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.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to really discuss the issues raised by Bill C-25. This bill should have been an opportunity to improve pension plans in Canada, something that would have made Canadians wealthier. Unfortunately, with this system, the only ones who will benefit will be the corporate welfare bums.

It is important to understand how this system is funded. Employees do not get to decide who administers their retirement savings; the employer decides. Employees are not the ones who decide the level of investment risk they will assume or where their money will go. Once again, it is the employer who decides.

Ironically, the employer that decides the level of risk and chooses the administrator is in a conflict of interest with regard to that administrator. What happens when the employer does business with the same financial institutions with which it negotiates its line of credit, its insurance and all the other financial products a business might need? It is a blatant conflict of interest.

On top of that, in this bill the government is saying that employers, the business owners, are not responsible for their actions under the law. If they choose the worst administrator or the highest level of risk, this legislation exonerates them. Legal exoneration is included in Bill C-25. This is unbelievable. People are either strongly for or strongly against these corporate welfare bums. The Conservatives strongly support them, and Bill C-25 is proof of that.

The government has decided that no matter what the returns on the investments—be they negative or positive—the financial institution will be the first to benefit. Imagine that. The institution will charge administrative fees regardless of the returns. Then it will collect its profit margin because it is a private company. Then, depending on the level of risk, it will collect bonuses. Inflation is also a factor. If the return is 3% and inflation is 2%, then the net return is 1%. Unfortunately, people will not even get that 1% because they are the very last in line after administrative fees, bonuses and rates of return. Basically, this means that no matter what the situation, the administrators will be the ones making money. Whether the market is up or down, they will make money.

Paradoxically, if the deductions are too high, the people investing in the pooled registered pension plans proposed in Bill C-25 will experience consistently negative returns. A person who invests $600 a year for 30 years can expect to withdraw at least $18,000, right? Not so. With this wonderful plan, he might have much less than that. He is not even guaranteed to get back the money he put in. This is not a pension plan or even a lottery. It is outright theft.

The Conservatives have decided to put the financial future of retirees in the hands of people whose primary interest is to earn the maximum amount of money, not to generate a return or guarantee a pension, but to earn money now, right away.

The icing on the cake is that the Conservatives say in the bill that administrators are prohibited from using gifts to encourage employers to allow them to manage the pension fund. However, this type of deal is allowed according to the regulations. Not only is there already a clear conflict of interest, but this also legalizes bribes. Unbelievable. Then they claim that it is for the good of the employees.

We have proposed that, at least, the right to charge administrative fees should be dependent on the return.

If pension funds are properly managed, the administrator has the right to charge a fee, but if it they are poorly managed, the administrator should not be paid. The administrators must take on part of the risk, which would motivate them a bit to always aim for big returns. But no, they do not take on any risk. The only risk is taken on by the employees, who do not even have the right to choose their administrator and level of risk. That is outright abuse. This is where Bill C-25 systematically goes after workers.

This is not a pension plan, but an extremely toxic financial product just like the junk bonds we saw in the 1970s and 1980s, and the commercial papers we saw in 2008. That is how toxic this is. People absolutely must not invest in this. I would like to take this opportunity to tell people that the last thing they should do is choose to participate in such a plan. They should buy a house. We hear a lot about pension plans, but at the same time, we have never seen such a high number of Canadians who own their homes.

Quite often, Canadians' main investment is their home, and that is smart. However, the Conservatives are not taking that into account. They are saying that 60% of people do not have a pension plan. That is not true. Canadians are investing in their pension by investing in their homes. A house is a capital asset that appreciates in value rather than depreciating like the plan the government is proposing.

What can we say about a regime, a political party, a government that systematically stands up for the rich? The government is ignoring the needs of all Canadians to help only 1% of the population, the wealthiest members of our society. Since the Conservatives have come to office, the gap between the rich and the poor has been widening. The poor have become poorer, as has a large part of Canada's middle class—in short, the vast majority of Canadians. Meanwhile, the Conservatives' friends, the corporate welfare bums, have grown even richer. And that does not bother the Conservatives at all. Clearly, they are even in favour of it.

This type of government regime, which robs the vast majority of people to favour its friends, is called a kleptocracy. That is exactly what we are dealing with here: people who work only for the wealthiest members of our society in the hopes that perhaps, one day, these extremely rich people will invest their wealth and use it to buy goods, which will drive the economy. However, what we have been seeing for the past 10 years is that these people are not investing in Canada. They are taking the money that they get in Canada and investing it abroad, in financial products and corporate acquisitions. That is not creating any jobs at all. It is even causing us to lose jobs.

The Conservatives could have taken action to prevent situations like the ones that occurred at Nortel and AbitibiBowater from happening again, but they did not. Their friends, the corporate welfare bums, did not want them to. They did not want regulations to be imposed, and regulations are still not present in Bill C-25. The Conservatives are not regulating this bill.

They say that the market will determine how to proceed. But right now, the market is not favourable to workers in this country. It only works for the people opposite in this kleptocracy, people who only work for the rich. They have once again decided to systematically favour the rich. This pooled registered pension plan is a highly toxic financial product. I urge all Canadians not to invest a single penny in it, because it is a guaranteed loss. The only people who are going to make money from those plans are the ones administering them.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today and speak on Bill C-25, an act relating to pooled registered pension plans. In truth, it is legislation from the Conservative government that is really a savings scheme, not a pension plan. Like the omnibus Trojan Horse budget bill, it reminds Canadians of the mess the Conservatives have created for Canada and for our pensioners.

This hole that Canadians find themselves in becomes unacceptable, especially when we see the shovels in the hands of the Conservative government digging the hole.

Let us separate fact from fiction in the government's spin on being good managers of the economy. In fact, the Conservatives' us-them, winners and losers ideology has exposed them as very bad managers of the economy.

Fact number one is that 1.6 million seniors live in poverty.

Fact number two is that 12 million Canadians lack a workplace pension plan.

Fact number three is that most Canadian workers have no RRSPs, but the proposed legislation advises that they invest despite disastrous investment returns.

Fact number four is that last year, only 31% of eligible Canadians contributed to RRSPs. How little money Canadians really have for their RRSPs is evident in the fact that unused RRSP room now exceeds $500 billion.

Fact number five is that the Conservatives tolerate overall poverty numbers of around 10%, one in every ten Canadians. They write off three million Canadians from contributing to productivity or paying taxes. The Ontario food bank estimates that the bill to Canada that the Conservative government writes off is costing our country close to $90 billion.

Facing all these facts, what do the Conservatives do? They bring forward legislation with limited benefits for the self-employed and for those with small and medium-sized businesses. They stick with our country's miserly pension plan rather than bringing it up to the level of other countries that more fairly and generously look after their seniors.

The proposed legislation would do nothing to fix our pension crisis. There is too little money on the revenue side for our country precisely because of the spending and the deep hole that the Conservative government has dug with its ideology-driven priorities.

There is no money for Canadian seniors and their pensions because the Conservative government ignores a declining crime rate and goes on a multi-billion dollar spending spree on crime that the provinces say they do not want and cannot afford.

There is no money for seniors, but there is money for F-35 fighter jets. There is money for a minister's $16 glass of orange juice and money to spend on search and rescue personnel to ferry the Minister of National Defence on his own errands.

The Prime Minister has said that the Canada pension plan is adequately self-financing, but “for those elements of the system that are not funded, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability.”

What changes does the government propose? It plans to cut old age security, denying it to seniors who are 65 and 66. This program provides $526.85 a month to seniors below the income cut-off.

New Democrats recognize the demographics in our country showing that the number of Canadians older than 65 will double in the next 20 years. We also recognize that the pension plan is financially sustainable in its various demands, up and down, over the next 20 years.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has backed us up with strong evidence, but what is increasingly having Canadians lose confidence in the government is its failure to manage the economy and deal with the inequality that exists in our communities.

There is less money for seniors because of ridiculous spending decisions by the Conservative government. It reduced corporate taxes and had ministers for the G8 spending like drunken sailors.

We on this side of the House have no problem with an honest dialogue with Canadians about belt-tightening, about hard choices that have to be made regarding our pensions and pensioners. However, we will not frame these choices as the Prime Minister does, ignoring the facts and making our seniors pay.

Let us be clear: our seniors and future pensioners need protection and real help. Pool registered pension plans fail to protect retirement security because they encourage families to gamble even more of their retirement savings on failing stock markets. Anyone who has watched the RRSP plummet over the past years knows how risky savings tied to the stock market are.

How out of touch can the Conservative government be to sell such a scheme to Canadians?

The bill is designed to appeal to the self-employed and workers at small and medium-sized firms, companies that often lack the means by which to administer a private sector plan.

The plan created would be a defined contribution plan. Employees would contribute a portion of their salary into the retirement account, where it could be invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, et cetera. Some companies would make a matching contribution, up to a certain percentage. The account would grow through contributions and investment earnings until retirement.

In such a direct contribution plan, there are no guarantees about how much of a person's money will be left when he or she retires. The risks are borne entirely by the individual. In these types of plans, the amount of money available at retirement depends upon the outcome of the investments, which cannot be relied upon. Defined contribution plans lack the security of defined benefit pension plans like the CPP and the QPP, which pay a guaranteed set amount upon retirement.

There is also the profit margin taken from these plans by the regulated financial institution, such as banks, insurance companies and trust funds. Bill C-25 also fails to place a cap on administration fees or costs and merely assumes lower costs will emerge through competition in the marketplace, and unlike the CPP and the QPP, the pooled pension plan would not be indexed to inflation.

On the other hand, the NDP has put forward a series of retirement income security proposals that would bring genuine security to our pensioners.

We want to double the guaranteed CPP-QPP benefits, to a maximum of $1,920 each month. Growing the CPP and QPP is the best and lowest-cost pension reform option we have.

We have committed to work with the provinces to build the flexibility of individuals and their employers to make voluntary contributions to individual public pension accounts. We would amend federal bankruptcy legislation to move pensioners and long-term disability recipients to the front of the line of creditors when their employers enter court protection or declare bankruptcy.

New Democrats would increase the annual guaranteed income supplement to a sufficient level, in the first budget, to lift every senior in Canada out of poverty immediately.

These are real reforms. This is the real help for seniors barely getting by or workers forced to delay a hard-earned retirement.

Let me quote the commentary of the Canadian Labour Congress on this bad bill.

The proposed PRPPs [pooled registered pension plans] do not guarantee low management fees that would prevent large management fees from eating up such a large portion of your savings. In fact, there is only a promise that the design of PRPP will result in large pools of capital that might lower fees, with no guaranteed or legislated results. Nothing in the PRPP proposal sets management expenses at levels equal to or lower than those of the CPP. As a result, CPP is still a better deal than PRPP; not only because of its guaranteed indexed retirement income, but because of its much lower management fees.

The government is already engaged in damage control on trying to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67. It is trying to reassure seniors that it would not affect those now retired or soon to be retired. What the government should be afraid of is the large number of Canadians aged 50 to 65, the people who vote in this country, who are seeing freedom 55, and now freedom 65, slip away.

Our seniors have worked hard and managed their budgets, only to see the government dig this very deep hole by giving up revenue it would have had from corporations and spending it on its priorities that are now not the priorities of many Canadians.

This will be the fight of their lives. New Democrats will join this fight. We need to value our seniors, not beat up on them.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to some key measures in Bill C-25, an act that would implement the federal framework for pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs.

This Conservative government stands with hard-working Canadians who are counting on their pension plan for a stable retirement. As part of this commitment, we continue to take the steps necessary to ensure that Canada's pension framework remains strong. In doing so, we are building on all that has been accomplished so far.

I will offer a few examples of what we have already achieved.

In 2009, we announced an improved regulatory framework to better protect members of federally-regulated pension plans. This included reducing funding volatility for defined benefit plans, making it easier for participants to negotiate changes to their pension arrangements. We ensured that pension plans were fully funded when they were terminated and we modernized the investment rules.

At the same time, the federal government, along with the provinces, agreed to a number of improvements to the Canada pension plan that would modernize the plan and would better reflect the way Canadians live, work and retire.

The hon. members on the other side should know that pensions share joint jurisdiction with the provinces. Only by continuing to work with the provinces will we make the system better. A stronger national economy must include a stronger personal retirement system built with the provinces. In fact, that is exactly what led to the development of the PRPP.

In December 2009, our government held a meeting with provincial and territorial finance ministers to discuss the retirement income system and, in going forward, how to address the issues of retirement income adequacy for all seniors.

In June 2010, federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed to develop options to improve Canada's retirement income system. One of those options was to expand the CPP. Many of the provinces raised strong objections to the idea of expanding the CPP as this would require increased contributions from employees, employers and the self-employed.

Canada's economic recovery is still fragile, and with the debt crisis in Europe still unresolved, now is simply not the time to impose a payroll tax on small and medium-sized businesses. As a former small business owner, I understand that point very well.

To be clear, it is not only our government that feels this way. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:

For every one percentage point increase 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...

Simply put, an expanded CPP would hurt both small and medium-sized business owners and working Canadians. This government wants to create jobs, not destroy them.

Since expanding CPP was not feasible, priority was given to the PRPP framework. That is why at the 2010 meeting of finance ministers there was unanimous agreement on the decision to pursue a framework for pooled registered pension plans.

The PRPP will mark a significant step forward in advancing our retirement income agenda by improving the range of retirement savings options available to Canadians. They will make well-regulated, low cost private sector pension plans accessible to millions of Canadians who, up to now, have not had access to such plans. In fact, many employees of small and medium-sized businesses and self-employed workers will now have access to a private pension plan for the first time.

For many years, I operated a private dental practice in Kitchener and employed up to five people. It would have been impossible for me to enrol in a pension plan on behalf of my employees. However, I would have liked nothing better than to access a pooled program in which, by putting our resources together with a number of employers, we could have accessed a pooled registered pension plan.

We can think of other businesses. My colleague mentioned a shoe store. I can think of small engine repair shops, farm implement dealers and hairdressers. We can go on with the number of small and medium-sized employers that would benefit from a measure like we have proposed. When they look for employees, they compete on the employment market and the ability to offer a good pension plan to an employee, in addition to an attractive salary and benefit plan, would go a long way in competing for the best and brightest people who could help to move their companies ahead.

This is an important part of gaining access to pension options and this access to pension options is a key improvement to Canada's retirement income system.

PRPPs will also complement and support the Government of Canada's overarching objective of creating and sustaining jobs, leveraging business investment, securing our economic recovery and encouraging sustainable private sector driven growth, an objective I wish members opposite would understand and support.

Quite simply, the PRPP framework is the most effective and targeted way to address the prime areas for improvement identified by provincial and federal governments in our recent review of the retirement income system, modest and middle-income individuals who do not have access to employer sponsored pension plans.

PRPPs would address this gap in the retirement system by providing a new, accessible, straightforward and administratively low-cost retirement option for employers to offer their employees. It would also allow individuals who currently may not participate in a pension plan, such as those self-employed and employees of companies that do not offer a pension plan, to make use of this new option. It would enable more people to benefit from the lower investment management costs that would result from membership in a large pooled pension plan, allowing for the portability of benefits that would facilitate an easy transfer between plans and ensure that funds would be invested in the bests interests of plan members.

These are all important areas where our retirement income system can and should be improved. That is why federal, provincial and territorial governments are working to implement PRPPs as soon as possible, and we are doing it collaboratively. Once again, I remind hon. members that this pooled retirement pension plan approach was agreed to as the best by all of Canada's finance ministers, provincial and territorial. These plans will help Canadians, including the self-employed, to meet their retirement objectives by providing access to a new, low cost accessible pension option.

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

In addition, the tax rules for pooled registered pension plans have been developed by the Government of Canada and were released in draft form for comment in December of 2011. Comments received during that consultation period, which ended in February, are being reviewed currently. The tax rules for PRPPs will apply to both federally and provincially regulated PRPPs and will be implemented in 2012. By working in concert with the provinces, we can accomplish so much more by working together.

I would urge all the provinces to take the advice of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc. when they collectively said, “The longer governments take to establish a system of PRPPs, the less time those employees will have to use this vehicle to save for their retirement”.

It is clear that Canadians want their governments to act on their priorities and deliver results on a timely basis, and the PRPP should be no different.

Many people in my riding work for small and medium-sized businesses and who are self-employed. As a former small business owner myself, I know how greatly they would benefit from the advantages presented by pooled registered pension plans.

It is for this reason that I urge, not only the Government of Ontario, but all provincial governments, to put in place their respective legislation as soon as possible so that all Canadians can start saving for their retirement. Once provinces implement their own legislation, PRPPs will be a key element of the third pillar of Canada's retirement income system. PRPPs will complement and operate alongside registered retirement savings plans and employer sponsored registered pension plans.

With all the measures we have put in place and with Bill C-25 bringing the federal PRPP framework into force, Canadians can be confident about the long-term viability of their retirement system. We are listening, and will continue to listen, to the views on how we can strengthen the security of pension plan benefits and ensure that their framework is balanced and appropriate for the long term.

Canada's retirement income system is recognized around the world by such experts as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among Canadian seniors and in providing high levels of replacement income to retired workers.

With Bill C-25, we are making it better by working toward a permanent, long-term solution to encourage greater pension coverage among Canadians. At the same time, we will continue to ensure our retirement income remains one of the strongest in the world.

I would encourage all members of the House to support this important bill.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are debating Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. Any further initiatives that would be forthcoming from this government would be total speculation and conjecture at this point, and really, nobody can answer that.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

The member is right. It is thanks to this government.

We have recovered all of the jobs that we lost during the recession. Since July 2009, we have created 765,000 net new jobs. The World Economic Forum says we have the strongest financial and banking system of any country around the world. Forbes magazine says we are the best place to do business.

A few months ago, Governor Branstad of Iowa said on Meet the Press, “The Canadian government has reduced their corporate income tax to 15%. I've had companies that I've called on in Chicago to come to Iowa say, 'We like Iowa, but if they don't change the federal corporate income tax, we're probably going to go to Canada'”.

It is all about the profits, and with profits come jobs. Moody's has given us a AAA credit rating again, as has Fitch.

Our strong economy, the jobs we have recovered and being number one in the G8 are not good enough. We are not standing still with that. I will be speaking to Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill, tomorrow.

Everything we do on this side of the House, every legislative initiative, has a purpose. Everything is tied together. It is part of our comprehensive plan. Again, it is for Canada's future. We are investing in Canada's future, in our people, not in the next election.

With respect to our retirement system, we have identified that 60% of Canadians will not have a sufficient amount of money to retire. That is unacceptable to the government. That is why we have put forward Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. Under this plan, we will add a fourth pillar to the retirement income system that we have.

Let us take a look at our retirement income system as it stands today. We have the OAS and the GIS. We increased the GIS in last year's budget by 25%, the largest increase in the history of the GIS, and it was opposed not once, but twice by the opposition. In fact, the first time the opposition forced an election because it was opposed to the initiatives we had in our budget, particularly those to create jobs and to help seniors.

The second pillar is the CPP and the QPP. Both are actuarially sound, yet we still took time to improve the CPP under its mandatory five-year review.

The third pillar is the RPP and the RRSP. The RRSP is an interesting vehicle. That vehicle is open to all Canadians; however, we find that $600 billion is underfunded in the RRSP. This indicates that people are not saving enough for retirement. That is a problem.

