Debates of Nov. 14th, 2016

Canada Pension Plan

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the current situation is the impetus for what we are doing with CPP. However, we are reversing the OAS back to age 65 and we have increased the guaranteed income supplement and its eligibility as well. We are taking actions to address the seniors who are retiring now. At the same time, we are preparing the next generation to help take care of the seniors who will be retiring then.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues have asked three excellent questions, but my question is more about something else. I heard the member say that he was enhancing the opportunities for youth as well. How can the Liberals do that when they are increasing taxes through a carbon tax and bringing about present taxes on them, as well as this tax of a Canada pension plan? It just does not add up to a prosperous future for the new generations as well as for our seniors.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will paraphrase what one student said. He asked why we would put our heads in the sand and let them pay for not taking steps now. The member says that this is a tax. We see this as an investment. A lot of the youth I spoke to see it as an investment as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we resume debate, I notice there has been some body language that shows there are questions about how I am selecting speakers. I want to remind members that the Deputy Speaker raised this in the House before the House rose. Basically, when a specific party is doing the speech, it will be left up to the other parties to ask the questions unless nobody on the opposite side is asking questions. If there is nobody asking questions, then we will go back and forth on a rotating basis. I just want to reiterate that.

Time is generally afforded to members of the parties that are not associated with the member who has just spoken, but not to the exclusion of that party. We will also be attentive to members who are particularly present during the day and paying attention to the debate to ensure that as many members as possible can participate.

The final point that the Deputy Speaker gave was that when we start the time for questions and comments, we will take note of the number of members who rise to judge how we accord and allocate time for members. For example, if only one or two members stand up in the five minute period for questions and comments, we will certainly allow more time for those members accordingly.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I like to do when I address an issue is always lay out the philosophical principle grounds as to why I am addressing it and where my conclusions come from. One thing I have noted in this House, over the years, is members do a fairly excellent job of going through the details. However, when we are in this House, we are not just speaking to other members, explaining details, we are laying out our basic understanding to our constituents and to the broader Canadian public as to why we are voting for or against something. I always consider it very wise to lay out the basic principle as to why I will be voting on a piece of legislation in one particular way or another.

However, with respect to this particular legislation, the CPP tax hike, as we the Conservatives are noting Bill C-26, the reason I am particularly voting against it is that the government is taking away freedom and choice from Canadians. Let us be fairly clear with what the government is doing by raising the CPP premiums: it is taking away people's choice. This is not some money that is coming from somewhere else into people's accounts. It is not money falling from heaven like manna. It is people being forced to take the money, which they may very well need now, and to delay it for some future benefit some day, as the data and research shows for Canadians of my age and younger, at a very poor rate of return.

Let us go through the basic objections as to why the Liberal government's CPP hike would be bad for Canadians, would give them less freedom, and, in the final analysis, would not be good for our economy or people's individual lives.

The first point is that increases to the Canadian pension plan, hikes to the premiums, have not over the long term increased savings. The government is naturally going to argue, “Of course, this is forcing people to put money into the future that they will get back from the CPP when they retire”, but the empirical data and research that has been done, in the past, shows that whenever we have hiked the rates on premiums the number one place where Canadians tend to take the money from, when the government takes it from them forcefully, is their savings. It is almost a 1:1 ratio.

That means every time there is a hike, the government requires more in contributions, be it directly from people's paycheques or indirectly, although it still comes from people, ultimately, under the guise of taking it from their employers' contribution share. What do Canadians do? They put less money into mutual funds; they put less money into RRSPs; and now, with the introduction of the tax-free savings account, we will see less investment and less savings there.

What is happening is not that Canadians are getting a larger sum of money for their retirement, but that the government is taking away options from Canadians, taking away flexibility, and putting money into a pension plan for them, which may or may not be in their best interest.

Canadians are at different points in their lives, with different interests.

I am married. I have a 20-month-old daughter. All members of the caucus who know me know I am very proud of her. My wife and I, rather than wanting to put more money toward our pension plans, are looking to start a registered educational savings plan for our daughter. We hope some day she will grow up, graduate from high school, and go forward for further education. That is the priority for us. However, when the government begins to engage in things like the CPP hike, it takes away people's freedom to make those choices and, instead, decides for them, “This is where your savings need to go”.

