LAKESIDE - Canada's Finance ministers have agreed to push ahead with improvements to the Canada Pension Plan, even though not all provinces believe the changes are necessary.
Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty came out of two days of talks at a P.E.I. resort on Monday saying there was no unanimity on his proposal for a modest phased-in increase in Canada Pension Plan payroll premiums.
Alberta called it a "gross overreaction." Quebec remains non-committal.
But Flaherty said the majority of his provincial and territorial counterparts at a meeting at the Rodd Crowbush Resort on Sunday and Monday felt there should be a modest increase in premiums in an effort to deal with a growing number of Canadians who are not saving enough for retirement.
The changes can go ahead as long as two-thirds of the population, representing seven provinces, agrees.
"The issue that we're addressing is the fact there is a minority of middle-income and lower-middle-income Canadians primarily who are not saving actively for their retirement," Flaherty told reporters.
"That is a down-the-road issue but down the road it will come so we need to take steps to deal with it."
The proposal agreed to by Canada's Finance ministers closely resembled what Flaherty had laid out in a letter to his provincial and territorial colleagues last week.
That proposal included the increase to Canada
Pension Plan (CPP) premiums, better financial literacy, as well as a greater role for the private sector, including financial institutions and insurance companies, to offer low-cost
retirement options to multiple employers, all employees and to the self-employed.
Finance ministers agreed to take off the table any discussions about a government-sponsored voluntary pension plan, saying it would be too costly to implement.
Alberta Finance Minister Ted Morton made his province's position abundantly clear.
He described Flaherty's plan as a "gross overreaction."
"We think CPP is a form of payroll tax and it's a job killer," Morton said, speaking to reporters following Monday's meeting.
P.E.I. Finance Minister Wes Sheridan, who hosted the meetings, said the ministers sent a strong message that they support the CPP program.
He doesn't believe the lack of support by some provinces will derail plans to beef up CPP.
A group of about 150 protesters called on the politicians to double CPP premiums to ensure a livable wage for all retirees.
But Flaherty said he could not support a doubling of CPP premiums.
"I think doubling the CPP would be economically harmful to our country and would be excessive and unnecessary."
Finance ministers pushing ahead with improvements to pension plan
Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty met with his provincial and territorial counterparts at a meeting in Prince Edward Island Sunday and Monday. Guardian photo by Heather Taweel
- Published on June 15th, 2010
- Published on July 8th, 2010
-
Wayne Thibodeau
- Number of views : 1517
- Rate
- Top of the page
Comments
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 17:33:49
As a buysiness owner who must match all my employees CPP contributions, I can understand the reluctance to do a large immediate increase in CPP premiums. This is an added expense to a business in a very tough, competitive economic situation.
Perhaps, rather than having employers having to match the increased CPP contributions dollar for dollar, maybe reformulate it so employees carry the largest portion of this increased premiums. Afterall, it is only the employees who benefit from this.
Employers already pay 1.4 times as much as employees do to support the EI system, I think it is a bit much to ask employers, especially those with pension plans already in place for their staff, to have to shoulder another increased burden on them for the increased CPP.
Yes, I support increasing the CPP payouts. But, I suggest that this should be funded by those who are going to reap the benefits of it - the employees. -
- Hugh
- - July 8th, 2010 at 16:58:52
Why not use some of the surplus money from the Employment Insurance program to help increase CPP payments to the low CPP earners.
-
- frank
- - July 8th, 2010 at 16:24:09
Phil, you posted a similar message yesterday but there are no problems with CPP other that it doesn't pay enough for some Canadians to be more financially comfortable. The CPP will pay out benefits for the next 75 years and the government can't take out any CPP surpluses like they did with the federal government employee pension plan (the government took out 30 billion dollars from the plan in the 90's to pay towards the debt).
-
- Phil
- - July 8th, 2010 at 16:04:13
I wonder if the increased premiums will eventually be rolled into general revenues as is the case for EI? If so, this is just another translucent attempt to increase our tax load.
The provinces and the feds can study this all they want. Demographics tell us that there simply will not be enough workers paying into the system to pay for all of the retired baby boomers. It doesn't matter what they do now, they've waited WAY too long to fix the CPP/OAS system. Any increased payout will be temporary (and will prove to be very unwise in the long haul).
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ -
- DAVID
- - July 8th, 2010 at 15:36:00
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INCREASE WAGES FIRST BEFORE THEY TALK ABOUT CCP BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY MONEY IN OUR PAY TO PAY FOR LIVING EXPENSE NOW
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:37
As a buysiness owner who must match all my employees CPP contributions, I can understand the reluctance to do a large immediate increase in CPP premiums. This is an added expense to a business in a very tough, competitive economic situation.
