Ken Hardie

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member's question, and I cannot help but say that I agree with him.

I would like to see that remedied. I think that is the value of having debate in the House, where people can bring it up and say, “Hey, we should do something about that.” This is second reading. It is going to go to committee. There is a really good opportunity for your member on that committee to recommend the kind of changes necessary to close that gap.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's question. As a resident of British Columbia, he knows we have had a price on carbon for almost 10 years now. It was used to reduce personal income tax rates to the point that we have the lowest rates in the country and the strongest economy.

The amount being phased in, in the CPP enhancements, is not going to have the catastrophic effect that we would hear about from groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which relied on 615 of their 100,000 members to come up with that statement.

The fact is we were elected by people who saw what we were proposing and agreed with us. That is why we are here.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the stories that middle-class Canadians are trying to work harder than ever, but they are worried that they will not have enough to put away for this month's bills much less their retirement. Our whole economy, in fact, over the last 15 to 20 years, has been based on consumer spending, and we have run up the credit cards. Therefore, putting that little bit away each month or even in the course of a year for retirement is becoming extremely difficult.

I have to admit that I am not one of the 20% of Canadian families who get 46% of the wealth. The rest of us are left to basically fight over the scraps, and that does not bode well for the future.

We have one in four families approaching retirement, and about 1.1 million families at risk of not having enough. We have heard this loud and clear in our meetings with the constituents, in town halls, and on the doorsteps right across the country. I certainly heard it, and mine is a relatively prosperous riding.

This is why the Government of Canada committed to helping Canadians achieve that goal of a safe, secure, and dignified retirement. It is why we made it a core component of our commitment to work with the provinces and territories to strengthen the CPP, and on June 20, in Vancouver, we delivered. It was a historic occasion. Canada's governments, plural, agreed to enhance the CPP to give Canadians a more generous public pension that would help them retire in dignity.

The definition of dignity came up. What does that mean? Well, it means not having to split one's medications in half or go without. It means not having to choose between keeping the house warm or keeping a good meal on the table.

On behalf of hard-working Canadians, I would like to once again thank our hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, for his tremendous efforts in advancing this dialogue. The credit also goes to his counterparts in the provinces right across the country who also saw the need, had the vision, and agreed with us that it needed to be done.

Today, we as parliamentarians have a chance to support these quintessentially Canadian values and join their efforts to provide Canadians with a stronger CPP. Canadians have made it clear that they support an enhanced CPP. They did that by an overwhelming majority about a year and a couple of months ago.

The Minister of Finance did a tremendous job, when he introduced the legislation last week in the House, of articulating Canadians' concerns and spelling out precisely how this bill would give them a more generous public pension that would help them retire well. Today, I would like to build on this momentum for a stronger CPP by kind of taking a look under the hood at the enhancements that the CPP changes would bring. When we do this, we are going to see in even greater detail why this agreement is going to be so effective in meeting its objectives and why it merits support.

First, it is a balanced approach on a rock-solid foundation. One of the greatest strengths of this government and this agreement is that it is based on extensive, professional, and rock-solid economic analysis. Central among its assumptions is the premise that families need to have enough in savings set aside to replace about 60% of their pre-retirement income.

This 60% income replacement threshold is fully consistent with the considerable range of empirical literature suggesting an appropriate adequate income replacement rate should be between 50% and 70%, depending on family circumstances. At the top of the range, some suggest that 70% is sufficient to keep the consumption of an average Canadian family in line with that seen over their working years. However, the 70% target is a benchmark typically used in defined benefit pension plans, which are a pretty rare breed these days. It is also often used by retirement planners in providing advice to their clients.

However, we know that retirees typically spend less in their older ages, because they generally buy fewer durable goods like cars, or because of physical limitations. Many households also downsize their homes in retirement and use those proceeds to finance consumption. This implicitly means that a lower pension income replacement rate would be appropriate.

In view of these considerations, the Department of Finance, as well as many academics engaged in studying these issues, believe that using the 60% replacement rate is more appropriate, as it is generally regarded as sufficient to avoid a material drop in the standard of living. Therefore, this carefully targeted, balanced approach is reflected in the legislation we have before us today.

Now, had finance ministers tried to make the enhancements more dramatic, they would have, as the fears expressed by the other side, placed too much of a burden on workers and their employers as a result of the correspondingly higher increases in contributions that a dramatic enhancement would have entailed.

Had the finance ministers not been ambitious enough in targeting the enhancement, the resulting increase in benefits would have been too marginal to effectively support Canadians in reaching their retirement income goals.

As it stands, today's legislation would have a comprehensive package of enhancements that would increase CPP benefits while striking an appropriate balance between short-term economic considerations, long-term gains, and the provision of flexibility in retirement income decision-making.

Let us talk about the balanced approach and the benefits it would bring.

The balanced CPP enhancement contained in Bill C-26 would increase the maximum CPP retirement benefit by almost 50%. To put this in dollar terms, the current maximum benefit is, give or take, $13,000 in today's dollar terms, but the enhanced CPP benefit would represent an increase of nearly $7,000, to a maximum of around $20,000 a year. With this increase, it would meaningfully reduce the share of families at risk of not saving enough for retirement, as well as the degree of under-saving.

The Department of Finance has estimated that the enhancements would reduce the share of families at risk of not having adequate retirement savings by about a quarter. It would take it from 24% to about 18%, when considering income from the three pillars of the retirement income system and savings from other financial and non-financial assets.

For most Canadians, all these increased CPP benefits would come from only a 1% increase in contribution rates.