What else have we done to help seniors in this country? We have given them, on average, $2.3 billion in tax relief. We have given our seniors pension income splitting. We have doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for pension income credit. We have established the TFSA.

The PRPP is needed in our country. I will close with a personal anecdote. My father was an immigrant to the country and he worked hard. I remember when I was a young fellow looking through the window late at night, waiting for my father to come home. He would pull up in the car, which had a very distinctive sound. I remember running to the window and watching him get out of the car. He was so tired he could barely drag himself out of the car and get into the house.

My father did not have a retirement income mechanism in place at the time. My father has since passed away. My father owned a shoe store and had one employee. It was a small business. This would have been so beneficial for him and his family, and for the employee and her family.

This is the kind of country we are trying to create in Canada, where our seniors have a proper amount of income so that they can retire in dignity and live a full life of quality.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plan.

I want to congratulate the Minister of State for Finance on the amazing and wonderful work he has done on this bill and on chairing the committee headed up by the minister and all the provincial finance ministers. I want to congratulate him on his efforts in guiding this bill through the House of Commons.

I have been a member of Parliament now for a little over a year. What has really struck me in my time here so far is the negativity I hear from across the aisle from the nattering nabobs of negativism. No matter how good a public policy initiative is coming out of this government—

The House resumed from June 11 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.

Bill C-38—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in response to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Standing Order 78(3) states that the amount of time allotted to any stage of a bill shall be not less than one sitting day. However, it also does not mean we should not take that particular reference to be interpreted as the length of the sitting day on which the bill is scheduled for debate or when the motion is moved.

Standing Order 78(3) affords the government the option to allot a specific number of “days” or “hours”. Sometimes time allocation motions allot sitting days. When a motion refers to a sitting day, we take the timeframe of a sitting day literally. It does not mean how long the day is or what the circumstances dictating the time available for government orders might be. On other occasions, time allocation motions have allotted hours. The hours allotted in those motions were respected.

Let me give some examples. On November 13, 1975, a motion allotting five further hours for the second reading stage of Bill C-58, which amended the Income Tax Act, was adopted; similar motions were adopted on March 10, 1976, for Bill C-68 amendments to the then Medical Care Act; on March 29, 1977, for Bill C-27, the Employment and Immigration Reorganization Act; and on November 22, 1977, for Bill C-11, another bill to amend the Income Tax Act. In relation to Bill C-18, the National Transportation Act, 1986, a motion allotting four hours for report stage and four hours for third reading was adopted on June 15, 1987.

Most recently, the House adopted two such motions last Thursday, June 7, 2012. One allotted five hours for third reading of Bill C-25, pooled registered pension plans act, and the other allotted seven hours for second reading of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama free trade bill. Needless to say, both motions were in order last week and each was adopted by the House.

Of interest, regarding the 1987 case, the report and third reading stages happened to be the second order of the day called by the government on each sitting day, and the debates were interrupted by the Speaker after the expiry of the time provided for in the time allocation motion but before the end of government orders. It should be further noted that on both occasions, after Bill C-18 was dealt with, the government called a third order of the day.

Looking at our recent example of Bill C-25, yesterday's order paper said we had 2 hours and 24 minutes of debate remaining on the bill. Had we resumed debate on it at 3:00 p.m., after question period last Thursday, the debate would have ended before the end of government orders at 5:30 p.m. With routine proceedings and the consideration of procedural motions, it is not inconceivable to end up with a situation where only a few minutes are available to debate a bill on a given ordinary sitting day. Those few minutes would satisfy the minimum requirement of Standing Order 78(3) if the motion allotted one sitting day.

Our motion refers to hours. When dealing with hours, it makes more sense to interpret the minimum requirement of one sitting day differently because the number of available hours could vary from day to day.

As members are aware, not every sitting day is the same. Under the usual calendar, five and a half hours are set aside for both routine proceedings and government orders on Mondays; six and a half hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays; two and a half hours on Wednesdays and Fridays. The longer routine proceedings take, the less time there is for government orders. When allotting hours, the reference to one sitting day should be interpreted as a sitting day and not the sitting day on which the bill has been scheduled for debate.

I would argue that when referring to hours in a time allocation motion, the minimum allotment of hours should be consistent with the shortest day available under the current Standing Orders, and that is two and a half hours, and that assumes we breeze through routine proceedings in a heartbeat. Of course, our motion contemplates ten hours of debate for report stage and a further eight hours for third reading, which in both cases is at least three times the two and a half hour figure I just cited.

On three of the five sitting days each week, the time available for government business is routinely no more than five hours. Some may ask what impact there may be, given that we are operating under extended hours. I would say it should not be a relevant consideration. Calling government orders is the prerogative of the government. In other words, any item on the order paper could be called this week or this fall, when we are not in extended sittings. However, should the fact we adopted a motion yesterday under Standing Order 27(1) bear relevance to the chair's consideration, let me advance two further points.

First, Wednesday, tomorrow for example, would have at most eight hours for government orders, and the coming Friday is operating in the usual schedule, with two and a half hours for government business.

The government could, if it so chooses, call Bill C-38 on either of those dates, and yet 10 hours could not be fully used in a single day. In fact, I believe everyone understands that we will be calling Bill C-38, in part, tomorrow.

Second, the 1987 precedent that I cited earlier speaks to our present circumstances. On Friday, June 12, 1987, the House adopted a special order respecting sitting hours, effective the following Tuesday. Now, recall that the time allocation motion was adopted on Monday, June 15. The House, knowing that extended hours were upon it, adopted the time allocation order for four hours for each of two different stages of the bill.

Report stage was called on Tuesday, June 16, as the second order of the day, and after all of the recorded votes at report stage there were still a couple of hours left in the day for a third item of government business. Third reading followed the next day, when again there was more than ample time in the day to accommodate that debate.

Looking at the cases I cited earlier, but in both the case of Bill C-18 in 1987 and Bill C-25 on Thursday last week, the minimum requirement of one sitting day was not interpreted by the Speaker as the length of the days on which either bill was scheduled.

Although no ruling was then given in 1987, I would submit that Mr. Speaker Fraser likely interpreted the length of the shortest available day to be the minimum time required by the Standing Orders, and as far as I can surmise, it would also have been the view of the Speaker last week.

Accordingly, I believe our motion should be allowed to stand for the same reason that it allots a greater number of hours than the shortest day on which it could be scheduled. Indeed, it will be a longer number of hours than in the normal circumstance would be provided any day at any other time of the year that we would be debating it in the House.

I believe the precedents are amply demonstrative that the motion you have before you, Madam Speaker, is in order.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very enlightening speech, which shows the extent to which the government is clearly in error as it manages this country.

The hon. member has pointed out a number of problems associated with the consequences of Bill C-38 that will affect provincial jurisdiction. During the debates on Bill C-25, dealing with pooled registered pension plans, one of the hon. members opposite brought up the fact that it is practically impossible to work with the provinces to find common ground using the Canada pension plan, for example.

This is really incredible because, if you go back a number of years, you will see that the Canada Health Act was a work in progress extending over a number of years that allowed for agreement and co-operation between the federal and provincial governments.

I would like the hon. member to enlighten me on this government's almost pathological inability to negotiate and come to agreements with the provinces. Bill C-38 is an example of that.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind warning.

My speech will be very similar to that of the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. The simple reason is that the public consultations that she carried out in Quebec with the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin were also held in my riding. Many of the comments that she heard about the problems facing our seniors or those retiring soon are the same comments that I have heard. And when we think about it, this affects everyone.

I would like to use the short time that I have to talk about that and to explain why we think the measures proposed in Bill C-25 are not appropriate.

That is basically it. We are not saying that this bill is a travesty. We simply want to provide people who are going to retire or who already have retired with better tools.

What this bill is proposing is very similar to what we already have, such as RRSPs. What is more, we have been given very little information. We do not know the administrative costs associated with this plan. The employer is not required to contribute to the plan, something that is done in many other countries. The pension plans of the largest corporations require the employer to make a certain contribution. There are many problems with all this.

The NDP believes that these measures are not appropriate at this time, especially when the eligibility age for old age security is being increased from 65 to 67.

We saw with RRSPs what can happen when people are asked to invest their pensions in the stock market. That is what happened in 2008.

Many Canadians were rather fortunate compared to Americans. Nonetheless, people have been seriously affected. At the very least, we cannot downplay the importance of all this. People invested in RRSPs for 10 years and saw their investments dwindle. When it comes to retirement security, that is not the norm in a country such as ours. Members will recall the case of Nortel, where there were no provisions in place to guarantee people's pensions.

In the last minute I have left, I would like to say that in talking to people, their main complaint was that they were tired of investing in the market and not having retirement security. They said that they want to have the support of a system in which they can invest, such as old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

The guaranteed income supplement is a very important tool. We in the NDP would like to increase the GIS. With a very small investment, we could lift most seniors living below the poverty line above that line and enable them to live in dignity. That is what the people in my riding and many other ridings told us.

We oppose this bill because it is not the right tool in the current economic situation. There are much better tools. That is what the NDP would do if it formed the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for seniors, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-25 today.

I must begin by mentioning what our dear Prime Minister said a few months ago in Switzerland. During a speech, he said that Canada's aging population is a problem and that if the government does not tackle the problem, it may have even more serious consequences than the recent economic crises.

First, I would like to express the NDP's official position that the aging population is not a problem; it is a situation. And it is not a surprise situation. We have seen it coming for a long time. Today's 60- and 70-year-olds were not born yesterday. Not only is this not a problem, but I think we can view it as an asset. Canada's seniors are a tremendous resource. They have experience and they share their knowledge and experience. These people volunteer in their communities and in politics, and they spend precious time with their families. No matter how numerous our seniors, they are not a problem for our country.

Today, we should not be attacking the aging population, but we should simply know how to adapt. Yes, there are things that need to be done in this regard. As a country, we need to adapt to ensure that everyone can continue to live well and with dignity. We have known about and seen this demographic trend coming for a long time. One way to adapt is to ensure that the seniors of tomorrow will have reliable pension programs and, we hope, financial security that will enable them to live many more years after retirement in dignity and happiness.

Generally speaking, the fact that today we are talking about a bill on one specific pension program is good news because it means that Parliament is addressing the issue and wondering how it can help people retire with dignity.

However, there is something we do not agree on, and that is how to adapt and what tools to give people to ensure that they will be able to have a pleasant retirement.

What do people want exactly? I think that is a basic question that needs to be asked. What is the problem on the ground? What do people expect the government to do to help them?

I travelled all over Quebec. I visited over 30 towns and cities. People went out of their way specifically to address the issue of seniors' financial security. I heard a number of concerns, questions and fears. I would like to share some of them here today.

First of all, old age security is an important part of Canada's overall pension system. Old age security is universal. Everyone is entitled to receive it when they turn 65. Everyone counts on it, especially middle-income families and people who live below the poverty line—people who do not make enough money to set some aside in savings plans, people who have had an accident, people who have had to stop working for an extended period of time and perhaps have been unable to return to the labour market, people who were laid off at age 55 or 60 and who have not been able to find another job.

Old age security is an essential part of the system, and because of it, Canada can count itself among those countries that have a smaller percentage of seniors living in poverty. Despite that, there are plans to raise the age of eligibility for the program, which will unfortunately increase poverty among seniors. We have talked a lot about this issue. Given that this is not our primary focus here today, I will move on to some of the other subjects before us.

The Canada pension plan, much likes its equivalent in Quebec, is a pension plan that serves all workers. Regardless of the number of hours a person works and no matter what kind of employer he or she works for, everyone who accumulates hours of work contributes to the Canada pension plan or Quebec pension plan. Depending on the number of hours worked and the wages earned, everyone is entitled to receive a certain amount of money. However, this Canada pension plan payment is not enough to replace a person's salary in any meaningful way.

It has to be supplemented by something else. What is more, the Canada pension plan and old age security do not provide Canadians comfortable financial security at retirement either.

Another type of benefit people receive at retirement is an employer provided pension plan. Unfortunately, 12 million Canadians do not have one. Unfortunately, more and more businesses are declaring bankruptcy and are not reimbursing the employees' pension plans, which the employees were counting on for their retirement. Unfortunately, in many cases, these pension plans have been mismanaged by the employers and the benefits have had to be reduced, causing a great deal of discontent.

Something can be done to help Canadians who have employer provided pension plans, but many Canadians do not. What is the government doing for those who do not have an employer provided pension plan?

Another type of savings exists and that is everything to do with RRSPs, group RRSPs, TFSAs, et cetera. Again, many Canadians cannot invest in such plans. People who work full time and earn minimum wage are living below the poverty line. They can hardly put money into an RRSP or a TFSA. I will come back to that later. Here again, more needs to be done to allow Canadians to save for their retirement.

Yes, people have expectations of their government. They have worthwhile suggestions for solving the problems in Canada's pension system. I will come back to this later.

People want a reliable pension system that will provide them with a secure retirement. And I have excellent news: we can create such a system. We have the tools. We have the resources to provide seniors with greater financial security. All that is needed is a willingness to take this issue seriously and a little political courage. Unfortunately, we see no political courage in Bill C-25. This is not a strong, effective measure that will help Canadians save for their retirement, and that is too bad.

What does Bill C-25 really do for Canadians? That is a good question, because there is not much difference between a pooled registered pension plan and an RRSP, a group RRSP or a TFSA. There is some difference, of course, but it is not big enough to ensure that the 12 million Canadians who have no workplace pension plan will be able to retire worry-free. These measures are not really going to solve the problems I talked about earlier.

At present, 12 million Canadians do not have workplace pension plans and 31% of Canadians eligible to contribute to RRSPs do so. Why do almost 60% of eligible Canadians not contribute to an RRSP? Have the Conservatives asked themselves this question? It is important to know the answer. PRPPs and RRSPs are very similar. We have to wonder why Canadians who can contribute to an RRSP do not currently do so. Perhaps they would not contribute to PRPPs for the same reasons. It is important to ask the question.

Here is another statistic: 41% of Canadians have a TFSA. Why do approximately 60% of Canadians not have one? It is very pertinent to ask this question because, once again, if people have trouble making ends meet, and do not have enough income to live on and to support their children, they probably could not put money into a PRPP any more than they could into a TFSA or an RRSP.

Furthermore, 50% of Canadians who have a TFSA earn $100,000 or more.

Once again, what are we going to do for these middle- and low-income Canadians who have no retirement security. Is there a better way to help them than setting up a pooled registered pension plan?

Some countries have tried to implement PRPPs but have failed, whereas other countries have been successful. Let me expand on that. For instance, New Zealand and the United Kingdom implemented pooled registered pension plans and they were successful.

That makes you think. What are the differences between the program implemented in those countries and the program that the Conservatives want to implement? The biggest difference is that, in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, employers are required to contribute if the employee does. So it is a very attractive incentive for employees and it increases the amount of money that people can get after they retire. That has encourage with RRSPs or TFSAs, for example. Neither do we find it in the pooled registered pension plan proposed in Bill C-25.

In New Zealand and the United Kingdom, another incentive for people to contribute to pension plans is that the state provides a tax break or pays a bonus to employees who contribute to their pooled registered pension plans.

Countries that have had success with that kind of pension plan have much stronger, much more solid incentives and restrictions. I am not saying that a pooled registered pension plan would be the best solution. But I do want to stress that there are ways to make the tool much more attractive and much more effective.

In a number of cases, we wonder why the government is proposing a solution of this kind. I suggest a comparison with another situation that is being talked about a lot these days, the increase in the age of eligibility for old age security.

Why raise it by two years? A lot of questions remain for which we have no answers. By “we”, I do not just mean my colleagues and I, I also mean experts who also have no explanation as to why the government is moving in that direction.

First of all, what were the government's objectives for old age security? The government tells us that the program is not sustainable, but a number of experts say that indeed it is. Can we have the figures and the calculations? What is the objective that the Conservatives are trying to achieve by raising the age of eligibility for old age security. How much money do they feel is needed to make the program sustainable? We do not know.

The other day, an hon. member opposite told me that it is about plain old common sense, of very simple math. I am sorry, but calculations and arguments like that are not very convincing. Can you identify a clear problem and propose clear objectives that would allow us to analyze the various options and act accordingly?

What other options are being studied? There are other options. A bill presents one option to us, but what other options have been looked at? Why this option for the PRPP and not another? Why would another option not work? These are questions that have to be asked but have not been answered. It is difficult to work co-operatively and to propose specific initiatives when we have no idea of the basic objectives. What other options have really been studied? Why was this one chosen rather than another?

Lastly, what will the short-term, medium-term and long-term repercussions be? In other countries, an option like that was studied, put in place and did not work. Why would it be any different in Canada, with Bill C-25? I expect to get some very interesting answers. What can we do to ensure that it will work this time in Canada, when it has not worked in other countries?

It is a well-known fact that the NDP is proposing a solution other than the one proposed in Bill C-25. It proposes doubling the Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan benefits, rather than create a PRPP, first because of the management costs. How much will the management costs be for a PRPP? Once again, we do not really have an answer. The number is approximate, but it is certainly higher than the costs of managing the Canada pension plan. Then, it is much more egalitarian for certain segments of the population.

One of the examples I like to give is the example of women. The Canada pension plan takes into account the obligation of women to leave the work force if they have a child and the obligation of people to leave the work force if, for example, they have to take care of a family member who is ill. Women are often the ones who do that as well. A pooled registered pension plan does not take those obligations into account. People who have to stop contributing during a specific period will then be penalized through reduced benefits when they retire.

The Canada pension plan is a plan where the risk is assumed by everybody and, because everyone's contributions are grouped together, it makes up for the fact that some people have to take time off for an illness or disability or for family reasons.

Introducing PRPPs instead of improving CPP will lead to an increase in poverty among women. I do not think I need to go on at length about this, but there is much more poverty among senior women than senior men. Something must be done about this. It has to be taken into account. It cannot be ignored. It is a problem the government has to be sensitive to.

Risk sharing is also important. With CPP, everyone shares the risk. But with a PRPP, a single individual assumes the risk. I want to come back to what will happen to someone who lives longer. Since a PRPP is not a defined benefit plan, this person knows how much he is putting into the plan, but not how much he will get out of it. There is certainly a fixed amount. This means that someone who lives a long life will have to figure out how to manage his portfolio so that he has enough money to live on for the rest of his days. What are we saying? Should we hope that this person does not live too long, or else he will pay through the nose and live in poverty? It makes no sense. We can avoid this sort of situation by enhancing CPP.

The same applies to someone who becomes disabled at 58, for example. That person has to stop contributing and will be penalized. The individual has to bear all of the risk, but that risk could be shared by improving the Canada Pension Plan.

I still have so much to say, but I think I will end with some good news.

Canadians want to know that this is not the only way to do things. The Conservatives often argue that if they do not take this step, our economy will crumble and we will end up like this or that other country. That is not true. There are many ways to run a country and many ways to address a problem. There are alternatives to Bill C-25. As I mentioned earlier, the government could double Canada pension plan benefits. We think that can and should be done to ensure financial security for as many seniors as possible.

