Debates of Nov. 29th, 2016

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I am in a position where I believe it is the role of the House leaders for all the main recognized parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the New Democrats. I think time allocation, when used in this place, is a signal of failure of the basic mechanisms of this place. I do not think it should ever be used, with all due respect to my friend the parliamentary secretary.

If we cannot get bills through the House in the normal process—and I do not see great delays in this process on this bill. We have only had eight days, and the government says, “Look, we've had eight days”. To the average Canadian and to me, as someone who is trying to stay on top of all legislation in this place—and I know I have been very preoccupied with having the honour of serving on the Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform, but it is not possible to be at committee. I read the bill. I thought I understood it. The NDP spotted this problem, which I think is a real problem. To find time to fix that would be preferable rather than to bring in time allocation.

This example comes more easily from the U.S., so I do not insult anyone here. The Republicans decided in Obama's first administration, “Whatever he wants, we say 'no'”. That is not good governance. That is hyper-partisanship.

I hope we never come to that place, in this House.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put forward a couple of points for her consideration. In order to help current low-income seniors, there are many much more direct mechanisms that put money back into their pockets. I think we did some of them—tax reductions for seniors and expansion of the OAS—and more could be done along those lines. Those kinds of reforms would actually give money back to seniors. They would not involve taking more money away from them for government to control them. I think she knows that we favour a model that emphasizes giving money back to people, and private savings.

One of the biggest advantages, as I see it, to encouraging private savings is that they create a mechanism for people to invest in interim projects. Someone could put money aside, use that money for an education, maybe to buy a home, and then realize the value of that, subsequently; whereas, if there is a government-controlled plan, the money is taken away and is put in a separate fund from which that individual cannot draw, or use at all for interim projects, until retirement.

On that basis, would she not consider that there are more effective alternatives to helping people save for interim projects, as well as for retirement, than just going with this sort of government control, all to a government pot kind of approach that is being put forward in this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my friend the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that there are other ways to more directly help low-income seniors, but that does not escape the fact that the CPP is long overdue for enhancement. We really do need to recognize that.

The parliamentary budget officer, a number of years ago, reviewed it—I think it was in 2011—and found that our CPP planning is one of the most sustainable and durable programs for retirement savings. Expanding it makes sense. At the same time, there could be much more done for low-income seniors. There is no question about it.

I commend one of the things the Harper Conservatives did, which was income splitting on pension benefits. That was a real benefit to many seniors. However, we really need to have more of that top-up for low-income seniors who are in poverty. That could be boosted right away. At the same time, I do support Bill C-26.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today and over the past few days, we have heard the same as we have heard in previous debates on this legislation. The fundamental difference is that ideologies in the chamber become more and more evident every day.

Differences in opinion are good and, in fact, are foundational to our Westminster style of Parliament. However, what we are seeing from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is a trend that is deeply troubling. Whether it is the Liberals in government or as individually elected members of Parliament, they still think that they know better than their constituents and all ordinary Canadians. Conservatives believe that Canadians know what is best for them. For the Liberals and NDP to imply that they know better than ordinary Canadians is an insult. Canadians are in the best position to make their financial decisions, and those include decisions related to their retirement.

We saw this difference in perspective most clearly recently when the Liberals clawed back the tax-free savings account contribution limit. The TFSA is a phenomenal vehicle for personal savings. For retirement, it could be used to make a lump-sum mortgage payment, maybe do an urgent home repair, or maybe even finally take that long-awaited vacation, but the important detail is that it is completely tax free.

We have all heard the saying that Liberals have never seen a tax they do not like and the NDP has never seen one it does not want to hike, but if the government thinks it can increase payroll taxes on Canadians because it has decided to blow through its election promise of a supposedly small deficit, which has now grown to over $30 billion, it can expect strong opposition from the Conservative Party and many other Canadians.

The Liberal government has spent much of its time patting itself on the back for its openness and transparency, but let me share what Canadians actually believe about the CPP and what this legislation would change. Liberals have been slow to correct these misconceptions. So much for transparency.

Forty per cent of Canadians actually think the government pays into their portion of CPP, and nearly three-quarters of Canadians do not realize that current retirees would not benefit from the proposed expansion. In fact, nearly one-quarter of current retirees wrongly believe that they will see larger CPP benefits as a result of the proposed expansion. Most Canadians are not aware that it would take up to 40 years of increased premiums in order for workers to see the full impact of these increases to their CPP benefits. I would like to know what efforts the government is making in addressing these misunderstandings. Will it be open and transparent and point out upfront that it will take 40 years for the additional CPP benefits to be realized?

