Debates of Dec. 9th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Canada and Quebec Pension Plans

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with PRPPs. I do not understand why the hon. member is so keen on them, when The Globe and Mail, in an editorial, just yesterday, asked why we would have yet another voluntary plan, when only one in four Canadians puts one penny into an RRSP. Why would they put more into this? Second, it is a whole lot more costly than the supplementary CPP plan the Liberals have proposed.

If the Liberal plan for supplementary CPP is both a lot cheaper than PRPPs and will get a whole lot more participation through auto-enrolment, why is he favouring PRPPs as opposed to something that is evidently superior with respect to both cost and participation and that does not have any required increase in premiums?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, whatever the percentage of people who do and do not participate in RRSPs, the PRPPs are for another demographic. I was self-employed for most of my career. A lot of my friends and family and people I have worked with have been self-employed and have not had the opportunity to invest with tax deductions, as people with RRSPs do. This would give them that opportunity.

The voluntary nature of any investment program is not just wise; it is a matter of principle that people should be able to decide how to manage their own affairs and how to prepare for their own futures.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the opposition supply day motion calls for an increase to the pension benefit but makes no mention of the increase in premiums that would be necessary to fund that increase in benefit levels.

It is important for members in the House to realize that when the Canada pension plan was first introduced in 1966, premiums represented 3.6% of annual earnings. By 1997, in the pay-as-you-go system, premiums had risen to 6% of annual income. The pension plan at that point was underfunded, and the projection was that premiums would rise to 10.1% by 2016 and then to 15% or so beyond that. To address the concerns about skyrocketing premiums, the government decided to move away from a pay-as-you-go system toward a system in which we would earn surpluses every year to put away for future use. Today we are at 9.9% of annual income in premiums paid to the fund.

What impact on the economy would an increase have on employers and employees throughout this country?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the historical context, which demonstrates the trend that occurs if we do not carefully look at how the government increases its take from people. It has been shown through experience that when that is done, it hurts the economy. By doing even more than has already been done, it would jump from 3.6% of earnings. Theoretically, that should stay the same throughout the years, because it is compared with the average income. The fact is that we have had to triple it over the years, and now are talking about doing it again.

We can look around the world and see the countries that have tried to tax, borrow, and spend their way out of all their financial problems. We can see those that leave some money in people's own pockets to resolve their problems. Historically and today, the second model has proven to be far more effective. That is why we are opposed to the motion today.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of my colleague's motion to increase the Canada and Quebec pension plans for all Canadians.

Canada is facing a retirement security crisis. Today's seniors just do not have the money they need to retire. Nearly one-third of Canadians will face a drop of 20% or more in their living standards by retirement. Also, nearly one-third of our workforce, as many as 5.8 million Canadians, are facing a steep decline in their standard of living upon retirement. As per usual, with the changes by the current Conservative government, young Canadians are left with a more dire situation to deal with. As The Globe and Mail recently reported:

A CIBC Economics report warned this year that middle-income Canadians are not saving enough for retirement. The report said the situation “will be at its worst decades from now,” when people born in the 1970s and 1980s retire and face a drop of 20 per cent or more in living standards.

Without an increase to CPP, Canada is facing a retirement security crisis. For seniors living in poverty, transfer payments make up over 90% of their incomes. This is not sustainable. Canadians make contributions to the CPP throughout their working lives, and they expect it to count once they reach retirement age. We can do better.

I must also mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth.

Unfortunately, the reality is that Canada cannot afford to not invest in improving the lives of our seniors. As the Conservatives hand out billions of dollars to well-connected insiders and buy fighter jets that our forces say will not meet their military needs, they are ignoring the very real challenges Canada's aging population is facing.

CPP is stable. Many experts are now advocating a phased-in increase in the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, the CPP and the QPP, as the most practical and effective way to help ensure the retirement security of Canadians. As the government's own data show, a modest increase in CPP premiums could finance a substantial increase in benefits.

The simple truth is this: a great many Canadians are not saving enough for retirement today. The provincial governments, the Canadian Labour Congress, and various financial experts have all been calling on the federal government to move forward with plans to increase the CPP.

What other experts would the Conservatives like people to ignore? The chief executive officer of the CIBC, Gerald McCaughey, has been speaking out about the need to improve our public pensions. The Conservatives would rather people ignore what they have said, that enhancing the CPP would help boost savings and that increases to the CPP are “a way for Canadians to make the big investments and get better returns with relatively low cost”.

