Bill C-25 (Historical)

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts

This enactment provides a legal framework for the establishment and administration of pooled registered pension plans that will be accessible to employees and self-employed persons and that will pool the funds in members’ accounts to achieve lower costs in relation to investment management and plan administration.

Canada Labour Code

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in today's complex environment, we will touch points at provincial, federal, and local levels. However, when these things are raised, we should not just say we oppose something out of a parochial sense of jurisdiction. We should say what the things are that we would like fixed. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has just said that it is all flawed and it will take everything away without giving workers the transparency they need.

In regard to Bill C-25, all of that is related to the federal sphere and has nothing to do provincially.

This is about supporting Canadian workers, and I would hope the member would consider that viewpoint.

Retirement Income Bill of Rights

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this private member's bill today, particularly because it deals with Canada's retirement income system. This is an issue about which I and the Conservative government feel very strongly.

Seniors in my riding of North Vancouver, and indeed across Canada, have spent their lives working hard to build stronger communities within a more prosperous Canada. Many seniors have made great sacrifices to provide the lifestyle and privileges that so many of us enjoy and sometimes take for granted. It is their hard work that has helped make Canada the greatest nation in the world.

We have tremendous respect for Canadian seniors. That is why our government has been demonstrating our commitment to them for more than seven years.

For example, we established October 1 as National Seniors Day. We have funded more than 11,000 new horizons for seniors program projects in hundreds of communities across Canada, including in my community of North Vancouver. We have invested in helping seniors quickly access information about the programs and services they need in their communities. We have passed the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act.

The Protecting Canada's Seniors Act is an important piece of legislation regarding a very critical issue. It will help ensure consistent, tough penalties for crimes involving elder abuse. The act confirms that age and other personal circumstances will be considered as aggravating factors for criminals who target the elderly.

Our government has also taken concrete action to ensure that seniors and pensioners continue to have more money in their pockets, so that they can enjoy the quality of life they have worked so hard to achieve. For example, we have introduced pension income splitting, doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for pension income credit, increased the maximum GIS earnings exemption to $3,500, increased the age credit by $1,000 in 2006 and another $1,000 in 2009, and increased the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs to 71 from 69 years of age. The government has also introduced the highly praised tax free savings account and cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. Overall, our action has resulted in the delivery of over $2.7 billion in targeted tax relief to seniors.

Let me tell the House about some of the seniors who are benefiting. People like Harold and Shirley, a retired couple, are real people. For many years, they worked hard and paid their taxes. Each year, they receive $55,000 and $25,000 respectively in pension income. As a result of the actions our government has taken since 2006, they now have more money in their pockets.

Harold and Shirley are expected to pay $2,260 less in personal income tax. This includes about $700, which they have saved by taking advantage of pension income splitting, and about $960 from the doubling of the pension income credit and the increases in the age credit. They are also paying $740 less because of our GST cut. This adds up to a total of $3,000 in tax relief for 2013 alone. This allows Harold and Shirley to keep more of their pension income right where it belongs: in their wallets.

This year's economic action plan builds on these efforts and contains more measures to benefit seniors. For example, we are expanding tax relief for home care services to include personal care services for those who, due to age, infirmity or disability, require assistance at home. Our government is supporting palliative care services by providing the Pallium Foundation of Canada with $3 million over the next three years to support training for front-line health care providers. We are assisting in the construction and renovation of accessible community facilities by investing $15 million a year in the enabling accessibility fund.

Seniors are benefiting not only from these measures but also from our country's strong retirement income system. This system is based on three pillars. The first pillar is the old age security program, which provides a basic minimum pension for all Canadians.

The second pillar includes the Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan. These plans ensure a basic level of earning replacement for working Canadians. They currently provide over $45 billion per year in benefits.

The third pillar of Canada's retirement system includes tax-assisted private savings opportunities to allow Canadians to accumulate additional retirement savings. This includes registered pension plans, registered retirement savings plans, and, as I mentioned earlier, the tax-free savings account we introduced.

Though this three-pillar system is strong, we have taken action to improve it. In 2012, our government passed Bill C-25, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, to provide employers, employees, and the self-employed with an accessible large-scale and low-cost pension option.

For millions of Canadians, PRPPs, as they are called, will provide access to a low-cost pension arrangement for the very first time. They will enable more workers to benefit from the lower investment management costs that result in a large pooled pension plan.

