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

[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, 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 to 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, 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 through 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 the member 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.