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.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague concerning her excellent speech. Various people have said that the program provided for in Bill C-25 would be adapted to local conditions, and that nothing else can be done with respect to the Canada pension plan.

There are a lot of optional programs available that offer financial and tax incentives, such as RRSPs, group RRSPs, TFSAs and so on. The government can increase CPP contributions for all Canadians, but when it comes to RRSPs, for example, only 30% of Canadians contribute. Despite tax incentives, 70% of Canadians do not have the means to invest. Forty per cent of Canadians invest in TFSAs, but half of those investors earn over $100,000 per year. Very few Canadians earning less than $100,000 have been motivated to invest.

Will the voluntary participation plan provided for in Bill C-25 solve the problem of the 12 million Canadians who do not have workplace pension plans?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get a chance to rise in the House today to debate one of the most important issues of our times: pensions.

It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister and I fundamentally disagree about what those pensions ought to look like. In fact, judging by recent polling of seniors, there are not many Canadians who believe that the Prime Minister is on the right track when it comes to the income security of Canadian retirees. No wonder he waited until he was on the other side of the Atlantic to announce, in Davos, Switzerland of all places, that he would be cutting big chunks out of Canada's old age security system. So much for accountability to Canadians.

Thankfully, Canadian pensioners are much more savvy than the Prime Minister gives them credit for. They are not frail and disengaged. On the contrary, when it comes to their income security, they are ready to fight for what is right. After all, they have worked hard all their lives, they have played by the rules, but now everywhere they turn, every bill they open, they pay more and get less.

It is a well known fact that increases in the cost of living hit seniors disproportionately harder than any other segment of the population. When Statistics Canada determines the annual cost of living upon which adjustments are based, its basket of goods include electronics like iPods, plasma TVs and computers, which are all goods coming down in price and reducing the cost of living figures. However, they are also goods that seniors are not buying. The items they spend money on are essentials like heat, hydro, food and shelter, all of which are outpacing their incomes.

It is no wonder that the vast majority of Canadians are deeply worried about not having enough money to live on after retirement. They are worried about the solvency of their private pensions and the adequacy of both CPP and public income supports. Let us talk about each of those for a bit.

Record job losses, the decline of entire industries and the collapse of larger employers are throwing hundreds of thousands of hard-working Canadians out of work. Far too many bankrupt employers are leaving underfunded pension plans in their wake. Through no fault of their own, workers are now finding that despite their years of making pension contributions, they can no longer count on a secure workplace pension.

However, workplace pensions are just part of the problem because only one-third of Canadian workers have a workplace pension. Similarly, only one-third of Canadians contribute to an RRSP and those who have just watched billions in precious savings vaporize in the stock market crash of this last recession.

The current system is leaving too many people without the retirement savings they need. There is too much at risk and not enough security. Let us face it, for more than a generation, wages have failed to keep pace with the cost of living and most Canadians have not been able to save what they need.

The urgent question before us today is this. What is the best way to help today's workers save enough money for tomorrow? The answer to that is clearly not to be found in the Prime Minister's speech in Davos.

In the past, Canadians came together during crisis to create solutions, to minimize risk by sharing it. That is what we did when we created public health care and, yes, that is what we did when we created public pensions. However, not under this Prime Minister. Instead of looking to opportunities to strengthen our pension system, he said that the demographic pressures from our aging population, “constitute a threat to the social programs and services that Canadians cherish”. Instead of securing our pension system to ensure sustainable prosperity for seniors, he announced that he would limit spending on pension programs.

While no one is quite clear on what exactly he meant, there is a widespread belief that the Conservatives will raise the minimum age at which people become eligible for full old age security payments, from 65 to 67. However, what is clear from the same speech is that we can afford to ensure that Canadian seniors live in the dignity to which they are entitled. As the Prime Minister correctly pointed out in Switzerland, Canada is no Greece.

Government debt levels as a percentage of gross domestic product are low. The federal deficit is being reduced ahead of schedule. There is no fiscal crisis in our country. Funding OAS takes the equivalent of 2.4% of the GDP. It is among the lowest of OECD countries. Italy, by contrast, spends 14% of GDP on public pensions.

True, by 2031, as the wave of baby boomers reaches retirement age peaks, the OAS' share of GDP will increase to 3.14%, an increase of 0.73% of GDP from today's level. However, as UBC economics professor Kevin Milligan points out, an increase of 0.73% cannot be ignored, but neither is it disastrous. When the baby boomer bulge starts to recede, as it will from about 2020 on, spending on the elderly will start to decelerate on its own.

Clearly this attack on the OAS is nothing more than an ideological assault on public pensions. So what do we get instead? Pooled registered pension plans, the enabling legislation for which is before us in the House today.

Ostensibly designed to address the fact that modest and middle income households are at risk of under-saving for retirement, the Conservatives want to work with the provinces to create an option of pooled workplace pensions administered by financial institutions.

In other words, the Conservatives are encouraging families to gamble even more of their retirement savings on failing stock markets. It is a voluntary defined contribution plan that is run by wealthy financial institutions investing in tumbling markets. That uncertainty and volatility leaves families without any guarantees that their savings will be there for them when they retire.

As one critic of the bill so aptly put it, we must conclude that this is an agreement to do nothing except perhaps a handout to the financial services industry at the expense of the average Canadian.

Let us face it, we do not need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to pension security. We do not need Bill C-25. The best way to help today's worker save enough money for tomorrow is through an improved Canada pension plan. Over the next several years we must lay the foundation to double CPP benefits for the future.

The CPP has been proven time and again to be a safe, secure and efficient retirement savings plan. As the Prime Minister himself noted, the CPP is “fully funded and actuarily sound”. It is portable from job to job and across provinces. It keeps up with inflation and 93% of Canadians are already members.

Because the CPP operates independently from government, there is no cost to taxpayers. In fact, there is the potential for governments to save money over time.

Higher and more secure pension savings means seniors will be less likely to rely on income supports like the guaranteed income supplement or provincial and local social supports for medicine, housing and food.

The cost to workers and employers is manageable. Over seven years, CPP premiums would only have to rise by 0.4% each year of pensionable earnings.

We all need to save more for retirement and putting that little extra into the CPP makes more sense than investing in risky RRSPs, pooled or otherwise. It is safer, easier, in fact it is effortless, and it earns more.

It is time for the government to come clean. The Conservatives found $9 billion for prisons. They found $30 billion for fighter jets. They found $6 billion for more corporate tax cuts. However, they say they cannot find the money to protect the pensions of Canadian seniors.

Clearly this is not about money; it is about choices. I choose to invest in people. I choose to stand up for Canadian seniors and for retirement with dignity and respect.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most of our pension system came out of the CCF and the NDP proposals over the last approximately 80 years when we first started and were eventually picked up by other political parties and implemented.

With regard to the basic question, what he is asking is if people should plan for retirement and contribute to it. From any side of the House, we are all going to say, yes, we all should be doing that.

For those who are more vulnerable, those with disabilities, limited incomes, maybe a series of times when they were unemployed, there has to be a plan in place for government to be play a role there to assist them so they can retire in dignity because they have contributed to this society throughout that period of time. It is always a question of the details and to what degree, such as how much should government be doing, how much should the private sector be doing, how much should the individual be doing.