There is an issue right now with affordable housing across the country, and in Vancouver and Toronto in particular. One of the greatest places where people save money is in their real estate. It is very difficult for young people now to get a foot on the ladder. The argument is, “Well, these aren't great sums of money, but a dollar is a dollar, and every little bit makes it more difficult”. To top it off, with the government's changes to mortgages, it continues to make it more difficult for young people who want to get on the housing ladder. The point is that by taking away people's freedoms, the government does not increase and encourage more savings for retirement, it just changes the vehicle for how it is done.

The second point is this. There might actually be some benefit to Canadians if the rate of return was that much greater. There was an interesting paper done by the Fraser Institute that analyzed, depending upon what year people were born, the actual rate of return, in real value, for the average Canadian. For people born after 1972, it is barely over 2%.

I am 42 years old and was born in 1974. For me, the rate of return on my retirement plan is absolutely lousy. For people from my grandpa's generation born before 1920, it was an absolutely fabulous rate of return. It was incredible. He lived to be 92 years old, he paid for approximately 10 years, and it was amazing.

However, this is the issue. For young Canadians going forward, an increase to the Canada pension plan is not great. It is a poor return on investment. If people put money in, say, a low-cost indexed fund or something like that, historically, it is shown to have greater returns that one can control. Let us say that, unfortunately, someone passes away early. Their heirs would receive extra benefits. The government's plan would instead provide weaker returns for younger Canadians. It is not helping people. It is deciding for Canadians when they need their savings, now or later, and at an inferior rate of return. That is the second point that the government needs to note.

What problem is the government addressing? Again, this needs to be dealt with. When we discuss retirement, we talk about replacement income. This really is not the issue when it comes to retirement income. The question is more one of whether Canadians are living in poverty at certain times in their lives. I am sure that when most hockey players quit playing in the NHL, they do not get retirement replacement income of 70% of their previous earnings. That is not the point. The question is whether their incomes will drop to a point where they will live in poverty. They have a choice. They have their bulk earning years and they can move things around. That is an extreme example.

I found this statistic earlier today on the Fraser Institute's website, which is that only 3.7% of Canadian seniors live in poverty, whereas it is more than 10% for working-age Canadians 18 to 64. For young people trying to put money into their educations, which for many people is the best investment by far, it is going to be difficult. Again, the government is taking away people's flexibility and making decisions for them, so that, in the end, they will not have the best return on their investments for their lives.

Instead of concentrating on replacement income, retirement policies, from a federal government perspective, should zero in on people who have low incomes. Those are almost always people who have not contributed to the Canada pension plan, because they have not worked over the years or were self-employed and not able to save money.

As my time has just about expired, I will mention another point that can be discussed in questions and comments, which is the cost of CPP versus other low-cost options available for savings. What it comes down to is that we will lose our freedom. We lose our freedom when we allow the government make decisions for us.

Let me reiterate that this bill would not solve the problem for low-income seniors, which is the real problem in retirement. It would provide a poor rate of return for people who view it as an investment, and it would displace savings from one portion of life to another portion of life by taking away people's freedoms. I will be voting against this legislation because it is bad policy. It is bad policy for Canadians now and in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally disagree with what the member said. It demonstrates just how out of touch the Conservative Party is with what Canadians value and want.

This bill is a reflection of what I would argue is a historical agreement of the federal government working with provincial and territorial governments that recognize they need to think about future generations. It is about having a vision and ensuring that the working population today is going to have the funds to buy the little extras when it comes time to retire.