PRPPs are portable and represent a tremendous opportunity for many employees and small businesses that want greater pension plan options as they prepare for retirement.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business welcomed our PRPP legislation, stating that “PRPPs will be an excellent addition to the retirement savings options for small business owners and their employees.”

We agree. PRPPs are an outstanding addition that will benefit millions of Canadians. It is estimated that 60% of Canadians are not provided with a pension plan by their employer. PRPPs would fill this gap.

I would also like to note that the system our government is building on is one of the greatest retirement income systems in the world. Canada's retirement income system is recognized around the world as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among seniors. It also provides high levels of replacement income to retirees.

Andrew Coyne of the National Post wrote:

By most measures, Canada's retirement income support system is an outstanding success. The poverty rate for Canadian seniors...is among the lowest in the world.

He is correct.

Unfortunately, the bill we are debating today, Bill C-513, does nothing to benefit Canada's strong and world-renowned retirement income system and brings no value to helping seniors. In fact, the private member's bill from the member for York West could seriously impair key aspects of the existing pension and retirement savings system. It falsely claims to provide a retirement income bill of rights, but in fact the bill would only impact pensions that are federally regulated—that is, less than 10% of all pension plans in Canada. To be clear, over 90% of all pension plans in Canada are not covered by this bill.

The bill also unnecessarily duplicates existing provisions in federal pension legislation, such as information disclosure provisions to pension plan members and retirees, and fiduciary requirements for pension plan administrators.

Bill C-513 also falsely claims to enhance the financial literacy of Canadians. Indeed, the bill is repetitive and would introduce needless complexities to our government's actions in this area over the past years.

With financial products constantly evolving, we know that financial literacy is an increasingly necessary skill for all Canadians to learn. As November is Financial Literacy Month, I am pleased to note that our government has taken action to increase the financial knowledge of Canadians. We began by establishing the task force on financial literacy and committing additional funding to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to undertake financial literacy activities.

We passed Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act, to allow for the appointment of a financial literacy leader. Once appointed, the financial literacy leader will work with stakeholders across the country and direct a national strategy on financial literacy. This will empower Canadians by equipping them with the skills they need to make the best financial choices.

This year's budget also committed to better protecting seniors who use financial services. This initiative will be completed by working with banks and other financial institutions to ensure they develop and distribute clear information. This will help ensure seniors get the information they need about powers of attorney and other bank services geared toward seniors' needs.

Our commitment to financial literacy is clear. What is also clear is that this private member's bill is simply not in the best interests of Canadians.

We will continue to take action to benefit Canadians and seniors and to create prosperity for them and for all Canadians.

[Peter Tinsley, Former Chair, Military Police Complaints Commission, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Members of the committee, good afternoon.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you today, albeit it was a little late. I've scrambled to put notes together, which the clerk has, and which I'm not going to get through in the 10 minutes. The clerk has kindly indicated that he will have them translated and distributed so that you might at some point see all of my thoughts, and I appreciate that.

I'm very appreciative of participating in this process concerning a very important matter regarding the military justice system. As the chair has indicated, I come at this not just based on being the former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission but having a career-long history in military justice, first as a military police officer, then as a military lawyer, and subsequently, both nationally and internationally, in matters of police management and governance.

I'm going to focus the few minutes I have with respect to one small provision of Bill C-15, namely subclause 18.5(3). I will proceed on the assumption that the contents of that proposed subclause are well known to the members of the committee. It is specifically with respect to the new-found statutory authority for the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to direct the Canadian Forces provost marshal in respect of specific military police investigations.

Proposed subsection 18.5(3), as I've indicated, is very small, but in my view it is very large in terms of its negative impact on both the independence of the police, both real and perceived, and the oversight mechanisms, specifically the oversight mechanism in the military police commission oriented toward the prohibition of interference with police investigations.

It's my respectful submission that if realized, this small provision could be a retrogressive step and serve as the single most significant contribution to Bill C-15's short title of strengthening the military justice system.

The strengthening of the military justice system, of which the military police are a critical component, has been an evolutionary process since the Somalia commission of inquiry report in 1997 and the subsequent passing of Bill C-25 in 1998. Prior to that, Canada's military justice system, as embodied in the National Defence Act, had remained largely stagnant and largely unchanged for half a century, from the mid-1950s, when the first National Defence Act was passed, until 1998.

In fact, in 1992 there was a collective sigh of relief when the military justice system survived its first significant challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the Supreme Court of Canada found the centrepiece of the system, trial by court martial, to be charter-compliant as a result of regulatory changes that were made, such as tribunal independence.