The government could also increase the guaranteed income supplement. I have talked at length about poverty among seniors. Currently, the government does not provide seniors with enough money to get them out of poverty. Seniors have to choose between buying food and buying medication. That is unacceptable in our society. The government should increase the guaranteed income supplement to ensure a certain level of dignity for our seniors.

There are still more things the government could do: leaving the old age security age at 65 is an obvious one for the NDP. Protecting employer-managed pensions and amending Canada's Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act are other options. There are many good things the government could do to ensure financial security for retired Canadians.

The House resumed from June 7 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 previous question.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, commencing on Monday, June 11, 2012, and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2012, but not including Friday, June 15, 2012.

Today I rise to make the case for the government's motion to extend the working hours of this House until midnight for the next two weeks. This is of course a motion made in the context of the Standing Orders, which expressly provide for such a motion to be made on this particular day once a year.

Over the past year, our government's top priority has remained creating jobs and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have remained important priorities for our government.

Under the government's economic action plan, Canada's deficits and taxes are going down; investments in education, skills training, and research and innovation are going up; and excessive red tape and regulations are being eliminated.

As the global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters most: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what our Conservative government has been doing.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance delivered economic action plan 2012, a comprehensive budget that coupled our low-tax policy with new actions to promote jobs and economic growth.

The 2012 budget proposed measures aimed at putting our finances in order, increasing innovation and creating suitable and applicable legislation in the area of resource development in order to promote a good, stable investment climate.

The budget was debated for four days and was adopted by the House on April 4. The Minister of Finance then introduced Bill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the 2012 budget implementation bill. The debate at second reading of Bill C-38 was the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least two decades, and probably the longest ever.

On May 14, after seven days of debate, Bill C-38 was passed at second reading.

The bill has also undergone extensive study in committee. The Standing Committee on Finance held in-depth hearings on the bill. The committee also created a special subcommittee for detailed examination of the bill's responsible resource development provisions. All told, this was the longest committee study of any budget implementation bill for at least the last two decades, and probably ever.

We need to pass Bill C-38 to implement the urgent provisions of economic action plan 2012. In addition to our economic measures, our government has brought forward and passed bills that keep the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election.

In a productive, hard-working and orderly way, we fulfilled long-standing commitments to give marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers, to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and to improve our democracy by moving every province closer to the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons.

However, in the past year our efforts to focus on the priorities of Canadians have been met with nothing but delay and obstruction tactics by the opposition. In some cases, opposition stalling and delaying tactics have meant that important bills are still not yet law. That is indeed regrettable.

In the case of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, a bill that will help to create good, high-paying jobs in Canada's creative and high-tech sectors, this House has debated the bill on 10 days. We heard 79 speeches on it before it was even sent to committee. This is, of course, on top of similar debate that occurred in previous Parliaments on similar bills.

It is important for us to get on with it and pass this bill for the sake of those sectors of our economy, to ensure that Canada remains competitive in a very dynamic, changing high-tech sector in the world, so that we can have Canadian jobs and Canadian leadership in that sector.

Bill C-24 is the bill to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It has also been the subject of numerous days of debate, in fact dozens and dozens of speeches in the House, and it has not even made it to committee yet.

Bill C-23 is the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act. It also implements another important job-creating free trade agreement.

All three of these bills have actually been before this place longer than for just the last year. As I indicated, they were originally introduced in previous Parliaments. Even then, they were supported by a majority of members of this House and were adopted and sent to committee. However, they are still not law.

We are here to work hard for Canadians. Adopting today's motion would give the House sufficient time to make progress on each of these bills prior to the summer recess. Adopting today's motion would also give us time to pass Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. It is a much-needed piece of legislation that would give Canadians in small businesses and self-employed workers yet another option to help support them in saving for their retirement. Our government is committed to giving Canadians as many options as possible to secure their retirement and to have that income security our seniors need. This is another example of how we can work to give them those options.

In addition to these bills that have been obstructed, opposed or delayed one way or another by the opposition, there are numerous bills that potentially have support from the opposition side but still have not yet come to a vote. By adding hours to each working day in the House over the next two weeks, we would allow time for these bills to come before members of Parliament for a vote. These include: Bill C-12, safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; and Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I might add, that bill is long overdue as our military justice system is in need of these proposed changes. It has been looking for them for some time. It is a fairly small and discrete bill and taking so long to pass this House is not a testament to our productivity and efficiency. I hope we will be able to proceed with that.

Bill C-27 is the first nations financial transparency act, another step forward in accountability. Bill C-28 is the financial literacy leader act. At a time when we are concerned about people's financial circumstances, not just countries' but individuals', this is a positive step forward to help people improve their financial literacy so all Canadians can face a more secure financial future. Bill C-36 is the protecting Canada's seniors act which aims to prevent elder abuse. Does it not make sense that we move forward on that to provide Canadian seniors the protection they need from those very heinous crimes and offences which have become increasingly common in news reports in recent years?

Bill C-37 is the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. This is another major step forward for readjusting our justice system which has been seen by most Canadians as being for too long concerned only about the rights and privileges of the criminals who are appearing in it, with insufficient consideration for the needs of victims and the impact of those criminal acts on them. We want to see a rebalancing of the system and that is why Bill C-37 is so important.

Of course, we have bills that have already been through the Senate, and are waiting on us to deal with them. Bill S-2, which deals with matrimonial real property, which would give fairness and equality to women on reserve, long overdue in this country. Let us get on with it and give first nations women the real property rights they deserve. Then there is Bill S-6, first nations electoral reform, a provision we want to see in place to advance democracy. Bill S-8 is the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill S-7 is the combatting terrorism act.

As members can see, there is plenty more work for this House to do. As members of Parliament, the least we can do is put in a bit of overtime and get these important measures passed.

In conclusion, Canada's economic strength, our advantage in these uncertain times, and our stability also depend on political stability and strong leadership. Across the world, political gridlock and indecision have led to economic uncertainty and they continue to threaten the world economy. That is not what Canadians want for their government. Our government is taking action to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. That is why all members need to work together in a time of global economic uncertainty to advance the important bills I have identified, before we adjourn for the summer.

I call on all members to support today's motion to extend the working hours of this House by a few hours for the next two weeks. For the members opposite, not only do I hope for their support in this motion, I also hope I can count on them to put the interests of Canadians first and work with this government to pass the important bills that remain before us.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite as enthusiastic as the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, but I will try.

This morning, my hon. friend, the member for Edmonton—Leduc and chair of the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance reported to this House that Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, has passed the committee and been recommended for adoption by the House.

I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Finance followed the lead of the House with respect to the longest debate on a budget bill in the past two decades. The committee gave this bill the longest consideration for a budget bill in at least two decades. That is in addition to the subcommittee spending additional time to consider the responsible resource development clauses.

This very important legislation, our budget implementation legislation, economic action plan 2012, will help to secure vital economic growth for Canada in the short, medium and long term. Given the fragile world economy that is around us, this bill is clearly needed, so we must move forward. Therefore, I plan to start report stage on the bill Monday at noon.

In the interim, we will consider second reading of Bill C-24 this afternoon. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with Panama, which I signed when I was international trade minister, some 755 days ago. It is now time to get that bill passed.

Tomorrow, we will consider third reading of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, so the Senate will have an opportunity to review the bill before it must become law, within a few weeks' time.

Next week I plan to give priority to bills which have been reported back from committee. It goes without saying that we will debate Bill C-38, our budget implementation bill. I am given to understand that there is a lot of interest this time around in the process of report stage motion tabling, selection and grouping.

Additionally, we will finish third reading of Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act, and Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan economic growth and prosperity act.

The House will also finish third reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. The bill is a vital tool to unlock the potential of our creative and digital economy. It is time that elected parliamentarians should have their say on its passage once and for all. I would like to see that vote happen no later than Monday, June 18.

If we have time remaining, the House will also debate second reading of Bill C-24, the Panama free trade act, if more time is necessary, as well as for Bill C-7, the Senate reform act, and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

Third Reading

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-25, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. I would like to say from the outset that like my colleagues from the NDP and from all the opposition parties, I am very disappointed in this bill, because contrary to what the title suggests, this can hardly be called a pooled pension plan.

Before getting into the details of the bill, I would like to put into context the situation with pension plans and the Canadians who are depending on them. According to the Conference Board of Canada, 1.6 million seniors in Canada are living below the poverty line, and this bill will do nothing to help them. What is more, according to the Canadian Labour Congress, 12 million Canadians lack a workplace pension plan. Unfortunately, we do not believe that this bill will do much to help those 12 million Canadians gain access to a pension plan either.

By OECD standards, the CPP and QPP systems are relatively inadequate. Other similar countries have guarantees and much more generous public pension plans than ours. In the United States, maximum social security benefits are about $30,000 a year. Here in Canada they are about $12,000 a year and, if we add the $7,000 a year from old age security for the less fortunate, that is still far from what is being done in the United States.

According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, most Canadian workers do not have RRSPs. Over the past few years, only roughly 25% of Canadians have contributed to their RRSP, which is far from what it should be. That suggests that, unfortunately, Canadians do not have the means to contribute.

In fact, I am disappointed because this bill will simply create a new type of savings plan enabling the funds from plan members' accounts to be pooled in order to reduce the costs associated with the management of investments and of the plan itself. The program is called a pooled registered pension plan, but it would be more appropriate to call it a savings plan, because this bill cannot guarantee that it will provide any retirement income.

This bill is designed for self-employed individuals and employees of small and medium-sized businesses, which are often unable to manage a private sector pension plan. The system created by the passage of this legislation would be a defined contribution plan. Employees would contribute a portion of their earnings to a retirement fund, and that money would be invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and so on. Some companies might match their employees' contributions, up to a certain percentage.

The account grows through contributions and investment income until retirement. However, with this kind of defined contribution plan, there can be no guarantee about the amount of money that will be available upon retirement. Thus, it is the individual, the employee, who assumes all of the risks associated with the investments. With this kind of system, the amount of money available upon retirement depends on market fluctuations, and markets have not exactly been stable over the past 10 years. I invested in RRSPs and I have less money now than when I invested 10 years ago. These investments are not reliable; they are risky.

Defined contribution plans do not provide the same level of income security as defined benefit plans, such as the CPP and the QPP, which guarantee a certain payout upon retirement. Pooled registered pension plans would be managed by regulated financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies and investment companies. The latest numbers on CPP investment returns show that the plan has lost hardly any ground over the past few years—less than 1%—while the stock markets, in which the government wants Canadians to invest their savings through pooled registered pension plans, have declined by about 11%.

Pooled registered pension plans will not provide workers with greater retirement income security because they will simply encourage families to gamble their retirement savings on the stock market, which often goes down instead of up.

As I said, anyone who has ever watched his RRSP take a dive knows how risky it is to invest his savings in the stock market. The government is so out of touch with reality that it is encouraging families to double down on what has turned out to be a system that does not work very well. With such an unstable economy, families do not need to take on any more risk. They need the stability of the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. Many economists and provincial leaders have said as much over the past few years, but the government has turned its back on families and refused to consider this solution.

Bill C-25 does not cap administrative fees or costs and assumes that competition will keep costs low. Once again, the government is dreaming in colour because it is relying on the invisible hand of the market and hoping that that alone will keep administrative costs and fees as low as possible. But as the Australian experience proves, that hope is in vain. More than 10 years ago, Australia created a similar plan. The results were disappointing, to say the least. The plan had been in existence for 12 years when the Australian government-ordered review of it showed that even though people were saving money through mandatory contributions, the returns on their investments were no greater than inflation. In many years, returns were lower than inflation.

The report attributed these disappointing results to the very high costs, despite the fact that it was originally thought that competition among companies would lead to lower costs. That was unfortunately not the case. However, the Conservatives do not want to learn from the Australians' experience, which was essentially a failure. With this bill, the government would rather hide behind its ideological ideas and make decisions without truly examining the issue.

In six years, the government has unfortunately not done much to help provide security for Canadian retirees. This bill appears to have been hastily drafted in response to pressure from union groups, seniors' groups and political parties, particularly the NDP, which, after the last election campaign, proposed an increase in Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan benefits.

Bill C-25 is a half measure, when what we truly need is some real, concrete action. Canadians deserve and want more than what the government is proposing. Once again, the Prime Minister is putting the interests of Bay Street giants and insurance companies ahead of the interests of Canadians. It is time for the government to take real action to increase the number of Canadians who have access to retirement security and to lower the current number of 12 million Canadians who do not have access to these plans. Bill C-25 will not help achieve that objective.

Canadians do not need new private, voluntary savings plans. They really need concrete measures to ensure that they will be able to retire with dignity.

The NDP is proposing doubling the benefits provided by the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan to a maximum of close to $2,000 a month. The NDP wants to work with the provinces to make it easier for workers and employers who want to make voluntary contributions to individual public pension accounts. The NDP also wants to amend federal bankruptcy legislation to move pensioners and long-term disability recipients to the front of the line of creditors when their employers file for bankruptcy protection. The NDP also wants to increase the annual guaranteed income supplement in order to lift every senior in Canada out of poverty immediately.

The NDP understands that Canadians want more than what the government is proposing with the pooled registered pension plan. The NDP will obviously not support this bill because it merely offers a new type of savings plan and does not even come close to solving the problem of making pension plans accessible.

In closing, the NDP urges the government to abandon Bill C-25 at third reading and to come up with a real plan that will help the 12 million Canadians who do not have a pension plan and the 16 million seniors who are living below the poverty line.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill C-25.

I would think that all members of the House would see this as a benefit to all Canadians, particularly, as previously stated, the self-employed, small and medium-sized businesses and organizations that are probably too small to have their own plan but would like to offer another form of investment in the people they employ and an opportunity for people to grow within that company and stay with it based on the fact that they would have a plan at the end of the day that provides for their retirement.

As many are aware, our government understands the importance of a secure and dignified retirement for people who spent their entire lives building a better and more prosperous Canada and for their families themselves. This legislation would take Canada's retirement income system one step further by helping more Canadians realize their retirement goals.

A lot of work was put into developing this proposal. Canada's retirement system is strong but that does not mean it cannot be improved, that we cannot offer enhancements to pick up those individuals outside of the circle and offer them something better and an opportunity to invest for their retirement. This legislation addresses exactly that.

We all have memories of the crisis of 2008 and how it brought out concerns with regard to retirement. We all asked ourselves if our pension would be adequate, if we would be able to retire in the style we choose. I suspect upon reflection many people found they would not be able to. Things changed dramatically after 2008. If people were in the stock market or in RRSPs or in any type of investment, they took a hit. There is no question about it. The proposal we are putting forward would address that.

We did not do this blindly. We did it through co-operation and discussion with provinces and finance ministers across Canada, with people in our communities and, as the previous speaker mentioned, small business people. I was a small business person too. We always looked for opportunities to provide our employees with better security and better programs. Quite often we had to make the decision that we could not afford it.

This would address many of those issues. As I said, we did not do this blindly. We did it with a lot of consultation. We are trying to provide Canadians with an adequate standard of living upon retirement, and that is what everyone wants.

During the consultation period we found out that modest and middle income Canadians risked facing retirement with insufficient savings. Of particular concern was the declining participation in employer-sponsored RPPs. The proportion of working Canadians with such plans declined from 41% in 1991. Canadians are not taking full advantage of other retirement saving tools, like the RRSP.

I have been told that there is $600 billion in unused RRSP room. That is a clear indication that Canadians have priorities, and their families are their priorities. Sometimes we make those decisions and forget about the future. We need to always be aware of that and have that in our view.

With these findings, our government went to work on behalf of Canadians. We consulted, we met with provincial and territorial counterparts and held discussions with many businesses and we came to today's legislation.

In short, PRPPs are a new, innovative, privately administered, low cost and accessible pension option to help Canadians meet their retirement goals.

PRPPs are particularly important and significant for small and medium-sized businesses. It is quite often unaffordable for business owners to provide these types of benefits. The bill would give them that opportunity, because it would enable owners and employees alike to have access to a large-scale, low-cost private pension plan for the first time. We basically would piggyback on larger corporations. We would get a better buy-in and we would get a better return because of the pooled funds.

Professional administrators would be subject to a fiduciary standard of care to ensure that funds were invested in the best interests of the plan. That is obviously a given, but I think it needs to be said.

By pooling pension savings, PRPPs would offer Canadians greater purchasing power. Basically, we would be buying in bulk. We would be getting a bigger, better deal for less money. By achieving lower prices than would otherwise be available to Canadians, it would mean more money left in the pockets of those same Canadians when they retire.

The design of the plan would also be straightforward to allow for simple enrolment and management. People in small and medium-sized businesses, the self-employed, I suspect, and the employees themselves will like the simplified form.

Finally, they are intended to be largely harmonized from province to province, which further lowers administrative costs and makes the transferability a lot easier to deal with.

Overall, these design features would remove any of the traditional barriers that might have kept some employers from offering pension plans to their employees.

It is my belief that this would lead to a greater willingness for small and medium-sized businesses to offer PRPPs. That is crucial. It is crucial because, incredibly, more than 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. That is a huge number. When the members opposite look at it and talk to their friends, they will see it would include a lot of the people who support them and work with them in their day-to-day lives, and it is important that we try to include them in the discussion.

With PRPPs, participation would be encouraged by automatic enrolment of employees into a PRPP where an employer offered one. The automatic enrolment would encourage regular savings by making participation the default choice of employees who do not actively make a decision to opt out.

I remember the best advice I ever received as a young person entering the workforce in a family business was from a financial advisor who told me to just take a little bit off my cheque every month as I would never miss it. Then, as I grew older and my needs changed and my income earnings changed, I could increase it. It is the best advice I have ever received and the best advice I have ever given my children or their friends.

Canada's finance ministers decided to proceed with the PRPP framework precisely because it was considered an effective and appropriate way to target the modest and middle-income individuals who may not be saving enough for retirement, particularly those who currently do not have access to an employer-sponsored pension plan. These PRPPs would strike the right balance.

I know that if the NDP members had their way they would double CPP benefits and increase payroll taxes on small and medium-sized businesses, but that is not the way this government operates. At a time when Canada's economic recovery is still fragile, imposing a job-killing tax on the creators of those very jobs would be simply irresponsible.

PRPPs would be an efficiently managed privately administered pension plan that would provide greater choice to employers and individuals and promote pension coverage and retirement saving.

Once the provinces put in place their PRPP legislation, the legislative and regulatory framework would be operational. This would allow administrators to develop and offer plans to Canadians and their employers. Working together with the provinces, I know and I am confident that we can get these important new retirement vehicles up and running for Canadians in a timely manner.

It is important to remember that PRPPs would not just stand by themselves. They would be part of a bigger picture, part of Canada's retirement income system. We must always remember that. This bill is designed to help the many who do not qualify or are unable to have a pension plan within the confines of where they work. I know the Minister of State for Finance has gone to great lengths to listen to Canadians and to hear what they asked for and what they need. I believe this bill responds to their needs in a very positive way.

I encourage all Canadians and all members of Parliament to support this legislation.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

Our government understands that hard-working Canadians and seniors want an effective and sustainable retirement income system that will help them achieve their retirement goals. That is why I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-25, an act that would implement the federal framework for pooled registered plans, or PRPPs.

