Debates of Nov. 14th, 2016

Canada Pension Plan

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time I rise in the House to talk about CPP. In the early days, when I came to the House, we talked about a CPP increase to ensure that it would be there for future generations. Regretfully, we are back here today talking about it again.

The government's signature fiscal platform seems to be taxes and taxes such as a carbon tax and now a CPP tax for the working class. Also, the Liberals took away the TFSA, again to get more revenue. It is an indirect tax. The government's fiscal platform is to go into deficit and it has no plan go back to being balanced, which would mean future taxes are coming too. We may even see a rise in the GST. I would not be surprised if the government does not try to balance its books somewhere down the road because that is what Canadians will be demanding. Therefore, it is amazing when I listen to Canadians who are now concerned about the direction the government is taking.

Let us be very clear. We are talking now about the Canada pension plan and seniors. Indeed we have two platforms for seniors, which are the GIS and OAS. We should look at how we can increase those to help poor seniors. There is a very interesting proposal from my former colleague in the Senate, Hugh Segal. He talks about a guaranteed minimum income. His proposal is out there and it is going to be going on a trial basis. This is worth looking into the future to see if that is the way we should go to ensure everyone has a guaranteed minimum income that would take them out of poverty. There is no question that we should be looking at seniors' issues.

My wife ran a small business. I have said many times that anything we have had to do with the government keeps rising. That is one cost that a small business cannot control. A small business can do a lot of other innovative things to control expenses, but it definitely cannot control an expense related to the government. When CPP premiums are raised, it affects not only owners but also workers because it is a fifty-fifty contribution. We are taxing everyone. We are putting a burden on small businesses, which are the engine of economic growth. It will become extremely difficult to see how small businesses are going to survive. The only other option left for them would be to reduce their payroll, which would mean a loss of jobs.

We have discussed many ways in the House to tackle the retirement issue. One proposal that our government came out with was a pooled retirement pension plan. This would give people who did not have a defined pension plan, like the government or big organizations, the opportunity to have the independent ability to join a pension plan so they would have a pension when they retired. It is one of the best ways to help people who are not in a defined pension plan to retire in the future. I do not see why the government is not proposing that, which is already a law, as being a strong vehicle for a retirement pension. As has already been stated, the CPP is one of the tools that will provide that, but it is not the only tool.

Therefore, why do we want to take this route and shackle businesses and workers by taking money out of their pockets when we have innovative ideas floating around on how to address the retirement for our future younger generations and what is going on right now?

We should not come up with band-aid solutions and say that we will increase on one side, that we will give more money to seniors, but we will raise CPP premiums, taxing all Canadians. Rather, it is far more advantageous to see how we can raise the OAS and the GIS.

Let us not forget our veterans. They are also struggling. We need to look at their pension as well.

The whole question would be with respect to the whole retirement regime in our country, which includes veterans, seniors, young Canadians, and how we can address that. I do not understand why the government is using a band-aid solution to address our retirement needs.

On the economic front, we know the government needs to create jobs. In my province right now the jobless rate is 10%. We need to address what is going on there, but we also need to create an environment in which people can open a business.

This is what I tell many of my constituents, and my colleagues sitting next to me agrees. In Alberta, we tell those who have lost their jobs in the oil patch to look at other opportunities. One of the best opportunities is to open a business. They should look at how they can open up a small business and look at the many innovative ways of going into small business. However, if we are going to put up these kinds of barriers, CPP raises and this thing, so they find it not profitable to open up a small business, then their chances of looking for a livelihood, of looking for more jobs is gone. We need to create an environment where the private sector, economic sector, is thriving. To do that, it is very simple. We need to ensure that the economic climate exists for them to grow.

Today the Prime Minister is talking about investments—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

My apologies, Madam Speaker, for my cellphone ringing.

Today, the Liberals are going to talk about investments. They are going to set up this investment bank because they believe investment in infrastructure is key.