Perhaps, rather than having employers having to match the increased CPP contributions dollar for dollar, maybe reformulate it so employees carry the largest portion of this increased premiums. Afterall, it is only the employees who benefit from this.
Employers already pay 1.4 times as much as employees do to support the EI system, I think it is a bit much to ask employers, especially those with pension plans already in place for their staff, to have to shoulder another increased burden on them for the increased CPP.
Yes, I support increasing the CPP payouts. But, I suggest that this should be funded by those who are going to reap the benefits of it - the employees. -
- Hugh
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:31
Why not use some of the surplus money from the Employment Insurance program to help increase CPP payments to the low CPP earners.
-
- frank
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:24
Phil, you posted a similar message yesterday but there are no problems with CPP other that it doesn't pay enough for some Canadians to be more financially comfortable. The CPP will pay out benefits for the next 75 years and the government can't take out any CPP surpluses like they did with the federal government employee pension plan (the government took out 30 billion dollars from the plan in the 90's to pay towards the debt).
-
- Phil
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:19
I wonder if the increased premiums will eventually be rolled into general revenues as is the case for EI? If so, this is just another translucent attempt to increase our tax load.
The provinces and the feds can study this all they want. Demographics tell us that there simply will not be enough workers paying into the system to pay for all of the retired baby boomers. It doesn't matter what they do now, they've waited WAY too long to fix the CPP/OAS system. Any increased payout will be temporary (and will prove to be very unwise in the long haul).
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ -
- DAVID
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:14
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INCREASE WAGES FIRST BEFORE THEY TALK ABOUT CCP BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY MONEY IN OUR PAY TO PAY FOR LIVING EXPENSE NOW
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:53
As a buysiness owner who must match all my employees CPP contributions, I can understand the reluctance to do a large immediate increase in CPP premiums. This is an added expense to a business in a very tough, competitive economic situation.
Perhaps, rather than having employers having to match the increased CPP contributions dollar for dollar, maybe reformulate it so employees carry the largest portion of this increased premiums. Afterall, it is only the employees who benefit from this.
Employers already pay 1.4 times as much as employees do to support the EI system, I think it is a bit much to ask employers, especially those with pension plans already in place for their staff, to have to shoulder another increased burden on them for the increased CPP.
Yes, I support increasing the CPP payouts. But, I suggest that this should be funded by those who are going to reap the benefits of it - the employees. -
- Hugh
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:46
Why not use some of the surplus money from the Employment Insurance program to help increase CPP payments to the low CPP earners.
-
- frank
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:38
Phil, you posted a similar message yesterday but there are no problems with CPP other that it doesn't pay enough for some Canadians to be more financially comfortable. The CPP will pay out benefits for the next 75 years and the government can't take out any CPP surpluses like they did with the federal government employee pension plan (the government took out 30 billion dollars from the plan in the 90's to pay towards the debt).
-
- Phil
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:34
I wonder if the increased premiums will eventually be rolled into general revenues as is the case for EI? If so, this is just another translucent attempt to increase our tax load.
The provinces and the feds can study this all they want. Demographics tell us that there simply will not be enough workers paying into the system to pay for all of the retired baby boomers. It doesn't matter what they do now, they've waited WAY too long to fix the CPP/OAS system. Any increased payout will be temporary (and will prove to be very unwise in the long haul).
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ -
- DAVID
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:27
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INCREASE WAGES FIRST BEFORE THEY TALK ABOUT CCP BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY MONEY IN OUR PAY TO PAY FOR LIVING EXPENSE NOW
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:24
As a buysiness owner who must match all my employees CPP contributions, I can understand the reluctance to do a large immediate increase in CPP premiums. This is an added expense to a business in a very tough, competitive economic situation.
Perhaps, rather than having employers having to match the increased CPP contributions dollar for dollar, maybe reformulate it so employees carry the largest portion of this increased premiums. Afterall, it is only the employees who benefit from this.
Employers already pay 1.4 times as much as employees do to support the EI system, I think it is a bit much to ask employers, especially those with pension plans already in place for their staff, to have to shoulder another increased burden on them for the increased CPP.
Yes, I support increasing the CPP payouts. But, I suggest that this should be funded by those who are going to reap the benefits of it - the employees. -
- Hugh
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:16
Why not use some of the surplus money from the Employment Insurance program to help increase CPP payments to the low CPP earners.