PRPPs would mark a significant step forward in improving Canada's retirement income system by providing a new pension option to Canadians. Currently, 60% of Canadians do not even have access to a workplace pension plan. Most of these Canadians work for small and medium-sized businesses or are self-employed. Clearly, this represents a gap in Canada's retirement income system, a gap that PRPPs would fill.

PRPPs would allow these Canadians to access a pension plan for the very first time. In short, PRPPs would be a broad-based, low-cost, privately administered pension plan option. We may think of it this way: pooling pension savings would spread the cost of administering the pension funds over a large group of people. This would allow plan members to benefit from lower investment management costs, lower than those typically associated with the average mutual fund. Do members know what this would mean? It would mean that more Canadians would have more money left in their pockets for when they retire.

Simply put, the PRPP is the most effective and targeted way to address the gap in Canada's retirement income system. How will it do that, one might ask? PRPPs would address this gap by providing a new, accessible, straightforward and administratively low-cost retirement option for employers to offer to their employees; allowing individuals who currently may not participate in a pension plan, such as the self-employed or employees of companies that do not offer pension plans, to make use of this new option; enabling more people to benefit from lower investment management costs that result from membership in a large pooled pension plan; allowing for the portability of benefits, facilitating an easy transfer between plans; and, finally, ensuring that funds would be invested in the best interests of plan members.

Clearly, PRPPs are what Canada's retirement income system has been waiting for. This is why it is so important that the provinces follow the lead of our government and implement PRPPs as quickly as possible. Doing so would enable Canadians from coast to coast to coast to take advantage of this great new pension option.

Unfortunately, not everyone feels the same way. While our government is trying to implement PRPPs, the NDP would rather take the irresponsible and reckless route. It wants to double CPP. Do people know what that would do? It would result in higher CPP contribution rates for employers, employees and the self-employed. In the case of small and medium-sized business owners, it would act as a payroll tax, and that is a tax on job creators.

Members need not take my word for it. Let us hear what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had to say. According to its research, “to double CPP benefits would kill 1.2 million person-years of employment in the short term”. Only the NDP would propose something so reckless. That is the difference between our Conservative government and the irresponsible NDP.

While our government is committed to generating economic growth and long-term prosperity, the NDP has no problem jeopardizing Canada's fragile economic recovery by imposing higher taxes on job creators. That, to me, is unbelievable.

It should be clear that doubling the CPP is the wrong decision for Canada and our economy. Unlike the NDP, our government believes that lower taxes help to generate economic growth and create jobs for Canadians.

Let us just look at the facts. Since July 2009, more than 750,000 net new jobs have been created. What is more, Forbes magazine ranks Canada as the best place for businesses to grow and create jobs. When it comes to the economy, there is no doubt why Canadians trust this government. This government gets results. That is why Canadians trust this government to keep Canada's retirement income system strong.

I will take a moment to tell the House just how much our government has done to ensure that Canada's retirement income system will continue to be the envy of the world.

Since 2006, our government has increased the age credit amount by $1,000 in 2006 and by another $1,000 in 2009. Next, we doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit to $2,000. Our government introduced pension income splitting, and we increased the age limit for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs, to 71 from 69 years of age.

What is more, budget 2008 introduced the tax-free savings account, which is particularly beneficial to seniors as it helps them to meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax-efficient basis. Our record also includes important improvements to several specific retirement income supports. Budget 2008 increased to $3,500 the amount that can be earned before the GIS is reduced. This means GIS recipients will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money without any reduction in GIS benefits. Budget 2008 also increased flexibility for seniors and older workers with federally regulated pension assets that are held in life income funds.

Budget 2011, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, announced new measures to improve seniors' financial security and ensure they can benefit from and contribute to the quality of life in their communities. The plan includes a new GIS top-up benefit targeted to the most vulnerable seniors. Since July 1, 2011, seniors with little or no income have been receiving additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples.

The plan also provides an additional $10 million over two years to enhance the new horizons for seniors program. This additional funding will enable more seniors to participate in social activities, pursue an active life and contribute to their community. It will also provide funding for projects that will increase awareness of elder abuse and promote volunteering, mentoring and improved social participation of seniors.

Canadians just have to look at our record to know that this Conservative government is on their side, and the proposed PRPP is just the latest example. However, members need not take my word for it. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce states:

PRPPs—with simple and straightforward rules and processes—will give many businesses the flexibility and tools they need to help their employees save for retirement.

Greg Thomas, the federal and Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says:

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.

It seems clear to me and to Canadians that PRPPs are the way to go.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts.

I am trying to bring a little balance to the debate today. I have listened to what the members of the NDP and Conservatives have said. I understand the government has realized that Canadians are worried about their retirement or realized, finally, that something has to be done.

I think it was two years ago that my friend, the Minister of State for Finance, travelled across the country, had consultations and came up with something called a pooled registered pension plan, which is an offshoot of the registered retirement savings plan. Now the government is making a big PR event out of it. Again, I agree with the member for Burlington, that it is an extra tool in the toolbox. That is why we support it. However, that is not the answer to the crisis we are having or the retirement savings and their future that people are worried about.

We have had six years of the Conservative government, with increases in hidden taxes. That has been part of the cause. Canadians have less money in their pockets to put toward retirement. We have had a lot of pressure on Canadians, whether they have lost their jobs or have had to take on other responsibilities. We have seen Canadians of all age groups having less money in their pockets, for various reasons. As I have said, most of this had led to some of the policies of the Conservative government.

Even those who do have savings are worried about retirement. We have seen rates of interest that have been the lowest ever in history. Therefore, even people who have money put away in a savings account are barely getting 1%. A lot of times it has been 0.5% or 0.25%. Canada savings bonds used to pay 10%. They are now paying less than 2% and 3%, if people are lucky because they have been holding on to the bonds for six or seven years. We expect these interest rates to continue to be low.

Canadians have taken risks. They may be retiring in a couple of years and need to get their retirement savings up. How do they do that? Maybe they take a gamble on something, but are they not sure what it will be. Some people have put it in the stock market.

We saw what happened a couple of years ago with the tech bubble where people put tons of money in companies like Nortel, which was supposed to be the most secure company around. It was an offshoot of Bell Canada. Some people got their shares for free, like my parents. They decided to keep them. The stock went up to $100 then $200 a share. They decided to buy some more because it was going to go to $400, trading in multiples based on sales never heard before. That was the way these tech stocks were evaluated. All of a sudden, overnight, stock portfolios of millions and millions of dollars went down to zero. We are still seeing lawyers making money from the Nortel bankruptcy. People who have disability plans and pension plans with Nortel cannot get their money out. They cannot get paid because the lawyers are holding up the distribution. The government is not willing to help these people. There is some money stuck out in some tax haven and the only people making money are the professionals, and people see this.

As recently as the bank crisis a couple of years ago, people thought it was secure to have stocks in the banks. They put their money in the banks thinking it was as secure as ever. Then we saw the bank closures in the states. We were lucky in Canada, but we cannot put all our eggs in one basket, as most personal investment advisers say. They will also advise to diversify. People who took the advice of professional advisers, they would have lost some money a couple of years ago by having their money in bank stocks.

Again, people are worried. People have invested money in resources. People have invested money in the past in metals such as gold. As recently as a few years ago, gold was at a couple of hundred bucks. Now, if one was lucky enough to have invested in gold, it is at $2,000 an ounce practically, but who can forecast those things?

Some people have their money invested in secure investments such as bonds, but countries have gone bankrupt and are unable to pay their bondholders. They are being renegotiated. Who is making the big money? It is the big players. I do not see how individuals who are busy trying to raise a family will make any more money than they can make today.

Again, some people are taking more risks, such as in real estate. We see what is happening in the real estate market across the country if one is fortunate enough to buy a condo. It seems like the condo market is fine. Those who live in a condo may buy another one to rent out to maybe make some money. However, as soon as the condo market collapses, as is predicted, they may have to take some money out of their retirement savings to supplement these real estate deals.

Therefore, I do not see how the government could think that people can easily put some money into a pooled savings plan that is administered by somebody we do not know and all of a sudden, miraculously, their retirement savings will be secure for a 5, 10, 15 or 25-year period.

For years, the Liberal Party has said that we should start with the Canada pension plan. In Quebec, it is the Quebec pension plan. It survived relatively well in comparison to many of the other private pension plans, so we should be working with that.

Elderly Canadians are not the only ones who are beginning to worry. As I have said before, we have young people who are worried about their future. We see Quebeckers who are going to the streets based on the fact that their tuition fees and cost of living are going up. They see a crisis developing in the next while. That all means they know their retirement will be affected because the Conservative government has told them they will not be able to retire until the age of 67.

This is nothing new. We have had crises, whether it be over pensions or other issues. In the 1990s, the Liberal government recognized that the Canada pension plan was not sustainable and action had to be taken. What did we do? We consulted with individuals and stakeholders, not just our friends. We met with the provinces. We looked at how we could secure the CPP in the long term and we did not just issue talking points.

We realized there was a problem, and we did not turn to private institutions to solve it. We negotiated truly, we invoked thought-provoking discussions and, miraculously, we came to an agreement with all of the provinces. It was not self-imposed. It was not dictated to them, as the current government likes to do. We recently saw that with the health accord. The previous Liberal government sat down with all the provinces and discussed the issues and the needs, came to an agreement and signed a 10-year health accord. The Conservative government has said that it does not need to discuss anything with the provinces. It will give them some money and increase it at a certain level. After that, it is their problem, even though it knows that the cost of health care will increase within five to ten years.

Coming back to the bill, the government says that it will secure people's pensions. In actual fact, the only thing we think it will do is make the banks and insurance companies happy by allowing them to offer pooled registered pension plans to employers and the self-employed in federal jurisdictions. It would also provide a framework for provinces to pass similar legislation.

The budget tabled recently in the Quebec National Assembly provides for companies to offer this pooled registered pension plan to their employees, which we have not seen in the other provinces.

I do not believe the province of Ontario passed it in the last budget and there has not been any movement with the other provinces. I am sure somebody on the other side will correct me.

We also think it is great that the administrators of the plans will be regulated. Financial institutions need a special licence from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and we have no problem with that.

The only problem is that most individuals already have trouble saving. A lot of them are working in low-paying jobs. Many of them work for small companies, which do not have the time, energy, resources or ability to set up these plans no matter how easy it is. It will be very difficult to see any of these smaller companies implement a registered pension plan. As an accountant by trade, I just do not see it.

A lot of employers would not want to make RRSP contributions, even for employees who want to have them deducted from their pay cheques and put aside. They do not want to take on that responsibility. There would have to be separate accounting, extra cheques would be involved, for example, and administration. They would have to hold the money in an account, ensure there is enough money in that account a month later to make the remittance, and then ensure the amounts are deposited into the correct employees' accounts. I could go on and on. I do not see why we would not use the tool available to us, which would be the CPP or the QPP.

Companies would have the option of rolling into a plan. If it is not made mandatory and companies would have an option, I am not so sure how many companies would take us up on that, unless of course they have a dedicated payroll resource person and they really need to keep these employees and the employees all agree they need to have this plan.

Again, we are not asking the employer to contribute, and we are not asking all the employees of a certain company to opt in. They have the option of opting out. A company may only have 10 or 20 employees. If only 2%, 3%, or less than 50% of them opt in, I do not see why that company would go to the trouble of setting up a pooled registered pension plan.

Also, the troubling part is that this new option is another private registered savings vehicle, which more than likely would help the financial institutions. I think it was a member from the Conservative Party who stated Canadians, on average, have $80,000 of unused RRSP contributions. If there were an urgency because Canadians have totally utilized all their RRSP room, I would understand the purpose of coming up with something like this.

Right now, the only people I am aware of who are using their RRSP to the maximum, again, using my background as an accountant and speaking to my accounting friends and bankers, are people who can afford it. That means it is the higher-income people. I do not see the necessity to start a program just for these people.

The Liberals believe the solution is that we do not need to look any further than working with the Canada pension plan and the QPP to help people save for retirement. The CPP and QPP have proven track records. They have been stable and secure. Even through these economic downturns, they have been quite strong.

We see it in Quebec. The QPP has rebounded in the last two years, with rates of return close to 10%. There was a bit of a crisis about three years ago where it lost tons of money in certain investments in the banking sector. It changed its management. It changed its direction. It made recent statements that it is going to change direction again. It will be looking at making investments in infrastructure and other areas that would require a lot of money that individuals do not have in their RRSPs.

Even if we wanted to take the example of these pooled registered pension plans, there would not be enough money in these pooled plans to be able to diversify risk, as the CPP and the QPP are doing today. Supplementary CPPs could allow those who want to investment more in a secure retirement vehicle to do so.

Again, we are not sure about the fees. I know we are very worried about the fees. Even if these registered pooled pension plans start with low management fees, it would be a matter of time before the banks and insurance companies get a hold of people's accounts and hold them hostage. If the funds do a good job and the return is high, we know what would happen. All of a sudden, the fees will go up. If there is no return, the fees will stay the same. I do not see how we are going to win with this.

Again, we would be adding another level of complexity to people's options for savings, such as deciding what to do their money when they change employers: “Do I keep it in this pooled retirement savings plan? Do I keep it with the bank? Do I move it to an insurance company. What point am I at in my life? Am I going to be retiring in five years, ten years, fifteen years?

The administration of what an individual is to do with the money in that pooled registered pension plan would be a headache for unsophisticated investors, and the areas they would want to invest in would add another level of complexity.

We could look at options for opening it up further. One of the options would be for government to look at options to help those who are in the low-paid workforce. These are people who are moving from job to job, and they are the people who need the most help with their retirement savings.

In making these decisions, we need to look at the evidence. Policy decisions, such as retirement savings plans for Canadians, were not made on a whim but rather based on solid evidence.

Somebody also stated that Australia implemented a similar program to the pooled registered pension plans. After 10 years, it was obvious that the only ones making money were the financial institutions. In Australia, $161 billion of investments were made in pooled pension plans versus $105 billion in fees that were taken out of these plans. It is not dollar for dollar, but 80¢ was charged for every dollar that was put into the pooled pension plan.

A recent study by the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management found that despite the presumed role of competition, the investment performance of the system continued to be restrained, again by high fees and costs. We think this could be averted by using the CPP or QPP as the supplementary retirement investment tool.

As parliamentarians, we should also be concerned by all of this and perhaps look at how we could improve the pooled registered pension plan, or look at other options. The other option is easily the CPP, QPP.

However, we have seen that the Conservatives have already made up their minds. Like many other things, they will not listen to anyone else's opinion, or reason. They will not even look at evidence on a lot of issues. They will blindly follow this approach and put their hands over their ears and march on.

As we have seen today, the Conservatives have moved time allocation so we can no longer debate this issue. The very reason each and every one of us is elected to this House is for debate, but they decided they have heard enough, or they have pretended they have heard, and have imposed time allocation on this particular bill. This is one of many bills on which they have imposed time allocation. In Parliament, they have imposed time allocation over 60 times, and if we include committees, we are almost at the 300-point mark.

It is important to talk about how we got to a point where we suddenly have to rush through the bill. The minister of state consulted on this for about two years, and then all of a sudden there seems to be a rush to get the bill through. There have been concerns about retirement security for some time, while the Canada pension plan, and I repeat, the Canada pension plan has been secure for at least 75 years. It is not just the CPP that has been secure, but also QPP.

Canadians also need to save more for retirement to live comfortably. We all agree with that.

It was in 2009 that the Conservatives announced the consultation on pension reform. Now, all of a sudden, as I said, it has been a rush. In December 2010, the Conservatives announced this program, I will not call it a scheme, but a program.

I will wrap it up. I have a lot more notes that I could go through.

Retirement income for Canadians is important. Pensions all of a sudden have become an issue. It has always been an issue, but as we get older it becomes a greater issue.

The government has created a crisis by changing the age of retirement for being able to collect OAS. I am in favour of the flexibility the OAS will provide, but I am not in favour of changing the age from 65 to 67. One of the first people it would affect would be me. The government will be taking about $12,000 out of my pocket, and I have not even got there yet.

I do not see how Canadians could be happy with that. I do not need the money, but imagine how Canadians my age, who are relying on this money, feel about $12,000 being thrown away overnight like that.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place and represent the constituents of Crowfoot and speak on their behalf in this House of Commons.

I realize that the introduction to this will not necessarily deal immediately with the pooled registered retirement plan, but over the last couple of days here on Parliament Hill we have had some major announcements about some things that I had never heard about.

Two days ago, the Minister of Health and a couple of other ministers made an announcement about a drug known as “bath salts”, which was a negative part of the drug culture and basic culture around the world, where people, young and old, were using this new drug, and so we banned it. My point is that our government was stepping forward to protect Canadians from something that some of our young people may not have even realized at the time would be such a potent, devastating tragedy just waiting to happen.

Yesterday, we had another announcement about human trafficking where we stepped up and said that we would protect Canadians.

Our government is implementing plans across the country and across a wide scope of areas to protect Canadians. We are implementing plans to create jobs and enable small businesses to provide opportunities for retirement, which is what we are here debating today, because we want Canadians to be secure on our streets, in a job and in retirement. Bill C-25 is part of that plan.

Our Conservative government's efforts to help Canadians save for their retirement do not begin with a pooled registered pension plan. It begins with a vast number of other plans that we want to see stable and secure. We see and have heard that our CPP is stable and strong. In the 75 year projection, CPP will be very strong and it will be there when Canadians need it.

However, not always does one size fit all. Not always can we tell Canadians that only if they wait CPP will take care of them at the end of the day. I think every economist and all individuals who are trying to better their life or pass on some financial instruction to their children would encourage their children to save, not just to go out and get a job and pay into CPP, but that they look at a number of different avenues in which they can protect their retirement and have a strong retirement.

This is a modern-day effort to assist Canadians who are self-employed or who work for small firms or businesses that do not have part of a benefits package that includes a pension plan. Our intent is to help Canadians who work where there is no pension plan. Sometimes the opposition members stand back and say that we should just throw more money into CPP or we should have that wealth transfer so the wealthy can put more money into it and we will all get a bit more. The CPP is strong and maybe we can make it stronger but there needs to be more avenues than just the CPP and more avenues than just this pooled retirement pension plan.

Many constituents in my riding of Crowfoot do not have access to a pension plan. The colleague who just spoke said that 60% of Canadians do not have access to a pension plan. I live in a rural riding and I believe that is true in most rural or remote ridings in Canada.

I spoke to this bill at second reading. When I had town hall meetings, met with constituents and had satellite office days, constituents came to me and asked me about the pooled registered retirement savings plan. I explained to them that we were not trying to incorporate a mandatory plan for all Canadians. I told them that it was not another tax grab, that it was not another opportunity for the government to put more of a premium down on CPP or any one plan. I told them that this was an opportunity, if they so chose to do it, to invest in a pooled registered retirement plan.

Around our place this summer, we will have a different type of summer. My oldest child, my daughter, is getting married. With that has come all the fun things with being involved in wedding planning. For years we have sat down and talked to our children about planning for the future and about some day in the future buying a home. We have told them that even when they come right out of college they should purchase an RRSP, that they should look into all of those different avenues.

