Debates of Nov. 30th, 2016

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #159

Points of Order

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

Canada Pension Plan

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to talk today about enhancing the Canada pension plan. I hope colleagues will stay to listen to this very important speech today. They might learn something they do not know.

The Government of Canada understands that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. With the pace of change accelerating in Canada, we need to make smart decisions and sound investments today to ensure that Canadians have access to the good, well-paying jobs of tomorrow.

As my colleague Minister Morneau recently alluded to in the fall economic statement—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. The hon. member knows, I think, that we do not refer to members here by their names but by their titles. I think he meant to refer to the Minister of Finance.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. It is because of the emotion about the good work my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is doing.

As the minister recently highlighted in the fall economic statement, this government is putting the middle class first. For example, we are investing an additional $81 billion in public transit, green and social infrastructure, and transportation infrastructure that supports trade and rural and northern communities to bring Canadians good jobs, a cleaner environment, and thriving communities for years to come.

We are doing this because we believe that Canadians have what it takes to succeed, and our government is willing and able to act to create a better future for our children and grandchildren. That is exactly what we are doing by enhancing the Canada pension plan.

We know that middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, and many of them are worried that they will not be able to save enough money for their retirement. Here is the big question: how widespread is this problem and how can we help Canadians to do better?

The Department of Finance has examined whether families nearing retirement are adequately prepared for retirement. About one in four families approaching retirement, which is 1.1 million families in our country, are at risk of not saving enough to maintain their standard of living in retirement. The risk is highest for middle-income families. Families without workplace pension plans are at an even greater risk of under-saving for retirement. A third of these families are at risk.

Economic conditions since the global recession of 2008 pose particular difficulty for younger Canadians. They are facing the challenge of securing adequate retirement savings at a time when fewer can expect to work in jobs that will include a workplace pension plan.

An extended period of low interest rates could mean that young workers will have to deal with a lower return on their retirement savings. That means that they may need to save even more money than previous generations to have the same standard of living when they retire. In addition, because younger generations are more likely to be in debt than previous generations, they are more exposed to a wide range of risks, from financial market volatility to fluctuations in housing prices. Given these factors, younger generations will have to rely more heavily on their personal retirement savings. Furthermore, increased life expectancy increases the risk that members of younger generations will exhaust what money they managed to save for retirement before the end of their lives.

Given these circumstances, we have a simple yet critical responsibility. We need to act now if we want Canadians to have a secure and dignified retirement.

This is why we are proposing to enhance the Canada pension plan, or as we commonly refer to it, the CPP.

On June 20, Canada's finance ministers reached an historic agreement to make meaningful changes to the CPP that would put more money in the pockets of Canadians after they retire. The CPP enhancement would increase the retirement benefits people will receive. Enhanced benefits would accumulate gradually over time as individuals paid into the enhanced CPP.

Young Canadians just entering the workforce would see the largest increase in benefits. The real question, therefore, is what that means for today's young people and for future generations.

As my fellow members know, the CPP is currently designed to replace one-quarter of income, up to the average industrial wage in retirement. The changes we are proposing would increase that percentage to one-third. This means that a person making $50,000 a year over a 40-year career would receive about $16,000 per year in retirement instead of $12,000. That is $4,000 more each year right into the people's pockets. Even a more modest earner, one averaging $35,000 a year, would receive almost $3,000 a year above the $8,500 provided by the current CPP. In addition, the enhancement would increase the maximum level of earnings that are replaced by the CPP by about 14%. This would further increase the CPP benefits for those who earn above the average wage at any point in their working years.

To fund these enhanced benefits, annual CPP contributions would increase modestly over seven years, starting in 2019. Right now, for example, people earning about $50,000 a year contribute around $2,300 to the CPP per year, or $190 a month. With the enhancement, those people would contribute an additional $70 per year, or $6 a month, starting in 2019. By the end of the seven-year phase-in period in 2025, their contributions would amount to an additional $475 per year, or $40 per month. As members can see, those are modest increases for very significant enhanced benefits.