Bill C-25 does not address that in any realistically plausible way of being successful.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the House to split my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Speaker, it is important when addressing Bill C-25 that we set it in the context of what is being attempted here by the government and what is needed with regard to pension reform in this country. It is not only important to do that in terms of the historical context but also in the context of relativity to other jurisdictions and other nations.

In that regard, it is important to understand historically where we have come over the last 50 or 60 years with respect to government pensions or pensions partially contributed to by government. We have established a regime in that regard. We could study some of the reports and minutes of meetings issued during that period of time when the CPP was being established. It was quite clear at that time that an understanding was entered into that the CPP and the QPP which came after, would provide roughly 25% to 30% of what was needed to retire in dignity, and the rest would be provided by the private sector. At age 65, old age security would kick in and that would help to offset the balance. That is where it came from.

If we study that historically right up to the present time, another mechanism that was there, other than private pension plans, is the RSP. It has been a substantial failure in providing that level of security because of its lack of ability to attract enough funds and the inability of most Canadians to contribute significantly enough to an RSP in order to retire in dignity, that combined with the CPP and old age security.

That left the pension plans. As we have heard repeatedly this afternoon, and I am sure as this debate goes on we will hear it a number of times, there are too many Canadians who do not have access to private pension plans. We are at a stage in our history where the system is in need of major reform.

I will compare our status in this area with that of other countries. Across the border in the United States, its social security provides roughly $30,000 a year in Canadian dollars. The full amount of our CPP including the full OAS provides maybe $18,000 or $19,000. That is the context in which we are functioning.

Again, the vast majority of Canadians who are not covered by private pension plans have no ability to make that up and have to rely on RSPs.

What does the government do? Rather than looking at other alternatives, which I will come back to in a moment, it wants to continue with this mostly failed plan of RSPs but turn it into a pooled RSP. This is not just us talking. Even conservative think-tanks like the Fraser Institute have basically said this will not work. There is a list of reasons why it will not work. Let us start with the contributions.

There has been a committee functioning in my riding for what will be three years in May. It is looking at the need for pension reforms. Some members are from unions and others are from the private sector. They have been doing an analysis of what is needed in the way of reform. They have looked at this and have said that it will not move any significant additional dollars or people into the category of being able to retire with dignity in terms of their economic status and economic ability to pay their basic costs of living.

The reason for that is if people have the ability to contribute now, they are contributing to an RSP. Thirty-one per cent contribute and depending on the economic conditions in the country at the time, somewhere between 3% and 7% of that 31% contribute the full amount. The doctor or lawyer doing well financially will contribute the full amount. Even most people within the professions do not.

This begs the question, if they are not able to do that with their own RSPs which they control, why would they put it into this pooled plan where they are going to have to pay very substantial fees? This bill does absolutely nothing to control the amount the people accepting this money, anywhere in the financial sector, can charge in fees.

It is important at this point to juxtapose the reality of what we have seen in a number of these types of investments, the stock market, bonds, whatever, where there is a financial adviser controlling those funds. We have seen that the ratios of the fees are five to six times the fees and administrative costs for the Canada pension plan. That is the reality in Canada today.

Quite frankly, this one is so unattractive that the cost will probably be even higher, because it is so unattractive for a major financial agency, a bank or insurance company, to get into this market. The administrative costs are going to be extremely high because of the low participation. We are going to see huge fees, and this bill does nothing to address that issue.

Another point to look at is when it is that small investor who has some ability to put money aside in an RSP, it begs the question why the investor would do that after what we just saw happen in 2008. We can go back to the high-tech bubble of the late 1990s and any number of times I have watched this happen.

Why would people trust their money going into this pool where there are very few regulations when we have seen what has happened in the U.S. with the housing bubble burst and all of what we have found out as to how funds were handled in that regard? Why would people even consider, if they have these funds, putting them into a pooled registered pension plan as opposed to maintaining control and deciding how best their money could work for them?

For those reasons, it is simply not going to be of any use whatsoever. Bill C-25 is a smokescreen. The government wants to try to convince Canadians that the reform which is so badly needed in our pension system, whatever source there is, is being handled by this one plan, and it is not. It is not at all. It is not going to work.

Let us look at the alternatives for a minute. The expansion of the CPP is clearly one of the routes to go. I heard the last speaker for the Conservatives talk about the stability of the CPP and its ability to deliver and that it is not available for the small merchant. That is one of the reforms that is necessary. We could do that. There are very clear proposals that have come from a number of groups over the last two to three years about how to reform the CPP to attract those people, to give them access to the CPP. It is an expansion of it. The administrators of it say it is possible to be done.

That is only one example of what could be done. I see my time is just about up. There are other reforms that need to be made with regard to the CPP. For instance, priority under the bankruptcy legislation needs to be given to pension funds. The OAS needs to be increased as opposed to what we are hearing, that the government is going to take away benefits by increasing the age. The GIS that needs to be addressed as well.

There are plans out there that are obviously better than this bill which is a smokescreen and should be defeated.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to add my voice in support of today's debate on pensions and retirement income security.

I have been a small business owner in Canada for 20 years. I have also worked for larger corporations. Therefore, I think I should have some knowledge of retirement and what it means.

Contrary to what the hon. members of the NDP may choose to believe, our government continues to work with all stakeholders to improve the security of retirement benefits in Canada. Promoting the retirement income security of Canadians is an important goal of the Government of Canada. We will continue to ensure that our policies, programs and services meet the evolving needs of Canada's workforce and retirees. We recognize the contribution seniors have made, and continue to make, to our nation.

In the wake of economic shocks from beyond our borders, Canadians are concerned about the long-term viability of their pension plans. We are listening to their views on how we can leverage Canada's financial sector advantage to strengthen the security of pension plan benefits and ensure the framework is balanced and appropriate. We are working toward a permanent, long-term solution to protect the pensions of Canadians.

In our effort toward greater retirement security for Canadians, our government is building on the inroads already made to strengthen the framework by federally-regulated private pension plans.

In 2009 we consulted Canadians from coast to coast on these earlier initiatives and subsequently introduced a number of significant changes based on the advice of individual Canadians. Our action included ensuring that an employer fully fund benefits if the pension plan was terminated.

Since taking office in 2006, our government has also introduced several important improvements to the tax rules for registered pension plans, that is RPPs, and registered retirement savings plans, also known as RRSPs. For example, the age limit for converting RPP and RRSP savings into a retirement income vehicle was increased to 71, from 69. Changes were introduced to allow more flexible phased retirement arrangements under a defined benefit RPP. The surplus threshold above which employer contributions to a defined benefit RPP must be suspended was increased to 25%, from 10%.

Let us talk about the pooled registered pension plans.

These private pensions plans already benefit from Canada having one of the soundest financial sectors in the world. With Bill C-25, our government would harness this advantage and further strengthen Canada's retirement income system.

Similar to my colleagues on this side of the House who have already spoken on the subject, let me say that pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs, would mark a significant step forward in advancing our retirement income agenda and would be a vital improvement to Canada's retirement income system.

The emergence of the PRPPs is the culmination of a journey that began in December 2010, when Canada's finance ministers agreed on a framework for the introduction of PRPPs. This collective approach was taken because PRPPs were considered the most effective and appropriate way to target those modest and middle-income individuals who might not be saving enough for their retirement, in particular, those who currently do not have access to an employer-sponsored RPP, registered pension plan.