Now, as my daughter is preparing to get married, she and her fiancé have asked me to n go with them to look at a house. They are just out of college and yet they want to invest in a home. I have for years told my children that they want to buy a home with 20% to 25% down. Now my daughter is telling that, even though I always told her that it was important to have that 20% to 25% to put down, she does not have 5% to put down, which is why she needed me to look at a home. The point is that some of these lessons are learned. Our children learn that it is important to have equity in a home and that it is important to invest and prepare for the future. As a father, I want to be able to help where I can.

As a government, we also want to be able to help where we can. As a government, we want to be able to say that we will not only be satisfied with the CPP, that we will not only be satisfied with the tax free savings account and that we will not only be satisfied with a pooled pension plan, we want people to pick and choose and perhaps invest but to prepare.

In the rural constituency that I represent there are many farmers and many agricultural based companies who do not have a pooled registered pension plan. This is one of those opportunities. I commend our government for bringing this forward. I encourage the opposition to get off the bandwagon of one-size-fits-all and to recognize that when people have a registered plan they have something to count on.

Not only do we have agriculture in Crowfoot but many people work in the oil patch in Crowfoot. Many people today will be contracted to work for one company but in a year or two will be working for a different company. The thing I like about this plan is that people would be able to take the plan with them because it is a plan in which they invest. When they leave that company, maybe after two years, they would not need to decide whether to pull out that little chunk of money they put away in a pension plan and put it into an RRSP, which is really the only way to protect that money. There is the tax free savings account, but to save some taxes people can invest in an RRSP.

Now, as people switch from one company to another, one job to another or one contract to another, the pooled pension plan would remain constant. Now, when they go to the next place of employment that does not provide a pension plan, they would have this tool in their toolbox. It is something they will appreciate.

I encourage the opposition to recognize that there are many Canadians with many different groups. People cannot always reach into their toolbox and pull out a hammer. We reach in and pull out the tool that best suits our needs for the job that we are doing.

We are fortunate sitting here because we have pension plans. That is the topic of discussion, as well, in my constituency. I think it is time to say that this opportunity needs to avail for all those who want to take advantage of it. Our government is providing that tool and I congratulate it.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

However, I want to make it clear that this product will merely encourage people to save; it will not guarantee anyone's retirement income.

My colleague said that people can invest in these pension plans. But consider TFSAs, which are a similar product to help people save tax-free. Only 41% of Canadians have a TFSA, and nearly half of them earn $100,000 or more per year. Only 24% of those surveyed said they are using their TFSA to save for retirement. The product envisaged in Bill C-25 is the same as an existing retirement product.

Why does my colleague say that people will invest more if they are not required to, even though he knows that people who do not have money do not invest for their retirement?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts.

At first glance, this measure seems to be a good one. However, it turns out to be a half measure when we take a closer look. That is exactly what was done by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and even more so by the NDP in the House. This bill really has holes and problems. It has to be studied in its entirety, and we must figure out why the government has introduced this bill.

In Bill C-38 , the Conservatives attack seniors. That is clear. Just look at the provisions concerning the old age security program and the guaranteed income supplement.

The government has decided to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67 without providing any explanation. We posed questions to the Minister of Finance at the Standing Committee on Finance. The opposition was very insistent and, in the end, the government admitted that the savings would amount to $10.8 billion in 2030. The government is therefore balancing its budget at the expense of seniors and future generations, and that is a problem. We must understand where the government is coming from when we study this bill.

One of the first things that is obvious about the RPPP is that this product is very similar to an existing product, the RRSP.

In fact, RPPPs are more comparable to RRSPs—because they are administered by banks and financial institutions that will invest the money in the markets—than to a pension plan for seniors or future retirees.

On the weekend, one of my constituents told me that when he was younger, people talked about retiring at 55. They believed that if they invested as much as their advisor told them to into a retirement plan or their RRSP, they would be able to retire at 55, no problem. Today, that constituent is still working even though he is over 55 because these retirement investment products fluctuate with the market and the market has been turbulent lately. The investor's retirement income depends on the market.

What we are talking about today is exactly the same thing. It seems like the government has learned nothing from past mistakes and is doomed to repeat them. It claims it is introducing a product for the people who need it. Obviously everyone wants to have a stable and guaranteed retirement. However, this product does not offer such guarantees.

I would say it is like an RRSP because the employee is told to invest in this plan, but the employer is in no way forced to contribute to it. Therefore it is the employee who assumes all the risk. Of course, the employer might contribute, but that depends on his goodwill.

The government currently has tools such as the Canada pension plan and, in Quebec, the Quebec pension plan. These are solid plans.

No one across the way can deny that the Canada pension plan works, that it is well run and ensures a good retirement for those who are lucky enough to benefit from it: workers, self-employed workers, and people in the public and private sectors.

This plan exists and that is why we are saying that instead of creating a product that is similar to RRSPs or TFSAs, which we already have, the government should be investing in a plan that works. According to witnesses at the Standing Committee on Finance, the cost-benefit ratio for taxpayers is very high. It costs less to administer the CPP than to create a new product.

One problem is that this product is administered by financial institutions that want to generate profits. We know this; it is normal. At whose expense are these financial institutions going to make their profits? At the expense of those who have invested in this product. In this case, there is no guarantee. We talked about the fact that regulations might be brought in to ensure that the fees are not too high. However, there can be no guarantee that those fees will not go up over time. And when those fees go up, who loses? Who will have less money in the end? The people who paid in will lose. In this case, it will mainly be employees.

Rather than helping employees and people who are going to retire, the government is helping financial institutions, which, clearly, are already at an advantage thanks to the choices this government has made with previous budgets and the most recent budget. All the government is doing is continuing to reduce their tax rate so they can generate more profits. However, those profits do not go back to the common people. They do not go to those who want to retire with dignity and prepare for their future. Once again, clearly, this government does not have the best interests of seniors at heart.

My colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River introduced a bill to protect pension plans in case of bankruptcy. During the last election campaign, I met people. One person came to see me to say that we had come up with a very good idea, something that would protect them. He had spent a good part of his life working for Nortel, investing, working hard and keeping the economy going. Money was invested in his pension for the future. He was promised that he would be protected when he retired. We all know what happened in the end. Nortel went bankrupt. Because pensions were not protected, he is now living in misery. That is what he told me. This man's plight touched me deeply. He had tears in his eyes when he said that he had worked, he had invested, he had done everything he was expected to do, and yet the government failed to protect him.

What I find so difficult to understand is why the government does not really want to protect seniors, the people who truly helped build this country, who worked very hard. Thanks to these people, Canada has made progress in terms of the economy and quality of life. The government should be thanking them and telling them that they have worked hard, but what is it doing instead? It is giving them the cold shoulder. Not only that, but it is also attacking them. They worked hard and set money aside, but the government does not even want to protect them. What a shame to see that kind of attitude from the government.

As I said, that is what we are seeing in the budget, in Bill C-38. All of that and various changes have resulted in a record gap between rich and poor. That gap has been growing steadily since the Second World War. Of course, former Liberal governments have to take some of the blame, but so does the Conservative government.

The Conservative government is aware of the situation. The Conference Board of Canada and the OECD are saying it. The facts are there. The gap between the rich and poor is growing wider and wider, particularly in Canada, where it is growing more rapidly than in the United States. Imagine that. The United States has always seemed to be the prime example when it comes to this gap. Of the industrialized countries, Canada has surpassed the United States and other countries in how fast this gap is widening. It is because of measures like the budget and this bill that we are seeing these differences. Why? It is because the government is not helping those who need it most.

When we talk about old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, we are talking about people— seniors who are living on the edge of poverty. This government's solution is to tell them to work two years longer—to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67—and that things might be better for them later. This is a completely ideological way of doing things. As the OECD said, there is no problem; this is purely a government decision.

The House resumed from June 4 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.

Bill C-25—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the bill; and

at the expiry of the five hours, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-25—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, our government remains focused on jobs, growth and the long-term economic security of Canadians. That includes planning for their retirement and ensuring that Canadians do have a secure retirement. Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act, will create a new low-cost plan for these Canadians to help them save for their retirement.

In the last election, we committed to implementing this bill as soon as possible. It has been over a year since the election and Canadians expect the government to keep its commitments. Thus, it is with regret that I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at third reading of C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. colleagues across the aisle and the NDP members just do not seem to get it. They continue to advocate for something that is neither feasible nor has the support perceived.

I am talking about their proposal to double the Canada pension plan. There are several problems with this proposal. I will outline them for the NDP and see if it can be convinced once and for all that doubling the CPP is simply not practical.

Any change to the Canada pension plan is subject to a formula specified in the legislation. In case the NDP did not know, I mean the legislation governing the Canada pension plan. The legislation clearly stipulates that the CPP can only be amended by a consensus of two-thirds of the provinces, representing two-thirds of the population.

At the 2010 finance ministers' meeting, a number of provinces had strong objections to expanding CPP benefits. However, the ministers made a unanimous decision. They unanimously decided to set up a framework for pooled registered pensions plans.

Unlike the NDP's proposal, which does not have the support of the provinces, the decision to move forward with pooled registered pensions plans was unanimous. That is not the only problem with the NDP plan. To expand CPP benefits or, in the NDP's case, to double them, we would have to raise contribution rates.

Higher contribution rates would mean higher payroll costs for small and medium-sized businesses and higher premiums for workers and the self-employed. Unlike the NDP, our government remains focused on the economy. This means focusing on job creation and economic growth and Canada's long-term prosperity. Our government does not believe that now is the time to jeopardize Canada's fragile economic recovery by imposing higher costs on job creators.

The House might be interested to hear that many other groups share our government's philosophy that expanding the CPP in these turbulent economic times is the wrong choice.

For example, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, CFIB, for every 1% increase in CPP premiums beyond the current 9.9% tax rate, it would cost 220,000 person years of employment and force wages down roughly 2.5% in the long run. For those who want to double the CPP, they might be interested to know that, according to CFIB calculations, to double CPP benefits would kill 1.2 million person years of employment in the short term.

All these so-called solutions proposed by the NDP would be detrimental to Canada's economic performance. They would result in lower economic growth and lower job creation. This would mean more unemployed Canadians, a sort of the NDP way.

Members can rest assured that our Conservative government will not engage in such a reckless plan. Our government has a strong record of job creation and job growth. In fact, I am pleased to say that, since July 2009, over 750,000 net new jobs have been created in Canada. That is a result that Canadians appreciate and a result that the residents of Mississauga—Brampton South appreciate.

It is important to remember that Bill C-25 represents the federal portion of the PRPP framework. In order to make this available to all Canadians, the provinces must put in place their own PRPP legislation. Once that happens, PRPPs will be a key element to Canada's retirement income system.

However, my constituents may be denied the opportunity to partake in a PRPP. Unfortunately, the McGuinty government has indicated that it may tie the introduction of PRPPs to an expanded CPP. Simply put, such a decision serves only to deny hard-working Ontarians of a low-cost, broad-based workplace pension plan.

Guess what? Many others feel the same way. This is what the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association think of Mr. McGuinty's plan. In their words:

We do not support the concept that PRPP implementation should be tied to CPP enhancements. Given the time and processes involved in making any changes to CPP, this would only serve to delay an initiative that, in its own right, is viable, innovative and beneficial to Ontarians.

They go on to say:

It is time for Ontario now to step up to ensure that Ontario residents, particularly those who work for small and medium-sized businesses, can reap the benefits of a low-cost, accessible pension plan.

Why is the McGuinty government denying Ontario residents and my neighbours the ability to save for their retirement? Perhaps it is because, like the NDP, it does not understand how PRPPs work.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner, I wish to speak in support of the pooled registered pension plan.

In these tough economic times, our Conservative government continues to work hard to create jobs for Canadians. Naturally, one way of doing this is to support job creators. What do I mean by this? I mean supporting small and medium-sized businesses.

I am proud to say that this is one of the great aspects of Bill C-25, an act that would implement the federal framework for pooled registered pension plans.

The bill would remove traditional barriers that might have kept small and medium-sized businesses from offering a pension plan to their employees in the past.

Members may ask what are traditional barriers. One is responsibility. Under the PRPP framework, the fiduciary responsibility related to the management of pension plans would be shifted from the employer to a licensed third-party professional administrator.

The second traditional barrier is the administration of the pension. Under the PRPP framework, the administrative burden of the employer would be reduced. Again, most of this burden would be shifted to a licensed third-party professional administrator.

With these significant barriers removed, employers would be able to offer a workplace pension plan to their employees for the first time. In fact, the business community has already commented on how the reduced administrative burden would be of great benefit. For example, Thomas Lambert, the CEO of Canadian Multicultural Radio said:

The PRPP is just the kind of option we've been searching for. With the savings on the administrative costs we can incentivize our staff towards better retirements savings.

By offering a low-cost and administratively simple pension plan, employers would have a new tool to attract and retain skilled employees. I ask hon. members if they would not like to work for a company that offers a low-cost pension option to its employees, a pension option that aims to leave more money in their pocket when they retire. According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, that is exactly what PRPPs would do. It said:

...(PRPPs) would be a great option to attract new talent to our business. A pension plan draws a lot of the skilled people that we need to the larger corporations and this would be a nice edge to add to a great business.

There is even more. The introduction of PRPPs would be of great benefit in the self-employed medical profession. Here is what the Ontario Medical Association had to say:

The creation of pooled registered pension plans (PRPPs) levels the playing field by providing the self-employed, including physicians, with better access to additional savings opportunities that have up until now been unavailable.

Mr. Speaker, I am just reminded that I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Allow me this opportunity to explain how PRPPs would help these employees and self-employed Canadians achieve their retirement goals.

One of the great features of a PRPP is auto-enrolment. Where an employer offers a PRPP, all employees would be automatically enrolled. Not only would this increase participation, but it would also encourage more Canadians to save for their retirement.

Another great feature is portability. This means that when employees changed jobs, they could take their PRPP with them from job to job.

Another innovative feature of the PRPP is that the contributions by members would be locked in. This would ensure that plan members would have savings when they retired.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about one of the major benefits of the PRPP, and that is its low costs. It is clear that the opposition members do not fully understand this concept. Please allow me a moment to explain its key feature to them.

Essentially, PRPPs would facilitate low cost through their scale and design by achieving certain economies of scale. It does not matter whether a person manages $1 million or $100 million; the effort is the same.

As I mentioned earlier, PRPPs would have a broad-based availability. By pooling all these pension savings, the cost of administering the pension funds would be spread over a larger group of people. This would enable plan members to benefit from the lower investment management costs that are typically associated with the average larger mutual funds.

The low cost feature of PRPPs is something that stakeholders around the country are raving about. I will share with hon. members some of the feedback following our broadly based consultation. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:

A new voluntary, low-cost...retirement savings mechanism will allow more employers, employees, and the self-employed to participate in a pension plan....

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation comments:

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 through their working lives.

Unfortunately, instead of jumping on board with this great incentive, the opposition members would rather expand the Canada pension plan. Clearly, the opposition members are not interested in creating jobs. They are interested in taxing the job creators.

Make no mistake; our Conservative government would never take such a reckless and irresponsible position. Our government understands that the last thing job creators need in a time of global economic uncertainty is another tax hike.

Unlike the opposition, our Conservative government understands it is tax reduction that facilitates the creation of jobs and economic growth. That is why in our economic action plan 2012, our government is committed to extending hiring credits to small and medium-sized businesses for another year.

Do members know what this would mean? This would mean jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. On the economy, our record is clear. Since July 2009, more than 750,000 net new jobs have been created. That is a result Canadians appreciate.

With the passing of Bill C-25, federally regulated workers as well as those in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon would be able to take advantage of PRPPs.

I would hope that every province would pass legislation to implement the PRPP as soon as possible, so that all Canadians would be able to access the low-cost, broad-based pension plan.

The legislation is a win-win for both employers and employees. By introducing the PRPP, we would be strengthening Canada's retirement income system, a system that is viewed around the world with envy.

When it comes to PRPPs, our government is on board, small and medium-sized businesses are on board and, most important, Canadians are on board. The only real question is: Why are the members of the opposition not on board?

I would encourage all members of the House to stand and support the swift passage of Bill C-25. The sooner PRPPs are available, the sooner more Canadians could start saving for their retirement.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-25 at third reading. I am very happy to do so. I know that all members in the House share the common goal of making sure that all Canadians have security in their retirement. However, I am rising to speak against the pooled registered pension plan scheme for many reasons.

One of the reasons is that it would not actually guarantee a pension. As many on my side have pointed out, we should not be calling this a pension plan. Instead, it is a savings scheme. The second reason is that it would put the burden solely on employees and would not require any contribution from employers. It would allow employers to say they are doing something for employees' retirement, but they will pay for it. In that sense, the style of the plan is a bit deceptive.

It would not be indexed to inflation. When we combine that with no cap on administrative fees or costs, it means that the risks would be entirely borne by the employees. Therefore, when it came time for employees to retire, there would be no guarantee that they would even get back payments equally valued to the contributions they made.

How do we know that? We have seen the evidence from the Australian plan, which was put in place more than a decade ago, similar to this, called the Australian super fund. In the study of that plan by the Australian government recently, it showed exactly what I said, that the benefits were only equal to the rate of inflation. In fact, the employees who contributed were simply treading water and not really planning for secure retirement.

I have heard members on the other side ask why on earth I would oppose what is another tool in the tool box for retirement savings. I would first say that I am worried it would become another tool in the tool box of investment planners and banks to make more money for their long-term security instead of making more money for the people who actually contribute to those plans. Their tool box is already full, from my point of view, and there is no need to give them another profit source as I think this plan would obviously do.

Is it a real tool for employees to save for their retirement? It would certainly take money out of their cheques. Most families are struggling as it is just to make ends meet by providing housing, putting food on the table and providing for their kids. The vast majority of employees do not have any spare money to risk in a plan like this. Their money would be much better invested in an expanded Canada pension plan. The Canada pension plan is not a theory or ideology but a proven plan that has shown it has lower costs. Why does it have lower costs? Because it spreads out the administrative costs over the entire population. It is a plan that has lower risk. Why does it have lower risk? Because it spreads the risk across the entire population and provides a defined benefit indexed to inflation.

The CPP has a couple of other benefits that we do not often talk about. One of them is that increasing benefits in the CPP would ultimately reduce costs for government because it would reduce the demand for GIS payments. In other words, if people had been allowed to put money into a plan that would provide them a secure retirement and pay for it themselves, they would not be dependent on welfare at the end of their lives in terms of the GIS. That is no criticism of those who collect GIS. Most Canadians have not had the opportunity of having secure jobs with workplace pension plans that pay enough to provide secure income. The easy way to do that is to expand the Canada pension plan.

This has been on the public agenda since 1996 when the NDP government of British Columbia first put an expanded CPP on the table and tried to convince governments at that time. If it had begun with a slow increase in the contributions made by both workers and employers back in 1996, we would be in a place where the CPP would be providing double the benefits it provides now. We would have made a great dent in the problem of seniors poverty. It is still not too late. The NDP campaigned in the last election to do just that: begin with modest increases in the contributions by workers and employers and, over time, double the benefits that are being paid out by the CPP. Again, workers would be paying for their own secure retirement. It is not a welfare program. There would be no cost to government.

The Canada pension plan along with its parallel, the Quebec pension plan, have been major contributors to helping end poverty among seniors. As I said, it is an earned pension with all the dignity and self-esteem that comes with having provided for one's own retirement.