Let me remind every Canadian that in 2008 the Conservative government, under Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper, came out with the whole idea of spending in infrastructure to take us out of the recession. We did go into a short-term deficit, but we increased our spending in infrastructure, which took us out of the recession. This was done by G-20 countries, when George Bush came up with his plan to take the world economy out of recession.

Therefore, we had a plan for that. I am glad the Liberals are thinking of doing infrastructure—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

My cellphone is ringing again, Madam Speaker. I am sorry.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to questions and comments, I just want to remind the member that what we have just experienced is the exact reason why we ask that members put their phones on silent mode. It may be funny at the time, but it is really not when we are talking about such serious legislation.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was the future calling, asking why the Conservatives were not there for us in expanding CPP.

My question is very simple. Does the member believe that the CPP should be expanded to prepare for the future or abolished? Or does he really think that the way it is now is the saving in the long term?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we do that, I would ask the hon. member for Edmonton Manning to take that phone out to the lobby for now.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I stated, CPP is one of the vehicles of retirement, but it is not the only vehicle. This whole notion of abolishing it or doing whatever, it is one of these things, but it cannot be a burden on the businesses and it cannot be a burden on workers. That is what we should come up with. That is why we oppose this thing.

I stood in the House about 15 or 16 years ago discussing the same issue about the viability of CPP.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard from many organizations, retirees, labour groups, citizens in my riding and across Canada. They want improvements to the Canada pension plan. I also heard from them say that they needed improvements for the existing pensioners now.

As we have heard in the House, some people think what has been done under GIS is adequate, but I do not think that. Many organizations saying this said the same thing in 2014 when the Conservatives had a consultation paper on target benefit pensions. The same people were saying that we should improve the Canada pension plan.

Does the member agree with these people, that Canadians want to improve Canada pension plan, or does he feel it is not necessary?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, we had consultations, out of which we came up with the pooled retirement pension plan to allow others to join a pension plan. The Canada pension plan is a unique pension plan. It was brought in to ensure that it was one way of retirement, but not the only way.

The problem with Canada pension plan is that the premiums are paid by the employers and the employees. If we raise it too much, it becomes a hindrance to the expansion of the economy. It becomes a hindrance to the expansion of small business, which is the engine of the economy.

We need to come up with a plan. I did mention for the member that there was an experiment going on now in Ontario, done by Senator Hugh Segal, to look at how we could have a fixed minimum income, which is one of the ways to look at it. We should be exploring other options to see how we can provide good retirement benefits for all.

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

Madam Speaker, we have talked to the seniors living in poverty in Courtenay—Alberni who cannot afford to buy medicine, who are showing up at food banks and homeless shelters in record number.

The Conservatives came up with a number, saying that 3% of seniors were living in poverty, that they did a great job of tackling poverty. However, in my riding, when we ask seniors if that is the case, that is not what we hear from them on the doorsteps. That is not what we see in the institutions that support people in poverty.

I want to hear from the member how we will help those people who are struggling in poverty. I want him to explain what we did wrong for those people and how we will not repeat that mistake. Seniors care about the future. They care about the next generation and they do not want this to happen to them too.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have stated time after time that there are different ways to look at it. Yes, seniors are suffering and nobody denies that. However, there are ways to look at it, to address those seniors who are facing hardship. Not all seniors are facing it, but for those who are, CPP hopefully will address all seniors out there. Let us now look at other ways to address those seniors who urgently need help.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell a story today, a tale from history, which may be somewhat unfamiliar to those on the other side of the aisle, but I assure them that it is true.

Once upon a time, there was a country with a pioneer spirit. It grew from a small settlement in the maritimes and the banks of the St. Lawrence and expanded until it stretched from sea to sea to sea. It was filled with proud people, immigrants and first nations, who believed that there was no limit to what they could accomplish. They valued hard work and what they could achieve when they set their minds to it and worked together. They built a great nation, one that was to become the envy of the world.