Helping people achieve a secure retirement with adequate income is among the key elements of long-term economic and social sustainability.

That is what Canada has been doing for a long time. Our retirement income system is widely recognized as being among the best in the world. It offers a combination of public pension plans and voluntary private savings mechanisms enabling people to save for retirement.

The Canada pension plan is one of the cornerstones of the system, and the 28th actuarial report on the Canada pension plan, prepared by the chief actuary, confirms that the CPP will be viable in the long term.

Our system also includes the old age security program, which offers significant income support to Canadian seniors. We recently restored the age of eligibility for old age security to 65 to improve the lives of seniors, particularly vulnerable, low-income individuals, many of whom are single retired women. According to our calculations, if we had not rolled back the policy, 100,000 Canadians aged 65 or 66 would have slipped into poverty, thereby increasing the poverty rate among seniors from 6% to 17%.

In addition to restoring the age of eligibility for old age security, we increased the guaranteed income supplement, which provides additional support to vulnerable, low-income seniors. This measure will significantly improve the financial security of about 900,000 seniors and will lift 13,000 of them out of poverty.

In addition to these income sources, Canadians can save through voluntary tax-assisted private savings plans, whether it is registered pension plans, pooled registered pension plans, registered retirement savings plans, or tax-free savings accounts.

While so far we have been discussing retirement benefits, it is important to note that the CPP also provides supplementary benefits, including the disability pension and the survivor's pension, which would also increase as a result of this enhancement.

The disability pension is a monthly benefit provided to people who have made sufficient CPP contributions and whose disability prevents them from working at any job on a regular basis. By increasing the amount of this benefit, the enhancement would provide greater security for working-age Canadians.

The survivor's pension is a monthly benefit provided to the surviving spouse of a deceased CPP contributor. By increasing the amount of the survivor's pension, the enhancement would provide more financial security to widows and widowers and further strengthen our retirement income system.

It is also important to note that CPP benefits are funded by the contributions of workers and employers and investments, rather than through tax revenues.

Employees contribute 4.95% of their earnings, up to $54,900. This dollar figure approximates the average industrial wage, and increases a little each year to reflect changes in wages.

Employers also contribute at the rate of 4.95%. Self-employed workers pay both halves of the contribution, or 9.9% of pensionable earnings.

However, to put the issue of affordability into perspective, our contribution rates in Canada are much lower than those in other countries with contributory public pension plans.

In fact, the CPP contribution rate is about half the average rate among 25 countries of the OECD, otherwise known as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which have such plans.

This applies to employers here in Canada. The Canadian employer portion is less than half the average OECD employer rate, which was 11.2%, in 2012.

Employees in Canada also pay lower CPP contribution rates. The average employee rate is 8.4% in comparable OECD countries. Even on the world stage, our contributions are very much lower than what other people are paying in comparable countries with such plans.

I understand some people might be worried an enhanced CPP would change that. However, let me reassure Canadians who are watching at home, our contribution rates will still be much lower than the average.

In fact, even with the enhancement, CPP contribution rates would rank the fourth lowest among 25 OECD countries with contributory pension plans based on their 2012 contribution rates.

An enhanced CPP would still be one of the most affordable plans in the world. More importantly, it would further help Canadians achieve a safe and secure retirement.

I know some are concerned about the increased contributions, and what it would mean to their bottom line, to their paycheque. I am sure people at home watching us are concerned about that, so let me answer that.

We thought about this and designed a phased-in approach so that the modest increase in contributions would occur gradually over a seven-year implementation period.

We also thought about employers in designing the enhanced CPP. The slow phase-in of the CPP contribution increases was designed with the express purpose of minimizing their impact, and giving employers across our nation, as well as employees, time to adjust to these changes.

Let me talk about the working income tax benefit.

As I mentioned, the improvements we are proposing include a modest increase in contributions. We know that despite the long-term benefits of enhancing the Canada pension plan, some low-income workers might have a hard time making room in their budget for higher CPP contributions.