As a former small business owner, I know the real effects that these CPP premium increases would have on small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. In committee two weeks ago, Ms. Monique Moreau, director of national affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, shared a compelling statement as it relates to the impact on small businesses.

Representing more than 109,000 small and medium-sized businesses, the CFIB is worried about the negative impacts on these businesses. She shared that its monthly poll on small business confidence dropped in September and October, now sitting at 57.7%, as opposed to the 70% where they would like to see it. She said:

Small business owners don't have money hiding under the mattress waiting for government tax hikes. If CPP/QPP is increased, even if it results in higher future benefits, two-thirds of business owners indicated they would feel pressure to freeze or cut salaries, while nearly half would be forced to reduce investments in their businesses. This impact comes at a time when the government is trying to encourage innovation, investment in business, and job creation in small firms.

The results of these changes in CPP premiums might not be as visible in business operations with just a few employees, but if we start to look at businesses with 15 or maybe 20 employees, the costs that these changes would impose could be crippling, causing layoffs, wage freezes, or even closure of businesses.

Ms. Moreau went on to say:

...if employed Canadians had extra money to save for retirement, they would first invest in RRSPs and TFSAs over other savings vehicles such as the CPP/QPP. Small business employers also favour such saving vehicles if they have the opportunity to contribute toward the retirement savings of their employees.

If the government is trying to help Canadians save more for retirement, only 18% of Canadians are choosing mandatory CPP increases. There is a variety of other options available, including reducing taxes, creating new incentives for savings, and allowing employees to voluntarily contribute to their own CPP/QPP. Putting pressure on financial institutions to lower their management fees for retirement savings vehicles is also an important consideration.

It is clear that not only are Canadians for the most part unaware of the changes the government would make to CPP, but those who are aware are misunderstanding the impact of these changes. For those who do understand, the large majority seem to drastically oppose these changes in favour of other measures.

Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, also shared his concerns at committee, noting, as I have, that it is a classic case of government believing that it, rather than Canadians, knows what is best for Canadians. Aaron touched on a very important point in his opening remarks. He said:

It is also important to stress here that, when we are discussing income security for seniors, income support is often conflated with income replacement. CPP, of course, is a program where the yield you receive depends on what you pay in. Enhancing it, therefore, does nothing for people who are not paying very much into it in the first place. It does not give people extra money. It simply shifts the money from the current day into the future.

This is very troubling. We know that household incomes are stagnant and that in many sectors wages are frozen or shrinking. What Canadians do not need is another tax that shrinks their take-home pay. This would have effects on spending and investing habits, and would ultimately hurt our already fragile economy.

Furthermore, it is true that since CPP is geared to income these changes would not help lower-income Canadians. A paper released by the C.D. Howe Institute shows that the Liberals' plan for CPP 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. These changes would also not help Canadians who are facing rising unemployment. In fact, it seems like the changes being made today would make life harder for those who are trying to enter their field of work. The Department of Finance analysis shows that the Liberal government's plan to increase CPP would hurt job creation and the economy as a whole. Quoting directly from its information, these changes would reduce employment by 0.04% to 0.07%. That is 1,050 fewer jobs every year, which means, over a 10-year period, 10,000 Canadian jobs that would not be created, as a result of this CPP increase. This is from the Department of Finance.

Do the Liberals really believe that the changes they propose, which would have no benefits today or in the near future and would have minimal benefits for Canadians retiring 40 years from now, are really worth the job losses today and decreased investments for jobs for tomorrow?

In closing, it is worth noting once again that the Liberal Government of Canada does not know what is best for Canadians and that the Liberal government should provide Canadians with all of the choices they deserve in making their own retirement decisions. The government needs to immediately return the annual contribution limit to the tax-free savings account and promote its use through advertising and educational programs. This is a fantastic savings mechanism that does not lock in people's savings that might be needed in case of an emergency, unlike CPP contributions, which they cannot access as needed.

For the benefit of the survival and success of small and medium-sized businesses, I urge my colleagues to reject Bill C-26.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way failed to mention the way that this government is looking out for all Canadians, specifically middle-class Canadians in the early years of their life, those working hard today who are looking toward their retirement in the future, as well as seniors who deserve the respect and financial security that they have earned over a lifetime. He failed to mention the Canada child benefit, which not only is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty in this country but is helping families. In Atlantic Canada alone, it will inject $600 million into the economy over the next two years. He failed to mention our return to the qualifying age of 65 as when old age security can be sought for people in retirement, and the top-up of the guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income single seniors.