This nation was built not only on hard work but on a common set of values. The people knew that one of the keys to success was planning for the future. They were careful with their money, saving a portion of their income for a rainy day and their retirement. They knew that they might at some point face adversity and need to use that rainy-day fund. They wanted at some point to be able to retire and enjoy well-earned retirement. Therefore, they put aside what they would need to deal with emergencies and a stable future.

When they did this, they were showing personal responsibility, knowing that they could not and should not depend on someone else to make such financial decisions for them. The people who made Canada great understood that they controlled their own destinies. They passed these values of common sense and thrift on from one generation to the next. They did not look to government to do what they should do for themselves. They knew that the individual is the person best suited to decide how to prepare for his or her own retirement, which is part of personal responsibility.

It seems that, somewhere along the way, the idea of personal responsibility, that core Canadian value, has been lost by some in this country. There is a group of Canadians—let us call them Liberals—who feel that individuals cannot be trusted to do what is in their own best interests. These so-called Liberals feel that it is their responsibility—indeed, their right—to dictate to others when and how they save for their future.

That is a true story we face with the bill before us. With this ill-considered attempt to raise premiums for the Canada pension plan, the current Liberal government distrusts the ability of the Canadian people to plan for their own retirement. There is no other reason for this ill-conceived tax hike, which members opposite like to pretend is not a tax on Canadians.

They tell us that, over the next 40 years, CPP retirement benefits would rise from an income-replacement rate of 25% to 33% of employment earnings. To finance these benefits, the government would hike the CPP premium from 9.9% to 11.9%, which is about a 20% increase, starting in 2019. In addition, the yearly maximum pensionable earnings would rise to $82,700 in 2025. Earnings between the current and future yearly maximum would be subject to an 8% premium. As a result, CPP premiums would rise by up to $2,200 per year per worker split between the employer and the employee.

I have met with business owners in my riding on many occasions since this plan was first introduced. Just last week, I was told that they were unanimous in their opposition to this plan. They feel that it is like the Liberal carbon tax; it would limit their ability to make a living as the government piles tax upon tax.

This CPP tax hike would take money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, putting thousands of jobs at risk, and yet it would do nothing to help the seniors who need it. If the government feels that there is a problem for seniors today not having sufficient retirement funds, why is it bringing in legislation supposedly helping the future generation 40 years from now? Where is the help for Canadian seniors today?

Figures show that some households would be paying up to $2,200 more per year if this ill-planned scheme is implemented. This means that it would be harder for new graduates to pay off their student loans or buy their first home.

It would be harder for families to save for vacations or their children's post-secondary education and harder for companies to create jobs and give workers raises. Make no mistake about it; not only would Canadian workers take home less in their paycheques, but Canadian businesses would also be taxed under this plan. If they have to give more money to the government, that means less that can be passed along to their employees.

Canada's retirement system is already the envy of the world. Poverty among seniors has dropped significantly in recent years, and Canadians are saving more for retirement today than ever before. Conservatives believe in reasonable, evidence-based policies to help Canadians retire with dignity, which is why the previous government expanded the guaranteed income supplement.

The Liberals clearly agree with this approach, since they increased the GIS by 10% in their first budget, but that is different from this plan to force people to save by having the government take more money from their paycheques. It shows a Liberal lack of trust in the ability of Canadians to manage their own money responsibly. Liberals always believe that they can do it better, that Canadian citizens cannot be trusted to handle their own finances. By contrast, the previous government helped Canadians save through the tax-free savings accounts and opportunities to make voluntary contributions to the CPP.

Conservatives believe Canadians should be able to manage their own money, and given the track record of the Liberal government, we believe Canadians cannot trust the Liberal government with their pensions. After all, they have not been able to keep the promises they made less than a year ago, let alone a decade from now, and who knows what their excuses will be in 40 years?

Finance Canada's analysis shows that higher CPP premiums would hurt the economy. They would reduce employment, the GDP, business investment, disposable income, and private savings. The Liberal government, when faced with that information, wants us to trust it and believe that what it is doing is for our own good. Liberal members do not seem to understand why we do not believe them.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 70% of small business owners disagree with the Liberal notion that the proposed CPP increase is modest and would have a limited impact on their businesses. They know it is going to hurt. A paper released by the C.D. Howe Institute shows that the Liberals' CPP plan would not benefit low-income workers. They would see their premiums go up, but their net increase in retirement benefits would remain low since higher CPP payments would be offset by clawbacks in GIS benefits.

