes in at about $1,092 per month, or $13,100 per year. Contributions are 4.9% for each the employer and the employee up to the same cap. The expanded CPP would be a new and separate tier. This tier would be added on top of the existing CPP. The new CPP tier would do two things, phased in over the next years to 2025.

First, it would take the replacement rate up to 33.3% from the current 25%. Second, it would expand the upper earnings cap from today's $54,900 to $82,700.

To pay for the increase in benefits, contributions for employers and employees would increase. This increase would be phased in between 2019 and 2025. There would be two tiers for the increase between 2019 and 2025. For those earning less than the yearly pensionable maximum earnings, which is currently $54,900 and would be adjusted each year, it would increase slowly to rise to an additional 1%. Those workers and employers would then be paying at a rate of 5.95%, up from 4.95%. In real numbers, this would mean that a person whose rate was set at the maximum would pay an additional $43 a month, as would the employer.

The Liberals claim that the maximum benefit under the enhanced plan would rise by 50%. Well, this is creative mathematics, as they get that number by using a faulty comparison. In fact, the maximum benefit would rise by 33%. The maximum a person can receive is now $13,110. That number is based on the maximum earnings that can be used to determine benefits, which is $54,000. Under the new plan, that person will receive $18,117, and that is in 2016 dollars, or a 33% increase.

The high cost of housing and drugs, the looming issue of the clawback of the GIS, and the indexing of pensions come immediately to mind as areas we need to act on quickly. Canadians from coast to coast to coast agree.

We are witnessing and experiencing the untenable pressure our seniors must bear. More must be done, because all of our seniors deserve to live with dignity. We need immediate action to help those seniors and seniors on the cusp of retirement who will not benefit from these changes.

Let us build on the momentum of this agreement and take the next steps to improve long-term retirement security for today's workers. Social justice advocates, including the labour movement, have done a tremendous job in laying the groundwork for this agreement. I am so proud of the work they do in my riding to advance our social conscience.

It is in that vein that I raise a profound concern about how the enhanced CPP contributions will be managed and invested. The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board must diligently examine its areas of investment, including resource extraction in developing countries. The Norwegian pension plan investment board, for example, withdrew from all such portfolios because of human rights concerns.

As Canadians, we need to stand up to cavalier attitudes that suggest that this is how business is done. We must begin to think of the human consequences of our activities around the world, and where businesses behave in a predatory and exploitative fashion, I believe we should withdraw our investments in those areas forthwith. Canada has a social responsibility for our seniors and a responsibility to ensure the corporate social responsibility of Canadian companies in other countries, as well.

In closing, I would like to say again that the proposed changes to the CPP are welcome. They are expected by Canadians who have high expectations of our government. However, they are also an inadequate response to the retirement plight of working Canadians. For a government that prides itself on legislation that is fact based, it must go back and examine the facts.

In a society such as Canada's, where retirement security is built on the premise that employer-provided workplace pensions perform a significant portion of retirement security, along with personal savings and public pensions, it should be clear that the present system is broken and will not be fixed by the changes to the Canada pension plan alone that are being debated here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reinforce that what we are really debating today is a historical moment in which the provinces came together under strong federal leadership to agree to increase the CPP for the betterment of working people today.

I appreciate the comments by the member that we have to think that when people retire, they have a nest egg. I am very appreciative of the fact that New Democrats are supporting this particular piece of legislation.

Could the hon. member comment on another major aspect of the measures taken by the Prime Minister and this government, the significant increase in the guaranteed income supplement? Many single seniors will receive $900 more, lifting thousands of them out of poverty. Would she comment on that because the pension issue goes far beyond the CPP itself.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the member that CPP is just one part of a larger issue.

In terms of the GIS, I think this would be an opportune time for the government to ensure there will be no future clawbacks on the GIS when the CPP increases come in.

Let me go back to something the member described about the guaranteed income supplement. When we raise people out of poverty, let us picture it as a line. How far are we raising people out of poverty? How far do we raise them with GIS? Those same seniors are struggling to decide whether they should be paying a hydro bill or paying for medication.

We have lots of working seniors, the so-called healthy and lucky ones with workplace pensions, who are still struggling.

If we are serious about the structural change that needs to take place, the next thing to tackle for seniors is pharmacare.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for the economic welfare of folks who are retiring and to make sure they have adequate funds to retire with comfortably. However, she is wrong when she says an increased CPP is not an additional payroll tax. If something is being forced upon an employer to remit to the federal government on behalf of an employee, which is what this increased CPP will do, it is an additional tax legislated by the House and forced upon employers.

I know the member has a great appreciation for people's ability to retire comfortably, but at what point are we pushing the real job creator or our country, our small to medium sized enterprises, too hard? At what point have they contributed enough?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I am very disconcerted to hear a respected member's alarmingly narrow definition of a tax, because this is not a tax.

I was raised in a small business family. I have a family that dutifully invested and was devastated during the recession. I also understand the regulatory environment we have today for garnisheing wages. This CPP is exempt from that. Everything from student loans to GST to family support is garnisheed based on an individual's cash flow, what they are taking home, which is very important if people are to save for retirement.

In the hon. member's social circle it may not be an issue, but this is extremely relevant in my riding. Small businesses in my riding, the BIAs in Windsor—Tecumseh, have advocated and have talked about how they struggle, and about the stigma attached to their financial struggle when the narrative becomes, as I have heard over and over today from the other members, that they have made bad choices, that it is their fault. We cannot do that any more.

We need a structural change, and the way to address it is to look intelligently and meaningfully at other changes that need to take place, but when it comes to the CPP, do not do a disservice to those same small businesses. Do not call it a tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-26, the enhanced Canada pension plan that the government has introduced. While it might seem laudable that the government wants to improve the public pension that future generations may possibly collect, it is odd that it has chosen to increase the payments made by Canadians today so that potentially one-third of a person's retirement income 40 years from now will be provided for by the government.

This makes one question why the government feels compelled to increase pension benefits for future generations. By the current government's own actions today, through deficit financing, it will imperil the ability to save for the future because of the increases in taxes that its reckless deficit spending must entail. If we have to pay someone else's bills first, it is hard to save for ourselves. I have watched the government as it spends billions of taxpayer dollars today with little regard for where this money comes from, how it will be repaid, and what sort of damage this reckless spending will cause these very same retirees that the enhanced CPP is promising to help in the future.

By its own admission, the government wants to increase the monies it collects for workers today for the CPP because there is a belief that not enough Canadians have a pension plan at their work and/or that Canadians are not saving enough of their own resources for the future. Let us explore these beliefs.

Whether it is a defined benefits plan or a defined contribution plan, both of which are paid for by the employer and employee, nearly 50% of Canadian workers do not have an employer-provided pension plan at work. This may seem like a high number, and perhaps it is if we believe it is the obligation of the employer to provide a pension on top of a reasonable wage, vacation time, sick time, and a balanced work life—and the list goes on of what an employer ought to be responsible for. However, if nearly 50% of Canadian businesses are small businesses that employ between one and four people, it may seem a bit onerous on a small business to offer an additional pension plan to its one or four employees. Of these workers, 100% contribute to the CPP. Therefore, every worker in Canada does have a pension plan, yet some may have a much better plan than others. The argument that not enough Canadian workers have a pension plan at work is really an argument based on envy, that some have a better plan than others, and that it ought to be rectified by forcing small businesses to pay more for the future of their employees, some of whom may remain for one year and some for a lifetime.

I am confident that most Canadians agree that some form of a public pension plan is of benefit to society as a whole. I think the potential disagreement comes from just how much their pension should be worth, and by whom it should be run

The math behind the enhanced CPP is based on raising the contribution rates and the ceiling at which those contribution rates apply to our public pension scheme to enhance the CPP of all Canadian workers. I am not certain this math is convincing. Current estimates show that the CPP at present provides a real rate of return of approximately 3.6% and that this will decrease to around 2.1% for those retiring in 2037, according to the Fraser Institute. Currently, the average Canadian worker contributes 4.9% of his or her income to the CPP. This will increase to 5.95% based on the proposed CPP enhancement. The employer provides the same contribution. This current total contribution is 9.9%, and will rise to 11.9% of one's earnings to a maximum amount. The average Canadian wage is $48,200. Therefore, an expected contribution of $4,800 per year is invested in a pension scheme for the average Canadian worker. At the age of 65, this same worker can expect to obtain a maximum pension from the CPP of approximately $1,000 per month. However, because that worker's average wage is less than the pensionable maximum, he or she will only receive approximately 75% of that amount.

Today, the average CPP payout in Canada is $642 per month. If this same worker earning the same average wage contributes his or her enhanced 5.95% CPP allotment into his or her retirement plan and earns the same rate of return of 3.6% for 45 years, the amount of time needed to obtain the maximum payout from CPP, he or she would be able to use these funds to pay his or herself the maximum amount of $1,000 per month for at least 40 years and still have money left over at the end of this time of approximately $220,000. If we add in the employer portion, then there is now an 11.9% contribution, and the maximum return is more than attainable.

We know that the return is not exact. The worker earning the average wage of $48,000 per year, who should be able to generate $1,000 per month return from their own 5.95% contribution over 45 years, now needs to factor in how the overall employee-employer contribution of nearly 12% will go to covering such things as administrative fees to manage the money, the maximum $3,500 tax credit for the contribution rebate, and the extra funds that go to those who earn less than the average industrial wage.

The argument that not enough Canadian workers have a pension plan at work is in fact not correct and speculative at best. If the CPP is in fact a pension plan, then it really comes down to how that pension plan is being administered.

The second item I would like to address is the belief that some Canadians are not saving enough on their own, so by taking extra funds from their paycheque for an enhanced CPP contribution each month, the government is going to be doing them a favour. If I have limited resources and the government takes more of my resources in order to obligate me to settle for something second-rate, then of course I am not going to be able to save as much of my limited resources since they have already been taken by the government.

The C.D. Howe Institute examined four pillars for sources of income for retirement in exploring why the government wanted to enhance the CPP. The first source is government transfers, such as OAS and GIS. The second is the CPP. The third is employment pensions. The fourth is other assets, such as real estate, financial assets, private business, life insurance, inheritances, and essentially, any asset not managed by the government. If the government is truly convinced that it is going to improve the lot of the middle class, then this fourth pillar needs to be paid more attention in a positive manner.

Unfortunately, the government has seen fit to, instead, meddle in this income source through reducing the tax-free savings account limit, trying to cool the housing market, failing to reduce small business taxes, imposing a carbon tax, and enhancing the CPP. This will unduly impact the overall burden on some business activity in Canada by increasing the contribution rate that employees, employers, and the self-employed will have to come up with to meet the government's solution to a problem that is beyond them.

Taking money from hard-working Canadians' paycheques will make it harder for families to save for such things as vacations, children's post-secondary education, and purchasing a home. Likewise, employers will have to choose between hiring that extra hand or requiring their employees to do more for less.

We know that sunny ways in Canada means that the government wants to manage all aspects of how we live as Canadians, from cradle to grave. We know that there is nothing the government does not want to poke its nose and legislation into.

The enhanced CPP proposal is simply another tax to address a problem that really is not a problem. If we look at how society functions and decide there are specific items that a government ought to be responsible for, such as promoting rule-based free trade, ensuring the security of our communities both internally and from activities abroad, or allowing for the free movement of goods and people internally in Canada, then determining how much someone receives in retirement or insinuating that one person's pension is better than another's, and that is somehow bad, seems to be the least of our concerns.

In conclusion, let me finish by quoting Hendrik Brakel of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. On May 31, 2016, he stated:

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

The government talks a big story and loves to use the catchphrase, “Helping the middle class and those who are struggling to join it”. Between the carbon tax and the CPP tax, that elbow to the middle class has bounced off the chest and is now a hit to the head.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the speeches today about the CPP, it has become very obvious that everyone will understand why the Conservatives lost touch with Canadians. Canadians want to see a strong and healthy pension program, whether it is the GIS, the OAS, or the CPP. The Conservative Party still believes there is no room for improvement to the CPP, even though the provincial governments and many different stakeholders came to the table. Strong national leadership led to a historical agreement.

Why are the Conservatives are so out of touch with what Canadians and other provincial jurisdictions have called for at this time when we should be celebrating a historical agreement which will help so many retirees in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are so keen on studying everything and talking to everybody, but the people they have not talked to is the CFIB. The CFIB has indicated that 70% of small business owners disagree with that notion. Therefore, I do not know how the member can say that they have engaged with everyone when small business represents such a big, important factor of this economy and generates a significant amount of employment and jobs. By creating those jobs, we have more people contributing to the CPP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. It is interesting to hear my colleague across the way talk about this apparently being a historical agreement. I do not think it is even a historic agreement.

The government has tried to bring together other levels of government in a government knows best approach. What we are hearing from ordinary Canadians, from business owners, is that they do not want to have to pay more in tax. They want to keep more of their own money. That is the approach that we advocated. Could the member talk about why we are better off by giving people the mechanisms to save for themselves?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all the good work he has done.

Small business is the backbone of our country and small business includes our agricultural industry. Our farmers are out there working day in and day out. They have been fighting to succeed and get their products to the market. The Liberals put forward a carbon tax and now they want to put another tax on farmers. Farmers employ people and they will continue to pay the CPP for these individuals. There again, it is another tax that is being added to the farmers. How are they going to find the labourers and people to work for them?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go ahead with the next segment, I would remind the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain that there are two and a half minutes remaining in the time for him for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak to Bill C-26, which aims to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the CPP Investment Board Act, and the Income Tax Act.

When I was campaigning last year, and in fact in many meetings and conversations I have had since then, I heard over and over again that people are worried about their financial future and specifically about whether they are saving enough to retire with security and dignity. That is why I am pleased to share my reasons for supporting Bill C-26, which aims to address those concerns in a responsible and meaningful way by expanding the CPP.

Earlier this year, Canada’s provincial finance ministers met with my colleague, the federal Minister of Finance, and agreed that more must be done to ensure all Canadians are able to retire with dignity. They recognized that an expansion of the CPP plays a major role in achieving this. It was a textbook example of the kind of consensus we can achieve when everyone comes to the table as partners in pursuit of better service to Canadians.

Many people in my riding of Whitby, and right across the country, are working harder and longer than ever. According to a 2012 study, almost two-thirds of Canadians are working more than 45 hours per week. That is a 50% increase from more than 20 years ago.

On top of that, advancements in technology mean that workers are on call 24/7. Even with all these extra hours and hard work, many are concerned that they will not have enough money for retirement.

Far too many Canadians are facing significant drops in their quality of living upon retirement. In fact, 1.1 million Canadian families are approaching retirement having not saved enough. That is why we have recognized the need to do more for workers, and we are taking action.

The Canada pension plan has been a source of financial security for Canadians for more than half a century. It provides Canadians with a predictable benefit, year after year. Unlike private investments or pension plans it is not subject to market volatility. It is also one of the more efficient ways for Canadians to save as its massive contribution base allows the CPP investment board to deliver strong net returns.

Despite all the benefits provided by the CPP, there has been a recognition in recent years that it is not doing enough to support Canadians in their retirement. Our government has heard these concerns and is moving to address them. Bill C-26 will significantly boost how much each Canadian will receive from the Canadian pension plan. Under the current system, retirees receive one-quarter of their earnings; after this much needed expansion, that will increase to one-third, up to a maximum annual benefit of nearly $20,000.

As a former small business owner, I know that the CPP plays an important role in ensuring that employees can save for their retirement. Employees work very hard for companies. It is very important to me that they be able to retire with dignity.

It was a priority of our government to move forward with the expansion in a responsible way, which is why we are phasing it in over several years. Starting in 2019, annual CPP contributions will begin to increase modestly over seven years. As an example, a worker earning just over $50,000 will contribute an additional $6 per month in 2019, and by 2025 that worker earning the same amount will be contributing about $40 per month.

The expansion of the CPP will benefit all workers; however, it is very important that workers on the lower end of the income spectrum are not unfairly burdened. Our government understands that while lower income workers want to save more for their retirement, they face tight budgets that will make the increased contributions difficult for them. This is why Bill C-26 also proposes to increase the working income tax benefit to offset increases in CPP contributions. The working income tax benefit will be increased to roughly match the level of CPP contributions. This will allow lower income workers to increase their retirement saving without creating unfair burdens on their tight budgets.

I also want to speak about how this legislation would benefit the next generation of workers. Young Canadians face a much different employment landscape than their parents or grandparents did, many of whom worked in the same job for the same company for decades and have access to private pension plans as part of their compensation, providing them with financial security upon retirement.

That is no longer the norm. It is now common for workers to change jobs, or even fields, a number of times throughout their careers, which can have significant effects on their pension contributions and payout.

Even more troubling is the overall decrease in companies providing registered pension plans to their employees. In those organizations offering pension benefits to their employees, we are seeing a significant shift away from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans, which often provide less financial certainty upon retirement.

When we combine all of these factors with rising life expectancy, it is becoming more likely that Canadians, in particular young Canadians, will outlive their savings. The expansion of the CPP would mitigate that risk. In fact, young Canadians who are entering the workforce over the next few years will benefit the most from this change to the CPP. As such, this expansion is a tangible investment in the future security of our children and grandchildren.

While recognizing that this expansion would do the most for our younger workers who are just beginning to make investments in their CPP, we must acknowledge that too many current retirees are facing significant challenges in making ends meet. This is why our government is also taking steps to improve the quality of life for seniors today. In budget 2016, our government confirmed that it was boosting the guaranteed income supplement top-up to benefit single seniors with up to $947 annually. This will help lift low-income seniors out of poverty and improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada. This increase is directly targeted to assist those seniors who are most vulnerable.

In closing, I would like to thank my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and his provincial and territorial counterparts for their hard work on this important issue. This expansion is an important part of ensuring that all Canadians have a secure and dignified retirement. I am very proud to stand here and support Bill C-26.

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

Madam Speaker, this summer I had the privilege of talking to an accountant who manages the payroll of a number of small and medium-sized companies. When she heard about this proposed CPP increase she was very concerned that not only would it not allow firms to hire new people, but it might also, in some cases, require the layoff of some people because of the increased CPP premiums over time.

Therefore, how can it possibly be of benefit to have a few seniors earning a few more dollars in retirement when there are hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost across the country as a result by people who really need the jobs now?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government has taken a responsible approach to implementing the expansion of CPP. As I said in my statement, it will start in 2019 and increase over time to 2025.

I want to be clear about the expansion. For someone making about $50,000 a year, it would start at $6, and by 2025 it would be $43 extra they would be putting into their retirement. Doing the math, this would be equal to roughly $2 per day that Canadians, people in my riding of Whitby, would be able to securely put into a fund that they would be able to use when they retire, ensuring that they are able to retire with dignity.

Many employers are really looking to this as a way to show their employees they are committed to ensuring that they can retire with dignity, by both contributing a little more to CPP than they currently do.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a more general question.

Today, we are debating the issue of the Canada pension plan, but the Prime Minister has done more than just propose changing the CPP. There are three real foundations to our pension program. There is the CPP, which we are dealing with today. There is the OAS, which the Prime Minister and Liberal government reduced the age of eligibility for from 67 to 65 shortly after taking office. That reversed something the former prime minister had put in place.

There is also the guaranteed income supplement. The increase in that will see some of the poorest, if not the poorest, seniors from all regions of our country receive a substantial increase. It will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $900 more. That will help those seniors most affected by poverty.

Could my colleague share her thoughts on what I believe is a good government that truly cares about our seniors?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for eloquently stating some of the initiatives our government has taken to really look at what is happening with our seniors population, not just for today, but putting steps in place so we can take care of them tomorrow.

As mentioned, the OAS was rolled back so that seniors could retire at 65. They had been planning to do so all their lives and heard that they might have to work an extra two years under the previous government's plan. I know in talking to some of the residents in Whitby, they were concerned about that.

The guaranteed income supplement of about $1,000 also helps. It helps them today, but the expansion helps those tomorrow.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, Finance Canada has said that this new CPP increase would reduce employment, reduce GDP, reduce business investment, reduce disposable income, and reduce private savings by 7%. Could the member comment on that?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that Canadians are not saving enough for their retirement right now. That $2 a day we would be expanding the CPP by would allow people who currently put that $2 in a jar and take it out every time their car breaks down or something happens in their family, to have that money stay in a fund that would allow them to have security and dignity when they retire. That is what our government is looking forward to our seniors having.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-26, the legislation that deals with proposed changes to the CPP. I am also happy because this is another initiative that our government has brought forward after committing to it prior to the election, and one that we continue to work on.

I want to thank our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance for not wavering on this issue. This is an important initiative that needed the support of the provinces and territories, which we were able to successfully get.

When we talk about CPP we think about our seniors, but this is also about our youth, because over time they will become seniors. Time goes by quickly. When our youth start in the workplace they do not have any of the benefits that our generation had. The private sector chooses not to invest in the Canada pension plan, so our young people do not really have a guarantee at the end.

We want our seniors to be able to retire with respect and dignity. We want them to be able to live the golden years they worked for all of their lives. However, it is going to be difficult for our youth to do the same, because when they become seniors, there will be no pension funds available for them.

There is also the question of those who are going to soon reach the “senior age”, if I may use that term. Information from the Department of Finance in 2012 indicated that about 24% of individuals who were soon to retire were not saving enough to make sure they could continue their existing standard of living while working. That is a challenge as well.

I should add that Canadians live longer, and everyone is happy with that. I sure am. However, with that comes the need for people to save more, which can be a challenge for some individuals. By proposing changes to the Canada pension plan, the government is putting some protections in place to allow future seniors to retire in a much better way.

I would like to briefly outline what is being put in place with the provinces' agreement. This process will begin in 2019 and end approximately seven years later. The investments will be modest at first, but will increase over the seven years. The money invested will increase benefits from 25% to 33%, which is huge. In 2025, a person who is now earning an average salary of $50,000 will have $4,000 more for their pension. That is a sizeable increase.

The other important aspect is that those who retire and have a lower income will be able to benefit from the gains without contributing more. By the end of this initiative, the pension amount will have increased by 50%.

This means that people who receive $13,100 today could receive up to $20,000, which is a dramatic increase. That is a good example of a government that is working closely with the provinces and territories to ensure that Canadians will benefit more fully.

It also shows our government is proactive. We are not sitting back and risking that times will be really tough and Canadians will not have something with which to retire. We are being proactive.

Let us look at other jurisdictions. Let us talk about the U.S., for example. The social welfare programs could be somewhat in danger. I am quoting from what I believe is called the American social security program that is projecting that the benefits Americans are receiving now when they are retiring will not be guaranteed to still be there in 2033. That could be devastating for Americans, today and in the future and for future generations. That is extremely dangerous.

There is no question that our government is taking a proactive approach to this, and I believe this is a shining example of working together with the provinces and the territories. I believe this is what I would call true federalism, where people, communities, and governments are coming together to put in place an initiative that would make life better for Canadians in the future.

This is not the only initiative that our government has put forward. When we were first elected, the first main initiative we put in place was the 7% tax reduction for Canadians. On top of that, we were the only ones who were willing to and who did put an increase on income tax for the wealthiest Canadians. That was a major initiative that our government put in place.

The second one, which we know—and as I travel across my riding, seniors and Canadians who will retire soon share that—is the fact that the age for OAS was returned to 65 years old. Canadians are extremely happy that they do not have to work those extra two years. That is another major initiative that our government brought forward.

There are all kinds of those. We can look at the budget. The 2016 budget focused on the child care benefit. That child care benefit program, while I was campaigning, was the most important thing.

We are saying Canada needs more people. We want immigrants, we want refugees, and we also want to have more kids, young families; so we need to support them, and we are supporting them with that major initiative of the child care benefit.

The infrastructure investment will create jobs and create foreign investment. Those are initiatives that will be very positive.

I have to say in closing that I am extremely happy with this initiative. I know that the people in my riding will be extremely happy with this, and I also know that Canadians will be happy. This is the Canadian way of doing business, and it is how government should work, working together for the betterment of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, twice now we have heard people from the other side say that this is an issue that would address seniors' poverty. There are those who disagree with that. In fact, I would like to quote from someone we all know, and I will tell you who that is in a minute.

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....

This is according to the chief actuary of Morneau Shepell; and his co-author is our current Minister of Finance.

Even if the question is about poverty, these changes that we are proposing today will not be fully implemented for 40 years, so how can we honestly say that this is addressing seniors' poverty?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, we have to have a vision, a plan to put structure in place, and move that plan forward. When we go up the ladder, we do not climb to the top; it is one step at a time, and these steps are what we have put in place. It is a very gradual approach on a seven-year plan that will help all Canadians. This is not about seniors today; this is about those who will join the senior category soon, about young people who will be seniors in time, and that is what this plan will do. It is a big-vision project initiative with many parts to it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member may well know, six in 10 Canadians do not have a workplace pension, and to make matters worse, young Canadians are increasingly working precarious, temporary, and part-time jobs without benefits, let alone building a pension or retirement savings program. In the interim, as this plan will not really kick into effect for 40 years for many people, what can be done and what is the government doing in the interim to address the issue of precarious work, particularly for young Canadians?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a very important question because I believe that many of the initiatives we put in place in the last year are already contributing greatly to youth and employment, and by that I mean investment in infrastructure. That is a major investment in job creation. We are looking from one extreme to the end. We are talking about 40 years, but if we look closer, in 2025 there will already be major benefits for Canadians. This is another piece of our vision to make Canada great again. With this measure, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, the OAS, the CPP, and tax reduction—I could go on for a while—there are many great things we put in place. This is one piece of the big puzzle.

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

Madam Speaker, could I get the member to continue on with what he is saying specifically to a question about not helping our seniors today? This is a piece of legislation that would help workers of today and into the future for retirement. However, dealing with seniors today, what is going to help is the significant increase to the guaranteed income supplement, which will literally take thousands of seniors out of poverty as a direct result.

Would the member agree that it is more than dealing with one of our three foundation pension programs, but by doing this we are helping many Canadians?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

A brief response from the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. It is a gang: the CPP is coming in, the guaranteed supplement is coming in as well, and the age to receive OAS has been moved back to 65. Then we are stimulating the economy through infrastructure investment. We are ensuring that investment for young families will help with the cost of living to educate and allow their kids to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in this House to address Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, and the Income Tax Act.

When introducing legislation, it is important to consider what problem we are trying to solve. One might think, from the rhetoric spouted by the government, that we are in a retirement crisis, but I am fact and evidence based—as the government claims to be but is not—and I can say that, according to a study by McKinsey & Company, 83%, of Canadians are on track to maintain their current living standards in retirement.

Fred Vettese, the finance minister's co-author, says that Canadians are not facing a retirement crisis, nor is such a crisis likely to arise. Finance Canada says that, overall, Canada's retirement income system is performing well.

Canadian retirees achieve relatively high income in retirement and compare well to retirees in other organizations. With support from all three pillars of the retirement income system, the median Canadian senior earns 91% as much as median Canadians. Internationally, Canada has one of the best income rates for seniors.

Statistics Canada has stated that the number of seniors living on low income has dropped to 3.7%, among the lowest in the world. If our retirement system is doing so well, why is the government taking time and money away from other issues in an attempt to change it?

The Canada pension plan is internationally recognized as one of the strongest and most reliable retirement systems, yet here we are about to make detrimental changes.

What problem are we trying to solve? It must be the fact that 17% of Canadians are not on track to maintain their lifestyle when they retire. We therefore need to ask ourselves whether we really should impose a tax hike on all Canadians, including small businesses that are already struggling, in order to help that 17%. Is there a better approach? What impact will this increase in the CPP have on individuals and small businesses?

The Department of Finance Canada, the minister's own department, said that Bill C-26 would reduce employment in Canada and cost 1,040 jobs every year for the next 10 years. That will result in a drop in the GDP, a drop in corporate investments, a drop in Canadians' disposable income, and a 7% drop in private savings in the long term.

It will have a very negative impact on small business. The CEO of the Federation of Independent Businesses says that two-thirds of small firms say they will have to freeze or cut salaries, and over a third say they will have to reduce hours or jobs in response to a CPP-QPP tax hike.

The senior director at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce warns:

This comes at the worst possible time—an economy reeling from weak commodity prices and slower consumer spending will be lucky to eke out growth of 1.5% next year. It’s difficult to stimulate the economy while pulling money out of the pockets of Canadians.

Small business creates more than 80% of the jobs in Canada. These businesses are already struggling, especially in Ontario and in my riding, where sky-high electricity costs imposed by the Ontario Liberals and uncertainty about the federal carbon tax and increasing bureaucratic burden have driven many of these businesses to the brink, where this final CPP increase will cause them to exit.

These changes would force industries to leave Canada in favour of lower taxes and contributions south of the border. This would not grow our economy and would only put more strain on Canadian families.

What about Canadians who are self-employed? This would cost them about $2,200 more per year. What about those who are already struggling with incomes below $40,000 per year? The Liberal government has done nothing for them in tax relief. The carbon tax would increase the price of everyday purchases for this group, and the proposed CPP changes would take more money out of their pockets. This has to stop. Struggling families will only fall further into debt, and our economy will stagnate.

Who will benefit from this measure? No one will benefit for 40 years. Meanwhile, this government will have access to that tax revenue for 40 years and we are just supposed to trust that it will not spend that money on anything else. I apologize for being skeptical, but the Liberals have already added $40 billion to their spending spree this year and I do not believe that giving this government more money is a good idea.

Therefore, 40 years from now, let us talk about those people on the plan then.

This plan would increase the income replacement rate from 25% to 33%. That is 8%. The problem is that the basic economic rule of the time value of money tells us that at the current interest rate costs double every 20 years. In 40 years, costs would have quadrupled and yet this benefit would only increase 8%. This measure means people will be even poorer with the proposed CPP changes. These proposed changes will have a negative impact on this generation and will not help future generations.

Let us say we took the current maximum CPP rate and applied the consumer price index rate of inflation of 2.5%. In 40 years, the current value would need to be at minimum 100%, actually 240% greater, not 8% greater.

This proposed CPP change will not help small business. It will not help those who are self-employed. It will not help seniors. It will not help the young generation that will be needing retirement options in 40 years.

Simply put, the proposed changes will do nothing but provide the government with more money to spend. Canadians will not profit from these changes and in reality many will suffer. The immediate and long-term loss of jobs, business opportunities, and disposable incomes will only further shrink our economy and limit the futures of Canadians.

However, I am always one to come with solutions. Here are several possibilities.

I would like to suggest a further increase to the guaranteed income supplement to help seniors who are currently struggling. Sixty dollars a month is not very much compared to Kathleen Wynne's $130-a-month increase in electricity fees. If the government wants to help seniors who are trying to live on less than $40,000 a year, it could use the existing guaranteed income supplement, without incurring any additional administrative costs, and increase the amount given to seniors by at least 3% per year to keep up with inflation. It would be even better if the government increased the GIS by 10% once the carbon tax takes effect in 2018.

I believe access to significant TFSAs and voluntary CPP contributions will give Canadians control and flexibility to invest in their retirement when and how they feel comfortable.

Changes such as the ones presented in the bill will slow our economy. It is simple. The less money Canadians have, the less they are able to save. The TFSA should be increased and savings promoted, instead of taking more money from Canadians families.

The financial instability of these proposed changes will create a significant effect on all Canadians, especially those with lower incomes.

I have an idea for young people who need good retirement options in 40 years. How about creating well-paying jobs with good pension options?

I can create 3,000 well-paying jobs, with full pensions, for young people in my riding with $12 million of infrastructure money if the infrastructure minister is serious about creating jobs.

For small businesses, how about implementing the tax decrease to 9% that the government promised?

Any or all of these solutions would be better than what is proposed in Bill C-26.

As such, I will not support the bill, but I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, because it will: (a) take more money from hardworking Canadians; (b) put thousands of jobs at risk; and (c) do nothing to help seniors in need.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the Hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, normally when we pass a bill in this place, it is to benefit something; it is to improve our way of life, to solve a problem. This bill would not take effect completely for at least 40 years.

Knowing that fact, will this bill benefit anyone right now? Will it benefit any individuals who are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, or 70s? Will it benefit anybody in those age groups?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, this will not help anybody. Finance Canada has said this will reduce employment, the GDP, business investment, disposable income, and private savings. I spoke about how even the people who would receive the benefit 40 years from now would be worse off because of the time value of money and the purchasing power they would have at that point.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate. The other day a member said that there was a high proportion of seniors in the riding. I too have a high proportion of seniors in my riding. If it were not for the Canada pension, I do not know what those seniors would do. Also Canada pension provides disability.

Members have said that people will leave Canada because of this and that it will cost employers because of this. I would like to set the clock back and ask the hon. member this. If there were no Canada pension, all these same arguments that the opposition has given would apply. Would the member still be against Canada pension, because obviously all the same arguments would apply? Would the member vote against establishing Canada pension?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government needs to quit dreaming about what might happen or what if we turned the lock back and start focusing on trying to create jobs and introducing programs that are going to do something for somebody. This will do nothing but hurt small business. It will hurt all the people who are already struggling. It will not help the people in the future.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, while I agree that the plan we are talking about today would take a very long time to kick into effect, in the interim there are a whole lot of people who are not getting the support they need.

The most recent figures available show that some 30% of single elderly women live in poverty. In fact, that number has tripled over the last 20 years. Could the member offer some suggestions as to what could be done now to effectively lift vulnerable elderly women out of poverty?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly talked about some solutions in my speech, and I love the targeted program that the member has suggested. We look at what the problem is and if we see that elderly single women are having a struggle, we decide we will give them specifically an increase. Those are the kinds of solutions I would like to see.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had constituents in my riding who are employers in small business. They have said that if they have to pay an additional $1,000 per employee, they will have to lay people off. Has my colleague had that experience in her riding?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, small businesses in my riding are already starting to go out of business. We have huge electricity prices that the Ontario Liberals brought in. The federal threat of the carbon tax is going to be horrible in my riding because we have petrochemicals and oil and gas. All of these have options to go to the states and take their carbon footprint with them. This would just be an added burden to small businesses. When we think about 10 employees, we are talking about more than $10,000 or $15,000 a year.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to talk about Bill C-26. It has been a long time coming for this side of the House.

I have listened to my colleagues in the opposition and they clearly have an ideological slant, which is very different to how we think on this side of the House. Therefore, I am pleased to see that Bill C-26 has been presented.

At one point, I was the Liberal critic for seniors and pensions, and so we have had a lot of to and fro. I am glad to see that today's debate and discussion is being done in a respectful way. However, as the former critic, I think back to the dozens of times that I had asked the previous Conservative government to make changes to the CPP, and I am reminded of its constant foot-dragging and excuses for inaction.

The Conservatives' ideology is very different than that on this side of the House. They said that pension reform was something best left to the provinces. They also said that pension reform had no business on the floor of the House. I am very proud to say that we are going to prove them wrong again, as we did many years ago when we introduced CPP.

Seniors, like those living in my riding at 7/11 Arleta, helped to build our country. They deserve better than to be relegated to the shadows of the Conservative economic inaction plan. For nearly a decade, Canadian seniors were told that better was impossible, and that Canadians needed to tighten their belts and do more with less. This argument might have resonated with the core Conservative supporters, but missed the mark with seniors with a background in physical work, which was work that paid less but demanded more.

Seniors with low incomes, failing health, and challenging circumstances know too well the heartbreak of deciding between groceries and hydro, between rent and a grandchild's Christmas gift, or any number of other impossible choices demanded because of a pension that just did not keep pace with increasing costs. Today, because of this government and our commitment to do the right thing for seniors, that shameful history of taking seniors for granted will finally be behind us.

Today, for the first time in far too long, Canadian seniors, like Paterra Catania, whom I spoke to just yesterday on this issue, have a reason to smile and have hope. Real change is taking root within their homes and bank accounts but, most important, for the future of their children and their grandchildren.

In the last election, the Liberals promised to protect income splitting for seniors, which we did; to restore the old age security and GIS eligibility age to 65, which we did; to increase the annual GIS payments; and to enhance the CPP, which is exactly what we are doing now.

We have protected the income splitting, restored the age to 65; allocated $670 million per year to double up the GIS for the lowest-income seniors; and now we have Bill C-26, which will be to enhance the Canada pension plan. These are not small changes, but this is real help for real people in the future.

In just one year, this government has started to reverse years of contempt and neglect at the hands of the Stephen Harper government and his ideologically-driven Conservatives. Of course, it is important to note that to amend the CPP, the following was required, which we were told was next to impossible for the last five years: agreement from two-thirds of the provinces representing 50% of the population, which is a good achievement for our folks on this side of the House; a fully costed strategy; and an agreement from the federal government, which was something the previous government refused to give for eight years.

Set another way, this change was certainly not easy, but it is amazing what can be done when good people come together with a common goal rather than making excuses for inaction. Change can be hard, but change is necessary.

This brings me back to Bill C-26.

Today, middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever before. Many are worried that they will not have the savings they need to live with dignity during their retirement years. Many people were unaware of just how difficult it was if one had not saved enough money when reaching that age of 65. To make matters worse, each year fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pensions to fall back on.

The Conservative wait-and-see strategy failed to do anything except make matters worse. It is going to take time to fully reverse the damage done by the years of neglect, but we will start by putting more money into the hands of those who need it most. Bill C-26 would increase the amount of the retirement pension, as well as the survivor's and disability pensions, and the post-retirement benefit. Once fully implemented, Bill C-26 would boost how much seniors would get from their pensions and would help by giving low- and middle-income seniors choice and flexibility in their daily lives.

To make sure these changes are affordable, we will phase them in over seven years. We are not going to bring them in overnight. We will phase them in very gradually from 2019 to 2025, so that the impact on employers is gradual and manageable, and they know that it is coming. Every Canadian deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. Through this enhancement, we have taken a powerful step to help make that happen.

Last year, the Liberals made a commitment to Canadians to strengthen the CPP in order to help them achieve their goal of a strong, secure, and stable retirement. Bill C-26 is an important step along that path. It would increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% in 2025, provide for the making of additional contributions by 2019, and allow for the creation of the additional Canada pension plan account and the accounting of funds in relation to it. This would be a vehicle for many people who want and have the ability to put an extra few dollars away. They will be able to do that now, knowing that the money is going into a fund that is well run and will be there for them to ensure their retirement.

Many of these measures were part of a detailed pension reform white paper that I prepared in 2010, with the help of many industry experts. As we celebrate this victory today, I would like to thank people like Jean-Pierre Laporte, James Pierlot, Bernard Dussault, and many others who worked on the white paper that made possible the change that we are looking at in Bill C-26 today.

We may have toiled in darkness for many years, but now there is a government that is not afraid of change. Liberal administrations of the past clearly understood the need to protect seniors and help prepare people for those senior years. Whether we are referencing the Old Age Pensions Act, delivered by the Mackenzie King government; the Old Age Security Act, delivered by Louis St. Laurent; or the Canada pension plan and guaranteed income supplement, both delivered by the Lester Pearson government; Liberal governments have a collective legacy of valuing the long-term pension security of Canadians.

Bill C-26 is the next chapter in that story and I am glad to support the legislation on behalf of the people in the communities of Humber River—Black Creek.

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

Madam Speaker, in my colleague's remarks, she referenced the implementation of CPP in 1964. In fact, Judy LaMarsh, the Liberal minister who was responsible for establishing CPP in 1964, had this to say, “It”, referring to CPP, “is not intended to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government’s view, should properly be left to personal savings and private pension plans”.

Finance Canada, in 2015, stated:

Overall, Canada's retirement income system is performing well. Canadian retirees achieve relatively high levels of income in retirement, and compare well to retirees in other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. With support from all three pillars of the retirement income system, the median Canadian senior earns about 91 per cent as much as the median Canadian—well above the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 84 per cent.