Why would the member not mention investment in the early years, investment in the late years, and investment in the CPP for hard-working Canadians so that they can enjoy retirement well into the future?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity this summer to visit New Brunswick and different parts of Atlantic Canada. People in those areas are also concerned about this proposed CPP increase. I spoke to a lady who is the accountant for a number of small and medium-sized businesses and she said unequivocally that increasing CPP premiums from 9.9% to 11.9% would have a drastic negative impact.

I would love to applaud all of the positive initiatives that my colleague suggested but it is hard to do that when I realize that they will come at the expense of my children and grandchildren. They will be paying $10-billion interest more per year than what is being paid today simply because of this unbelievable supposedly small but rather explosive $30-billion deficit. If we were not borrowing to finance some of these things I might be able to applaud the government, but under the current circumstances this is not the direction to be going in.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague represents a riding in Ontario and I represent a riding in Alberta. As this discussion has been shaping up over the last few years one of the data points was the ORPP, the provincial precursor to this program. There was a lot of concern among small businesses in Ontario, and we heard it even in Alberta, about what the impact of the ORPP would be and now what the impact of this proposed expanded CPP would be. A lot of data was collected from small businesses that showed what a devastating impact the new payroll tax had in Ontario and now would have across the country with the federal government essentially applying different areas of the Kathleen Wynne plan to all parts of the country.

Could my colleague tell us a bit more about the impact that these expanded payroll taxes would have on small businesses in his riding and across the country? Maybe he could to some extent draw on the experience of the ORPP and what that means in general for job creators and ordinary working people across this great country.,

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that when the Ontario government proposed its enhanced retirement plan specifically for Ontario there was a large push-back. The government heard loud and clear that this was not the way to go. Many small businesses indicated then, as they have now, that this was not the way to go. In a recent news release from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, many small businesses indicated that this was not the way to go, that two-thirds of small businesses would have to freeze or cut salaries, and over one-third say they would have to reduce hours or jobs in response to these increases. That would not change whether it was the ORPP, the Ontario retirement plan, or the CPP.

The troubling part about this question relating to Ontario is that many times in the House over the last few days the Liberals have indicated that they have the approval of all provinces on this. Of course they are going to get approval, and if it is going to be imported anyway, if we are going to do an Ontario one, it is better to have one that is right across the nation. Small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario have spoken clearly: this is going to be devastating for investment in jobs of the future.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join this debate since this is actually the last time we will be able to have this debate on Bill C-26 in this House.

I want to start with something I used in the last session, a Yiddish proverb. “With money in your pocket, you are wise, and you are handsome, and you sing well too.” I am sure the Minister of Finance has a great singing voice. However, this proverb speaks to how money is best left in the pockets of Canadians, of the people who actually earned it through hard work, having a job, either working for themselves or fulfilling someone else's need.

What the government has done today by shutting down debate after a mere eight days does a great disservice both to the discussions so far on this bill and the interventions other members have made. This debate on the Canada pension plan is important. It is with respect to a proposed law that will amend that which will impact Canadians for many generations. Therefore, having 20 days, 25 days, or 30 more days of debate is absolutely worth having on something that will have an impact on future generations 40 years down the line.

I also think it is shameful that the Minister of Finance called this debate a stalemate so far. It is a commentary by a minister of the Crown on the work that we do on behalf of our constituents here to loyally oppose the government's agenda, to bring new ideas, and to raise points for future consideration and possibly for amendments that the government could bring to its own bill, either at committee or second reading, wherever it chooses to do that. Therefore, debate in this House is not a stalemate; it is an enriching process of what I will call crowdsourcing of new ideas. We are the crowd sent here by our constituents to speak to ideas and to offer them up to the government. Therefore, it is not a stalemate, and I very much think the government should realize we are not here as an audience, we are not here to spectate while it passes legislation. Her Majesty the Queen has given us the constitutional authority to loyally oppose, and that is what we will continue to do. Therefore, I very much look forward to the Minister of Finance not using such terminology.