Bill C-26 would take money from the pockets of hard-working Canadians, who are being given no choice in the matter. The benefits of this tax hike, Liberals tell us, would happen at some point in the far future. If that means less money in Canadians' pockets and fewer jobs because business taxes are too high, I guess they expect us to thank them for that, too.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating. If the government were truly serious about helping Canadians save for retirement, it would reinstate the TFSA contribution levels set by the Conservative government, treat Canadians like adults, and let them choose how to save their money. Instead, we are told that Liberals know best. History has already shown us that is not true.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, Liberals do trust Canadians to do what is in their own best interests. Indeed, Canadians did what was in their own best interests when they elected a Liberal government to prepare the country for the future.

On a longer-term outlook, 40 years from now, if that is what it takes, as opposed to just the next election cycle, expanding the CPP, increasing the GIS, and restoring OAS eligibility to 65 years old are all ways we are doing that. Not all Canadians have the means to save for their retirement and they are not so detached from reality as to believe that hoping people have money to save will make it so. Not everyone has money to manage. We, as a society, have a responsibility to do everything in our power and capacity to help our fellow citizens, and that is exactly what we are doing.

I will ask the member for Edmonton Manning this question. Does he believe the CPP program should exist at all? If so, how does he justify the cognitive dissonance of opposing this bill? If not, will he now tell Canadians that he believes we should scrap the CPP?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not buy packages. The CPP exists for a reason; it did a good job and is continuing to do a good job. Expanding it at this time, or at any time, with the rates proposed by the government, would impose taxes on businesses. As a result of that, we would lose jobs and opportunities, and our businesses would lose the competitive edge. All of these results have not been considered by the government in the calculations in proposing this legislation.

This legislation would hurt people more than it would benefit them. In 40 years from now, I am not sure how many of us would be around to witness that.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing the member for Edmonton Manning and I have in common is that we were both small business owners. We both know that small business owners care about their employees. They have a more intimate relationship with their employees than any other business sector, and as a result, they find it important to invest in those people in their business operations. Does the member not see this as an investment in the future of those employees to make sure they have a good retirement, to make sure they are taking care of their employees?

The Liberals made a promise to lower the small business tax from 11% to 9%. The member talked about the broken Liberal promise. If that promise had been honoured, would the member support this legislation that would enhance CPP and allow small businesses to invest that money in their employees, where it belongs?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy my conversations with the hon. member. As he said, we both owned businesses.

If the member is calling this proposal an investment, then to be honest with him, it would be a bad investment. This would hurt people more than benefit them. Any business people or investment people in their right minds would not do it. If it is going to hurt people more, then why do it? Why take about $2,200 away from each Canadian taxpayer? If we could scale it down, it would probably be somewhere between $22 billion and $30 billion a year. That is a huge amount of money. I do not see any investment happening in the long run.

The government has to lower the business tax to give opportunities to businesses. That has to be done, but it does not mean that we should take our own investment in return for that. Doing something good and then doing something bad is not the way to make it work, and to should not be the way.

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

Madam Speaker, I recall in the context of the work that the electoral reform committee is doing right now that the period in which Canada laid down its social safety net—the Canada pension plan, the unemployment insurance plan, our health care plan—was a productive era of the minority government of former prime minister Lester B. Pearson.

I support expanding the Canada pension plan. The money in the hands of our seniors, so they can avoid living in poverty in later years, gets spent locally.

Does the hon. member of the Conservative Party have any economic studies that suggest that there would not be a strong economic stimulus locally when we ensure seniors are not living in poverty?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the member's question as a business owner who knows the economy. I can assure my colleague that this would be a wrong investment. I have worked the numbers. I would be happy to work with the leader of the Green Party on this at some point.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the bill deals with an expansion of the CPP for Canadians. This has been a long discussion. It was discussed at the provincial level. Our previous government suggested other alternatives. Then, when this government came in, it has been treating it as a primary piece of legislation.