It is 84% in OECD countries and Canada's is 91%. Therefore, internationally, Canada has one of the lowest low-income rates for seniors.

My question is this. Where is the panic? Even if there were one in terms of poverty, this is not going to be implemented fully for 40 years, so how would it help seniors?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly nobody is talking about there being a panic, but what would we do if we did not have the CPP? I meet with people in my office all the time who have small amounts in their CPP because they did not contribute long enough. Many of them did not go to work until after their families were raised, and CPP is all relative. What people put in is what they get back.

They may not be in the 91%, but there are an awful lot of people out there who are struggling to make ends meet. I am aware of the good work that my colleague does and I am sure he is very much aware of the seniors today who are suffering. We are talking about wanting to make sure that our children, our grandchildren, and others do not have to figure out whether they will have macaroni and cheese once this week or twice this week because they do not have enough money to make ends meet.

That is the reality today. Seniors of today do not want their families to have to do that. Bill C-26 is moving a step forward in the direction of positive things.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, listening to my colleague's remarks and some of the questions and speeches coming from the other side, it seems they want to drive us back. Good governments plan for the future. Is that not what the bill is all about?

I cannot help but wonder at some of the remarks, especially from the official opposition. Do constituents never enter their offices? Have they never seen constituents who are seniors, who did not do the proper planning for their retirements and who are now in their office without money, questioning whether or not they should buy a pill or eat? That is the situation some of today's seniors are faced with.

Is the bill not looking to the long-term future, to try to secure pensions in such a way that future seniors do not face some of the terrible situations some of the current seniors face?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for that question. I know the great work he does in his own constituency, consistently, on behalf of the many people who are struggling.

What we are trying to do is to show leadership. That is what I believe the federal government's role is. It is to bring the provinces together and get them all to understand. That takes years. I have been battling for five years on this issue. I understand in politics one has to battle for several years and keep making the case until people start to become sensitive to the issue.

When we are talking to seniors today, they are very supportive of Bill C-26 and pension reform, because they wish it had been there for them. At least they know that with the leadership of our government it is going to be there for their children and their grandchildren in the future.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-26. The Canada pension plan is an iconic part of Canadian life. I am pleased that we are doing something about it. It is important to put a number of contexts in place with regard to why this is important for our seniors, our young people, and the people who are paying into it right now.

With the changes being made, the reality is that by 2025 the pension increase will only be made available to 8% of people, and it will take 49 years for this to come into full effect. In fact, it is those who are 16 years old now who will see the benefits of this.

There is no doubt that we will be supporting this because it is a start. We need to start somewhere.

The government now has an agreement with the provinces. I would also like to thank all of the Canadians who participated in moving on this issue. That is important because one political party is trying to tear down all of the efforts that the rest of the country has put into this. The fact is that whether we like this agreement or not and whether we agree with all of it or not, the provinces have agreed. They have decided that this is something they will do and want to do.

Quebec has its own system, and it will continue to maintain that. However, it has also indicated that it would have some measures that complement and work together with this, in the spirit it has shown in the past with respect to a pension system.

I have seen all of the good work done by the Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, and also the retirees from various unions across this country. When I say that, I am talking about not only the current workers but also the retirees and their families. I have been at the meetings, which are open to the public and to the media, and there have been lots of contributions made by people who are not part of those organizations. Others come in off the street and talk about seniors' issues and pensions. Many of those people will not benefit from this. Although they will pay into this system and not benefit from it, they believe in it because it is part of a Canadian way of living that they support. They do not have any reservations or the tendency to say, “What's in it for me?” Rather, what they are looking at is their grandchildren and other people who do not have the same benefit.

What is interesting is that the unions are one of the best protected groups in terms of private pensions, and they realize the benefit of this negotiated agreement.

It is interesting to note that, similar to our Canada pension plan, this is a deferred wage, which is what a pension is. It is security and a deferred wage. Therefore, when employers and employees sit down and negotiate remuneration for services, some will take less today to have more tomorrow as part of their benefit. What more tomorrow might mean to them is the sense of security that they would have, whether that relates to mental health, to having a security blanket, to a way of planning things, or to having a certain lifestyle in Canada or many parts of the world, but Canada used to be one of the best places for that.

From an economic standpoint, I would argue that this is one of the best places to invest. Those who have talked about how it will basically crush business, will defer jobs, and all of those different things have not been listening to all of the testimony at the industry committee when we looked at manufacturing and other industries. The business industry has argued different things, such as SR and ED tax credits, and a number of different programs and services. Most recently some businesses want tax holidays, but they do not bring up the Canada pension plan. All of these witnesses have not brought up the Canada pension plan.

What people really need to understand is that I still have members in my community who will not apply for employment insurance because they are too proud. They feel that they do not want to receive that help or that it is reserved for someone else. However, they forget that it is the individual and the company who pay into employment insurance and that it is their money.

Over the years Liberal and Conservative governments have taken $54 billion from Canadians. Canadians need to apply to get the EI benefit if they qualify. It is their money.

It is similar to this issue with respect to the Canada pension plan and pensions in general. If we manage public pension plans properly, they will be there for everyone in the country and allow people to stay off welfare and other types of social assistance paid for by Canadian taxpayers. If people fall through the cracks without having a proper pension, then taxpayers have to pick up the costs. The money will come from taxpayers one way or another.

This is an incredible opportunity. As I mentioned, what businesses want in terms of subsidies, or what some people would define as corporate welfare, are corporate tax cuts, which we could control. However, businesses will not necessarily invest in Canada when they get these benefits, for a variety of reasons.

Let us take taxed holidays for example. A lot of American states have tax holidays, open cash settlements, infrastructure development, and reduced corporate taxes just to win jobs. I wonder if members remember the debates that consumed us here in this place for nearly two decades about lowering corporate tax rates, that by doing so many jobs would be created. To create jobs, we would just have to lower the corporate tax rate. Those jobs did not come. The manufacturing industry and other types of value-added industries have been crushed in this country because of that ideology. The carrot and stick approach with respect to corporate tax rate reductions has not worked. It has not provided any benefits. In fact, we saw private pensions shrink during that time. As a result of those private pensions shrinking, we have now had to resort to stronger public pensions.

One of the factors that would retain young people who are looking for employment in this country, especially when we are considering the brain drain and other things, is a stable retirement program. The Canada pension plan is that program. They will pay into the plan for the rest of their working lives in Canada and get a guaranteed benefit at the end of the day. That is predictable.

Companies tell us they are dealing with a whole series of things that will change, the most recent being the issue of labelling and health. It was on the news last night what industry has to do in putting more labels on things. Companies want a predictable outcome similar to many Canadian youth are looking for right now as their future. Predictability will keep people and companies here.

It was interesting to hear a Liberal member say that we need to “make Canada great again”. I do not know how Trump made it into this chamber, but he has.

It is important to look at the amendment the Conservative Party has put forward. I understand why amendments are put forward. This amendment is against pensions and is peculiar. What we are talking about at the end of the day is having agreement between the federal government and the provinces, and that is what we have here. Different political parties at the provincial level have now said they can do this. Whether a Conservative government, the Saskatchewan Party, a Liberal government, or an NDP government, they have all said they can do this for all of Canada. The federal government is going to be a part of making it happen.

Destroying all of that and putting it back to where so many files are would be a major step back, like destroying relationships with the provinces, most recently with respect to health. It would be a major step back for all of the people who have fought for this in not only my community of Windsor and Essex County but the whole of Canada, which has done so much to make sure we have some movement on pensions.

For that reason New Democrats will be supporting this legislation. We will continue to work to make sure that seniors who are living in poverty and have to make terrible choices and who fall through the cracks will have the support of a government that cares about them. Hopefully this band-aid fix will become a full solution one day.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague battles constantly in his riding and here in the House to improve the quality of life for many people, not just seniors, and that he is well aware of the discussions that have been going on for many years.

As we move forward on Bill C-26, how many folks has he talked to in his riding about how important this issue is?

I ask because if we listen to the members of the official opposition, they seem to think this is not important, not necessary, and that the pooled pension plans they introduced and TFSAs will solve all of the problems.

Does the member agree or disagree with that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I served on the non-partisan Canada-U.S. parliamentary committee, whose bi-partisanship has been very helpful. The hon. member has done wonderful work there as well to make sure that Canada is well represented.

I see this as being somewhat similar to that bi-partisan committee, because this is not being pronounced as the be-all and end-all of something. It is part of the pieces of a puzzle that will create a base of income for people. It is an improvement, and I give the government credit for getting agreement with the provinces on the issue. It is not exactly what I would want to see done, but at least it is there and will be an improvement. We need to work on drug costs and a number of different things that affect seniors, but at least we have something here. Again, to destroy this at this moment in time would be a setback.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this CPP hike will take 40 years to be implemented. I have people in my riding in their fifties, sixties, or seventies tell me that by the time the bill is fully implemented, they will not be around. They ask why they are paying $1,000 a year for this plan that will not benefit them. It is going to benefit someone 40 years from now. What do I tell these constituents?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if they are in their sixties and seventies and are still paying into the CPP, that shows what we have to do to work on having a good retirement income to start with. I am sure they would not want their grandkids to have that same legacy of having no choice whether to retire or work. The people we have had in our town halls have said they want to do this for their grandchildren. We hear the same arguments from people who do not have kids, or do not have kids in school anymore. They say they should not pay taxes for education, because their kids have already graduated and are out of school. We do so because we believe in a strong Canada and in not leaving people behind.

I am confident that the people in our constituencies will support us in making sure that we do not leave a legacy of poverty for other people.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things I would like to comment on, but I only have a short time. In my area in Nova Scotia, employers are moving away from private pensions and hiring three part-time people instead of two full-time people. My own children were employed in that way and three of them have just taken jobs with pensions, but until then they did not have them.

The Conservatives are arguing that this will burden the business community, that it will drive people out of the country, and so on. I believe they would use the same argument if there were no Canada pension plan and we were talking about initiating a Canada pension plan.

Does the hon. member for Windsor West think that the Conservatives would vote against the Canada pension plan altogether if there were none?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes. It baffles me that they would even consider destroying the bill. It is really odd to suggest that this will result in many successful businesses folding up their tents and operations. In my riding where we produce automobiles we have an opportunity to sell vehicles elsewhere and gain profits from that. There are other ways to control costs and to help businesses and industry. This is one that is done for people, in which we know where the subsidy is going. It is going to make sure that private pension plans are augmented by the public one.

The reality is that if Conservatives had it their way, this could end up being similar to their child care program, which the private sector was not interested in and did nothing as a result of. It was fair enough that they were not interested, because that is not their job. This is our job and so is child care. That is why we have to do it.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why people are saying some of the things they are saying in the House this morning. Who said the Conservatives want to destroy the CPP? Nobody. I have no idea what has gotten into them.

I rise today, October 25, 2016, to urge my colleagues opposite to reconsider Bill C-26 on the Canada pension plan.

First of all, this government has many other priority files it should be dealing with before taxing employers and employees even more. I am not sure that employees and employers can trust this government when it comes to economics. That is what we have seen during its first year in office. It is disastrous. The government promised a $10-billion deficit, but it is $30 billion in the March 2016 budget. Now here it is October 2016, and experts are talking about a deficit in the $34 billion to $40 billion range. That is huge. That is the budget for the Liberal government's first year in office. Its fiscal year started on April 1, 2016.

When we Conservatives were in power, we did our homework, and we gave the country a budget surplus in October.

The Liberals began managing and taking full control of the budget on April 1, 2016, and already in October experts are saying that the deficit could reach as high as $40 billion. What a disaster. On top of that, the Liberals are asking Canadians to trust them and accept an additional tax in the form of increased CPP premiums. People do not trust this government.

We governed like a real government. I must point out that our prime minister was all business. He was an economist. He knew how to count. Our country is being governed by a former drama teacher. I have nothing against drama teachers. My son is a young high school student and is in two plays. Teachers do important work. We need to recognize the work that these people do, as they support our teenagers in discovering and developing their talents. I applaud them. Besides, I think our current Prime Minister would be better on the stage than on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have some difficulty in believing that this government is capable of properly managing a CPP premium increase. We can already see all the damage it has caused in just one year. I will refrain from listing all of it here today, because it would be a long list. It has been only one year; imagine all four years.

Let us come back to our seniors, who are such a treasure. We must recognize all the efforts they made to build our beautiful country. Enough with the melodramatics and saying that Canada is not a good country to live in. That is not true. When I meet with people at seniors clubs and retirement centres in the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which I am proud and honoured to represent, I always thank seniors. I say thank you because we would not be where we are today without them. I thank them for leaving us with the way of life we have today, one which we as parliamentarians work on improving day after day.

When next I see them I will be embarrassed to tell them that the current government introduced a bill under which, 40 years from now, future retirees might be able to have a better retirement and that this measure will be implemented during the next election, in 2019.

We spend time with seniors. I am sure that the 338 members of the House visit old age homes, senior centres, and retirement homes.

People will tell us that it is ridiculous and that they will never see a penny of that money. Seniors are smart. They will surely add that the Liberals are going to waste that money. They will say that they cannot trust the Liberals. Others will add that they do not want to give the Liberals the money that they worked hard all their lives to earn.

We know that the population is aging. We took the necessary steps to help people prepare for a comfortable and dignified retirement. We made it so workers can earn more tax-free income through TFSAs, or tax-free savings accounts for the members opposite who are not familiar with it. However, as soon as the Liberals took office, they quickly reduced the maximum amount that could be contributed to a TFSA. What was the hurry? How did that affect society? All of the brokerage firms experienced a slowdown.

I do not claim to be an economist, but I would still like to give a little lesson on economics. Financial institutions use people's savings to give out loans or make investments, which creates jobs and drives the economy. When the economy is doing well, it creates collective wealth. That helps governments balance their budgets, as we did in 2014-15. It is not hard to understand. As I said, I am not an economist, but this is a basic principle. Experience has proven it to be true.

What a great vision. The Liberals are blinded by camera flashes. We believe in Canadians. We believe that people are capable of saving and that they can afford a comfortable retirement. Before the party of the sponsorship scandal took office, the former Conservative government believed in Canadians and in the regions. We believe that all individuals should keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible so that they can make their own decisions as to how to spend it.

Who knows better than us what is best for us? Who believes in the individual? The former Conservative government, not the Liberals opposite. We believe that Canadians should be able to manage their own money. The current government wants to put more money in its coffers in order to waste more and spoil its friends. The Liberals say they are helping Canadian families even though this new law is going to take up to $2,200 out of their pockets every year. That does not make sense and there is no plan.

We cannot trust the children of the sponsorship scandal, and I am speaking of the Liberal government. I cannot trust them, and they themselves have shown me that. Our government tightly managed our beautiful country's retirement system, had a vision for it, and made it prosper.

As my time is running out, I will jump to the conclusion of my speech. This is a quote that shows this government's lack of coherence, the false debate being used to distract our hard-working Canadians, and that it is treating them like idiots: “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.”

Who said that? Fred Vettese, chief actuary at Morneau Shepell. That firm belonged to the current minister, who worked with Mr. Vettese. Along with a gentleman by the name of Bill Morneau, he co-authored “The Real Retirement”, which was published in the Financial Post on June 5, 2016.

I urge the government to go back to the drawing board and put in place measures that will make today's seniors believe in this government. I personally do not believe in it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind all hon. members that using another member's last name is not allowed. Members must use riding names or titles.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I heard what the member said about how seniors in his community will not benefit from the new Canada pension plan. I have talked to seniors in my riding, and they have all told me that, even if they themselves will not benefit, they are glad to know their children, their friends under the age of 50, and other people in their community will benefit from a better program with defined pension benefits.

Is it possible that the people to whom the member spoke care only about themselves and not about their friends or their children?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is not the wealthiest of Canada's 338 ridings. We talk to people on a regular basis. Obviously, every family's financial situation is different, as is that of every individual and every senior living alone.

That being said, Statistics Canada reports that 3.7% of Canadian families do not achieve an acceptable level of income. That is not so bad. That 3,7% is certainly important, and we had a system that allowed people aged 65 to 67 to contribute to the Canada pension plan. Those two additional years of contributions helped make things better for the 3.7%.

Let us stop blowing things out of proportion and saying that all Canadian seniors are poor and live in uncomfortable situations.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier said that the government wanted more money in its coffers, which is probably true.

That being said, I would like to ask the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier if he understands that the Canada pension plan is a separate fund. It is not part of the government's budget.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I have to say that I simply do not feel secure with the government across the way. I do not believe in the current government's economic strength. I am afraid. I do not trust it. It is putting a plan in place that looks 40 years into the future, when we need to live in today's reality.

Today's seniors deserve to be properly treated. We worked very hard on that, and we will continue to do so. I encourage the Liberal government to do the same thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, my colleague from the greater Quebec City area.

Over the past year, the Liberal government has broken a number of its promises. My colleague also talked about the Minister of Finance, who has contradicted himself somewhat, in terms of his current policies compared to what he has written in the past.

I wonder if the member could comment on what he thinks of the Liberals' pattern of breaking their promises and abandoning the convictions they have expressed in the past.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague whom I have the privilege of working with to represent the Quebec City region. My colleague is from a Quebec City riding. I do not want to cause any confusion. There is the riding of Québec, Quebec City, and the Province of Quebec. I want to thank my colleague for the question.

We are drowning in broken promises. Those members over there were elected on their promises. They fooled environmentalists, they fooled economists, and they fooled families. The only plan they have, and I dare not say it in the House, is a plan for something down the road that we will discuss when a certain bill comes before us in the spring. That is the only plan they have. That is not reassuring for the Canadian families who are working so hard every day to earn money.

I hope they will be given the chance to do what they want with the money they save. Give them the tools to do more. If they do more, there will be more and that will allow us to provide better social programs to Canadians.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a strong pension system is a cornerstone of a decent society. Adequate pensions provide retirement security to those who build our country. Pensions reduce the extent to which seniors must draw upon other social welfare programs. When retirees spend pension income in their local communities, it provides an important and relatively stable source of consumer demand. Therefore, pensions are critical to our economy and to our broader society. That is why most other advanced countries have established robust universal public pension systems to cover all workers.

Even the United States set up a public social security system that is more generous than the current Canada pension plan. Here is Canada, I believe we made an historic error. We set up a public pension system only as a complement to workplace pensions. The CPP replaces only about a quarter of employment earnings, on the assumption that employees have another pension from their employers. That assumption has been severely tested in recent years, and I would suggest that the Canadian approach to pensions is actually very similar to the American approach to health care.

This reliance on the workplace for benefits has many pitfalls. Workers can lose benefits if they change jobs or if their employer goes bankrupt. The aggregate costs of administering separate plans in each workplace, or separate accounts for each employee, are far higher than administering a universal plan that covers all Canadian employees. In any case, we are at a point where only about one-tenth of private sector employees have a defined benefit pension plan in the workplace.

Of course, we can and must do more to safeguard workplace plans where they exist. One idea would be to enact a national pension benefits guarantee fund, as exists in the United States and at the provincial level in Ontario. This is something the Government of Canada could try to initiate for the whole country that would serve as a backstop to workplace pension plans.

However, the fundamental solution is to enhance the Canada pension plan to provide more defined benefit coverage for all Canadian employees, regardless of where they work. The CPP is universal, efficient, portable between employers, and indexed to inflation.

We in the NDP, and our allies in the trade union movement, have advocated doubling CPP benefits over time to replace half of employment income. The government's plan to eventually expand the CPP to replace one-third of employment income does not go far enough, but it is a significant step in the right direction. I am proud of the role New Democrats have played in the House to push the government to follow through on its promise to improve the CPP.

The federal-provincial agreement reached on the CPP is so reasonable that even Saskatchewan's right-wing premier, Brad Wall, signed on to it. To provide a bit of context, in the months before the deal, Premier Wall had been the shrillest opponent of expanding the CPP. When commodity prices were high, it was not the right time to enhance the CPP, according to Mr. Wall. When commodity prices were low, he again said that it was not the right time to expand the CPP. Indeed, in response to falling oil prices, Premier Wall's priority was to argue against improved CPP benefits rather than in favour of improved employment insurance benefits for laid-off resource workers.

There is quite a contrast with our neighbouring province in this regard. In Alberta, Premier Notley made a very strong case for extended employment insurance benefits. As a result, that benefit extension was provided to all Albertans. In Alberta, we had effective advocacy by the provincial government for better EI benefits.

In Saskatchewan, we had a right-wing premier going on a crusade against expanding the CPP. He completely ignored the issue of employment insurance. As a result, the government left half of Saskatchewan out of extended EI benefits and, even after having added the region of south Saskatchewan, it is still excluding Regina.

Workers in my city are paying the price for a lack of effective advocacy from our Premier. However, even though Premier Wall was so hell-bent on opposing an expansion of the CPP, even he came around to sign on to this important federal-provincial agreement.

It is really quite striking that premiers of all stripes, including a very right-wing premier, as I mentioned, have signed on to this reasonable compromise, and yet in this House, the federal Conservatives are opposing improvements to the Canada pension plan. I really think it speaks to just how out of touch the Conservatives are with the reality of working Canadians, that they alone are standing up and opposing any kind of enhancement of the CPP.

While I would certainly argue that this bill is an important step in the right direction, obviously it is not sufficient. Obviously, much more needs to be done to help current retirees and to help lower-income working people. We want to see the government do a lot more to improve the guaranteed income supplement for seniors.

I would note that, in the proposed bill, the enhanced portion of the CPP is actually a separate line on income tax. Might there be a way of exempting the additional benefits from the GIS clawback? That is just one idea that could perhaps help lower-income seniors.

Another idea would be to expand the working income tax benefit as a way of compensating lower-income employees for any cost of increased contributions. The government has said it is going to do this, but we absolutely need the details. We need to see something concrete for working Canadians.

On balance, I think this is a good bill. The NDP is going to support it. However, definitely the government can and should do more.

I would like to briefly respond to some of the points made in the last speech by my hon. colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. He suggested that, instead of expanding the CPP, we should just increase the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts. However, voluntary savings are not working. Canadians are not even filling up the TFSA contribution room they already have. That is why it is important to expand the CPP. Just further increasing the contribution limit to the TFSA would not help all the Canadians who are not meeting the current limit. It would just help the very affluent who have the extra money to put into that account.

In support of private savings, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier also made the point that those savings would be reinvested in the economy. However, the same is true of funds contributed to the Canada pension plan. Those funds would also be reinvested. While certainly savings and investment are important, that is by no means an argument against expanding the CPP.

As I pointed out in questions and comments, this money does not go into government coffers. Unlike the EI fund, the CPP truly is a separate fund with its own administration that does not appear as part of the government's budget.

In summary, this proposal is an important way of ensuring retirement security for all Canadian employees.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could further elaborate. He mentioned, and we know as a government, that Canadians are not saving, they do not have enough to contribute to a TFSA, and they are going to need to retire. Can the member expand a bit further as to why he thinks all the premiers have come together with our Minister of Finance to make this ground-breaking deal?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canadians are not saving enough for retirement. I do not think that is the fault of Canadians. It is the result of stagnant wages and insufficient employment income.

We in the NDP have proposed a number of solutions in this House, but clearly there is a lack of retirement savings, and as I mentioned in my speech, there is also a lack of workplace pensions. Only about one in 10 private-sector employees even has a defined-benefit pension in the workplace. In response to this lack of private savings and this lack of workplace pensions, what we need to do is expand the public pension system to ensure a decent level of defined-benefit pension coverage for all employees.

Of course, I wish the government had gone further in this regard, but it is clearly a sensible move and that is why all provinces are on side with it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is this. Why is he ignoring the facts?

Eighty-three per cent of Canadian households are on track to maintain their current living standards in retirement, according to a study from McKinsey & Company. Statistics Canada is saying that the number of seniors living on a low income has dropped to 3.7%, among the lowest in the world. So there is not a retirement crisis. Why is the member ignoring the facts?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if the idea is that current seniors are not living in poverty, that might be true because current seniors often did enjoy good pensions in their workplaces. The problem is that many people who are currently in the workforce do not have workplace pensions and will not have security in retirement. That is why it is very foresighted to start phasing in increases to the Canada pension plan now, so that there will be better pension income for today's workers when they retire.

This is very much about the future. It is not about seniors living in poverty today; although, there are some seniors living in poverty today, and that is one of the reasons why it is so very important to improve the guaranteed income supplement as well.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of responses for the member from the NDP caucus.

Finance Canada people are the ones who advise the government on this type of bill, and did advise the government on this type of bill. They have made an analysis that shows that higher CPP premiums would hurt the economy. They say they would reduce employment. They say there would be fewer jobs per year for the next 10 years. They say they would reduce the GDP. They say they would reduce business investment. They say they would reduce disposable income. They say they would reduce private savings over the long run.

My question for the member is this. Having heard this advice from the people who advised the government that is putting this bill forward, with that advice should this bill proceed?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but what my hon. colleague has done is present a number of quantifiable statements without actually giving any numbers.

A critical question is by how much this increase in CPP contributions would reduce private savings. If every additional dollar of CPP contributions reduces private savings by 50¢, then there is still a net increase in retirement savings as a result. Really what the Conservatives would need to show to sustain this argument is that every additional dollar contributed to the CPP would remove a full dollar from private savings, and that is not at all clear, and the member has not even tried to make that claim.

It is also important to note that CPP contributions are indeed tax deductible, so there is actually a fairly immediate return to the contributor in that sense. They are also matched by the employer. The CPP is a good deal for Canadian workers.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand 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.

What does this really mean, in layman's terms? It means that there would be a phased-in, mandatory, hike to the CPP premiums for both employer and employee. This hike would be as high as $2,200 per employee.

It is clear from this legislation that the government is not only trying to solve a problem that does not exist, in terms of our system, but does not trust Canadians to make decisions about how they best spend their own money. I think, actually, this bill should really be called the “Wynne bailout bill” or “Liberal election tit for tat” because we know that the Ontario government got itself into a really difficult position with some commitments in terms of what it was going to do with the retirement fund, and indeed, the federal Liberals had to come to its rescue.

I am going to give a few examples about the negative impact of this legislation but, first, I will talk about something that is important and that has been a bit lacking in the conversation we have had today. The tools they are going to use are our Canada pension plan and our Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Most Canadians are very aware of this pillar of our retirement program, but very few have much of an understanding of the underlying dynamics. Certainly when I was a young adult in the workforce, I knew there was something called CPP that was coming off my paycheque. However, the big rumour at the time when I was initially contributing was that this CPP was going to run out of money so I really had to worry about saving my own money anyway.

That clearly has not happened, but I think we are making assumptions about this plan, and I think we need to pay some attention to this plan and what it is all about.

I do want to draw members' attention to an October 17 article by Andrew Coyne. He raised some really important issues that have, again, as I noted, not been raised in this debate. I am going to spend a minute or two talking about the issues he raised, by quote or paraphrase, because I think they are absolutely critical and they represent concerns I have had over the last couple of years.

The first is that “CPP is supposed to be cheaper than private plans on account of its larger scale”.

Most Canadians have no idea, but costs at the investment board have increased, times 22, over the past decade. They have gone from $118 million to more than $2.6 billion. That is an absolutely enormous increase that has happened over just a short time frame.

At roughly 1% of assets, and that is not counting the distribution costs, the CPP is now significantly more expensive than most private exchange funds. I think the Liberals should be truly alarmed about that. This is something they need to get a handle on.

He goes on to say:

...the CPP doesn’t “help” you to save, it forces you to. If you’re already saving as much as you’d like to, it’s unclear why the government’s judgement should be substituted for yours; or if you’re already saving as much as you can afford to, forcing you to save more hardly makes you better off.

And so far as forced savings are justified, it’s never been clear why they must also be invested through the CPPIB....

The CPP II, as we will call it, is to be fully funded, and there are systemic risks that are associated with the portfolio as a whole. This fund has greatly increased these risks in the last years: 40% are now in private equity, illiquid assets like roads and bridges that are not traded on the public market.

Again, we have a pretty significant increase in the costs of managing this fund, and we have a very significant change in the risk portfolio.

There is nothing wrong with this if, one, all Canadians know what they are getting into; two, they can tolerate the extra risk; three, they have properly priced and accounted for it; and four, the returns are worth it.

The CPP, in Mr. Coyne's opinion, met none of these tests and for the 19 million contributors—perhaps they are like me when I was a young adult—it comes off our paycheques and we really do not know what is happening with the funds.

The first thing the Liberals have failed to do is look at what is happening and what they need to do about it. We should not blindly move forward in giving a greater monopoly to the CPPIB without some careful review regarding the rapidly escalating costs and risks. What we are creating is a bit of a monopoly in terms of forced government savings.

In addition to the concerns I have just raised, and I think I shared some important information, I would like to give a couple of examples of how this forced savings program would have some negative impacts. A lot of my colleagues have shared a number of examples, but I would like to talk about a few more.

Someone I know quite well has a technology firm that is doing exceptionally well, but it was a real struggle when he was getting this firm up and going. When he was first starting, there were times when he was concerned about making payroll. Like many entrepreneurs, he was putting a lot of energy in, but it took a while to see a return on his investment. It is a small company with a few employees.

We already know that the current government has chosen to raise the small business tax, so even if he was lucky enough to make a little bit of money, that was going to go up. That is money, typically, that would have been reinvested in the business.

Now he would also have, with 10 employees, an additional cost, and it could be $10,000. That $10,000 could be reinvested in the company to make it bigger and help it become successful. With that $10,000, perhaps the employees and the employer might have preferred to have some stock options. The employees could believe in the company, and in terms of their benefits packages, might think they would have more advantage with some other structure for receiving remuneration. Clearly, for that new business that is striving to make it, this is a measure that is going to create some real challenges.

I have some relatives, a young couple, who have been saving for their first home. They both graduated from university and are saving for their first home. They live just outside of Toronto. They had the down payment and were all ready to go, then all of a sudden, the mortgage rules changed. Now that the mortgage rules have changed, they do not qualify for the amount they need to purchase this home. Not only has the government changed the amount they are going to have to raise for a down payment, it is making it more difficult for them to save. They were putting a couple of thousand dollars a year away to pay off their student loans and buy their first home, but all of a sudden, they are going to have to divert some of the money they have chosen to do something else with into the CPP, the mandatory payments.

I could go on and on with examples of where this legislation is going to create a challenge.

In conclusion, I think the government is fixing a problem that does not exist. We have heard clearly that it does not exist. It is forcing Canadians to do something that perhaps is not their priority. We have entrepreneurs who could take that $1,000 a month, who are investors, who might have something else they could do with that $1,000, whether it is their own investment portfolios or investing in their businesses.

The Liberals are going to negatively affect the economy, and they have not fully assessed, in any comprehensive way in recent years, the escalating cost and the risk. I think the Liberals of today are very different from the Liberals of before. When CPP was first introduced, and we have heard this in the debate already, Judy LaMarsh, in 1964, stated:

It (CPP) is not intended to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government’s view, should properly be left to personal savings and private pension plans.

The Liberals need to really reflect on the path they are going down, and we should all have very significant concerns.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the small business tax and the fact that it did not go down. As a former small business owner and an employer, I always felt that if one had customers with the money to hire a business to do the necessary work, one could grow the business from there, not by getting a very small tax break that the business would see very little of, because to enjoy that tax break, one would have to be profiting big dollars for it to take effect.

She mentioned workers being able to save for their own retirement and in another statement said that they are not able to save for the purchase of a home. I would like to know what she would say to seasonal construction workers, whether they be electricians, plumbers, or whatever, who are working without defined pensions from their employers and are moving to jobs here and there. What will they do when they decide to retire?

This is a good idea. They know they will have at least a secure Canada pension income fund to depend on.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the arguments the Liberals have made. They talk about the increase they made to the small business tax and say that it is 1% or 2%. What they do not seem to realize is that if it goes from 9% to 10.5%, that is not 1.5%. That is closer to 10%.

Let me tell the member, who says he is a small business owner, that if all of a sudden his taxes were going up by 10% and payroll taxes were increasing significantly with an increase in Canada pension plan deductions, it could make all the difference in terms of whether the business was a success or could expand.

Do not just take my word for it. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has clearly articulated that this is a concern for small business.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the very negative impacts this CPP increase would have on small business and the economy, which my colleague talked about, a point I have not heard made today is the fact that to have a payroll deduction, one has to be on the payroll. I do not know what it is like in her riding, but in my riding there is 16.7% unemployment among youth, and the government is doing nothing to create jobs. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. I was recently in Calgary. I understand that there are 100,000 workers in Alberta who are unemployed right now, and we do not seem to be focused on that as an issue. We have a softwood lumber agreement that has not been signed, and we are looking perhaps toward some punishing trade wars. I could give example after example about creating the jobs we need.

The government said it was going to spend $10 billion to create jobs. It is now at $30-plus billion, and to be frank, we have not seen the job creation it promised with that approach.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-26 and the Liberals' plan to expand the Canada pension plan.

This expansion would take more money from Canadians' paycheques, place more hardship on small businesses, and do very little for vulnerable citizens. Vulnerable seniors would gain little or nothing from the expanded CPP, as many have not contributed to the CPP and therefore are not eligible to receive CPP entitlements.

I quote from the Fraser Institute, through their colleagues, Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre, who stated:

Instead of expending political energy on debating CPP expansion in the misguided belief that many middle- and upper-income Canadians are not saving enough for retirement, the focus of public debate should be on how best to help financially vulnerable seniors.

For low-income seniors who have contributed, an increase in CPP income could trigger a reduction in other government transfers, meaning little or no net increase in retirement income. If this plan goes ahead, the CPP premium rate will start rising in 2019, and the maximum level of pensionable earnings will go up from $54,900 this year to $82,720 in 2025.

According to a study by the Fraser Institute, this expansion will take money from Canadians, with little benefit in return.

Simon Gaudreault, chief economist at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated that the agreement will have serious negative impacts on workers and the Canadian economy and that the announced changes, including increased contributions, may put Canadian wages, hours, and jobs in jeopardy.

Forcing Canadians to make higher contributions to the CPP will take more money from their paycheques. This means that they will have fewer dollars to invest outside the formal pension system and in private voluntary savings, such as RRSPs and TFSAs. This would result in little to no increase in total savings.

In addition to making it more difficult for Canadians to contribute to their TFSAs, the Liberal government has slashed contribution limits back to $5,500. Our government raised them, because it was such a popular program, from youth to seniors.

Our Conservative Party was proud to introduce the tax-free savings account that encouraged Canadians to be responsible in saving, and many Canadians have come to rely on these savings accounts when planning for their future. Tax-free savings accounts have provided Canadian families and seniors with a secure and flexible savings option that protects their money from being eroded by taxes.

The Liberals cut the limits for these savings accounts, and now they are taking even more money from the pockets of Canadians, making it difficult for them to use these accounts. The changes being made by the Liberals, in my view, will make life less affordable for Canadians who are trying to save for their vulnerable years.

Canadians should be able to manage their own money. With the out-of-control spending we have seen from the Liberals over this past year, they cannot trust the Liberal government with their pensions.

Vulnerable seniors will gain little or nothing from an expanded CPP. For low-income seniors who have made contributions, an increase in CPP income could trigger a reduction in other government transfers, such as the guaranteed income supplement. This would mean little or no net increase in their retirement income.

Our Conservative Party believes in reasonable, evidence-based policies that help Canadians retire with dignity, which is why the previous government expanded the guaranteed income supplement. The Liberals clearly agreed with this approach, since they increased the GIS by 10% in the first budget.

The Canada pension plan expansion may not effectively target those middle-income earners who are at the greatest risk of pension problems.

Employers and employees may decide to shrink their workplace pensions over their earning range when the CPP is newly expanded so the workers are not over covered.

An increase in payroll contributions after 2019 may result in a downward pressure on wages or employment. This would force Canadians to contribute more to the Canada pension plan, and would reduce their private voluntary savings. Canadians should choose how much they save and spend based on their income and preferred lifestyle.

The CPP tax hike will take money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk, and do nothing to help the seniors who need it today.

In 2013, the total household net worth of Canadians was $7.7 billion, split almost equally between pension assets, namely CPP/QPP, RRSPs, employer pensions, real estate equity, and other financial and non-financial assets.

A similar CPP hike scenario studied by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in 2015 said that it would eliminate 110,000 jobs and permanently lower wages by nearly 1%.

Dan Kelly, the president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated, “Two thirds of small firms say they will have to freeze or cut salaries and over a third say they will have to reduce hours or jobs in their business in response to a CPP/QPP hike”.

For the above reasons, I will not be supporting this bill.

Throughout my riding of Yellowhead in Alberta there are many unemployed people and many who are still working. Those who are working are the younger generation, many of whom who would look at the Canada pension plan and not trust that there would be funds there when they retired.

When we talk to financial planners throughout my area, we find that many young people, those who are just starting in the workforce and those who are already there, are putting money away for their retirement. They understand what it means to preplan their own destiny. Our government brought in the tax-free savings account specifically for those people who wanted to plan for their own future and use the money they could invest today, knowing that when they took that money out or when they retired, they would not be paying tax.

The difference between the Canada pension plan and the tax-free savings account is that people can put as much money as they wish forward. At the same time, our government gave them the option to make voluntary contributions to the Canada pension plan, which is what I believe should be in place today, rather than having to make greater mandatory contributions.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to several of the speeches and it seems members have settled on some statistics, even if we accept them as being accurate. We keep hearing about the 83% who are doing okay, that they are saving privately for their retirement, and that is good. Some of the programs the previous government put in place have helped that. We acknowledge that and have not changed them. In particular, the TFSA for seniors is a responsible and appropriate way to go forward.

However, what about the other 17% who do not have the capacity to save, do not have the income to save, do not have the good luck not to have to dip into their savings before they get to retirement?

Why can we not focus on what needs to be done for them beyond saying just get a job? Why can we not have a safety net in place for the poorest of the poor who are seniors, enhance the CPP, ensure the capacity is there to support these people if bad luck comes their way, even if they do all the other things the rest of us are doing to protect our security in our old age? Why can members not focus on that 17%?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Conservative government gave the opportunity to make voluntary contributions to the Canada pension plan. Yes, it may not affect those who are having a hard times, but I do not believe that taking money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians having difficulty is going to help them any more than the old plan with the option to add extra funding if they so wish. There is a responsibility for individuals to look at their long-term prospects and their future.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the member's question a minute ago, it is interesting to hear talk about the 17% that happened to come from the lowest 5% in terms of income in society. Does the member agree with the member across the floor that taking more money out of the paycheques of the lowest 17% somehow makes them more successful?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is, no. It is just going to make it more difficult. We have many people coming out of university. Forcing them to pay more money into the Canada pension plan will make it harder for them to pay off their student loans. It will make it harder for young and middle-income families to plan for holidays or for their kids' post-secondary education. It will be difficult for many small businesses to keep people working or create new jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to underline a point my colleague made toward the end of his response, and that is the impact on small business. This summer I had the privilege of talking to an accountant who does payroll for a number of small businesses. When she heard about this proposed increase from 9% to 11%, she was astonished. She said that this was going to hurt the small businesses she worked for. Some of them will not be able to hire and some of them will have to lay someone off.

At the very least, this is a huge blow to small and medium-size business. We all agree, and the Minister of Small Business repeats it often, that small business is the backbone of our Canadian economy. How will a punitive payroll tax on small business improve the lives of Canadians who are looking for a job? It is fine to get a 33% CPP benefit when people retire, but they need to have had a job to do that. If there are no jobs available, this is not a productive way to go.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. I look at my own situation and my family. My son-in-law and daughter own a company. They work in the oil patch. They employ anywhere from 65 to 100 people a year. This is going to be a great hardship. It means they probably will not be able to hire two additional people. That is two additional people in my riding who may not work. However, if this were not in place, those people may be hired and may be working.