There are a number of factors that contributed to this decision by the finance ministers, including declining participation in employer-sponsored RPPs. The proportion of working Canadians with such plans has declined from 41% in 1991 to 34% in 2007.

Some Canadians may also be failing to take full advantage of the discretionary savings opportunities offered to them through individual structures like the RRSPs. Participation in RRSPs reached a peak of 45% of the labour force in 1997, before levelling off to 39% in 2008.

While aggregate RPP/RRSP participation rates for middle and higher-income earners are quite high, research nevertheless indicates that a portion of Canadians may not be saving enough.

PRPPs would address this gap in the retirement income system by providing a new, accessible, large scale and low cost defined contribution pension option to employers, employees and the self-employed. They would allow individuals who currently may not participate in an employer-sponsored pension plan, such as the self-employed and employees of companies that do not offer a pension plan, to make use of this new option.

This is especially important for millions of small business owners and their employees, who will now have access to large-scale, low-cost pension plans for the very first time, with professional administrators working to ensure that funds are invested in the best interests of the members.

Since these plans will involve large pooled funds, plan members will benefit from the lower investment management costs associated with the scale of these funds. Essentially, they will buy in bulk.

This sentiment is echoed by Dan Kelly, the senior vice-president of legislative affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who believes that PRPPs will help deliver on the promise of a lower cost alternative for small business owners and that the pooled feature should allow lower costs than traditional pensions as there will be a much larger group in the pension vehicle than in traditional arrangements.

Similarly, the president of the Canadian Bankers Association, Terry Campbell, agrees that “PRPPs will make it possible for small and medium-sized businesses to offer to their employees registered pension plans that will be simple to administer. As well, PRPPs will allow self-employed individuals to participate in private sector pension plans for the first time.”

The design of these plans will be straightforward. They are intended to be largely harmonized from province to province, which will also facilitate lower administrative costs and portability. These features will remove barriers that might have kept some employers in the past from offering pension plans to their employees and that prevented employees and self-employed individuals from participating in large-scale pension plans.

Moving forward, we understand that Canadians want their governments to work together to deliver results for them, and the PRPP is a prime example of what we can accomplish for Canadians when we do.

The bill before us today, the PRPP act, represents the federal portion of the PRPP framework and is a major step forward in implementing PRPPs.

In addition, the tax rules for PRPPs have been developed by the Government of Canada and were released in draft form for comment on December 14, 2011. The tax rules for PRPPs will apply to both federally and provincially regulated PRPPs.

Once the provinces put in place their PRPP legislation, the legislative and regulatory framework for PRPPs will be operational, thereby allowing PRPP administrators to develop and offer plans to Canadians and their employers.

As Frank Swedlove, the president of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, stated, the PRPP is a great opportunity to make a fundamental difference in the landscape for pensions in Canada and we hope the legislation reflects that opportunity.

Once implemented, PRPPs will be a key element of the third pillar of Canada's retirement income system, which provides tax-assisted vehicles to help and encourage Canadians to accumulate private savings for retirement. PRPPs will complement and operate alongside RRSPs and employer-sponsored RPPs.

As I noted at the outset, we have already taken significant action to strengthen the existing elements of this pillar, like RPPs and RRSPs.

RPPs are sponsored by employers on a voluntary basis and can be either defined contribution or defined benefit plans, with employers, and often employees, responsible for making contributions.

RRSPs are voluntary, individual, defined contribution savings plans. Employers may provide a group RRSP for employees and may remit a share of contributions on behalf of their employees.

Contributions to RPPs and RRSPs are deductible for income for tax purposes, and investment income earned in these plans is not subject to income tax. Pension payments and withdrawals are included in income and are taxed at regular rates.

The cost of tax assistance provided on retirement savings is currently estimated at approximately $25 billion per year in foregone revenue for the federal government, and about one-half that amount in foregone provincial revenue.

Of course, tax-assisted private savings works hand in hand with the other pillars of Canada's retirement income support system. That includes the old age security, OAS, and guaranteed income supplement, GIS, programs, which provide a basic minimum income guarantee for seniors; and the Canada pension plan, CPP, and the Quebec pension plan, QPP. These are mandatory public targeted benefit pension plans that provide a basic level of earnings replacement for all Canadian workers.

We have a solid and inclusive system, but our government is continually looking for ways to improve it. The road ahead will likely include more discussion between Canadians and government at all levels. As these issues are complex, we cannot force a decision without understanding the long-term implications for both Canadians and the Canadian economy. We need to get this right, and so far I firmly believe we have.

Over the past two years, our government's commitment to a stronger system has taken my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, to communities across the country, consulting with Canadians, engaging in challenging the opposition parties in constructive dialogue, discussing key considerations with business and labour groups and receiving valuable input from some of the most respected experts in the retirement income field.

Passage of this legislation being debated today will mean that we have made real progress as a result of these efforts. It is not just the Government of Canada that understands this. B.C. finance minister Kevin Falcon recently stated, “The province supports an initiative where people currently without occupational pension plans are able to take advantage of a low-cost option”.

Working together, I am confident we can get these important new retirement vehicles up and running for Canadians in a timely manner. We have the support. According to Tom Reid, senior vice-president of group retirement services at Sun Life Financial, “The PRPP legislation is an important, much-needed and well-targeted reform to Canada’s retirement system. It reflects an equitable balance of responsibility among individuals, employers and government that is key to the success and sustainability of our world-class pension system.”

In addition, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's federal and Ontario director Gregory Thomas called the PRPP legislation good for Canadians planning for retirement and for taxpayers. He stated that “Canadians will be able to save more for retirement with this new pension plan. People saving for retirement will enjoy lower costs and more flexibility throughout their working lives.”

Through the cross-country consultations, Canadians made it clear that this is an issue too important to get wrong. While our government is determined to make it even better, I should stress that Canada's retirement income system has already been recognized around the world by experts like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among Canadian seniors and providing high levels of replacement income for retired workers.

While the OECD has reported that the Canadian poverty rate in the mid-2000s among seniors was at 4.4%, one of the lowest rates in the OECD compared to the OECD average of 13.3%, the poverty rate is defined as 50% of the medium income in our country. The average income of Canadians aged 65 years or over is about 90% of the average income of all Canadians, which is the third highest of selected OECD countries.

Canada's seniors have worked hard to build a better country for future generations and today's workers should be given every chance to follow in their footsteps. Our record shows that our government is committed to the financial well-being of Canadian seniors, as well as many Canadians who are currently still working to realize their retirement dreams. They deserve not only our respect but also our support to allow them to enjoy their later years after a lifetime of contributing to our society.

The PRPP is the latest in a range of government measures providing them with just the support they need. I would therefore encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of this bill and join the government in building an even stronger retirement income system for the future.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, getting back to Bill C-25, I want to make it clear that this so-called pooled registered pension plan would not guarantee an actual pension. There is also no guarantee about how much money would be left when people retire if they had been able to afford to put money into such a plan.

As we read through the legislation, it becomes clear that the risks of such a plan are borne entirely by the individual who is making the contribution, as well as the employer, if he or she decided to make a contribution.