-
- frank
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:08
Phil, you posted a similar message yesterday but there are no problems with CPP other that it doesn't pay enough for some Canadians to be more financially comfortable. The CPP will pay out benefits for the next 75 years and the government can't take out any CPP surpluses like they did with the federal government employee pension plan (the government took out 30 billion dollars from the plan in the 90's to pay towards the debt).
-
- Phil
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:04
I wonder if the increased premiums will eventually be rolled into general revenues as is the case for EI? If so, this is just another translucent attempt to increase our tax load.
The provinces and the feds can study this all they want. Demographics tell us that there simply will not be enough workers paying into the system to pay for all of the retired baby boomers. It doesn't matter what they do now, they've waited WAY too long to fix the CPP/OAS system. Any increased payout will be temporary (and will prove to be very unwise in the long haul).
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ -
- DAVID
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:58
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INCREASE WAGES FIRST BEFORE THEY TALK ABOUT CCP BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY MONEY IN OUR PAY TO PAY FOR LIVING EXPENSE NOW
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:20
As a buysiness owner who must match all my employees CPP contributions, I can understand the reluctance to do a large immediate increase in CPP premiums. This is an added expense to a business in a very tough, competitive economic situation.
Perhaps, rather than having employers having to match the increased CPP contributions dollar for dollar, maybe reformulate it so employees carry the largest portion of this increased premiums. Afterall, it is only the employees who benefit from this.
Employers already pay 1.4 times as much as employees do to support the EI system, I think it is a bit much to ask employers, especially those with pension plans already in place for their staff, to have to shoulder another increased burden on them for the increased CPP.
Yes, I support increasing the CPP payouts. But, I suggest that this should be funded by those who are going to reap the benefits of it - the employees. -
- Hugh
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:12
Why not use some of the surplus money from the Employment Insurance program to help increase CPP payments to the low CPP earners.
-
- frank
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:04
Phil, you posted a similar message yesterday but there are no problems with CPP other that it doesn't pay enough for some Canadians to be more financially comfortable. The CPP will pay out benefits for the next 75 years and the government can't take out any CPP surpluses like they did with the federal government employee pension plan (the government took out 30 billion dollars from the plan in the 90's to pay towards the debt).
-
- Phil
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:59
I wonder if the increased premiums will eventually be rolled into general revenues as is the case for EI? If so, this is just another translucent attempt to increase our tax load.
The provinces and the feds can study this all they want. Demographics tell us that there simply will not be enough workers paying into the system to pay for all of the retired baby boomers. It doesn't matter what they do now, they've waited WAY too long to fix the CPP/OAS system. Any increased payout will be temporary (and will prove to be very unwise in the long haul).
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ -
- DAVID
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:53
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INCREASE WAGES FIRST BEFORE THEY TALK ABOUT CCP BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY MONEY IN OUR PAY TO PAY FOR LIVING EXPENSE NOW
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:58
As a buysiness owner who must match all my employees CPP contributions, I can understand the reluctance to do a large immediate increase in CPP premiums. This is an added expense to a business in a very tough, competitive economic situation.
Perhaps, rather than having employers having to match the increased CPP contributions dollar for dollar, maybe reformulate it so employees carry the largest portion of this increased premiums. Afterall, it is only the employees who benefit from this.
Employers already pay 1.4 times as much as employees do to support the EI system, I think it is a bit much to ask employers, especially those with pension plans already in place for their staff, to have to shoulder another increased burden on them for the increased CPP.
Yes, I support increasing the CPP payouts. But, I suggest that this should be funded by those who are going to reap the benefits of it - the employees. -
- Hugh
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:51
Why not use some of the surplus money from the Employment Insurance program to help increase CPP payments to the low CPP earners.
-
- frank
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:44
Phil, you posted a similar message yesterday but there are no problems with CPP other that it doesn't pay enough for some Canadians to be more financially comfortable. The CPP will pay out benefits for the next 75 years and the government can't take out any CPP surpluses like they did with the federal government employee pension plan (the government took out 30 billion dollars from the plan in the 90's to pay towards the debt).
-
- Phil
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:39
I wonder if the increased premiums will eventually be rolled into general revenues as is the case for EI? If so, this is just another translucent attempt to increase our tax load.
The provinces and the feds can study this all they want. Demographics tell us that there simply will not be enough workers paying into the system to pay for all of the retired baby boomers. It doesn't matter what they do now, they've waited WAY too long to fix the CPP/OAS system. Any increased payout will be temporary (and will prove to be very unwise in the long haul).
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ -
- DAVID
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:33
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD INCREASE WAGES FIRST BEFORE THEY TALK ABOUT CCP BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY MONEY IN OUR PAY TO PAY FOR LIVING EXPENSE NOW