I think we will see that in many small companies that employ 50 to 100 people. That is $50,000 to $100,000 a year more that they have to look at. They could take that money and invest it in new equipment that may spur more work and may require more people to be hired. It is definitely impacting small businesses.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Finance tabled Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act.

I had the opportunity to listen to the minister's speech, and the question and answer portion. I listened to him try to explain to us in the House, as well as to the viewers, how this bill was good for Canadians. I had the chance to ask the first question to the minister during that period, and although he is a great speaker, I did not get the answer I requested.

To start, I am going to pose this question once again, but in a different way and hope that through the following hours of debate that there is finally an answer. I shared with the minister two quotes from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business CEO, Dan Kelly:

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

Another quote from Dan Kelly stated:

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

These two statements are very troubling, especially with the statistics from 2013 indicating that there are 1,116,423 small businesses in Canada. That makes up 98% of all employer businesses in Canada. This same information shows that 86% of Canadian exporters were small businesses in 2009, that accounted for $68 billion in exports or approximately 25% of Canada's total export value.

Locally, I have received data from my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, done by CFIB. When polled on the support for CPP increases, 12% of all Canadians in Elgin—Middlesex—London supported this increase. That is 12%. That means 88% of the people polled did not agree with the CPP tax increases.

With these important figures, I will continue to discuss the concerns with increases to CPP and the impact on small businesses. Rather than continuing with all the stats and figures, I want to share with the House my own personal experience as a small business owner.

Many of us come to the House with different skill sets and different assets, which is very important. One of the assets that I have was being a small business owner. I had the opportunity to run a small business with seven employees. That was run by my former husband and I. When we took this business over in 1998, we purchased it as a franchise. The gentleman was moving out of the franchise business.

At that time, we had received the books showing how well the business was doing, so we were very excited about the first day on the job. However, our first day accomplished $81 in sales. My former spouse and I had paid two staff throughout the entire day. We were open from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and we paid two staffers throughout the day for their shifts.

At the end of the day, our cash received for the items we sold was $81. Obviously the issue here was we needed to look at how to run a proper business. How could we do this? We had many obstacles in front of us, but one of the first things we needed to do was reduce our costs. By doing so, we had to look at what were some of the costs that a business could reduce without impacting what is being sold.

I was in a small coffee shop. We were a coffee house where there was entertainment five nights a week. We served an area where there was a TD Bank and many other local businesses. We were a very common stopping ground for people on their way to work and leaving work.

One of the first things we did was business promotions. That was able to bring in some sales, but at the same time we had extraordinary expenses. I was in a location where our actual cost for rent was $3,800 per month in the downtown core of London. I was dealing not only with an extravagant expense when it came to the rent, but we also had high hydro costs. For anyone who lives in Ontario, believe it or not, it is actually even worse than it was in 1998. We were spending at least $400 and $500 per month on those costs.

We also had other costs that we had to look at, whether it was municipal taxes or different things that we had to go and propose to council, so we could put seating outside. There were many things we had to deal with that had red tape.

The number one thing I did was to reduce costs. It was a really horrible choice to reduce the number of staff. To make that business work, I needed to make sure we had inventory. I needed to make sure there were coffee beans and milk, that the lights were on, and that we paid the rent. That was what was important to me, because without those things, I could not run a business. The first expense I could change was to decrease my staff by two employees. It was a very difficult decision for us to make because it involved the lives of two students going to Western University. We had to take away 15 hours of work per person just to make ends meet.

Over time, we did do better. Nonetheless, anyone who is a small business owner will recognize that we are not just there counting the receipts at the end of the day, but are paying the bills. In my case, I recognized that I could buy a pound of pre-cooked bacon for $7.50, or I could pre-cook that bacon myself in my own kitchen for $3.50. Every single thing mattered, especially when the first day of business brought in $81.

The first thing I had to do was to reduce my staff. Seven days a week, for a year and a half years, I would go in and work. Take into consideration that at the time I had a child who was three months old, as well as a 19-month old, and a child who had just reached the age of 4 and had just started junior kindergarten. This is about a family run business. It is not about rich small business owners. This is about a family that was running a business: a mom, a dad, and three children. I would go in there and scrub the toilets and do all of those things so that we had the business.

By the end of this, we did end up doing very well, and after about 18 months, it was either a matter of our mental wellness and selling the business, or continuing to work every day. We decided to sell that business.

However, one of the biggest things we had to do to keep our costs low was to reduce wages. With wages, we have to look at what payroll means. It is not just the CPP contributions that the government is talking about. Those premiums are matched not only by employers but also by the employees themselves. We have employment insurance premiums. We have WSIB, and I am sure there are very similar programs across the country. Therefore, as a small business owner we are not just dealing with paying the taxes that are removed from someone's pay. We are also doing matching contributions.

There are many things to consider, but I think that is the one thing on which we have to sit back and get into the shoes of a small business owner.

Making business decisions can be very difficult. I fear with this change to the CPP that the government is asking small businesses to make that same decision I had to make in order to have a successful business. To reduce costs, we had to reduce expenses. An easy way of reducing expenses is the hardest job, and that is by cutting staff. It is cutting human resources, and we need to talk about that.

On Friday, I asked the member for Foothills about the challenges in his region, where over 200,000 jobs have been lost in Alberta. In my region I saw a similar thing happen between 2008 and 2010, when we went through the global economic downturn. I asked him in particular if the CPP tax hikes would hurt new businesses. Obviously, the answer is yes.

Changing direction, we also have to make sure that Canadians are aware of what this program is. In the CFIB's Ipsos poll, it was noted that 40% of Canadians think the government contributes to the CPP. We have to make sure that people realize that is not the case. It is the employees and the employers who contribute. It is not about the government here.

We cannot confuse Canadians when we are talking about CPP and are throwing in the point that the GIS has been increased. All we are doing is taking the three pillars of retirement and confusing the average Canadian who has not had an opportunity to sit down and study it.

Retirement is about three pillars. It is about the CPP contributions of the employee and the employer. It is about the social programs, such as old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, and it is about personal savings. This government has reduced personal savings with its changes to the tax-free savings accounts. However, the bottom line is that more money cannot be taken out of Canadians' pockets.

I want to finish with a quote that I am sure the government has heard many times:

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...

That was Fred Vettese, chief actuary of Morneau Shepell and co-author of the finance minister's book, The Real Retirement. This segment was taken from The Financial Post, June 5, 2016.

I would really ask that we look at these things and recognize that CPP is not about poverty reduction. These proposed CPP increases would hurt, especially when we are going to be seeing things like a precarious carbon tax and the cancellation of the small business tax reduction by the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that my colleague has a valid point when she talks about making sure that employers are able to afford the CPP contribution increases. As a small business owner myself, I am fully aware of the fact that the employer has to match the CPP contributions. But it really comes down to balance. It is about where the healthy balance is.

I can appreciate that my hon. colleague might feel differently about this particular piece of legislation, but what does she propose we do 20 or 30 years from now when there are people who have not properly prepared for retirement? The burden would ultimately fall on the taxpayer one way or the other. We can either try to assist now and help them plan for the long term, or we can deal with the consequences in the future of not doing so now. Perhaps it is a fundamental difference of political philosophy at work here, but I am curious if the member could comment on that.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that great question. Truly, we are talking about saving for the future in 40 years. If people do not have jobs, they cannot save money in the first place. What we are going to be doing is taking a big slash at small-business opportunities. People cannot save something if they do not have something, and that is what we have to remind ourselves.

If we want to see great job creators in Canada, then give them the opportunity to succeed. Make sure that things like the 9% small business tax is implemented, instead of saying that we are going to do it in the future.

Make sure things like carbon pricing—or carbon tax or whatever we are going to call it—are taken into—

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

Pricing.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I was trying to be kind to the member, Mr. Speaker. He asked a good question.

We have to make sure that every time we look at that, it is part of this balance we talk about. But if we are saving for the future, the number one thing we have to save is money from employment. If we do not have jobs, we do not have money to save.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused about the Conservative Party's position. The member just said that this is a tax on small businesses. However, she also said that this is not a source of revenue for the government.

Meanwhile, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier said that he did not trust this government. His colleague said that this is not a source of revenue for the government. Furthermore, member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier should know that the Canada pension plan does not operate in Quebec. Quebec has the Quebec pension plan. However, that is another matter.

I would like to ask my colleague a question to try to sift through the confusion surrounding the Conservatives' position. I have never owned a business like my colleague has. However, I have served coffee in a business where retired people came and spent money. In order to operate, businesses need customers.

How can the Conservatives reconcile their position that the increase in the CPP is not good for small businesses but that seniors need to have a secure retirement, if seniors do not have any money to spend in those businesses?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, any time it is an expense to a business it is seen as a tax. When we look at the Canada pension plan contribution, employment insurance contributions, WSIB contributions, and the business tax that small business owners would see, those are taxes. Those things are not on the bottom line. When businesses are looking at their ledger page, those things are removed. They are in the red column instead of the black column, so we need to look at that.

I am not confused by any means by this. I am definite that this is not a good thing for Canadians. We can sit here and try to sell this as a future option, but we cannot be selling future options when people do not have options today.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing for the last two days that the sky is going to fall, that business is going to face an apocalypse because of the CPP increase. There are all kinds of increases when people are doing business. It is called the cost of doing business. There is EI. There is WSIB, as my colleague said before. These are simple tax increases.

If we do not look at this now, what are we going to do in the future for our children who are not going to have any kind of increased CPP benefits? The TFSA is nothing but an emergency fund. If there are no jobs, they cannot save. What are we going to be doing in the future to help our children?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a mom of five children, so any time we are talking about children and employment and youth opportunities, I will be right there at that table because they are important.

The CPP is not the golden retirement that it is made out to be. It is a small part of retirement. The sky is falling and we have to look at that fact. I have never said that before in my life, but the sky really is falling. We have to look at the fact that municipal taxes will continue to increase, that the carbon tax will be here, and that there will be so many other things for businesses to deal with because we are in a global economy.

It is fine to say that we need to save for the future, but there will be no saving if small businesses do not exist.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-26, which would reform the Canada pension plan.

First of all, I would like to mention that as Quebec MPs we fall under another plan, the Quebec pension plan. Although the Quebec government did not support this agreement because it has its own plan, it nevertheless committed to making similar changes to its plan, and so much the better.

However, debate on this bill provides an opportunity to speak to the set of measures and the situation not only of current retirees, but also of those who will soon retire or even those who will retire in the distant future. Ultimately, one of our main roles as legislators, although this is often forgotten, is to think about and plan for the long term.

Retirement is a real problem today. The cost of living is going up, and people are finding it more and more difficult to save for retirement, whether that time is a long way off, in the very near future, or already a reality for them. One reason for that is that fewer and fewer companies are offering private pension plans. Even when they do, such plans are no guarantee of a secure retirement.

Consider all of the companies that have gone bankrupt and the impact that has had on employee pension plans. We saw some dramatic examples of that during the 2008 crisis. Unfortunately, the present economic situation suggests that nothing can shield us from that kind of thing happening again.

It is also important to note that, despite what I have been hearing from certain Conservative members, poverty among seniors actually is a serious problem that we need to tackle, using tools such as the Canada pension plan, old age security, and the guaranteed income supplement.

The Liberal government promised to improve the guaranteed income supplement and lord knows that is a long awaited measure. The government promised to index the GIS to the cost of living, but that has yet to happen. This is very important because as I said, when we retire the cost of living goes up, but our income remains stagnant and that is a big problem.

Two weeks ago, on October 4, I attended the seniors' forum in Chambly. It was their 10th anniversary. This yearly forum is an opportunity for community organizations serving seniors in the greater Chambly area, representatives from both MPs offices, as well as representatives from the various seniors clubs in the region, to talk about services provided to seniors. It is a good opportunity for us to meet with seniors and talk to the various organizations that serve them in order to get a better understanding of their reality.

I do not claim to know what seniors are going through in my colleagues' ridings. However, some seniors have to live in low-income apartments and some are struggling. Women who live alone have to deal with the financial burden of paying for groceries and housing. These are very difficult situations and if as legislators we do not take our responsibility seriously and ensure that seniors have a stable income and improve the financial tools available to them, then we are shirking our responsibilities and that affects all of us.

Fortunately, we can tip our hats to the government for pushing back the age of eligibility for old age security from 67 to 65. We can commend the Liberals on that because that senseless move did nothing for workers. In fact, it punished workers who work in mines or other jobs that require a great deal of manual labour. One way or another, we want to ensure that they can retire sooner rather than later.

We are reminded that the parliamentary budget officer's reports indicated at the time that the old age security system was entirely sustainable, and we could keep the retirement age at 65.

Contrary to what a number of members from all parties have said, the issue of retirement is not only about our seniors, although they are the ones who will suffer the immediate consequences. However, it also concerns young people my age, even though retirement may seem a long way off. It is particularly meaningful considering our currently reality, and I am referring to the rise of precarious work. Precarious jobs affect everyone. Young people are particularly affected by this issue, but not only young people.

It is very interesting that we are having this debate on the need to provide a secure retirement to the next generation one week after the Minister of Finance said that young people just need to accept precarious jobs and basically chill out, to paraphrase.

The fact remains that it is absolutely unacceptable to ask young people to be content with just summer jobs.

Of course, retirement is far away for young people. However, the fact remains that if we do nothing today and if we do not start taking this reality seriously, there is going to be quite a problem in the future.

The Canada pension plan is not the only solution because, ultimately, if young people work on contract or have precarious jobs, it is only one of the tools in the toolbox that is supposed to ensure their financial and retirement security. For that reason, we are calling on the government to work harder on dealing with these problems. In fact, at this time, the government seems to accept that this will be the reality in the next few years and that that is just too bad. Well, we do not accept it. The situation is unacceptable. The government should do more about it, and these kinds of comments by a finance minister will not help the situation.

With regard to the guaranteed income supplement, for example, we could do other things to make life easier for people who need it. After all, as taxpayers, they contributed to it. These people should receive the GIS automatically. That would make things easier for many seniors who have told us that there are always complicated forms to be filled out in order to receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

I would like to come back to other measures that affect more than just retirement. We need to look at all of the measures in place for people who need them. I heard a Liberal member say that every measure is important. However, I am thinking about someone who came to my riding office recently. I will not mention any names out of respect for privacy, but they know who they are.

A few years ago, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby gave my constituents an excellent presentation on the various measures that exist, such as tax credits for people with disabilities. A retired senior couple attended that presentation. They had a child who was benefiting from some of the measures for people with disabilities. Small changes were made that may have gone unnoticed, that were not mentioned in question period, and that are not considered matters of national importance. However, because of these small, subtle changes made in the budget, this couple's child no longer benefits from these tax measures. Who is paying the price now? A retired senior couple who is taking care of their child who used to benefit from those measures.

We are going to support Bill C-26 because we know that the Canada pension plan is very important in helping retirees live with dignity and allowing older and younger workers to have the retirement that they deserve when they reach that stage in life. However, I would like to remind the government that, if it really takes Canadians' financial security seriously, then it needs to review all of the measures, even the small tax measures that do not seem to have an impact. They do have an impact. They affect people's lives. It is very important to look at all of the measures. The government should not content itself with passing a bill like this one and then say that it is finished and that it solved those people's problems. It is much more complicated than that. It is important that the government take this responsibility seriously.

I now invite questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for those very interesting remarks.

There are a lot of seniors in my riding, and I am very concerned about their living conditions. Every week, when I go to my riding, I can see that most of them are living in deplorable conditions. When I work with Meals on Wheels, I see their circumstances up close.

In addition to their fragile economic situation, they lack a stable support network. They are so alone. I think that is due in part to the major social upheavals of the 20th century that led to community fragmentation. Seniors no longer have their cousins, aunts, uncles, brothers, and sisters nearby to help.

Aside from what the state can do to help our seniors, I would like to know if my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly has thought of ways to restore the sense of social solidarity that is fading away or gone altogether.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly recognize the challenge my colleague is talking about, namely the social isolation of seniors. A call centre in Chambly that is trying to ease senior isolation has been doing excellent work for many years now. Other organizations do similar work, and we are very pleased that they do.

Although it is hard to pass up the opportunity to sing the praises of people who work hard on the ground in my riding, I must say that, as legislators, we have a duty to take responsibility. Without wishing to overlook the problem raised by my colleague, and I say this with the utmost respect, the fact remains that many of his colleagues seem to be insinuating, at least in their speeches, that seniors do not need help and are not as poor as some Liberal and NDP members are suggesting. They are wrong. My colleague himself talked about the vulnerability of our seniors.

While I would love for families to get more involved, why, as the managers of this country, are we not ensuring that seniors have the financial resources they need, at least to pay for their groceries and their rent?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his commitment to supporting the bill. He sees the value in this and it is very commendable.

He touched on a really good point, which has come up a number of times in this debate. It is specifically with respect to the fact that the labour market is changing. Jobs now are not the same. Thirty, 40, 50 years ago, someone could get one job, spend his or her career in it, have a pension afterward, and be taken care of. However, the reality of the situation is that things are changing now. As things change, we have to adapt and change the way we go about making sure that services are provided for people when they get older and, in particular, seniors.

I am curious if he wants to expand a bit on the fact that for the younger generation, the labour market is changing. The average individual will have seven careers throughout their time in the labour force. I wonder if he could give his opinion on that matter and how this particular initiative would help to prepare people for the future.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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

We have to make the distinction between a person who changes careers, someone who holds a number of jobs, and someone living in a precarious situation. At the end of the day, we are talking about good jobs. There are good examples in a number of workplaces, even in unionized workplaces where there have been good jobs for a long time. We are seeing two-tiered pension systems.

Just think of young workers starting at a place like Canada Post. We had that debate here in the House in 2011. During collective agreement negotiations, the employer was trying to negotiate less generous pensions for its younger employees. That is a big problem.

I can understand why some younger workers want to explore the labour market and that it is changing. Nonetheless, insecurity also exists in good, stable jobs. Insecurity does not just mean changing jobs. It also has to do with working conditions and the quality of the employment. That is what we are criticizing.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is currently, depending on which accounting method one uses, an $8-billion or $24-billion unfunded liability within the Canada pension plan. I believe these changes would do nothing. Is the member concerned that these new enhancements may end up being used to fill that unfunded liability, rather than going to the people who contributed?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is still a lot of work to do to make the Canada pension plan viable. However, we have to stop scaring people and giving them the impression that their money will be stolen.

As my colleague from Windsor West said so well, the only time government raided any type of fund was when the Conservative and Liberal governments dipped into the employment insurance fund. Employers and employees contribute to the Canada pension plan to ensure that workers can retire with dignity. Young people and not so young people deserve it.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to participate in this important debate regarding Bill C-26, an act to increase taxes by charging a job-killing payroll tax on working Canadians. The bill would amend the CPP, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, and the Income Tax Act to implement a job tax.

In politics, as in business, timing is everything. I want to be clear to all Canadians following this debate that I believe we all agree that any specific action that assists in allowing individuals to retire in dignity is good public policy. However, Canadians need more than platitudes from the party in power to know if what is being proposed is in their best financial interests and in the best interests of our country.

Changing elements of this country's social safety net is not something that should be done on an ideological or partisan basis. Conservatives are individuals who take the position that individual choice is preferable. Choosing one's retirement is no exception to our rule of freedom to choose. Individuals from the left take the position that Big Brother, big government, should make all the decisions, which, in this case, is choosing one's retirement. Somewhere there has to be a compromise, which is the current Canadian system of retirement savings.

Canada is a mix of the old age pension, the supplement, which tops up the OAS in the absence of any other income with an eligibility requirement, as well as a variety of tax-assisted savings plans, such as registered retirement savings plans, tax-free savings accounts, and public and private pensions. Anytime some group, individual, or political party seeks to upset the balance of our society, they must be vigorously challenged.

The main purpose of the pension system is to assist households to achieve a balance of assets and liabilities over its most productive time period to prepare for the time when the household's ability to accumulate revenue declines. This is achieved by transferring resources from working life to post-retirement when income dries up. This is referred to as smoothing consumption over life. What pension plans should not be is a pool of capital for government to take from to fund schemes of dubious or ideological value.

The reason I oppose this plan to expand the CPP at this time is varied. However, it is the Ontario experience that represents the biggest reason why Canadians should be very skeptical of any scheme to tax more dollars out of their and their employers' pockets, particularly under the cover of saving for retirement.

Pension plans exist for the benefit of the pensioners, not for governments in search of cheap and easy capital pools. I send this warning as a direct consequence of comments made by the President of the Treasury Board who has suggested the Liberals see Canadian pension plans as a convenient source of money to finance their party's schemes. I quote from a national newspaper:

...pension funds often invest in infrastructure such as toll roads, airports or other revenue-generating projects. They are seen as less risky and more predictable than financial markets. ...there is no problem with this as long as the fund has the ability to operate wholly independent of the government, and is able to make decisions based solely on their potential to generate a maximum return for the pensioners it serves. But there’s real reason to doubt this would be the case in the Liberal scheme.

Right now, the Canada pension plan is fairly well managed. The same could have been said before the Toronto Liberal Party decided to take what used to be a well-managed provincial crown corporation and run it into the ground. I am referring to Ontario Hydro, or Hydro One as it is now called in my province. I make reference to Ontario, because I believe all Canadians should be made aware of the absolute public policy disaster that occurred in Ontario and what happens when ideology is substituted for common sense, particularly when large sums of taxpayer dollars are involved.

First of all, Canadians need to know why the Ontario debacle is relevant to today's discussion about the job-killing tax of Bill C-26.

The failure of Hydro One can thank what is referred to derisively by Ontario ratepayers as the Green Energy and Green Economy Act. This ideologically driven Toronto Liberal policy has, as one of its principle architects, Gerald Butts. Mr. Butts moved, at great taxpayer expense, it has been revealed, from Toronto to the most senior position in the Prime Minister's Office in Ottawa, along with dozens of other ex-Toronto Liberal staffers at great public expense also.

Lynn Morrison, who is Ontario's Integrity Commissioner, observed that, and I quote from the summer edition of the Canadian Parliamentary Review:

During her investigations into Ontario’s gas plants, she found political staff had ignored long-established procedures and put party interests ahead of public interest.

These staff now surround the Prime Minister in Ottawa.

Under previous Conservative governments, Hydro One, Ontario Hydro, operated at arm's-length from government, much like CPP today. Gerald Butts and his friends changed all that. Through cabinet directives, appointees to the agencies that were supposed to be regulating the electricity monopoly, Ontario Hydro, they forced Hydro One to raise the price of electricity to the highest cost in North America.

This policy to increase the price of electricity has led to energy poverty in Ontario. Tens of thousands of people struggle to pay their electricity bills. For many, it is a choice between heat or eat.

High electricity prices have caused the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in what was once a thriving manufacturing sector in Ontario. This was all done under the cover of climate change, with the smear that if individuals did not support industrial wind turbines in their background, they were a climate change denier, the same sort of left-wing smear that if people do not support this new job tax, they are against a comfortable retirement.

They called the industrial wind turbines so-called green infrastructure and proceeded to hand out fat, juicy contracts to Liberal Party supporters, starting with the then Liberal Party president for $478 million.

To Toronto Liberals like Gerald Butts, wind turbines are green ideology. The fact that some of their Liberal buddies could cash in just made them push harder. Even though the non-partisan provincial auditor identified a $37 billion black hole, which is getting bigger and bigger, there was no accountability. Unfortunately, Ontarians only found out about the misspent funds after the money was gone.

Canadians must ask themselves if they want to gamble their retirement the way the Toronto Liberal Party people gambled electricity prices and lost? Ontario is now the most indebted subnational government in the world.

Let us summarize where this bad legislation will take Canadians.

The CPP job tax hike will take money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk, and do nothing to help seniors who need it.

The Liberals are refusing to tell Canadians exactly how much it will cost, but we know many workers and their families in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke will be paying thousands more dollars every year out of their pockets.

This also means that it will be harder for new graduates to pay off their student loans or for young people to buy their first home. It will be harder for families to save for vacations or their kids' post-secondary education. It will be harder for companies to create jobs and give workers raises.

Canadians who follow the proceedings in the House of Commons during question period have become very aware of a Prime Minister who is wholly distracted whenever he is asked a direct question on a matter of substance, an unfortunate practice that is mimicked by his chief minister of special access fundraising, who follows the same talking points set out by their handler in the Prime Minister's office.

We are seeing a pattern here, similar to the nightmarish regime at the legislature in Toronto where most of that political Liberal staff fled from after destroying the Ontario economy with their huge carbon tax/global adjustment fee charge on electricity bills, eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector in the process.

What Canadians have begun to realize is that there is a wide separation between the public utterances of the Liberal Party and what is actually happening in Ottawa. This is called style over substance, which samples of the opinions of voters indicate they understand and recognize how the Liberal Party operates in Ottawa today.

It is important to put on the public record that the before the Minister of Finance and he was in private business, he was saying the opposite about Canadian savings to what he is now telling Canadians about why Canada needs a new job tax. Read the book.

I wonder how the Minister of Finance felt about charging for special access before he started collecting contributions. Let us look at the rise in taxes.

The Liberals will hike the CPP job tax from 9.9% to 11.9%, starting in 2019. As a result, the CPP job tax is up to $2,200 per worker. This CPP job tax in some cases will be split between the employer and employee. For the entrepreneurial self-employed, they will be required to pay 100% of the CPP job tax increase.

Under the guise of helping Canadians save for retirement, in fact the Liberals are pushing through a not so cleverly disguised tax increase on employers and employees.

What this does for employees is take money out of their pockets. What this does to employers is similar except worse. By taking capital away from an employer, the employer has few options.

The first option is to try to raise prices to pay the higher job tax and risk going out business when forced to match the lower wages, safety and environmental standards of a country like China, a country the Liberals are keen to sign a free trade pact with. Option two is to eliminate jobs in the business.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely am very concerned when I hear that the Liberals are thinking of taking the money coming out of the pockets of taxpayers and using it for infrastructure, and that Gerald Butts might have something to do with it.

Could the member elaborate a bit more on that one?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the other option is to permanently lower wages by either implementing an immediate wage freeze or negotiate reductions from all employees for the same work.

Under the cover of so-called help to save for retirement, the Liberal Party is using the CPP as a way to raise taxes and to confiscate the retirement savings of Canadians. Unlike Conservative tax-free savings accounts or registered retirement savings plans, if a CPP contributor dies, either through natural means or the Liberal Party's policy of assisted suicide death, the contributions of a taxpayer contributor are confiscated and individuals who contribute during their entire lifetime and die soon after retirement do not have the opportunity bequeath a pool of funds to their heirs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to this debate. It definitely was encouraging to hear her start off by not asking one of my colleagues to resign like she did last time.

We are discussing the CPP, how to strengthen it and how to make it better for future generations. A lot of the discussion we hear from the other side of the aisle is how this is would add more of a burden on small businesses and on the people who contribute to CPP today.

How do we properly plan for the future? What do we do with people 20 or 30 years from now who have not properly planned? We will have help them one way or the other.

If my hon. colleague is not prepared to invest today, how does she plan to deal with the problem when it presents itself two to four decades from now?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, probably the segment of society which is in the most perilous position financially is the widows of men who worked and who did not have a private pension plan. They were stay-at-home moms who did not work outside the home. They are now left with the old age security and a guaranteed income supplement.

This whole new regime-added deduction from the paycheques of employees only serves to make the economy weaker. Conveniently, though, for the Liberals, what it would do is provide a new pool to invest in all their ideological schemes.

It is no wonder Kathleen Wynne and the Toronto Liberal Party were so keen to set up their own version of the CPP.

Changing the CPP at this time is a bad idea.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some Conservatives have argued that the current level of the CPP is adequate and financial stables. Others have argued that it is not. Could the hon. member tell us which position is it?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my position, and the position of the Conservatives, is that this CPP hike is a tax hike. It is not only a tax hike to the employee who will see less on his or her paycheque, but it is a tax hike on the employer. When employers are self-employed, they takes a double hit because they not only have to put in their contribution as a worker but as the owner of the business as well.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has suggested that Liberals will view money that is not their own for their own ideological ends. She said that many have speculated that the Liberal Party will look to pension funds, particularly ones in Canada, as a source of revenue for many of their spending schemes, whether they be on infrastructure or other things. This is a dangerous idea.

Pensions by their very account have a mandate to serve their pensioners, and a big part of today's economic growth is in other markets outside of Canada. Any investment plan is going to take into account trying to get outside of the Canadian market so it can have growth and minimize exposure.

Does the member agree that the Liberal proposal would not be a good thing for Canadian pensioners?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new tax hike on pensions and employers is not a good idea. It reduces the availability of employment, while putting retirement savings at risk.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the new official opposition critic for economic development in Quebec, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-26, which would increase employee and employer contributions to the Canada pension plan.

It is important that we debate this bill because many Canadians are currently unaware of the consequences of the Liberal plan. What is worse, many of these changes will only be implemented in 2019. Therefore, it will be impossible to assess the impact and the potential harm of this bill before the next election.

Why wait? That is because the Liberals know that every Canadian's income will decrease and that thousands of jobs will be put at risk by imposing an additional burden on businesses, including SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy.

A total of $2,200 a year will be collected from workers and the entrepreneurs and businesses that create jobs. The Liberals are tight-lipped about that. An Ipsos poll published last month provides supporting evidence, by showing that 80% of Canadians want to be consulted before increases in contributions to the retirement program take effect. This same poll also revealed that 70% of workers do not support the CPP expansion if it affects wage increases, which is very likely.

The Liberal government is also claiming that it is listening to young people, but if it took the time to explain to millennials what is about to be imposed on them, they would be taking to the streets to protest this government's attitude.

Let us put this in perspective. The Maple Spring of 2012 in Quebec occurred as a result of the provincial Liberal government's decision to increase tuition by $1,625 a year. Students are supposed to be able to complete a bachelor's degree in three years in Quebec. If a tuition hike of $1,625 a year for three years caused that much outrage among young people, how will they react if word gets out that the federal Liberals are about to take $2,200 away from them every year for the rest of their working lives, which will likely span four decades or more?

I can already tell that the Liberals opposite are going to say that they are investing for the millennial generation's future. Is that really the case? Let us look at the numbers to determine whether young people will really come out ahead. Take for example a taxpayer who earns the maximum amount of $82,700 proposed by Bill C-26. At the current contribution rate of 9.9%, this worker would be entitled to a pension worth 25% of his salary or $20,675. If the contribution rate is increased to 11.9%, as proposed in Bill C-26, the worker would be entitled to a pension worth 33% of his salary or $27,291. That is an increase of less than $7,000 a year. A person who earns an average income of $40,000 would only get $3,200 more, and that income would also be taxable.

However, if instead we allow families to take the $2,000 a year that would be confiscated from them under Bill C-26 and invest it themselves in a TFSA, for example, in 40 years they will have saved over $280,000, which is a rate of return of 5% per year. When they retire, they would have an additional $14,000 a year or double what they are being offered under the Liberals' retirement plan.

What is even better, is that, unlike the CPP payments, that money would be completely tax free. They can always contribute more if they want, although the Liberals chose to reduce the TFSA contribution limit to $5,500 after we increased it to $10,500 in our last budget.

There are also other advantages to preferring a TFSA over an increase in the CPP. If a person dies, the amount of his TFSA goes to his estate. The money goes to family, friends, or the charity of his choice. On the other hand, if a person dies and all his pension funds have been invested in the CPP, the government takes the money. There is only a reduced annuity of 60% for the survivor in the couple, if the couple has remained married, as is not always the case as we can see from today’s divorce rate, or a meagre $237 per month for the children, only up to age 18, or to age 25 if they remain in school. For everyone else, nothing.

Of course, all this applies only if the CPP remains solvent. Our population is getting older, and life expectancy has increased considerably since the introduction of the CPP in the 1960s. Young taxpayers have no guarantee that the money will be there when they need it. The Liberals dipped multiple times into the employment insurance fund under the Chrétien and Martin governments. It is difficult for us to trust them again.

The CPP Investment Board says it will be solvent for the next 75 years. The former Pearson and Trudeau governments thought that as well, with a combined contribution rate of 3.6%, which proved inadequate. The Chrétien government had to triple the rate to 9.9% in the 1990s. Instead of examining long-term solutions, as our former government was doing, to ensure the continuity of the CPP fund by progressively raising the retirement age to 67, the new Liberal government has no other solution but to further tax workers and employers in order to mask the problem. Furthermore, many specialists have said that putting the retirement age back at 65, contrary to what we did, would cost the government billions of dollars in the years to come.

Bill C-26 increases the contribution to 12%, and if the Liberals’ sunny ways and rose-coloured glasses projections again prove incorrect, what guarantee do we have that it will not be necessary to hike CPP contributions again in 10 years or 20 years? If that is not a Ponzi scheme, I would like to know what is.

Faithful to its current policy of buying Canadians’ votes with borrowed money, the Liberal government goes on dreaming that it can continue to ask future generations to pay for its mismanagement. That is cross-generational theft, and it is absolutely shameful.

This is why we are going to oppose the passage of Bill C-26. This bill is going to cost more for workers and entrepreneurs, of whom I am one. I have mentioned several times in the House that I am an entrepreneur. I have 25 employees and, for my company, this policy represents $25,000, even almost $30,000 in additional costs per year. What will probably happen is that I will be forced to abolish a position or a position and a half to be able to provide this amount to the workers’ fund. So this is jeopardizing thousands of jobs, it will be of no assistance whatever to persons already retired, and it will make it increasingly difficult for companies to create jobs.

The government has to consult the people who will be paying the tab. If it had done so, Bill C-26 would never have appeared on the Order Paper.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague’s speech and I would like to know if he has supported the CPP program from the beginning. Does he want us to plan for the future or does he think that we should manage our own retirement, each of us on his or her own?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced approach to pension funds. It is important to have a retirement plan already in place. We have one with the Quebec Pension Plan and the CPP in Canada.

It is important to have one, but it is also important to allow all employees or workers to invest in the funds they think suit them best. It is not up to the government to tell all workers where to put their money.

We are no longer in the 1960s or 1970s. We are now in 2016, and I can say that many people and many young people are now saving. My son and my daughter are saving. They do not have the same concept of what constitutes saving. In my time, I was not saving as they are doing today.

Things have changed, and we must trust future generations to take care of themselves and their own retirement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him a simple question. I understand very well that, in economic approaches of public management there are differing schools of thought. Obviously we are not on the same side of the fence on this subject.

Clearly, we can deplore the fact that this program will not take full effect for 50 years, but as a matter of fact, right now, people are living in poverty; elderly people are being left high and dry because they did not adequately plan for retirement and furthermore have received no assistance.

That is my question. If we preach that everyone is free to act as they see fit, how do we explain that, as we speak, so many people, so many seniors, are living in poverty? Why is it that Quebeckers and Canadians are saving so little? Have you failed in publicizing your initiatives aimed at encouraging them to save more?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I remind the hon. member to address another member through the Speaker.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good question.

He may have a point. We may not have done a good enough job of educating Canadians about the tools we put in place during our 10 years in office to help them save for retirement. The fact is that if we compare what is happening now to what was happening 50 years ago, people are saving a lot more now than they did then. That is definitely a change for the better.

It is clear that people, whether young or older, can now take charge of their own savings. They do not need the government to impose a new tax on them or a new way to save or any kind of forced savings.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague's excellent speech. He is a businessman who knows what he is talking about when it comes to pension plans and the new taxes and costs that Canada's small businesses will have to absorb.

I would like to talk to my colleague about the last election campaign, during which the party now in power promised to enhance the Canada pension plan. I was here when the minister delivered his speech about a long-term agenda for Canadians.

When a 75-year-old hears a political party promise higher Canada pension plan benefits only to turn around and say nobody will see higher benefits until 2025, how satisfied is that person going to be?

Is it not a little deceitful of the government to promise something during an election campaign and then take an extremely long time to keep that promise?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

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

I have to choose my words carefully because I could use some very crude language to explain what he just said. He used the term “deceitful”. I would go further and say that what we saw and heard during the election was, to be polite, smoke and mirrors. That was not the only thing that the party in power, the Liberal Party, promised to do. It said that it wanted to do many things, but it did not do them, and it will probably never do them.

My colleague mentioned that I am an entrepreneur, which I have also mentioned a few times. However, it is important to realize that every one of us has all kinds of different experiences. The life of an entrepreneur is very difficult. One must always stay on top of things and be very patient to continue developing businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-26, which seeks to enhance the Canada pension plan. Although the bill's intention is good, I think it is important to point out certain facts.

First of all, in order to qualify for a pension, one must first have a job. Just last week, the Minister of Finance painted a very grim picture when he said that we just have to accept that jobs are precarious, and still, the Liberals want to implement a system to enhance the Canada pension plan.

Where are we going to find the money, if jobs are so precarious? Will it come out of taxpayers' pockets? What about creating jobs? The Liberals talk a lot about retirement, but never about creating jobs.

As usual, the Liberals are living on another planet, not the one that middle-class Canadians live on, and they are not creating any jobs. Our current economic situation is disastrous, and the Liberals continue to spend recklessly.

On top of that, some households will have to pay up to $2,200 more a year, when we know that they worked so hard to save that money. These smoke-and-mirrors tricks are the Liberal way. In their la-la land, everything happens by magic. More than anyone, the Minister of Finance should be able to wake up his Prime Minister.

We are not living in the land of unicorns nor are we living the life of the rich and famous. We are real people, people who work, people who are scrambling to work, and people who have trouble saving. Canadians will have to wait 40 years for the CPP to increase. As a result, no new benefits will be paid to the retirees who currently need them.

According to the logic of the Minister of Finance, who said last week that Canadians should get used to mobile employment, temporary contracts, and a number of career changes in their lives, who will benefit from this plan? It is not seniors. Is it the next generation? I do not believe so, since, the way things are going, that generation will be overtaxed and its power to pay will be reduced.

Already today, new graduates are struggling to find jobs. Imagine what the situation will be like in 10 years. It will be more difficult for them to pay back their student loans and buy their first home, especially since the minister just tightened the mortgage requirements. This measure could have a huge impact, particularly on the first-time home buyers market. Those who qualify to purchase a home will have to settle for a semi-detached or a condo. Those who were just able to afford a condo will have to continue renting or living with their parents. It will create more boomerang children.

Bill C-26 is an enormous financial hole for taxpayers. For Canadian families, this means there will be less money in their pockets, and it will be even harder for them to save money for a vacation or for their children's post secondary education.

Young families today will have to deal with this job shortage because according to the Minister of Finance, they will have to get used to seeing certain jobs disappear and adapt to job insecurity. In fact, that is what is happening right now in some of our regions. If we follow the Liberals' logic, young people will not be able to contribute to this plan because job opportunities will be scarce.

When it comes to taking more money out of Canadians' pockets and out of our pockets, the Liberals are champions. They never miss an opportunity to impose another new tax on taxpayers. We do not have to look far in the text of the bill to see that this government plans to take money here, there, and everywhere.

Why is this government so set on taxing Canadians? The Liberals have the nerve to get rid of tax credits for children's sports and arts, and reduce the TFSA contribution limit by half. Why do they not trust Canadians? Do they think they are more responsible than Canadians? Do they really think that taxpayers' money will do better in their hands until retirement comes along? I doubt it. Not all of us have $1,500 to spend to get access to one of their ministers.

When we gave out tax credits and collected fewer taxes, we still managed to balance the budget. This government is doing its utmost to get every last penny from families and yet still finds itself in the red to the tune of over $30 billion. If anyone is truly irresponsible, it is the Liberals opposite.

Basically, the Liberals subscribe to the theory that the end justifies the means. However, they talk mainly about the end, and only whisper about the means, because they know that no one is excited about the new taxes, especially voters.