We should also be aware that this so-called pension plan that has “accessibility” would be managed by for-profit financial institutions, like banks, insurance companies and trust companies. There would be no caps on administration fees or costs.

This so-called plan, which is no plan at all, from the Conservative government would push people into the marketplace. It is basically saying that if people can afford it they fend for themselves. That is the basis of the government's plan here today.

We should be very clear that this proposal would not require matching contributions from employers. It also encourages hard-working Canadians to basically gamble on failing stock markets.

I find it quite incredible that, on the basis of public policy, a government would come forward with this proposal and say that it is the answer to the severe pension problems we have. It wants to just shuffle everybody off and tell them to go in the marketplace and see if it will fix it for them.

We know that is clearly not the case. For everybody who watched their RRSPs plummet over the past year or so, they know how risky it is to have their savings tied to the stock market and how risky it is for their retirement.

I also want to illuminate the bigger picture. We heard the Prime Minister's speech in Davos, Switzerland, last Thursday about a fix for a generation, which he mentioned several times. I would say that it is more like a rip-off for generations to come.

One of the cores of that speech was his musings about how the Conservatives would tackle something that is very basic to Canadians, which is our old age security system. I find it quite reprehensible that we have a government that could make clear choices about economic performance and about how tax revenue is collected and where tax revenue goes and yet it has made clear choices and had the gall to announce those choices in Switzerland to a bunch of billionaires. The government did not even have the guts to be in Canada to roll out its plans. It did not have the guts to say it in the election.

We have a government, as we learned from the Davos speech, the “fix it for a generation” speech, that now plans to take aim at the old age security system and our pension system. The opening shot is the proposal that we have here today.

By contrast, the NDP has done an enormous amount of work studying, researching and analyzing what does need to be done to ensure pension security for Canadians who are already in retirement or Canadians who are planning to retire and are quickly approaching that age.

I want to pay tribute and thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for the amazing work he has done in bringing this issue forward. He has very doggedly, time after time, whether it is in question period, in bills he has proposed for the NDP and brought forward in the House, in the forums he has held across the country or in speaking with seniors organizations, made it clear on our behalf, on something that we all support, that the NDP has brought forward a very comprehensive plan for retirement income security.

We would not leave people out in the cold. We would not leave people to the vagaries of the marketplace. We would not say to people that they might have to get a bit older before they can collect their old age security. Our plan is based on income retirement security that is fair, equitable and, most important, affordable.

The member outlined earlier this morning the plan that works in our country, and that is the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. We would increase it to a maximum of $1,920 a month. We would ensure that it would be sustainable and that Canadians would get a fair and decent retirement pension.

We would also amend the bankruptcy legislation to ensure that pensioners and long-term disability recipients would be at the front of the line, not the end of it, of creditors when their employers entered court protection to declare bankruptcy. How many cases have we heard in the House of seniors who have worked hard over the years and paid into their pension plans only to see them go up in smoke because of bankruptcy proceedings? They found out that they were at the very bottom when it came to seeing some justice from the system such as it exists now. We have put forward legislation to correct that situation.

Finally, we have made it very clear that we would increase the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, to a sufficient level of about $700 million a year to lift every senior out of poverty in Canada immediately. Again, this is something that is affordable, realistic and it is the right kind of public policy decision to make at this time.

In debating the legislation today, we have to be very clear that we have a Conservative government that likes to make announcements in front of its billionaire elite supporters in Davos, Switzerland. It likes to put forward proposals that drive people into a marketplace situation, saying that they should go out there and fend for themselves, but if their savings get wrapped up in some kind of volatile market and they lose it, that it is not its problem.

That is not our approach. We do not want to see income inequality grow in our country. What was announced at Davos was nothing more than a further step to huge corporate interests such as we have seen with the corporate tax cuts. We have to be very clear for Canadians that there is an alternative. We do not have to be driven by this kind of agenda. I hope Bill C-25 is the beginning of a massive campaign to show that Canadians will not allow their pension system to be tampered with.

Other prime ministers have tried to do this. Other Liberal and Conservative prime ministers tried to get in there and make changes and they heard the wrath of Canadian seniors, who are a very organized group. I hope today the bill will be the first opportunity to mount a campaign as to what we see as an attack on public services, on our public pension system and on seniors who are some of the most vulnerable in our society.

We have to say no to the idea that it is just about the marketplace and yes to sound public policy decisions that are fair, equitable and affordable. That is what the NDP has put forward.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-25, which is the pooled registered pension plans.

I will begin by commenting on the remarks made by the Minister of State for Finance during the debate earlier this morning and again in question period in response to one of his own member's questions on this bill. He said that they were doing a great job on pensions and helping seniors. I was surprised to hear the minister of state say that Bill C-25 would be accessible. He kept stressing that it would be accessible.

When we look at the bill and the proposal the Conservatives have, there is absolutely nothing accessible about it. How can something be accessible when one cannot afford it? How can something be accessible when to go ahead with this kind of savings scheme would be to put one's money at risk in very volatile markets? How can it be accessible to the 1.6 million seniors who are considered to be living in poverty, as estimated by the Canadian Labour Congress? I was very surprised to hear the Conservatives describe this proposal as something that is accessible.

I was further surprised when the minister of state remarked that currently in the RRSP plan there is, I think he said, $600 billion room for people to make contributions into RRSPs and that this would be a great opportunity to do that. Surely that begs the question as to why Canadians are not taking up what already exists under RRSPs if there is $600 billion tax room available that they could use individually. The answer is that most Canadians cannot afford to make RRSP contributions or, if they can, they are concerned about the security of their money, whether it is in various kinds of stocks, mutual funds and so on. Therefore, they have not been taking up that so-called room in RRSPs.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I am pleased to announce that in 2012, LaSalle is celebrating its centennial. This 100th anniversary is an opportunity to acknowledge the effort, determination and entrepreneurial spirit of our predecessors, both those who are retired and those who have passed on, who built this city in the southwestern part of the Island of Montreal. This is my opportunity to acknowledge the seniors who chose to live there, work there and raise children there, those who contributed to the success of the businesses and neighbourhoods of LaSalle and who gave their names to streets and neighbourhoods. We could not celebrate the 100th anniversary of LaSalle this year without honouring its elders. The debt we owe to the seniors and retirees of LaSalle is also owed to those of Ville-Émard, the rest of southwestern Montreal and all of Canada.

It is in acknowledging the debt we owe to previous generations that I feel morally obliged to defend the accomplishments of our elders. The right to a comfortable and secure retirement is the cornerstone of the contract that ties younger generations to previous generations. It is that contract that I want to defend today by opposing Bill C-25 on pooled registered pension plans and by speaking out against the government's abandonment of our seniors who have contributed so much to our society.

Pooled registered pension plans will create retirement savings plans for self-employed workers and people working for companies that do not offer their employees a retirement savings plan. This bill has the support of the private sector because it will save businesses money. I recognize that businesspeople, companies and self-employed workers face financial dilemmas, but this plan will do very little to address the crisis hanging over Canada's retirement system. Similar plans in place in Australia for the past 10 years have produced disappointing results. The Canada pension plan is based on stable investments, while the stock market has plummeted 10%. A group of pension experts has asked the Minister of Finance and his provincial counterparts to enhance the Canada pension plan, as recommended by the NDP.