The Conservatives must be thinking, “What do those socialists at the bank know about managing the economy anyway?” Everybody is a socialist except them.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons has been campaigning for increases to CPP for at least the last three years. In its own words, it has said:

It has been three years since the finance ministers acknowledged that Canadians were not savings enough for retirement and that the existing vehicles were inadequate. Most important, they acknowledged that government had a role to play. Think tanks and pension experts have had enough time to line up behind CARP’s call to enhance the CPP. There is no reason to delay this any longer.

Even the PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has said that CPP is stable. Instead of listening to their own data, the Conservatives would rather use the CPP to instill fear in the hearts of Canadians. On one day, the Conservatives say that the Canadian economy is strong, but today the Conservatives are telling Canadians that the economy is so weak that there is no way we could increase the CPP.

The New Democrats, along with the provinces, are calling for a gradual phasing in of increased benefits in an affordable, sustainable manner. The increases to the CPP and QPP in 1997 have been shown to have not hampered growth in our economy. The Conservatives would like Canadians to believe that if they are re-elected in 2015, then, and only then, will they start fixing what is broken. To be honest, 2015 could just be too late. The problems may be too big to fix. There is a crisis in retirement security we need to tackle today, but we must do so in a responsible manner.

How dire is the retirement security crisis in Canada? Canadians used to be able to count on a workplace pension plan in retirement. Now, more than ever before, seniors are left to depend more on their private savings, especially in comparison with other OECD countries.

A recent OECD survey on pensions shows that the number of seniors, especially women, who live in poverty has been rising in Canada under the Conservatives, even as it is dropping in 20 other OECD countries.

Depending on the poverty measure used, the before-tax income for elderly couples ranges from $14,700 to $22,000. For unattached seniors, the average before-tax income ranges from $11,550 to $16,900.

In my community of Scarborough—Rouge River, just over 12% of our population is over the age of 65. That number will only increase. The average income in my community is $28,328. This really does not paint a rosy picture of the retirement security of the people living in my community. Many families in my riding who came to Canada to invest in their futures soon may find that their investment will come up short.

I am sure we all know of at least one senior who is working past the age of retirement. I want to share a personal story, if I may.

My mother has been working in a warehouse for many years, for over 25 years. She is around the age of retirement now, but she has to keep working. Without a full-time job, my mother would not be able to pay for medication that she and my father need. I am so proud of my mother for being the breadwinner and for taking care of our family, but she should not have to put off her retirement for fear of retiring into poverty. This should not be a decision that any senior needs to make. Life should not be this way for our seniors in Canada. That includes my mother.

In fact, it is senior women who are really feeling the crunch today. No matter what measurement or indicator we use, women make up the clear majority of poor seniors, at 70%. We know that senior women who live alone rely on the government for 62% of their income. While men are more likely to have private pensions, government pension plans are the major source of income for women over the age of 75.

What about the rest of Canadians? What about Canada's future, our youth? With youth unemployment at record highs today, many young people do not have the luxury of thinking about retirement. They are too busy worrying about paying the bills today to think about their retirement many decades away.

As I touched upon earlier, nearly a third of our workforce is facing a steep decline in their standard of living upon retirement. In the case of our young Canadians, that number would be even steeper. We need to make changes now so that we can deal with the changes of Canada's aging population before it is just too late.

With all this support from grassroots activists and from our banks, with increasing demand, with all the facts in front of us, and with the possibility of such a harsh reality for our young people, why do the Conservatives not want to increase CPP and QPP? I just do not get it.

It was just last year that the finance minister agreed to move forward on increasing CPP and QPP benefits. Our finance minister never wants to disappoint us, but he seems to do that quite frequently. The finance minister even promised to meet with the provinces and territories over the summer to discuss how to move ahead. Shockingly enough, that meeting never happened.

In 2005, the Prime Minister campaigned on fully preserving old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and the Canada pension plan. I think we can all admit that the current situation is a far cry from the campaign promise in 2005.

Why should Canadians trust the Conservatives with their retirement savings, when we know that we really cannot trust them on anything else?

We know that by 2030, Conservative cuts to old age security would slash $11 billion in retirement income from seniors by raising the retirement age from 65 to 67.

I will end there and will leave the rest for questions and comments.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, these are just very practical questions that I would like to ask my colleague to answer in terms of evaluating this, in terms of a business proposal.

Is this proposal made assuming a balanced budget? What would the average increases on premiums be for the average worker? What assumptions were made regarding workforce size and mortality expectations of the recipient base, and over what time period? What would the dollar value be in terms of cost to employers? How would this impact long-term sustainability of the CPP?

