I am getting to the subamendment.
There were comments being made, Madam Chair, about the amount of time that people have been spending, so I just want to make it clear that we waited a long time to see a budget. We certainly waited a long time to see the spring economic update, of which this CPP subamendment we're dealing with right now is clearly a part.
I don't think it's redundancy. I think it's making points, Mr. Turnbull. I know you've mentioned that it's not a good use of our time. In fact, I think it's a very good use of our time, because you need context. You can't just sit here and say, “Today I'm going to talk just about this thing.” You need context. When you bring in context in the way that you did in your intervention, Mr. Turnbull, it opens it up for us to be able to comment on the comments that you made.
You were right. Canadians expect us to do the right thing and to do the right thing right now. Part of that expectation is for us to work longer, to work hard and to represent them for the exceptional wages that we all get paid to be here to represent them.
Having said that, today we're addressing the Liberal government's spring economic update and in particular its treatment of the Canada pension plan and this subamendment. At first glance, the government wants Canadians to believe that it is providing relief by reducing the base CPP contribution rate from 9.9% to 9.5%, beginning next year, in 2027. The government is boasting that workers earning $70,000 a year will save approximately $133 annually and that employers will enjoy matching savings. That's $133. That's a lot of money. I would suggest to my friends opposite that they should visit the local grocery store and see how far $133 takes them. Those are the facts.
The question Canadians should be asking is this: Why are they suddenly presenting themselves as champions of affordability after years of increasing these payroll costs on workers and businesses, as we're discussing today?
For years, Conservatives warned that escalating CPP premiums, when combined with higher employment insurance premiums, carbon taxes and other payroll costs, would reduce take-home pay and make it more expensive to hire workers. We argued that middle-class Canadians needed relief, not additional deductions from every paycheque, yet here they are today, wanting us to fast-track this $133 in savings, which is supposed to be a major contribution to Canadians. I want you to know how much $133 a year is per day. It's not even a cup of coffee. It's a lot less than a cup of coffee to Canadians.
That $133 does not buy you a cup of coffee a day, Mr. Leitão. You might find a place in Canada where it is available for a lot less than that, and if you do, please post it on social media and on all the media outlets out there so that Canadians can also know where to get it themselves, because they would love to spend just $133 for the entire year for one cup of coffee per day, which, of course, we all know is not available.
However, the government dismissed our concerns. As my colleague Mr. Lawrence said, any time we come up with amendments to try to make legislation better, including discussing this subamendment here at this point in time, the government always votes them down. They use their majority. They use their power, their manufactured majority. I know they don't like to call it that, but that's exactly what it is. Sometimes they're able to get some of the other parties to support them, but certainly not us on issues like this. They vote the amendments down. Our opportunity to get the message across to them and for Canadians to hear that....
Indeed, we are also parliamentarians. We are also elected here, and we have a voice. We have an opinion and we represent people. My riding has about 140,000 people. I'm not going to give that up just because Mr. Turnbull doesn't want to work an extra few hours to process this stuff through. That's not going to happen. We're here to represent people and to make sure we get the best possible outcome for them, because that's what they sent us here to do. It's to represent them.
Now that the government has discovered that the CPP is in a stronger financial position than expected, they are prepared to reduce the contribution rate. In effect, Canadians are being told that they are paying more taxes than necessary, which is of course something Conservatives have been saying for many years. We don't believe in taxing people. We believe in leaving the money in the pockets of Canadians. They know what best to do with their hard-earned dollars. We welcome any measure that leaves more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
We support affordability. We support lower payroll deductions, and we support policies that allow workers to keep more of what they earn. That's the important thing. Canadians know what to do with their money better than the government does.
We cannot ignore the broader context. Workers saving $133 of CPP is welcome news, but it has not erased the damage done by years of rising living costs. Families are struggling with housing costs, grocery bills and utility expenses, and interest payments have increased dramatically over the past decade. For many Canadians, $133 barely covers a few days' worth of groceries for them and their families.
The government is attempting to celebrate a very modest reduction—I would say a very poor reduction—in contributions, while continuing to run massive deficits and accumulate debt that future generations will be required to repay. In fact, as we all know, this year's budget alone called for a deficit of some $80 billion this year and some $360 billion over the next five years, which is absolutely staggering. Canadians are supposed to say that they will pay $80 billion a year because they're getting a reduction of $133 a year in CPP. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
According to the spring economic update, the federal deficit continues to remain astronomically high, and the affordability crisis is certainly not getting any better. The reality is that Canadians need more than the symbolic relief we see, which is what the subamendment is speaking to—symbolic relief through a very nominal reduction in CPP contributions.
Of course, that gives the finance minister, Mr. Turnbull and his colleagues an opportunity to stand up in the House and say that they provided relief for 22 million Canadians, thinking that they have done something great. Canadians know what that means, because they get their paycheques. It's just rhetoric. That's all it is. If you give everybody 10¢ a day, they're supposed to think, “Wow. We're really getting something big.” It makes no sense whatsoever.
They need a government that creates conditions for higher wages, stronger investment and better opportunities, not the kind of stuff they've put in here with this nominal reduction in the CPP. They need a government that understands that prosperity comes from productive businesses and hard-working people, not from endless government spending.
My colleague Mr. Kelly spoke about business people and businesses and what it means to them to have people on the payroll for whom they pay CPP contributions. Businesses certainly pay their employer contributions, and it's hard for some of those small business people to meet their expenses on a weekly and monthly basis, pay their leases and pay their employees. After the government takes all this money as taxes, employees get whatever's left, and they're expected to pay all these increased costs. They looked to this spring economic budget and to the relief in some of these measures, like the CPP, to get something a little bit more than $133 a year.
It makes no sense. If anybody thinks of $133 a year as a saviour, I think they're out to lunch, to be quite frank. I mean that with no disrespect. I'm not talking about specific individuals here. It doesn't make sense to anybody that $133 a year is a significant contribution to a family that is plagued with all these additional and rising costs of everything every single day.
I don't want to get into the carbon tax, the industrial carbon tax and all that kind of stuff. You can't be giving people a $133 break over a year when every time they go to the pump, they're paying $30 or $40, and they have to do that twice a week just to go to work to earn the money to get that $133 in savings a year. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.