I also want to point out that it was an internal finance document from his own department that said that this bill, the expansion of the CPP, will be a drag on the economy until 2030, and that it will suppress employment growth until 2035. I come from a province where we have a jobs crisis. The Speaker knows this. I had asked for an emergency debate last week on this because 122,000 energy workers are out of work. However, there are very many people who are under-employed, people who have been furloughed. Normally, they have a job, but they are just not being paid, and they are not being captured by the unemployment figures. When people are not working and not earning an income they are not paying into CPP, so it really does not matter. None of this will help any of the people if they do not have a job in Alberta right now because we have a jobs crisis.

There is also an open question that remains unanswered on the administration costs of layering on this new CPP program on top of the old CPP. It is not clear how much that will cost in the long term, over the next 40 years, and how much its management and administration will eat up the savings of Canadians.

Jack Mintz is a very well-respected tax specialist, a former professor, and a former head of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. He wrote a piece entitled, “What the TFSA limit increase really means for future governments”. Although that was on TFSAs, he had a lot of great points on savings, and the behaviour and psychology behind saving as well. He brought up the fact that what many future governments will be looking at is a tax rate with a low-interest environment and 100% on inflation-adjusted returns. What we will find is that the tax rate will have a huge impact on the savings themselves, how we save, and what is deducted off our savings, so there is an open question there on people's incomes, how they save, and what they will see on their tax returns. They will get nothing from the CPP on it there.

He went on to say that a one-size-fits-all rule is of little help and that for a lot of Canadians, the need for a comfortable retirement depends entirely on individual circumstances and preferences. That is an important consideration too. Not everyone retires in the same way or with the same model. Not everyone chooses to simply stop working entirely. There are a great many people who choose at 65, 70, 75, or even earlier if they take early retirement, to work part time, and to maybe volunteer in their community or at their faith-based institution, at a church or at a temple. They may also choose to change career paths later and choose the concept of retirement around 65 years of age to choose a new career they would like to pursue. Therefore, not everyone chooses to simply stop working.

A point I have brought up in previous debate here, and a question I asked one of the members of the Liberal government caucus, is this concept of savings substitution. There is a study by the Fraser Institute that shows that forcing Canadians to save more, using the government's concept of “more”, would lead to a decrease in private voluntary savings with little or no increase in overall savings.

Savings substitution is a real danger to both the government's plan, but in general also to our economy and to people's independence from government.

People should be allowed to choose how they retire. They should also be allowed to choose how they save and what type of investment vehicle they want to use. A lot of people have chosen to save in real estate, and real estate has provided the best returns over the last two generations to those who have chosen to go down that path.

One of the very first things my wife and I did was to purchase a condo, because we knew that would get us onto the property ladder. It allows people to save. They put aside money because they are trying to pay off mortgage interest and trying to put money away toward the principal. It is a mechanism that allows them to choose saving, but to choose it in the way they want to do it.

When the previous Conservative government introduced TFSAs, then doubled the maximum amount people could put away, it was a way of showing Canadians they could choose another model to save on their own, one that is tax free. We should stop taxing the savings of Canadians and forcing them to put more toward this layered CPP on top of another CPP. The administration fees for this are another form of taxation. We send money to Ottawa, to the government departments for some work to be done. That is a form of taxation. That is what our taxes go toward.

Building equity in housing has consistently been the best thing for saving, for youth especially. By buying a property they are getting onto that saving ladder.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the rate of return. The annual rate of return, reported by the CPP Investment Board, is actually quite low, and the younger one is, the worse off one is. For those who nominally put money into the CPP because they were forced to do so back in the 1960s and 1970s, they will get the best rate of return. I look at the pages in this chamber. They will have the worst rate of return. My generation and their generation will be worse off because the rate of return is so low, sometimes falling below 2%. That is because of record low interest rates, which are really driving this low rate of return. Also, administration fees cannot help but be higher.

No one cries for a job that is never created. No one cries for an investment return that never happens. What we always talk about here is the give and take, this job here or that job there, the taxation of incomes on one side and how government chooses to spend it, versus the individual who chooses to spend it in a certain way.

What the government is doing with the CPP increase is substituting for the person's choice on how they will save. That substitution will have worse results at the end of the day, especially for the next generation, because the rate of return will be so low. If someone chooses to invest in a property or in investments where they could earn a higher rate of return than the government is able to achieve, why can a Canadian not make that choice? Sure, the government will say it is one size fits all, that we are guaranteed a return. The higher the risk the higher the return. Canadians can choose to take a higher risk. With risk, of course, can come disappointment. They could lose their investment. Their retirement may not be as certain as they thought it would be, and they may have to adjust their goals and plans. That is why everyone should be doing financial planning for themselves. We should be encouraging people to not be dependent on the government.

