Thank you.
Going from 4.95% to 4.75% looks like 0.2%, but when they're taken together, the total employer and employee contribution is reduced by 40 basis points. In the short term, it's going to help workers because a little less CPP comes off their paycheques.
It will also help employers—as I'm sure my colleagues are happy to point out—because their payroll costs go down slightly. It also helps self-employed Canadians because they pay both sides of the CPP, so they see the full reduction directly. When it comes to small businesses, especially in this economy with tight margins, even a small reduction in payroll costs can matter when rent, wages, insurance and other expenses are already high.
There is no question that my colleagues across the table are going to present this as affordability relief. However, it could also hurt younger workers. One of the themes we have seen consistently in this government is that there seems to be a lack of consideration for young people and for people who are trying to save to buy a house and trying to save to get ahead. It certainly affects the people coming along behind them, because if or when the reduced contribution rate leaves the CPP with less revenue, it will definitely create pressure for higher rates later.
That also hurts future retirees, because if the plan's financial cushion is reduced over time, that is going to have an impact, even if benefits are not cut now. It could also hurt contributors more generally if Parliament is not shown whether the lower rate is sustainable. That, in turn, can hurt the trust in CPP if the government lowers contributions without clearly explaining the long-term impact.
That is the key point here. The change doesn't necessarily mean CPP benefits are being cut now, but it does mean less money is being collected than would otherwise be collected, and that raises a question of whether the lower revenue is safe for the plan in the long term.
That brings me to the amendment and the subamendment, because it shows us why they matter. The government is going to say that the reduction is safe. If that is what they want to say, then they should be able to show the numbers—not just the headline number and the total assets in future dollars, but the real value of these assets after inflation and what these assets look like per contributor and per beneficiary.
If that 40 basis-point reduction is helpful in paying CPP today but creates a risk for people relying on CPP tomorrow, that is something Parliament should be aware of and is something reasonable to debate, because the decisions we have to make in the House always involve trade-offs.
We may or may not decide we want to help today's workers, employers and self-employed Canadians with this modest reduction in contributions, taking into account the ways it might hurt future retirees and workers. If the lower rate weakens the CPP's long-term financing or if it leads to pressure for higher rates later, that is something we should be taking into account.
The responsible position isn't simply a yes or a no, a good or a bad. The responsible position is to show us the actual actuarial impact—boy, that's a tongue twister—and then let's discuss it. Let us work together to do what is best for Canadians.
I'm sorry, Mr. Turnbull. Are you trying to say something to me?