What other actuarial assumptions were used to calculate the cost of their proposal? How do they compare to assumptions used in our current CPP model, as well, framing that in terms of CPP sustainability over a 25-year period?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that list of, I do not know how many, questions she had that required specific stats and figures that we cannot sit here and share in the five minutes that I have for multiple questions.

I am happy to sit down with the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification to go through the analytics that we did to arrive at the need for increasing the CPP. Of course we looked at responsible measures. That is exactly what the NDP does day in and day out. We are ensuring that we are being fiscally responsible and socially responsible to Canadians, ensuring that our seniors have no fear. We do not want our seniors to fear that they are going to retire into poverty. We want to make sure that our seniors are retiring with dignity, and that needs to be done in a fiscally and socially responsible manner.

That is exactly what the NDP is doing. I am happy to sit down with the minister and go through the details of how to achieve that.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question based on two comments by the member for Toronto—Danforth earlier today, both of which were wrong.

First, he said that my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, said he was opposed to any increase in the size of the CPP. In fact he told me that he was in favour of a gradual increase, which is the same as what I said and the same as what the Liberal platform said in 2011.

Second, he said that the NDP plan was not to double the CPP, at which point I said, “Okay, then we are not so far apart.” However, I subsequently learned that the NDP platform of 2011 said the following:

We will work with the provinces to bring about increases to your Canada/Quebec Pension Plan benefit, with the eventual goal to double the benefits you receive....

There we have it, right in the NDP platform, saying that the eventual goal is to double the benefits people receive. They do not mention premiums, but presumably those would double too.

Why did the hon. member say that it was not the plan to double the CPP when the NDP's own platform says that is the plan?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot put words in other people's mouths. What I can do is speak the facts and what history has shown.

What history has shown us is that the Liberals had a very poor record on pensions while they were in government. The CPP cuts made by the previous Liberal administration had a devastating impact. We know that by 2030, the impact of the Liberal CPP cuts will reach a staggering $15 billion a year.

Instead of supporting the NDP plan to significantly increase CPP, the Liberals have called for a voluntary supplemental CPP.

I am not ashamed to say that we will be working responsibly, we will be working with labour and banks and Canadians in general. We will be looking at multiple avenues forward to be able to increase the benefit in CPP that our seniors are receiving.

If we can reach a point where we are able to double that for our seniors, then I am happy we can do that for our seniors. Our seniors deserve better, and Canadians deserve better. What the Conservatives have offered us and what the Liberals have proven they are not able to offer us is clearly not enough for Canadians.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel I must rise to quickly address in good faith the points made by my colleague from Markham—Unionville. The first point is that I was working straight from Hansard on the statement by the Liberal finance critic, which says:

We don't agree with a mandatory CPP increase at this time because of what still remains stubbornly high unemployment....

If that quotation is wrong compared to what he said even more recently, then I withdraw it.

The second point is that the quotation from his platform talks about an eventual goal, and our concern was that the hon. member was making it look like the motion was talking about doubling now, not just phasing in.

Those are the two points I wanted to make in response. I think maybe the general point my hon. friend made in response to my question, that we may not be so far apart, is something we could work on. I am beginning to learn from the interventions from our colleagues across the way that there may be at least some room for discussion in the sense that at least one member has backed off and said, “Of course, we are not against raising the CPP, just not now”.

Let us all talk in our speeches about the question of whether we can afford to start now, and why the need is such that we need to start now.

The motion, just so no one is under any misapprehension, says:

That the House call on the government to commit to supporting an immediate phase-in of increases to basic public pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans at the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers.

That meeting is this month at Meech Lake.

It is key to put this in the context of a package that the NDP has been proposing: first, gradually phasing in an increase in CPP/QPP benefits, by way of initiating; second, increasing the GIS to lift low-income seniors out of poverty; third, returning to the age of eligibility of 65 from the government's plan to take it to 67; and fourth, tightening up legislation to protect workers' pensions, for the few workers in our economy who now have pensions, when a company is facing bankruptcy, leaving the country, being sold or undergoing corporate restructuring.

It is in that context that we are talking about the need for a gradual phase-in of an increase. It is also important to know that the provinces and the territories see this as a pressing matter. It is not coming out of the blue. This is, at some level, about collaborative federalism.

A year ago, in December of 2012, the Minister of Finance said he was prepared to move forward, but now we have the government denying that. The provincial, territorial and federal finance ministers will meet next week with the beginnings of a plan already on the table from the provincial and territorial governments that this government now seems intent on sidestepping. That is really the question. Will the government be working with the provinces and the territories to get a start on what we are calling a phase-in?