The Fraser Institute noted this as one of the five myths of the Canada pension plan. Myth number 4 was “The CPP produces excellent returns for individual contributors”. They are thin margins.

There are a great many seniors who are better off today than they were pre-2006. They are better off thanks to the previous Conservative government's work to try to ensure they had a solid retirement. Lots of reports have shown this. Statistics Canada has said that the share of Canadian seniors living on low income has dropped from 29% in the 1970s to 3.7% today, which is among the lowest in the world.

The Human Resources Institute of Alberta is responsible for HR professionals in the province. It has said that consistently, across the board, only about half of all organizations offer employment pension plans and group RSPs with employer-matching plans. That means half of all employees in the province of Alberta may lose the opportunity to continue investing in their employee pension plan or group RSP, because they do not have the money to invest in it and see that matching funding by their employer. They simply will not take advantage of it.

I oppose the bill, and I encourage all members to oppose it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Conservatives have decided to vote against this important piece of legislation, but not necessarily surprised. Their record on voting when it comes to seniors is not positive. The former Conservative government increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. Our government reversed that and brought it back to 65. The Conservative Party voted against the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for some of the poorest seniors, the most vulnerable seniors in our country. Today, when we think about the future, when we talk about what is going to be taking place years from now and making sure there will be a decent rate of retirement, once again we have the Conservatives saying no.

The Conservative Party has really lost touch with what Canadians are thinking. Why is the Conservative Party, from the member's perspective, so far out of touch with the reality of what Canadians really and truly want to see? Canadians want to see good, fundamentally strong pension programs. Political parties from every region of the country have got on board with this, except the Conservative Party of Canada here in Ottawa. Why?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will not surprise the House, but I am happy to disappoint that member by voting against this bill.

Let me set the record straight. To answer the preamble about what the previous Conservative government did, it introduced pension income splitting for seniors; twice it increased the age credit; it increased the GIS benefit for recipients who chose to work; it doubled the pension income credit to $2,000; it took 380,000 seniors off the tax rolls altogether; it increased the age limit for RRSPs to RRIF conversions from 71 to 69; it established October 1 as the first national seniors day; and actually, unlike the Liberal government, we had a minister of the crown looking after seniors' issues, which the government has not done.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to hear that the Human Resources Institute of Alberta has continued its great work after the election.

I want to ask the member if he could comment a little more in response to some of the arguments we are hearing from the other side. It is almost as if the Liberals are always begging the question, saying repeatedly that the CPP is overdue for expansion, as if it were obvious that we needed to take more money out of people's pockets and have it controlled by the government.

In reality, we have not heard substantive arguments why this is better done by the state than individuals. If it is a matter of individuals not having the resources themselves, and many of these arguments deal with current seniors who are not even touched by the plans, then we can deal with this via tax cuts, expansion of the OAS, and other more direct measures.

What is wrong with giving individuals control over their own retirement? We have not heard arguments against that. I wonder if the member could even speculate why the government is simply asserting that an expansion of the CPP is overdue without explaining why Liberals think government should have the control instead of individuals.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is always well-informed when asking questions and in his interventions in the House.

In a previous life, I was a policy adviser. Pensions was one of the files I worked on for the then Alberta minister of finance, the hon. Ted Morton. It was one of the files I really liked working on, as well as the securities file.

At the time, I remember those conversations around the table, during federal-provincial-territorial meetings of the ministers, staff, and civil servants who were there. It was not a given back then that the best thing to do was to introduce another big government solution to saving.

I have brought up the point of savings substitution repeatedly, and I have asked it of many Liberal government caucus members. What do they think will happen? There have been studies done by the Fraser Institute that show, directly, that there will be a huge impact on private savings. What will happen is that all of the money a person was going to save privately through whatever vehicle they chose, either property, real estate, the stock market, or an employer pension plan, will be reduced or eliminated and substituted by the government plan.

What I think the government wants to do, though, is in the long term to try to use that money for perhaps an infrastructure bank, to somehow invest it on Canadians' behalf, and probably with very questionable rates of return. The rate of return is really where the savings come from. I just do not think the government is able to do a better job than Canadians at investing their own money.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. It is a great honour to speak to initiatives that are very close to a lot of our hearts. I know it is close to mine. We are talking about the proposed changes in Bill C-26.