Our government is focused on developing policies and implementing programs based on fairness and on helping those less fortunate in our society. Enhancing the Canada pension plan aligns with that perspective and our government's approach.

To ensure that eligible low-income workers are not financially burdened as a result of the extra contributions, the Government of Canada will enhance the working income tax benefit, or WITB. The WITB is a refundable tax credit that supplements the earnings of low-income workers.

The proposed enhancement to the WITB is designed to provide additional benefits to eligible low-income workers in order to more or less offset their incremental CPP contributions.

Clearly, we are standing up for Canadians who need a little extra support.

Let me turn to the economic benefits.

Our analysis shows there are economic benefits flowing from this enhancement. Over the long-term, employment levels will be permanently higher, between 0.03% and 0.06%, in our country.

This is good news for everyone.

Most people do not know that the CPP fund is ranked as one of the 10 largest retirement funds in the world. Because of this and its long investment horizon, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is able to undertake investments, and form partnerships that are beyond the scope of other investment managers.

It has achieved an enviable record of strong returns on behalf of the contributors and beneficiaries of the CPP. Over the long-term, greater CPP benefits will boost demand and increase overall savings in our country. This will in turn boost our economic output, and make more money available for investment.

We are estimating that Canada's gross domestic product will increase between 0.05% to 0.09% over the long-term as a result of the CPP enhancement. The enhancement will not only provide retirement security for more Canadians, it will create jobs and have a positive, long-term impact on the Canadian economy.

Let me turn to sustainability.

We are helping Canadians save more for a secure retirement by relying more on the Canada pension plan, which is a solid and viable financial vehicle. We are ensuring that the CPP increases will be entirely dedicated to increasing the benefits Canadians will receive.

As hon. members will recall, last month, the current chief actuary of Canada said in his latest report that at the current contribution rate the Canada pension plan is on a sustainable financial footing for at least the next 75 years. Canadians can rest assured that the financial foundation of the Canada pension plan expansion will be as solid as a rock.

As we know, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, or CPPIB, always invests in public and private assets for the long term, for people who will be retiring over the coming decades.

On June 30, 2016, the Canada pension plan fund stood at more than $287 billion, which is quite something. Obviously, this is a very solid foundation for the future.

In closing, the expanded Canada pension plan is a good tool used at the right time to improve the retirement income security of today's workers, especially our young workers. Improving the retirement income security of Canadians through the Canada pension plan presents various other benefits in addition to the economic ones I pointed out. The CPP provides secure and predictable benefits for life, which means that Canadians can worry less about exhausting their savings or having their savings affected by the vagaries of the market. Canada pension plan benefits are fully indexed to inflation, which reduces the risk of price hikes gradually eroding the purchasing power of retirement savings. The expansion also includes increased benefits for the families of Canadian workers in the event of death or disability.

The CPP is a good fit for Canada's changing job market.

I would like members to remember this is good for Canada. This is good for younger generations. This is good for all people who are going to retire 40 years from now and in the years to come.

All members in this House will talk to their children and grandchildren, and be proud of this day.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has stated how good the plan is, and we agree with him that these increases have to go forward to help our future.

However, he has failed to say there is some critical language missing, particularly the drop-out times for people who are child-rearing, and for people with disabilities as it is in the existing CPP.

We have heard many times in this House, when we have raised that, that they will fix it and they have not. We have been assured that the Minister of Finance will bring this up at the next ministers meeting, the triennial meeting, in December.

That is not a commitment. Raising the issue is saying we will talk about it. We need a commitment from the Minister of Finance that when he goes there, he is going to propose that an oversight and a mistake was made, and that language will be included in the enhancement.

I would like to hear the member's comments. Will we have a commitment from the Minister of Finance that he will be proposing this type of language be put in?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us look back. In June, we achieved a historic agreement with provincial leaders, the finance ministers of the provinces, on an enhancement to the CPP. We are cognizant of the issue that he mentioned, the drop-out provision, but this enhancement will benefit all Canadians. The Minister of Finance has taken his comments into consideration, as members well know.