Clearly, the government's current solution is not the right one. The crisis, however, is real. People are living longer and longer, and that is a good thing, but it means that the savings we build up during our working lives have to last much longer. In 2007, only one Canadian in three could count on the stability of a supplemental pension plan. Only two Canadians in five have RRSPs. According to the former chief statistician, Michael Wolfson, half of all middle-class baby boomers will see their quality of life decline in retirement.

Retirees depend on the old age security programs to complement their personal savings. The government says that the costs associated with OAS will be astronomical by 2030. The crisis is real, and we need a solution now. The point I want to make today is that the current crisis has nothing to do with federal revenue, as the Prime Minister suggested recently in Davos.

Canada is near the bottom of the list of OECD countries in terms of the percentage of GDP it spends on public pensions.

As Tommy Douglas said so eloquently, for a country as rich as ours, that there are seniors living in poverty is an absolute disgrace.

The true roots of this crisis can be found in the growing inequality within Canadian society over the past few decades. This crisis was caused by the stagnation of wages among Canada's middle class, while the salaries of the wealthiest Canadians continued to rise during the same period.

Now middle class families are being asked to save even more, but with salaries that have not increased for decades and have definitely not kept pace with the cost of living.

Canadian families would all like to put some money aside for their retirement, but how can they with a debt rate of nearly 160%? Families are going into debt for the same reason that they cannot save: because they simply have less money.

The retirement crisis is also a moral crisis, because the Conservatives' ideology rejects the contract that ties young generations to older generations. That is the real crisis—a moral crisis.

There are 70,000 seniors living in my riding and thousands more are approaching the age of retirement. According to Statistics Canada, more than 14% of senior women on their own are living in poverty according to the standard measure.

The sensible NDP proposal to increase the guaranteed income supplement is enough to eliminate poverty among seniors. The people of LaSalle—Émard demand to know, will the Prime Minister augment the age of retirement and ask Canadians in difficulty to wait still longer to get the income supplement they were promised a lifetime ago?

Friday morning one of my constituents wrote to my office. She agreed that I could read her letter. She told me that changing the minimum age from 65 to 67 would be unwise, because it would actually cost Canadians more since the change to the old age security would actually affect the poor rather than the rich. She said that the poor would not be able to take care of themselves properly, would cost more to the health system, would eat into their meagre investments, would get into welfare, and so on. She went on to say, “In the real world, not politics, have you tried to find a job at age 65, age 60, age 55, age 50? Are you aware of the reality of many people's situation as they get older? Take my case. At the age of 58 I have been struggling more than two years trying to find permanent employment, drifting from one job to another, training to improve my chances, and now I am stricken with cancer. If it was not for my 65-year-old husband to help out financially and emotionally, where would I be?”

That is what a constituent wrote to me. How is that for a dose of reality? I thank this fellow citizen for having the courage to speak out and for allowing me to share her concerns with Canadians.

The debate on retirement reform conceals another much more profound debate: the one between Conservative ideology and a New Democratic vision of a society in which young people honour their debt to their parents.

In Davos, the Prime Minister shared his vision of Canada for future generations. Canadians will have to tighten their belts further and continue making sacrifices. That is the Conservative vision of a competitive yet anorexic Canada, the vision of a population that is impoverished by stagnating salaries and debt, the vision of a society in which everyone is left behind, in which seniors and sick people are regarded as a burden, the vision of a country that believes that wealth is created by making other people poor and by cutting essential services. This is the Conservative Party vision: a middle class that must constantly adjust to the market economy, that must say goodbye to any hopes and dreams that the Conservatives consider unrealistic or too costly.

In contrast, the NDP is proposing a Canada in which younger generations acknowledge everything that the older generations have done for them—the sacrifices that have been made for them and the education and love that they have been given. The NDP believes in a Canada in which everyone has equal opportunities, in which we reach out to help those who have fallen, a society that shares the wealth. That is the Canada that was built by previous generations. That is the Canada that we in the NDP want to pass on to our children. Together, let us build such a future.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the parliamentary secretary's remarks on the bill, but she failed to talk about the Prime Minister's latest bombshell, which is the government's plan to increase the age that seniors can draw OAS and GIS.

She knows that Bill C-25 only addresses a small part of the problem when it comes to pension concerns. She admitted that for Bill C-25 to work, it needs to be harmonized by the provinces. We know how that is working. Provinces are angered at the downloading of crime costs onto the provinces and the unilateral action of the government in terms of health care costs, so how does the government expect to get co-operation on this?

My question relates to what the parliamentary secretary signed onto in the lastest finance committee report, which is that the federal government would not raise taxes or cut transfers to persons, including those for seniors and children. Will she admit that the Prime Minister's current proposal goes against that commitment she signed onto in the report? Will she admit that the Prime Minister's current proposal on increasing the number of years before people can draw those funds will cost families $25,900 per year?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government sure spent a lot of time tooting its own horn in that speech, but I am not sure why it is so proud of itself. I believe I heard a couple of points about Bill C-25 that I would like to address quickly.

They say this program would not cost much. The first thing I would like to know is how they can be so sure that this kind of program will minimize costs. After 10 years in effect, the management fees of a similar program in Australia were about the same as other stock investment programs, such as mutual funds. To my knowledge, there is not a single scientific study or argument that clearly proves this will be the case.

Let us not forget that Canada pension plan management fees are less than 0.5%. Retirement plans that invest mainly in the stock market tend to have management fees in excess of 2%. Management fees for pooled registered pension plans will probably be pretty close to that.

The second thing I want to say is that we already have a lot of optional programs: TFSAs, RRSPs, group RRSPs. This is an optional program like the one proposed by the Liberals.

I would like to know how this program can meet the needs of the 70% of Canadians not currently contributing to an RRSP despite its attendant tax advantages.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in today's debate about the importance of passing Bill C-25 in good time.

I would like to use my time to take a closer look at this new retirement savings option for Canadian workers within the broader context of growing income inequality and, more importantly, what our government has done to fix that.

This troubling trend is affecting countries around the world, and Canada is no exception.

The global economy is more integrated than ever in terms of trade, the job market and even monetary systems, so it should come as no surprise that Canada is feeling the effects of this phenomenon that originated elsewhere. Other countries with advanced economies and social safety nets have experienced similar repercussions. For example, the growing gap between rich and poor in Germany is virtually identical to that in Canada in the most recent decade studied by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD.

That being said, we must keep in mind that the effects of increased immigration and heightened global interaction and integration have been, for the most part, extremely positive.

In absolute terms, fewer families are living in poverty, and their median after-tax incomes are higher, according to a Vancouver Sun report in October, and this despite the increasing income inequality that has been observed.

These observations are seconded by Statistics Canada research showing that, from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, after-tax incomes and transfers increased in all income brackets and that, in fact, low-income families are not nearly as common in Canada as they once were. Of course, this does not mean that we should not consider income inequality.

The Minister of Finance recently spoke about his concerns in this regard. As reported in the Toronto Star, the minister said that income distribution is important and that the issue is that while a very small number of people have very high incomes, others do not have the same opportunities. This is not in keeping with the equal opportunity economy that our government is endeavouring to build, an economy that provides everyone with the opportunity to succeed no matter what their background.