What could not be foreseen was that just over the horizon events occurring in Somalia in 1992 and 1993 would result in the Canadian Forces, including the military justice system, being subjected to public scrutiny, the likes of which had never been experienced before. Notwithstanding that the conduct of the Canadian Forces members in Somalia was investigated by the military police and charges were laid, including those of murder and torture, and notwithstanding that trials by court martial took place and that appeals were made to the Court Martial Appeal Court as well as to the Supreme Court of Canada without judicial criticism of the process, the court of public opinion was not so satisfied.

I appreciate that the committee has already heard extensively about this evolutionary process, but in that so much reliance seems to be placed on the very worthy opinions of former chief justices of Canada in respect of issues of constitutionality, I want to invite your attention very briefly to their specific and equally worthy advice in respect of matters of police independence and oversight.

First, the Somalia commission examined in detail the institutional response to the events in Somalia, including that of the military police. In so doing, it was particularly critical of the positioning of the military police within the military hierarchy and the influence of commanding officers as well as the chain of command over police operations, which vitiated any notion of independence and gave rise to the potential for the perception of improper influence being exercised. Accordingly, one significant recommendation was that the head of the military police be responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff for all purposes except for the investigation of major disciplinary or criminal conduct.

Bill C-25 was also significantly informed by the 1997 report of a special advisory group, called the SAG on military justice and military police investigation services, chaired by the late Right Honourable Brian Dickson.

Concerning the military police, the SAG report dealt with many of the same themes as those probed by the Somalia commission, including the competing or conflicting imperatives of command and control for the military police role in support of military operations and those for the purely police investigative function.

In order to meet the requirements of both roles, the Dickson SAG report recommended a bifurcation of the process, with military commanders retaining command and control over military police personnel employed in operational support or intelligence roles, while all others would be under the direct command and control of the head of the military police. In the latter regard, the report stressed at length the importance of the independence of policing to ensure the integrity of the justice system.

An additional significant feature of the SAG report was that in the vein of ensuring confidence and respect for the military justice system, it recommended the establishment of an independent office for complaint review and oversight of the military police consistent with the established norms for the civilian police.

The subsequent Dickson report, the report of the military police services review group, received in 1998, found that the accountability framework signed by the VCDS and the provost marshal in 1998 conformed with the recommendations of the SAG report in respect of the independence of the policing function. A key feature of the accountability framework was that the VCDS would have no direct involvement in ongoing investigations and would not direct the CFPM with respect to operational decisions of an investigative nature.

As you're well aware, the first statutorily mandated review of the NDA was completed by the late Right Honourable Antonio Lamer in 2003. Of particular note, regarding the highly connected matters of military police independence and oversight, were two significant observations made in the report.

One was in respect of the role of the provost marshal, where Justice Lamer observed that it

...is largely governed by the Accountability Framework that was developed in 1998 to ensure both the independence of the Provost Marshal as well as a professional and effective military police service...

“This legislative omission”, he then observed, was in an accountability framework, like a memorandum of understanding, but was not within a statutory framework as existed for those such as military judges, the JAG, the director of military prosecutions, etc.

He went on to say that

Support has been given to the military police through the creation of the MPCC, a quasi-judicial civilian oversight body and operating independently of the Department...and the Canadian Forces. The MPCC was established to make the handling of complaints involving the military police more transparent and accessible

—and most specifically—

to discourage interference with military police investigations....

My submission is that Bill C-15 does comply with Lamer's recommendation to fill the legislative void concerning the responsibilities of the CFPM by proposing they be codified in the NDA. However, in so doing, and notwithstanding the consistent recommendations of the Somalia commission, the Dickson report, and Lamer in respect of the necessary independence of the military police from the chain of command in respect of police operational decisions and investigations—as well, it is in stark contrast to the accountability framework—it includes a provision that specifically authorizes the VCDS to

issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

Justice systems must continuously evolve to meet the ongoing changing circumstances, standards, and expectations of the societies that they are intended to serve. The military justice system has experienced a long overdue and rapid period of evolution over the last two decades, including recognition that the military police are a Canadian police service—in fact, the seventh-largest in Canada—with a public expectation that they will enforce Canadian law at home and abroad at the highest standards.

Bill C-15 is part of that continuing process. What is under discussion here is whether a significant part of that evolutionary process and the consistent recommendations in terms of the key issues of police independence and the associated matter of effective oversight of military policing will be inexplicably disregarded and the clock, in fact, turned back.