I think it should be noted again that these changes will not take full effect until 40 years have passed and will take money out of the paycheques of hardworking Canadians and put thousands of jobs at risk.

It needs to be re-stated that these changes will not provide relief to our seniors. If we want to give relief to our seniors we could start with the high cost of electricity in the province of Ontario and the failed policies that have resulted in those things. Those are the real issues that are causing poverty among our seniors today.

We are going in a little different direction. I have not heard this said yet, so I will talk about someone else the bill will hurt. We know it will hurt employers. Employers are the ones that do the hiring. They are the ones who make those higher CPP payments. It will hurt employees, because they will not longer be employed. They will not get those job opportunities. The one group of people who will really hurt the worst is the the poor. I have not heard that discussed by the opposite side, and surprisingly by the other party on the left.

What about the poor? The poor are the ones who need jobs. We talk so much about how we need to help the poor today, but if we want to help a poor man or a poor woman, give them a job. This particular legislation puts a death knell to that.

We have a good organization in my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, the Chatham-Kent Workforce Planning Board. We had a meeting with them. They are involved in job creation and are doing their part. We heard some encouraging statistics, because the rate of unemployment is dropping in Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

In a former life I had a business. I was a car dealer. I got to work for who I think is probably the smartest guy I have ever met in the car business. He is an actuary. He was a graduate of the University of Toronto. He used to tell me that it is all in the numbers and that I should check the numbers. Subsequently, I have kind of been a number miner.

When I looked at the Chatham-Kent workforce statistics, they showed first of all that we had the large employers and the small and medium-sized businesses. There were some really discouraging statistics. First, we have only two employers who employ over 500 people in the riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington. The other group is shrinking too.

However, we all know who does the hiring. It is small business. There was a group of businesses with zero to 100 employees. Which group was the largest? Let me just clarify this so members can understand my question. Of that group of businesses that employ from zero to 100 people, which segment was the largest hiring group? I have asked this question of a number of people and we get some varying answers. Some went as low as three employees. Do members know what it is? It is the segment with zero employees.

I was shocked when I saw those numbers, but I am not that shocked when I see legislation like this, because an employer will hire someone when he does a good job. If an individual is a finishing carpenter and the demand is such that the business is getting more work and it makes sense to hire another employee, then they have a whole lot more managing to do, but they will pay that employee what he is worth.

Oftentimes, those people who are at the entry level do not have that value yet. Members can check the statistics for themselves. It is shocking to see that more and more people are doing it on their own. They are not going out and hiring. Who does that affect? It affects the poor, the disenfranchised, the ones we often call the generational poor. It is generational poverty.

My wife and I love parades. When we go down King Street and get into the east end in our home town of Chatham, we get the marginalized people. These people oftentimes do not have the privileges we have. Life is a bit tougher. A lot of them do not have jobs or have not had jobs for a long time. It is those people who will be affected. It is those people who will not be hired. The sad thing is that this continues on generationally.

If the cost of hiring an employee was such that it made sense for that carpenter, plumber, electrician, or whoever to hire, they would. The economy is growing, but the problem is that we put these restrictions on people and we do not realize who it is hurting.

We hear so much in the House about the middle class. I am part of the middle class too. However, we should be talking about the poor. The poor do not necessarily vote for me. However, we should be talking about those people. They are the people who have no voice. Those are the people who look for jobs and cannot find them, or just give up. If we talked about those people, if we have a heart for the people who do not necessarily have a chance, I think we would be talking about something else when it comes to CPP.

I have an idea. Let us have a universal pension plan. I have talked about this with a number of people. We have universal health care. Imagine talking to our neighbours or other people in our home towns who need knee replacements. However, because they do not have a universal pension plan, it will be two years until they can get their knee fixed. However, for us, it would be two weeks. We do the same thing in our pensions. If we really wanted to make change and affect the economy, we should talk about a universal pension plan.

Years ago I had the privilege of working on the finance committee and I got to know a man by the name of Bill Tufts. He is involved in an organization called Fair Pensions for All. Bill and I talked about what would happen if we took all the CPP, OAS, GIS contributions and all of the government's contributions to pension plans, threw it in a big pot, and divided it among all the people who were retired. Every woman and man in our country would get $24,000 when they retired. There is a real solution. If we really wanted to help the poor, if we really wanted to make some changes, there is a universal pension plan right there.

I know that might be a pipe dream, but I am concerned that this legislation would further exacerbate the hiring abilities of employers today. Although that is tough and although it is going to make it rough on employers, it is especially going to make it rough on the poor.