As my grandfather used to say, heaven is blue and hell is red. Let us not allow the Liberals to lay waste to the Canadian economy with their grandiose ideas.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to our colleague’s intervention referring to the la-la land of unicorns and smoke and mirrors, I would like to ask her how she can explain the 100% score obtained by Liberal MPs in the Atlantic provinces with the same promises as the government in place.

Those provinces have an economy that is among the most stagnant in the country and probably one of the fastest-aging populations.

What correlation can my colleague make between her observations and the fact that Atlantic Canada is in an economic slump where it is often necessary to make an effort to create jobs? How can she see a correlation between her comments and the situation of Atlantic Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side of the House, for whom I have great respect. This is precisely the problem with the Liberals: nothing but promises, empty rhetoric and selfies. At some point, you have to take action.

Our two regions have an aging population. I also represent a remote region, which needs money right now and not in 50 years. They make promises that are going to be fulfilled in 50 years, but in the meantime we are telling young people that they will have to get used to having fewer skilled jobs, precarious jobs such as truck driver or receptionist, or no job at all. Who will pay for all that? Certainly not them.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague. She talked about the very real need that Canadians have across this country.

The previous Conservative government's response to the pension and retirement crises facing Canadians from coast to coast was to do nothing to increase the Canada pension plan but instead to raise the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67 years of age. Therefore, the Conservative answer was to make Canadians work longer, from 65 to 67, which would cost the average Canadian $12,000 a year.

After the results of the last election, does my hon. colleague still think it is a wise policy to make Canadians work until they are 67 years of age before they collect old age security in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Unlike the NDP or the Liberals, I believe in Canadians. I believe that all Canadians are capable of making their own decisions. At some point, the government has to stop acting like a parent. You have to ask people to take charge of their lives. No one is against virtue, but promises are nothing but wind.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my colleague a question. We have heard some comments from the other side about the impact the Conservative policies had. We had 1.3 million net new jobs. We had the best growth in the G7.

What the Liberals are not talking about is the impact the CPP tax hike will have on small businesses, which are our job creators. I would like to ask my colleague if she could talk a little more about the impact this CPP tax hike will have on small businesses.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix has 30 seconds to respond.

I needed 30 seconds just to say the name of the riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, you are lucky; sometimes it takes even longer.

Obviously this is a puzzle for small businesses too because of the aging population. As the government opposite said, our jobs have become precarious. Yes, it is a puzzle, and it is costing businesses twice as much when we do not even have the population we need to work for those businesses.

Our government balanced the budget and still gave out money. Unlike them, we were responsible.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak on behalf of the New Democrats and express our support at second reading for this important piece of legislation. Bill C-26 amends the Canada Pension Plan act, among other acts, to incorporate the recent agreements reached with the provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan benefits for all Canadians.

While we believe that better was possible and will continue to urge the government to make a more improved plan available for workers in this country, and despite the fact the full effect of these changes will not be felt for 49 years, this CPP enhancement is in theory an important first step in improving retirement security for young Canadians. We congratulate everyone, particularly labour, which worked so hard to lay the groundwork for this agreement.

New Democrats have fought for decades for increases in the Canada pension plan, old age security, and the guaranteed income supplement benefits for all seniors. In fact, the idea of having universal retirement security programs for all Canadians has been a core New Democrat policy going back to the formation of our party. We have urged every government for decades to make meaningful improvements for Canadians, so that every Canadian can retire in security and in dignity.

Our support for the bill is qualified. That is because while the enhanced expanded CPP proposed by the bill is a plan that will benefit a new generation of workers entering the workforce, it does almost nothing to alleviate the retirement income crisis of those approaching retirement now and, quite frankly, in the decade or two ahead. We must now see immediate action by the government to help those seniors and Canadians who are on the cusp of retirement and who will not benefit from these changes. Government must build on the momentum of this agreement and take the next steps to improve long-term retirement security for today's workers, including addressing the valid concerns raised by Quebec about the impacts on low-income workers.

In the New Democrats' view, much more needs to be done to help our seniors live with the dignity they deserve. The high cost of housing and prescription medication, the clawback of the GIS, and the indexing of pensions are just a few immediate issues that we think require more work by the government. We also think that the government needs to keep its promise to introduce a new seniors price index to make sure that old age security and the guaranteed income supplement keep up with rising costs.

Retirement insecurity in this country is reaching a crisis level, as many Canadians do not have adequate savings to maintain their lifestyle upon retirement. A large part of this problem is fuelled by the erosion of workplace pension plans to the point that six in 10, or 60% of, working Canadians have no workplace pension.

In the New Democrats' view we need a clear breakdown from the government as to who will benefit the most from this plan and who will benefit the least, and how these changes will interact with other programs, and how we can strengthen the workplace pension regime in this country, as well as the public component that the bill addresses.

By way of background, it is helpful to review what is being proposed by the bill. Currently the CPP covers earnings up to a cap of $54,900. For earnings up to the cap, the CPP is designed to replace about 25% of the income. The maximum pension that a worker who fulfills all the criteria, working for 40 years and contributing the maximum amount, can look forward to is about $1,092 per month or $13,100 per year.

Contributions are 4.95% for the employer and the employee, up to the same cap. The expanded CPP proposed by the bill is a separate new tier. The new tier is added on top of the existing one. The new CPP tier does two things phased in over the next nine years to 2025. First, it takes the replacement rate up to 33 1/3% from the current 25% of earnings, and, second, it expands the upper earnings cap from today's $54,900 up to $82,700.

The net result is that when this plan is fully phased in by 2065, a worker who earns $54,900 annually in 2016 dollars would receive a maximum annual pension of about $18,117 in 2016 dollars by the time he or she retires. For a worker at the $82,700 maximum tier amount income level, CPP benefits would rise to a maximum of $20,352 a year in today's dollars.

The reason I am using today's dollars is that it is important to understand the very limited expansion that the current government has brought forward. If people can imagine that in 2065 they would be at the maximum CPP pension if they contributed for 40 years at the maximum earnings level, with a resulting pension of $20,352 a year, just about every Canadian planning for retirement would see that that is absolutely insufficient to retire with.

We all, though, acknowledge that the Canada pension plan was never designed to be a full retirement plan—although there is a credible argument to be made that a government pension plan could in fact achieve that if it were wanted—but was intended to be supplemented by private savings and workplace pensions. This is why I raised earlier the very alarming statistic that more than half of Canadians have no workplace pension. This is very different from the 1960s and 1970s when a much higher percentage of Canadians had a plan at work.

Canadians who are working today cannot expect to have very much pension income from their employment. Of course, given the rising costs of living in this country, particularly in Vancouver where I come from, it is very difficult for them save the amount of money they will need to supplement their Canada pension plan. So what the New Democrats would like to see and what we have advocated for a long time is a Canada pension plan designed in a way that the worker and the employer would contribute sufficient money to replace 50% of the money a person would need upon retirement. In concert with that, we also propose strengthening the programs, policies, and laws in this country to encourage employers to create pension plans in the workplace to help those workers supplement their pensions. We also believe, for instance, that laws that protect pension funds upon bankruptcy also need to be strengthened so that workers, as we saw in the case of Stelco, would not see their deferred salaries—the money they have saved over the years—distributed among creditors upon bankruptcy. That is a long-standing problem in this country that neither Conservative nor Liberal governments have ever had the political courage to touch, but it is a matter of fundamental justice.

The Canada pension plan is the best pension plan in this country for a number of reasons. It is portable. It does not matter if people quit or leave a job in New Brunswick and move to British Columbia and start working again, because their Canada pension plan will still be activated. It is the cheapest pension plan in the country. There is a associated cost for employers, who normally have to provide a pension plan, as they have to hire pension lawyers and actuaries and custodians of the money, whereas in this case, all of the costs of the plan are borne by the government. Being the largest plan in the country, it is also the safest repository of Canadians' income. In sum, it is the cheapest, most portable, safest pension plan in this country.

I think Canadians from coast to coast would love to see the current government increase Canada pension plan contributions to such a degree that we could phase these in slowly and affordably over time so that the plan would actually do what it is intended to do, which is to make sure it replaces 50% of workers' income upon retirement so that more Canadians can retire in dignity.

I just want to conclude by saying that I often hear the Conservatives use language calling this a payroll tax. Retirement investment is not a tax. It is an investment. There is no secret to pensions. People put away a bit of money for a long period of time. That is savings, and that is how they fund their retirement. When workers and employers both contribute to that pension plan, that is how we get a dignified retirement for Canadians in this country, and it is about time that the Conservatives recognized this and joined the 21st century so that Canadians can retire in dignity and with some level of security.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech, but I would like to correct his misimpression. There is no retirement crisis.

Morneau Shepell, a co-author with the finance minister, said that Canadians are not facing a retirement crisis, nor is such a crisis likely to arrive. This has been backed up by studies by McKinsey & Company, which say that 83% of Canadians have enough money to keep their current standard of living in retirement. Therefore, it is really about focusing on the 17% of Canadians who do not have adequate retirement savings.

Would the member agree that it is better to target an approach to that 17%, who are typically low-income earners and senior women, to actually help those people who cannot afford to retire?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I accept the premise of that question. The proposition that there is not a retirement income crisis or a problem in this country does not jibe with the figures I have seen. I have seen figures that show that 30% of single elderly women in this country live in poverty, and that number has tripled in the last 20 years.

As I stated in my speech, it is quite uniformly accepted that six out of 10 workers in this country, particularly young workers, do not have any workplace pension whatsoever. I am not sure what cohort the member is talking to, but for the people who live in my riding, most are finding it very difficult to actually just meet their monthly expenses, never mind put away sufficient income to fund an adequate retirement.

It is easy for us in this House to stand up and pretend it is not a problem. We vest in our pension after six years in the House, with a pension of $35,000 a year after serving for six years. However, if members get out in the communities and talk to real people, most people are very concerned about their retirement, and many Canadians, I would daresay more than half, will not have enough retirement income to live the kind of secure retirement they want.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that New Democrats are supportive of this legislation. I think we share a lot in common. Workers today will benefit from this agreement that was achieved between the provinces and the leadership in this national government.

Today we have Bill C-26, but there are other aspects of the pension program. I am looking specifically at the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, and how that program also helps supplement individuals who are in need of income.

Does the member have any thoughts on how he sees this as a bill that is one piece of what I would suggest are the three pillars of the pension issue: the CPP, the GIS, and the OAS? Can the member provide some comment in regard to the GIS and the OAS?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think those are valid comments.

The New Democrats did campaign on the promise that, were we elected government, we would also not proceed with the Conservatives' plan to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67 for old age security qualification. I congratulate the government for implementing that policy as well.

I will give the government less credit, however, for its plan on increases to the guaranteed income supplement. As was famously said of Mackenzie King, Liberals don't do in halves what they can do in quarters.

I think that is very true in the case of the GIS, because the amount of the increase to the GIS, although welcomed by seniors, is clearly insufficient to actually lift enough seniors out of poverty. The NDP is going to continue to press the government to increase those GIS payments so that there is not a single pensioner in this country, not a single senior who has given a lifetime of work to this country, living in poverty in this country. The GIS improvements do not do it yet.

This Canada pension plan gives a little bit of money but over a long period of time. We are going to continue to press the government to make even further enhancements to the CPP in the future.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to discuss the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan in Bill C-26.

As has been mentioned by my colleagues earlier, this change would raise CPP premium rates. This plan would also increase the maximum level of earnings on which CPP premiums would need to be paid. The net result of these changes would be that both employers and employees would have to pay more. Indeed, the CRA has published a table showing that this amount could be as much as $2,200 more, each and every year, and this number would continue to go higher and higher.

Nearly all Canadians would be affected by this expansion. Everybody earning a salary in this country would be negatively affected and would see their paycheques decrease as this payroll tax takes effect. Likewise, employers would see the cost of hiring employees rise.

As a former small business owner, I have first-hand experience in seeing how a business can be affected by payroll taxes, including CPP premiums. During the past year, I have thoroughly enjoyed my role as the critic for small business, holding the government accountable for its actions and inactions. I have heard from entrepreneurs and small business owners from across the nation in round tables and one-on-one meetings. Each time the topic of the proposed CPP expansion is brought up, immediately I hear the same thing: when the cost of hiring employees rises, employers hire fewer people. Payroll taxes, which include CPP premiums, are one of the largest costs for small business owners.

These employers are leaders of our communities and care about investing in their employees. However, if they cannot afford to pay for their employees, they will be forced to either reduce their workforce or increase the workload on their current staff to avoid hiring new workers.

One entrepreneur from Toronto explained to me that she is already feeling constrained by the increasing tax burden on her business. She said that, if the CPP expansion were to move forward, she would have to expand the job duties of each of her current employees rather than hiring new workers to fill the gaps.

Small business representatives from across the country have also added their voices to this conversation, urging the government to rethink this plan. Among them, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, is the most notable. It conducted a number of surveys on its members, asking for opinions and potential business decisions they would have to make, should this expansion move forward. The results are troubling.

These surveys indicate that two-thirds of small business owners believe that this expansion would compel employers to freeze salaries in order to account for the changes. The math is simple. Dollars that would otherwise go into salaries would, instead, go into extra payroll taxes. When we consider the government's track record of increasing payroll taxes, increasing small business taxes, implementing a nationwide carbon tax, and cutting tax credits, it is no wonder business owners are choosing to hold onto their wallets.

I would not be shocked to see the Liberals finally decide to raise the GST to pay for their spending spree. Who wants to invest in such a high tax environment? One of the arguments being used to support the expansion of the CPP is that it would help struggling seniors. However, the proposed plan would not be fully implemented for another 40 years, which means seniors would not be receiving the help now that the government says they need. I would challenge the government that there are many other ways they could help seniors and the aging population, but the Liberals have chosen to turn their backs on Canadian seniors.

I am going to let the House know what seniors think. The carbon tax would increase the cost of everything, including their groceries and heating their homes. That would be dramatic. That would be devastating to our seniors.

Now that I have talked about seniors, I will talk about our youth, whom the government claims the bill would benefit the most. Our youth benefit from employment, and this bill would make it more difficult for employers to hire our graduates. Young participants in my round tables are more concerned about their jobs, about their take-home money now, instead of paying into something for 40 years down the road.

Not only that, but we are forcing Canadians to invest in a pension plan that offers a low rate of return. According to a well-quoted study by the Fraser Institute published in May 2016, and externally validated by many other organizations, the projected real rate of return for CPP investees is 2.1%.

I will quote from the study:

Canadian workers retiring after 2036...can expect a real rate of return of 2.1 percent from the CPP.

This basically means the majority of our workforce today, contributing to CPP, is making a real rate of return that is barely above inflation. Remember, when people retire and draw funds from the CPP, that amount is taxed with income taxes.

Some Canadians are comfortable with the CPP and the fact that it is backed by the government, but we are given no choice in the matter. CPP legislation forces all Canadians to participate in this low-return investment. The government has made the decision for the rest of the country, regardless of the personal situation for how Canadians want to fund their retirement.

There are other ways that government could encourage Canadians to invest in their retirement. There are already many options available to individuals, including the well-known registered retirement savings plan or tax-free savings accounts. The CPP is only one method of saving, amongst others, but this is a forced method of saving for retirement.

By highlighting and encouraging other programs, Canadians are able to create a retirement financial plan that suits them best and does not solely rely on government to make this choice for them.

At a time when our economy is struggling and many people are unable to find work, such an expansion of the CPP would only magnify these problems. Our job creators would face another burden in their ability to hire new workers, and Canadians would have less money in their pockets to invest in the economy.

I am convinced the government does not want to help Canadians save. If it did, the Liberal government would not have chosen to reduce the amount of money individuals can contribute to their RRSPs or tax-free savings accounts.

Canada has excellent programs that allow Canadians to choose how they want to save their money for retirement. As I have said before, instead of making it more expensive for our small businesses to hire staff and create jobs, we should be minimizing taxes, cutting red tape, and trusting Canadians to make their own decisions regarding how to spend and save their money. I will continue to fight for our hard-working job creators.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has become very apparent is that the Conservatives are articulating why they believe we should not have any sort of a CPP program, from my perspective from listening to them in this debate.

The arguments the Conservatives are using today are the same types of arguments they used when there was opposition to the creation of the CPP. Maybe an appropriate question to ask members of the Conservative Party would be whether the Conservative Party supports CPP, and maybe the member could enlighten this House.

A number of Conservatives are nodding yes. If that is the case, why, then, would they oppose the good work of so many provincial jurisdictions, working with Ottawa and the many different stakeholders, who are saying that now is the time for us to give this increase? It does not take effect today. It takes effect in a couple of years from now.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have already said many times that they want to have a say in their own retirement plans. The government has not consulted with real people who are working and paying into the CPP.

I must agree that the CPP has its own value; however, the expansion that the government is suggesting would not really help present retirees and future retirees. It would only kill jobs, which all our people need in order to grow the economy

The member opposite has twisted the facts, saying that the Conservatives do not support the CPP. We do not support the expansion of the CPP that the government is suggesting right now, with increased premiums that would kill jobs and push our youth to unemployment.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, figures show that 30% of single elderly women in Canada live in poverty. Could my colleague tell me what her party's plan is to get those women out of poverty?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was the minister responsible for seniors for five years. Our government did a lot for seniors. We increased the GIS to the highest amount in a quarter century.

For single women who do not have any CPP, we really want the government to look at other ways, because increasing the CPP would not help even a single woman who is retired now. We need to make sure these women have proper housing subsidies. We want to make sure they stay healthy so that going to the doctor or pharmacy will not cost them anything.

Do members know what is going to kill them? The carbon tax is going to kill them, because they will have to pay more for everything.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing high youth unemployment in my riding, and I have heard comments about that today. If people do not have jobs, they cannot contribute to CPP and they are certainly not going to be able to take advantage of it later.

I wonder if the member shares that experience.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, new graduates are finding it more and more difficult to pay back their student loans and find jobs after school. With higher payroll taxes and likely limited jobs coming from our small businesses, the CPP enhancement would only magnify these problems. New graduates need money in their pockets to pay back their school debt. We need to help our new graduates find work by creating jobs, not sticking our job creators with larger payroll taxes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is tough to follow the member for Richmond Centre after that kind of firebrand speech, but I will do my best.

It is always a pleasure to rise to speak about legislation before the House. Today, we are talking about Bill C-26, which would increase CPP premiums and increase that payroll tax for a benefit sometime in the future. The finance minister has admitted now that the benefit would be realized by workers 40 years from now. That is who will see the benefits from this.

Let us be under no illusion, Even though the government wants us to talk about increasing CPP benefits, this would do nothing for seniors today and it would do nothing for workers approaching retirement. Maybe if people are in their twenties and in jobs that are stable enough that they are making enough money to make the full contribution, this would benefit them, but for the next 40 years they would be paying more. That is our main concern today.

When the bill came forward, when this idea was floated, I sought to consult my constituents, as I do on pieces of legislation like this. I heard back from a prominent local business owner in Chilliwack who is involved in the business community. I want to share his thoughts on this. He is actually in the financial services industry and helps others plan for their retirement, so I think he has a level of expertise that the House should well consider.

I will be quoting extensively from his contribution to my consultation. He said:

If the primary intent is to take care of Canadians, I wonder what other options were explored. If mandatory contributions to retirement plans are desired, was there a “choice” option considered? Perhaps a Canadian could choose to contribute more to CPP, or, instead, open their own locked-in pension plan and make the mandatory contributions there...have restrictions on withdrawals, risks, etc.

Most 'regular Canadians' would not profess to know all the details and the considerations that were explored by the Federal Government, before proposing this solution. Most business owners would like to think that the government is working in their best interest...I sincerely hope it is. However, perhaps incentivising Canadians to save more by increasing the RRSP contribution limit, not decreasing the TFSA limit (as this government has done), providing larger tax benefits for contributing to mandatory Locked-in RRSPs, etc... options like this might warrant more exploration. Not only would Canadians need to take ownership and increase their education on the matter, but it could also increase and improve the private sector...both of these are good for Canadians.

I understand some things are necessary and hard choices need to be made. My fear is that the increased mandatory contributions are not going to solve the real issue. The issue touted by the Federal Government is that Employer Pension Plans are becoming fewer and farther between and Canadians are not saving for themselves. One might make the argument that having an employer or the government say, “we'll do this for you” is part of the problem. If Canadians are not saving enough, then they need to be educated, incentivised and learn to save for themselves. I believe in having a pension plan like CPP, however, if we don't address the real issue (too many Canadians are spending all the money they earn, in order to increase their “lifestyle” as rapidly as possible...not taking responsibility for their own future...) we will need to increase contributions to CPP again in the future, for a similar reason...

I have a family member in his early 30s. He is very aware that he has no pension and needs to create his own pension. He chooses to be content with his lifestyle and does not spend all the money he makes. He continues to educate himself, as well as increase his good habits of contributing to his RRSP, TFSA and savings....this is what Canadians need to do.

I would make the argument that having a public pension plan is a very good thing, for many reasons. However, if the public pension plan begins to try and replace or “take over” the responsibilities of Canadians, it might be considered to be creating and enabling a problem for the future of the very Canadians it wants to protect. I'm not saying that line has been crossed with the current CPP changes, but if the line hasn't been crossed yet, it appears, at least on the surface, that we are headed that way.

Those are words from a very prominent business person in Chilliwack who is concerned about this approach of the government. I share many of those concerns. I think that the proposed changes to the CPP, again, as has been said many times by Conservatives on this side of the House, could result in over $2,000 a year being taken from the incomes of Canadian workers. In a family, that is about $1,100 each.

Earlier, I heard a member from the NDP say that he was concerned about people who come into his office who are living paycheque to paycheque. My riding is not a high-income riding. The average income is under $40,000 a year. My constituents are living paycheque to paycheque. Bill C-26 and increasing mandatory CPP contributions will not help them. It will take money away from them and put it into a CPP plan that they may never be able to access.

That is another part of this discussion that I think we need to be honest about. When we are talking about increasing a mandatory payroll deduction, we are taking $1,000 away from a Canadian worker and putting it into a government-run CPP pension plan. If that person dies before reaching the age of retirement or does not live to the age of 85, this increased amount of money that is taken from each and every paycheque, the reduction in disposable income for the families in my riding, is not saved in an RRSP, a TFSA, or something that is designated to the individual. It is not an asset that can be passed on to the heirs of the contributor, to their family, or to their children like a TFSA or an RRSP.

Therefore, to say that it is for their own good that the government will take more money off of their paycheque and put it into an account that they can draw from in retirement might sound great to people because they might think that they could stand to save a little more. However, what they do not realize and what they are shocked to learn when they learn more about CPP, which most people do not look into until they approach retirement, is that this is not an asset that is transferrable to their heirs. Rather, if they die young it goes into the general revenue of the account. It disappears. Therefore, they have spent their entire working life paying more under this plan and they do not have the ability to pass that on to their heirs.

This is bad for the people who say they want a choice in how they save. It is bad for low- and middle-income Canadians who will not benefit but will see a reduction in take-home pay, a reduction that they simply cannot afford. Certainly, as the member for Richmond Centre said, as the government seeks to increase costs on all Canadians through a carbon tax, they can ill-afford yet another payroll tax that reduces their take-home pay. It is bad for families because they cannot pass along this investment. It is not like other registered investments that can be passed on. It does not help seniors now.

We know that during the campaign the Prime Minister famously accused small business owners of simply being people who were looking for ways to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Therefore, we should not expect the Liberals to take the concerns of groups such as the CFIB seriously. However, on this side of the House we do. Last year, for the first time in 30-plus years, the CFIB was not invited to make a pre-budget consultation, so perhaps it should not surprise us that the Liberals are not taking its advice as well.

However, Dan Kelly, the president and CEO of the CFIB, stated:

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

He went on to say:

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

This is going to affect real, hard-working, taxpaying Canadians. This is not going to help those workers for 40 years. It will not help seniors in retirement who may hear about this and think that they will get a raise. They will get nothing out of this. Rather, this is simply taking away choice from Canadians in planning for their own retirements, and taking away money from their paycheques now, which as far as we are concerned is the wrong direction. We will be voting against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can better understand, because of the debate, why the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, backed away from the Canada pension plan. We heard member after member talk about how the CPP is not of benefit to Canadians and any sort of increase would be to the detriment of those retiring in the future.

I recall over the last number of years that I have had many petitions that Winnipeg residents, Winnipeg North residents in particular, signed saying that they believed in the CPP and they believed in the GIS and the OAS. The Harper government made a bad decision when it increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. The Harper government made a bad decision by not engaging the provinces and demonstrating leadership on the CPP file.

Canadians have a right to know exactly where the Conservatives are on the CPP. I listened to the speeches. The arguments Conservative members are presenting today are the same sorts of arguments that were presented when CPP was introduced. Does today's Conservative Party support CPP, yes or no?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a ridiculous red herring. The Conservative Party supports public pensions. We supported them when we were in government. We believe in the CPP, but we also believe in Canadians. We believe in the ability of Canadians to make choices for themselves. That is why we introduced the tax-free savings account and expanded it to allow people to make their own choice, to save their own money after taxes.

What did the government do as soon as it took office? It immediately rolled that back. It clawed back the ability of Canadians to save for themselves. We believe that Canadians can and want to save for themselves. That is what we saw with the record number of Canadians who opened and used the maximum amount of their TFSAs. These were middle- and low-income Canadians who made savings a priority. Now the government says we do not believe in Canadians. We believe in government. Where there is a problem, the government must try to solve it.

This is not a solution. This is taking money from Canadian workers and putting it into an account that they will never be able to access for 40 years. This does nothing for Canadian seniors now. It does nothing for workers approaching retirement. It is the wrong direction and we will not support it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's speech and I especially relate to the fact that his riding, like mine, has a lot of low-income people.

I am just hoping he could clear up a few things for me, because I know the Conservatives were in favour of having the $10,000 limit for TFSAs, but by his own admission, many of the members of his constituency would not be able to take full advantage of that $10,000 per year. I want the Conservatives to understand that we did not get rid of the TFSA. We brought it back to a simple level, and that is to look after future government revenues so that we can look after the services that many of his constituents and mine might depend on.

I understand that looking after seniors is a multi-faceted issue. The bill looks at the future, long term. It is one part of a parcel. Of course, GIS and OAS, and immediate and near-term futures are other parts. I am hoping he could explain some of the contradictions that seem to be coming from the Conservative side in that respect.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member referred to “we” did not roll back the TFSAs. The carbon tax coalition lives on. They are in it together.

The NDP and the Liberals tried to paint the TFSA as a tool for the rich. The facts simply did not bear that out. The vast majority of TFSAs were utilized and maxed out by people earning a middle or low income because they made savings a priority. They used the tools that were available to them. It is the most important tool introduced to protect the income and retirement savings of Canadians since the RRSP. It is a shame that the government did not think Canadians could be trusted to manage their own money and rolled that back so that it could perhaps find the fiscal room to raise payroll taxes as it is proposing to do today.

We trust Canadian businesses. We trust Canadian families to make choices for themselves. That is why we will not support the bill, which does not help seniors, does not help workers, and will not address the problem it is seeking to address.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Housing; the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Democratic Reform; the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Canada Revenue Agency.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-26, which is the government's effort to expand and enhance the Canada pension plan. As many in the House know, the expansion of the CPP has long been a policy objective of the NDP. From the campaigns of both the Liberals and the NDP, I do not think Canadians are under any sort of surprise that this policy eventually would be brought up in the 42nd Parliament.

As we all know, Canada's retirement system is based on three pillars: a combined Canada pension plan and the old age security from the government side; workplace pensions that used to be provided by many workplaces but are increasingly uncommon; and the RRSP and private savings of Canadians.

Unfortunately, two of these pillars are now in not very good shape and it is a moral imperative that we act to do now what we can, looking into the future, to prop up the third one, namely the Canada pension plan and the combined old age security and GIS.

I listened both yesterday and today to arguments from the Conservatives about giving Canadians more choice and putting money back into the pockets of people. I could not agree more with those two. With this measure, we are giving seniors a choice. I believe that in the future, with more money in their pockets, they will have more choice.

I also understand the arguments the Conservatives have made about the cost of living increases going on in Canada. I do not believe that this is a cost of living increase. It is not a payroll tax. It is a very simplistic argument and it misleads the conversations that we ought to be having about our retirement future. This is an investment in our future. I know of no other tax that Canadians pay where they will actually get dividends at a later point. These are deferred wages that they will be drawing from in their retirement years.

I have also heard of the absolute calamity that Canada has experienced now that the tax-free savings account has been dropped from $10,000 to $5,000 a year. The costs to the treasury would have been enormous in later years if the $10,000 limit had been allowed. I wonder how this connects with the increased reliance on the guaranteed income supplement that the Conservatives are always proposing as a measure to help Canada's seniors. I agree that the GIS plays a very important role, but the goal of this place is to get to a point where the guaranteed income supplement is not as necessary. Despite what the Conservatives say, the measure of the TFSA only helps a small segment of the population.

I have also heard the arguments about increasing personal responsibility. That is a terrible argument to put forward to someone who is living paycheque to paycheque and giving up on their own retirement future to help put their kids through college, to make a housing payment, to put food on the table. To tell someone that they are not personally responsible because they are not saving enough is just a terrible argument to make to people in these tough economic times. We are all hard-wired to help our kids. It is something I would do in a heartbeat and without a second thought.

When times are tough, especially when we have minimum wages that do not even come close to what the living wage is, it becomes near impossible to save for retirement. The facts from Statistics Canada back this up.

We also know that defined benefit pension plans, like the Canada pension plan, are one of the most effective tools in combatting income inequality and retirement insecurity.

I want to contrast that with the defined contribution plans of which some in the House are in favour. There has been a push from the right to consider that Canada engage in more defined contribution plans, but we can see examples from around the world of the problems with these plans.

I refer hon. members to the case of Australia. Australia has had its superannuation plans. They are defined contributions. They were instituted in the mid-1990s. Around that time, nearly 80% of workers were covered by these plans. We look 20 years later and nearly 50% of Australian seniors now live in poverty. The country is the fourth highest spender on government assistance. Sixty-five per cent of seniors have no money left in their defined contribution funds by the time they reach age 75. That is completely inadequate.

Another recent study compared the pension income of British citizens with defined contribution plans to Dutch citizens with defined benefit plans. It found that the cost was 1.5% more in fees per year to run the defined contribution plan. Over time, these fees add up. In fact, a British citizen who made the same contributions and earned the same investment returns ended up receiving a pension payment that was 50% lower than his Dutch counterpart. This makes it more crucial for the government to push for defined benefit plans that do not suffer from those same problems. The CPP is the best retirement vehicle we have to ensure that happens.

The proposed changes in the bill are welcome, but they are unfortunately inadequate for what is needed now. I want to give that caveat to the government side. It is a good plan for those who are very young now and would have the full benefits in many years, again looking to our future. However, the plan needs to go hand in hand with solutions for those retirees or soon-to-be retirees right now.

Seniors have been struggling and this plan would do nothing for them currently. There has been unacceptable erosion in workplace pensions over the last decades. Six in ten Canadians have no workplace pension. We have even sold the idea that RRSPs and TFSAs are great options to replace workplace pensions. I think everyone here can see from the evidence that has not worked. These voluntary options have shown their inability to address the issue of lacking real pensions and a weak Canada pension plan.

Among those aged 55 to 64 without access to a company pension, about half have less than half of what they would need to pay their bills. A staggering 32% have less than $1,000 in retirement savings. That is one-third of the population.

This is a crisis that needs concrete solutions. When we have seniors living in poverty and food insecurity, with very little to no retirement savings, it is a moral imperative for the government to act. Not only is it the right thing to do, but this kind of thing if left unchecked becomes catastrophic for the economy.

If we are talking about 10 to 15 years in the future and we have millions of Canadians with little to no disposable income, then the economy tanks because they cannot afford to buy anything.

Poverty deniers on the right like to point to home ownership of seniors as proof that there is no crisis. However, we know that even with accounting for the total net worth of seniors, only 28% of seniors without employer pensions have even five years' worth of replaced income saved. Five years of savings is nowhere near the target needed for a happy and healthy retirement.

Enhancing the CPP is something that we have always fought for in the NDP, and we welcome the government's initiative for this. However, more needs to be done.

This plan would raise the CPP up to 33%. We in the NDP will continue fighting for what was passed at the Canadian Labour Congress, which is the voice of working people. We need to go to 50% benefits of the pre-retirement income if we to be serious about tackling the issues of retirement, security, and income inequality.

We also need to continue tackling the GIS and raising it. While the increase that came in budget 2016 was welcome, it has still left a lot of seniors without the adequate income they will need.

Also, if we are talking about seniors and their state today, what happened to the conversation about universal pharmacare, so we never again have a senior who has to choose between healthy food and taking their proper dosage of medication?

We need to enhance home care and palliative care, which is at crisis levels. I hope to see that in the health care accord.

There are a lot of things we could do.

The bill is a good idea, but it only tackles one small part of what needs to be done. We will support its passage, but it is too important not to lose sight of the larger problem of seniors today. Rather than taking a piecemeal approach to pensions and retirement, we need to develop a national strategy for seniors that completely looks at all facets, a strategy that will respect aging. For seniors who have lived their lives building our country, and who continue to make great contributions, the least we can allow them is to live in dignity and with respect.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern about seniors. I am especially concerned that the current fix proposed in Bill C-26 will do nothing to address the problem that elderly widows are having, which is that they may not have worked, their husbands have died, and they do not get any of their husbands' pensions. This bill would do absolutely nothing for them. Could he expound on some of his ideas for a solution?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we go back to budget 2016, the increase in the guaranteed income supplement was the specific target. Before that increase came, the number of seniors living in poverty in Canada was about 719,000 and that 10% increase was only going to address 149,000. Of course, the majority is women, so there certainly are more steps that can be taken.

The ball is going to be in the government's court. I hope to see some concrete action in budget 2017. Hope springs eternal with me and we shall see.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the member acknowledge that the bill we are debating today is, in part, because provincial governments entered into discussion and, through strong national leadership, came up with the idea that CPP needed to be increased and we needed to start thinking about the future of workers? At some point, they are going to retire and we need to ensure they have somewhat decent pensions for the work they have done.

Would the member comment on the importance of getting the different stakeholders together, specifically the provinces, with Ottawa to come up with an agreement for the betterment of today's workers?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to underline in this debate, especially for the Conservative side, that so many provincial premiers came together, even Conservative superstar, Premier Brad Wall, who I think many Conservatives wish was running for leadership. Yes, he was a reluctant partner, but he did come on board at the end. He got the necessary delays to ensure it was implemented and that businesses did not get that shock.

It is very important to remind the Conservatives that there is provincial support, that this has satisfied the seven out of ten rule, with eight provinces coming on board. Quebec has its own pension plan, so it was automatically on the outside. However, that is a very important point to underline.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech, which once again I found to be extremely well grounded in the reality of his riding. He is a new MP, even if it has been a year now, and I know how enthusiastic he is about the work we have to do in this great democracy and about the discussions we have among ourselves.

I would have liked to have his opinion on a thought that someone expressed to me just recently, which is that, at this time, we are seeing a confrontation between two schools of thought on the same problem, and that clearly, what we are referring to when we say that in 50 years’ time, 16-year-olds will have access to a better pension plan, is a vision, a blueprint for society.

And it does not stop there, I imagine. I assume that the situation in his riding is similar to the one in mine, in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, where we have some major social housing issues. I think we should move on to other things and look after today’s seniors and their situation as quickly as possible.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. It reminds me of some of the conversations that took place during electoral reform. The problem with our current system of electing governments is that we suffer from policy lurch. It is very hard in this place to take a long-term view when there is a new government, on average, every 10 years that completely clears the deck of the previous government, saying it is going to go in another direction. Then in another 10 years, another new government says that it is going to go in another direction.

Bill C-26 is a very real effort. Yes, it is going to take a long time to get implemented, but it is taking that vision in several decades. Yes, it will only affect the kids of today, but I think those children will be very thankful that we had the foresight to act now before the problem went beyond this.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 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.

While I believe that the Liberal government has good intentions, it has failed to recognize the negative impact this legislation will have on the overall economy.

As many of my colleagues have already pointed out during this debate and in previous debates, what we see in this legislation is a fundamental difference between the Conservative Party of Canada and the other parties in this chamber. In this party, we believe that Canadians are in the best position to make their own decisions, and this includes decisions relating to their retirement.

Let me be perfectly clear. We in the Conservative Party are not against the CPP. We are not against helping Canadians save more for their retirement. We are certainly not happy to see seniors struggling to live out their retirement in comfort. We do believe that government policy should provide opportunities and avenues to save and to reduce taxes so that Canadians can save more of their own money when it is within their means to do so.

We strongly believe in the right of each Canadian to make his or her own choices. Canadians know what is best for them and for their families.

On the other hand, Liberals and New Democrats believe that government knows what is best for Canadians, and they do not trust Canadians to prepare for their own retirement. They seem to believe that the only way Canadians can save for retirement is through a mandatory increase in CPP contributions by both employers and employees.

We saw this ideology from the Liberal government in its first few weeks, when it slashed the tax-free savings account contribution limit by half. The Liberals made this cut even though the TFSA is a popular means of saving for Canadians at all income levels.

Individuals with annual incomes of less than $80,000 accounted for more than 80% of all TFSA holders and about 75% of TFSA assets as of the end of 2013. About half of TFSA holders had annual incomes of less than $42,000. At the end of 2013, about 1.9 million Canadians had contributed the maximum amount to their TFSAs. About 46% of these individuals were seniors, and more than 70% were age 55 or older. Furthermore, about 60% of the individuals contributing the maximum amount to their TFSAs had incomes of less than $60,000 in 2013.

The tax-free savings account is an avenue for saving that all Canadians should take advantage of. It is an opportunity to have their investment grow at a far higher rate than they would see with the CPP. The money they deposit is readily available in case of an emergency or to make a lump sum payment to pay down their mortgage more quickly. Opposition parties have scoffed at this idea, because they believe that Canadians do not have disposable income to put in a TFSA. If that is true, how can the government justify siphoning off more money from Canadians' paycheques and holding it until they retire?

Canada is heading toward a large increase in the number of Canadians who will be entering retirement over the next decade. This is not the time to be limiting the amount of savings that would benefit these Canadians the most.

The CPP hike will take 40 years to be fully implemented, so none of these new benefits will go to seniors who need it today, or even in the next few years.

This increase will not only not benefit Canadians entering retirement soon, it will directly negatively impact the way families, students, and young employees invest their money now. A CPP increase will take money away from their paycheques, money that could have been invested or spent on immediate needs. I am talking here about new graduates wanting to pay off their student loans, or families saving for their children's education, or a middle-aged couple making a lump sum mortgage payment to reduce overall interest payments. With this plan, some households will be paying up to $2,200 more per year in payroll taxes. That is $2,200 per year that is not available to positively impact our Canadian economy.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that the Liberals have the best interests of Canadians in mind, and their intention to help Canadians in retirement is good, but it is clear that they are going about it in the completely wrong way.

Let us not forget the impact these policies will have on job creators. Canadians cannot contribute anything to the CPP if they do not have jobs, and the introduction of this increase will result in job losses across Canada.

At a time when the Canadian economy is losing jobs and struggling to create new jobs, and when we see low growth across the board, we simply cannot impose more expenses on business in Canada. This will mean that companies will not hire that extra worker, not create that new position budgeted for, and not expand into new sectors. In some cases, they will actually have to lay off employees.

In 2015, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business studied a CPP tax hike and found that it would eliminate up to 110,000 jobs and permanently lower wages by nearly 1%. Simon Gaudreault, chief economist at the CFIB, tells us that this agreement will have serious negative impacts on workers and the Canadian economy. The announced changes, including increased contributions, may put Canadian wages, hours, and jobs in jeopardy.