It really comes down to a debate between ideologies. It is between those who think the government should be managing Canadians and taxpayers' money and should have the capacity to force Canadians into limited options when it comes to their retirement, or those who believe people should have the choice as to how they wish to invest their retirement income and should be able to manage their own money. Of course, on this side of the House, we believe that Canadians have enough of a sense of responsibility to manage their money. The Conservatives have taken the position over the years that we believe people have the ability to do that, and we have walked the walk. We walked the walk in both our tax policies and our positions on pension reform as well.

I am going to go through a few of the things we did when we were in government in terms of tax benefits, just to point out that we have been consistent. We increased the amount that Canadians can earn tax free. We believe that Canadians should be able to keep their money. They should be able to make choices about how they want to spend it. Consistent with that, we cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%, giving low-income Canadians in particular an opportunity to be tax free. We cut the GST from 7% to 5%. That tax cut had an impact on everyone across the country.

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was just asking about seniors and whether they spend their money locally. We believe they do spend their money locally, but certainly the tax cuts that our government provided Canadians across the board made it more possible for seniors to live out their lives keeping more of their own money. We did things for families, including creating and enhancing the monthly universal child care benefit.

There is a whole other area of improvements we made for pensioners and seniors as well. We did things like improve the rules for the registered retirement income funds to allow seniors to change the way they were moving their money from those investment funds. We increased the age credit amount by $2,000, and doubled the $2,000 maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit. We introduced pension income splitting, which was a big deal for pensioners across the country. When we talked to Canadians about this, they were very thankful for it and wanted us to extend it to others as well, which we were doing. This government has decided that is not important.

Probably the single most important thing we introduced was the tax-free savings account. It was interesting how quickly Canadians took to them. In fact, these were introduced in 2009-10, and by 2013, nearly 11 million individuals in Canada had a TFSA, and the total value of the assets held in them at that time was nearly $20 billion. That is a pretty significant initiative. It is one Canadians obviously welcomed. They were willing to put their money into it. Everywhere I went, people were very happy with that. It was individuals with annual incomes of less than $80,000 who accounted for more that 80% of those accounts, and three-quarters of those assets, by 2013. In spite of what the other parties have said about the TFSAs, these are is not just for wealthy people. There were a lot of lower-income people with them too. A lot of seniors, actually, were maxing out their TFSAs because they believed it was a very good retirement vehicle for them. By the end of 2013, about two million people had contributed the maximum amount to their TFSAs and 46% of those individuals were seniors. It is really interesting to look at the reality of TFSAs compared to the illusion the other parties were trying to create about them. Over 70% of those folks who had maxed out their TFSAs were over 55.

Therefore, if we are here to talk about seniors and protecting seniors, that was a real way of doing it, and it was something that was going to be done in real time. The changes we are talking about today with what the Liberals are proposing are not going to impact folks who are middle-aged or seniors now. It is going to take decades for this supposed benefit the Liberals are bringing in to really impact the people who would take advantage of these extra CPP benefits.

There are a number of other things I mentioned. We did pension income splitting. We raised the pension income credit for older people as well. We raised the guaranteed income supplement so that pensioners could make up to $3,500 from that, and the change to the age limit on RRSP to RRIF conversions was an important thing.

That brings us today to Bill C-26, an omnibus piece of legislation that is going to implement an agreement reached on June 20, 2016, between the provinces and the federal government. As noted before, Quebec does not participate directly in this, but it has its own plan. As a result of this legislation, CPP premiums are going to rise for workers and employers, by up to $2,200 per worker, which would be split between workers and employers. Obviously, that will have an impact on employers' capacity to hire workers.