I fear that for the coming generation, more and more it will be impossible for us to hire those who need the jobs, those who will move from their poor status to a higher status, to the middle class, the one we all talk about so much in the House.

I hope members on the other side, because ultimately this will go vote, will consider the damage this will do to our economy, the damage it will do to that group, and ask their government to make the changes and not let the bill before us pass.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the poor voted heavily for me. I would like to ask him about the child benefit to help the poor, to enhance their lives, and to help them join the middle class.

Regarding senior citizens, he talked about electricity. I would also like to remind him that electricity is a provincial issue. As a member of Parliament, nothing makes me prouder than the government helping senior citizens. They have worked hard all of their lives and deserve to live out the remainder of their lives with decency and dignity.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that the poor voted, and that could be.

I mentioned electricity because I remember, after the election, the two leaders dancing on the stage in glee. I am talking about the leader in the province of Ontario who implemented this. If the Prime Minister has any influence, I would ask him to beg the premier to stop this madness.

The other thing I want to add, talking about the poor, is that the government has a habit, which is getting worse and worse, of borrowing money. This is money that the poor will pay for in years to come, and it is going to get a whole lot worse. Therefore, the member should not talk to me about how the government has helped the poor. What the Liberals are doing, in essence, is giving them a death notice.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Earlier he mentioned a $24,000 universal benefit that everyone should get. As I was on my way to the House of Commons this morning, commentators were saying on the radio that according to a CIBC study, anyone who earns less than $25,000 a year is considered to be living below the poverty line. Right now in Canada, one in five jobs is part-time. That is not a choice; it is because there are not enough full-time jobs.

My colleague mentioned $24,000 for retirement. How will that do any more to help our retired seniors, when that amount is considered to be below the poverty line?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really puzzled by the question. We are talking about $24,000 for every woman and man. This is just a suggestion, but I am showing there is a real possibility. That is compared to $12,000. Let us not forget that this legislation will not come into effect for about 40 years. If we really want to do something, this is the direction we should be going. We could provide relief and help the poor in a real and positive way.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke a lot about jobs, job creation, and creating jobs for the middle class and the less fortunate. This morning, I had the opportunity to announce historic investments in mills that continue to provide jobs and create new ones. Our plans include innovating so that we can create jobs for the less fortunate, who will be able to receive a pension in the future.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the historic investments our government is making today to create jobs for the middle class and the less fortunate.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I will ask a question in response. What jobs? We have not seen any jobs. It has been a year. We have seen massive spending by the government, $30 billion, and it continues to grow. I am waiting for the jobs. I am waiting for the announcements in my riding. The former government was very active in that respect.

With respect, I am not hearing any announcements. I do not see that money being spent. I certainly do not see the result of whatever is happening in jobs.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise to speak in support of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act.

Let me outline the purpose of the bill.

It would, among other things, 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 were made. It would increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% as of 2025. It would provide for the making of additional contributions, beginning in 2019. It would provide for the creation of the additional Canada pension plan account and the accounting of funds in relation to it. It would 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.

For the benefit of the House, let me provide a number of reasons why the government has put Bill C-26 forward.

We are concerned about the long-term retirement security for those Canadians who have worked hard all of their lives and expect, rightfully, that they will enjoy security in their retirement years.

The fact is that middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried that they will not have put away enough money for their retirement. Fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pensions based on defined benefits or defined contribution plans to fall back on. To help those Canadians achieve their goal of a safe, secure, and dignified retirement, in the face of these challenges, the Government of Canada is committed to working with the provinces to strengthen the CPP.

Co-operative efforts as joint stewards of the program led to Canada's Minister of Finance reaching a historic agreement, in principle, on June 20 to enhance the CPP. All of my colleagues on this side of the House were very proud of that accomplishment.

What would this agreement mean in principle for Canadians?

Once it is fully in place, the CPP enhancement will increase the maximum CPP retirement by about 50%. Right now, the current maximum is just a little over $13,000, which is not enough by most living standards across the country. In today's dollar terms, the enhanced CPP would represent an increase of nearly $7,000 to a maximum benefit of nearly $20,000. Enhanced benefits will accumulate gradually as individuals pay into the enhanced CPP.

Young Canadians, and this is a group about which I know all members of the House are concerned, just entering the workforce would see the largest increase in benefits.