Hendrik Brakel, senior director, economic, financial and tax policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, also notes that increases will have many effects on the Canadian economy. He said:

...we’re worried a big tax increase is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest....

This comes at the worst possible time—an economy reeling from weak commodity prices and slower consumer spending will be lucky to eke out growth of 1.5% next year. It’s difficult to stimulate the economy while pulling money out of the pockets of Canadians.

It is not just directors and chief economists who are speaking out against this increase. This past summer, a young woman who manages the payroll for a number of small and medium-sized businesses in her area told me that she could not believe that the Liberal government would be increasing this mandatory contribution. She assured me that this would mean layoffs, decreased investment, and postponement of expansion. In other words, no new jobs.

We have heard from experts and ordinary Canadians that Bill C-26 will have negative consequences and will hurt, more than help, our young people and seniors.

Last, I would like to quote Mr. Fred Vettese, chief actuary at Morneau Shepell and co-author, with our current finance minister, of The Real Retirement. He wrote in the Financial Post, on June 5, that:

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....

Canada has a world-class retirement system, and the numbers support that, with 83% of Canadian households on track to maintain their current living standard in retirement, according to a study by McKinsey & Company. In addition to that, according to Statistics Canada, the share of Canadian seniors living on low income has dropped from 29% in 1970 to 3.7% today, which is among the lowest in the world.

I would like to quote Finance Canada, from June 2015:

Overall, Canada's retirement income system is performing well. Canadian retirees achieve relatively high levels of income in retirement, and compare well to retirees in other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. With support from all three pillars of the retirement income system, the median Canadian senior earns about 91 per cent as much as the median Canadian--well above the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 84 per cent. Internationally, Canada has one of the lowest low-income rates for seniors.

I agree with the broad intentions of the Liberal government as it approaches this legislation. We, as members of Parliament, should strive toward the goal of having every single Canadian senior retire in comfort. However, as I have outlined throughout my remarks, I believe that the Liberals have not considered the many negative impacts this policy change will have on Canadians.

I cannot support Bill C-26, as the negative consequences are far too crucial for me to ignore.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very well-delivered speech on Bill C-26.

I have to say that when we look at young Canadians today, they are not living in the same situation we did, and do, meaning that today, most of us at my age, anyway, including my colleague across the floor, have had the benefit of having a pension at the end to help us and to ensure that the golden years are golden. However, for these young people, when they start off their careers, there is no guarantee of any funds or pensions. It is our responsibility to ensure that we do the right things to make this happen.

We know that in the United States, it could be a crippling situation in 2033, as far as the benefits that would be allowed.

It is not only the Liberal Party and the government bringing this to the table. It is all 10 provinces and the territories. Are we saying that the 10 provinces, the territories, and the government are all wrong and are all doing the wrong thing?

Can you expand on that, please?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. members, when they are speaking, to speak through the Chair and not directly across the floor.

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague hits exactly the point I was trying to make in my speech, and that is that my concern is for our youth. It is for our young people.

If we go through with the changes suggested in this bill, as I pointed out, it will result in people not expanding their businesses. Small and medium-sized companies across Canada are faced with really tough choices. When we increase the payroll tax, we end up possibly reducing the likelihood of an increase in wages, or, at worst, we my run the real risk of a layoff or not getting a job.

Yes, I hope our young people have the ability to start off their careers, because they have to start those careers if they are going to actually be able to pay into the CPP and then someday benefit from the CPP.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the fact that this is an election promise that will be fulfilled very late for the people who will benefit from it.

I say this in the sense that a promise was made to improve the Canada Pension Plan, and those who heard this promise certainly thought that they would be receiving increased benefits.

Does my colleague feel, as I do, that this promise was made to attract voters, and that those voters, the seniors receiving benefits today, have been somewhat misled by the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, he hits directly on the implication of our debate today. I think most people, when they hear about potential increases in Canada pension plan benefits, assume that it will happen now or in the very near future. We are going to increase the CPP. That is a great thing. We all agree that we would like to see CPP benefits improve.

However, what the average Canadian may not know is that before this move is actually fully implemented, 40 years will have passed. My colleague across the way who asked the question earlier and many of my colleagues who are beyond 50 will not benefit from this change in the CPP. I think that is the downside of what we are doing today. We are talking about increasing CPP benefits, but these benefits will not actually be realized in my lifetime, in all likelihood.

The other thing I would like to point out is that at different times we hear that the provinces and the federal government have all come to an agreement, so we should just approve what they are doing and get on with it. However, not everyone feels that way. I conducted a round table in my riding just a few weeks ago, and to a person, these owners of small and medium-sized businesses are very concerned about the impact the increase in the CPP premium will have on their ability to expand and hire new workers.

I just want to quote Mr. Dan Kelly:

It's tremendously disappointing to see that finance ministers are putting Canadian wages, hours and jobs in jeopardy and willfully moving to make an already shaky economy even worse.

I could go on, but I see that I am out of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and support BillC-26 at second reading.

We have heard quite a difference of opinion in the House on the advisability of this bill. Maybe we can start from a place that we do all agree with, that it does not serve the Canadian economy well and certainly does not serve Canadian seniors well to have people retire into poverty. Unless people are going to work their entire life until they drop, we project that there will be a period when they are not working for their income. That income has to come from somewhere, and if it is not coming from their going into work every morning, then it has to come from money they have saved on their own, or it is through a mechanism like the Canada pension plan, or from another kind of benefit if it is not from their working family members.

The kind of system projected by the Conservatives, when they talk about individual savings, is the one we once had when people who were past their working lives had to be supported by their family members. That was great for those who had family members who could support them, and it was very bad for those who did not. So the CPP was by far and away an improvement on that situation, through which people could manage to save for themselves throughout their working life. Things like the OAS and GIS are important in that regard too.

There is a need for income in retirement. We can all agree on that. The gold standard for that would be to have some kind of guaranteed annual income in retirement, I think it is fair to say. But given that we do not provide in that way, the Canada pension plan has been a great mechanism for working Canadians to make sure they do have at least a basic income when they retire. It was based on three pillars, that there would be a CPP there to provide about a third of what people might need in retirement; that their company pension plan would provide another third; and that their personal savings would provide the final third.

In Canada today, two of those pillars are in serious jeopardy. We know that almost seven out of 10 Canadians working today do not have a company pension, meaning that a third of that retirement income scheme is gone. We know that most working Canadians are struggling very hard to save. Many are living pay cheque to pay cheque, so they are not able to save to the extent they need to in order to be able to furnish a third of their retirement income once they are no longer working. That is why there is a need to enhance the first pillar, the public pension. It has to do more, in our view, to make up for the problems in realizing the potential of those other two pillars.

People may be approached by their financial adviser and told there are all these plans, but one plan has 40 million people in it, those being everyone in the country, and it is fully portable.

Particularly in this age, people are having a hard time finding a job that will last the 20, 25, 30, or 35 years necessary for them to be able to buy in sufficiently into a company pension plan, if there is one, to have it produce adequate income for them in retirement. Most Canadians are going to have seven or eight different employers in their working life if they are young now, and it is almost certainly the case that many of those employers will not have company pension plans. Even if they did, they would not have the same plan. CPP provides an important benefit with its full portability. That is an advantage of the plan.

Every working Canadian is in the plan. That is another advantage in spreading the risk. Furthermore, it has been proven to have some of the lowest administration fees and, therefore, it gets the best value for money for the contributors, who do not have to have their money shuffled off to those who are administering the plan.

It has the added advantage, when every working Canadian is in that plan and everyone who has worked is living off a portion of that plan, that it has a certain political backing. That also goes toward mitigating risk. We really are all in the CPP together in a way that we are not in any private pension plan, so Canadians can feel confident that their savings held with the CPP are less likely to fail than those in many of the private options that are out there.

It has another benefit that is even rarer today, even in the case of Canadians who do have private sector pension plans, in that it provides a defined benefit. That is very helpful when trying to project what income people will have in retirement and, therefore, how much they need to save to go above and beyond what their pension plan will provide, whether CPP or a combination of CPP and a private pension.

People who are in a defined contribution plan who do not know what that plan is going to produce once they do finally stop working will find it a lot harder to know exactly how much they have to save. That is another benefit of the Canada pension plan.

I do applaud the effort to raise the benefits of the CPP. I think there are a few things to say about that. One is that I really do doubt whether it is enough. In fact, I do not think it is. I would like to see the government go further in enhancing the Canada pension plan, because I do think it is a great option for most working Canadians, who are not making a lot of money, not just to save for their own retirement in a well-working, proven fund, but also to have their employer make a matching contribution to that.

Indeed, when we talk about Canadians taking charge of their own future and saving their own money through TFSAs, for instance, we do not talk about what is absent, namely employer contributions. That is another important aspect of the CPP.

I would like to see it further enhanced. This is a good first step. It is certainly not worth opposing simply because it is not ideal. However, I would like to see the government push harder for an bigger increase in the CPP. I think it is important.

We also know that this will not do anything for seniors right now. That is important to consider, because it will do a lot for young people over the course of their working lives, but not for seniors rights now. My children, who are three years old and four months old, are going to benefit from this. They will see that benefit. I am quite happy to do that for them. However, for people in my parent's generation who are just looking at retiring, other measures will be needed for them.

I do want to take a moment to address some of the arguments I have heard in the chamber today. The first is that somehow the Canada pension plan is a payroll tax. I simply do not agree with that. It may be true as a term of art in accounting terms, which may be where it is recorded on the ledger. However, for ordinary Canadians who are going into work every day and are working to put food on the table today and for that period in their life they look forward to when they will not go into work every day, the CPP contribution on the part of their employer is part of the wage package. That is part of what they are going into work for, as well. So I do take exception to those who continually refer to this as a tax. It is not a tax. It is part of the wage package.

It is up to Canadians to take charge of their own future and to decide how they are going to save for retirement. In that regard, a perfectly legitimate decision on their part is to decide to do that saving through the CPP, to do it collectively, to have a plan that is better than the options they get through the private sector, and to decide that we are in this together and to elect a government that will implement a mandatory public pension. That is a perfectly acceptable decision. That is something I take them to have done in the last election.

Again, I would like to see it go further. I think many Canadians would like to see this proposal go further. However, part of the decision that was made was also to reject the idea that somehow each Canadian is on their own individually, and that they have to make choices as individuals. I believe we can make a collective decision to enhance our public pension system and that it would be a good way for us all to save for our retirement, and to do it in a way that is fair to each Canadian.

When we talk about individual Canadians who are saving for their retirement and some of the options available to them, what is missing is that Canadians with more money have more options to invest. As people hit certain income thresholds, they can gain access to certain funds and other clubs that provide better returns. It is a fiction to say that all Canadians are equal when it comes to the private retirement investment market, and that we all have the same options. One of the things that the Canada pension plan recognizes is that we all need to be treated fairly. This is another reason to support the plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that New Democrats have acknowledged that Bill C-26 is a good bill. I want to reflect on the fact that provincial jurisdictions from all regions of the country were able to come to an agreement that this legislation is forward thinking. It would provide in a very real and tangible way retirement monies for those who are working today and are going to be in the workforce for a while now.

My question deals with the other aspect. There is a lot of discussion about seniors in poverty. Yes, the overall numbers have gone down and we have seen in the last number of months, with the Minister of Finance making an announcement that we are going to be substantially increasing the GIS, that we will be lifting literally thousands more seniors out of poverty through the guaranteed income supplement.

Today we are talking about the Canada pension plan. There are three fundamental public pension programs, the OAS, GIS, and the CPP. Does the member have any thoughts on other two programs the bill does not deal with?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I concur with the member that one of the important aspects is that the provinces are onside. I would recall for the sake of the chamber that provincial premiers for a long time had wanted to meet with the federal government about the Canada pension plan. The previous government was not willing to engage in that conversation, so I think it was with a sense of relief and gratitude that they came together and finally were able to talk about it.

Again, I think we could have done more with that opportunity and I want to see more done in the future, just as I would like to see more done with the OAS and GIS. There has been talk about some increases. Part of that conversation has to start from what is really an acceptable level of income to get an apartment here in the current Canadian economic context, and given the cost of food. We need to figure out what that number is and then start having a serious conversation about what we need to be able to get Canadian seniors to have that income.

What I have seen myself in Elmwood—Transcona is unacceptable. I have been in the living rooms of women who were not working and have shown me that their cupboards and fridges are bare, because all of their disposable income is going to pay rent. That is unacceptable. I know that we have the resources in Canada to make sure that people are not living in those circumstances. We have to start talking about how we are going to do it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a couple of risks that occurred to me. One I thought of was when a New Democrat colleague spoke about how new governments overturn what previous governments did. I thought what if the current government were in for a number of years and collected everyone's money, and then the next government just turfed the whole plan? That would be one risk.

Another risk occurred to me when someone talked about the possibility that they might take the CPP fund money and invest it in infrastructure with Gerald Butts influencing that after he has already run Ontario into the ground. I wonder if the member could comment on those risks.

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

Mr. Speaker, the idea of a reliable pension plan requires it to be responsibly managed, but there is a great record of success when it comes to the Canada pension plan that shows it has been successfully managed to date. If there are proposals on the table that would imply unsuccessful management, then those are bad proposals. But they do not preclude the idea of expanding the Canada pension plan and its benefits. That is a question about how the fund should be managed.

I think it is also important to talk about the fact that there are a lot of irresponsible things done with people's retirement savings by private investment funds and the banks they invest with. It is a fiction to pretend that somehow there is a big risk by investing retirement savings in the Canada pension plan and that somehow if people deposited those funds in their bank or some other private financial planner, their savings would be perfectly safe. I would argue, from the evidence, that Canadians have a lot more to worry about from private investment options than they do from the Canada pension plan, which has a long public track record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to be participating in this debate on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada pension plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, and the Income Tax Act.

First introduced in 1965, the legislation creating the Canada pension plan came into effect in 1966, and was created to ensure that all working Canadians have an opportunity to retire in dignity.

I understand that, as members of Parliament, we have a natural tendency to want to do more for the people we represent. We are tempted to use the incredible financial and regulatory power of the government to do more. With an activist government such as this, there is no problem too small or too complex to be fixed by intervention. We know the Liberal Party believes that the government knows better than Canadians. When we believe that government can and should do everything, there is never a need to say no to increased spending.

As the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu said, “Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish; do not overdo it.” The current government is overdoing it right now.

The reality is that Canada's retirement system is the envy of the world. Canadians are saving more for retirement today than ever before, and poverty among seniors has dropped significantly in recent years. In light of this, I have a few questions.

What should the fundamental role of government be in our country? What percentage of income should Canadians take home at the end of each pay period? Should Canadians be keeping more than 50% of their total income, as a matter of fairness, because they should be deciding how at least 50% of their earnings are spent? What do we believe about the role of government? Do we believe as a country that the individual financial choices that Canadians make are better or worse than those made by government? What percentage of our gross domestic product should be government spending?

According to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, government expenditures presently represent 40.7% of GDP in Canada. In comparison, Australia sits at 35.7% and the United States at 38.9%. Therefore, are we better off in Canada than Australia because more of our economy is put through Ottawa? It is obvious that the Liberal government thinks so. However, I certainly do not. To me, limiting government is extremely important, as it has been shown over and over again that once government gets involved in doing something new or doing more of something, competition and choices decrease, which inevitably is a negative for Canadians.

I am proud to be a member of a party that believes that, despite its best intentions, government does not know best. Government should not be forcing Canadians into making decisions that it thinks are best, yet this is exactly what Bill C-26 would do. This bill is about competing visions: a vision of what government can do versus what government should do. This bill is about Canada's finances, and more specifically, the finances of every single Canadian household and every single Canadian business, both big and small.

When government decides that every Canadian must save more, above all through the CPP and not through any other retirement program, and consequently increases premiums on employers and employees, two things happen: first, Canadians have less money in each paycheque to put into an alternative savings vehicle of their choosing; and second, because Canadians are putting more money into the CPP, they feel less inclined to contribute to other retirement savings plans.

As capital is being withdrawn from private sector investment plans, fewer of these would exist, as the demand for them would decrease because retirement contributions would be going to the CPP. This would create an endless feedback loop where increased government intervention would lead to Canadians saving less of their discretionary income for their retirement, which would then lead to government once again looking to top up the CPP through increased contributions, as we have seen in the past. This is an important point, and it is the main reason that I oppose the bill.

Make no mistake, the bill is not some gentle push that will achieve the Prime Minister's stated objectives. The bill would introduce a tax hike. It would be a tax hike because Canadians would not have a choice on whether to pay it. More money would be taken off every single paycheque until retirement. It would be a tax hike because Canadians would not have a choice on how their income would be spent.

The CPP is a mandatory contribution fund. Employees and employers do not have an option to voluntarily participate in the CPP, but are instead required by law to contribute. This distinguishes the CPP from the public pension plans of other countries, such as Britain. Their individuals can opt out of contributing to a central plan in favour other retirement income schemes.

Let us look at how the bill would affect Canadians. The bill would lead to some households paying up to $2,200 more per year. It would be harder for new graduates to pay off their student loans, as more of their income would be going into a pocket they would not be able to touch for 40 years; so rather than pay off the principal of their student loans as quickly as possible, graduates would have to either decide to spend less on day-to-day necessities or spread out the amount of time they take to pay back their student loans. Neither one of these is an appealing choice.

The bill would also make it harder for young people to buy that first home. Everybody who has purchased a house knows that in the first few years of repaying a mortgage, the lion's share of each payment is going to the interest and not the principal of the loan. The bill would reduce the discretionary income that Canadians have to pay down their mortgages more quickly. This would once again force Canadians into a choice: either spend less on items of necessity or take longer to pay down their mortgage. Once again, neither one is an appealing choice.

However, these are the types of choices Canadians would have to make going forward. They would have to make similar choices on whether to invest in a registered education plan, or whether to fly home and visit the family for Christmas, and it would be harder for companies to create jobs and give workers raises.

In conclusion, we know that the Liberal Party of Canada believes the government knows best and that it needs to be a perpetual helping hand to all. “Big Brother” seems hardly adequate to describe the interventionist Liberals' first year in office.

The Liberal government has decided that Canadians are not saving enough for their retirement. I think we can all agree that some folks are perhaps not saving enough, but there are other folks, as we heard in remarks today, who may be saving too much, and then there are folks who are probably saving just the right amount.

People also have vastly different retirement needs, depending on where they live and what their expectations are for their retirement. There are a number of options out there to encourage folks to save, even though a very popular one, the tax-free savings account, was just cut in half.

Getting people to more broadly use these voluntary programs is a good thing that the government should seriously consider. We owe it to our constituents to give them the option on how to save for their retirement. Unfortunately, the government has opted to go the other way.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was knocking on doors in Oakville I ran into many seniors who were struggling and were in very difficult financial situations, and the CPP was simply insufficient for them, combined with their own savings.

For me, personally, the old adage about a tree comes to mind. The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is today.

When I hear the member speaking about government involvement and her preference that government not be into this, I look at the CPP and ask what the advantages are of the Canada pension plan, which really is not government involvement.

First, it is predictable retirement income, because it is a defined-benefit plan on which people can rely, long-term, looking forward to what the benefit will be from it.

Second, it is pooled risk, so the risk of long-term investments with Canada pension plan is shared and there is a very strong professional management of the Canada pension plan, which further reassures people that they have a level of investment security that they could not achieve on their own.

I come back to the issue of predictability if individuals are left to put money into their own investment strategies and the uncertainty of those strategies over time.

Could the member reflect on the benefits of the Canada pension plan? What are the benefits of a defined-benefit plan versus the contribution models she is proposing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the premise of the member's question when he was talking about seniors. I know that this is one of the arguments that members opposite have made in terms of how this is going to help the seniors he referenced when he was door-knocking and hearing from seniors. According to Statistics Canada, the percentage of low-income seniors was 29% in 1970. Today, it is 3.7%. That is clearly a significant improvement.

I would venture to guess that is not just because of CPP, but because of the other tools available to seniors. We know that the best way to prevent poverty in old age is to give people the tools they need to save money today and to let them make their own choices based on their means.

We believe that Canadians know how to manage their money, not the government, especially not this government, which is taking money out of their pockets at every turn.

I know the member is aware that there is old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. That exists also to help seniors who do not have a workplace pension. However, because of the long phase-in period for Bill C-26, we know this would do nothing to support our seniors today.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her well-reasoned thoughts and logic on the bill. I wonder if perhaps my colleague could share something with me.

We have heard constantly from across the way and to the far left of me about how Canadians do not have any money left over to save. They do not have enough to pay for their grocery bills. They do not have enough to put aside for their children's education. How does she imagine Canadians would be able to have money taken off their paycheques when at the same time they have no extra money for their rent or savings? How would this new government-imposed tax of $2,000 a year be doable?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I have really appreciated all the comments that have been made during this debate. Certainly, I appreciate that we have a public square right here that respects the diversity of opinions.

Finance Canada's own analysis shows that the higher CPP premiums would hurt our economy. We know it would reduce employment by 0.04% to 0.07%. That is 1,050 fewer jobs per year for 10 years. We know it would reduce the GDP by 0.03% to 0.05%. We know it would reduce business investment, it would reduce disposable income, and it would reduce private savings over the long term.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand to speak to Bill C-26 in the House today. It has been referred to as the Canada pension plan tax hike bill brought on by the Liberals, and that is certainly what it is.

I want to welcome back all of my colleagues after Thanksgiving. I hope they had a good break and everyone enjoyed it. I know there are many happy Conservatives giving thanks in Alberta today and I would like to announce my support for Mr. Motz as he will be coming from the Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner constituency to join us in the House very shortly.

One of my colleagues said today that the numbers to remember were 70 for the Conservatives and 26 for the carbon tax. I only go there because my colleague from Richmond Centre indicated that the carbon tax is what would kill seniors. However, that is only one thing.

Forcing tax increases on people, such as Bill C-26 would do, is not very democratic, with the government saying it is going to help seniors when, clearly, the bill would not help them for 40 years down the road. Even my colleague from Winnipeg indicated earlier that it might be his children who would benefit from this, and that is absolutely true. My grandchildren would probably benefit from it a bit, 40 years down the road, and none of them are even 20 years old yet.

That is the kind of rhetoric that comes out of bills like this that are not well thought out. It would be a tax on the individuals who are going to put up this money, and because it would be such a long time before they would ever get a payback on it, it would be decades after they retire before they would get back what they put it into it themselves.

I want to go back to what my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope said today. When people put these funds into the account, it would be a long time before they would see any benefit. They would be putting their money into a plan that, if they die early, an unfortunate circumstance, the money they have put away for all of these years would not accrue to them. It would not go to their families upon their death like in a normal pension plan or their own private savings.

I want to make it very clear that I support the public pension plan, as was questioned earlier by my colleague from Winnipeg North. We have both debated a number of these kinds of bills in the Manitoba legislature when we were both there, but this is not the way to enhance the ability of seniors to have more money in their retirement years. If it is put in place to help those who need it today, then there are many other ways of doing that to make it easier for seniors to access those funds in the near future.

What scale of support would this provide? The tax itself could end up being $2,200 a year. That would be the increased premiums people would pay. Of course, $1,100 of that would be paid by the individual and $1,100 paid by the employer. Having been an employer and knowing how the system works, it is a matching fund. I do not have a problem with that, but what it would do is two things. It would not provide the benefit right away that the government may have been targeting and it would certainly, as my colleague just finished saying, reduce people's ability to put funds into their own private pension plans, if they were able to. It would decrease the amount of money they would get back in the near term. I think the number was that it would reduce it by 7%.

It would also make it tougher for businesses to survive. This is not just a Conservative number. There was a study done. If Liberals do not believe it, they should look at Finance Canada. It is the one saying that higher CPP premiums will hurt the economy, as was also just pointed out.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business a full 70% of businesses in Canada today have indicated that they disagree with the notion that this would be just a modest little tax increase as the Liberals are saying. Actually, the Liberals do not use the word “tax”. The only one who uses that word is the environment minister on carbon.

There is a correlation here between the bills that the government is bringing forward. The government is dropping a carbon tax, which could be 11.5¢, on the same seniors whom it wants to put more money into their pension plans. It looks to me like everybody is paying and the government is taking. That is a concern.

It is ironic that the Liberal government is mandating a tax today on individuals to pay more for a benefit that would only be achievable in 40 years, when it cannot even balance its own budget today. Bigger debt hurts seniors more as well. It particularly hurts the very young who will have to pay all of this back in the future. It is a bit ironic for the Liberals to say that there will be a mandated tax and a benefit, but anyone over the age of 40 today would probably not see that benefit unless he or she lives to be 100 years old.

There are many other ways of helping seniors in the more immediate term. We did it by increasing the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, when we were in government. The Harper government made the largest increase in the GIS in 25 years. The Liberals liked the idea because they implemented a small increase in that in their very first budget.

The Liberals also did away with the increase in the tax-free savings accounts that would have gone up to the $10,000 mark. This would have allowed many seniors to save. It may be a surprise to many Liberal members across the floor but the number of seniors who were using the TFSA was in the neighbourhood of 60%. That is a pretty clear indication that those people were doing what the present government is forcing them to do, which is saving for their own retirements. They were putting this money away so that they could use it in the future.

There are also many other ways to help seniors, whether it is through an increase in the basic personal exemption, or whether it is through a decrease in personal income tax. Those are a number of things that could be done, although the government is going the other way. It has increased taxes on small businesses. They certainly are not going to be at the level that we had announced in our election campaign. When a government is simply taxing these folks and saying it is going to be good for them, when clearly it is not, then it is not a clear direction to emulate.

A member asked the other day if we were in favour of the Canada pension plan when it was first put in place back in the sixties. Of course we were, but back then the plan was only to support other pension mechanisms. I would like to quote Judy LaMarsh in referring to the CPP, “It is not intended to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government’s view, should properly be left to personal savings and private pension plans.” Judy LaMarsh was the Liberal minister responsible for establishing the Canada pension plan in 1964. Even the Liberals felt that when the plan was set up it was only to be a supplement to the other mechanisms that were there.

I could go on with a number of other quotes, but instead I will say that 70% of employed Canadians oppose expanding the Canada pension plan, if it means a wage freeze. Over one-third of employed Canadians say that proposed increases are unaffordable, and 80% want the government to further consult before making any decisions.

I think it is very clear that there are a number of things that could be improved and could be done to help seniors. The bill does not do it and that is why I will be voting against it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris will have five minutes remaining in his time for questions and comments when the House next returns to business on this particular question.

It being 5:42 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks on this very important subject matter, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who have served our country with bravery, dignity, and honour and to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice at home and abroad to protect our freedoms and the way of life that Canadians enjoy.

On Remembrance Day, I will be home in my riding, as I am guessing most members here will be, to pay my respects to all the veterans who have served this country well. The people of the Kenora riding will never forget their sacrifices, nor will I. Sometimes, as wars get further and further away, it is easy to forget, but I think it is important for all of us to play a role in making sure that this does not happen.

I am pleased to rise in the House today as the representative for the Kenora riding to speak to the enhanced Canada pension plan. Over a year ago, we committed to helping Canadians secure financial stability in retirement, and we are now making that promise a reality.

For the first time in a generation, we are making changes to the Canada pension plan, which will greater reward those who have worked hard throughout their lives. I am very proud of how we have worked to fulfill this promise, because those of us who were completing the last campaign will know that it was a very important part of our discussion during the election campaign.

The Minister of Finance and his provincial counterparts have worked diligently and collaboratively to see this project through. They should be enthusiastically commended for their work.

Sometimes we forget the importance of pension plans, because we get busy in this place, and we assume that Canadians are wealthy. It is one of the wealthiest countries on earth, quite frankly, with a great quality of life and a great standard of living. However, we forget that this was from the previous generation's work. This generation has to continue to focus its attention on the importance of making sure that when people retire in their old age, they have the quality of life and security this country values so much.

I will give examples of why this is important economically, because people tend to see this, at least on the other side of the House, on occasion, as an attack. They expect that it has an impact on Canada's economy.

Here is an example from a study by the Boston Consulting Group. It is a little dated, it was done in 2012, but it is a good example.

The study found that on average, 14¢ of every dollar of income in Ontario and in Ontario's communities comes from pensions. It found that in northern communities, in places like Elliot Lake, pension benefits are 37% of the economy. In Ontario, 7% of all income in our towns and cities, or $27 billion, is derived from defined benefit pensions.

This is just an example of why this is such an important debate. Not only is it security for seniors, it is also a very large part of our economy. We forget sometimes that in places like the city of Kenora, the city of Dryden, and the community of Sioux Lookout, there is a large economy that is generated by the pensions that people in the previous generation receive.

We are making great strides. In early October, we saw British Columbia sign on, making a total of nine provinces in this agreement. From coast to coast to coast, the provinces are realizing what an asset this will be for the over 11 million Canadians who currently do not have a workplace pension plan.

I want to speak today about pensions, because I am concerned about the looming crisis that is going to occur in this country if we continue to let the private sector erode pension plans in the private sector to the point that the next generation may have virtually no pension except for CPP. In the previous generation, it seemed that they understood the importance of that process in the private sector. Now it is moving away from it.

Everyone talks about defined benefits in a certain way and about reducing the risk for business, but nobody seems to talk about the effects on that man or that woman who is a blue collar worker who expects that at the end of a lifetime of work, he or she will have the opportunity to live a good quality of life.

We need to broaden the discussion not just about the role of the Government of Canada but about the role of the private sector.

I come from a region where pulp mills, paper mills, sawmills, railroads, and mining companies all had decent pensions for their retiring workforce. We are now starting to see that erode. I am concerned about what that may look like 20 or 30 years down the road. We have to think about the long-term future of our young people and what that would mean for Canadian society.

When people have instability, risk, and concerns not just about where the next job will come from but about the ability to live out their retirement years, they tend to be a lot more aggressive about how their government should react. They tend to swing far to the right or far to the left. We have been successful as a nation because we have given that kind of security to men and women right across this country. I want people to think about that as we work through this as the government and other governments right across the country.

I am very pleased that the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Finance, and the provincial governments see the importance of enhancing the Canada pension plan. There is a lot more to it than that. Dignity is about security. We have to keep in mind that this is what this is all about.

In my riding of Kenora, I have heard from many of my constituents, both young and old, who fear that they may not have enough savings to retire in dignity. I think this debate is going to continue election after election until we deal with this issue in a comprehensive way.

I want to commend the minister and the government . I also want to encourage the government to send the message to the private sector that it has a role to play. We signalled, by taxing the rich, as we put it in the last election, that they could give more. The people we are speaking about are those who have major corporations and major businesses and are doing quite well in society. They have to give back. Part of that is a pension plan Canadians can rely on. Having a decent pension at the end of our careers is something we should guarantee not just in the public sector but in the private sector as well.

Canadians are compassionate, but at the same time as we are watching the discussions internationally about trade deals, we are not thinking about what that may mean eventually in Canada if the benefits of trade deals do not move through the system to the blue collar worker and the average Canadian.

I want to remind the federal government and other governments that Canada has always led the way in making sure that Canadians have a good quality of life.

There is overwhelming support for public pensions. It is about 75%. When we think about that, Canadians are ahead of us in their views on what exactly should be done compared to what we hear sometimes from others. The effects of these enhancements will not only be felt by seniors and families but by young Canadians who are and will in the future be entering the workforce.

In closing, simply put, I believe that after a lifetime of hard work, all Canadians deserve a secure and dignified retirement. It is because of these types of programs, developed throughout our history, and our continuing commitment to social fairness, that we have helped to make Canada what it is today, one of the best places to live in the world. I hope we can keep it that way.

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

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

Our take on the Canada pension plan is very simple. We want to give Canadians the tools they need to make choices that work for them, tools such as the TFSA.

Can the member help us understand how the measures in the bill, which boil down to taking another $1,000 from people's pockets, $1,000 per worker, per company, will help Canada's economy? That is less money for businesses and more money for government. Can he help us understand that in light of an internal Department of Finance memo stating that this measure will have a negative impact on jobs for the next 20 years?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to my opening comments about the differences in this place. I understand the Conservative Party's view that somehow, if we just give every Canadian the opportunity to save for themselves, it will get done. However, we know that most Canadians live paycheque to paycheque and do not have the savings being promoted on the other side. Every day, they manage to get their kids off to school and pay for some of the things the kids do. They do not get anywhere near where they think they need to go.

The reality is that there has to be a way to help Canadians save for retirement. That is why private pension plans have always been useful at work, because it comes off a person's paycheque. People know it is going to come off, and that is the way it works. It is the same with the Canada pension plan. It is a way of saving for retirement.

Does it have an impact on the economy? As I mentioned earlier, it has a positive impact on the economy. If $27 billion a year, at the very least, goes into Ontario's economy through a pension plan, and that goes to people to have dollars to spend, to go to the grocery store, and to buy things from small businesses, that is a positive thing. No one in this place can tell us otherwise. I see it as a win-win for all of Canada.

If we keep going down the road the member and his party suggest, we will have difficulty in Canada, because people will not be secure in their pension style and their quality of life, and they will demand that we change that.

I suspect that the member of Parliament is saying to us that somehow we should leave people to their own devices and they will figure it all out. I do not believe that is possible.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that underlies the entire CPP system is the fact that someone has a job and is earning an income. If people are not making any income, they cannot even contribute to the CPP. When they retire, there will be no CPP for them.

In this time, when it is difficult to get a job, the increase in the CPP is making it even more difficult for people to hire people. Why would the government bring this forward at this time?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a line the Conservative Party uses almost every time we want to improve social programs for Canadians. I have heard so many times that this is not the right time that it is like a broken record. It means that they are not totally opposed to it, but we cannot do it today, because the economy is not doing very well. I heard that in the 1980s under Brian Mulroney. I heard it under Mr. Harper, and it continues to be the broken record the Conservatives use.

The reality is that good policy should not wait until the economy is where some Conservative thinks it should be. In fact, difficult times are the times to invest in infrastructure and the development of our economy. Those are the times to bring more security to Canadians so they can prosper and grow.

I do not buy the argument that somehow we are always in a difficult financial situation or that our economy is struggling. Now, the economy does struggle when the Conservatives are in power. That is true. I have seen it over the last 30 years. However, I can assure members that it will change when the Liberal Party has some time to fix some of the problems these guys have put in place.

The last time I was here, in 1988, and we came into power in 1993, it took three years for our party and the Chrétien government to sort out the mess, get rid of all the debt and issues, and build an economy that was at 3.5% to 3.8% every year. Therefore, it is going to take a little while.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-26.

I want to first acknowledge that yesterday the Prime Minister held another news conference to celebrate his first year in office. While I am sure Canadians are getting a bit tired of the Prime Minister's endless PR stunts, it is even more frustrating that he is celebrating a record that is hurting Canadians.

Let us talk about that record: widespread job losses, massive tax hikes, more debt, higher deficits, no plan. It is not a rosy picture, which is why I, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, am a little surprised that the Liberal solution to higher taxes is yet another tax hike, but it is okay, they will call this one a CPP expansion, hide the details, and maybe Canadians will let it go.

The government seems to be selling us a line from the hit Dire Straits song Money For Nothing, but there is no money for nothing. This tax hike will cost jobs, wage growth, and GDP growth.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business projects that by 2020 total employment in Canada will have dropped roughly 110,000 jobs because of the CPP expansion and higher tax. Two-thirds of small businesses surveyed indicated they would cut hours and wages to offset this tax hike. One out of every three are looking at lay-offs to offset it. The hike is also forecast to move wages lower by 0.8%.

Every time the Minister of Finance stands in the House he talks of the low-growth economy. He forgets to mention his own finance department says the CPP tax expansion will shrink the economy.

We stand opposed to all wasteful tax hikes designed to fund the Liberal government's continued expansion, and this CPP tax hike is no exception. In fact, it is worse, and let me tell members why.

There are several problems with the CPP tax hike besides killing jobs and stifling growth. First, quite ironically, it cancels out the Prime Minister's much beloved middle-class tax relief. Remember the 1.5% Canadians were supposed to see back? Shockingly, the government decided that maybe it likes having more money to take limos, have expensive meals, and take pretty pictures in exotic locales, so it designed a tax hike that will take away that tax relief. One thing the government never seems to realize is that government cannot give what they have not already taken from us.

Let us consider Martha and Henry. They are both middle-class wage earners who work hard and pay their taxes. Tired of being slammed with the new Liberal taxes and a slow-growth economy, Martha and Henry diligently save part of their paycheque every month. They cannot take another hit. However, because the government has priorities that are out of touch with Canadians, Martha and Henry can now see up to $2,200 more deducted every year, wiping out the meagre 1.5% saved with the much vaunted middle-class tax cut. Keep in mind that neither Martha nor Henry will see any of this money back for an extra 40 years.

The government will tell us that it is okay, because at least Martha and Henry will have something to show at the end. The problem is that the government assumes Canadians have no idea how to manage their extra money.

Where could the extra money have gone? Let me tell hon. members because it leads directly to the next problem with the CPP tax hike. The CPP as an investment vehicle is weak. According to the Fraser Institute, the average return, long term, on investment for Canada bonds is 3.5%. The return on investment for Martha and Henry's CPP investment on the new expansion is 2.5%. That is right, 2.5%, barely enough to cover inflation. This is not exactly ideal, because the CPP will need to cover far more than just inflation as more Canadians move into retirement over the next several years, or what is more likely is that the government will simply come back, hat in hand in the future, and demand more money from Canadians to cover the shortfall.

Why does CPP have such mediocre returns? Among a host of reasons, primary ones are high fees for asset management. Andrew Coyne of the National Post comments on a gathering momentum of more staff, higher pay, and rising operational expenses, and he concludes, all for no appreciable payoff for Canadians.

More worrying is that because finance ministers looking for cash have a strong tendency to lean on pension funds as a source of investment for infrastructure projects, the CPP would earn even lower returns. This tendency was confirmed by the Minister of Finance's own economic advisory council, which stated repeatedly that pension funds should be looked at as a source of untapped potential for infrastructure by government.

This approach undermines the independence necessary for a fund to be truly profitable and provide meaningful returns. Without that independence and with constant interference from the Minister of Finance to fund whatever project his government sees fit on a given day, the ability for pension funds to garner higher returns is undermined; hence 2.5%

It is fairly clear the government wants more cash and this CPP tax hike is the way it is going to get it.

I know what members are thinking, Martha makes a decent wage, could she not just move a little more of her income into a fantastic and well-received investment vehicle such as a TFSA? Sure, she could, but the same Fraser Institute, those pesky policy wonks, studied hard and found for every dollar increase in CPP contribution, private savings are reduced by 90¢, fully 90%. This is not a winning formula and misleads Canadians on the benefits of CPP.

Speaking of misleading, the next problem with this hike is that Canadians are rapidly finding out the finance minister is selling them a bill of goods. The finance minister wants to help the vulnerable and this is a good goal, a worthy goal. This goal will not be accomplished by a CPP hike and here is why.

First, CPP only pays those who pay into it. If I die tomorrow, my wife would not receive my CPP pension. If I invested this money in something smart like those fantastic TFSAs I mentioned earlier, my wife and kids would have a tidy sum to walk away with. However, because CPP has punishing rules for the survivor's pension, my wife would receive 60% of the CPP at best. If she collects CPP on her own, she would receive even less.

There are fewer retired Canadians living in poverty now than at any point in our history. For Canadians on our bell curve, our bell is located above the high average. The thing with bell curves is that they all have a tail on the lower end, but the solution is to help the lower end and it is not to move the rest of bell even lower. Those struggling at the lower end of the tail need help directly. Lowering the rest of the bell to meet the tail does not help anyone.