Moreover, as the finance minister explained last week, it would also include provisions that would help ensure that low-income Canadians are not financially burdened as the result of the extra contributions and, because of its balanced and targeted approach, it would achieve this while also supporting a stronger economy over the long term.

However, above all else, it would mean there would be more money from the CPP waiting for Canadians when they retire, so they would be able to focus on the things that matter, like spending time with their families, rather than worrying about making ends meet.

This outcome is precisely what we had in mind when we began engaging with the provinces to enhance the CPP. With Bill C-26, we are delivering on this promise.

However, how we have achieved this is just as important as what we have achieved.

We have done it by basing our decisions on rock-solid economic analyses and research that draws on the best elements of independent academic literature on retirement savings.

Equipped with this knowledge, we have taken a carefully targeted and balanced approach that would give Canadians more money in retirement without burdening them or the economy. We have given Canadians the flexibility to invest in other discretionary retirement savings as they see fit and, as important, as they are able. We have accomplished all this by working in common purpose with our provincial and territorial governments.

By doing all this, we have shown the power of the fundamental principles of commonwealth and co-operation upon which this country was built.

Today, we have the historic opportunity to act on these principles to build an even stronger country for future generations. With Bill C-26, we have the chance to support the implementation of the agreement that Canada's governments came to on June 20 of this year to enhance the CPP, to give Canadians a more generous public pension that would help them retire in dignity.

I invite members to become part of this history by giving this bill their full support.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy a sportscaster's view of the world and topics as they are, but I wanted to focus on putting a price on carbon.

As the member may know, that fine old socialist Gordon Campbell brought in a price on carbon in British Columbia in 2007. Cleverly, he said that they would take the revenue and give it back to the people via tax cuts. What that did was provide a couple of incentives. First, if people wanted to avoid paying more in taxes, they could just simply put out less carbon, such as by having a smaller car or by taking public transit more. He also exempted the agriculture sector so that there was flexibility and would not be an impact on the cost of food. Today, British Columbia has the lowest tax rate in the country and the best growth record. Can the member not see that applied properly, a price on carbon could produce very good results for Saskatchewan?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would reflect on what the former government claimed was a balanced budget, considering that there was billions of dollars in lapsed funding that was unspent from programs the Conservatives promised but had not delivered. They sold the shares in General Motors for a loss. All of it was really to construct the appearance of a balanced budget where clearly none existed, not to mention the fact that the former government had us in deficit when times were good, after inheriting many years of surpluses.

Perhaps he can reflect on that in terms of the virtues of a balanced budget as the Conservatives saw it.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues we are dealing with here is decisions that have been made in the past that were clearly out of touch with what the future was going to bring. We had Conservative governments in Alberta and Conservative governments in Ottawa that failed to see the end of the energy economy, and in fact they doubled down on it. At the same time, they neglected to diversify Alberta's economy, just as they are continuing to refuse to diversify the economy in Saskatchewan.

We also now are in a situation where being out of touch with what the future holds for us is going to be dangerous. We do not want to find ourselves in another situation like we are in today 20 years down the road. Could the member maybe talk about the importance of acting now to get those benefits in line?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard is a message from the darkest heart of the Conservative core.

We have had a situation in the last 10 years in which 85 families in this country have had more wealth than 20 million Canadians. Those are the people who, yes, have been able to save. Their savings rate has gone up and, yes, it pulls up the national average. However, we have also had 10 years where we have relied on average Canadian citizens going further and further into debt to bolster the Canadian economy. Therefore, there is no money for fancy TFSAs, except at the top of the elite 1% of 1%.

The previous member did not respond to my question, and so I ask again, what about the 60% of Canadians in the private sector who, even though they have a job, do not have a company pension plan? What do we do for them?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our economy and job market have been headed downhill and gaining steam for 10 years. There have been 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce notes that the jobs that were created were, for the most part, part time and low quality. Turning that around is not going to be easy. A change in momentum is going to take work, which this government is committed to.

What does the member say to the fact that 60% of people who work in the private sector right now have no company pension plans and no money to be putting into the elite-finance TFSAs? What should they do? Should they simply hold off and let some government in the future deal with the fact that there are Canadians who are badly prepared for retirement, which should be the golden years of their lives?

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, a stakeholder is defined as somebody with a material interest in what somebody else does. If we look at every minister of the crown, every Canadian is a stakeholder because everyone has a material interest in what they do.

Now, the question becomes, who is getting access? Every minister on this side has heard, either directly or through email, from hundreds of thousands of Canadians who paid nothing for that privilege and continue to have that privilege today.

If the member opens the vault at NDP headquarters and sees that the cupboard is pretty bare, will he be pining for the good old days of that per vote subsidy that our friends over there did away with?

[Diwali, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our celebration of Diwali is under way in Fleetwood—Port Kells, across our city of Surrey, and indeed all across Canada. Our Hindu and Sikh community celebrates Diwali to signify the victory of light over darkness, good over evil, knowledge over ignorance, and hope over despair. It is also a time of renovation and renewal for many.

What is so spiritually uplifting about Diwali for all of us is that it shares its theme with so many other faiths, the symbol of a divine light and the ultimate triumph of light over darkness, be it Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or the lighting of the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar.

That is a wonderful aspect of our society here in Canada. We are stronger because of our differences, not in spite of them. In fact, we can all join in wishing our friends and neighbours a happy Diwali because, like them, all of us will in turn be lighting up our community with understanding, hope, tolerance, and peace.