To fund these enhanced benefits, annual CPP contributions would increase modestly over seven years, starting in 2019. For example, an individual with earnings of about $54,000 or $55,000 would contribute about an additional $6 a month in 2019, an amount that should be manageable for most hard-working Canadians. By the end of the seven year phase-in period, contributions for that same individual earning that same income amount would be about an additional $43 per month.

To ensure that eligible low-income workers are not financially burdened as a result of the extra contributions, the Government of Canada would enhance the working income tax benefit, an existing benefit that is designed to keep people in the workforce and encourage others to join it.

Enhancing the CPP will significantly reduce the share of families at risk of not saving enough for retirement and a degree of under-saving.

The CPP will always be there for Canadians because it helps to fill the gap for those who do not have a workplace pension plan, and it is portable across jobs and provinces.

Canada's retirement income system provides a balance of mixed public pensions and voluntary savings opportunities to enable Canadians to save for their retirement. The retirement income system is based on three pillars.

The first is the old age security program, which was altered under the last administration in an attempt to extend the age of eligibility to receive the full benefit and appreciation of that plan to age 67. Again, I am very proud to say that among the first measures this government took was to rescind that extension and restore the old age security program eligibility age to 65, something that was met with great support in my riding and, I dare say, right across this country.

The CPP and Quebec pension plan is the second pillar. They provide a basic level of earnings replacement for workers. They are financed by contributions from workers, employers, and self-employed individuals.

The third pillar is a voluntary tax-assisted private savings opportunity. Some examples include registered pension plans; pooled registered pension plans; registered retirement savings plans, commonly known as RRSPs; and tax-free savings accounts. Individuals and their employers may contribute to these savings vehicles on a voluntary basis.

In addition to saving through the retirement income system, Canadians may also choose to draw upon other financial and non-financial assets for retirement income. These include, for example, financial assets held outside of tax-assisted registered plans, housing equity, and small business equity.

Let me say a few more words about the current Canada pension plan. The CPP is a contributory public pension plan that provides a basic level of earnings replacement. With these revisions, as I have said before, we would see modest increases gradually over the course of a number of years at a pace that most hard-working Canadians would be able to absorb.

Let me say a few more words about why it is that we are enhancing the CPP. As we have looked closely at the situation of Canadians as they approach their retirement, we understand that middle-class Canadians are working harder and harder. The Department of Finance has examined whether families nearing retirement are adequately prepared for retirement, based on household income and wealth data from the 2012 Survey of Financial Security. Families are considered to be at risk of under-saving for retirement if their projected after-tax income at retirement does not replace at least 60% of their pre-retirement after-tax family income.

Although Canada's retirement income system has served many Canadians well, the Department of Finance has estimated that almost 24% of families nearing retirement age are at risk of not having adequate income in retirement to maintain their standard of living. This suggests that roughly 1.1 million families approaching retirement age will not have enough money to maintain their standard of living when they retire; hence the enhancements.

I will just take my last few moments to indicate to the House that recently the Minister of Finance had the occasion to come to my riding of Eglinton—Lawrence to meet with my constituents to speak personally about this historic achievement. What was most distinguishing about this visit was that we visited with constituents who are on either side of the age continuum. We visited first with seniors to speak about enhancements to the old age security program and to the GIS program. Then we went to visit with high school students at Lawrence Park Collegiate Institute.

It is truly for them where the focus of this program lies, which is the future, to provide retirement security not only for present day seniors but also for hard-working young Canadians, and I am proud to say that by passing Bill C-26 we will have accomplished that goal. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about enhancing the retirement benefits for seniors, but for them to actually have retirement benefits they have to have a job to contribute into CPP or their retirement plan. The Department of Finance, to which the government is listening for advice, or should be listening, indicates very clearly in its analysis of the bill that it would reduce employment by 0.04% to 0.07%. That is 1,050 jobs per year over 10 years, 10,000-plus jobs lost. How can these people who do not have a job ever hope to retire with a meaningful pension if they have never been able to pay into one?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague works hard on behalf of his constituents and brings informed debate to the House. Let me say unequivocally that this government is a government that believes in creating jobs. We believe in creating jobs by supporting Canadians with tax cuts for nine million Canadians. It was an unfortunate and regrettable occasion when my friends across the aisle did not support us in our first measure. We wanted to provide tax relief. My friends across the way often talk about how providing tax relief creates jobs. That was the first thing that we did—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Raised taxes on small businesses—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We did not, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. I see my hon. colleagues are getting excited. It is perhaps because they agree with all of what I am saying.