We have an agreement with the provinces, but in the spirit of understanding the benefits for people with disabilities and women, we will raise this issue again at the finance ministers meeting. As the member well knows, we will have a triennial review. The next meeting is in December. The minister has stated publicly he will raise the issue, and it will be on the agenda. We want to make sure that this enhancement will benefit all Canadians.

We will always be listening to members in the House and Canadians to look at ways we can make further improvements, but let us remember that this is the right thing, right now, for Canadians.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the Liberal government's eagerness to hear what all Canadians have to say about the enhancements. However, once again today, the government has denied the opposition an opportunity to express its views. These are actually the views of the people who elected us to send a message to the government concerning its intentions with respect to Bill C-26.

This is the ninth time that the Liberal government has used time allocation since the beginning of this Parliament, and since it adopted its sunny ways. It was supposedly going to do things differently. However, it is now obvious that the Liberals do not like to listen to other points of view when they differ from their own and oppose the measures they want to adopt.

Does my colleague approve of the rather brutal way in which the government is muzzling members of the House in order to pass its bill?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. However, he knows very well that I conducted budget consultations from Moncton to Yellowknife last week. The week before that we were in Ontario. I was in Saint-Constant, Quebec, in Mauricie, and then in Quebec City. We consulted Canadians and we will continue to do so because it is the right thing to do.

What is unfortunate, and the people watching at home will remember it, is that the Conservative Party voted against all the measures we introduced since we formed the government. The Conservatives voted against tax cuts for the middle class, they voted against the Canada child benefit, and they are preparing to vote against the enhancement of the CPP.

Essentially, these are good measures for Canadians, and we will continue to develop our agenda to help the middle class.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know the government has rejected the attempts by the NDP to fix this legislation, particularly for the people who will receive the CPP with the drop-out clause included.

Will the government provide the chamber with an analysis of the financial impact on those who have been excluded from this legislation. I understand the government will be talking to the provinces about this, but the real question is, why was such an analysis not undertaken and provided to the chamber?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague because it allows me to repeat what I said about the drop-out provision.

First, we reached a historic agreement with the provinces. The member heard in my speech and will concur with me that this is a good thing for Canadians. The Canadians she and I represent in our ridings will benefit from that, especially the younger generation.

We have to look at the broader things we have done for people in retirement. We reduced the age of retirement from 67 to 65, and we increased the GIS top-up. Yes, we heard from the NDP and Canadians, and that is why the Minister of Finance has committed to put this issue on the agenda of the finance ministers meeting, which I will attend, in the next few weeks. And yes, we will talk about that.

However, let us not forget what we are doing for Canadians. We are enhancing the CPP that would benefit all Canadians when they retire. That is what members are going to vote on today, and I am sure that Canadians and their children watching at home will remember the historic vote today.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pursue the question of my hon. friend from Windsor—Tecumseh to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I bemoan the fact that as we are now using time allocation for Bill C-26, one thorny point has not been adequately explained in this place.

I am looking for evidence that would tell me what happens with the drop-off provisions and how they will affect women, lower-income women, the ability to save for retirement, and taking time off for child rearing or illness.

Overall, Bill C-26 is a big step forward in expanding the Canada pension plan, but would the hon. member help me to see why the government has refused to accept what appeared to me to be reasonable amendments?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from my hon. colleague. She knows I have enormous respect for her and the work she does in this chamber, providing a voice to a number of concerns. I must say that we have listened to these concerns.

This is a great step for Canada. We are taking a great step for Canadians. The member is asking if we can do more, could we improve, and we said yes. Our Prime Minister always said better is always possible.

Yes, we will bring that to the table with the Minister of Finance. This was a historic agreement that was reached in June. I would say that the member has been heard and we will put it on the agenda, because that is what people expect a responsible government to do, one that is always looking at ways to improve.

Let us not forget that what we are doing today is historic for Canadians. Decades from now we will remember the vote as being historic for the vast majority of Canadians in our country.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his fine speech.

We are doing other things to help seniors. I would like the member to tell us what they are.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who does an extraordinary job and who also listens to his constituents.