My very brief summary submission is that if Bill C-15 is passed into law in its present form, inclusive of the new subsection 18.5(3) authorizing the VCDS to interfere with police operations and investigations, it will be inconsistent with the principles of police independence as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada at late as 1999 as underpinning the rule of law, as well as run counter to the norms of police-government relations, certainly in Canada, and I can tell you internationally in developed countries, which recognize the importance of police independence and prohibit police service boards or similar executive bodies from giving directions regarding specific police operations.

It would also effectively contradict, even repudiate, the notion of improper interference by the chain of command as established in the oversight jurisdiction of the Military Police Complaints Commission and thereby effectively eliminate oversight by statutory authorization of such interference by the VCDS, a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the complaints commission.

I'm here to answer your questions as you may have them, but I leave off by asking you one: why?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I appreciate the language that's been put out there, but I think it's worthwhile reminding all committee members that a number of the projects the minister mentioned are under way and this bill is still before the committee, so I don't think you can attribute those to this bill.

Thank you for coming, Mr. Minister.

I want to correct the record on the issue around consultation. The New Democrats in the House did indicate that the consultation process around the Nunavut part was a good example of how consultation could happen. What you see as a result is this bill. Although some amendments have been proposed, when you see the complexity of the bill, I think that 10-year process speaks to how a good consultation process can be effective.

The challenge we have before us is that the same process didn't happen in NWT. You had a two-year process, I think I heard you say 2010, so you haven't had the same kind of process in place.

Minister, you indicated in your speaking notes that this is urgent, so I wonder why the government didn't reintroduce a version of Bill C-25 and deal with the Nunavut piece of it as a stand-alone piece of legislation, given that there was such a good consultation process and largely consensus, and then allow the NWT process the amount of time it needed to get that same level of consensus?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, in the C.D. Howe report on pooled registered pension plans, as of June 2012, it refers to the PRPPs of Bill C-25, which contained, of course, the regulatory framework for pooled registered pension plans. It also included a new kind of retirement savings vehicle, described by the government at the time as an effective and appropriate way to help bridge existing gaps in the retirement system.

According to the report of a federal-provincial research working group on retirement income—

[Terry Campbell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you, Chairman.

The CBA is pleased to participate in the committee's pre-budget consultations in preparation for Budget 2013.

As many of you know, the CBA represents 54 banks in this country and their 274,000 employees across Canada.

Our banks are playing an important role in helping families, businesses and communities across Canada to weather the economic turbulence that still persists around the globe. The strength of our national banking system and the soundness of our banks are rooted in effective management, regulation and supervision.

This soundness has been recognized internationally. The World Economic Forum named Canadian banks number one in the world for safety and soundness for five years running, in large measure I think because the banks in this country are practical, prudent, and play by the rules.

I want to turn to our pre-budget submission to the committee that we made earlier this year. I'm going to provide a very brief overview. I look forward to our conversation afterwards.

The first point we make in our submission is that keeping taxes competitive is, in our view, a key tool for promoting economic growth by encouraging new investment. Higher taxes, by contrast, would discourage investment by reducing the return that entrepreneurs and businesses get on their capital. This is why we are pleased with the federal government's commitment to maintain a 15% corporate income tax rate.

While governments nowadays do face difficult decisions in their efforts to return to balanced budgets, we are concerned by proposals to postpone or reverse tax rate reductions. The reductions in the combined federal-provincial tax rate since 2000 have made Canada more competitive without reducing tax revenues. Overall, corporate income tax revenues increased by 44% from 2000 to 2010 and remained relatively stable as a percentage of GDP.

Provincial tax rates are an important part of this equation as well. That's why we are recommending that the federal government encourage the provinces to achieve and maintain a 10% targeted corporate income tax rate.

In our submission, we also have some commentary about capital taxes, but in the interests of time, Mr. Chairman, I think I'll suggest that if members have questions here, we can come back to it later.

Another point we raise in our submission is that despite the economic weaknesses we see in other countries, the Canadian economy has performed relatively well in comparison to its peers. We support efforts to continue to lay the groundwork for additional growth and job creation through the broadening of Canada's trade and investment relationships.

To that end, we agree with the federal government's initiatives to broaden Canada's trade profile around the world. Over the last several years, the federal government has actively negotiated, signed, and brought into force several free trade agreements, foreign investment promotion and protection agreements, and other international documents.