It is not just the provinces. For example, those who do seem to know their economics, the CEO of CIBC, the former chief actuary of the CPP, have indicated that this is not only a good idea, but fully feasible. The Globe and Mail editorial yesterday talked about expanding the CPP:

It should be done, and it should be done soon.... It sounds like a tax increase. It’s not. It’s a savings plan. And it’s the best one we’ve got.

I am not saying that every time The Globe and Mail writes an editorial, it is right but it happens to be right on this one.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

When they agree with us.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Yes, when they agree with us.

Let me do my colleagues across the way the honour of dealing with two critical attacks being made by the Conservative government on this position: first, the idea that this is somehow a new payroll tax; and second, that this is a risky plan that would kill jobs.

First is the claim that this is a new payroll tax. The truth is, as the Canada Research Chair on Public Finance at Simon Fraser University, Professor Jon Kesselman, has told us, and keep in mind he is one of the country's experts on payroll taxes, this is a misrepresentation. He says that the CPP is a savings plan not a payroll tax on employers, even.

It is a retirement investment plan jointly funded by employee and employer. We cannot forget the broad purpose, that it not only increases the retirement security of individuals but also the collective economic security of the entire society. This is key.

The second critique or attack is that this is a risky plan that would kill jobs and we have been hearing more about this in the last two days from the Minister of State for Finance. I worry that this is very misleading to Canadians from the government. Experts have been clear that previous increases to CPP contributions did not hinder the economy and did not cause job loss.

What we are getting from the government is a wild figure being cited about job losses by the Minister of State for Finance and no evidence to support it, even when asked to substantiate it here in the House. I do look forward to hearing whether or not there is something to back up that claim.

Let me return to the question of economics. We also have CIBC economist, Benjamin Tal, telling us that the CPP is important because it would boost savings:

The CPP is a good one.... The CPP has the scale to make big investments and get better returns with relatively low cost.

That sums up in so many ways the benefits of going the CPP route, including through a mandatory approach, by increasing premiums gradually to sufficient levels. It is very important to contrast that to the plan that the government has been wanting to push, implementing the pooled registered pension plans, which are not much more than glossier versions of the RRSPs that we have now. They are subject to often very high administrative and service fees charged by banks and other institutions.

The difference between the cost-effectiveness of the CPP and RRSPs is quite astounding. I think even recent figures coming down suggest that the performance of the CPP over the last measurable cycle was well in excess of the RRSPs that Canadians are encouraged to put their money in privately.

Let me now turn to the question of need that I mentioned at the outset. We are living in an era of increasingly precarious work. Here I salute my colleague from Davenport who has been putting this at the forefront of a lot of his work in Toronto.

The fact is that more and more the work world is one where almost nothing can be counted on and this includes fewer workplace pensions. Indeed, 11 million Canadians are without any workplace pension. At the rate we are going, 60% of current youth will retire with a drop, and for many of them a significant drop, in their standard of living.

The precariousness of financial security at retirement also comes from life circumstances that mean some people have different periods in the workforce, which so often have nothing to do or anything to do with their own fault or with lack of merit. It is just the way things have turned out.

I had a note from a couple in my riding, Bill and Jean. They included this in a letter that was about something else because they felt this was so important. They said we need to increase the financial security of retirees and that CPP should look after retirees since we do see seniors not having enough CPP eligibility while they are in the workforce. Therefore, CPP should boost coverage somewhat.

It is important to note that the whole question of period of time and lateness into the workforce is something especially experienced by women in our society. I will not go into detail because everyone here understands that. It is made even worse by something that was brought to my attention by a constituent at my recent holiday party. We spoke for a good 5 to 10 minutes on this. She talked to me about ageism in the work world and how, increasingly, it is difficult to find jobs when people lose their jobs in their late forties or early fifties. That has knock-on effects for their ability to collect CPP.

It is true that the reality of the needs that are pushing us and other commentators for the gradual phase-in of increasing CPP has to lie at the bottom of this. We have to understand what the average citizen is experiencing, the stress in their lives and work lives. They know the challenges they are facing and that they need some kind of help from the Parliament of Canada.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, certainly in the spirit that we have had in this place with regard to debate and validity of debate, I respect my colleague making the comment on the front end of his speech when he said we really should be having a debate about whether we should increase CPP premiums now. In the spirit of that statement, I have some questions that I would love for him to address.

What is the size of premium increase that he would anticipate in terms of being necessary to support this proposal? What would the size of the workforce need to be to support this proposal down the road in terms of sustainability? What assumptions were made to assert the NDP's claim that this would not have an impact on job sustainability? When the cost of a premium like this is increased to employers, that is obviously going to be a factor in their cash flow analysis and long-term business planning.