Whether it is the New Democrats or the Green Party in the House, whether it is provincial governments of different stripes across this country, everyone, except the Conservatives, seems to support what is happening. My question to the member is this. Why does he feel the Conservative Party is so out of touch with what Canadians want, to the degree that it is going to vote against this legislation?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party believes Canadians should decide what they want to do with their own money. They should have the freedom to do it. That is why we are the low-tax party and we believe taxes should only be implemented for absolute necessities. The government and the NDP seem to have the attitude that they know how to spend people's money better than people do themselves. There is a fundamental point of disagreement and we debate it every election.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned is to give people a choice. In the last 20 years we have done nothing to the Canada pension plan and that is why we are in this mess. Nothing has been done. Obviously there was no money left for people to save or to put into RRSPs, but they can look forward to the future by investing in themselves as they are working and their life goes forward.

I know the hon. member has said to let the people decide for themselves, let the people decide where they want their income to be, but there is no income. We have to look after our future and if we do not do it now, because we have already learned from our mistakes, we must do it for the next generation.

Why has nothing been done in the last 20 years where the system has failed and yet the member still opposes the bill going into the future?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, in the 1970s, 20-some percent of seniors lived below the low-income cut-off line. That number has now dropped to 3.7%. As members have pointed out to the House, the previous decade was the most successful in Canadian history for bringing people above the low-income cut-off line, the real poverty line. The best anti-poverty program in the world, by far, historically is free enterprise. It has worked. We are talking about CPP, which is people's own money. Let people spend their money how they see fit.

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

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Conservatives deny that there even is a retirement income crisis and they claim that the government has not made a clear case for CPP enhancement. The most recent figures show that 30% of single, elderly women live in poverty. This was a decrease over the last 30 years in the number of Canadian workers covered by workplace pension plans, and this is significant, it is a huge decline that has continued and it continued under the Conservative government. The pension gap and the crisis of Canadians being able to save less for their retirement worsened considerably under the Stephen Harper government.

Could my colleague explain to the House what lessons that party learned from those failures?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, overall poverty rates among seniors dropped under the Conservatives. CPP deals with people who already have jobs paying into it. For low-income people, we need to deal with the guaranteed income supplement. CPP only affects people who are working and contribute over many years.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us take a moment and talk about what pensions really look like. In Canada, there is the concept that if we go to work every day and work hard, one day we will be able to retire with dignity. Canadians planning for retirement dream about what it will be like to finally not have to go to work every day and instead do things they enjoy, such as spending more time with their family, travelling, and volunteering. This is the dream of many Canadians.

Bill C-26 would be a positive step forward in enhancing CPP benefits. This bill, when fully implemented, would increase the current level of CPP benefits from 25% to 33%. Although this falls short of the NDP's long-standing proposal to double CPP benefits, Bill C-26 is a step in the right direction. It would improve retirement security for young Canadians today.

I want to give a huge thanks to the many organizations that have been working hard for this improvement over many years. Labour and retired-persons organizations have long called for an expansion, and we congratulate them for their hard-fought win.

New Democrats have also been long calling for dignity for our seniors, the very Canadians who have built our beautiful country, many of whom are struggling in their later years with very limited incomes. We have consistently fought for increases in CPP, OAS, and GIS and will continue to do so.

The CPP is the best retirement pension deal available to Canadians. The fund is widely considered to be well managed. As of June 2016, the CPP Investment Board manages over $287.3 billion in investment assets for the Canada pension plan on behalf of 19 million Canadians, making it among the 10 largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. The CPP currently covers earnings up to a cap of $54,900; and for earnings up to this cap it aims to replace 25% of income. Maximum pensions are at $1,092 per month or $13,100 per year. For many Canadians, this only covers their basic needs.

The extended CPP would be a separate new tier. This would be added on top of the existing CPP and do two things: taking the replacement rate up to 33%, and expanding the earnings cap to $82,700. While the increase in Bill C-26 is welcome, New Democrats know that better is always possible and the government could have gone further with the percentage changes and still maintained a healthy CPP. The government could also have implemented the changes more quickly to help seniors right now. This bill could have done so much more for those who are struggling today. We need to see immediate action to help seniors and Canadians who would not see the benefits of these changes.

Retirement security is in crisis in Canada. We have fewer workplace pensions than ever, with six in 10 Canadians having no workplace pension. This means that 60% of Canadians rely on CPP, OAS, GIS, and personal savings. Most people know that seniors do not have a lot of disposable income and very few have significant savings to help. Many rely on their family to help supplement their needs and to provide them with security. Many are women who are widowed or do not have their own private pension to supplement them.