These initiatives provide for an increased level of predictability, certainty, and access for Canadian businesses, so the CBA is encouraging the federal government to consider including, while pursuing trade negotiations in the future, measures that would prevent the extraterritorial application of foreign laws to Canadian financial institutions and account holders. An example we have here, obviously, is the U.S. FATCA legislation.

Also, in our submission we note that the banking industry welcomed the passage in June of this year of Bill C-25, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. PRPP would be I think particularly useful for people who do not now have access to a private sector pension plan, which we know is common among employees of small and medium-sized businesses and the self-employed. These groups have typically faced barriers to private pension schemes, given that other options are often too costly or administratively complex and contain risks that smaller employers are not prepared to take.

Motions in amendment

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House and speak to this bill. Many hon. members have already talked about the summary of the bill, so I will not dwell on it. It has already been done. I will instead focus on some of the points in Bill C-350.

First, I would like to applaud the intent behind this bill, which is to provide support to the families of the accused and to victims by ensuring that offenders are required to fulfill their responsibilities toward them. That is a very noble intention. I am glad that we have the opportunity today to discuss this issue and that the bill will be referred to committee for study.

I would also like to point out that we have just witnessed something exceptional and remarkable: a Conservative member and an NDP member have introduced two very similar amendments, two amendments that go along the same lines. We often talk about disagreements between parties and about how impossible it is for them to work together. Today's event is a fine example that, despite disagreements, the various parties also have some common interests. All hon. members of the House are thinking people, knowledgeable and well informed about the issues they are working on.

The proposed amendments are very interesting and are heading in more or less the same direction. It will be interesting to see how they will be received in committee and how the members will work together.

The government wants to put the protection of families and victims first. However, this bill should not replace measures designed to better inform and advise victims and provide them with better financial support.

This bill currently states that offenders who are awarded monies will compensate victims. However, many cannot be accountable to the victims and families. We have to take these people into consideration. We must also ensure that this bill is not one we can use to say that we did everything we could. We can do more for the good of the victims and the offenders' families, for the children of offenders. That is my concern with this bill concerning victims.

Bill C-350 seeks to make offenders accountable, as indicated by the title of the bill. We must consider what will result in true accountability of offenders. Once again, a very specific approach is being taken to a problem, which is fair, because that is what we have to do in our work. But we must not lose sight of the broader issue of interest in Bill C-350.

The NDP believes that this bill is not the best way to make offenders accountable. Based on the testimony of many experts, among others, who appeared before the committee, an offender must be directly involved in decisions about paying compensation to victims and other financial decisions in order to develop his sense of responsibility. If such decisions are made for him and he is not asked for his input, he will not necessarily develop that sense of responsibility. He does not have a say, he does not even have to think about his situation. Will that really make him more accountable? The NDP believes that this question must be posed. Many experts are also wondering about this.

I spoke about the victims and accountability. I would now like to talk about rehabilitation and prevention. These issues are not addressed in this bill, and the Conservative Party has not talked about them much in connection with this bill. I continue to find this unfortunate and worrisome.

Accountability, yes. But what about rehabilitation? We support comprehensive rehabilitation programs that will reduce recidivism and make our cities safer. When we were debating mandatory minimum sentences, there was a lot of talk about safety in our streets and communities. However, the two concepts do not necessarily go hand in hand. If we want to make our cities and communities safer, we have to talk about rehabilitation and prevention.

In a 2007 report, Public Safety Canada recognized that former inmates face a number of challenges, such as limited access to jobs, that compromise their ability to become law-abiding citizens.

If we really want to help offenders fulfill their financial responsibilities toward their communities and their families, we have to think about what we can do to improve their access to jobs. The two go hand in hand, and that issue has to be part of a debate like this one. If the Conservative Party really cares about offender accountability, what is it prepared to do to ensure that offenders who are released from prison can find work and shoulder their responsibilities toward their communities?

Quebec's Centre de ressources pour délinquants comes to mind. The centre works to enhance the skills and employability of its clientele in order to facilitate integration or reintegration into the job market. These things exist and have already been implemented in several departments and provinces in different ways. The Centre de ressources pour délinquants is an example of that. Experts are available to offenders to ensure they have the legal, social and educational support they need to give them the best possible opportunity to reintegrate into the job market. The centre is part of the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec. Yes, Quebec. So we have to think about just how involved we can get in this issue, but it is worth mentioning.