I would love to hear some details, some actual economic model information, on why this is a good proposal. Convince us that increasing CPP premiums right now is something that is sustainable in the long term and is not going to hurt job creation. All I have heard today is this is bad, that is good. If we are really talking about increasing the standard of debate in this place, we should be talking about these things.

I would love to hear some actual economic facts with regard to the NDP's proposal.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I hope my hon. friend will also appreciate that exact detailed answers are not at my fingertips.

What I would say is that it is very important to note that the motion is, indeed, about a gradual phase in. It is also a political question. It has to do with the fact that the provinces and territories are ready and that they themselves have some kind of framework they want the finance minister to take seriously when they meet next week. Frankly, because of the whole question of how federalism works and my own sense that they surely have done the analysis, I would be very partial to at least starting with what they want to start with.

I would push back a little and say that we are hearing this quite exceptional figure of 70,000 jobs that are going to be lost because of something the government does not have enough information. We are only talking about a gradual phase in without specific numbers, so how the government knows or thinks its knows that 70,000 jobs are going to be lost is, frankly, beyond me and I would love to see the numbers on that from the other side.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue this whole issue of trying to get a bit more clarity. I appreciate the motion that the NDP has brought forward. There is some confusion and if he could provide some clarity, it would be greatly appreciated.

There was a time when the NDP's position was to double up on CPP. I listened to that member in particular and the member from Vancouver who said, in essence, in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, maybe it might happen type of thing. Could the member for Toronto—Danforth clearly indicate that there has been a change in shift in policy, that it is no longer the NDP's position that it should be doubled and that, in fact, it favours a more gradual increase in the years ahead? That seems to be what the New Democrats are saying.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the two items that he presented as alternatives are quite consistent. The idea of the phase in and the idea of, as we put it in our platform, the eventual goal of doubling are perfectly consistent. We are not saying when an eventual goal of doubling should or could be reached and this is where some of the critique across the way has to be taken into account. Exactly what are the impacts as we phase in? What kind of information do we have about when we could actually even hope to get to that eventual goal? I honestly do not see a huge contradiction or any contradiction at all and I would simply leave it at that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 La Pointe-de-l'Île, Ethics; the hon. member for York South—Weston, Health; the hon. member for Montcalm, Persons with Disabilities.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to express heartfelt condolences from the Shory family and from the constituents of Calgary Northeast to the family and friends of Nelson Mandela and the nation of South Africa. Mandela's long walk to freedom left a lasting legacy for his people, leading to them to peace, not retribution.

Mandela once said:

When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace.

Indeed, he can rest in peace now.

Today, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member's motion for debate on expanding the Canada pension plan. Let me be clear. Our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: growing the economy and helping to create jobs.

Since 2006, we have taken responsible actions to ensure that Canada's economy is well positioned for long-term prosperity. We are on the right track. Thanks to the economic action plan, we have created over one million net new jobs since the end of the recession, nearly 90% of which are full-time positions and more than 80% are in the private sector. This is the best job creation record in the G7 by far. What is more, Statistics Canada recently announced that 21,600 net new jobs were added in November, with the unemployment rate remaining at 6.9%. This is a record of which my constituents of Calgary Northeast and all Canadians can be proud.

However, we know that Canada is not immune to the challenges beyond its borders. The global economy remains fragile, especially in the U.S. and Europe, both among our largest trading partners. Indeed, the sovereign debt crisis in Europe continues to weigh on the confidence of consumers and businesses. Closer to home, a slow recovery in the U.S., as well as uncertainty surrounding the sustainability of its finances, poses the greatest risk to the Canadian economy.

In light of these factors, not surprisingly, the International Monetary Fund recently revised its outlook downward for the real GDP growth in both advanced and emerging economies. In fact, the IMF now projects that growth in advanced economies will average just 1.2% in 2013, down from its previous projection of 1.4%.

With significant risks still remaining in the global economy, Canada must remain well positioned to withstand any shocks arising from beyond its borders. However, for some reason, it is in this challenging economic environment that the NDP unilaterally demands that we expand the Canada pension plan.

While CPP reforms continue to be examined by ourselves and the provinces, we share the concerns of small businesses and their workers of increasing costs in a fragile global recovery. I would like to offer the House some examples of what people think about expanding the CPP at this time.