I would point out they are also very good for small business. We are talking about small businesses that are too small, really, to run their own workplace pension plan, that could not bear those administrative costs, that cannot recruit, as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment talked about, that cannot recruit employees because they cannot offer the same kind of benefits.

Yet, if the benefits under the Canada pension plan were increased, it would level that recruitment playing field for small businesses, because people would be earning an adequate pension in all jobs across the country.

Originally the CPP was designed, along with the QPP, to be supplemented by private pension plans, so the original plan was never meant to provide the full retirement income. It was thought at the time that workplace pension plans and other schemes would fill the gap to bring Canadians up to an adequate retirement income.

What we have learned is that that has not happened for several reasons. One of those, of course, is that more than 12 million Canadians lack any workplace pension plan of any kind. Even those who do have plans are quite often enrolled in plans which are not portable. We all know the days when people go to work for one company and stay there for 30 years are becoming more and more rare. Even if they had a private pension plan, when they are forced to change jobs, people often have to start over in a new private plan or cash out their benefits at that time.

The second problem with workplace pension plans that we have seen in the last years of economic crisis is that they are not secure. When a company goes bankrupt, unfortunately, those with disability pensions and those with workplace pensions are almost last in that line of creditors.

For that reason, the NDP has proposed, as another way of securing retirement incomes, the bankruptcy laws in this country need to be amended to place disability pensions and retirement pensions at the front of the line of creditors in the case of bankruptcy, so that those who have made contributions themselves would have their pension secured before the other creditors of those bankrupt companies. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for action on that very important point.

The Canadian government, under the Liberals, did recognize that retirement savings were inadequate. The government came up with the registered retirement savings plan to allow people to voluntarily put money into a plan to help supplement the CPP in their retirement. A good idea in theory, but the problem with that plan is that because of the high cost of living, the high cost of housing and other difficulties in making ends meet, only 31% of those who are eligible to contribute to RRSPs are actually able to do so. That means that this great solution to fill that gap has not been successful.

More recently the federal government came up with the idea of tax-free savings accounts. Once again, there is an implicit recognition that there is a gap in retirement income for Canadians. So the tax-free savings accounts were set up. Only about 41% of Canadians have established a tax-free savings account. Most of those say that they are not using it to save for retirement.

Most interesting to me, over half of those who have tax-free savings accounts earn more than $100,000 a year in income. They are obviously already able to take care of themselves when it comes to retirement. Most Canadians, obviously, do not earn anywhere near this figure and do not have extra money at the end of every month to put into a tax-free savings account.

The vast majority of Canadians are dependent on the CPP for their own retirement income. When we look at the benefit levels of $12,000 per year, it is clearly not enough. As I mentioned, it was not designed to be enough. It was designed to be supplemented by these other programs which have failed over time to do so.

Now it is time to revamp the CPP and QPP to make sure they provide an adequate retirement income, that we share the risk, that we spread this out over everyone in society, and make sure that everyone is secure in their income.

Clearly there are some other measures that are needed to attack the problem of inadequate retirement income. I mentioned amending the bankruptcy legislation in this country, and I think that is very important.

The NDP also promised that when we are government we will increase the GIS to immediately lift every senior out of poverty at a relatively modest cost.

Why not proceed with the CPP? The government says the provinces are not onside. It requires co-operation to change the CPP and the QPP. As far as I can tell, only one province was really opposed. I have seen no real effort from the federal government to bring the provinces onside to expand the CPP.

In conclusion, I would just like to remind members of the House that all Canadians would benefit from an expansion of the CPP, not just the fortunate few.

It would benefit small business. It would benefit workers changing jobs. In particular, it would benefit those who work hard all their lives in low-wage jobs and are not able to save for their retirement.

I urge the House, rather than create this new plan, which would do nothing to solve the problem, to turn instead to an expansion of the CPP-QPP program.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

Earlier, some members mentioned the fact that people may be watching us on television. I hope they have something else to do, because today's debate in the House is really going nowhere.

This is yet another bill with a rather confusing title. This bill, I believe, deals with pooled registered pension plans. But it really deals with savings, not pension plans. That makes me think that the people who work for the government legislators and think up the titles must also work for the paint companies like Sico, where long, evocative names are given to very simple things. If one day they brought us a bill proposing to cut down all the trees, they would call it “Prioritizing new species of vegetation.”

This bill does contain good intentions for small employers and small businesses. In itself, that could be praiseworthy, but the reality is different. I was listening to the member opposite talk about his favourite business, saying that it has the best tartufo or tiramisu or cheesecake around; he talked about the muffler repair shop near his house, and all these small businesses. It was wonderful: what a great story. But I have a tendency to think he was talking about some other local businesses, for example, the local branch of the Royal Bank of Canada, which made a profit of $5.7 billion in the last quarter, the Toronto Dominion Bank, which made a profit of $4.5 billion, or Scotiabank, where the profit was $4.3 billion. I could list a few of those.

We could believe that our colleagues across the aisle are acting in good faith. We could believe that they are listening to the little guys. Unfortunately, experience proves that they have a natural tendency to listen to the big guys, the big corporations, and neglect the little guys quite often. “Unfortunately”—that is a long word that reminds me of a five-letter word: Aveos. We cannot say that the government looks out for the little guy when we see how it behaved in that labour dispute.

When I say little guy, I mean the vast majority of the population. I am talking about people whose jobs do not provide them with very good protection plans.

Usually in society we come up with plans and programs to promote the common good, programs such as the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan. What strikes me is that when it comes to the common good for the little guy, the government just throws something together. Again, it prioritized a solution by throwing something together with its buddies: it says it will do one thing, a good thing, but then it turns around and does another. I keep saying this has to stop.

People are judged on their intentions. The intention of the Conservative government, generally speaking, is always to favour the big corporations. It wants Canada to be a good place to do business, big business. As we speak, it is the little guy who is paying for it and that is sad.

In the past six years, the Conservatives have done absolutely nothing to boost retirement security for Canadians. In every one of their interventions—unfortunately, they often intervene in labour disputes—the thing that ends up on the chopping block is retirement security, the security of the working class. Bill C-25 is just another half measure and that is what they are developing.

Canadians deserve better than that. We will not settle for this. It is not necessarily a problem, but it is not enough. Throwing out a few crumbs in order to move on to something else is not good enough for us.

I think it is also very important to bear in mind that, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, most Canadian workers do not have RRSPs. Why? Because they cannot afford them. Last year, only 31% of eligible Canadians contributed to an RRSP, and unused contribution room exceeds $500 billion. When I was preparing my last tax return, the amount that I could have contributed to an RRSP was huge. I do not think I could contribute that much, even if I wanted to. This example simply illustrates how serious the contribution problem is, even though we have a public program that works very well and guarantees some financial security for everyone. However, this government does not seem to care about everyone equally.

Someone mentioned the fact that the Australians tested the same thing 10 years ago. In the end, that initiative did not work. It did not meet expectations. What does the government want, apart from asking its friends on Bay Street if they feel like investing a few billion dollars in this, just for the fun of it? It is unfortunate, but the Conservatives seem to just do whatever they like. They do not consult anyone. They have no interest in consultation. They go ahead with their own ideas. One might think that they have great ideas, but no, they do not have any strokes of genius. They have not heard the voice of God. They simply came along with their biased opinion that their friends are going to like this.

That is what is happening. They are working for the upper class. This is unfair, because this government was elected by the public, by ordinary people. We are not talking about giving even more crazy tax breaks to the big oil companies or banks; we are talking about protecting ordinary people.

A five-letter word is flashing in my mind: Aveos. I hope that one day, the Conservatives will lie awake at night thinking of that word: Aveos. The people at that company lost everything, but the Conservatives do not care at all. That is unacceptable. How can they even introduce a bill that talks about protecting retirees, when these people were run over by a tractor and were told that it was no big deal, that the bosses were right. That is shameful; but that is a whole other story.

In passing, I would like to mention what a number of journalists think, because we are not the only ones who believe that a public plan would certainly be a better option. For example, the Conference Board of Canada has a disturbing statistic: 1.6 million seniors live in poverty and 12 million Canadians do not have a pension plan. According to the OECD, the Canada Pension Plan and the Régie des rentes du Québec are relatively inadequate and other countries have guarantees and much more generous public pension plans.

In the United States—they like it when we talk about the United States—maximum social security benefits are about $30,000 a year. Here, they are about $12,000 a year. Is that not a nice parallel? Do they not care? It is too bad, but they have erred so much in the past that I simply do not trust them. It is unfortunate, but that is also what the vast majority of Canadians think.

I must stop there, but I encourage my colleagues opposite to preach by example, to show some interest in the common good, an interest in consultation. Then, we would be happy to work with them.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the House and the people of Canada how our government's new low-cost and accessible pooled registered pension plan will help millions of Canadians save for retirement. More specific, I would like to touch on how pooled pensions will benefit small businesses, which are the backbone of the economy, not only in my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook but across this great land.

As a former small business owner, I know first hand how difficult it is to save for retirement. There is simply so much else to focus on. Small business owners wear many hats and often the most menial tasks take priority over thinking of retirement or how to save for it. Therefore, by pooling pension plans together, small business owners can pass on the burden of planning for retirement to a qualified and reliable body, freeing them up to focus on improving other aspects of their business, such as improving customer service or, more important, ensuring their survival in the world of free enterprise.

As a small business owner, I was very committed to providing financial assistance to my employees. For my part-timers, I offered thousands of dollars in scholarships. However, for my full-time and my key employees, who had already graduated or were no longer interested in attending university, I had to find other incentives. Unfortunately, pooled pension plans were not available back then, which would have provided me and fellow small business owners the opportunity to provide our employees with a pension package comparable to any large corporation.

I looked for ways to try and incentivize my staff to try and keep them around, because small business is very competitive. The only thing I could come up with was registered retirement savings plans, which were not a bad thing. The challenge was that they were very complicated to set up. As members can imagine, with a small business owner, with only five or six employees, trying to meet with financial investors and setting them up with staff is not always the easiest thing to do. Therefore, as a business owner, I really would have appreciated having something like this to take away some of the burden on me by being able to lock these funds in for employees who would use them at a later point in time.

What I did was set up some registered retirement savings plans wherein I matched some of the dollars that my key employees put in. The challenge was that they were not locked in for pensions. The money could be taken out at any time. The second issue was it was difficult to manage. Members can imagine having 10, 20, 30 or 40 employees all trying to figure out, with a financial adviser, what was happening and trying to make their own decisions when, quite frankly, a pension plan or some kind of professional management would have been helpful. Therefore, from experience, I understand how important a plan like this would be.

Until Bill C-25 is passed, small business owners will continue to worry about the possibility of their employees being attracted to a larger corporation that offers a more attractive pension plan. This is worrisome to small business owners whose employees form the core of their small business, much more so than the case of large corporations. Small businesses of 5, 6 to 10 people cannot afford the costs of employee turnover. When they lose key employees, it hurts in a big way. In this regard, pooled pensions will benefit small business owners by increasing employee dependability, thereby decreasing the time, burden and costs associated with hiring.

Equally beneficial to small business, pooled pensions will allow millions of Canadians access to a workplace pension for the first time in their lives.

Pooled pensions will improve the range of retirement savings options to Canadians by allowing individuals who are not currently participating in a pension plan, such as the self-employed, to make use of this new type of pension plan. Pooled pensions will enable more people to benefit from the lower investment management costs that result from membership in a large pooled pension plan. Further, pooled pensions will allow for people's accumulated benefits to move with them from job to job, all the while ensuring that their funds are invested in the best interests of plan members.

With our baby-boomer generation nearing the age of retirement, coupled with the ongoing global financial crisis, our government has deemed this time appropriate for the development of pooled pensions. The issue of retirement income security is very important to our government. It is for this reason that the joint federal-provincial working group was established in May 2009 to undertake an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy in Canada.

The working group found that overall the Canadian retirement income system was performing well and providing Canadians with an adequate standard of living upon retirement. However, some Canadian households, especially modest and middle-income households, were living with the risk of not saving enough for retirement.

After over a year of exhaustive research, led by our finance ministers, our government agreed to pursue a framework for pooled registered pension plans.

Pooled pensions are designed to address the lack of low-cost, large-scale retirement savings options available to many Canadians. Many Canadians continue to struggle taking advantage of the savings opportunities offered to them through individual structures like RRSPs. For example, the average Canadian has over $18,000 in unused RRSP room.

In addition, many Canadians can only access a workplace pension plan if their employer offers one. Many employers, especially small and medium-sized businesses, do not want the legal administrative burden of offering a pension plan. As a result, over 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension. There is not only the legal issues. The fact remains that it is almost impossible for small businesses to join a pension.

The design features of pooled pensions remove a lot of the traditional barriers that might have kept some employers from offering pension plans to their employees.

The design of these plans would be straightforward to allow for simple enrolment and management. A third-party pooled pension administrator will take on most of the responsibilities that employers bear in the existing pension plans, including the administrative and legal duties associated with administering a pension plan.

Pooled pensions will offer Canadians greater purchasing power, allowing them the opportunity to benefit from greater economies of scale. Achieving lower prices means that Canadians will benefit from greater returns on their savings and put more money in their pockets when they retire. Pooled pensions are intended to be largely harmonized from province to province, which also lowers administrative costs.

Pooled pensions will result in large pooled funds that will enable plan members to benefit from lower investment management cost associated with such funds. The design of these plans will be straightforward and are intended to be largely harmonized across jurisdictions, which would facilitate lower administrative costs.

Pooled pensions will assist Canadians in meeting their retirement savings objectives by providing access to the new low cost pension option. Through the pooled nature of pooled pension investments and the auto enrolment of employees, it is expected that members will be able to benefit from greater economies of scale and lower costs compared to small, singular employee group RRSPs. Since pooled pensions will be subject to pension standard rules, unlike group RRSPs, the management will be held to a higher standard.

Our government decided not to expand the Canadian pension plan because changes to the CPP would require the agreement of least two-thirds of the provinces with at least two-thirds of the population. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers have discussed a CPP expansion, but there has been no agreement. Our government understands that the fragile economic recovery is not the right time to increase CPP contributions, which would be required if CPP were expanded.

That being said, moving forward on pooled pensions does not preclude future changes to CPP.

Our government continues to improve Canada's retirement income system. Budget 2011 announced a new guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for our valuable seniors. Seniors with low or no income other than the old age security and the GIS would receive additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples.

In particular, since 2006, our government has increased the age credit amount by $1,000 in 2006 and by another $1,000 in 2009. We have doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit to $2,000, introduced pension income splitting and increased the age limit for the maturing pensions in registered retirement savings plans to 71 from 69 years of age.

Overall, our government has provided about $2.3 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief to seniors and pensioners through measures such as pension income splitting, increases in the age credit amount and the doubling of the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit.

In addition, budget 2008 introduced a tax-free savings account, which is of particular benefit to seniors because it helps them to meet their ongoing savings needs with a tax efficient way after they are no longer able to contribute to an RRSP.

We have also made several other important improvements to specific retirement income supports. Budget 2008 increased the amount that could be earned before the GIS would be reduced to $3,500, so GIS recipients would be able to keep more of their hard-earned money without any reduction in GIS benefits. Budget 2008 also increased flexibility for seniors and older workers with federally-regulated pension assets that were held in life income funds.

We all win if we make it easier to plan for our future. Pooled pensions would remove the barriers that make it impossible for my business and other small businesses like it to offer the ability to be part of the pension plan for their employees. This is a significant and timeless solution. I am proud of our government for taking steps to provide this opportunity for Canadians.

The House resumed from May 29 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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the NDP's opposition day motion.

Tomorrow, we will finish report stage on Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. Including second reading, this will be the eighth day of debate on the bill, in addition to many committee meetings. As the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism told the House on Tuesday, this bill must become law by June 29.

On Monday, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-25,, the pooled registered pension plans act. Following question period that day, we will mark Her Majesty the Queen's jubilee and pay tribute to her 60 years on the throne. After that special occasion, we will get back to the usual business of the day, debating legislation. Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan economic growth and prosperity act, will be taken up at report stage and third reading.

Jumping ahead to next Thursday, we will resume debating Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act, at second reading. I would also call Bill C-25 that day if the debate does not finish on Monday.

Finally, June 5 and 6 shall be the seventh and eighth allotted days, both of which will see the House debate motions from the NDP.

I can confirm notice of a motion for unanimous consent regarding the private member's bill, Bill C-311. This is the bill to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act that the NDP filibustered the other day. I understand the NDP has now agreed that was a mistake and it is willing to allow it to proceed to a vote at this time. Therefore, we anticipate we will be consenting to that motion to undo the damage that the NDP unwisely did when it filibustered the bill previously.

Restoring Rail Service Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Chair, the first thing I would like to note at this late hour is that this is the 25th time that debate on a bill in this House has been squashed and shut down. This is an affront and an offence to all parliamentarians, and the first thing I want say is shame on the government for yet again trying to shut down debate on a very important matter in the House of Commons here in the Canadian Parliament.

I heard earlier, in the drive-by second reading debate, I might call it, that the minister said the government is only interested in intervening where the public interest is threatened. Let us take a look at what the public interest is really about and what the Conservative government is actually supporting.

CPR is a profitable private corporation. Its net income profit in 2011 was $570 million. In fact, the last four shareholder dividends have been the highest in the last 30 years. What is really interesting, though, is that the CPR board of directors, in a recent shakeup as a result of American-based hedge funds, is now moving in. We all know how much it represents the public interest. I would like to place a wager that this shakeup had only one goal, that being to increase the shareholders' return or profits by seeking to extract the maximum value they could. As is so often the case in these money grabs, someone else had to pay and it is no surprise to learn that in this case, as in many other cases, it is the employees of CPR.

Unfortunately, it is no surprise either that the employer is making a beeline for the hard-earned pensions of these workers. I would like to give a couple of examples of that. This is what some of the demands of CPR will mean for workers in that company.

A 50-year old employee with 30 years employment in CPR will lose $9,000 every year. A 50-year old locomotive engineer with 30 years service who lives and works in British Columbia, who has 5 years left to work before being able to retire will see his pension reduced by $9,000 every year, should CPR be successful in its demands. This worker has invested his entire adult life into this career. He is preparing to retire and has absolutely no alternative to replace the pensionable income that CPR wants to take away from him. This worker has paid a higher contribution than at any other railway company. He has paid for his pension benefit and now the government, through its actions, will advantage the employer in its efforts to extract a significant concession from working Canadians at CPR.

Here is another example. A 40-year old employee with 20 years of employment at CPR will stand to lose $27,000 a year. A 30-year old employee with 10 years of employment at CPR will stand to lose more than $30,000 every year.

Members can begin to see the very real impact of what this employer is trying to do to its workers in taking away their hard-earned pensions.

Sadly, CPR is not alone in its haste and enthusiasm to rob Canadians of their hard-earned pensions. It has a powerful ally in the Conservative government, which is leading the way in destroying income security programs for Canadians. How ironic that only today Parliament debated Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act at third reading, yet another—

POOLED REGISTERED PENSION PLANS ACT

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here, along with members of my party, to express our opposition to Bill C-25 and speak to how this is a hasty attempt by the government to cobble together what the Conservatives say is an effort toward establishing retirement security.