Now let us talk about prevention. Once again, we do not hear this word enough when talking about safety and the role of inmates or offenders in our society. It is important to prevent crime, and not simply punish people. This point cannot be over-emphasized, especially when working with a Conservative government like this one. Why not invest in prevention? A report entitled “Cost and Effectiveness of Federal Correctional Policy” stated the following:

The skyrocketing costs associated with new bills [like Bill C-10 and Bill C-25] will put a great deal of pressure on rehabilitation programs, which could suffer if the new influx of prisoners is not accompanied by the additional resources needed to handle them.

We could learn from the mistakes of other countries that also favour punishment, but did not put enough additional resources into the system and whose rehabilitation programs are suffering a great deal as a result.

I think it is now time to discuss Bill C-36. I can make an interesting link here. This bill deals with elder abuse. This bill contains measures that give judges another tool for punishing crimes committed against seniors. If we really want to tackle the problem of elder abuse, then we also need to ask ourselves how we can prevent it and how we can support seniors to make it easier for them to report cases of abuse.

In fact, a number of bills claim to be fighting a problem, but they do not really get to the heart of that problem and do not take into account the factors of vulnerability and prevention that go along with all that.

Lastly, I would like to talk about the work that the committee did on Bill C-350. I am pleased to see that amendments were made to the bill after the work in committee with all the parties. However, from what I heard from my colleagues on that committee, a number of questions have yet to be answered. I do not understand why members who know their stuff cannot manage to get some answers. For example, does this bill encroach on provincial jurisdictions? Is there not a risk of limiting a judge's discretionary power?

How is it that we have not yet gotten answers to these questions, and how is that we are seeing limited debate and testimony in this type of committee?

In conclusion, the NDP will support this bill at second reading, but it is important that prevention and rehabilitation be included in these discussions and these debates. Restitution is possible for a theft or items broken by an offender, but the psychological or physical damage done during a crime cannot all be repaired, and someone who dies as a result of a crime cannot be brought back.

That is why punishment is not enough; we need to take action beforehand to prevent the crime.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons)—Chapter 9, 2012.

Bill C-40, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2013—Chapter 10, 2012.

Bill C-41, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2013—Chapter 11, 2012.

Bill C-288, An Act respecting the National Flag of Canada—Chapter 12, 2012.

Bill C-278, An Act respecting a day to increase public awareness about epilepsy—Chapter 13, 2012.

Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (interprovincial importation of wine for personal use)—Chapter 14, 2012.

Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)—Chapter 15, 2012.

Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts—Chapter 16, 2012.

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act—Chapter 17, 2012.

It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 17, 2012, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills:

Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts;

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act;

Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

As the Deputy Speaker promised the House when she initially ruled on this matter, I am now prepared to rule substantively on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North on Tuesday, June 12 in relation to the allocation of hours in the motion by the hon. government House leader to allocate time at report stage and third reading of Bill C-38. As members will recall, the motion called for an additional 10 hours of consideration at report stage and 8 hours at the third reading stage.

The Chair wishes to thank the hon. government House leader, the hon. opposition House leader and the hon. member for Cardigan for their interventions on the matter.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has argued that the number of sitting hours that can be allocated to a given stage of a bill pursuant to Standing Order 78(3) must, at a minimum, mirror the number of sitting hours in effect when the time allocation motion is moved and applied. This week and last week, depending on the day, due to the adoption of the motion for extended sitting hours, that could be up to14 hours.

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon. member for Cardigan have echoed that view, claiming that the intent of the Standing Order is that a time-allocated debate have as a minimum duration of one sitting day, however long that day may happen to be, as per Standing Order 78(3)(a) which states:

...that the time allotted to any stage is not to be less than one sitting day...

For his part, the hon. government House leader has argued that the minimum number of sitting hours that can be allocated to a given stage of a bill pursuant to the same Standing Order need only be equal to the shortest day possible, in his view, 2.5 hours.

In the Chair's opinion, a close reading of the Standing Order and relevant precedents will show that none of the arguments advanced have exactly hit the mark.

A review of the best and most relevant precedent available, that of 1987, cited by the Government House Leader, illustrates well the equilibrium that the Chair always tries to achieve in cases of this kind. Let me explain.

The government House leader stressed that on that occasion in 1987, four hours were allocated for report stage and a further four hours for third reading on a government bill during extended sitting hours in June. He added that he believed, “Mr. Speaker Fraser likely interpreted the length of the shortest available day to be the minimum time required by the Standing Orders”.

However, it should be pointed out that in 1987, the sitting hours of the House were very different, and this is of critical importance if we are to extrapolate a rationale for what occurred.