First, here is what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had to say:

Small firms believe that the economy cannot manage a significant increase in payroll taxes...Thousands of workers could find themselves with reduced hours or out of a job as a result of employers having to react to higher payroll costs

Similarly, the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association had the following concern:

The restaurant industry is one of the country’s largest employers and the number one place where Canadians get their first-job experience. Increasing CPP premiums puts these opportunities at risk.

There is still more. Writing for Canadian Business magazine, here is what Larry MacDonald had to say:

There doesn't seem to be a real need for it...A jump in CPP premiums makes it more expensive for businesses to maintain a workforce and could lead to job losses.

I could go on and on. There is just so much opposition to this short-sighted NDP proposal to potentially double the CPP.

Why does the NDP want to increase payroll taxes on small businesses? Does the NDP not recognize the vital role that small businesses play in Canada's economy? Does the NDP not recognize that they are essential in creating jobs and economic growth?

Fortunately, our Conservative government understands that small businesses are the cornerstone of Canada's economy. Indeed, that is why since 2006 our government has lowered the small business tax bill by over $28,000. We have achieved this through such measures as reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, increasing the amount of income eligible to lower the small business tax rate from $300,000 to $500,000 and introducing the job-creating small business hiring tax credit. It is measures like these that have left Canada's entrepreneurs with more money to grow their businesses and create more jobs.

Indeed, we are taking further action to support Canada's job creators.

Through economic action plan 2013, we are extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and provide close to $225 million in tax relief in 2013. We are also freezing employment insurance premiums to provide predictability and stability for small businesses. This action will keep $660 million in the pockets of job creators in 2014 alone to be spent on hiring more employees, improving wages and growing their businesses. This is how a responsible government supports job creation. Unlike the opposition, we will not attack job creators with massive tax hikes.

Unfortunately, while we are supporting this vital sector of our economy, the NDP is putting forward proposals that will hurt small businesses. As if a $20 billion carbon tax was not enough, now the NDP is demanding that our government double the CPP, which is a proposal that would kill up to 70,000 Canadians jobs. Once more, the NDP plan would force contributions raised on average by over $1,600 per year. A family with two workers could be forced to pay as much as $2,600 every year. Where does the NDP want the family to find this money? I know that it does not grow on trees. Families may be forced to cut on rent payments, heating or grocery bills.

The NDP is out of touch with the concerns of Canadian families and it has not listened to the concerns of the provinces either.

The NDP claims that a CPP expansion has the support of the provinces. As hon. members should be aware, any expansion of the Canada pension plan would require the support of two-thirds of provinces representing two-thirds of the Canadian population. Had the member done his research, he would have learned that a number of provinces have clearly expressed concerns about the economic impact of higher payroll dedications on workers and their employers at a time when the global economy remains uncertain.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has already said that now is not the time for contribution changes or increases.

Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil has said, “some issues about what that will mean to small business owners in this province, and what is the impact on low-income Nova Scotians and Canadians”.

New Brunswick Finance Minister Blaine Higgs stated, “We don't think it's the right time to put on additional costs to business owners and employees”.

Talking for British Columbia, the finance department has said, “B.C. believes pension reforms should not be undertaken before the economy has recovered from the impacts of the recent recession”.

We share these concerns. Why do we share these basic concerns? Because the basic truth that the opposition does not understand is that for many Canadians there is no good retirement plan if they have no job.

That is not to say that the opposition motion is completely without merit. It is actually quite useful in offering us a prime example of how not to go about improving retirement security for Canadians.

The NDP wants to derail our economic recovery, and it wants to raise payroll taxes. It could not care less about the concerns raised by the provinces and small businesses.

In addition, it ignores the fact that Canada's retirement system is already recognized as among the strongest in the world, thanks in large portion to the action plan taken by this Conservative government. Indeed, this is a record of which we are justifiably proud.

Our Conservative government has delivered positive results and offered innovative new options to Canadians working and planning for retirement as well as those who are already in retirement. Our actions have resulted in a very low rate of poverty among seniors.

I would like to take some time to highlight the three pillars of Canada's retirement income system and show the opposition how this system is helping Canadian seniors.

The first pillar, comprising old age security and the guaranteed income supplement program, provide a basic minimum income for seniors, which is funded out of the federal government's revenues. Indeed, the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are important toward reducing poverty and ensuring basic income support in retirement. That is why our government implemented a new guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for Canada's most vulnerable seniors. As a result of our changes, more than 680,000 low-income seniors are now receiving additional annual benefits of up to $620 for a single senior and $865 for couples.