The shame of the bill and the whole deceit of it is that this added CPP expansion will do nothing to address those seniors living in poverty. It is misleading for the finance minister to tell Canadians that this CPP expansion helps those who need help, because it does not.

It is simple. We could double or triple the CPP payouts, but if people have never paid into it, they get nothing. A huge amount of our seniors who are living in poverty are in that position because they, for whatever reason, did not contribute or contributed little to CPP during their working years.

We want to help those who need it. We want to help the widowed grandmother struggling to get by on a fixed income or the disabled grandfather trying to make ends meet. We want to help Martha and Henry ensure that they are planning for their retirement. We want them to use those TFSAs and RRSPs and invest their savings in the market because the market earns far more than 2.5%. A simple ETF invested in the Standard & Poor's 500 would yield a far greater return and allow Martha and Henry to access their savings at any time.

We want to help those who are struggling at the lower end. This is why the previous government expanded the GIS. It is why the previous government expanded the tax-free savings account to $10,000. It is why we introduced income-splitting for seniors and why we lowered the mandatory withdrawal rate for registered retirement income funds. These are evidence-based policies that benefit every senior today and we are proud of our record to help the most vulnerable.

We do not believe it is fair for the finance minister to mislead Canadians, raise taxes on workers, and leave the most vulnerable behind.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “seniors in need” the following: “; and (d) will impede Canadians' ability to save for the future.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The amendment to the amendment seems to be in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for West Nova.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. Every argument in every part of his speech could be used as a rationale for cancelling entirely the Canada pension plan. Would he be logically consistent and admit that he would agree that the Canada pension plan serves no useful purpose whatsoever and should be scrapped entirely?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a ludicrous assertion. No one on this side is suggesting that, and I am embarrassed for the member for even asking that.

I will say, though, that we on this side want to give Canadians a tool to save for themselves. We believe in Canadians. We believe they know how to raise their families and spend their own money. We believe in Canadians and suggest that side of the House start believing in Canadians as well.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the member did not quote any youth organizations or, frankly, seniors organizations that endorse the Conservatives' position or amendment. In the alternative, all of the seniors groups that I, my colleagues, and the Liberal government have spoken to endorse improving CPP payments.

One in four seniors is living in poverty. How can he assume that they are going to have tax-free savings accounts if they are struggling already? Are we simply going to let them suffer and not contribute to the economy?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things.

To address the first part, if we look at CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, its comment was that it would like to see a small change in CPP, but it wants poverty addressed through other means, such as a higher GIS. This would not do anything for seniors living in poverty who do not have access to CPP. That is the first thing.

Second, TFSAs were massively used by seniors. Taking away their ability to save does not help them one bit. You should be promoting seniors' ability to save more for themselves.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would remind hon. members to speak in the third person through the Speaker and not directly to members.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for an excellent speech. I love how he compared what the Liberals are doing to songs like Money for Nothing. I would add to that Talk Talk, It's Only Words, and Shameless for starters.

This CPP benefit would take $1,100 out of everyone's pockets and out of small businesses' pockets, and it would not benefit anyone for the next 40 years. However, I think a lot of damage would be done in the interim. Could the member comment on that?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a worrying issue. We have great faith in small business and the representative for small business in Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, has been very clear that it is very worried. Its members say they are going to cut staff, cut hours, and cut wages. The finance department's own internal report shows there are going to be devastating losses of over 100,000 jobs. This is not the right way to fix any perceived pension problem.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our economy and job market have been headed downhill and gaining steam for 10 years. There have been 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce notes that the jobs that were created were, for the most part, part time and low quality. Turning that around is not going to be easy. A change in momentum is going to take work, which this government is committed to.

What does the member say to the fact that 60% of people who work in the private sector right now have no company pension plans and no money to be putting into the elite-finance TFSAs? What should they do? Should they simply hold off and let some government in the future deal with the fact that there are Canadians who are badly prepared for retirement, which should be the golden years of their lives?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out a couple of things.

We have heard time and time again that Canadians have no extra money to put aside for savings, so the government is going to step in and take more from the non-existent savings they have. There are a couple of things about this so-called pension crisis.

Again, Conservatives have great faith in Canadians and one thing the bill does not address is that for every $1 of the trillions of dollars in RRSPs or pensions, there are $3, that means $9.5 trillion, in other assets outside of pensions, so we need to take the holistic picture before deciding to punish small businesses and low-income workers with this added tax. That is one issue.

The other part is that, again, Canadians have been very successful saving their own money. Saying that they do not have any money now so the government is going to take it away does not help. We are making people more reliant on government when that is not the answer.

I found a great quote by pension expert Paul Williams. Thinking about making people more reliant on government, he stated, “Think of our gang of politicians—Dalton McGuinty...Rob Ford. Think of other government projects—gas plants—”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to resuming debate, I would like to point out to the hon. members, if they do not mind while they are giving their speeches, just look up once in a while. I will give them a signal if they have some time left. I hate to cut anybody off, but once it goes over a little bit, it gets beyond the point. That is just some housekeeping for this morning.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out, as many of the members have this week, by giving recognition to the veterans in my city, particularly in Edmonton Strathcona. I will be joining many at Holy Trinity Anglican Church in my riding, with the Light Horse regiment, where we will have a service and then march to the cenotaph. I look forward to joining Edmontonians in thanking our veterans for their service and remembering those who did not come home.

I am also pleased to rise to speak to the reforms proposed in Bill C-26. The pension reforms are a welcome response to the growing pension crisis in Canada. Contrary to what some members in the House allege, people are not able to save, and we are in a crisis. We need to support those who move to retirement.

My colleagues and I have been calling for these reforms for a considerable amount of time, as have many unions, provincial governments, and seniors organizations, including CARP.

While better was possible, and the full benefit will not be felt for five decades, the proposed benefit enhancements are a good first step. Challenges will remain for those currently retired or approaching the age of retirement.

Today's seniors will not personally benefit from these changes, but as Wade Poziomka, CARP's director for policy, has explained:

CPP enhancement is important to CARP's membership because they recognize the challenges that young people face today when it comes to savings.... With less access to workplace pension plans, a CPP that meets the needs of Canadians today is so crucial.

The federal and provincial governments are to be commended for having reached the agreement that led to this bill. I am pleased that the Government of Alberta was among the first to support this critical step forward, contrary to the case with previous governments of our province.

As has been pointed out by previous speakers on the bill, fewer and fewer Canadians are being provided access to workplace pension plans. Where pension plans are provided, they are in many instances offering reduced retirement security.

Additionally, with younger workers increasingly likely to change their jobs many times over their lifetime, and with many, as my colleague, the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, has pointed out in this place, facing precarious work, the need for secure and adequate public pensions is becoming increasingly important. Only about a third of those who are eligible to do so actually contribute to RRSPs. It is clear that Canadians need support in saving for retirement. This is not because they are profligate or irresponsible. Young families have to prioritize paying for rent or, if fortunate, a mortgage, paying down substantial and growing student debt, and simply putting food on the table. Later in life, they may be faced with helping to cover significant and growing education costs for their children, and retirements needs for their own parents.

The Canada pension plan has proved to be a reliable and safe way to save for retirement. Why would we not use it as a mechanism to ensure retirement with dignity for future generations?

Concerns have been raised by some about the additional costs to employees and employers of increased contributions to CPP. However, with respect to the costs to small business, we are still awaiting the promised—the long promised, frankly, by both the Conservatives and Liberals—reduced taxes to small business.

The economy has taken a hit recently, particularly in my own province. Therefore, the contribution of seniors to the economy remains essential to all of our communities, in particular to small and medium-sized independent businesses, of which my own riding of Edmonton Strathcona has so many. We need future retirees to be sufficiently economically secure to ensure economic health in the future. The most cost-effective way to do that is to enhance CPP and QPP.

CARP has been among those who have pointed out that the proposals in Bill C-26 only go part way toward a full solution of the problems we face in ensuring retirement with dignity for all Canadians.

It is estimated that we need about 70% of our income at retirement to maintain our standard of living. Currently, CPP and OAS together bring us to about 40% of that. The changes in Bill C-26 would increase that to only 50%, meaning that Canadians will still need to have some kind of workplace or private pension plan to stay ahead, or ability to save.

According to a recent Statistics Canada report, currently about 12%, or 600,000 seniors in Canada, live in poverty. This includes more than one in four seniors, most of whom are women.

In my constituency office, we hear from many facing the challenges of insufficient income to pay for the basics of life. This is especially true for those relying solely on OAS and GIS. Many of those who are eligible for those benefits are not accessing them because they are either unaware of those benefits or they do not know how to apply.

The question I wish to put to the government is this. Why should seniors have to apply for these payments? Why not issue them automatically to those in need, as is the case with GST credits?

We are also discovering, while checking on applications for constituents, that the processing times for OAS and GIS have exploded. It is now six to eight months, whether they applied before they turned 65 or after. In some cases, they wait a year. In the meantime, the applicants are relying on nothing at all, bare cupboards. It is important to recognize that few seniors are actually receiving the maximum CPP benefits, as meagre as they are.

If they have some RRSPs and decide to cash them in to get by while waiting for OAS or GIS to kick in, they may be penalized in the following year by having the GIS clawed back. We need to end this GIS clawback.

Among the reasons that our offices hear from so many seniors is that it is almost impossible for them to contact a government department employee to discuss their issues. While it may be efficient to have everything online, it does not suit everyone or every situation. Even at Service Canada offices, it is difficult for people to find someone who has access to the files. It is pitiful that seniors cannot call and talk to a real person over the phone about their pensions.

We have waited a long time for the reforms contained in Bill C-26. Let us make sure we take this important step towards ensuring retirement security for the people we represent. Let it not be the last time we look at the issue of pensions or support for seniors in this place. It is time to ensure greater availability of affordable senior housing and care, including home care, palliative care, and pharmacare. Canadian seniors should not live in poverty. It is our responsibility to make sure they do not.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave a very good speech. The NDP is always very good at bringing forward interesting ideas, and I like hearing about them.

However, I know that the Liberals have reached a good balance when the Conservatives say we have gone way too far and the NDP say we are not going far enough. It is the perfect happy medium, yet again.

Would the member like to comment on that?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply astounding.

I am sorry, but when it comes to Canadian seniors, a happy medium is just not good enough. Every senior should have the right to retire in dignity. All we are saying is that we appreciate a little increase in CPP. However, let us take these actions that we are recommending on making GIS and OAS readily available, and let us finally act on palliative care, home care, and retiring in dignity.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned right off the top was that young people today are not able to save.

They are not able to save because, in some cases, they do not have a job or are not making enough money. Why does the member think we should be taking more money from them when they are not able to save rather than working to make sure the economy is flourishing?

As the member well knows, in a hot economy in Alberta, we typically make much more than the rest of the country. If we could get the economy rolling again, would the ability to save come back?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the young people who would be contributing to a better CPP at the time of retirement. We are all going to be contributing. I am happy to contribute more so that my niece can retire in dignity in her time. The deductions are proportional to what people are earning.

Frankly, we need greater action so that not just the young people, but so many in my province and across the country, are not relying on precarious work.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP have long advocated for increases in the GIS. While we were thankful to see that 10% increase recently, there is still much more that needs to be done.

We all know that the GIS depends on tax revenues, but some of the arguments I hear from the Conservatives are that they want to increase the TFSA. That is going to have an impact on future revenues upon which the GIS depends. We are going to increase the guaranteed income supplement but take away the revenues it depends on.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on that inconsistent argument.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intelligent question answers itself. Very few Canadians can actually contribute to a tax- free savings account. Those of us who are well paid are fortunate that we can contribute. I am pleased that the government is limiting those contributions so that there are more dollars available. We can provide support to those who cannot afford to contribute, so that they too can retire in dignity.

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

Mr. Speaker, we very much appreciate the fact that the New Democrats are supporting at least some aspects of the budget in regard to the increase to the GIS. It is also important that we acknowledge that the Liberal government is also reducing the age of retirement from 67 to 65. We have three public foundational pension programs. All three of them have been dealt with in a very positive way in the last 12 months by this government.

I wonder if the member might want to comment on how important it is that Canadians recognize there has been significant movement in this last year, more so than in the previous 10 years, on three very important social programs that Canadians truly love.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member and his party for bringing forward these changes, but I would like to see far more changes. We know we have had a lot of promises about additional changes coming forward, possibly after the next election. We welcome this change, but I ask that the Liberals please take action on the additional changes that we and that seniors have been calling for, for quite some time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful, or perhaps even instructive, if I prefaced my remarks by sharing with my colleagues the definition of a tax. A tax is defined as a “compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions”.

I would suggest that anyone with a reasonable outlook would know that hiking the CPP premiums is a form of taxation. It is in effect a payroll tax.

I would argue that raising taxes in times of a sluggish economy, in times of the weak economy we are experiencing here today in Canada, is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Raising taxes would have negative impacts on the Canadian economy. For example, it would restrict and reduce the ability of businesses to reinvest in their businesses. It would reduce the ability of Canadians to have more take-home pay, and it most certainly would reduce their ability to add to their savings. It would reduce the amount of of money they would be able to save.

It is simply the wrong approach to take. This payroll tax is regressive. It harms employers and employees alike. Most particularly, it is harmful to small businesses.

Let me share a small story from just a few weeks ago. I happened to be in Thunder Bay on some business. Since I had never been to Thunder Bay before, I went out for dinner to a restaurant that night with a colleague. I had a lovely dinner. Following dinner, the business owner and I engaged in a conversation. Once he found out I was a member of Parliament, he wanted to talk about the proposed hike in CPP premiums. He told me his profit margin was so skinny that any increase to the CPP premiums would result in only two things. One, he would be looking at a negative profit for the year, which might result in his closing his doors; or two, he would be forced to lay off employees. Neither of those two options was particularly attractive to this young employer. He said he had a business partner in another restaurant in Edmonton who was facing exactly the same situation.

I know it does not matter whether one is a small business owner in Surrey, British Columbia; Edmonton, Alberta; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Thunder Bay, Ontario; or Corner Brook, Newfoundland, because this is a problem for all small business owners.

The frustrating thing about this is there is no need to increase CPP premiums. The government's stated objective is to allow Canadians in their retirement years to retire more comfortably. However, the statistics do not indicate there is a problem today. Statistics indicate that fewer than 4% of seniors are living on a lower income, or below the poverty line. That is a great change from many decades ago. In fact, in 1970, 29% of seniors were living below the poverty line, so we have made great strides in the decades since 1970.

Additionally, statistics indicate that Canadians are saving more money today. In 1990, Canadians saved slightly more than 7.5% of their income. Today, it is almost twice that. Canadians are saving over 14% of their take-home pay, or at least their gross income, and putting it into savings vehicles like RRSPs, TFSAs, and the like.

We are making progress on that, so for the government to say it is doing this out of necessity is, frankly, disingenuous at the very least.

The government appears to be trying to create a solution for a problem that does not exist. The irony of all of this is that because of the government's reckless, out of control spending, the reality is that the government is creating a problem for which there is no solution, because of the billions of dollars of debt it is incurring and throwing upon the backs of taxpayers. It has no solution for getting out of debt. There is no plan to get back to balance.

It appears that the government's economic plan, if we want to call it that, is following very closely the path of the previous Ontario governments of McGuinty and, currently, Premier Wynne. That disastrous economic plan has resulted in the Province of Ontario, on a per capita basis, being more indebted than any jurisdiction in the world. What is even more frightening is the fact that two of the main architects of the disastrous economic policy of Ontario were Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, who are now two of the main economic advisers to the Prime Minister. I would hate to see these two do to Canada what they have done to Ontario, but that is certainly what appears to be happening.

However, I think there are alternatives to what the government is planning and proposing with Bill C-26. I have always thought it is instructive and helpful if opposition members, rather than just criticizing the government, offer alternatives or things the government could at least consider to replace flawed legislation—and Bill C-26 truly is flawed. My suggestions to the government would not cost the taxpayer a nickel.

The first suggestion I would make is this. Why does the government not work with its provincial and territorial counterparts and encourage them to add financial literacy to the K-to-12 educational curriculum? I think it would be extremely helpful for young people to learn why they need to save for retirement. It would helpful for them to learn how to save for retirement, to learn about the investment and savings vehicles that are available in Canada today, so that when they finally enter the workforce, they have a plan, or at least have charted out a course of action, to be able to work their lives and then retire with dignity. That no-cost item would, I believe, be extremely helpful.

The second thing is again a very simple concept. Of course, I believe it is totally alien to the government's thinking, but it would not cost the taxpayers a nickel, and it is simply to lower taxes. Do not raise taxes, but lower taxes. Allow Canadians to take more money home with them. Put more money in their jeans. Put more money into savings vehicles. At the same time, lowering taxes would stimulate the economy.

Our previous government had a low-tax, high-productivity agenda. It resulted in having the lowest tax regime in 50 years. What was the result? Well, we created 1.3 million net new jobs from the height of the recession until the day we left office. Why? It is because lowering taxes increases productivity. That is a concept the current government is totally unaware of. Bill C-26 is totally opposed to lowering taxes, because this bill would raise taxes.

For those reasons, and some of the others I articulated in the few moments I had for my address, my colleagues and I in Her Majesty’s loyal opposition will be vociferously opposing Bill C-26.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard is a message from the darkest heart of the Conservative core.

We have had a situation in the last 10 years in which 85 families in this country have had more wealth than 20 million Canadians. Those are the people who, yes, have been able to save. Their savings rate has gone up and, yes, it pulls up the national average. However, we have also had 10 years where we have relied on average Canadian citizens going further and further into debt to bolster the Canadian economy. Therefore, there is no money for fancy TFSAs, except at the top of the elite 1% of 1%.

The previous member did not respond to my question, and so I ask again, what about the 60% of Canadians in the private sector who, even though they have a job, do not have a company pension plan? What do we do for them?

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

Mr. Speaker, outside of the fact there were a great many factual inaccuracies in my colleague's presentation and question, I will deal with the last part of his question first.

While it is true that many Canadians do not have a Canadian pension plan, the fact of the matter is that they should be in a position where they have made their own retirement plans and own retirement and savings decisions. As I pointed out during my presentation, fewer than than 4% of Canadians are living on a low-income, and more and more Canadians are saving more and more of their money on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis.

For the member to suggest for one second that it is a required course of action for the government to raise taxes, for the government to impose its will on Canadians on how they should be saving, is absolutely ludicrous.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan will have three minutes and 15 seconds for questions when we come back from question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I believe it was the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan on debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one area where Canadians can really see the difference between the prior Conservative government and what we have today. Today we witnessed real change when the Prime Minister was able to reach an agreement with the provinces dealing with the CPP.

This is a critical issue for many individuals in the workforce. They understand and appreciate that they want to be able to retire with healthier pensions. That is what this bill is all about. It is about providing additional pension money for people as they retire, and they justifiably deserve it.

This is what Canadians want. Why does the member believe that the Conservatives have lost touch with Canadians to the degree that they will actually be voting against this legislation, against what the provinces and the federal government agreed on, against what Canadians want to see? Why have the Conservatives lost touch with Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are voting against a payroll tax. We will always vote against higher taxes. Unfortunately, the Liberals believe that government intervention and raising taxes, spending billions of dollars running this country into debt is the way to get this country's economy back on track. Conservatives will always oppose that.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for my colleague. I happen to know a couple in their late twenties who are working for their brother-in-law in a small business. Now, under the Liberal's Bill C-26, they are going to have to each contribute, as I understand it, $1,100, and the person who owns the business, who happens to be their brother-in-law, is going to have to match that money. If those folks were to invest in a savings plan, the TFSA or something similar, and the small business owner was allowed to use that money to expand his business, which would be better? Would it be better to put $1,100 of taxes into a CPP that will maybe pay something 40 years later, or save the money themselves? I wonder if he could give me an opinion on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tough but fair question from my colleague. My colleague is exactly right. We believe in individual initiative. We believe that Canadians have enough intelligence on their own to make their own investment decisions. We believe that Canadians can chart a course for their own retirement. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to believe that Canadians have that intellectual capacity to make their own choices.

In the situation my colleague mentioned, it would be devastating for a small business owner to be forced to pay that amount of money when he could be reinvesting that money in his own business or using that money to put into his own investment portfolio.

Our choice is individual rights. Their choice is government knows best.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to rise and speak to the proposed legislation, Bill C-26. In order for me to explain my position on this bill, I want to say a bit about the great riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills.

While I was canvassing over a year ago, I had the opportunity to knock on a door in a good neighbourhood. An old lady opened the door. She was very dishevelled. She had bruises on her arms and her hair was a mess. I was still a candidate, and I asked her what she thought our government would need to do to better support Canadians. She said, “After I pay my rent, after I pay my medical bills, I don't have enough money left for food.” That is the plight of many retired people who live not just in my riding but all across Canada.

Over the summer, I had the opportunity to take part in the Red Cross Meals on Wheels program. Together with Red Cross, I went to different homes in my riding. We visited senior citizens who could not afford food. They were getting food from food banks and programs like the Red Cross Meals on Wheels program. I got to speak to them and really understand their plight, their difficulty in finding stability in their age of retirement, in their most vulnerable time.

The average age in my riding is 37. We have a lot of young families. Over the summer, I had the opportunity to knock on doors and get to understand what Canadians were most concerned about. I knocked on over 1,000 doors, and the number one concern, even from young people, was about what they are going to do when they retire. They wondered if they will have stability in their living and if they will have to downgrade their lives at that point, and what the government is doing.

Despite all the current benefits that are provided for retired people, we recognize that it is not doing enough to support Canadians in their retirement. Having understood the concerns of Canadians, the government has introduced Bill C-26. This bill seeks to boost how much each Canadian will receive from the Canada pension plan. The current system provides retirees with up to one-quarter of their earnings. Under the proposed system, this would increase to one-third, up to a maximum benefit of $20,000.

Seniors have for the most part spent their lives contributing to Canada's economy, by working hard, striving for opportunity, and building in their own way the Canada that we love. They have raised families in Canada. Their children will one day grow and continue to carry the torch of progress for this beautiful country.

This legislation will also support and benefit the next generation of workers. Young Canadians who enter the work force over the next few years will benefit the most from the enhancement of the CPP. Young workers visit me in my constituency office on a very regular basis, looking for employment, or they are starting their careers and looking for advice as to how to further their careers. I am very pleased to say that our young Canadians are very dedicated to the progress of Canada and to making sure that we build a strong nation. I am very happy to see that our government, through Bill C-26, will ensure that their future is also maintained in their times of vulnerability.

As I have alluded to earlier, many current retirees face troubling challenges in making ends meet. Recognizing this, our government took steps to improve the quality of life for seniors today. In budget 2016, our government provided a boost to the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, to help seniors who are single with up to $947 annually. This ensures that the future of Canada is protected.

We will see over the next many years an increase in the number of retired people. As a government, if we do not begin to look to the future and make sure that Canadians are well taken care of after they have spent so much of their lives contributing to Canada's growth, then we do not succeed as a government. We need to ensure that our current and future workers are able to have stability in their workplace, and after they retire in the future.

We need to work hard to ensure that we all succeed as Canadians. Bill C-26 is not the only way we are doing it. There are many other ways. As we know, progress is not a one-step approach, but a multi-faceted approach through our many investments in infrastructure, our CCB, and our recent assistance for our youth. We have raised the bar to bring Canada to a level that ensures we progress as a nation.

I would like to thank our Minister of Finance and the provincial and territorial ministers for their dedication to improving the lives of Canadians with this historic agreement on expanding the CPP. As stated in the Toronto Star:

The agreement...provides for the first substantive change to our national retirement scheme...The deal recognizes that the time has finally come to do something about retirement security.

I am very happy with the role our federal government has played in collaborating and working together with our provincial and territorial counterparts and our municipalities to ensure we are all on the same page, that we really understand the issues, so we can stand in the House and fight to ensure that the work we do as parliamentarians is effective and is what Canadians need.

I am very happy that here has been a lot of debate in the House and a lot of passion shown with respect to helping our seniors, not just the seniors of today but those of tomorrow, and their families.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity in the presentation from the member opposite. One of the concerns I hear from seniors in my riding is somewhat simple in nature, but it is very important. When they walk into a Service Canada centre and ask for information, or help or look for a piece of paper they can take away to help them understand some of the programs and opportunities are available to them, they are told to go to a website. That does not work for a lot of seniors in my riding.

I wonder if the member would encourage the minister responsible for the federal public service to make things as easy as they can for seniors and provide perhaps a different level of service than is currently provided.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we understand technology advancement is a great step forward, but we cannot forget about our seniors who often have challenges with using technology.

As the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills, I understand it. That is why I encourage the seniors who live in my riding to come to my office for assistance. In many ways, one of the roles we play as members of Parliament is to facilitate the services our constituents need.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to reach out to our seniors in our ridings to ensure they understand and know which programs are available to them, and to really be proactive in our approach for seniors.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her thoughtful words. There are 11 million working Canadians who have no workplace pension plan. If we ask the food banks today, they will say that more and more working families are coming to them for support. When we combine these two facts, working Canadians without a workplace pension plan and working families accessing the food bank, we can understand that in the very near future a lot of these working Canadians will retire directly into poverty.

The member mentioned how the plan would help working Canadians who were going to be the seniors of tomorrow. Could she highlight and expand on that?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is 100% correct. Canadians are having a harder time, and will continue having a harder time, saving for their future stability post-retirement. In fact, a study in 2012 showed that almost two-thirds of Canadians were working more than 45 hours a week and were still unable to save. It is very troubling.

As we know, our government has to take a multi-faceted approach and the enhancement of CPP will be a great step for current and future seniors having stability in their retirement years.

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

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague expand upon the commitment the government made in its budget with respect to the guaranteed income supplement? It is a huge increase that will take tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty. She may want to add some thoughts on it.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the GIS is a supplement for seniors. The eligibility age was 67, but it has now been reduced to 65, which will give more Canadians access to it. In fact, the dollar amount has been increased for the most vulnerable seniors, those who are single. They will receive a maximum of $947. This is a great step forward for seniors.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-26, the Liberal CPP tax hike.

Today marks the one year anniversary since the government was sworn in. In that context, it is appropriate, at the outset, to take a step back to look at the past year, because it really has not been a pretty one.

Over the past year, the economy has slowed and more and more Canadians are losing their jobs. In my province of Alberta, more than 100,000 people have been laid off in just the past year since the government came to office. The more than $1 billion surplus left by our previous Conservative government has turned into a massive deficit, with over $100 billion in new debt projected over the next five years and with no end in sight to the red ink. Taxes are going up for hard-working families. The tax credit for families for children's arts and sports is gone. The universal child care benefit has been eliminated. In addition, we can forget about the commitment to reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%. It turns out that it is just another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken in the long line of Liberal promises made in 2015 and broken in 2016.

Now, we have Bill C-26, a massive Liberal tax hike on hard-working Canadians. What it is going to do? It is going to take money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians. How much will it take out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians? It will take as much as $2,200 annually out of the pockets of families.

Let us think about that. What is $2,200 going to mean for a young person who has just finished post-secondary education and is starting a career? It means $2,200 less for that young Canadian to pay down his or her student loan. What about a young couple that is trying to put money down on its first home so it can attain home ownership? It is $2,200 less for that young couple. What about the family that wants to save for its children's post-secondary education? It is $2,200 taken out of its wallet, per year. It is $2,200 less for Canadians to save and invest in TFSAs, tax-free savings accounts.

Speaking of TFSAs, let us not forget that it is the Liberal government that is responsible for reducing and rolling back the amount that Canadians can save in TFSAs, from $10,000 back to $5,500.

It is very difficult to swear, on the one hand, the government's assertion that this CPP tax hike is about savings when it is the same government that has rolled back the opportunity for Canadians to save in TFSAs. That is the government's record. The reason for that is this CPP tax hike has nothing to do with savings and everything to do with paying for the government's out-of-control spending.

What is this going to do? What impact is this CPP massive tax hike going to have?

The Department of Finance Canada projects that it will result in reduced employment, a reduction in Canada's GDP, reduced business investment, reduced private savings, and reduced disposal income for Canadians.

Those are not Conservative Party projections, those the Department of Finance's projections. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business projects that as many as 110,000 jobs will be lost due to this CPP Liberal tax hike. In the one year since the government was elected, it has dug Canada into a hole of more than $30 billion without creating a single job. Now, it wants to kill 110,000 jobs with this CPP tax hike.

What does Bill C-26 seek to achieve? What problem does it seek to solve? I would submit that this is really the million-dollar question. The fact is that Canada's retirement system is the envy of the world. According to the Department of Finance, the average Canadian senior is earning 91% of the median Canadian. That is well above the OECD average of 84%.

According to Statistics Canada, the number of Canadian seniors who are living on a fixed income has drastically decreased over the last many years. It was at 29% in 1970. It is now down to 3.1% today. Canadians are saving like never before, when it comes to planning for their retirement. In fact, since 1990, the percentage of income that Canadians are saving has doubled from 7.7% in 1990 to 14.1% today.

It is no wonder that just about everyone is panning this Liberal CPP tax hike, including none other than the hon. Judy LaMarsh, the cabinet minister who was responsible for presiding over the implementation of the CPP in 1964.

In closing, I say that there is not a problem for Canadians when it comes to savings, but the government does have a problem. It has a problem with increasing spending and increasing taxes. Frankly, Canadians have had enough. They cannot take it anymore. It is time to defeat this Liberal CPP tax hike and defeat Bill C-26.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton for his usual passionate remarks. I have a couple of questions.

First, the hon. member told the House that the hon. Judy LaMarsh, who brought forward this plan, is against this. Judy LaMarsh died in 1980. I would like to ask if the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton went to a psychic, had a card reading, and somehow spoke to Judy LaMarsh from beyond?

Second, the hon. member said that this young person would suddenly see a contribution increase of $2,200, making it sound like next year, he or she would go into the workforce and $2,200 would magically come off their paycheque.

Given that contributions only start increasing in 2019 and are phased in over a multi-year seven-year period, can I ask the member at what year this $2,200 hike would come into effect, and what would the salary of this young person have to be in order to reach the $2,200 hike?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I was getting passionate in my speech, I meant to say that Judy LaMarsh would have opposed the legislation, not that she actually has said that she opposed the legislation.

In that regard, the quote that I was looking at, prior to making that mis-statement, is the following from Judy LaMarsh, who said:

It (CPP) is not intended to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government’s view, should properly be left to personal savings and private pension plans.

I would suggest this government could learn from the pronouncement of Judy LaMarsh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment our colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton for his passionate speech about statistics. Here is one statistic that came out today. The unemployment rate in Calgary is double digits today at 10.2%, rising from 9.3% over the past four weeks. It has gone from 36% above the national average to 46% above the national average in just four weeks.

Could my colleague tell me what is happening in Alberta to cause these drastic numbers in unemployment?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Alberta is dire and unfortunately nothing that the government is doing in the way of policy is helping the situation.

After the Liberals were elected to government, the Prime Minister sat on his hands when President Obama killed the Keystone pipeline. Then the Prime Minister killed the gateway pipeline, which will prevent Alberta energy from getting to market. Now the Prime Minister is seeking to impose a massive carbon tax on the people of Alberta that even Premier Notley says is not acceptable at the present time. Now we have this massive job-killing CPP tax hike.

When it comes to helping the situation in Alberta, the Liberal government simply has all of the wrong priorities.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives love to call this a tax, so for semantics let us continue to call it a tax.

I am wondering if the member could tell the House of any other government tax that exists that pays retirement benefits at age 60 or 65?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the problem with the Liberal CPP tax hike is that they want to tell Canadians how to save and when to save. Our previous Conservative government provided Canadians with flexibility, including making voluntary CPP contributions. In addition to that, our government worked in a targeted way to support seniors who are most vulnerable by increasing the GIS.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in today's debate, particularly after my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton. It is always hard to follow him, but I will do my best. I would also like to take this opportunity, as so many other members have, to thank all of our veterans across this country and all of the members of the Armed Forces on this eve of Remembrance Day, this being the last time that we have this opportunity in this chamber before this year's celebrations.

The Canada pension plan amendments are something that are important for me to talk about because I think they are an example of co-operative federalism that has really succeeded. The Canada pension plan was originally started in the 1960s when we saw the fact that a lot of seniors were moving into poverty after they left the workforce. At the time it was unclear as to who had jurisdiction over pension plans. There was a feeling that this may be purely a provincial jurisdiction. In the era of co-operative federalism, the provinces worked together to adopt a constitutional amendment to allow us to set up the Canada pension plan and later allowed Quebec to have its own plan that was similar in nature to the CPP.

This year, we recognized another problem with the plan. We saw that based on what we had all seen over the last many years, we still had a number of seniors who were not poor in the years that they were working, they were solidly middle class, but they were moving into poverty as they retired from their jobs. We needed to see an augmentation to the amounts contributed under the Canada pension plan by both the employee and the employer, and to raise the wage ceiling under the Canada pension plan over time, in order to ensure that over one million Canadians when they reach retirement age would not become poor under the class of who constitutes poor Canadians.

That is something that is important, so what the federal government did was meet with the provinces. We went to all of the provinces and secured agreement among nine provinces in Canada to amend the Canada pension plan. That is not an easy thing to do. We have umpteen examples in Canadian history of federal-provincial negotiations that have gone awry, where the federal government was not able to convince the provinces to take the action that the federal government thought would be in the best interests of Canadians. However, in this case, the federal government and all nine provinces that participate in the CPP agreed to move forward. Quebec also agreed to move forward with a review of its own pension plan. I think this speaks to co-operative federalism and speaks about the success story we can have in Canada when the federal government and provinces work together.

I have also listened to the arguments brought forward by our friends in the official opposition as to why these changes to the CPP should not be made. I am someone who believes that there is a dual obligation in this country. There is indeed an obligation to take care of ourselves. I have had the luxury of having jobs that have allowed me to contribute the maximum to my RRSPs and indeed also to my TFSA every year. I believe in individual initiative. I believe it is the responsibility of individuals to take care of their own money and to contribute the best they can to provide for their retirement. However, as we know, not all Canadians can do this because they do not earn enough, because they do not have that ability, and other Canadians for whatever reason seem unable to save enough for their retirement.

As such, we have to come to a situation where there is a balanced approach. We have already decided over 50 years ago, long before some of us were born, that the Canada pension plan was a good idea, that there needed to be a national plan, which by the way has much lower administrative costs than private plans, to allow the government to help Canadians to save for their retirement.

That is not to say the government plays a nanny state or only role, but it is to say that we have recognized that the government has such a role. If this is truly the case, then the government has the obligation and the responsibility to look at the current situation in our country, to look at what wages are in our country, to look at the fact that Canadian households have the highest debt ratio of any households in, I understand, the G7 and to say we have a situation in our country today that is problematic.

Many Canadians are not adequately preparing for their retirement and many are not making use of their RRSP and TFSA contribution limits. Therefore, what are we to do to prevent having even more costs on the state in the future when we see more and more seniors joining the poor after they stop working? We have to take proactive measures. We need to take preventive action.

I am very proud that we increased the guaranteed income supplement by 10%. That will help bring many seniors out of poverty, but it is not a be-all and end-all solution, because the goal is for most seniors not to need that supplement because most of them, those who have worked their entire lives, should not be that poor.

I was talking about Remembrance Day. Veterans built this country. The last thing we want are women coming out of the armed forces and being poor, but I see that in my riding. Many World War II veterans, who are now in their nineties, are having trouble making ends meet. The president of the Legion in my riding even talked to me about how a number of Legion members have trouble affording medication and food. That is very sad, because the pensions they are living on are not sufficient. One thing we could do is proactively take steps to fix this.

In my previous life as a mayor, I was part of a municipal pension plan. It is true that pension plans in Canada are changing. We are moving from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. It is impossible for an employer in the private sector today to realistically start a defined benefit plan, because with changing markets, these have become a death knell for many employers in Canada.

I can say that in my old life as general counsel of a multinational corporation, it would not purchase a company that had a defined benefit plan, because a defined benefit plan was too risky in the private sector. Fewer and fewer companies have these plans and more and more are moving to defined contribution plans, the outcome of which they are unsure of. Most companies are without plans. There are workers all across the private sector who do not have pension plans when they retire.

There are two groups of workers. There are those who say they are going to save for their retirements and do their best to put money away, but are unable to do so for whatever reason. Perhaps their kids' educations, or their own rents or mortgages, are too expensive. Then there are others who are barely scraping by on the salaries they earn and do not have the means to put money aside.

I think we have all agreed that the government has this role, because I have never heard the official opposition say we should scrap the CPP entirely. All I have heard it say is that we should not increase the amount we are contributing now, because it is a payroll tax, a tax on employers and employees. It is not $2,200 a year, by the way, but I will leave that aside.

If we agree with the premise for having a CPP, then we need to look at it in light of what our economy is like today and the impact on people from changes in the market today. Indeed, fewer companies have pension plans, particularly defined contribution plans; more Canadian households are in debt; and average incomes and the cost of living are rising year by year, but the wage ceiling under the Canada pension plan has not been increased for many years.

We need to take stock of that and decide to update the plan to bring it in line with Canadians' situation today. That is not to say that plans allowing Canadians to save money for themselves are not good. It is not to say that Canadians do not have the responsibility to govern their own funds and to put money aside, but we still need to help those who are unable to do that. This, I think, is the right balance.

The right balance in Canada is finding that place where the state intervenes to ensure that the best interests of all Canadians are met. In this case, the interests of Canadians are met by the fact that it will eventually cost the state a lot more if we do not take these actions today to bolster the CPP, because it we do not, more and more people will need OAS in the future.

What I think we need to do is take stock of the fact that this is a necessary update—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague.

Why is Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio so good? Can he explain that to me?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question.

I would say that we managed the economy very well during the Chrétien-Martin years. It was during those years that things turned around. I am not criticizing the Conservative government that preceded us. I am not saying that that government mismanaged the economy. I am just saying that things started to improve during the Chrétien-Martin years.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the warm welcome my colleague from Mount Royal gave me at the justice committee. I am looking forward to working with him.

I appreciate that in his speech the member mentioned the fact that this agreement has come about with strong support from the provinces, which is key, and he went over the jurisdictional conundrums that come with pensions.

What our colleagues in the Conservative Party sometimes miss the point on is that our retirement system is based on three pillars. There are the workplace pensions, private savings, and the government's CPP and OAS. Two of those pillars are not doing so well, and now is the time to bring up the CPP. It is not going to have immediate effects. This is a long-term vision.

However, my question concerns the here and now. As the NDP's critic for seniors, I am concerned that there are so many seniors still living in poverty. The increase to the guaranteed income supplement was welcome, but there is so much more to do. I am wondering if I could hear the member's comment on what the government's actions will be in future years to take care of those seniors, because the here and now is desperate.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am that my hon. colleague is going to be working with us on the justice committee going forward.

This government, and all of us, on all sides of the House, are very much committed to seniors. The increase in the guaranteed income supplement is one step, but so is money for social housing for seniors. That is something in our infrastructure plan that we are committed to. That is not going to be the end of it. There are seniors who need home care and who are living in poverty. The $3 billion we talked about for home care for seniors would make an incredible difference. I would love to work with the hon. member to find better ways to ensure that we take care of our seniors, so that we agree with all parties to move forward with that.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues we are dealing with here is decisions that have been made in the past that were clearly out of touch with what the future was going to bring. We had Conservative governments in Alberta and Conservative governments in Ottawa that failed to see the end of the energy economy, and in fact they doubled down on it. At the same time, they neglected to diversify Alberta's economy, just as they are continuing to refuse to diversify the economy in Saskatchewan.