I remember a conversation I had with a widow in Amherstburg whose husband's workplace pension had been drastically slashed because the company, General Chemical, had left Canada and was now only paying a small portion of its promised pensions to retirees. She was now talking about selling her house that she had lived in her whole life because she could not live on CPP, OAS, and GIS alone.

There are many seniors in my riding who are struggling. We have a lack of affordable housing; rising costs of drugs; and increased costs of food, gas, and hydro. The list goes on and on. Seniors today are struggling, and there is so much that could be done today. The changes that are being proposed us would not take place for 40 years. Those who would see the biggest benefit from the proposed changes are millennials.

If we talk to millennials, we hear they are often not even able to imagine a future that includes a workplace pension. They are struggling to find secure employment and are often working multiple jobs to patch together a living. They do not even think about retirement because they are so focused on working to find a job.

My colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski recently brought her precarious work tour to Windsor, where we met with millennials to talk about their issues. I was crushed to hear a young woman talk about the fact she never envisions having a family or owning a home because she cannot find work. She is certainly not saving for retirement, which shows the clear need for CPP changes for future generations.

What an incredible difference we have had in a generation. It is a sad reflection on our society that 20 years ago when I began working, I was able to find work easily in a unionized workplace that had a decent wage and a workplace pension, which meant that I could retire with security and dignity. Today these opportunities are few and far between. With the decline of workplace pensions we are heading into a future in which there will be no security in later life for Canadians.

We often hear of people talking about the concept of the Canadian dream, that if people work hard for 30 years they can retire with dignity. I continually hear from the other side of the House that if Canadians just work hard enough, they too can join the middle class. This narrative is not only misleading but also insulting. Many Canadians work extremely hard every single day, but for so many reasons they are not able to save enough for a decent standard of living, let alone for retirement. They do not even think about trying to join the middle class, because they are struggling to survive today.

We can go back a generation before that. My grandfather was on the bargaining team in his workplace after he came back from serving in the war. He worked at a place called Dominion Forge. When they negotiated a retirement benefit for a 30-year-and-out contract, he became the first person to retire under that contract once it was signed. Today, we are losing these pensions at an alarming rate in Canada.

Today, our workplaces are creating divisions between new hires and long-term employees. They are pitting working people against each other. This new tier of workers is asked to accept lower wages and smaller pensions, if any pension at all. We see this in workplaces right across Canada. It is a trend that reinforces the growing problem of retirement insecurity.

When I started working 20 years ago, things were relatively good. People with a high school diploma could find a job, and many jobs paid well. People could get jobs with a pension and benefits. They knew they could start a family. Today, this is just a dream for so many Canadians. Young people are struggling to find these good jobs and do not imagine planning for retirement because they cannot even find a job today.

We have a serious problem in our country today with many seniors living in poverty. I am pleased to see that Bill C-26 would address future generations, which will certainly be necessary, because there are fewer young people today who have a job in the first place so they can put some type of personal savings away and, second, have some form of workplace pension .

What are we doing today for seniors in this country? We hear the government talk about the changes it has made to the GIS, which amount to under $1,000 per year at the maximum amount people are receiving. Seniors in my riding who get that extra amount of money have not been elevated out of poverty. They are still suffering from the high costs of medication and still cannot find affordable rent. When some people in my riding found out that seniors were going to receive that money, they turned around and raised their rent. Seniors are not seeing any benefit of that bonus.

So much more could be done today. I look forward to seeing what future initiatives will come forward in the House that would help the retired person and seniors of today.

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to explain what is happening for seniors today.

In the last federal budget, our government committed to an increase of $900 annually in the guaranteed income supplement for the poorest and most vulnerable of Canada's seniors. Our government has dramatically increased the guaranteed income supplement.

Another thing this government did within months of taking office was to reverse the decision of the Stephen Harper government to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67 for OAS benefits.

We have also done other things.