Currently the federal government provides approximately $40 billion in OAS/GIS benefits per year to more than 5.2 million Canadians. Given the sheer size of this program and its importance to our retirement system, we recently took steps to ensure that OAS remains on a sustainable path over the long term. We did so because the OAS program was designed for a different time. In the 1970s, there were seven workers for every one person over the age 65; in 20 years, there will be only two. In 1970, life expectancy was age 69 for men and 76 for women; today, it is 79 for men and 83 for women. At the same time, Canada's birth rate is falling.

Canadians are living longer and healthier lives, which, of course, is a good thing. Our changes would ensure OAS is put on a sustainable path so it is there when the next generation of Canadians need it. That is responsible economic leadership.

The Canada pension plan is the second pillar in Canada's retirement income system. It is one where we have already made improvements. Working with the provinces, we modernized the Canada pension plan to make it more flexible for those transitioning out of the workforce, to better reflect the way Canadians currently live, work and retire.

The CPP and Quebec pension plan currently provide approximately $45 billion per year in benefits to about 6.6 million individuals, financed by contributions from workers and employers. I am happy to inform this House that the most recent actuarial report on the CPP by the Chief Actuary, tabled in Parliament on December 3, confirmed that the plan is sustainable at the current contribution rate of 9.9% of pensionable earnings for at least the next 75 years. In other words, the CPP is in good shape and has a great future.

I would like to turn now to the third and final pillar of Canada's retirement income system. The government has provided various tax-assisted private savings opportunities to help Canadians save for their retirement. These include registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans.

Contributions to RPPs and RRSPs are deductible from income for tax purposes, and investment income earned in these plans is not subject to income tax. The federal tax cost associated with RPP and RRSP savings is significant and currently estimated at approximately $24 billion per year.

Given their importance, we have enhanced the incentives for private savings in a number of ways. In 2009, for example, we consulted Canadians from coast to coast to coast and introduced a number of changes to the framework for federally regulated registered pension plans.

These improvements require the plan sponsors to fund any deficiency that exists at the date the pension plan is terminated. They also provide sponsors of the defined benefit pension plans with more funding flexibility, making them less sensitive to market volatility.

In budget 2008, our government introduced the tax-free savings account, which became available in 2009. The TFSAs are flexible, general purpose, tax-assisted savings accounts that may be used for any purpose, including retirement savings. The TFSA provides greater savings incentives for low and modest income individuals, since neither TFSA investment income nor withdrawals affect eligibility for federal income tested benefits and credits, such as OAS and GIS benefits.

Initially allowing Canadians to save tax free on up to $5,000 each year, our government recently increased the amount by $500. As a result of this action, since 2013 Canadians have been able to benefit from an overall annual tax-free savings contribution limit of $5,500 from TFSAs.

That is not all. Our government has also taken concrete actions to help address what has been identified as a gap on the voluntary side of Canada's retirement income system. While participation in retirement savings vehicles like RPPs and RRSPs is reasonably high for middle and high income earners, some Canadians may not be taking full advantage of these personal retirement savings opportunities. In particular, research has shown that some modest and middle income households may not be saving enough for retirement.

Indeed, more than an estimated 60% of Canadians do not have access to a workplace pension plan. Our government does not believe this is right. This is precisely why we have introduced pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs. PRPPs will significantly help small and medium-sized businesses and their employees, who until now have not had access to a large-scale, low-cost private pension option. PRPPs will be low cost. By pooling pension savings, the cost of administering these pension funds will be spread over a larger group of people. As a result, plan members will benefit from lower investment management costs.

I would like to remind my NDP friends that unlike CPP expansion, there was federal, provincial and territorial consensus to proceed with PRPPs. Despite this consensus, the NDP felt they did not want to work toward strengthening Canada's retirement income system and they voted against our government's legislation. This legislation ultimately established the federal framework for PRPPs.

In conclusion, our government will continue to work co-operatively with the provinces to explore potential reforms to CPP. That being said, we will not support any course of action that endangers Canadian jobs, including the NDP's risky and ill-advised proposal to double the CPP contributions. We know that the best retirement plan for tomorrow is a job today. The NDP may claim that that it is serous about job creation and economic growth, but it continues to push forward radical policies that Canadians cannot afford.

Indeed, when it comes managing the economy, Canadians can rest assured that our Conservative government will support initiatives that stimulate job creation and economic growth, not measures that will kill jobs and hurt our economy.

Unfortunately, today's motion from the hon. member for Victoria shows that the same cannot be said for the NDP.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member says in his remarks that the NDP “unilaterally” seeks an increase in the CPP, ignoring, I suppose, the majority opinion polls that suggest Canadians are onside, and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, the Canadian Labour Congress and most economists. If it is unilateral, it is a pretty big unilateral.