However, we see it as just that, a hasty attempt and one that deviates from the real issue here and the kind of lack of retirement security that Canadians are facing and the way in which the government is weakening the foundations of our retirement system in Canada. I will say a few words specifically on this bill today and get more into that later.

The legislation would not guarantee an actual pension. We would like to refer to it more as a savings scheme. Among other things, the bill would create a type of savings scheme that would pool the funds in members' accounts to achieve lower costs in relation to investment management and plan administration. As we know, these savings schemes are being called pooled registered pension plans.

The bill is designed to appeal to the self-employed and workers at small and mid-sized firms and also companies that often lack the means by which to administer a private sector plan. All of the things that have been said as being key goals of the government, we find the bill misses the mark.

Our position is that Bill C-25 fails to protect retirement security because it encourages families to gamble even more of their retirement savings on failing stock markets. People who have watched their RRSPs plummet over the past year know how risky savings tied to the stock market can be. Telling families to double down on the same system that is already failing them shows how out of touch the government is.

We know the Conservatives are not fond of learning from history, facts, science, et cetera, but we can simply look at the most recent history. We know that this attempt to establish retirement security would make Canadians and their savings more vulnerable. In today's global markets, that is an unacceptable proposition. We would like to see the government say no to encouraging greater vulnerability and yes to more stability when it comes to retirement savings.

For the past three years, our party has championed a suite of retirement income security proposals. We have proposed doubling guaranteed Canada and Quebec pension plan benefits to a maximum of $1,920 each month. Growing the CPP and QPP is simply the best and lowest cost pension reform option available. Research has indicated that and advocacy groups that speak on behalf of seniors have indicated that. We have suggested that working with the provinces to build in the flexibility for individuals and their employers to make voluntary contributions to individual public pension accounts is also critical. The provinces have explicitly stated that they want to come to the table and work with the federal government in order to establish greater retirement security for Canadians.

We have proposed amending the federal bankruptcy legislation to move pensioners and long-term disability recipients to the front of the line of creditors when their employers enter court protection or declare bankruptcy. Numerous times a year, we are seeing large employers just pick up and leave. It is all the workers, particularly the more vulnerable workers, who are ultimately paying the price by losing the investments they made into their pension system and facing a very challenging future.

We have proposed increasing the annual guaranteed income supplement to a sufficient level to lift every senior in Canada out of poverty immediately.

All of those measures have received incredible accolades from various organizations, from stakeholders, from seniors and from people who are looking ahead at their retirement prospects. They have said that they want to see these kinds of proposals put into action by the government.

I will read some of what has been said. Ms. Susan Eng, the vice president for advocacy at CARP, an organization that is outspoken when it comes to retirees in Canada, said:

CARP remains committed to improving retirement benefits for the current crop of seniors, including increasing CPP, OAS and GIS payments, getting a moratorium on RRIF withdrawals, making access to Tax-Free Savings Accounts retroactive and lobbying to remove the HST on seniors’ energy bills.

These are a number of very progressive measures. We have not seen the government take leadership when it comes to a variety of these measures.

If we turn to what we are looking at more broadly, it is the way in which the government is weakening the foundations of our pension system. We do not have to look much further than the budget the government tabled some short weeks ago. In fact, the changes to OAS will have a direct impact on seniors, many of whom are already struggling.

As the status of women critic, I know particularly the devastating impact that the changes to OAS will have on many women, for whom OAS is an income they are dependent on at a time when many of them face a situation of poverty. We are looking at that and the way in which the government is standing by and allowing corporations to pull out of Canada, pulling away from agreements they have made with Canadians.

I think of Vale in my hometown of Thompson. It committed to the federal government to increase employment. However, instead of creating jobs, it is pulling out the value-added jobs in our community, and the government has done nothing to stop it.

I think of Hamilton where the workers at Stelco, now U.S. Steel, were dealt the blow when their jobs were shipped away from Canada. The government went as far as to take U.S. Steel to court and then withdrew the case even though it had grounds to keep going.

That is the way the government treats Canadians who are simply contributing to our economy, raising families and building communities. Many of them are investing in a pension system that the government is seeking to take away.

On a host of measures, the government has stood by while jobs have been shipped out. It has taken direct action to attack our pension systems. It has gone so far as to say, actually a misnomer, that somehow our pension system, whether it is CPP or OAS, suffers from instability. This is something that researcher after researcher has indicated is simply not the case. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated the very same thing on numerous occasions. Yet the government fails to accept the research, fails to accept the proof and instead further exposes Canadians to greater vulnerability, to a future where poverty and impoverishment at a senior age is a reality.

Perhaps the saddest of impacts will be on my generation, a generation that is just a few years into the workplace, if people have been able to find a decent job, many of whom are unable to invest in a proper pension system and simply do not have the supports to do so.

Instead of having a government that will stand by and seek to strengthen our public pension system, a universal pension system that supports all Canadians, it is standing by and making life more difficult for future generations, for seniors of today, for people who are looking at their retirement and hoping to see a government that is going to stand up for them. Unfortunately, that is not what we have in the Conservative government.

I am proud to be part of a party, the NDP, that has always been at the forefront of fighting for true retirement security and dignity for all Canadians.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the other hon. members, I am going to give a speech on the pooled registered pension plans act. I am going to share my time with the member for Churchill.

First, I would like extend my thanks to the member for London—Fanshawe, the NDP critic on this bill. Second, I would like to thank all the hon. members for their various comments on the government bill that we are debating today at third reading. This is a very important topic, one that Canadians are really concerned about.

As we heard earlier, according to the Conference Board of Canada, 1.6 million seniors live in poverty in Canada, and, according to the Canadian Labour Congress, 12 million Canadians lack a workplace pension plan. This is food for thought.

It is amazing to see how two events can be interrelated. Today we are going to debate a special bill tabled in this House by the Minister of Labour less than 24 hours ago. According to the representatives from Teamsters Canada, this special legislation infringes on the freedom to negotiate working conditions. You may wonder how this legislation is related to pooled registered pension plans. Well, the Canadian Pacific conflict basically has to do with pensions and management's wish to revise the system in order to keep up with its competitors.

The vice-president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference said the company “wants to take the money from our pension plan and give it to the shareholders”. In a democratic country like Canada, the right to retire in dignity after working your whole life is absolutely non-negotiable. So, yes, that is what we are talking about today.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has been introducing measures to amend Canadians' retirement security; these measures have been highly criticized. Just look at the retirement age, which will go from 65 to 67 in 13 years, when people who are 54 now will be 67. Why introduce this measure when in 13 years there will be less demand? Fewer people will be taking their retirement in 13 years than now. The baby boomers will have already retired by then.

Another measure they implemented was the tax-free savings account. The TFSA may be a good option for those who have the money to contribute to it. There is some debate as to whether the contribution limits should be increased from $5,000 to $10,000. Nonetheless, what is the purpose of this vehicle? According to a recent report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an ING Direct survey found that only 41% of Canadians have a TFSA. Nearly half of them earn $100,000 or more a year and only 24% of those surveyed said that they were using their TFSA to save for their retirement.

I have a TFSA. I was contributing to it bit by bit and it currently has $1,700. In fact, it is money I was saving for a rainy day: in case my washing machine or refrigerator broke down or something. I never considered using the TFSA for my retirement. I was earning a modest income and I never thought that $1,700 would go very far in providing me with a comfortable retirement.

We cannot rely on such savings to provide a decent retirement. I often wondered why the government developed such a measure. The government collects less tax, which leaves less money for investing in repairing bridges, ports and airports, in research and development or even in transfers to the provinces in their areas of jurisdiction. After I thought about it, I remembered that, previously, taxing the savings of the rich and the not so rich resulted in the flight of capital and the use of tax havens. That is quite likely why TFSAs exist: to keep our currency in our banks.

It is time for this government to take some real action to improve retirement security for the 12 million Canadians who do not currently have pension plans through their employers. Bill C-25 will not accomplish that goal. Canadians do not need another voluntary private savings plan. They need real measures that will ensure that they can retire with enough savings to live through their old age with the money they need to be able to dress, house and feed themselves. These are basic needs.

Canadians are wary, and rightly so. Pooled registered pension plans are risky. With this kind of plan, employees set aside funds throughout their entire working lives, and those funds are invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds and so on. Investment income depends entirely on market fluctuations. Thus, employees are the ones who absorb all of the financial risk associated with stock market ups and downs.

In addition, clause 30 of the bill states:

30. An employer is not liable for the acts and omissions of the administrator.

So, can someone tell me who is liable?

On the one hand, workers are obliged to contribute, while employers, on the other hand, are not, and the funds are subject to stock market fluctuations.

Can someone tell me who assumes the risk, if not the worker?

Quebeckers remember all too well certain recent predators, the kind we call white collar criminals. Some institutions get bad press because they are making huge profits, which they give out as bonuses at the end of the fiscal year.

The NDP wants to increase CPP contributions. We support a pension fund for all Canadians. It is time to get to work on that. However, we do not want a pension fund that fluctuates with the stock market and where workers' savings will diminish when it is time for them to retire.

We are asking that the government secure Canadians' pension funds.

Why does the government not want to study this solution even though seven provinces have agreed to expand the Canada pension plan?

The NDP is being proactive and working on job creation so that Canadians can save. The more workers earn, the more they can save.

The PRPP bill does not provide a fixed benefit, could run out of money if we live longer than expected and is not indexed. Employers and employees can withdraw from the plan, but companies are not required to contribute.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise with which my hon. colleague set up his question.

The PRPP that would be implemented with Bill C-25 currently proposed in the House would not benefit only very few, as he says. Perhaps he did not listen to some of my speech. Sixty per cent of Canadians do not have a pension plan today. Sixty per cent of the country's population is not very few people.

With respect to the age limit for OAS being increased from 65 to 67, we have said repeatedly in this House, and I know the hon. member has heard it, we are concerned about the sustainability of the program. We want to ensure that OAS is there, not only for people who are currently retiring today, but for our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. It is just responsible government to ensure that our programs are well funded into the future for our families of all ages.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me just take a moment to thank the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for sharing his time with me. The good people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound are fortunate to have such a passionate and hard-working member of Parliament speaking here in the House on their behalf.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to highlight some of the key measures in Bill C-25, an act that implements the federal framework for pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs, as I will refer to them.

Our Conservative government understands that hard-working Canadians want an effective and sustainable retirement income system in place to help them achieve their retirement goals. On this side of the House, we believe that Canadian seniors, after working hard, contributing to society and saving diligently, deserve nothing less. Members can rest assured that our Conservative government stands with these hard-working Canadians and that it will continue to take action to ensure that Canada's retirement income system remains among the strongest in the world. This is where pooled registered pension plans fit in.

The PRPP will mark a significant step forward in advancing our retirement income system by improving the range of retirement savings options available to Canadians. It will make low-cost, broad-based private sector pension plans accessible to the millions of Canadians who up to now have not had access to such plans. In fact, it is important to note that currently 60% of Canadians do not have access to a workplace pension plan. Self-employed individuals do not have access to workplace pension plans at all. Introducing pooled registered pension plans means that many employees of small and medium-sized businesses, as well as self-employed workers, will finally have access to a workplace pension plan for the very first time in their lives.

Let us take a look and see what features of the PRPPs might be found attractive by employees of small and medium-sized businesses and by the self-employed.

A key feature of PRPPs is auto-enrolment. This means that if an employer offers a PRPP, employees will be automatically enrolled in a pension plan. This feature is expected to increase participation in PRPPs by promoting retirement savings specifically targeting those disengaged savers.

Once plan members begin contributing to their PRPP, it is important that they use this money for what it was intended: their retirement. After all, the goal of the pooled registered pension plan is to help Canadians save for their own retirement. Unlike the funds in RRSPs, which can be accessed at any time, the funds in a PRPP would be locked in. This provision will help to ensure that plan members will in fact have savings when they retire.

Another key feature is portability. Many employees will appreciate the ability to transfer funds between administrators when they change jobs. Not only will portability benefit employees of the plan; it will also increase competition among PRPP administrators, thereby encouraging lower costs.

This leads me to my next point, and it is a very important one. One of the key benefits of PRPPs is that they will be low cost. By achieving lower costs, pooled registered pension plans will leave more money in the pockets of Canadians when they retire.

Members might ask how this will work. Pooling pension savings means that the costs of administering the pension funds will be spread over a larger group of people. This will enable plan members to benefit from the lower investment management costs that are typically associated with an average mutual fund.

Stakeholders across our nation are excited about the pooled registered pension plans and the prospect that millions of Canadians will now have access to a workplace pension for the very first time.

However, let us not just take my word for it. Let us hear what others have to say.

Dan Kelly, Vice-President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated, “A new voluntary, low-cost and administratively simple retirement savings mechanism will allow more employers, employees, and the self-employed to participate in a pension plan”.

If we are not satisfied with that, let us hear what the Ontario Medical Association had to say. It stated, “The creation of pooled registered pension plans...levels the playing field by providing the self-employed, including physicians, with better access to additional savings opportunities that have up until now been unavailable”.

The pool registered pension plan is not some patchwork scheme. It is an important program that would benefit millions of Canadians. Whether people work for or own small businesses, the pooled registered pension plan would be available to them.

What are the next steps? The bill before us today, Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act, represents the federal portion of the PRPP framework, which is a major step forward in making these available to Canadians. Our government has been collaborating closely with the provinces to implement pooled registered pension plans across our country. Once the provinces put in place their PRPP legislation, the legislative and regulatory framework for PRPPs would be up and running, allowing pooled registered pension plan administrators to develop and offer plans to Canadians and their employers.

Canadians want their governments to act on their priorities and deliver results on a timely basis. The PRPP should be no exception. For this reason, I urge all of the provinces to follow the wise advice of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association when they collectively said that the longer governments take to establish a system of pooled registered pension plans, the less time those employees will have to use this vehicle to save for their retirements.

Our government is confident that the provincial side of the framework will soon be in place so that millions of Canadians can reach their retirement objectives. We urge our provincial counterparts to take action and follow the lead of our Conservative government. By bringing the PRPP framework into force, Canadians can be confident about the long-term viability of their retirement system. We are listening and we will continue to listen to their views on how we can strengthen the security of pension plan benefits and ensure the framework is balanced and appropriate for the long term.

Canada's retirement income system is recognized around the world by such experts as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among Canadian seniors. Our system is the envy of the world. With Bill C-25, we would be making it even better by working toward a permanent, long-term solution to encourage greater pension coverage among Canadians.

Let me summarize this new defined pension plan. It would be available to employers, employees and the self-employed. The PRPP would improve the range of retirement savings options to Canadians in a number of ways. It would provide access to a straightforward retirement savings option for employees at administratively low cost and it would provide people who currently do not participate in a pension plan a retirement savings option. More people would benefit from the lower investment management costs that result from the economies of scale of membership in large pooled pension plans, employees would be able to move their accumulated benefits from job to job and the PRPP would ascertain that funds are invested in the best interests of the plan members.

I urge all members of the House to support this very important bill. At this time, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way is basically asking why we would act on something that hundreds of thousands of seniors across this country have been asking for.

This government cares about the seniors of this country, and that is why we are doing this. The territories and provinces realize the importance of it. We sat down with those provinces and territories to come up with a solution; this was a consensus, and here today we have that culminated in Bill C-25.

We listened to them, and I suggest that the member should listen to her seniors as well.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to some of the key measures in Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts.

I will splitting my time with the member for Richmond Hill.

First, I would like to thank the Minister of State for Finance, the member of Parliament from the great riding of Macleod, for bringing forth this great legislation.

Our government understands that working Canadians and seniors want an effective and sustainable retirement income system that will help them achieve their retirement goals. Canadians who have worked hard, saved diligently and are relying on their pension and savings to support them once they retire should have full confidence that the system will serve them well when they need it.

Canadians can rest assured that our government stands with hard-working Canadians who are counting on their pension plan for a stable retirement. As part of this commitment, we continue to take the steps necessary to ensure that Canada's pension framework remains strong. In doing so, we are building on all that has been accomplished so far.

Let me offer a few examples of what we have achieved.

In particular, since 2006, our government has increased the age credit amount by $1,000 in 2006 and by another $1,000 in 2009. We have doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit to $2,000.

We have introduced pension income splitting. This single item was lobbied for very diligently for years by organizations like CARP and other organizations that represented seniors. It was well received when this came in.

We have increased the age limit for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans to 71 from 69 years of age.

Despite these advancements, there is always more to be done. That is why in December 2009, our government held a meeting with the provincial and territorial finance ministers in Whitehorse to discuss the retirement income system and, in going forward, how this system could be further improved.

In June 2010, federal, provincial and territorial governments reviewed options to improve Canada's retirement income system after extensive consultations with Canadians. Many of the members of the opposition will be interested to know that among these proposals was a modest expansion to the CPP, the Canada pension plan.

However, many employers, especially small and medium-sized businesses, something my riding has hundreds of, raised serious concerns about increasing the mandatory deductions that would come with an expanded CPP. Simply put, during these times of economic uncertainty and with Canada's economic recovery still fragile, it would have been reckless to impose a job-killing tax on job-creators.

While there were strong objections to expanding the CPP, there was unanimous agreement to moving forward with pooled registered pension plans. This led to priority being given to the PRPP framework, the announcement of the initiative at the subsequent finance ministers' meeting in December 2010 and the legislation that is before us today.

PRPPs mark a significant step forward in advancing our retirement income agenda by improving the range of retirement savings options available to Canadians. They will make well-regulated, low-cost private sector pension plans accessible to millions of Canadians who have up to now not had access to such plans. In fact, many employees of small and medium-sized businesses and self-employed workers will also now have access to a private pension plan for the very first time. This is groundbreaking. This will be a key improvement to Canada's retirement income system.

PRPPs will also complement and support our government's overarching objective of creating and sustaining jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Quite simply, the PRPP framework is the most effective and targeted way to help these modest and middle-income individuals save for their retirement. These individuals consist of the 60% of Canadians who do not have access to employer-sponsored pension plans.

PRPPs address this gap in the retirement system by first providing a new, accessible, straightforward and administratively low-cost retirement option for employers to offer their employees. It would allow individuals who currently may not participate in a 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. It would enable more people to benefit from the lower investment management costs that result from membership in a large pooled pension plan. It would allow for the portability of benefits and facilitate an easy transfer between plans, and it would ensure that funds are invested in the best interests of plan members.

These are all important areas where the retirement income system can be improved. However, members need not take my word for it. Let us hear what others have to say.

According to the Canadian Bankers Association:

PRPPs will provide a new, accessible, large-scale and low-cost pension option to employers, employees and the self-employed. PRPPs will give all working Canadians the benefit of professionally-managed pension plans, and will be particularly beneficial to the self-employed and employees of small businesses.

I can speak to that as someone who was a self-employed farmer before I came to this House. My only pension at that time was my land, or whatever I could accumulate over the years. It was the same with my parents. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the same boat, and they are going to get a chance to benefit from this great initiative.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says:

PRPPs can give many businesses, individuals and the self-employed additional retirement options, and many millions of Canadians who currently lack adequate retirement savings will benefit.