We must not forget that this trend began well before the current government of Canada was brought to power by Canadians.

Therefore, it is one of many challenges that will be handled better by our government than by the opposition parties, as Canadians clearly realize. That is why they gave our government a majority. Canadians can rest assured that we have implemented a number of effective measures to address this challenge, including the pooled registered pension plan, or PRPP.

Some of the comments made by opposition members in this debate would have us believe that the solution to the problem of income disparity is for Canadian governments to simply take money from some people and give it to others, thus magically solving the problem.

The reality is that this approach would impoverish everyone. Our government knows that this is not how a country creates and distributes wealth in the real world.

Scuttling the entire ship will not encourage retirement savings, increase the standard of living or bridge the income gap. The real way to achieve these objectives is to take advantage of the power of our job creators, so that they can invest in higher wages, training, equipment and technology that allows them to do more, be more competitive globally and share their success with the country, which will benefit all Canadians.

With the next phase of Canada's economic action plan—a low-tax plan for jobs and growth—we are taking significant actions to create these conditions. These actions include reducing the tax burden for Canadians, thereby providing support to families and individuals, and encouraging businesses to make the types of productivity-enhancing investments that result in sustained economic growth.

As a result of broad-based federal and provincial business tax changes, Canada now has an overall tax rate on new business investment that is substantially lower than any other G7 country and is below the average of the member countries of the OECD. This tax advantage is aggressively positioning Canada for long-term success.

Forbes magazine recently ranked Canada number one in its annual look at the best countries for business. Globally, more and more people are putting their money to work on this understanding and investing in Canada as the place to be in the future. With the strong mandate we received from Canadians in the last election and with the next phase of Canada's economic action plan becoming a reality, these investments are going to pay off not just for investors, but for all Canadians. When Canada's entrepreneurs and job creators succeed, all Canadians succeed.

With the implementation of the PRPP framework, Canadians saving for retirement will be in the best possible position to invest in this dynamic approach to creating wealth and to support and benefit from it. As we have heard, PRPPs represent an innovative, low-cost, privately administered and accessible pension vehicle to help Canadians meet their retirement savings objectives. These plans are especially important to small and medium-sized businesses because they will allow such business owners and their employees to access a comprehensive, low cost, privately administered pension plan for the very first time.

Professional administrators will be subject to a fiduciary standard of care to ensure that funds are invested in the best interests of plan members. By pooling pension savings, Canadians will have greater purchasing power. The lower costs resulting from pooled purchasing will allow members to devote more of their income to retirement savings. These plans will be straightforward in order to simplify membership and management.

PRPPs will have to be harmonized across the provinces, which will further reduce administrative costs. These design features will eliminate many of the barriers that used to prevent some employers from offering retirement plans to their employees. Our government believes that this will encourage many small businesses to offer PRPPs. This is quite significant when we consider—and this is rather astonishing—that just over 60% of Canadians do not have a retirement plan provided by their employer. What is more, some Canadians might not be capitalizing on the all the saving possibilities currently available to them through individual products such as RRSPs and they might not be saving for retirement on a regular basis.

In cases where employers offer PRPPs, we encourage automatic enrollment for employees. Automatic enrollment will encourage regular savings in PRPPs. Employees who do not opt out will be automatically enrolled.

On another note, in December 2011, Parliament passed the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act, which implemented other important aspects of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan to help our economy flourish.

One of the most important measures in the act reflects the idea that jobs are the best income support program.

To protect jobs and support growth, the act grants small businesses a hiring tax credit of up to $1,000 to offset the increase in their employment insurance premiums in 2011 relative to their 2010 premiums. Some 525,000 businesses, and even more Canadian workers, will be able to benefit from this temporary measure.

I want to emphasize that this credit is in addition to our recent initiatives to limit employment insurance premium increases and to protect jobs.

Because we believe that employment is the best social security program, we introduced the working income tax benefit in 2007 and enhanced in it 2009 to encourage low-income Canadians to find and keep jobs.

As my government colleagues have pointed out, the WITB has provided over $1.1 billion per year to working low-income Canadians. Together with other tax cuts introduced by the government, the WITB has had an extremely positive impact in terms of encouraging people to find work and on the financial situation of many low-income Canadians.

Our government recognizes that it is important not only to create and protect good jobs to shrink the income gap, but also to enable people with jobs to keep more of their hard-earned money.

This is especially important for low-income Canadians who spend a greater proportion of their income to meet their families' basic needs: food, housing and clothing.

That is why our government reduced the tax burden for individuals, families and businesses by an estimated $220 billion in 2008-09 and for the following five years.

Individuals and families in all tax brackets are benefiting from tax cuts, with those in lower income brackets benefiting from proportionally bigger tax cuts.

For the 2011 tax year, one-third of the individual income tax cuts introduced by our government has benefited Canadians whose income was lower than $41,544, even though they pay only about 13% tax.

Cutting the GST from 7% to 5% gave all Canadians a break, including those who do not earn enough to pay income tax.

The GST credit, which was not reduced even though the GST was cut by 2%, returns more than $1.1 billion per year to low- and modest-income Canadians.

In addition, all taxpayers benefit from personal income tax reductions, such as the reduction from 16% to 15% for the lowest tax bracket, and the increase in the basic personal amount that Canadians can earn, which is not subject to federal income tax.

The Canada employment credit is another important measure that truly helps workers make ends meet. A credit of up to $1,065 is available for the 2011 taxation year to help cover work-related expenses, such as buying a personal computer, uniforms and supplies.

Measures implemented by our government since coming to power ensure that low-income Canadians now pay considerably less tax and receive greater benefits. A single parent with only one child who earns $37,000 will pay $1,125 less in personal income tax in 2011. In addition, as a result of changes made to the national child benefit supplement in budget 2009, this parent will also receive additional benefits of up to $241.

As a result of initiatives taken by our government since 2006, more than one million low-income Canadians no longer have to pay taxes.

But that is not all. Our government knows that employment is the best social safety net, and we have implemented measures to create jobs and to allow the incumbents to keep more of their hard-earned income.

Nevertheless, we realize that, for various reasons, some people are unable to take advantage of these measures. We therefore took action in order to remedy this situation.

The Canada social transfer and the Canada health transfer allow the Government of Canada to provide significant financial assistance to the provinces and territories in order to help them provide important programs and services to low-income Canadians.

These transfers support health care services, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, as well as programs for our children.

In 2011-12, the provinces and territories will receive $11.5 billion in cash under the Canada social transfer and $27 billion under the Canada health transfer. These amounts will increase by 3% and 6% respectively over the next few years.

In budget 2009, the government invested $2.1 billion in the construction and renovation of social housing across Canada, including housing units for low-income seniors, people with disabilities and first nations people living on reserve.

In the latest budget, the government also announced a new guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for Canada's most vulnerable seniors.

Since July 2011, seniors with little or no income other than the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement have been able to receive additional benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and up to $840 for couples per year. This measure will improve the financial security and well-being of more than 680,000 Canadian seniors.

Together, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement constitute Canada's largest federal social program, through which over $36 billion in benefits are paid to about 5 million Canadian seniors.