The member seemed to suggest that the motion is about the radical idea of doubling the CPP contributions. I would invite the hon. member to read the motion. It does no such thing. It is about the upcoming Meech Lake meetings, where we are urging the Minister of Finance to do what the Minister of Finance himself said should be done, which is to move forward with increases in the CPP.

What is the member's position on mandatory versus voluntary agreement? Does he agree with the Minister of Finance that we need to do this in a mandatory way?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the other side. I was in the House this morning when he made his opening speech. Let me quote what he said this morning.

He stated, “How can people be expected to voluntarily save when Canadians already have the highest household debt rate in history? To suggest people should voluntarily save, and that will do the trick, ignores the reality that most working people and an increasingly large number of middle-class Canadians as well are not able to save. [...] why take a chance on a voluntary program?”

I welcomed these words from the hon. member for Victoria, whose motion we are discussing today. I think it cuts to the core of what we are really talking about.

The NDP is suggesting to increase the CPP contributions on the very people it admits cannot afford these increases. The NDP would have middle and lower income Canadians choose between rent, groceries and heat for their children, in order to satisfy its own social agenda.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the NDP and my colleagues for having the foresight to put a motion forward to talk about something as important as the pension systems in Canada. We have to find different ways of helping Canadians. People need jobs. Another investment is making sure that we have a viable economy is to ensure that jobs are being produced. At the same time, we have to encourage Canadians to contribute where there are positive vehicles to do that.

The CPP plan was introduced by a previous Liberal government. It has been amazingly successful. I often ask people who hollered and screamed that they did not want the CPP when it came out as to what they would do without it today.

The issue we are now discussing is about finding ways of enhancing and expanding the CPP as an avenue to help people recognize that they need to contribute. This is a great vehicle to do that. The New Democrats are not suggesting how much; the motion talks about how we could better invest and how we would move forward.

How can the hon. member on the other side possibly disagree on having a conversation about helping Canadians retire with a good quality of life and sufficient money?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the most recent review of the CPP confirmed that it is sustainable at the current contribution rate of 9.9% of pensionable income for at least 75 years.

Expanding the CPP is not supported by everyone. In a recent study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 65% of businesses said they would freeze or cut salaries; 48% said they would reduce investments in their businesses; and 42% said they would decrease the number of their employees.

Even Liberal Premier Wynne admits there are different perspectives on whether Canadians and businesses can afford to increase their contributions to the CPP in a fragile economy.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that public pensions are provincial areas of jurisdiction. We used the federal spending power in the mid-1960s to convince the provinces to come on board with a single national plan. We were successful in convincing nine out of the ten provinces to do so. Quebec chose to establish its own Quebec pension plan. As a result, there is a federal-provincial agreement in place to effect any changes to the pension plan. The agreement said that as a government we need to secure the support of two-thirds of the provinces in this country that have at least two-thirds of the Canadian population.

In recent media reports, some provinces, such as Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have indicated some concern about increasing the benefit levels.

Can my colleague from Calgary tell the House what challenges there would be to achieving a substantial agreement in order to effect these increases in benefit levels and premiums?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for an intelligent question. I agree with him that some of the provinces have shown their concerns. For the record, let me quote what Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil said:

We have some issues about what that will mean to small business owners in this province, and what is the impact on low-income Nova Scotians and Canadians.

Talking about the quotes, I have consulted some small business owners in my own riding in Calgary Northeast. Romi Sidhu has nine employees. He owns an insurance agency. He said that an increase in the CPP employer contribution would mean that he would need to reconsider the expansion plans that he has for his insurance agency.

On top of that, another employer, Bobby Kular from Kular Enterprises Ltd., said he has seven employees and he agrees with Romi Sidhu.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have been able to take the floor in today's opposition day motion, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Victoria—my neighbouring riding—a neighbour and an old friend, for an excellent opportunity.

I fully support his motion. It is critical we address CPP. It is the most reliable. It is the very best way in which we can protect and think ahead to the pension benefits that Canadians will need.

I want to ask the member opposite, the member for Calgary Northeast, this question. I think it is quite telling that in today's Globe and Mail, the editorial says that the current administration has made a terrible error in rejecting calls to open up discussions for increasing CPP. This is the same newspaper whose editorial policy endorsed the Conservative leader in the last election. This is the newspaper that in editorial stance represents, may I say quite generally, a pro-business, fiscally responsible approach. There are very many voices across the country calling for an increase in CPP. The question is whether the Conservatives will listen.