Would the member not agree that the three most fundamental social programs for our seniors, as our seniors themselves perceive, are OAS, CPP, and the guaranteed income supplement, all three of which this Liberal government dealt with in its first year of governing? Does she not see that as a positive thing?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always positive to see an increase in programs to help seniors. The $900 the member is speaking about is a far cry from a dramatic change for seniors. Over a year, this will be a small amount every month to help seniors.

Any amount of money is always welcome, but to say this dramatically changes the lives of our most vulnerable seniors is implicitly false. That is not the truth. I am sure that if the member opposite talked to seniors in his own riding, he would certainly hear the exact same thing I am hearing, that the money has now had the consequence of increasing costs in the community so that the seniors will not even see the benefit of it. There needs to be something more significant.

With regard to the CPP specifically, going to 33% is positive, but what the member opposite is not admitting is that this will only happen 49 years out. This does nothing for seniors today. There has long been a call to have CPP benefits doubled, which could easily be done. This is a very healthy fund and is very well managed in our country. It is viewed around the world as one of the best plans. However, we can give back, because there is money sitting inside there right now that is not going to good use. That money needs to be in the hands of seniors right now in Canada, and so there could be an increase beyond the 33%

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned immediate action. Can she comment on the fact there is no immediate action in the bill to help seniors?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do agree that the bill takes no immediate action. Seniors are struggling. Right now they cannot bear the cost of medication and the cost of food. Seniors in my community are making difficult choices about whether they keep their lights on during certain times of the day, or potentially go on public transit or get into their car if they can afford gas for that.

The cost of living has gone up and the CPP has not kept pace with it. There is so much more that can be done for seniors right now. One of the things the government can do is to stop the cuts to health transfers to the provinces. This will have a direct impact on our seniors in our communities, because if they are not able to access services because the money is not coming from the federal government to the provinces, they will find themselves in more difficult situations.

In my riding and in Windsor, there has been an attempt to cut local services and to move them up the road to London, Ontario. We pushed back against that. If we see these cuts coming in health care, we will see more services being removed from our communities, and that would hurt seniors.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that this does not have an immediate positive effect on seniors, but indeed hurts them. It appears that the government does not have a plan to take care of seniors. It has ignored seniors. Would the member agree?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Yes, Madam Speaker, the government does not have plan to address seniors now, today, who are struggling in our communities.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26 this afternoon, as there is no question that the suggested changes to the CPP will have a significant impact on Canadians and our economy.

I have heard a repeating mantra from the government that people are struggling to save, yet Canadians' retirement system is one of the most envied in the world. Poverty among seniors has dropped significantly in recent years, and Canadians are saving more for retirement today than ever before. I agree that all Canadians should be able to retire with dignity: those now retired, those soon to retire, and young Canadians who are just beginning their journey in the workforce who will, before they know it, be where our seniors are today.

Despite these facts, there are definitely many seniors currently living in poverty and many working poor Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. These are the individuals government should be focusing on. Our government should be implementing ways to help these individuals help themselves and should provide assistance when circumstances are such that retirement is difficult and the basic needs of life are out of reach.

The previous government expanded the guaranteed income supplement, and the current government did the same, increasing it by 10% in its first budget, which was a very good decision that I applaud.

When it comes to CPP contributions, I believe that the approach in Bill C-26 would cause more harm than good. Why? It is because it is not specific, when is could be, and so it would impact Canadians who have their savings plans already established and growing and would negatively impact Canadian businesses that actually fuel the economic growth our entrepreneurs, tradespeople, professionals, and labourers need to be successful.

We should be targeting voluntary additional individual contributions to CPP and not mandating that all Canadians participate further in a program that is complementary to the savings they choose to make as individuals. Canadians should be able to manage their own money. If they want to make additional individual contributions to the CPP, that could be done. As a small business owner, I know that it would be an easy move to add a request on a TD1 indicating how much more an employee would like attributed to his or her CPP contributions above and beyond the minimum. They could also use TFSAs, RRSPs, employer pensions, and other means of providing for their own retirement.