We also now are in a situation where being out of touch with what the future holds for us is going to be dangerous. We do not want to find ourselves in another situation like we are in today 20 years down the road. Could the member maybe talk about the importance of acting now to get those benefits in line?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impugn blame to anyone. I do not think that is useful for me. I just want to talk about why, as the member said, we need to do something now.

I was lucky enough, as mayor, to recognize at one point that we needed to update our municipal pension plan. The amount of the maximum wage ceiling had been set at $54,000 for 20 years. As a result, management employees were not attracted to our city anymore because the pension would not pay them enough in retirement. Moreover, we saw that existing retirees were having trouble. We always needed to look at our plan based on existing circumstances, and update. I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to say that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour for me to be here today to speak to the bill and to the amendments that have been put forward.

First, as many people have done, I would like to honour our veterans. I will be in Red Deer for the ceremony, and then I will be dropping in to all the Legions in the riding. I would also like to thank all those people who will be participating in wreath-laying on behalf of the federal government. A great friend of mine, a veteran from the Korean War, Smiley Douglas, has done this for me for many years. I certainly appreciate their great effort and commitment in presenting wreaths on behalf of Canada.

One of the other points that came up was this quote, which has been presented two or three different times. It says:

It (the CPP) is not intended to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the Government's view, should properly be left to personal savings and private pension plans.

That was from the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, the Liberal minister responsible for establishing the CPP in 1964.

Many people ask me how I got my start in politics. I talk about the political side and choosing a political party. The reality is that I got my start by trying to understand the things that were happening in this country when the Canada pension plan was being discussed back in the sixties.

I remember going with my father to meetings in town halls or in basements and the discussion that was taking place. My father was in his mid-forties at the time. He said that the pension plan was going to be great for him, but it was going to be awful for me, because I would end up having to pay this for the rest of my life and if I were a self-employed person, this would be the key approach. It turned out that I have not been a self-employed person, but a self-employed person pays twice as much. They pay both sides.

These are the kinds of things I learned. I recognize the importance of what will take place. That is something I certainly remember. My father passed away six weeks after I was elected in 2008. I think of him every time I walk into this chamber, but I also think of the lessons learned. Certainly the lesson on the Canada pension plan was ingrained in me.

We should really talk about what the government is looking for and what this omnibus legislation would do. It says that over the next 40 years, CPP retirement benefits will rise from an income replacement rate of 25% to 33% of employment earnings, and to finance these benefits, the government will hike the CPP premium rate from 9.9% to 11.9%, starting in 2019, which we might notice is not until after the next election.

The other thing to keep in mind as we continue to hear from the other political parties is that we have to help seniors. This will not be helping the present-day seniors. This will not be helping the majority of the people who are in this chamber because of the timing.

There are some things we can do to help seniors, and there are some things we can do to help people who are working so that when they are in their senior years, they have something to fall back on.

Something that was mentioned earlier by one of our colleagues was to teach some financial literacy to people so they understand. There must have been some financial literacy taught, as we have reduced the poverty rate for seniors from the 29% it was back in the 1970s to less than 4% now. People are looking at what they are doing, and they are recognizing the importance of dealing with issues themselves.

As far as financial literacy is concerned, I spent a career teaching mathematics. I always wanted to make sure that people understood how they could look after their money so they could deal with things themselves. It was understanding annuities, looking at the different tax credits so they could do their tax forms and probably help their parents finish these things off, and understanding the different investment instruments, how this would work, and what they could do for themselves.

I always use the concept that, if people didn't smoke and took that much every day and invested it, just think how much money people would have at the end of the day. Then, of course, we would be investing it back into the government. We would be paying our taxes and everything else that was associated with that. However, when they start realizing that would have been a way to maybe come up with $1 million for themselves, these are the sorts of things that I think are important. They are the sorts of things that people should recognize.

When we talk about this and when we take a look at what it is going to do, for those that would be at the maximum when this comes into force, it would be $2,200, $1,100 for the individual and $1,100 for the company. If a person happens to be the company, that is $2,200 that is going to come out of what they could have reinvested to help themselves. These are critical components that we have to recognize.

I have yet to hear anyone really talk about the self-employed and the plight they are in, especially when we look at what is happening in Alberta right now. Look at the situation we heard about earlier. Calgary has hit the 10.2% unemployment rate. Red Deer has been into the double digits for a number of months. Right now, when we start to talk about where we are going to go in the future, this is where the difficulty lies. The difficulty lies in the fact that people have no confidence. We do not know whether or not we are ever going to be able to move our natural resources to tidewater. We look at people who are throwing sand in the gears and it seems as though they are the only ones who are being heard.

The second aspect that we have to recognize here is the tax burden. We look at carbon taxes and we look at the different types of things. In Alberta, there was a price on carbon, and the way in which it was set was so that it was going to be put in to help businesses so that they could do their own reduction. If we make a general carbon tax for anyone, it is easy. Let the government deal with that. We do not have to worry about it. These are the kinds of things that could be done.

When we also consider the payroll tax and the costs that are going to be tied into that right now, where then is the confidence? The confidence is going to other countries. It is not like in 2008 and 2009 when even banks would not lend to each other. The situation now is that there is money and there are dollars available, trillions of dollars just with our seniors and our investors here in Canada alone, but we have to be careful. We have to recognize that if we continue to look at ways of discouraging entrepreneurs from doing the things that are necessary, we are certainly going to be in a terrible situation.

In closing, I would like to point out some of the concerns that people have. I could perhaps have gone through even a few more of the quotes that we have, but I will just close with this particular quote. It says:

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. ...a little over five per cent of seniors today still have income below the poverty line

This is a quote from Morneau Shepell, by the co-author with our Minister of Finance of The Real Retirement, in the Financial Post on June 5, 2016.

I had known it to be 3.7%. I do not know whether it already bumped up to 5% by the time they looked at it, but I know that we have done an amazing job and that we have all of the tools there for our seniors.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 11 million working Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. It is also a fact that today many go to the food banks. As for the executives there, they say more and more working families are coming to food banks for support.

When we combine these two facts, we know, going forward, a lot of these 11 million working Canadians will retire directly into poverty. We have to take action now so that when people become seniors 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, we are ready to support them.

I did not hear my hon. friend mention anything concrete that is going to help these people who are going to become seniors in 10 to 20 years.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 10 to 20 years, if we think about the investment, that is not particularly going to be helping people at this point in time. The major input and the major opportunities will be 30 and 40 years down the road.

However, we have looked at the damages that can be done over the next 20 years. When we have companies saying, “Where are we going to invest? How could we be sure that we are going to have something in the future”, and they see this type of a payroll cost for their companies, the big companies are not going to be coming in.

However, more importantly, and the point I was trying to make, people who work for self-employed people are probably, in many cases, making more dollars per hour than the person who owns the shop and is the self-employed person. If we add this to the problems they already have, we are really going to see a problem here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I meet with people in my riding, I realize that there are fewer and fewer workers who have access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. These workers do not have the means to save for retirement.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently doing a study on poverty. Statistics Canada representatives appeared before the committee and stated very clearly that the poverty rate for seniors is cause for concern. We know that 30% of elderly women living alone live in poverty.

I am not reassured at all about the current situation of seniors. Too many seniors live in poverty; that is what they are telling me. Their retirement income is not indexed to the cost of living and they are growing poorer by the day. I find it difficult to understand how my colleague can be content with the situation of the past few years.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many other tools available instead of dealing with and causing problems for the economy.

I feel for the people who speak to seniors, and I do that in my own riding. Seniors will come and talk to me about the issues they have. However, the reality is that there are only 3.7% of seniors who are actually below the poverty line, and we have tools for that. Our Conservative government increased the GIS, and to their credit, the Liberals followed suit and increased it as well.

These are the kinds of things that we could target. We can target the support that we have for those who are in trouble, but only if we can keep the economy strong, and only if we can be assured that we are going to be able to keep businesses growing here in Canada.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentioned earlier that he was an educator and he talked about informing his students. I would like him to expand on that a little.

Many of the younger people in my riding that I am talking to are looking at ways of self-funding their retirements. They are not relying on government. They know that it is going to be a problem later on and they are self-funding. Could the member expand on that a bit?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we are able to teach young people and give them the tools they need so that they can invest. There are so many opportunities at this point in time.

The world is open to young people. When we take a look at the way in which they communicate and the opportunities they have, they need to have more financial literacy now and a different type of financial literacy than people like the member or myself would have. This is what is critical, but we have to make sure that we keep up the hard work to train people so that they understand what they have to do.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-26, which amends the CPP in this country.

The changes that are being proposed today would not help today's seniors. The CPP tax hike that the Liberals are proposing would only help seniors 40 years from now and in the interim would damage the Canadian economy.

Being from Alberta, I know that our economy right now is in a shaky place. We have seen double digit unemployment rates and all sectors are being affected. This is not just an oil price problem. This is a problem across Alberta's entire economy. I particularly want to push back on the idea that Alberta does not have a diverse economy. For anyone who says that Alberta's economy is not diverse, I would challenge that person to come and visit my riding.

If there is something that starts in the ground it probably comes from my riding. I have a significant agriculture industry in my riding as well as a significant forestry industry and a significant oil and gas industry. All of these industries work hand in hand.

I met with a constituent during the campaign and when I asked him what he did he told me it was hard to explain. He said his family are traditionally dairy farmers. They have a herd of about 120 cows. He said he has a mechanics ticket and on the side he soups up Dodge diesel pickups. He has a lot of fun with that and it makes him about $12,000 a year. He said he also services a number of gas wells in the area.

This gentleman's story typifies Alberta in that its entire economy is integrated. If a person works in one industry, that does not necessarily mean that he or she only works in that industry. A lot of guys are doing multiple things. There is a lot of shift work in the oil and gas industry. People will work for two weeks at a time and then be off for a week, or they will work for 10 days and be off for four. They work a combination of such. A lot of people who work their oil and gas job will have a separate commercial interest going on when they have days off. When the number of oil and gas jobs is reduced, it affects every other sector of Alberta's economy because they are self-funding another project on the go.

A common saying in Alberta is “we're funding our farming habit one way or the other”. A lot of guys will either pick up a job servicing gas wells in their area or they will drive logging trucks. I know a number of guys who farm year-round and they drive logging trucks in the winter. They already have a big rig sitting in their yard so they get a commercial licence, insure the truck, and go logging. They bring in more income that way. These are just some of the things that show the diversity of the economy in northern Alberta.

Then we have all the spinoff that comes from the diversification of our economy, one being the service industry. We also have welders who work for all three of the industries. They will do some welding at one of the sawmills, some welding on one of the oil lease sites, and some welding work for a farmer. The hotel and restaurant industry will service all three of these industries. We have a lot of schools in the area that educate all of the children who live in the towns and whose parents work in one of the three industries.

Alberta is one of the best regulated parts of the country and because of that we tend to be on the cutting edge of new technology, whether that be in farming, logging, or the oil patch.

A number of the lumber mills that I visited said that they were the first in the country to have the technology. When logs come into the mills, they are scanned, a picture is taken of them, and the computer does an algorithm on the value in those logs. Whether they cut two-by-fours, or two-by-eights, or two-by-fives out of a log, it is all planned by the computer as they come through the gate into the mill. The company that provided the technology to the mills is able to go and sell it around the world.

It is the same thing when it comes to the oil patch. The development of the flare stack technology and the ability to create electricity off what used to be flared, was developed in Alberta. Now we go around the world and sell that technology.

People who say that Alberta should have worked harder to diversify its economy should check out what we are doing in engineering, in innovative farming practices, and in harvesting logs.

Our logging companies have a 100-year plan on how they will harvest the logs in northern Alberta. It is fascinating to watch.

Oil and gas is being depressed because of oil prices and a lack of pipelines. It is a huge problem for Alberta. The logging industry is under a couple of threats. The species at risk legislation and cariboo are causing consternation with the logging industry, as well as the softwood lumber agreement. These are the other things that are causing instability in the marketplace. People are not ready to invest in things like that.

Also about a third of the canola crop is laying underneath the snow right now. This is causing a significant hardship for our farmers in the area. Our farmers typically do not have the margins to pay significantly, at the oil and gas level, so they typically pick up oil and gas workers as well.

All of these things are working together. The three major sectors in my riding have significant instability. They are unable to invest right now, because they are unsure of where we will go.

On top of all of these things, the Liberal government is now putting an extra burden on all of these employers and employees by bringing in a new CPP tax hike. This CPP tax hike is going to make it more expensive to hire people. It is also going to cost more for the current employees, which is what we are looking at in northern Alberta right now.

A lot of companies are surviving with a zero margin. If they can get their costs out right now, they are happy to come and do the work. In some cases, they are doing the work at a loss purely to keep their guys so when the price comes back around, they will have the good guys working for them.

What the CPP tax hike will do is drive the costs up even higher, making it more difficult for companies to survive through this economic downturn. It will do nothing for seniors right now. The entire reason why the Liberal government is bringing this in right now, as they have told us, is to help seniors.

This is not going to help them. It is completely preposterous for the Liberals to say that they will bring this in to help seniors, and then say that it will only help seniors 40 years from now. It is incredibly frustrating to watch the government, completely oblivious to the fact of what is happening in northern Alberta, throwing this on there and saying that it is doing it to help seniors. I am at a loss for words to say how frustrating this is.

I know many of my colleague have raised a lot of similar points and I hope we can continue to do this. I feel the government should reconsider its position on the CPP tax hike, go back to the drawing board and come back with something that will not be so detrimental to our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am curious if my colleague from Peace River—Westlock believes the CPP itself is important and if it is, should we make it sustainable for 100 years like the logging industry? If he does not think it is, should we get rid of it?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was first employed, I discovered that I was not allowed to take home all my pay. I was getting paid $5.90 an hour, which was minimum wage. I did the calculation on my hours worked and on how much I should be paid. However, I was told that I had to pay CPP, taxes and all sorts fun stuff, which was deducted from my wages. It was a bit of a shocker to me. However, retirement was not on my radar at that point either. It was something that cued me to look at this.

The system is in place and many people rely on it. I am not in any way advocating that we should get rid of it. What I am saying though is that it is just one of the tools that Canadians are using to fund their retirement.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the member talked about the first time he received his paycheque, I am sure this is why he became a Conservative. We have discovered that there is a lot of money being taken out of our pockets and this is what the trick is with the bill.

Members may not know that the gentleman is the father of two. I played with them on Wednesday, and they were very energetic. If the government proceeds with this attitude of taking more money from the pockets of the people instead of letting them make their own preferences and their own choices, what does he think this will do for the future of his children?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I became involved and why I came here. I was not that into the whole what happens in Ottawa until I had children and had to look to the future. When we have children, suddenly the future becomes much larger in our field of vision, so that is precisely why I am involved.

What is the government doing for our children? It is saddling them with a massive debt that they will have to pay off. When I address the government, I do it often from the perspective of my children. Why do the Liberals not care about the children?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have good, strong national leadership that has led to the provinces and all regions saying yes to the bill. When we have provincial jurisdictions and Canadians as a whole saying yes to the bill, why is the Conservative Party is voting against it?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians as a whole are saying that the government is spending too much money. When the member says that the Liberals are bringing leadership, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business would argue otherwise, and it has said so repeatedly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House 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.

Since being elected a little over a year ago, I have had many conversations with my constituents in Mississauga—Streetsville, ranging from security for seniors to things that concern youth. However, one of the more consistent concerns that has been brought to my attention is what our government is doing to help working-class Canadians who are looking to retire.

Many of my constituents have contacted my office and explained to me that even though they have been working hard their entire adult life, they are not confident they can safely retire. I know my constituents are not the only Canadians who have such concerns. All across the country, middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, yet they are deeply concerned that they do not have enough money saved for a stable retirement.

More than one-quarter of Canadian families are nearing retirement and each year fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pensions to fall back on. This leaves approximately 1.1 million families facing the intimidating risk of not having enough money saved to maintain their standard of living when they retire.

These Canadians fear that because of this, they will have to work for longer than they had planned and ultimately miss out on spending precious time with their families. As a result of this, a grandfather may not be able to take his grandchildren on a camping trip or may miss their sporting events because he could not get time off from work. A mother may have to cancel the road trip she was planning with her daughter for years, because she was called in for a last-minute shift. Ultimately, many Canadians will miss out on many important moments.

However, it is not just families nearing retirement that are concerned with this issue. Over the past year, I have met with any young Canadians who are just finishing school and are about to enter the workforce. They are concerned that with fewer jobs offering workplace pension plans, they will find it difficult to save enough of their earnings for a stable retirement.

It is no secret that Canadians are living longer lives. Although we should be grateful for this, longer life expectancies ultimately mean that the level of savings required to achieve a stable retirement is increased. With the population of my riding expecting to grow by 4% over the next 15 years and 6% over the next 25, there will only be more constituents with the same concerns if these issues are not addressed. However, I am confident that this bill addresses the concerns of my constituents and many Canadians across the country.

With all nine Canada pension plan participating provinces confirming their support, I know I am not the only person who has confidence in the bill.

Once it takes effect, Bill C-26 will increase the maximum Canada pension plan retirement benefit by roughly 50%. Currently, the maximum benefit is $13,110. However, after this enhancement, the number will increase by roughly $7,000 for a maximum benefit of $20,000.

Bill C-26 would do two very crucial things. It would increase the amount of money Canadians would get from their pension from one-quarter of their earnings to one-third. This means that a hard-working Canadian making $50,000 annually would received $16,000 annually in retirement. The bill would also increase the maximum income range covered by the Canada pension plan by 14% so that those who earn more will receive more in retirement.

We have heard from our colleagues that they are concerned that the cost of the bill would put a significant strain on taxpayers. To answer this, the government is ensuring that the changes in contributions will be phased-in slowly over seven years, which will give individuals and employers sufficient time to adjust to the minor increase. For low-income workers who may be concerned about the change in contributions, the legislation would provide an enhancement to the working income tax benefit designed to provide additional benefits that would offset the incremental Canada pension plan contribution.

Furthermore, it is important to note that contributions to the enhanced portion of the Canada pension plan will be deductible. Providing a tax deduction for new employee Canada pension plan contributions will avoid increasing the after-tax cost of savings for Canadians. For employers, employer contributions to the enhanced portion of the Canada pension plan will be deductible for income for tax purposes. For self-employed Canadians who contribute both the employer and employee share of the Canada pension plan, they will be able to deduct both the employee and employer share of contributions to the enhanced portion of the CPP.

Last week, I visited many local high schools and spent time speaking to hundreds of students. When discussing the proposed Canada pension plan enhancement, these young individuals overwhelmingly supported the legislation. They understood and supported the idea of small, incremental increases in contributions to ensure a secure and stable pension.

It is young people like the ones I met last week who will be inheriting the policies and programs we create today. The support of these young people should be a testament as to why all members in the House should support the bill. We, as members of Parliament, must think of them when debating legislation in the House. I am confident the bill will have a positive impact on the future of young Canadians, which is why I am proud to be speaking to the bill today.

During my campaign last year, I had many young volunteers helping me. When I was elected, I promised to be their advocate in Ottawa. By standing here today to speak to the bill, a bill that would have a positive impact on their future, I know I am fulfilling that promise. The positive impact the bill can have is truly significant. The bill would ensure that every Canadian worker could retire with a safe and secure pension. Young Canadians entering the workforce could enter with confidence, knowing that legislation would be in place to ensure they would have enough saved when the time comes for them to retire.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned how he talked to his constituents and heard their concerns. We recognize some people have concerns, and we know who they are. They are elderly widows and people with lower incomes. However, the program being proposed by the government has no benefit for anyone for the next 40 years. Finance Canada has said that it would have very detrimental affects in the next 30 years. Also, when it does come into effect, it benefits only 8%. Therefore, why does the member think this is such a good plan?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very pejorative interpretation of what the bill intends to do. As I mentioned, I spoke to many high school students. I told them that we had an aging population that would need medical assistance, that would retire all at once and that they would have to foot the bill or incur the cost of that. They agreed we should prepare for that situation right now. It is prudent for our government to put these parameters in place so they will not have to incur those costs later on.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, exactly what you sell is what you get. He sold it that way. I tried to sell it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address his comments and questions to the Chair.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am looking at him, but I am speaking to you.

The question is, which is the most critical point, the effect on business. Businesses will take a tax on this. It will make them lose jobs eventually, and there will be a levy on business operations. Could the hon. member comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague sold this as a tax. We see this as an investment. It is an investment in Canadians who have worked very hard to create our country that we enjoy today. It is an investment in future Canadians so they will not have to incur a larger cost due to an aging population.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question is about Canadians who need this help now, seniors who cannot afford to live, cannot afford their medication, cannot afford their rent because of unaffordable housing. This will not take place for 49 years.

The member says he cares about the people in his community who are suffering right now. What measures is the government taking to help seniors today?

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

Madam Speaker, the current situation is the impetus for what we are doing with CPP. However, we are reversing the OAS back to age 65 and we have increased the guaranteed income supplement and its eligibility as well. We are taking actions to address the seniors who are retiring now. At the same time, we are preparing the next generation to help take care of the seniors who will be retiring then.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues have asked three excellent questions, but my question is more about something else. I heard the member say that he was enhancing the opportunities for youth as well. How can the Liberals do that when they are increasing taxes through a carbon tax and bringing about present taxes on them, as well as this tax of a Canada pension plan? It just does not add up to a prosperous future for the new generations as well as for our seniors.

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

Madam Speaker, I will paraphrase what one student said. He asked why we would put our heads in the sand and let them pay for not taking steps now. The member says that this is a tax. We see this as an investment. A lot of the youth I spoke to see it as an investment as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we resume debate, I notice there has been some body language that shows there are questions about how I am selecting speakers. I want to remind members that the Deputy Speaker raised this in the House before the House rose. Basically, when a specific party is doing the speech, it will be left up to the other parties to ask the questions unless nobody on the opposite side is asking questions. If there is nobody asking questions, then we will go back and forth on a rotating basis. I just want to reiterate that.

Time is generally afforded to members of the parties that are not associated with the member who has just spoken, but not to the exclusion of that party. We will also be attentive to members who are particularly present during the day and paying attention to the debate to ensure that as many members as possible can participate.

The final point that the Deputy Speaker gave was that when we start the time for questions and comments, we will take note of the number of members who rise to judge how we accord and allocate time for members. For example, if only one or two members stand up in the five minute period for questions and comments, we will certainly allow more time for those members accordingly.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things I like to do when I address an issue is always lay out the philosophical principle grounds as to why I am addressing it and where my conclusions come from. One thing I have noted in this House, over the years, is members do a fairly excellent job of going through the details. However, when we are in this House, we are not just speaking to other members, explaining details, we are laying out our basic understanding to our constituents and to the broader Canadian public as to why we are voting for or against something. I always consider it very wise to lay out the basic principle as to why I will be voting on a piece of legislation in one particular way or another.

However, with respect to this particular legislation, the CPP tax hike, as we the Conservatives are noting Bill C-26, the reason I am particularly voting against it is that the government is taking away freedom and choice from Canadians. Let us be fairly clear with what the government is doing by raising the CPP premiums: it is taking away people's choice. This is not some money that is coming from somewhere else into people's accounts. It is not money falling from heaven like manna. It is people being forced to take the money, which they may very well need now, and to delay it for some future benefit some day, as the data and research shows for Canadians of my age and younger, at a very poor rate of return.

Let us go through the basic objections as to why the Liberal government's CPP hike would be bad for Canadians, would give them less freedom, and, in the final analysis, would not be good for our economy or people's individual lives.

The first point is that increases to the Canadian pension plan, hikes to the premiums, have not over the long term increased savings. The government is naturally going to argue, “Of course, this is forcing people to put money into the future that they will get back from the CPP when they retire”, but the empirical data and research that has been done, in the past, shows that whenever we have hiked the rates on premiums the number one place where Canadians tend to take the money from, when the government takes it from them forcefully, is their savings. It is almost a 1:1 ratio.

That means every time there is a hike, the government requires more in contributions, be it directly from people's paycheques or indirectly, although it still comes from people, ultimately, under the guise of taking it from their employers' contribution share. What do Canadians do? They put less money into mutual funds; they put less money into RRSPs; and now, with the introduction of the tax-free savings account, we will see less investment and less savings there.

What is happening is not that Canadians are getting a larger sum of money for their retirement, but that the government is taking away options from Canadians, taking away flexibility, and putting money into a pension plan for them, which may or may not be in their best interest.

Canadians are at different points in their lives, with different interests.

I am married. I have a 20-month-old daughter. All members of the caucus who know me know I am very proud of her. My wife and I, rather than wanting to put more money toward our pension plans, are looking to start a registered educational savings plan for our daughter. We hope some day she will grow up, graduate from high school, and go forward for further education. That is the priority for us. However, when the government begins to engage in things like the CPP hike, it takes away people's freedom to make those choices and, instead, decides for them, “This is where your savings need to go”.

There is an issue right now with affordable housing across the country, and in Vancouver and Toronto in particular. One of the greatest places where people save money is in their real estate. It is very difficult for young people now to get a foot on the ladder. The argument is, “Well, these aren't great sums of money, but a dollar is a dollar, and every little bit makes it more difficult”. To top it off, with the government's changes to mortgages, it continues to make it more difficult for young people who want to get on the housing ladder. The point is that by taking away people's freedoms, the government does not increase and encourage more savings for retirement, it just changes the vehicle for how it is done.

The second point is this. There might actually be some benefit to Canadians if the rate of return was that much greater. There was an interesting paper done by the Fraser Institute that analyzed, depending upon what year people were born, the actual rate of return, in real value, for the average Canadian. For people born after 1972, it is barely over 2%.

I am 42 years old and was born in 1974. For me, the rate of return on my retirement plan is absolutely lousy. For people from my grandpa's generation born before 1920, it was an absolutely fabulous rate of return. It was incredible. He lived to be 92 years old, he paid for approximately 10 years, and it was amazing.

However, this is the issue. For young Canadians going forward, an increase to the Canada pension plan is not great. It is a poor return on investment. If people put money in, say, a low-cost indexed fund or something like that, historically, it is shown to have greater returns that one can control. Let us say that, unfortunately, someone passes away early. Their heirs would receive extra benefits. The government's plan would instead provide weaker returns for younger Canadians. It is not helping people. It is deciding for Canadians when they need their savings, now or later, and at an inferior rate of return. That is the second point that the government needs to note.

What problem is the government addressing? Again, this needs to be dealt with. When we discuss retirement, we talk about replacement income. This really is not the issue when it comes to retirement income. The question is more one of whether Canadians are living in poverty at certain times in their lives. I am sure that when most hockey players quit playing in the NHL, they do not get retirement replacement income of 70% of their previous earnings. That is not the point. The question is whether their incomes will drop to a point where they will live in poverty. They have a choice. They have their bulk earning years and they can move things around. That is an extreme example.

I found this statistic earlier today on the Fraser Institute's website, which is that only 3.7% of Canadian seniors live in poverty, whereas it is more than 10% for working-age Canadians 18 to 64. For young people trying to put money into their educations, which for many people is the best investment by far, it is going to be difficult. Again, the government is taking away people's flexibility and making decisions for them, so that, in the end, they will not have the best return on their investments for their lives.

Instead of concentrating on replacement income, retirement policies, from a federal government perspective, should zero in on people who have low incomes. Those are almost always people who have not contributed to the Canada pension plan, because they have not worked over the years or were self-employed and not able to save money.

As my time has just about expired, I will mention another point that can be discussed in questions and comments, which is the cost of CPP versus other low-cost options available for savings. What it comes down to is that we will lose our freedom. We lose our freedom when we allow the government make decisions for us.

Let me reiterate that this bill would not solve the problem for low-income seniors, which is the real problem in retirement. It would provide a poor rate of return for people who view it as an investment, and it would displace savings from one portion of life to another portion of life by taking away people's freedoms. I will be voting against this legislation because it is bad policy. It is bad policy for Canadians now and in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally disagree with what the member said. It demonstrates just how out of touch the Conservative Party is with what Canadians value and want.

This bill is a reflection of what I would argue is a historical agreement of the federal government working with provincial and territorial governments that recognize they need to think about future generations. It is about having a vision and ensuring that the working population today is going to have the funds to buy the little extras when it comes time to retire.

Whether it is the New Democrats or the Green Party in the House, whether it is provincial governments of different stripes across this country, everyone, except the Conservatives, seems to support what is happening. My question to the member is this. Why does he feel the Conservative Party is so out of touch with what Canadians want, to the degree that it is going to vote against this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party believes Canadians should decide what they want to do with their own money. They should have the freedom to do it. That is why we are the low-tax party and we believe taxes should only be implemented for absolute necessities. The government and the NDP seem to have the attitude that they know how to spend people's money better than people do themselves. There is a fundamental point of disagreement and we debate it every election.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned is to give people a choice. In the last 20 years we have done nothing to the Canada pension plan and that is why we are in this mess. Nothing has been done. Obviously there was no money left for people to save or to put into RRSPs, but they can look forward to the future by investing in themselves as they are working and their life goes forward.

I know the hon. member has said to let the people decide for themselves, let the people decide where they want their income to be, but there is no income. We have to look after our future and if we do not do it now, because we have already learned from our mistakes, we must do it for the next generation.

Why has nothing been done in the last 20 years where the system has failed and yet the member still opposes the bill going into the future?

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

Madam Speaker, in the 1970s, 20-some percent of seniors lived below the low-income cut-off line. That number has now dropped to 3.7%. As members have pointed out to the House, the previous decade was the most successful in Canadian history for bringing people above the low-income cut-off line, the real poverty line. The best anti-poverty program in the world, by far, historically is free enterprise. It has worked. We are talking about CPP, which is people's own money. Let people spend their money how they see fit.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Conservatives deny that there even is a retirement income crisis and they claim that the government has not made a clear case for CPP enhancement. The most recent figures show that 30% of single, elderly women live in poverty. This was a decrease over the last 30 years in the number of Canadian workers covered by workplace pension plans, and this is significant, it is a huge decline that has continued and it continued under the Conservative government. The pension gap and the crisis of Canadians being able to save less for their retirement worsened considerably under the Stephen Harper government.

Could my colleague explain to the House what lessons that party learned from those failures?

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

Madam Speaker, overall poverty rates among seniors dropped under the Conservatives. CPP deals with people who already have jobs paying into it. For low-income people, we need to deal with the guaranteed income supplement. CPP only affects people who are working and contribute over many years.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us take a moment and talk about what pensions really look like. In Canada, there is the concept that if we go to work every day and work hard, one day we will be able to retire with dignity. Canadians planning for retirement dream about what it will be like to finally not have to go to work every day and instead do things they enjoy, such as spending more time with their family, travelling, and volunteering. This is the dream of many Canadians.

Bill C-26 would be a positive step forward in enhancing CPP benefits. This bill, when fully implemented, would increase the current level of CPP benefits from 25% to 33%. Although this falls short of the NDP's long-standing proposal to double CPP benefits, Bill C-26 is a step in the right direction. It would improve retirement security for young Canadians today.

I want to give a huge thanks to the many organizations that have been working hard for this improvement over many years. Labour and retired-persons organizations have long called for an expansion, and we congratulate them for their hard-fought win.

New Democrats have also been long calling for dignity for our seniors, the very Canadians who have built our beautiful country, many of whom are struggling in their later years with very limited incomes. We have consistently fought for increases in CPP, OAS, and GIS and will continue to do so.

The CPP is the best retirement pension deal available to Canadians. The fund is widely considered to be well managed. As of June 2016, the CPP Investment Board manages over $287.3 billion in investment assets for the Canada pension plan on behalf of 19 million Canadians, making it among the 10 largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. The CPP currently covers earnings up to a cap of $54,900; and for earnings up to this cap it aims to replace 25% of income. Maximum pensions are at $1,092 per month or $13,100 per year. For many Canadians, this only covers their basic needs.

The extended CPP would be a separate new tier. This would be added on top of the existing CPP and do two things: taking the replacement rate up to 33%, and expanding the earnings cap to $82,700. While the increase in Bill C-26 is welcome, New Democrats know that better is always possible and the government could have gone further with the percentage changes and still maintained a healthy CPP. The government could also have implemented the changes more quickly to help seniors right now. This bill could have done so much more for those who are struggling today. We need to see immediate action to help seniors and Canadians who would not see the benefits of these changes.

Retirement security is in crisis in Canada. We have fewer workplace pensions than ever, with six in 10 Canadians having no workplace pension. This means that 60% of Canadians rely on CPP, OAS, GIS, and personal savings. Most people know that seniors do not have a lot of disposable income and very few have significant savings to help. Many rely on their family to help supplement their needs and to provide them with security. Many are women who are widowed or do not have their own private pension to supplement them.

I remember a conversation I had with a widow in Amherstburg whose husband's workplace pension had been drastically slashed because the company, General Chemical, had left Canada and was now only paying a small portion of its promised pensions to retirees. She was now talking about selling her house that she had lived in her whole life because she could not live on CPP, OAS, and GIS alone.

There are many seniors in my riding who are struggling. We have a lack of affordable housing; rising costs of drugs; and increased costs of food, gas, and hydro. The list goes on and on. Seniors today are struggling, and there is so much that could be done today. The changes that are being proposed us would not take place for 40 years. Those who would see the biggest benefit from the proposed changes are millennials.

If we talk to millennials, we hear they are often not even able to imagine a future that includes a workplace pension. They are struggling to find secure employment and are often working multiple jobs to patch together a living. They do not even think about retirement because they are so focused on working to find a job.

My colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski recently brought her precarious work tour to Windsor, where we met with millennials to talk about their issues. I was crushed to hear a young woman talk about the fact she never envisions having a family or owning a home because she cannot find work. She is certainly not saving for retirement, which shows the clear need for CPP changes for future generations.

What an incredible difference we have had in a generation. It is a sad reflection on our society that 20 years ago when I began working, I was able to find work easily in a unionized workplace that had a decent wage and a workplace pension, which meant that I could retire with security and dignity. Today these opportunities are few and far between. With the decline of workplace pensions we are heading into a future in which there will be no security in later life for Canadians.

We often hear of people talking about the concept of the Canadian dream, that if people work hard for 30 years they can retire with dignity. I continually hear from the other side of the House that if Canadians just work hard enough, they too can join the middle class. This narrative is not only misleading but also insulting. Many Canadians work extremely hard every single day, but for so many reasons they are not able to save enough for a decent standard of living, let alone for retirement. They do not even think about trying to join the middle class, because they are struggling to survive today.

We can go back a generation before that. My grandfather was on the bargaining team in his workplace after he came back from serving in the war. He worked at a place called Dominion Forge. When they negotiated a retirement benefit for a 30-year-and-out contract, he became the first person to retire under that contract once it was signed. Today, we are losing these pensions at an alarming rate in Canada.

Today, our workplaces are creating divisions between new hires and long-term employees. They are pitting working people against each other. This new tier of workers is asked to accept lower wages and smaller pensions, if any pension at all. We see this in workplaces right across Canada. It is a trend that reinforces the growing problem of retirement insecurity.

When I started working 20 years ago, things were relatively good. People with a high school diploma could find a job, and many jobs paid well. People could get jobs with a pension and benefits. They knew they could start a family. Today, this is just a dream for so many Canadians. Young people are struggling to find these good jobs and do not imagine planning for retirement because they cannot even find a job today.

We have a serious problem in our country today with many seniors living in poverty. I am pleased to see that Bill C-26 would address future generations, which will certainly be necessary, because there are fewer young people today who have a job in the first place so they can put some type of personal savings away and, second, have some form of workplace pension .

What are we doing today for seniors in this country? We hear the government talk about the changes it has made to the GIS, which amount to under $1,000 per year at the maximum amount people are receiving. Seniors in my riding who get that extra amount of money have not been elevated out of poverty. They are still suffering from the high costs of medication and still cannot find affordable rent. When some people in my riding found out that seniors were going to receive that money, they turned around and raised their rent. Seniors are not seeing any benefit of that bonus.

So much more could be done today. I look forward to seeing what future initiatives will come forward in the House that would help the retired person and seniors of today.

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to explain what is happening for seniors today.

In the last federal budget, our government committed to an increase of $900 annually in the guaranteed income supplement for the poorest and most vulnerable of Canada's seniors. Our government has dramatically increased the guaranteed income supplement.

Another thing this government did within months of taking office was to reverse the decision of the Stephen Harper government to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67 for OAS benefits.

We have also done other things.

Would the member not agree that the three most fundamental social programs for our seniors, as our seniors themselves perceive, are OAS, CPP, and the guaranteed income supplement, all three of which this Liberal government dealt with in its first year of governing? Does she not see that as a positive thing?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always positive to see an increase in programs to help seniors. The $900 the member is speaking about is a far cry from a dramatic change for seniors. Over a year, this will be a small amount every month to help seniors.

Any amount of money is always welcome, but to say this dramatically changes the lives of our most vulnerable seniors is implicitly false. That is not the truth. I am sure that if the member opposite talked to seniors in his own riding, he would certainly hear the exact same thing I am hearing, that the money has now had the consequence of increasing costs in the community so that the seniors will not even see the benefit of it. There needs to be something more significant.

With regard to the CPP specifically, going to 33% is positive, but what the member opposite is not admitting is that this will only happen 49 years out. This does nothing for seniors today. There has long been a call to have CPP benefits doubled, which could easily be done. This is a very healthy fund and is very well managed in our country. It is viewed around the world as one of the best plans. However, we can give back, because there is money sitting inside there right now that is not going to good use. That money needs to be in the hands of seniors right now in Canada, and so there could be an increase beyond the 33%

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned immediate action. Can she comment on the fact there is no immediate action in the bill to help seniors?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do agree that the bill takes no immediate action. Seniors are struggling. Right now they cannot bear the cost of medication and the cost of food. Seniors in my community are making difficult choices about whether they keep their lights on during certain times of the day, or potentially go on public transit or get into their car if they can afford gas for that.

The cost of living has gone up and the CPP has not kept pace with it. There is so much more that can be done for seniors right now. One of the things the government can do is to stop the cuts to health transfers to the provinces. This will have a direct impact on our seniors in our communities, because if they are not able to access services because the money is not coming from the federal government to the provinces, they will find themselves in more difficult situations.

In my riding and in Windsor, there has been an attempt to cut local services and to move them up the road to London, Ontario. We pushed back against that. If we see these cuts coming in health care, we will see more services being removed from our communities, and that would hurt seniors.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that this does not have an immediate positive effect on seniors, but indeed hurts them. It appears that the government does not have a plan to take care of seniors. It has ignored seniors. Would the member agree?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Yes, Madam Speaker, the government does not have plan to address seniors now, today, who are struggling in our communities.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26 this afternoon, as there is no question that the suggested changes to the CPP will have a significant impact on Canadians and our economy.

I have heard a repeating mantra from the government that people are struggling to save, yet Canadians' retirement system is one of the most envied in the world. Poverty among seniors has dropped significantly in recent years, and Canadians are saving more for retirement today than ever before. I agree that all Canadians should be able to retire with dignity: those now retired, those soon to retire, and young Canadians who are just beginning their journey in the workforce who will, before they know it, be where our seniors are today.

Despite these facts, there are definitely many seniors currently living in poverty and many working poor Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. These are the individuals government should be focusing on. Our government should be implementing ways to help these individuals help themselves and should provide assistance when circumstances are such that retirement is difficult and the basic needs of life are out of reach.

The previous government expanded the guaranteed income supplement, and the current government did the same, increasing it by 10% in its first budget, which was a very good decision that I applaud.

When it comes to CPP contributions, I believe that the approach in Bill C-26 would cause more harm than good. Why? It is because it is not specific, when is could be, and so it would impact Canadians who have their savings plans already established and growing and would negatively impact Canadian businesses that actually fuel the economic growth our entrepreneurs, tradespeople, professionals, and labourers need to be successful.