Low-income seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement and who have a job will now be able to keep more of their earnings.

In budget 2008, the government increased to $3,500 the amount that can be earned before the guaranteed income supplement is reduced, so that GIS recipients will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Thanks to our government's efforts to create jobs, to allow workers to keep more of their earnings and to help those who need it most, Canada has one of the lowest poverty rates among seniors out of the 33 OECD member countries. Our rate is lower than that of Australia at 27%, the United States at 24% and the United Kingdom at 10%.

Once fully implemented, PRPPs will play an important role in closing the income gap by promoting saving, while supporting a global investment process that will create wealth and move our economy forward.

Fortunately, when Bill C-25 passes, the provinces will have a model that is easy to apply to their respective frameworks, so that the system can be put to work for Canadians.

For all of these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support the timely passing of Bill C-25 and our government's efforts to create a stronger, more prosperous and inclusive country for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act.

Canada's retirement system is based on four pillars. The first is the OAS-GIS, the Canadian social safety net for seniors. The second pillar is the CPP, Canada's mandatory public pension plan with defined benefits. The third is the tax-assisted private saving options, such as RRSPs, registered pension plans and the TFSAs. The fourth is private assets, such as a house or the equity people may have in their home, which they may try to downsize at some point to better fund their retirement.

I thank my colleague, the member for York West and the Liberal critic for seniors and pensions, for her exceptionally beneficial and important work and analysis on pension issues over the last several years. Through her hard work, she has developed and helped present to this Parliament and to Canadians a well thought out optional voluntary supplemental CPP that would be superior to the PRPP for a number of reasons, which she has helped explain.

First, a defined benefit plan as opposed to a simple PRPP plan with defined contributions would provide Canadian retirees with that extra degree of security despite market fluctuations. It would also make it voluntary and portable and, unlike the PRPP, it would provide lower administrative costs so that more of one's investment could end up benefiting one's retirement rather than going to ridiculously high fees, which are a real challenge in Canada, particularly with some of the mutual funds. In fact, offering a voluntary supplemental CPP option would create more competition for the PRPPs in terms of fee structures. One of the benefits in having a voluntary supplemental CPP, which I do not think has been adequately considered by this House, is that it would help keep fees low in the PRPP system and for those plans.

The reality is that the Canada pension plan itself has a very low fee and low cost structure administratively. It is diversified in terms of asset class, it is diversified geographically and it is diversified by sector of investment. It is professionally managed. As a result of decisions taken by the Chrétien government and Paul Martin as finance minister back in the 1990s, they helped ensure the fiscal and prudential strength of the Canada pension plan for decades to come. In fact, we have the strongest public pension in the world as a result of those decisions. Also, the decision to invest in public markets through a prudent, professional plan was taken at that time.

It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister last week in Davos taking credit for the prudential strength of the Canadian pension plan. In fact, I believe he, along with the National Citizens Coalition, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Reform Party at the time, fought every step of the way those decisions taken by the Chrétien government which enabled Canada to have one of the strongest pension plans in the world. However, that did not stop the Prime Minister from taking credit for it. Next he will take credit for the oil and gas under the ground in Alberta and the oil under the water off Newfoundland and Labrador, although we all know that was Danny Williams, but I digress.

In terms of Canadians' financial situation right now, it is important to realize that Canadians have record levels of personal debt. On average, there is $1.53 of debt for every $1 of annual income. The Conservatives actually made the situation worse with their first budget in 2006 when the current finance minister recklessly followed the U.S. model and introduced 40-year mortgages with zero down payment. That was the same finance minister who had inherited a $13 billion surplus but raised government spending by three times the rate of inflation and put Canada into deficit even before the downturn.

Today, with an aging population, historically high debt levels and low savings rates, it is clear that the government must make Canada's retirement income system a priority so that seniors are not left out in the cold.

The first pillar I want to speak to is old age security. Old age security was introduced in 1952 by a Liberal government. It was then followed by the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, introduced by a Liberal government in 1967. The OAS and the GIS have formed a key part of Canada's social safety net. This has been a defining element in terms of Canadians' social values and reflects the dignity that we believe seniors ought to retire to. Ensuring that the government sets aside enough money to pay for the social safety net has always been a priority.

The amount we spend on OAS does fluctuate with our demographics. Last year the federal government spent 2.37% of Canada's GDP on OAS payments. Twenty years ago, in 1992, spending on the OAS reached 2.72% of Canada's GDP. In 2030, spending on the OAS is expected to reach 3.16% of GDP. Ensuring that we have enough money to pay for these increases is a matter of priorities, of planning and of making decisions based on evidence as opposed to making decisions based on ideology.

Back in the nineties, the Conservative government of the day tried to cut the OAS by scrapping the guarantee that OAS payments would keep up with inflation. This was done after they had promised not to touch or reduce Canadian pension benefits. A 63-year-old, Solange Denis, told Prime Minister Brian Mulroney at the time:

You made promises that you wouldn't touch anything... you lied to us. I was made to vote for you and then it's goodbye, Charlie Brown.

We will all remember that pivotal moment. The Conservatives, ultimately, reversed their decision on that and listened to seniors across Canada, like the Canadian Association of Retired Persons and other organizations representing seniors and grassroots across Canada. Canadians stood up and defended themselves against that cut at the time.

Last week, the Prime Minister signalled that his government was considering increasing the qualification age from 65 to 67 for OAS benefits in Canada. We need to think about who would be impacted by this and whether it is fair. According to tax returns filed in 2009, the latest information available from the CRA website, more than 40% of seniors receiving old age security had an income of less than $20,000 per year. Furthermore, over half of the OAS money went to seniors earning less than $25,000 per year. Therefore, increasing the qualification age for OAS disproportionately hurts those Canadians who are most vulnerable, seniors living at or below the poverty line.

By increasing the qualification age for OAS from 65 to 67, the Conservatives would be taking away up to $30,000 from each of our most vulnerable senior citizens. These cuts to OAS would disproportionately hurt the poor, especially older single women. OAS cuts would force these seniors onto provincial welfare rolls and put seniors' drug coverage at risk as provinces only provide certain drug coverage to seniors receiving the GIS supplement. If people do not qualify for GIS, they do not qualify for drug coverage. We can only think of the unintended consequences of these changes on poor seniors.

The Conservatives are trying to download all these costs on to the provinces, with provincial treasuries having to pick up the tab or just do without. It is the same with the Conservative's jail agenda, billions of dollars of federal money but also billions in costs imposed on provincial governments, without any consultation, negotiation or discussion with provincial governments.

It is also important to look back a couple of years when the Conservatives cut the OAS to prisoners in Canadian penitentiaries. At that time, the human resources minister spoke of cutting off OAS for prisoners serving a sentence of at least two years. She said, “Canadians who work hard, who contribute to the system, who play by the rules deserve government benefits such as Old Age Security”.

It is interesting now to take those words forward and see that the Conservatives are now treating senior citizens like prisoners. They are treating senior citizens today, people who have worked hard and played by the rules, like they would treat prisoners.

It is bad enough that the Conservatives follow an ideologically rigid and ineffectual tough on crime agenda that will not work, but where will this tough on seniors agenda get Canada? I look forward to questions.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a little more two years ago I asked the government of the day what it planned to do to protect and preserve pensions for all Canadians. The minister responded by saying that pensions were provincial and should be left to provincial legislatures to deal with. He said pensions were not a federal problem no matter how much the opposition cried out.