In 1987, the House sat Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Wednesdays and from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Fridays. If one were to subtract from these sitting times all the time allotted to statements by members, question period, private members' business and, in those days, lunch hour, 18 hours were left for the consideration of government orders in a normal sitting week. That number divided by the number of days in the week, five, yields an average of 3.6 hours per day. In my view, it is reasonable to conclude that this is where the four hours comes from: in other words, to reason that, on that occasion, in moving time allocation, the government of the day appears to have rounded up to the nearest hour.

In fact, on June 11, 1987, at page 7001 of Debates, Mr. Mazankowski, in giving notice of his intention to move time allocation, stated: “I give notice that I will be moving at a later sitting...that four hours, the equivalent to one day’s sitting, shall be allotted to the further consideration of report stage of the bill and four hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage.”

This was in keeping with an earlier example on November 13, 1975, at page 9021 of Debates, when Mr. Sharp in speaking in debate on the motion to allocate time stated, “This motion allocates another five hours of debate, equivalent to at least another full sitting day”. That the two ministers, while specifying a specific number of hours, indicated that these were equivalent to a sitting day is consistent with the current interpretation that requires at least one further sitting day when allocating time under Standing Order 78(3).

Normal sitting hours for the House are at present 11 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Mondays, 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Wednesdays and 10 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Fridays. Applying the same calculation to these hours by accounting for statements by members, question period and private members' business leaves 23.5 hours for the consideration of government orders in a typical week in 2012. That number divided by the number of days in the week, five, yields an average of 4.7 hours per day. Rounded up to the nearest hour would make it five hours, which is coincidentally exactly the number of hours used with regard to third reading of Bill C-25.

Accordingly, the Chair finds that the allocation of hours to report stage and third reading of Bill C-38 is in order since it respects the terms of Standing Order 78(3). Should future instances arise where arrangements pursuant to this Standing Order are contested, the Chair will continue to be guided by this method of calculation.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the third reading stage of Bill C-25.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act, and on the previous question, the question be deemed put, a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred to immediately after the time provided for oral questions later this day, provided that there shall be no extension pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1).

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could challenge the member on a variety of different counts. I am glad he used “tool in the toolbox”, given the fact that it is exactly what I referred to. It is a tool, but it is a very small tool in a very huge toolbox that needs a lot of different ways of dealing with the pension crisis that is facing future generations in the country.

When I was recently in the member's riding and talking to a variety of people, they did not talk to me about Bill C-25 and what a wonderful thing it would be. They talked to me about changing the age from 65 to 67 and the budgetary changes. Their concerns were with the direction the government was going in. It clearly was very much opposite to the concerns the hon. member mentioned.

Next time I am talking to his residents, I will clearly tell them that the member is supportive of pooled pensions but is also supportive of changing the age. How is he responding to those who raised that as a concern?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise once again in this House and speak again on Bill C-25, pooled registered pension plans act.

This proposed piece of legislation is of vital importance to my constituents in Etobicoke Centre. I have hundreds of businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, in Etobicoke Centre. I really do appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on the bill's many merits here today.

As a member of Parliament, I am immensely proud to be part of a party that has the best record in providing retirement security options and for introducing legislation that would encourage the entrepreneurship of the ma-and-pa shops, which are the drivers of our economy and form an essential part of my riding of Etobicoke Centre, as I am sure they do in the rest of the country and in many ridings across the country.

Since 2006, our Conservative government has established a strong record when it comes to aid for small businesses. We have reduced the small business tax rate, provided $20 million to support the Canadian Youth Business Foundation and extended the accelerated capital cost allowance to help businesses make new investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment.

Our government's square focus on incentivizing business has resulted in real growth. Canadians can rest a little easier knowing that our country has the enviable position of creating jobs in a fragile global economy, more than 760,000 so far.

Canadians have come to expect good economic stewardship from this side of the House, and we will continue to deliver that good economic stewardship. As part of this commitment to action, our government introduced the pooled registered pension plans, which would provide for a new accessible, large-scale and low-cost pension option to employers, employees and the self-employed.

In my last speech, I spoke about wide-ranging support for this pension option. I drew particular attention to the fact that all our provincial partners are on board and that stakeholders like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have urged the government to make PRPPs a reality as soon as possible.

As my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, said earlier, Ingrid Laederach Steven, owner of the Swiss chocolate shop in Toronto, is very welcoming and glad of this because there are so many different things for retailers, restaurants, farmers and so on. She wishes it could have been done 25 years ago.

