Jim Eglinski

[Petitions, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition calling on Parliament to appoint a minister for seniors and to develop a national strategy for seniors, given that this demographic is about to be a very large part of the population in the next two decades.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, recent years have been tough on farmers in my riding of Yellowhead, especially in Brazeau County. In July of last year, the county declared an agricultural state of disaster due to drought. Earlier this week, constant rain forced Brazeau County to declare another state of agricultural disaster. Up to 75% of local crops remain on the ground.

What is the government planning to provide in income disaster assistance to this vital sector?

[Petitions, October 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I wish to present two petitions, both dealing with palliative care.

They highlight the fact that the House of Commons in the last Parliament unanimously supported a motion calling on the government to create a national strategy on palliative care. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on this Parliament to carry on that work and to create a national strategy on palliative care to make sure that every Canadian has an opportunity to have high-quality palliative care at the end of his or her life.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. I look at my own situation and my family. My son-in-law and daughter own a company. They work in the oil patch. They employ anywhere from 65 to 100 people a year. This is going to be a great hardship. It means they probably will not be able to hire two additional people. That is two additional people in my riding who may not work. However, if this were not in place, those people may be hired and may be working.

I think we will see that in many small companies that employ 50 to 100 people. That is $50,000 to $100,000 a year more that they have to look at. They could take that money and invest it in new equipment that may spur more work and may require more people to be hired. It is definitely impacting small businesses.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is, no. It is just going to make it more difficult. We have many people coming out of university. Forcing them to pay more money into the Canada pension plan will make it harder for them to pay off their student loans. It will make it harder for young and middle-income families to plan for holidays or for their kids' post-secondary education. It will be difficult for many small businesses to keep people working or create new jobs.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Conservative government gave the opportunity to make voluntary contributions to the Canada pension plan. Yes, it may not affect those who are having a hard time, but I do not believe that taking money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians having difficulty is going to help them any more than the old plan with the option to add extra funding if they so wish. There is a responsibility for individuals to look at their long-term prospects and their future.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-26 and the Liberals' plan to expand the Canada pension plan.

This expansion would take more money from Canadians' paycheques, place more hardship on small businesses, and do very little for vulnerable citizens. Vulnerable seniors would gain little or nothing from the expanded CPP, as many have not contributed to the CPP and therefore are not eligible to receive CPP entitlements.

I quote from the Fraser Institute, through their colleagues, Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre, who stated:

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

For low-income seniors who have contributed, an increase in CPP income could trigger a reduction in other government transfers, meaning little or no net increase in retirement income. If this plan goes ahead, the CPP premium rate will start rising in 2019, and the maximum level of pensionable earnings will go up from $54,900 this year to $82,720 in 2025.

According to a study by the Fraser Institute, this expansion will take money from Canadians, with little benefit in return.

Simon Gaudreault, chief economist at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated that the agreement will have serious negative impacts on workers and the Canadian economy and that the announced changes, including increased contributions, may put Canadian wages, hours, and jobs in jeopardy.

Forcing Canadians to make higher contributions to the CPP will take more money from their paycheques. This means that they will have fewer dollars to invest outside the formal pension system and in private voluntary savings, such as RRSPs and TFSAs. This would result in little to no increase in total savings.

In addition to making it more difficult for Canadians to contribute to their TFSAs, the Liberal government has slashed contribution limits back to $5,500. Our government raised them, because it was such a popular program, from youth to seniors.

Our Conservative Party was proud to introduce the tax-free savings account that encouraged Canadians to be responsible in saving, and many Canadians have come to rely on these savings accounts when planning for their future. Tax-free savings accounts have provided Canadian families and seniors with a secure and flexible savings option that protects their money from being eroded by taxes.

The Liberals cut the limits for these savings accounts, and now they are taking even more money from the pockets of Canadians, making it difficult for them to use these accounts. The changes being made by the Liberals, in my view, will make life less affordable for Canadians who are trying to save for their vulnerable years.

Canadians should be able to manage their own money. With the out-of-control spending we have seen from the Liberals over this past year, they cannot trust the Liberal government with their pensions.

Vulnerable seniors will gain little or nothing from an expanded CPP. For low-income seniors who have made contributions, an increase in CPP income could trigger a reduction in other government transfers, such as the guaranteed income supplement. This would mean little or no net increase in their retirement income.

Our Conservative Party believes in reasonable, evidence-based policies that help Canadians retire with dignity, which is why the previous government expanded the guaranteed income supplement. The Liberals clearly agreed with this approach, since they increased the GIS by 10% in the first budget.

The Canada pension plan expansion may not effectively target those middle-income earners who are at the greatest risk of pension problems.

Employers and employees may decide to shrink their workplace pensions over their earning range when the CPP is newly expanded so the workers are not over covered.

An increase in payroll contributions after 2019 may result in a downward pressure on wages or employment. This would force Canadians to contribute more to the Canada pension plan, and would reduce their private voluntary savings. Canadians should choose how much they save and spend based on their income and preferred lifestyle.

The CPP tax hike will take money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk, and do nothing to help the seniors who need it today.

In 2013, the total household net worth of Canadians was $7.7 billion, split almost equally between pension assets, namely CPP/QPP, RRSPs, employer pensions, real estate equity, and other financial and non-financial assets.

A similar CPP hike scenario studied by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in 2015 said that it would eliminate 110,000 jobs and permanently lower wages by nearly 1%.

Dan Kelly, the president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated, “Two thirds of small firms say they will have to freeze or cut salaries and over a third say they will have to reduce hours or jobs in their business in response to a CPP/QPP hike”.

For the above reasons, I will not be supporting this bill.

Throughout my riding of Yellowhead in Alberta there are many unemployed people and many who are still working. Those who are working are the younger generation, many of whom who would look at the Canada pension plan and not trust that there would be funds there when they retired.

When we talk to financial planners throughout my area, we find that many young people, those who are just starting in the workforce and those who are already there, are putting money away for their retirement. They understand what it means to preplan their own destiny. Our government brought in the tax-free savings account specifically for those people who wanted to plan for their own future and use the money they could invest today, knowing that when they took that money out or when they retired, they would not be paying tax.

The difference between the Canada pension plan and the tax-free savings account is that people can put as much money as they wish forward. At the same time, our government gave them the option to make voluntary contributions to the Canada pension plan, which is what I believe should be in place today, rather than having to make greater mandatory contributions.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, Canada's savings rate has climbed from 7.7% back in the 1990s to 14.1% today. That is according to the C.D. Howe Institute. Just the other day, Finance Canada said that the higher CPP premiums would hurt the economy by reducing private savings by 7%. Could the member comment on that, because it sounds like we are going backwards?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the new generation of people joining the workforce is very attuned to self-funding their pension funds and their future.

It was mentioned earlier that our government did nothing for workers, but we did have the tax-free savings account. I wonder if the member could tell me if he thinks a person working for 40 years, having to possibly pay an additional $2,200 a year during that period, would be better off taking that $2,200 a year and putting it into a tax-free savings account, versus being forced to pay that through a pension plan? When they receive it later on in life, they are going to be paying taxes on the CPP, but they are not going to be paying taxes on their tax-free savings account.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition that states that it is impossible for a person to give informed consent to assisted suicide or euthanasia if appropriate palliative care is unavailable to them.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on Parliament to establish a national strategy on palliative care.