Canadians rightly found that notion to be wrong, short-sighted and unacceptable. Therefore, what is Bill C-25? It is the government's answer to our calls for pension reform. In simple terms, providing the provinces go along with this, it creates a federal notion of a pooled registered pension plan similar to a group RRSP. Clearly, that is the best thing the government could come up with.

In 1998, when the current Prime Minister was campaigning, he announced that he wanted to privatize the Canada pension plan. The Conservatives proposed the elimination of the public Canada pension plan. Backed by a bit of research, that is clearly there: it is exactly what the current Prime Minister said. He suggested that the Canada pension plan should be replaced by a super savings account that would allow Canadians to put all of their extra money, if they had any, into investments for their retirement. PRPPs are similar to that fundamentally flawed idea. It continues to be just as flawed an idea now as it was then.

What is the problem? While the Prime Minister is the sixth highest paid political leader in the world, earning an annual salary of $296,000 U.S., and telling Canadians to put their extra money into the bank for their retirement, he seems to forget that not everyone has so much extra money. What about those seniors who pay their taxes, raise their families and work hard but still do not have any extra money to invest? How are they going to survive?

The Liberals have long believed that Canadian seniors need and deserve a secure and reliable plan to help keep the “gold” in the golden years. I mean a pension plan, not an investment plan. In an effort to do this, on March 1, 1928, Liberal Prime Minister King officially created a limited old age security pension plan. That plan was expanded in 1952 by another Liberal prime minister, Louis St. Laurent.

Recent statements by the Prime Minister seem to indicate that the Conservatives do not share this view. They voted against all of those previous policies and continue to look at ways to erode the security of Canadian seniors, which seems much more like waging war on seniors and the poor than anything else.

Under old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the CPP that were established by the Liberals over the past 90 years, Canadian seniors have gradually been lifted out of poverty. We have finally reached a level where there are a lower number of seniors living in poverty than ever before, although that level is still not acceptable.

The Conservatives have opposed each of these measures. Now it seems they want seniors to work even longer. Forcing them to work longer and harder to save for retirement, on top of asking them to pay for $6 billion in giveaways to the largest corporations, $13 billion for prisons and $30 billion for untendered stealth fighter jets, is not a plan for pensions.

The PRPPs will not work for those who need it most, but for those who have lots of money. For many of us who deal with seniors who are struggling every day, this will not be a very good tool. PRPPs are nothing but locked in RRSPs.

Canadians could face a number of problems if this plan proceeds. They will have to become market experts, as their employer will pay no administrative role in the PRPP plan. Members will bear 100% of the investment risk. A single market stumble could spell the end of any retirement home. We know how difficult the investment industry is when one goes to invest, yet that person has to rely on someone who has that expertise. The majority of Canadians do not have that expertise and will again be subjected to the volatility of the market and those making investments for them. Also, there is no ability to move out of an underperforming PRPP into a performing one or one with better services.

If the provinces make PRPPs mandatory, which we do not know yet, employers will be forced to create administrative systems to enrol members. As well, because both employers and members can opt out, costs will be incurred for no reason.

It is unclear whether homemakers can contribute to or belong to a PRPP. We clearly understand that they are not at the top of the list of concerns of the current government. Yet again the so-called Conservative plan excludes those who contribute to society outside of the work force.

Why are we not learning from some of the mistakes of others? The Australian government adopted its version of PRPPs in 1997, over a decade ago. A recent study published in the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management found that the only one who had benefited from the plan was the financial services industry. That is a shame.

PRPPs will be managed by the same people who manage Canada's mutual funds, and Canadians already pay some of the highest management fees in the world. I hear no talk about how the government will control that or put caps on any of those management fees for anyone subject to this. Clearly, those who will make the most money out of it are the banks and financial institutions.

Morningstar recently released a report grading 22 countries on the management expense ratios levied on their mutual funds, and Canada was the only country to receive an F. Shame on everyone.

Reducing government spending is a laudable goal. However, the financial players offering PRPPs will need to offer annuities so that plan members may convert their accumulated balances into a stream of pension payments. Once that occurs, insurers are required by law to price in a profit margin and to keep regulatory capital aside to underwrite the contracts. These two requirements alone are achieved at the expense of the plan members, who will see their pensions reduced as a result. This is a very inefficient way of delivering pensions.

These two requirements are the cornerstones of the PRPP plan. With that in mind, I am left to wonder how PRPPs could possibly yield results for Canadian pensioners. The simple answer is that they will not help the average Canadian prepare for retirement. The PRPP is another tool in the toolbox. It is not necessarily a particularly good tool, but clearly it is the best the government is prepared to go forward with.

Instead of copying the failed work of others, why did the Prime Minister not seek to lift seniors out of poverty? A supplemental Canada pension plan, already proposed by the Liberals, would provide the best of both worlds. It would create a new retirement savings vehicle for Canadians who needed it, while delivering the low overhead cost structure of the Canada pension plan.

A supplementary Canada pension plan would be a simple and cost-effective solution to the looming pension crisis, and is very different from the NDP proposal. This is a defined benefit pension for everyone, including homemakers and farmers. Anyone could contribute, even those who have left the work force during their lives for child rearing, illness and educational advancement. It would use proven and existing resources to give every Canadian man, woman and child a reliable and stable investment vehicle for the future.

Every Canadian has the right to live in dignity, especially during their golden years, and a SCPP would allow them to do that. The very best part of that is that a SCPP would not require the retention of assets to create a profit margin for banks and insurance companies, and it would not require them to keep regulatory capital aside to underwrite those contracts. It would be a win for the average Canadian pensioner.

However, the Conservatives, as I indicated, could not care less. By ignoring calls to improve the CPP and by floating the idea of slashing the old age pension of those aged 65 to 67, the Conservatives have shown their true colours.

Balancing the budget on the backs of seniors is nothing short of waging war on the poor. It is unacceptable and the government should be ashamed for even putting that idea forward, but clearly that is the opinion of the Conservatives. They have never supported old age security, the Canada pension plan and the guaranteed income supplement, which continues to show in their colours. As far as they are concerned, they will support a big corporation, but if a person cannot take care of themself, goodbye Charlie. That is not the Liberal way. That is not the Canadian way.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to re-examine the government's arguments with regard to the proposed plan. The member for Burlington and the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the provinces were not prepared to accept enhancements to the Canada pension plan, but that they were prepared to accept the items set out in Bill C-25.

I closely followed federal-provincial discussions about the pension plan and how to deal with the issue. At the time, the provinces were prepared to accept enhancements to the Canada pension plan, but the federal government said that enhancements were not being proposed and that only their proposal was on the table. Could my colleague comment on this?

The second thing that the Minister of State mentioned is the fact that an enhancement would lead to an increase in Canada pension plan contributions, which is unacceptable especially to employers. Nevertheless, the government has no problem increasing employment insurance premiums, despite the fact that the fund already has a surplus. This would also affect employers. This argument therefore does not necessarily apply to the Canada pension plan, a better plan that would provide much greater economic security for retirees. I would also like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.