The support is warranted, given the attractive features of the PRPPs, including their portability, whereby many employees will be able to transfer funds between administrators when they change jobs, and their auto-enrolment feature, which would reduce administration costs and increase participation rates in the program.

PRPPs would also have the added bonus of having a very low cost, given their scale, design and lower investment management costs compared to the average mutual fund. This makes it affordable and reachable for the people who work in small and medium-sized businesses.

PRPPs would improve the range of retirement savings to Canadians and provide an accessible option to the 60% of Canadians who do not currently have access to workplace pension plans. In the end, PRPPs are an essential tool, given the aging demographics we face in the future and our need to provide more retirement income options for our constituents.

Instead of acknowledging the many benefits of this plan, as other stakeholders have done, and get working on Canada's economic recovery, as this government does each and every day, members across the way are doing what they do best, trying to delay our economic progress and throwing false accusations our way.

For example, they allege that the pooled registered pension plans would come at the cost of further progress on reforming the Canada pension plan. To that I reiterate yet again what my colleagues have said before me: pooled registered pension plans are meant to complement the services our government has already provided for Canadians' retirement security and not replace them.

Pooled registered pension plans would work in conjunction with new initiatives that our government introduced, including pension income splitting, tax free savings accounts, as well as traditional retirement income vehicles like the CPP.

Furthermore, changes to the Canada pension plan, as the opposition knows full well, require the consensus of two-thirds of the population. We have already seen at the 2010 finance ministers meetings that a number of provinces hold strong objections to expanding the CPP benefit. They are unanimous, however, in pursuing a framework for pooled registered pension plans.

The opposition also glazes over the fact that its suggestion to increase contribution rates for CPP would mean higher payroll costs for small and medium-sized businesses and higher premiums for workers and the self-employed. Since CPP is mandatory rather than voluntary like the pooled registered pension plan, an expansion of CPP would mean that Canadians would face another obligatory reduction from their paycheque and Canadian entrepreneurs would face another barrier in making their business profitable, which is something we cannot abide.

Dan Kelly, the senior vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents 108,000 businesses across Canada, said a CPP enrichment would be a payroll tax and is “very worrisome” for businesses.

He went on to state that:

For every one percentage point in CPP premiums beyond the current 9.9 per cent rate, it would cost 220,000 person-years of employment and force wages down roughly 2.5 per cent in the long run.

That is clearly unacceptable.

Our government, unlike the opposition, does not believe in jeopardizing Canadians' economic welfare by imposing higher barriers for job creation. The opposition also objects to the pooled registered pension plans as a private sector solution and takes particular offence at the fact that these plans would invest in the stock market.

However, as one of my hon. colleagues pointed out earlier in the debate, the entire pension system, both public and private, relies upon the stock market. My colleague drew on the example of Canada pension plan, 49.6% of which is invested in equities or stocks.

Last, the opposition has hijacked this debate to make repeated accusations, criticizing our Conservative government's strong record on seniors' issues. I take exception to those allegations, given that my riding has a large and thriving seniors population and I am consistently working hard to ensure that their voices are being heard in this House.

Contrary to what the opposition alleges, our government has created an enviable retirement security system in Canada and has prioritized seniors' issues. After all, it was our government that introduced pension income splitting, doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit and increased the age credit amount. As a result of actions like these taken to date by this Conservative government, seniors and pensioners will receive $2.5 billion in targeted tax relief for the upcoming fiscal year.

A joint federal-provincial research working group, in May 2009, found that Canada's retirement income system was providing Canadians with an adequate standard of living upon retirement. It found, for example, that the disposable income for Canadians age 65 years or over was about 90% of the average disposable income of all Canadians and was the third highest of selected OECD countries.

This report, however, found that despite the many measures already instituted by our government, some Canadian households, especially modest and middle-income households, are at risk of under-saving for retirement, and that is of great concern. It is precisely because of this that pooled registered plans are so needed and this bill is so important.

I am convinced that pooled registered plans are the way forward, as they would offer an enormous potential to improve the retirement security of all Canadians and, particularly, the 60% of those Canadians who do not have the luxury of a workplace pension.

This program has already drawn the interest of small-business employers, stakeholders and all our provincial partners.

In these fragile economic times, a sound, innovative policy like that behind the pooled registered pension plans is essential for Canadian competitiveness and for the welfare of our citizens.

I urge all members in this House to support the bill.