Small business owners are being penalized when they are forced to contribute more to CPP rather than being able to invest those funds in their businesses or other means of fund growth. Instead of stimulating the economy, they are being forced to contribute to a government program that takes away their right to manage their own investment of that income.

As well, we know that the CPP is unfair to single and divorced individuals. A constituent in my riding, who has been a certified financial planner for 20 years, indicated to me that 15% to 20% of his clients fit this category. When they pass away, their estate receives a CPP death benefit of only $2,500, because they have no spouse to receive the survivor benefit, yet they have faithfully made their CPP contributions over the years, and in the case of the self-employed, have made double contributions, which could have amounted to over $100,000 in the past, and in the future to perhaps well over $200,000.

Why would anyone wish to pay into a program that may never benefit them or their estate? This is unfair and is a form of discrimination. If I personally came up with a new pension plan today that asked clients to contribute $2,500 to $5,000 per year over their lifetimes, with the only guarantee on death, before drawing CPP, being $2,500, I am quite certain that the authorities would call such a plan criminal in nature.

Another concern is that the offsetting tax credit the Liberals are suggesting to balance the additional monthly contributions for the working poor would only apply to a maximum annual income of approximately $28,000 a year. For an individual, let alone a family living on a monthly income of $2,400 a month before deductions, an increased CPP contribution will be a hardship they cannot afford.

In 2013, the total household net worth of Canadians was $7.7 trillion, split almost equally between pension assets, real estate equity, and other assets. According to a study by McKinsey & Company, 83% of Canadian households are on track to maintain their current living standards in retirement. According to Statistics Canada, the share of Canadian seniors living on low incomes has dropped from 29% in 1970 to 3.7% today, which is among the lowest in the world.

According to Finance Canada's analysis, higher CPP premiums will reduce employment, reduce GDP, reduce business investment, reduce disposable income, and reduce private savings by 7%.

A paper released by the C.D. Howe Institute shows that the Liberals' CPP plan would not benefit low-income workers. Their premiums would go up, but their net increase in retirement benefits would remain low, since higher CPP payments would be offset by the clawback of GIS benefits.

Seventy per cent of employed Canadians oppose a CPP expansion if it means a wage freeze. Fewer than 20% of Canadians say they would opt to put more of their savings into the CPP, according to a survey by the CFIB.

Clearly, low-income workers and the working poor should be the focus of this government's argument that people are struggling to save. It should help those working hard to join the middle class through a voluntary CPP program instead of having an all-encompassing program that benefits the well employed, who already have strong retirement pensions and plans in which CPP payments are an added bonus.

I now quote Fred Vettese, chief actuary at Morneau Sheppell and co-author with the Minister of Finance of The Real Retirement. This appeared in the Financial Post on June 5, 2016. He said:

Whatever the reason might be to expand the CPP, it is not to eliminate poverty. The poverty rate among seniors is now as close to zero as we can get. Yes, a little over five per cent of seniors today still have income below the poverty line

Charles Lammam and Hugh Macintyre, of the Fraser Institute, stated, in the Financial Post, on June 2, 2016:

Instead of expending political energy on debating CPP expansion in the misguided belief that many middle- and upper-income Canadians are not saving enough for retirement, the focus of public debate should be on how best to help financially vulnerable seniors.

Yves-Thomas Dorval, CEO of CPQ, said that he was worried about the new direction of the Canada Pension Plan and the impact on the Canadian economy. He said that if we want to encourage saving for retirement, a universal solution doesn't work. On the contrary, it is likely to have a negative impact on economic activity, jobs, and wages.

What impacts Canadians' ability to save is a slow economy, a loss of confidence in our economy, a loss of jobs, a loss of incentives, and increased taxes, all of which have a huge impact on the ability of young families to save.

I received a call from Brian, a constituent in my riding, who was emotional and distraught as he told me that the impact of an increase in CPP premiums, coupled with a carbon tax on everything, means that his wife will no longer be able to remain a stay-at-home mom, the way she wants to be, with their two small children. He was overwhelmed by the thought of his wife having no choice but to go to work, which will also increase their monthly costs, with child care, another vehicle, and all the additional expenses of a secondary income for their family.