We should be targeting voluntary additional individual contributions to CPP and not mandating that all Canadians participate further in a program that is complementary to the savings they choose to make as individuals. Canadians should be able to manage their own money. If they want to make additional individual contributions to the CPP, that could be done. As a small business owner, I know that it would be an easy move to add a request on a TD1 indicating how much more an employee would like attributed to his or her CPP contributions above and beyond the minimum. They could also use TFSAs, RRSPs, employer pensions, and other means of providing for their own retirement.

Small business owners are being penalized when they are forced to contribute more to CPP rather than being able to invest those funds in their businesses or other means of fund growth. Instead of stimulating the economy, they are being forced to contribute to a government program that takes away their right to manage their own investment of that income.

As well, we know that the CPP is unfair to single and divorced individuals. A constituent in my riding, who has been a certified financial planner for 20 years, indicated to me that 15% to 20% of his clients fit this category. When they pass away, their estate receives a CPP death benefit of only $2,500, because they have no spouse to receive the survivor benefit, yet they have faithfully made their CPP contributions over the years, and in the case of the self-employed, have made double contributions, which could have amounted to over $100,000 in the past, and in the future to perhaps well over $200,000.

Why would anyone wish to pay into a program that may never benefit them or their estate? This is unfair and is a form of discrimination. If I personally came up with a new pension plan today that asked clients to contribute $2,500 to $5,000 per year over their lifetimes, with the only guarantee on death, before drawing CPP, being $2,500, I am quite certain that the authorities would call such a plan criminal in nature.

Another concern is that the offsetting tax credit the Liberals are suggesting to balance the additional monthly contributions for the working poor would only apply to a maximum annual income of approximately $28,000 a year. For an individual, let alone a family living on a monthly income of $2,400 a month before deductions, an increased CPP contribution will be a hardship they cannot afford.

In 2013, the total household net worth of Canadians was $7.7 trillion, split almost equally between pension assets, real estate equity, and other assets. According to a study by McKinsey & Company, 83% of Canadian households are on track to maintain their current living standards in retirement. According to Statistics Canada, the share of Canadian seniors living on low incomes has dropped from 29% in 1970 to 3.7% today, which is among the lowest in the world.

According to Finance Canada's analysis, higher CPP premiums will reduce employment, reduce GDP, reduce business investment, reduce disposable income, and reduce private savings by 7%.

A paper released by the C.D. Howe Institute shows that the Liberals' CPP plan would not benefit low-income workers. Their premiums would go up, but their net increase in retirement benefits would remain low, since higher CPP payments would be offset by the clawback of GIS benefits.

Seventy per cent of employed Canadians oppose a CPP expansion if it means a wage freeze. Fewer than 20% of Canadians say they would opt to put more of their savings into the CPP, according to a survey by the CFIB.

Clearly, low-income workers and the working poor should be the focus of this government's argument that people are struggling to save. It should help those working hard to join the middle class through a voluntary CPP program instead of having an all-encompassing program that benefits the well employed, who already have strong retirement pensions and plans in which CPP payments are an added bonus.

I now quote Fred Vettese, chief actuary at Morneau Sheppell and co-author with the Minister of Finance of The Real Retirement. This appeared in the Financial Post on June 5, 2016. He said:

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

Charles Lammam and Hugh Macintyre, of the Fraser Institute, stated, in the Financial Post, on June 2, 2016:

Instead of expending political energy on debating CPP expansion in the misguided belief that many middle- and upper-income Canadians are not saving enough for retirement, the focus of public debate should be on how best to help financially vulnerable seniors.

Yves-Thomas Dorval, CEO of CPQ, said that he was worried about the new direction of the Canada Pension Plan and the impact on the Canadian economy. He said that if we want to encourage saving for retirement, a universal solution doesn't work. On the contrary, it is likely to have a negative impact on economic activity, jobs, and wages.

What impacts Canadians' ability to save is a slow economy, a loss of confidence in our economy, a loss of jobs, a loss of incentives, and increased taxes, all of which have a huge impact on the ability of young families to save.

I received a call from Brian, a constituent in my riding, who was emotional and distraught as he told me that the impact of an increase in CPP premiums, coupled with a carbon tax on everything, means that his wife will no longer be able to remain a stay-at-home mom, the way she wants to be, with their two small children. He was overwhelmed by the thought of his wife having no choice but to go to work, which will also increase their monthly costs, with child care, another vehicle, and all the additional expenses of a secondary income for their family.

The government is calling on Canadians to contribute more to the CPP, saying that Canadians do not know how to save enough, yet the Prime Minister has blown his modest deficit promise, borrowing three times more than he ever said he would. The Prime Minister has broken his promise to cut taxes for small businesses. The Prime Minister has broken his promise to make his tax plan revenue neutral. The Prime Minister has made children's sports, arts classes, students' textbooks, and tools for tradespeople more expensive. The Prime Minister has taken away the universal child care benefit, a plan that was easily implemented without a lot of red tape, that helped families and lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

Those with higher incomes paid the benefit back in taxes too. However, if that well-off family faced a downturn in the economy that ended its employment, like what we are seeing in our resource sector right now, for example, they could keep that benefit. Under the Liberal child benefit, those families will have to wait until next year to show their income loss before benefits are adjusted.

Some people truly are struggling to save, absolutely. That is why the government should be targeting voluntary additional income contributions to the CPP and should be focusing on helping those who are working hard to join the middle class and on seniors living in poverty right now, rather than blanketing all Canadians and all businesses, which are growing the economy, with a punitive program that limits their ability to save and invest.

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

Madam Speaker, it is something I have emphasized in the past.

[An hon. member]

Not again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague says “not again”. I can assure him that sometimes we have to repeat things a few times before they sink in on the other side.

I can assure members on the other side in the Conservative Party that they really have lost touch with Canadians in the manner in which they have chosen to vote on this piece of legislation. We are debating a historic agreement between the provinces and territories and the national government that recognized that we should be thinking about the future of workers in Canada. That is what this bill is all about.

So far this year, we have seen increases in the guaranteed income supplement. We were able to reverse Harper's eligibility from 67 to 65. Today what we are talking about is a bill that would see increases in pensions for future workers. We have provinces of different stripes and the NDP and the Green Party supporting this bill. Why does the member believe the Conservative Party is voting against something Canadians really want?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have heard this question so many times and have given such a solid answer to it, I think it is time to come up with another one.

The reality is that seniors in my riding, which has one of the oldest demographics in the country, recognize that our country needs an economy that is working so that people have the money they need to live their day-to-day lives and to invest in their own futures.

I am saying to go ahead and let us offer this as an option to people who want to increase their CPP. In my own riding, I guarantee that seniors know that this would in no way help them right now. The member may like to talk to seniors in his own riding. It would not help the working class who are not earning enough to meet their daily needs right now. That is the responsibility of our government. It is not to interfere in how Canadians choose to save.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, right now in Courtenay—Alberni, we are seeing record numbers of seniors turning up at our food banks. The Port Alberni homeless shelter has never seen more seniors than in the last year, when it has doubled. When I went door knocking during the campaign, I met seniors who could not afford to buy medicine.

We are talking about a strategy so that we are not doing this 20, 30, 40, and 50 years down the road and are not repeating ourselves or making it worse. We need to come up with a solution. Right now we are talking about increasing the CPP so that people can have more in the future. It would be an investment, not an expense. This is about saving for the future. It would be an investment for employers.

I want to hear from the member what proposals she has to help those people who are showing up at the food banks and the homeless shelters and who cannot buy their own medicine today. How are we going to help those seniors today, and how are we going to prevent this from happening 40 and 50 years down the road?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, as we know, the number of seniors living in poverty has dramatically fallen to 3.7% of Canadians. Do they exist? Absolutely. I am very aware of that, as I said, in my own riding as well, where people are suffering extensively. Those are the ones who are saying that they need help right now. We should always be available as a government to help those people meet their needs on a day-to-day basis.

When we look to the future, what this country needs more than anything is an economy that sustains and is so solid that we have opportunities to take care of our own futures. We see in these exact stats that there are fewer and fewer seniors, 3.7%, who are living below the poverty line. They have many different options for the way they want to invest in their futures. I am one of those people who will be down the line, and believe me, it is important for Canadians to save for the future. We are doing a good job of that. We are one of the countries around the world that is seen as having a good approach to taking care of our own futures.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time I rise in the House to talk about CPP. In the early days, when I came to the House, we talked about a CPP increase to ensure that it would be there for future generations. Regretfully, we are back here today talking about it again.

The government's signature fiscal platform seems to be taxes and taxes such as a carbon tax and now a CPP tax for the working class. Also, the Liberals took away the TFSA, again to get more revenue. It is an indirect tax. The government's fiscal platform is to go into deficit and it has no plan go back to being balanced, which would mean future taxes are coming too. We may even see a rise in the GST. I would not be surprised if the government does not try to balance its books somewhere down the road because that is what Canadians will be demanding. Therefore, it is amazing when I listen to Canadians who are now concerned about the direction the government is taking.

Let us be very clear. We are talking now about the Canada pension plan and seniors. Indeed we have two platforms for seniors, which are the GIS and OAS. We should look at how we can increase those to help poor seniors. There is a very interesting proposal from my former colleague in the Senate, Hugh Segal. He talks about a guaranteed minimum income. His proposal is out there and it is going to be going on a trial basis. This is worth looking into the future to see if that is the way we should go to ensure everyone has a guaranteed minimum income that would take them out of poverty. There is no question that we should be looking at seniors' issues.

My wife ran a small business. I have said many times that anything we have had to do with the government keeps rising. That is one cost that a small business cannot control. A small business can do a lot of other innovative things to control expenses, but it definitely cannot control an expense related to the government. When CPP premiums are raised, it affects not only owners but also workers because it is a fifty-fifty contribution. We are taxing everyone. We are putting a burden on small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth. It will become extremely difficult to see how small businesses are going to survive. The only other option left for them would be to reduce their payroll, which would mean a loss of jobs.

We have discussed many ways in the House to tackle the retirement issue. One proposal that our government came out with was a pooled retirement pension plan. This would give people who did not have a defined pension plan, like the government or big organizations, the opportunity to have the independent ability to join a pension plan so they would have a pension when they retired. It is one of the best ways to help people who are not in a defined pension plan to retire in the future. I do not see why the government is not proposing that, which is already a law, as being a strong vehicle for a retirement pension. As has already been stated, the CPP is one of the tools that will provide that, but it is not the only tool.

Therefore, why do we want to take this route and shackle businesses and workers by taking money out of their pockets when we have innovative ideas floating around on how to address the retirement for our future younger generations and what is going on right now?

We should not come up with band-aid solutions and say that we will increase on one side, that we will give more money to seniors, but we will raise CPP premiums, taxing all Canadians. Rather, it is far more advantageous to see how we can raise the OAS and the GIS.

Let us not forget our veterans. They are also struggling. We need to look at their pension as well.

The whole question would be with respect to the whole retirement regime in our country, which includes veterans, seniors, young Canadians, and how we can address that. I do not understand why the government is using a band-aid solution to address our retirement needs.

On the economic front, we know the government needs to create jobs. In my province right now the jobless rate is 10%. We need to address what is going on there, but we also need to create an environment in which people can open a business.

This is what I tell many of my constituents, and my colleagues sitting next to me agrees. In Alberta, we tell those who have lost their jobs in the oil patch to look at other opportunities. One of the best opportunities is to open a business. They should look at how they can open up a small business and look at the many innovative ways of going into small business. However, if we are going to put up these kinds of barriers, CPP raises and this thing, so they find it not profitable to open up a small business, then their chances of looking for a livelihood, of looking for more jobs is gone. We need to create an environment where the private sector, economic sector, is thriving. To do that, it is very simple. We need to ensure that the economic climate exists for them to grow.

Today the Prime Minister is talking about investments—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

My apologies, Madam Speaker, for my cellphone ringing.

Today, the Liberals are going to talk about investments. They are going to set up this investment bank because they believe investment in infrastructure is key.

Let me remind every Canadian that in 2008 the Conservative government, under Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper, came out with the whole idea of spending in infrastructure to take us out of the recession. We did go into a short-term deficit, but we increased our spending in infrastructure, which took us out of the recession. This was done by G-20 countries, when George Bush came up with his plan to take the world economy out of recession.

Therefore, we had a plan for that. I am glad the Liberals are thinking of doing infrastructure—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

My cellphone is ringing again, Madam Speaker. I am sorry.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to questions and comments, I just want to remind the member that what we have just experienced is the exact reason why we ask that members put their phones on silent mode. It may be funny at the time, but it is really not when we are talking about such serious legislation.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Madam Speaker, it was the future calling, asking why the Conservatives were not there for us in expanding CPP.

My question is very simple. Does the member believe that the CPP should be expanded to prepare for the future or abolished? Or does he really think that the way it is now is the saving in the long term?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we do that, I would ask the hon. member for Edmonton Manning to take that phone out to the lobby for now.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I stated, CPP is one of the vehicles of retirement, but it is not the only vehicle. This whole notion of abolishing it or doing whatever, it is one of these things, but it cannot be a burden on the businesses and it cannot be a burden on workers. That is what we should come up with. That is why we oppose this thing.

I stood in the House about 15 or 16 years ago discussing the same issue about the viability of CPP.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard from many organizations, retirees, labour groups, citizens in my riding and across Canada. They want improvements to the Canada pension plan. I also heard from them say that they needed improvements for the existing pensioners now.

As we have heard in the House, some people think what has been done under GIS is adequate, but I do not think that. Many organizations saying this said the same thing in 2014 when the Conservatives had a consultation paper on target benefit pensions. The same people were saying that we should improve the Canada pension plan.

Does the member agree with these people, that Canadians want to improve Canada pension plan, or does he feel it is not necessary?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, we had consultations, out of which we came up with the pooled retirement pension plan to allow others to join a pension plan. The Canada pension plan is a unique pension plan. It was brought in to ensure that it was one way of retirement, but not the only way.

The problem with Canada pension plan is that the premiums are paid by the employers and the employees. If we raise it too much, it becomes a hindrance to the expansion of the economy. It becomes a hindrance to the expansion of small business, which is the engine of the economy.

We need to come up with a plan. I did mention for the member that there was an experiment going on now in Ontario, done by Senator Hugh Segal, to look at how we could have a fixed minimum income, which is one of the ways to look at it. We should be exploring other options to see how we can provide good retirement benefits for all.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have talked to the seniors living in poverty in Courtenay—Alberni who cannot afford to buy medicine, who are showing up at food banks and homeless shelters in record number.

The Conservatives came up with a number, saying that 3% of seniors were living in poverty, that they did a great job of tackling poverty. However, in my riding, when we ask seniors if that is the case, that is not what we hear from them on the doorsteps. That is not what we see in the institutions that support people in poverty.

I want to hear from the member how we will help those people who are struggling in poverty. I want him to explain what we did wrong for those people and how we will not repeat that mistake. Seniors care about the future. They care about the next generation and they do not want this to happen to them too.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have stated time after time that there are different ways to look at it. Yes, seniors are suffering and nobody denies that. However, there are ways to look at it, to address those seniors who are facing hardship. Not all seniors are facing it, but for those who are, CPP hopefully will address all seniors out there. Let us now look at other ways to address those seniors who urgently need help.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell a story today, a tale from history, which may be somewhat unfamiliar to those on the other side of the aisle, but I assure them that it is true.

Once upon a time, there was a country with a pioneer spirit. It grew from a small settlement in the maritimes and the banks of the St. Lawrence and expanded until it stretched from sea to sea to sea. It was filled with proud people, immigrants and first nations, who believed that there was no limit to what they could accomplish. They valued hard work and what they could achieve when they set their minds to it and worked together. They built a great nation, one that was to become the envy of the world.

This nation was built not only on hard work but on a common set of values. The people knew that one of the keys to success was planning for the future. They were careful with their money, saving a portion of their income for a rainy day and their retirement. They knew that they might at some point face adversity and need to use that rainy-day fund. They wanted at some point to be able to retire and enjoy well-earned retirement. Therefore, they put aside what they would need to deal with emergencies and a stable future.

When they did this, they were showing personal responsibility, knowing that they could not and should not depend on someone else to make such financial decisions for them. The people who made Canada great understood that they controlled their own destinies. They passed these values of common sense and thrift on from one generation to the next. They did not look to government to do what they should do for themselves. They knew that the individual is the person best suited to decide how to prepare for his or her own retirement, which is part of personal responsibility.

It seems that, somewhere along the way, the idea of personal responsibility, that core Canadian value, has been lost by some in this country. There is a group of Canadians—let us call them Liberals—who feel that individuals cannot be trusted to do what is in their own best interests. These so-called Liberals feel that it is their responsibility—indeed, their right—to dictate to others when and how they save for their future.

That is a true story we face with the bill before us. With this ill-considered attempt to raise premiums for the Canada pension plan, the current Liberal government distrusts the ability of the Canadian people to plan for their own retirement. There is no other reason for this ill-conceived tax hike, which members opposite like to pretend is not a tax on Canadians.

They tell us that, over the next 40 years, CPP retirement benefits would rise from an income-replacement rate of 25% to 33% of employment earnings. To finance these benefits, the government would hike the CPP premium from 9.9% to 11.9%, which is about a 20% increase, starting in 2019. In addition, the yearly maximum pensionable earnings would rise to $82,700 in 2025. Earnings between the current and future yearly maximum would be subject to an 8% premium. As a result, CPP premiums would rise by up to $2,200 per year per worker split between the employer and the employee.

I have met with business owners in my riding on many occasions since this plan was first introduced. Just last week, I was told that they were unanimous in their opposition to this plan. They feel that it is like the Liberal carbon tax; it would limit their ability to make a living as the government piles tax upon tax.

This CPP tax hike would take money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, putting thousands of jobs at risk, and yet it would do nothing to help the seniors who need it. If the government feels that there is a problem for seniors today not having sufficient retirement funds, why is it bringing in legislation supposedly helping the future generation 40 years from now? Where is the help for Canadian seniors today?

Figures show that some households would be paying up to $2,200 more per year if this ill-planned scheme is implemented. This means that it would be harder for new graduates to pay off their student loans or buy their first home.

It would be harder for families to save for vacations or their children's post-secondary education and harder for companies to create jobs and give workers raises. Make no mistake about it; not only would Canadian workers take home less in their paycheques, but Canadian businesses would also be taxed under this plan. If they have to give more money to the government, that means less that can be passed along to their employees.

Canada's retirement system is already the envy of the world. Poverty among seniors has dropped significantly in recent years, and Canadians are saving more for retirement today than ever before. Conservatives believe in reasonable, evidence-based policies to help Canadians retire with dignity, which is why the previous government expanded the guaranteed income supplement.

The Liberals clearly agree with this approach, since they increased the GIS by 10% in their first budget, but that is different from this plan to force people to save by having the government take more money from their paycheques. It shows a Liberal lack of trust in the ability of Canadians to manage their own money responsibly. Liberals always believe that they can do it better, that Canadian citizens cannot be trusted to handle their own finances. By contrast, the previous government helped Canadians save through the tax-free savings accounts and opportunities to make voluntary contributions to the CPP.

Conservatives believe Canadians should be able to manage their own money, and given the track record of the Liberal government, we believe Canadians cannot trust the Liberal government with their pensions. After all, they have not been able to keep the promises they made less than a year ago, let alone a decade from now, and who knows what their excuses will be in 40 years?

Finance Canada's analysis shows that higher CPP premiums would hurt the economy. They would reduce employment, the GDP, business investment, disposable income, and private savings. The Liberal government, when faced with that information, wants us to trust it and believe that what it is doing is for our own good. Liberal members do not seem to understand why we do not believe them.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 70% of small business owners disagree with the Liberal notion that the proposed CPP increase is modest and would have a limited impact on their businesses. They know it is going to hurt. A paper released by the C.D. Howe Institute shows that the Liberals' CPP plan would not benefit low-income workers. They would see their premiums go up, but their net increase in retirement benefits would remain low since higher CPP payments would be offset by clawbacks in GIS benefits.

Bill C-26 would take money from the pockets of hard-working Canadians, who are being given no choice in the matter. The benefits of this tax hike, Liberals tell us, would happen at some point in the far future. If that means less money in Canadians' pockets and fewer jobs because business taxes are too high, I guess they expect us to thank them for that, too.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating. If the government were truly serious about helping Canadians save for retirement, it would reinstate the TFSA contribution levels set by the Conservative government, treat Canadians like adults, and let them choose how to save their money. Instead, we are told that Liberals know best. History has already shown us that is not true.

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

Madam Speaker, Liberals do trust Canadians to do what is in their own best interests. Indeed, Canadians did what was in their own best interests when they elected a Liberal government to prepare the country for the future.

On a longer-term outlook, 40 years from now, if that is what it takes, as opposed to just the next election cycle, expanding the CPP, increasing the GIS, and restoring OAS eligibility to 65 years old are all ways we are doing that. Not all Canadians have the means to save for their retirement and they are not so detached from reality as to believe that hoping people have money to save will make it so. Not everyone has money to manage. We, as a society, have a responsibility to do everything in our power and capacity to help our fellow citizens, and that is exactly what we are doing.

I will ask the member for Edmonton Manning this question. Does he believe the CPP program should exist at all? If so, how does he justify the cognitive dissonance of opposing this bill? If not, will he now tell Canadians that he believes we should scrap the CPP?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not buy packages. The CPP exists for a reason; it did a good job and is continuing to do a good job. Expanding it at this time, or at any time, with the rates proposed by the government, would impose taxes on businesses. As a result of that, we would lose jobs and opportunities, and our businesses would lose the competitive edge. All of these results have not been considered by the government in the calculations in proposing this legislation.

This legislation would hurt people more than it would benefit them. In 40 years from now, I am not sure how many of us would be around to witness that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing the member for Edmonton Manning and I have in common is that we were both small business owners. We both know that small business owners care about their employees. They have a more intimate relationship with their employees than any other business sector, and as a result, they find it important to invest in those people in their business operations. Does the member not see this as an investment in the future of those employees to make sure they have a good retirement, to make sure they are taking care of their employees?

The Liberals made a promise to lower the small business tax from 11% to 9%. The member talked about the broken Liberal promise. If that promise had been honoured, would the member support this legislation that would enhance CPP and allow small businesses to invest that money in their employees, where it belongs?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy my conversations with the hon. member. As he said, we both owned businesses.

If the member is calling this proposal an investment, then to be honest with him, it would be a bad investment. This would hurt people more than benefit them. Any business people or investment people in their right minds would not do it. If it is going to hurt people more, then why do it? Why take about $2,200 away from each Canadian taxpayer? If we could scale it down, it would probably be somewhere between $22 billion and $30 billion a year. That is a huge amount of money. I do not see any investment happening in the long run.

The government has to lower the business tax to give opportunities to businesses. That has to be done, but it does not mean that we should take our own investment in return for that. Doing something good and then doing something bad is not the way to make it work, and to should not be the way.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I recall in the context of the work that the electoral reform committee is doing right now that the period in which Canada laid down its social safety net—the Canada pension plan, the unemployment insurance plan, our health care plan—was a productive era of the minority government of former prime minister Lester B. Pearson.

I support expanding the Canada pension plan. The money in the hands of our seniors, so they can avoid living in poverty in later years, gets spent locally.

Does the hon. member of the Conservative Party have any economic studies that suggest that there would not be a strong economic stimulus locally when we ensure seniors are not living in poverty?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the member's question as a business owner who knows the economy. I can assure my colleague that this would be a wrong investment. I have worked the numbers. I would be happy to work with the leader of the Green Party on this at some point.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the bill deals with an expansion of the CPP for Canadians. This has been a long discussion. It was discussed at the provincial level. Our previous government suggested other alternatives. Then, when this government came in, it has been treating it as a primary piece of legislation.

It really comes down to a debate between ideologies. It is between those who think the government should be managing Canadians and taxpayers' money and should have the capacity to force Canadians into limited options when it comes to their retirement, or those who believe people should have the choice as to how they wish to invest their retirement income and should be able to manage their own money. Of course, on this side of the House, we believe that Canadians have enough of a sense of responsibility to manage their money. The Conservatives have taken the position over the years that we believe people have the ability to do that, and we have walked the walk. We walked the walk in both our tax policies and our positions on pension reform as well.

I am going to go through a few of the things we did when we were in government in terms of tax benefits, just to point out that we have been consistent. We increased the amount that Canadians can earn tax free. We believe that Canadians should be able to keep their money. They should be able to make choices about how they want to spend it. Consistent with that, we cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%, giving low-income Canadians in particular an opportunity to be tax free. We cut the GST from 7% to 5%. That tax cut had an impact on everyone across the country.

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was just asking about seniors and whether they spend their money locally. We believe they do spend their money locally, but certainly the tax cuts that our government provided Canadians across the board made it more possible for seniors to live out their lives keeping more of their own money. We did things for families, including creating and enhancing the monthly universal child care benefit.

There is a whole other area of improvements we made for pensioners and seniors as well. We did things like improve the rules for the registered retirement income funds to allow seniors to change the way they were moving their money from those investment funds. We increased the age credit amount by $2,000, and doubled the $2,000 maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit. We introduced pension income splitting, which was a big deal for pensioners across the country. When we talked to Canadians about this, they were very thankful for it and wanted us to extend it to others as well, which we were doing. This government has decided that is not important.

Probably the single most important thing we introduced was the tax-free savings account. It was interesting how quickly Canadians took to them. In fact, these were introduced in 2009-10, and by 2013, nearly 11 million individuals in Canada had a TFSA, and the total value of the assets held in them at that time was nearly $20 billion. That is a pretty significant initiative. It is one Canadians obviously welcomed. They were willing to put their money into it. Everywhere I went, people were very happy with that. It was individuals with annual incomes of less than $80,000 who accounted for more that 80% of those accounts, and three-quarters of those assets, by 2013. In spite of what the other parties have said about the TFSAs, these are is not just for wealthy people. There were a lot of lower-income people with them too. A lot of seniors, actually, were maxing out their TFSAs because they believed it was a very good retirement vehicle for them. By the end of 2013, about two million people had contributed the maximum amount to their TFSAs and 46% of those individuals were seniors. It is really interesting to look at the reality of TFSAs compared to the illusion the other parties were trying to create about them. Over 70% of those folks who had maxed out their TFSAs were over 55.

Therefore, if we are here to talk about seniors and protecting seniors, that was a real way of doing it, and it was something that was going to be done in real time. The changes we are talking about today with what the Liberals are proposing are not going to impact folks who are middle-aged or seniors now. It is going to take decades for this supposed benefit the Liberals are bringing in to really impact the people who would take advantage of these extra CPP benefits.

There are a number of other things I mentioned. We did pension income splitting. We raised the pension income credit for older people as well. We raised the guaranteed income supplement so that pensioners could make up to $3,500 from that, and the change to the age limit on RRSP to RRIF conversions was an important thing.

That brings us today to Bill C-26, an omnibus piece of legislation that is going to implement an agreement reached on June 20, 2016, between the provinces and the federal government. As noted before, Quebec does not participate directly in this, but it has its own plan. As a result of this legislation, CPP premiums are going to rise for workers and employers, by up to $2,200 per worker, which would be split between workers and employers. Obviously, that will have an impact on employers' capacity to hire workers.

The tax hike would take at least $100 a month directly from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, an amount that will probably increase as time goes on. It puts thousands of jobs at risk. We have also had discussions on the planned increases in minimum wages in the provinces, which threaten low-income jobs, and this is one more threat that employers will have to deal with in trying to hire and keep people at work. Certainly this is not the time in Canada when we should deliberately be putting jobs at risk. It is not a strong, stable economy that we are dealing with right now. It certainly is not the economy we had two years ago. It is unfortunate, because it seems that every choice the government is making puts Canadians and their jobs more and more at risk.

If households are going to have to pay up to $2,200 per year out of their salaries, it means that students in post-secondary education are going to have a much more difficult time to pay off their student loans. Families will face a challenge even on things like vacations. They will have a harder time funding post-secondary education as well. Certainly it will be harder for companies to create jobs and give workers raises. It is interesting that 70% of small and medium-sized enterprises see this as having a significant impact on their business. People are paying attention to it and understand that it will have an impact on them.

Furthermore, 90% of small business owners say they would certainly like to be consulted more by the government. They do not feel like they have had a chance to have their say. They do not feel like they have been listened to. It seems to be a topic I am hearing across the country, that the government is not capable of listening to people in spite of the multi-million consultations it seems to be having. It does not seem like it is talking to the average Canadian, because they do not feel like they are being heard. This is one more issue in which this shows its face.

As I mentioned earlier, this is going to take 40 years to be fully implemented, so none of the new benefits will go to people who are presently seniors. In our questions and answers, we have heard questions focused on present day seniors, whether they have low or medium incomes, but the reality is that these changes in Bill C-26 have nothing to do with people who are seniors right now because they will not experience any of these benefits. As I pointed out, that is quite in contrast to the tax-free savings accounts and the fact that people were able to manage their own money. They could put it into those vehicles and invest as they choose, and then benefit from that.

We believe that our system has been the envy of people around the world. One of the reasons people have been envious of it is that there has been some choice within the system. We believe on this side of the House that it does not hurt Canadians to have more choice, and that because they are saving more for retirement than they have ever done before, it is necessary for them to have those choices.

I am sorry to see that my time is winding up, but we are concerned that the bill the Liberals have introduced and are pushing through will reduce employment, impact GDP, and reduce business investment, and reduce the disposable income of Canadians. Over the long run, it is predicted that the bill would reduce private savings by up to 7%. It is unfortunate that more money is going to be taken from the pockets of Canadian workers. That affects them directly. It will put jobs in jeopardy and it will do nothing to impact today's seniors because it will take 40 years for it to be fully implemented.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to Conservative after Conservative speak on this legislation, I better understand why Stephen Harper and the Conservative government resisted at all costs whenever a province or Canadian raised the issue of the importance of the CPP. The Conservative Party has, indeed, lost touch with what Canadians really value. The CPP is a fundamental social program that Canadians truly believe in. Only the Conservative Party, as a political entity seems to oppose the CPP.

My question for the Conservative Party and the member is this. Would the member kindly explain to Canadians why the Conservatives continue to resist any progressive move toward enhancing the CPP, especially when provinces from all regions of the country are saying it is good legislation? Why are the Conservatives' standing alone?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when someone is speaking, we give them the respect that we want for ourselves when speaking in the House.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, fortunately for the member opposite, he does not usually have to worry about people interrupting him because it seems the higher the volume and the more the hyperbole he uses, the more accurate he thinks he is. Obviously, no one in the House opposes the CPP. That is just ridiculous. If he is going to take that kind of position, then he will end up in a situation where people will not treat what he has to say seriously. He needs to consider that. His exaggerated rhetoric does not do anything.

The reality is that the changes the Liberals are attempting to make would not affect seniors right now. The members opposite stand and say they are concerned about seniors and want to make changes that will impact them. Things like the tax-free savings account and the choices that Conservatives gave them actually impacted them, and they were very happy to have them. Liberals have rolled that back. They have cut the limit back to half.

Certainly, Conservatives support CPP. There was never a move to negatively affect CPP. We simply believe that Canadians need as many options as possible for their retirement savings.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to the next question, I want to remind members that we also do not chastise other members because of their passion while asking questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the cost to small and medium-sized businesses that this bill would introduce. He mentioned that it would be about $2,200, if I understood him correctly. That is the maximum contribution to get the maximum benefit, but most small and medium-sized businesses would not actually pay for that maximum premium.

Has the member done an analysis of what the average cost would be for small and medium-sized businesses, instead of exaggerating what the maximum is going to be?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that he is chastising me. I was not exaggerating anything. The reality is that pensionable earnings are set at 9.9% of employees' levels right now and are going to go to 12%. He is right that $2,200 is the maximum, but the reality is that every single employee in this country is going to pay more because of this legislation, and every single employer in this country is going to pay more because of this change in the CPP.

Conservatives believe that is not a good choice to be made for Canadians, that they should have other choices. We know we are at odds with the government because it believes that it can dictate to Canadians what it thinks is best for them. We believe it is best for people to make their choices, manage their own money, and that they will best save for their own retirements when they do that.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, a concern that my constituents have expressed to me is that while the government is taking away an additional $1,000, or $2,200 when we factor in the employer contribution, and is supposedly setting aside that money for Canadians' retirement, if an individual passes away before being able to access that benefit, that money does not get passed on to their heirs. It is simply an additional $1,000 a year that has been taken away from them.

I would like the member to contrast that to some of the other retirement savings vehicles and how this will eliminate the ability of some Canadians to save and prevent them from passing on those savings.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we believe that it is important that families can support each other in their retirement incomes, retirement savings, and so we believe in those vehicles that allow people to do that. It is obvious that the other side has a real problem with that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the amendment to Bill C-26.

I had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-26 at second reading and will readily admit that my position on this ill-conceived bill has not changed. In fact, after spending a week in my riding, I am more convinced than ever that the bill needs to be scrapped.

I had the privilege of meeting with many constituents and holding a series of round tables with members from the chambers of commerce from the communities of Rosetown, Martensville, Warman, and Humboldt, just to name a few. Without fail, everyone spoke to what the impact of the CPP premiums increase would be on their businesses. Their responses were unanimous: this tax hike would hurt their businesses both indirectly and directly. Every single attendee said that they will have to consider this payroll increase when they budget for staffing next year, and that overall employee compensation will be affected.

Since the bill was introduced, I have been hearing a lot of conceptually wrong statements and value judgements from the members on the other side.

For starters, Bill C-26 would not create new money for today's retirees or for low-income Canadians nearing retirement. The bill would increase CPP premiums from 9.9% to 12% and would increase the benefits that people receive once they retire by the amount of the increase.

The increases in benefits are only made possible due to the increased contributions that workers and their employers are being forced to make today. The CPP is a contribution program. The benefits received once a contributor retires are equal to what they contributed to the program plus whatever investment returns the CPP investment fund realized.

The CPP is not an income redistribution program. It was never designed to be. It does not support low-income seniors. Quite simply, what one puts in is what one hopefully will get out plus interest. This is why retired Canadians or folks who are nearing retirement will see no change to the benefits they can expect to receive.

The Liberals claim they are raising the CPP premium because my children's generation is not saving enough for their retirement. Undoubtedly, there are some Canadians who are not saving enough, but this is not a universal problem. This CPP increase would end up costing an individual more than if the Liberals increased the sales tax from 5% to 7%, which, given the fact that Canada is in the midst of the largest year-over-year peacetime increase in federal government spending, is becoming more and more likely.

When the CPP was first created in 1965, the contribution rate was set at 3.6%. Over time, governments have increased this rate by three and a half times to the 12% being proposed by the current government.

Because CPP contributions are made as a percentage of income up to a maximum each year, there is no need to increase contribution levels to account for inflation. The CPP Investment Board returns are sufficient to ensure that the fund grows at a faster rate than inflation. The chief actuary reviews the solvency of the CPP fund every three years, and the last report indicated that the program was fully funded for the next 75 years. Therefore, this increase in the contribution rate is not being done to ensure the fiscal health of the plan.

Of course, Canadians deserve to retire with the peace of mind that their retirement is fully funded, but that does not give the government free rein to collect a growing part of every Canadian's income. The CPP was never designed to be the only pillar of retirement. It was designed to be one of many.

Also, young Canadians are faced with many expenses, like their first home, first car, and starting a family. Should retirement income be considered more important than having 2% more of one's after-tax income to pay for today's necessities? It is absolutely reasonable for many young families to want to keep more of their income at a time when their living expenses are at their highest.

With this proposed CPP tax hike, the current Liberal government actually would be 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. We have heard the Liberals say that because of the child care benefit, they now have carte blanche to increase the taxes of families. However, it makes no sense to give some money back to families and then tax it again. All that ends up happening is the government forcefully becoming more involved in the day-to-day lives of Canadians.

I believe the CPP is important, but how much further can the contribution rate really be increased? What if, according to the government, in the future Canadians are still not putting enough aside to maintain their standard of living? How much more should contribution rates be increased? Will we see an increase to 14%, to 16%, or maybe even to 18%? What is the limit? I am confident that Lester B. Pearson never envisioned that the combined contribution rates for the CPP would grow to 12% and that government would seek to take over retirement planning for Canadians, but that is the road the Prime Minister and his finance minister are taking Canadians down.

Beyond the basic problem that this would be a tax hike when businesses and employees can least afford it, it would also contribute to an endless feedback loop. The more that government gets involved in managing retirements, the less people will feel the need to save for their own retirement; and then government will once again feel the need to get involved in forcing Canadians to save more, and on it goes.

For my colleagues on the other side, here is another reason to consider this as a tax hike. If contributors die before they are eligible to claim CPP benefits, the benefits that were accrued would not flow to their partner or their dependants. Unlike other retirement-saving options, CPP contributions are not money that contributors or their beneficiaries will necessarily get back.

In conclusion, on this side of the House we trust Canadians with the money they have earned. We believe they should keep their hard-earned money and make the decisions on how to save and invest for their future, not the government. That is why I will be voting in support of this amendment.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member to clarify something. She mentioned that if a person who pays into the CPP through payroll deductions passes away, the benefit is lost. I would like the member to explain that. It is not lost. Either the member does not know the difference or she is trying to mislead the House. The benefit is turned over. I receive the CPP benefit for that very reason. It is called a survivor benefit. Survivors get 50% of what the owner of the plan was entitled to. Could the member please clarify that?

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

Madam Speaker, of course we know that there is a death benefit that is paid out to the family. It is in the amount of $2,500. While the member raises the point that there is a benefit that is paid to perhaps the surviving spouse, what we are talking about is the ability to receive 100% back of what contributors have paid into it, and the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. That is what we on this side of the House are speaking to when we talk about Canadians' right to choose how they will invest their hard-earned money.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, when it was proposed by the previous government under the former prime minister, Mr. Harper, to change the age of retirement, we talked about the expectations of taxpayers and workers who for all those years had been looking forward to retiring at 65. There was no consultation before that. I know it is history now, but I ask the hon. member if it troubled her at the time that there was a unilateral decision to postpone the CPP benefits that Canadians had a right to expect at age 65.

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

Madam Speaker, of course in the last Parliament I was part of the party that was governing and that made that decision. At the time, we were taking a look at what was sustainable for seniors. Of course, we know that the current government has opted to roll that back.

But no, what we did in the previous Parliament was done in order to ensure the sustainability of the program. Again, what we are speaking to today is the opportunity for Canadians to make the choice to determine how they will invest their hard-earned money to ensure that they can afford the standard of living that they choose.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I meet seniors on the doorsteps in Courtenay—Alberni, they tell me that it was not enough, that we have not collected enough and people have not had an opportunity to save enough, and because of the increased cost of living, people cannot afford to pay for their much needed medicine. We are seeing record numbers of seniors at our food banks and in homeless shelters.

I ask the member, how can we mitigate this and help it from happening in the future if we do not invest in CPP? I see contributions to CPP as an investment in our pension fund. It is exactly that, not as an expense and not as a cost. Small business employers are matching and investing in CPP and EI to make sure employees get benefits when they are unemployed and have savings for their future and they can retire in dignity. We know that is not happening today.

Conservatives tell us that fewer than 3% of seniors are living in poverty. That is not what we are hearing from people on the doorsteps. We know that 30% of single senior females are living in poverty.

Can the member come up with some real solutions so we do not end up here again?

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

Madam Speaker, I will make my answer very short. The member asked this question earlier in terms of the seniors he spoke to when he went door to door. The long phase-in period of Bill C-26 will do nothing to support those very people he was talking to today. Nobody will benefit from this for 40 years.

I am not sure why he is making the connection between Bill C-26 and the things he was hearing from seniors on the doorsteps today.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.