The tax hike would take at least $100 a month directly from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, an amount that will probably increase as time goes on. It puts thousands of jobs at risk. We have also had discussions on the planned increases in minimum wages in the provinces, which threaten low-income jobs, and this is one more threat that employers will have to deal with in trying to hire and keep people at work. Certainly this is not the time in Canada when we should deliberately be putting jobs at risk. It is not a strong, stable economy that we are dealing with right now. It certainly is not the economy we had two years ago. It is unfortunate, because it seems that every choice the government is making puts Canadians and their jobs more and more at risk.

If households are going to have to pay up to $2,200 per year out of their salaries, it means that students in post-secondary education are going to have a much more difficult time to pay off their student loans. Families will face a challenge even on things like vacations. They will have a harder time funding post-secondary education as well. Certainly it will be harder for companies to create jobs and give workers raises. It is interesting that 70% of small and medium-sized enterprises see this as having a significant impact on their business. People are paying attention to it and understand that it will have an impact on them.

Furthermore, 90% of small business owners say they would certainly like to be consulted more by the government. They do not feel like they have had a chance to have their say. They do not feel like they have been listened to. It seems to be a topic I am hearing across the country, that the government is not capable of listening to people in spite of the multi-million consultations it seems to be having. It does not seem like it is talking to the average Canadian, because they do not feel like they are being heard. This is one more issue in which this shows its face.

As I mentioned earlier, this is going to take 40 years to be fully implemented, so none of the new benefits will go to people who are presently seniors. In our questions and answers, we have heard questions focused on present day seniors, whether they have low or medium incomes, but the reality is that these changes in Bill C-26 have nothing to do with people who are seniors right now because they will not experience any of these benefits. As I pointed out, that is quite in contrast to the tax-free savings accounts and the fact that people were able to manage their own money. They could put it into those vehicles and invest as they choose, and then benefit from that.

We believe that our system has been the envy of people around the world. One of the reasons people have been envious of it is that there has been some choice within the system. We believe on this side of the House that it does not hurt Canadians to have more choice, and that because they are saving more for retirement than they have ever done before, it is necessary for them to have those choices.

I am sorry to see that my time is winding up, but we are concerned that the bill the Liberals have introduced and are pushing through will reduce employment, impact GDP, and reduce business investment, and reduce the disposable income of Canadians. Over the long run, it is predicted that the bill would reduce private savings by up to 7%. It is unfortunate that more money is going to be taken from the pockets of Canadian workers. That affects them directly. It will put jobs in jeopardy and it will do nothing to impact today's seniors because it will take 40 years for it to be fully implemented.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to Conservative after Conservative speak on this legislation, I better understand why Stephen Harper and the Conservative government resisted at all costs whenever a province or Canadian raised the issue of the importance of the CPP. The Conservative Party has, indeed, lost touch with what Canadians really value. The CPP is a fundamental social program that Canadians truly believe in. Only the Conservative Party, as a political entity seems to oppose the CPP.

My question for the Conservative Party and the member is this. Would the member kindly explain to Canadians why the Conservatives continue to resist any progressive move toward enhancing the CPP, especially when provinces from all regions of the country are saying it is good legislation? Why are the Conservatives' standing alone?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when someone is speaking, we give them the respect that we want for ourselves when speaking in the House.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, fortunately for the member opposite, he does not usually have to worry about people interrupting him because it seems the higher the volume and the more the hyperbole he uses, the more accurate he thinks he is. Obviously, no one in the House opposes the CPP. That is just ridiculous. If he is going to take that kind of position, then he will end up in a situation where people will not treat what he has to say seriously. He needs to consider that. His exaggerated rhetoric does not do anything.

The reality is that the changes the Liberals are attempting to make would not affect seniors right now. The members opposite stand and say they are concerned about seniors and want to make changes that will impact them. Things like the tax-free savings account and the choices that Conservatives gave them actually impacted them, and they were very happy to have them. Liberals have rolled that back. They have cut the limit back to half.

Certainly, Conservatives support CPP. There was never a move to negatively affect CPP. We simply believe that Canadians need as many options as possible for their retirement savings.