The government is calling on Canadians to contribute more to the CPP, saying that Canadians do not know how to save enough, yet the Prime Minister has blown his modest deficit promise, borrowing three times more than he ever said he would. The Prime Minister has broken his promise to cut taxes for small businesses. The Prime Minister has broken his promise to make his tax plan revenue neutral. The Prime Minister has made children's sports, arts classes, students' textbooks, and tools for tradespeople more expensive. The Prime Minister has taken away the universal child care benefit, a plan that was easily implemented without a lot of red tape, that helped families and lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

Those with higher incomes paid the benefit back in taxes too. However, if that well-off family faced a downturn in the economy that ended its employment, like what we are seeing in our resource sector right now, for example, they could keep that benefit. Under the Liberal child benefit, those families will have to wait until next year to show their income loss before benefits are adjusted.

Some people truly are struggling to save, absolutely. That is why the government should be targeting voluntary additional income contributions to the CPP and should be focusing on helping those who are working hard to join the middle class and on seniors living in poverty right now, rather than blanketing all Canadians and all businesses, which are growing the economy, with a punitive program that limits their ability to save and invest.

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

Madam Speaker, it is something I have emphasized in the past.

[An hon. member]

Not again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague says “not again”. I can assure him that sometimes we have to repeat things a few times before they sink in on the other side.

I can assure members on the other side in the Conservative Party that they really have lost touch with Canadians in the manner in which they have chosen to vote on this piece of legislation. We are debating a historic agreement between the provinces and territories and the national government that recognized that we should be thinking about the future of workers in Canada. That is what this bill is all about.

So far this year, we have seen increases in the guaranteed income supplement. We were able to reverse Harper's eligibility from 67 to 65. Today what we are talking about is a bill that would see increases in pensions for future workers. We have provinces of different stripes and the NDP and the Green Party supporting this bill. Why does the member believe the Conservative Party is voting against something Canadians really want?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have heard this question so many times and have given such a solid answer to it, I think it is time to come up with another one.

The reality is that seniors in my riding, which has one of the oldest demographics in the country, recognize that our country needs an economy that is working so that people have the money they need to live their day-to-day lives and to invest in their own futures.

I am saying to go ahead and let us offer this as an option to people who want to increase their CPP. In my own riding, I guarantee that seniors know that this would in no way help them right now. The member may like to talk to seniors in his own riding. It would not help the working class who are not earning enough to meet their daily needs right now. That is the responsibility of our government. It is not to interfere in how Canadians choose to save.

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

Madam Speaker, right now in Courtenay—Alberni, we are seeing record numbers of seniors turning up at our food banks. The Port Alberni homeless shelter has never seen more seniors than in the last year, when it has doubled. When I went door knocking during the campaign, I met seniors who could not afford to buy medicine.

We are talking about a strategy so that we are not doing this 20, 30, 40, and 50 years down the road and are not repeating ourselves or making it worse. We need to come up with a solution. Right now we are talking about increasing the CPP so that people can have more in the future. It would be an investment, not an expense. This is about saving for the future. It would be an investment for employers.

I want to hear from the member what proposals she has to help those people who are showing up at the food banks and the homeless shelters and who cannot buy their own medicine today. How are we going to help those seniors today, and how are we going to prevent this from happening 40 and 50 years down the road?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, as we know, the number of seniors living in poverty has dramatically fallen to 3.7% of Canadians. Do they exist? Absolutely. I am very aware of that, as I said, in my own riding as well, where people are suffering extensively. Those are the ones who are saying that they need help right now. We should always be available as a government to help those people meet their needs on a day-to-day basis.

When we look to the future, what this country needs more than anything is an economy that sustains and is so solid that we have opportunities to take care of our own futures. We see in these exact stats that there are fewer and fewer seniors, 3.7%, who are living below the poverty line. They have many different options for the way they want to invest in their futures. I am one of those people who will be down the line, and believe me, it is important for Canadians to save for the future. We are doing a good job of that. We are one of the countries around the world that is seen as having a good approach to taking care of our own futures.