As he said, the announcement we just made is just one of the measures that we presented in budget 2016. The enhancement of the CPP is an important and historic step for Canada.

We have also implemented other measures. For example, as I was saying in an earlier answer, we changed the age of retirement from 67 back to 65. This is a very good measure for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, particularly Canadian women. As members know, women who are living alone in retirement are more vulnerable. We did the right thing for Canadians by bringing the age of retirement back to 65.

We also enhanced the Canada pension plan. Coming from a region that has known economic hardship, I can say that what we have done for seniors will have a direct impact on them today and in the future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, The Environment; the hon. member for Hochelaga, Housing.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member from Brandon—Souris.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House to represent my constituents in Flamborough—Glanbrook, all Canadians, and all taxpayers in this country, particularly on this bill.

Today, we begin and end a third reading debate on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada pension plan, legislation that I must oppose most vigorously for a number of reasons.

I must express that it is truly unfortunate the government has chosen to shut down debate to less than 90 minutes through its use of closure. This heavy-handed draconian approach is wrong-headed, which are pretty much direct quotes from my Liberals colleagues from the past Parliament, as members on this side of the House have a wide range of legitimate concerns that have gone unaddressed through the committee stage. These concerns should not be just read into the record but should actually provide pause to the government.

Unfortunately, the government is determined to ram this legislation through this chamber without any consideration for the consequences to so many responsible Canadians and small business owners. Bill C-26 expands the Canadian pension plan over the next 40 years in an effort to alleviate the financial burden of retired seniors, particularly those facing poverty.

I believe working toward the improvement of the lives of seniors is always a worthy endeavour. After all, they are the ones who built this country and made it great. However, where we profoundly differ from the members opposite is in how this is to be accomplished. In my view, these changes should have been more sufficiently studied and debated so that we do not trade one problem for another.

The bill mandates an increase in CPP premiums, a cost shared between employers and employees, to the tune of up to $2,200 per year. For families who already have to stretch their dollars in order to balance their household budget, these proposed measures will limit their ability to put money aside to save for their child's education, to purchase a new minivan, or to plan a much-needed vacation.

As an aside, neither the Minister of Finance nor the Prime Minister, both sons of millionaires, which in and of itself is not an issue, have had to make sacrifices to balance their household budgets, yet these are the masterminds behind Bill C-26, which will quite literally take money from the paycheque of every hard-working Canadians.

What is also very concerning is that the introduction of this bill, and its corresponding tax increase, comes at the same time that the government is imposing a carbon tax, which will drive up the price of everything. Under the carbon pricing scheme, residents in my constituency of Flamborough—Glanbrook will face higher fuel prices to make their morning commutes to work, and at the same time the price of everything from local produce to the costs of flights out of the Hamilton airport will go up. Perhaps most concerning is that the carbon tax will also increase the price of home heating. For my constituents, that is hard to fathom. Families young and old in my community are already tapped out. They can ill-afford the increased costs that are coming under the Prime Minister's carbon tax.

If the timing of two taxes is not bad enough, I must remind the House that Bill C-26 also comes at a time of massive deficit spending. As members know, deficits are simply the taxes of tomorrow. The government is borrowing billions of dollars and has not articulated a plan that would see the budget return to balance. This reality creates further uncertainty and concern for Canadians, because they know that in order to bring the budget into balance the government will either have to slash programs, raise taxes, or both. All of these initiatives come at a time when in my home province of Ontario energy prices are going through the roof. The experience of living under the Ontario Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne has taught my constituents to be skeptical of flashy new proposals that would see the long arm of government reach further into their pocket and take even more of their hard-earned money.

However, the concerns about Bill C-26, this CPP tax hike, go further than just bad timing. There is also significant concern that the bill effectively hinders the choice of Canadians as to how they save for their retirement. As a result, Canadians who are proactively saving for their future will be forced to invest more into CPP and less into the savings vehicle of their choice. Thanks to our previous Conservative government, Canadians now have an unprecedented number of savings options. Let us take, for example, the tax-free savings account that was implemented and then expanded. These accounts allow Canadians to save for large expenditures or for retirement with no strings attached. The money is available when it is needed, and the interest is accumulated tax-free. I would point out that, by far and away, it is middle-income Canadians who are making the greatest use of TFSAs. Plus, there are other ways to build up a nest egg. Some folks invest in the housing market, others store money away in RRSPs, while others contribute to a workplace pension plan or a pooled registered pension plan, which is yet another savings vehicle brought in by the previous Conservative government.

There is a wide spectrum of savings options available to Canadians who wish to supplement their retirement income and yet the CPP tax hike found in Bill C-26would limit the ability of Canadians who take the initiative to save on their own.

Take for example a single-income family with a couple of kids. One of the parents goes to work to bring home the proverbial bacon while the other parent stays at home to tend to the needs of the children. They pay to put a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothes on their backs. They put gas in the tank, heat their home, put their kids into sports, and give to charity. If the money is there, they may splurge on a date night and enjoy a nice meal in a restaurant. And of course they pay their taxes. Once all the bills are paid the bit that is left over could be put into a savings vehicle, but under Bill C-26 that bit left over does not make it into a TFSA but rather is taken off their paycheque and is forced to be invested into the CPP. Rather than having that money available to them for their car or for the car repairs, the family will have to take on more debt, making it even tougher to cover their cost of living by the time the next month's bills arrive. At the very least, Bill C-26 limits choice. At the worst, it may contribute to a cycle of debt by skimming too much off the top.

Bill C-26 would not just impact modest-income families. It would also take the choice away from Canadians who save for their retirement and wish to leave their accumulated wealth behind for loved ones after they pass away.

I have served in this place for more than a decade now and over the course of my tenure as a member of Parliament many seniors have discussed their priorities with me. I have heard many seniors say two things as they plan for the end of their life: first, they hope not to be a financial burden to their family and second, if possible they would like to leave some of their savings behind for their loved ones. In Canada we have a retirement system that allows them to accomplish these goals.

Our retirement system is the envy of the world. Retired seniors have access to old age security, the CPP, and a raft of savings options that I mentioned earlier. After those sources of income, if seniors are still facing financial difficulty, the guaranteed income supplement is there to top up their income. Thanks to the Conservative government in the last session of Parliament, they could even make a good sum of money without it being clawed back.

Further, those who want to look at the data or parse the numbers should consider the following. Eighty-three per cent of households are on track to maintain their current living standards in retirement, according to a study done by McKinsey & Company. Statistics Canada shows us that the share of Canadian seniors living on low income has dropped from 29% in 1970 to 3.7% today. These facts demonstrate that the vast majority of Canada's seniors are able to save enough to have a dignified retirement and cover their end-of-life costs and are able to meet their goal of passing on some of their earnings when their time comes.

One of my core critiques of the CPP is that the money invested by an individual contributor cannot be accessed by a surviving family member. By forcing Canadians to increase their contributions to the CPP, they will have less money to put into savings vehicles that give them the choice to will their savings to their loved ones. It is no surprise then that fewer than 20% of Canadians surveyed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that they would opt to put more of their savings into the CPP.

Back in the 1960s when the Liberal government of the day introduced CPP, minister Judy LaMarsh, who was responsible for establishing the program, had this to say about the intent of CPP, that it “is not intended to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government’s view, should properly be left to personal savings and private pension plans.”

Canadians who work hard for their money should be able to save in the way they choose and should be trusted to plan for their futures. Not only is Bill C-26 ill-timed and strips responsible Canadians of choice of their savings, it also negatively impacts small business.

As a former small business owner I have first-hand knowledge and experience of what it takes to battle the red tape and the cost of living to make sure that costs stay low in business. For small businesses it is going to be a choice of whether they continue to hire or invest in their business, having to deal with this expanded CPP tax. Two-thirds of all small firms say they will have to freeze or cut salaries and over one-third say they will have to reduce hours or jobs in their business in response to the CPP hike.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 537 to 542.