That is why our government, in coordination with the provincial and territorial governments, is working to implement PRPPs as soon as possible. These plans would help Canadians, including the self-employed, meet their retirement objectives by providing access to a new low-cost accessible pension option.

I am sure that all the provinces will take the advice of the CFIB, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the CBA when they jointly said that the longer governments take to establish a system of PRPPs, the less time those employees will have to use this vehicle to save for their retirement. Simply put, we need to act now.

Bringing the federal PRPP framework into force means Canadians can be confident about the long-term viability of their retirement system. We are listening, and we will continue to listen to their views on how we can strengthen the security of pension plan benefits and ensure that the framework is balanced and appropriate for the long term.

Canada's retirement income system is recognized around the world by such experts as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among Canadian seniors. With Bill C-25, we are making it better by working toward a permanent long-term solution to encourage greater pension coverage among Canadians.

I know that members on this side of the House will support Bill C-25 and vote to establish a pension plan that would help millions of Canadians save for their retirement. I encourage all the members of the opposition to support this very important bill and to vote to help the seniors of tomorrow provide for their retirement today.

I remind all members that a lot of legislation, whether government legislation or private members' bills, comes before this House. Not all of us in this place like every aspect of every bill, but the potential of Bill C-25 to help people plan their retirement is something that is certainly needed and has been wanted for a long time. I think that all members in this House should look at the quality parts of the bill. It is an improvement to what we have today, and I think it will be very well received out there among seniors.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak to Bill C-25, its inadequacies and the concerns that many of us continue to have here on this side of the House.

I have often referred to Bill C-25 as being nothing more than bread crumbs to a starving person because in reality that is all it is. I doubt very much that it would help very many Canadians. From everything I am hearing from the provinces and from other people who have looked into the issue, there would be big management fees and little help for people when it comes to serious pension reform. It would simply be a mechanism for those who have money to save for their own retirement. The government tries to call that its answer to pension reform. I am sure we will hear its solution to pension reform was PRPPs for the next five years or so, until it realizes that as Australia's plan failed, so would this one. While I have no difficulties with creating savings vehicles for Canadians, we must also work to help those without the means to save. That is what pension reform is really all about. Bill C-25 is not pension reform. Anyone who makes that claim is misleading the public.

Two years ago, I asked the government what it planned to do to protect and preserve pensions for all Canadians. The minister responded in this House by saying that pensions were provincial and should be left to provincial legislatures to deal with. He said pensions were not a federal problem. However, Canadians rightly found that notion to be wrong, short-sighted and clearly unacceptable. The Conservatives produced Bill C-25 which is a copy of an Australian proposal that, after 12 years, has been declared a failure. The government was sent into a scramble. It had to find something to satisfy the accusations that it was not doing anything so it came up with this idea.

I will cast my vote, as will my party, with very deep concern and caution because it is nothing more than bread crumbs to a starving person. However, it is that small tool in a toolbox. It is not the answer but we will support it because it is one small step in the advancement of talking and recognizing the need for pension reform in Canada.

In 1998, when the current Prime Minister was campaigning, he announced that he wanted to privatize the Canada pension plan. That is right, the Conservatives proposed the elimination of the public Canada pension plan. Just imagine where we would be today. Not only is the government talking about moving from age 65 to 67 in this current budget bill, and is clearly moving in that direction, imagine where Canadians would find themselves if we did not have the Canada pension plan or it had been privatized. All of a sudden their retirement plans would severely change.

Who knows if that is not the next shoe to drop in the big plans that the government has? Will the Conservatives decide they are going to privatize the CPP? I am not fear mongering, but who knows what is going to be next on the agenda of the government?

At the time, the government suggested that the CPP should be replaced with a super savings account that would allow Canadians to put all of their extra money into investments for their retirement. The government did not talk about the fact that most Canadians are not up to speed on how to invest in the stock market, that they can make poor choices and that their alternative would be to pay high management fees to people who have that expertise. This would be another way of discouraging Canadians from what they are trying to do. Canadians would have to become market experts. Their employer would be playing no administrative role in PRPPs. Canadians would have to bear 100% of that investment risk. A single market stumble could spell the end of any retirement hopes. We all know what happened with the investments a few years ago when the stock market crashed, and what happened to thousands of Canadians whose retirement income was lost.

The Conservatives talk about people working later. They are going to have to work later because they lost a tremendous amount of their retirement income. They do not have the expertise needed. They would need the expertise with PRPPs, to be able to manage a certain degree of their investments. Employers would be forced to create administrative systems to enrol members. If the provinces made them mandatory, and that is highly unlikely, Ontario, the province I represent, has already indicated it is not going to have anything to do with PRPPs. It does not believe this is the answer to the pension issue.

The proposal for an enhancement of the Canada pension plan, which is what we have been proposing, along with the supplementary Canada pension plan, which I will talk about a little further, are much more reasonable methods for most Canadians out there.

This PRPP will be of no help to homemakers unless they are contributing to employment income. One of the challenges facing many women today is that, when they are at home caring for children or elderly relatives, parents and so on, they are out of the workforce. When they are out of the workforce, they have a much more difficult time thinking about their pension and what will be in it for them. That is why unless they are in the workforce for 35 or 40 years, most women at 65, or 67 as the government is going to, end up with minimal income. They are living on $11,000 or $12,000. That is not the Canada I want to live in, and I do not think it is the Canada most people want to live in. Changing that age to 67 years old will certainly hurt a tremendous amount of people.

I had a meeting in Kemptville last night. There were about 60 or 70 people. When I asked the people there, who were a non-partisan group, to raise their hand if they supported moving the age of retirement from 65 to 67, everyone in that room opposed the change, and there were many Conservatives in that room. They did not feel it was necessary, but that it was part of an ideology of the government or because the Conservatives are starving the government for revenue sources by removing the GST and lowering taxes. The government only has so much money. That is probably the real reason: they are starving the beast we call the government. They will not have the money to give people pensions at age 65, so they want to move it up and take $30,000 out of the pocket of every Canadian over that two-year period of time.

As I indicated, the management fees are a big problem on PRPPs. We know that Canada has an F rating, according to the OECD. It says Canadians already pay some of the highest management fees in the world on their mutual funds. That is exactly where we are going with PRPPs, creating more vehicles for people to be able to do this.

However, the government knows all of this. We raised all these issues at committee. Our Liberal finance critic moved a couple of amendments that would have strengthened and improved the PRPP, which went nowhere. The Conservative members put their heads in the sand and voted down the amendments rather than possibly thinking that maybe together, because we were prepared to work with the government on this, we could strengthen it and make it better, recognizing that we need some pension reform. However, the government members do not care what everybody else offers. If it is not their idea, it is not good enough.

It is the same if we talk about some of the things in the budget. Look at the changes to EI and what impact they will have on Canadians all across the land. Never mind talking about where they are putting money into pensions. Many of these people will be forced to move away from their families to go out west, which is clearly where the jobs will be, starving other parts of Canada. Again, that is not the way we are supposed to be going. Canada needs to be a land where everybody is treated fairly and with a bit of respect and understanding.

What happens to the seasonal workers who are being brought into the country? Many of those seasonal workers are the reason we have a thriving industry when it comes to fruits, vegetables and so on. Canadian employers need those temporary foreign workers to come over and be able to do those jobs. We should not kid ourselves. There are lots of Canadians who physically do not want to do those jobs. I think they are quite happy to see these temporary foreign workers come over and work for six months in the agriculture industry or other industries and then go back to their home countries with some very much needed money, because many of these people are coming from countries that are very poor. Will we deny them that opportunity, again with short-sightedness and some of those issues that are in the budget, in Bill C-38, that we will continue to deal with over these next few days that will hurt many Canadians and employers? It will hurt Canadians if that is the only work they have. It is not as if they do not want to work 12 months or 10 months of the year. They are seasonal workers. Who will be working the fisheries?

I remember the amount of people who told me they would love to work longer but the season is only so long, when I visited the east coast last year with one of my colleagues. Where are they supposed to go at the end of that particular point? They have to collect EI because they have no other options.

Some of the changes at second reading, which the Liberal caucus said it would have liked to put forward, were raised by many witnesses as additional ideas. However, when it comes to voting at the committee level, government members vote down anything anybody else suggests, no matter how good it is. The Liberal finance critic put a very good amendment forward on the issue of controlling high management fees, because that is a major concern for Liberals, one that would cap the management fees. There was a bit of discussion with government members, but it did not matter. They voted it down as they do everything else because it was not their idea.

Reducing government spending is a laudable goal, as we hear from the government. However, financial players offering PRPPs will need to offer annuities so that 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 keep regulatory capital aside to underwrite those contracts. In simple language, this means that investors, the average Canadians the government is talking about, are legally required to pay fees that would guarantee a profit for the banks and insurance companies. This is a very inefficient way of delivering pensions, and once Canadians find out about all the small print, fewer and fewer of them and businesses will be interested in getting involved in all of this.

Those requirements are the cornerstones of the PRPP we are talking about. With this in mind, I am left to wonder how the PRPPs could possibly yield any results for Canadian pensioners. The simple answer is that they are not going to help the average Canadian prepare for retirement, just as millions of Canadians have not been able to max out their RRSPs either. It is just a locked-in RRSP. That is what the PRPP is. Forcing seniors 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 new megaprisons and $40 billion for untendered stealth fighter jet deals is not a plan for pensions. However, the government is certainly spending a lot of money and clearly it is looking to pay for all of these on the backs of Canada's seniors.

PRPPs will not work for those who need them the most. Instead of copying the failed work of others, why did the Prime Minister not seek to lift seniors out of poverty? The 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 need it, while delivering the low overhead cost structure of the Canada pension plan.

The supplementary Canada pension plan is a simple and cost-effective solution to the pension question. It is a defined benefit pension for everyone who has a social insurance number, even those who have left the workforce during their lives for child rearing, illness, seasonal employment 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.

The supplementary Canada pension plan is a plan for real pension reform, and I offer it to the government at any time because it would benefit Canadians all across the board, no matter what their occupation. Even if they are home and not able to work, they could still contribute to the Canada pension plan. I could contribute to the supplementary plan. However, by steadfastly following their PRPP plan, by ignoring Liberal calls to improve the CPP, moving to slash the old age pension, slashing EI, cutting people off, making it difficult for farmers to be able to employ temporary foreign workers and all that goes with it, the Conservatives are really showing their true colours. Balancing the budget on the backs of seniors is nothing short of waging a war on the poor. It is unacceptable, and the government should be ashamed of that direction.

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

Let me tell members about a woman named Mary, who I met last night. She is a single woman who talked to me about income splitting. Yes, the income splitting idea is a good idea for all those who have money and who have a partner, but for single men or women who do not have anyone to share their pension income with, what help is it to them? Mary has to take the hit for the taxes that others get to save. She asked me why the government would do that when it is clearly unfair. I said she would just have to look around and judge for herself. Government is all about choices.

As a government, one makes choices every day and decides what is important and what is not. Clearly, this government's choices are far more interested in helping the rich and much less interested in helping the low-income or middle class Canadians, or in helping to build the Canada, Mr. Speaker, that you and I believe in.

The Prime Minister is the same man who said that the Canada pension plan should be scrapped in 1998, which I referred to earlier, and that government involvement in the financial security of Canadians runs counter to the Conservative ideology of fending for oneself. If one cannot fend for oneself, there is no room in the Conservatives' Canada.

That is very different from the Canada I want to live in. I believe we have an opportunity for a hand up, not a hand out. We can create an atmosphere where Canadians can thrive and do well. Canadians are a very independent, tough bunch of people. We are used to standing on our own feet, and we take great pride in that. I do not believe there are a whole lot of Canadians who are interested in living off the purse of the government.

Given the fact that the Prime Minister has made the kind of comments he has made, I have to wonder if these changes are not the first bricks in the long-desired firewall that the Prime Minister indicated he wanted to create.

I am very glad to have had the opportunity to speak for a bit today. The changes that are coming forward, both in Bill C-25, the PRPP legislation, and in Bill C-38, and all the things the government is moving are going in this direction, which is not an area to which I think we should be going.

We need to be making some changes as well to the Bankruptcy Act. We all know about Nortel and what happened to the thousands of people who were working for Nortel and in other companies that go bankrupt where individuals lose their pension funds.

There is no change. With all of the multitude of things in the omnibus Bill C-38, there is nothing in there about how to protect people's pensions when it comes to bankruptcy, how to better protect Canadians. It is all about creating crisis management and making people think that the country is in a major crisis situation when it is not, whether or not we are talking about immigration issues and creating a crisis, in order to justify the means at the end.

It is unacceptable for us and it is unacceptable for Canadians.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to continue in this debate because there is a real divergence of opinion, which has a great deal to do with the fact that the proposed pooled registered pension plan would do nothing to solve Canada's pension crisis.

The pension crisis has been the subject of debate for the past several years. The issue is that more than 11 million Canadian workers do not have a workplace pension plan and the public pension plans, old age security and the Canada pension plan that everyone has, do not provide enough for people to live on in retirement. Even worse, the plan by the current government is to increase the age of retirement for OAS and seriously undermine the ability of workers who live with disabilities, or workers who have very stressful jobs to retire at an age that would allow them to have some quality of life in their senior years.

To make matters worse, most Canadians are not making up for their lack of a pension plan by saving for retirement on their own. Less than one-third of the people entitled to contribute to RRSPs actually do so. There is now more than $600 billion in unused RRSP contribution room, all of that being carried forward. Only about one-third of Canadian households are currently saving at levels that would generate sufficient income to cover their non-discretionary expenses in their retirement.

It also needs to be noted that the market is not a reliable place in which to gamble retirement security. Turmoil in financial markets has had, and will continue to have, a devastating impact on workplace pension plans. People who have saved for retirement through RRSPs have found all too often that the value of their investments has dropped so much that they are now faced with having to postpone their retirement or to struggle to replace retirement savings by attempting to find some kind of work.

The reality is, however, that finding employment at ages 66, 67, 68 is profoundly difficult. The workplace has changed and the skills that retirees once brought to the job are no longer marketable.

There is indeed a pension crisis, but this bill seems to have been simply thrown together hastily, in response to pressure from labour, seniors groups, political parties, notably the NDP, as a result of a national campaign to increase the CPP-QPP. There was no thought, just a knee-jerk response.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, 1.6 million seniors live in poverty in Canada and 12 million Canadians lack a workplace pension plan. Statistics Canada tells us more than 14% of senior women on their own are living in poverty, according to standard LICO measurement.

The sensible NDP proposal to increase the GIS enough to eliminate poverty among seniors would take care of this issue. Unfortunately the government is not interested.

By OECD standards, Canada's CPP-QPP system is relatively miserly. We are not terribly generous at all. Other countries similar to Canada provide much more generous public and guaranteed pensions. For example, social security in the United States has a maximum benefit of about $30,000 a year. The maximum benefit in Canada is less $12,000 a year.

Even if we add old age security to that, and that would be a maximum of just under $7,000 a year, the total is still far below social security and places seniors in that poverty range of which I spoke.

As I indicated, most Canadian workers have no RRSP because they cannot afford it. Last year, only 31% of eligible Canadians contributed to their RRSPs and unused RRSP room is now about $600 billion, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Meanwhile, the latest numbers for the return on the CPP investment show that it barely lost ground, less than 1% during this current downturn in the economy, while the stock market, which is where the government wants Canadians to park most of their retirement savings in this pooled private plan, fell by 11%. That is significant.

The Australian experiment has been mentioned. Australia tried about 10 years ago to introduce a similar plan and had less than encouraging results. The Australian plan was mandatory with an opt-out provision. It was called the Australian superfund and it required employers to enrol their workers in one of many defined contribution plans offered by the private sector.

A recent review of the Australian superfund was commissioned by the Australian government after 12 years of experience. The review shows that, while people were saving as a result of the mandatory contributions, the investment returns were no better than inflation. The report attributed the poor results to high fees and costs despite the presumed role that competition was supposed to play in keeping these fees at a reasonable level. I will speak to that again in regard to the pooled registered plan.

There has been for several years a clear consensus among many experts that real pension reform was, and continues to be, critical. However, rather than intelligently and positively engaging in practical reform, the government has instead introduced its pooled registered pension plan, which, according to the federal Minister of Finance, is this incredible panacea. He said that it would make low cost, private sector pension plans accessible to millions of Canadians who have, up to now, not had access to such plans.

The legislation introduced in mid-November would allow employers to offer PRPPs to their employees. The scheme would be run by insurance companies and other financial institutions. According to the minister, they would pool the savings of workers whose employers sign up for the program. The financial institutions would run these programs on behalf of employers and, of course, will charge a fee for doing that. Employers would not need to contribute to the plan and workers' savings would be locked in, although if employees provide notice in writing they. apparently. would be allowed to opt-out.

No pension would be guaranteed by this program. In effect, it is yet another voluntary savings scheme that would do nothing to address the pension crisis since very few people take advantage of existing voluntary retirement savings schemes now. It is not clear why officials are claiming that the proposed PRPPs will prove more attractive than anything that currently exists.

So far, the only advantage being promoted for PRPPs is that management fees would apparently be lower than individual RRSPs because of the pooling. There would be no cap on the management fee and therefore no guarantee of lower fees, nor is there any certainty that this would be a big selling point for the plans.

It is also worth noting that there is no evidence that people are not saving through RRSPs because of high management fees. It is far more likely that they are not saving because individuals are busy raising families, paying bills, trying to manage the cost of housing and trying to educate their kids. There is no money left at the end of the month for an RRSP.

As I said, there are no guarantees for lower fees. The PRPP is not a defined benefit plan. It would not provide a secure retirement income with a set replacement rate of pre-retirement income and it would not be fully transferable. The plan would not be indexed to inflation and it would not increase with the increasing cost of living.

Employers, not employees, would decide the contribution levels. As I indicated, it would not be mandatory for employers to contribute or even match employees' contributions. Without employers' contributions, it is not really a pension plan. In fact, employers who do not help their employees save for retirement could end up with a competitive advantage over employers who do.

Canada does not need yet another voluntary tax-assisted retirement savings program. It needs public pensions that provide all Canadians with a basic guarantee of adequate income that will protect their standard of living in retirement.

Expanding the Canada pension plan would meet this objective. In fact, federal and provincial finance ministers seemed set to take this route when they assembled for their meeting in Alberta in December 2010. Only one province opted out. That gives us our 66%. Despite the fact that only one province opted out, the federal government decided to abandon talks and introduce this pooled registered pension plan scheme instead.

Improving the replacement rate of the CPP retirement benefit would provide much better retirement pensions to virtually all Canadians. A relatively modest increase in contribution rates would be required but that could be phased in over a period of time, as the Canadian Labour Congress and others have proposed. The CPP covers all workers, including those who are self-employed, and its benefits would be guaranteed in relation to earnings and years of service. They would be indexed for inflation and fully portable from one job to another.

This option would address the two key issues in the pension system that are currently causing concern: the lack of coverage of workplace pension plans and the fact that individuals are not saving for their retirement by themselves. As well, an expanded CPP, of course, could reduce federal expenditures on GIS because more people would have adequate retirement incomes. It would also benefit employers because it would be a clear pension plan and they need not be concerned about a private plan. It is a public plan and it has a lot of true and clear benefits.

While the government says that CPP contribution rates cannot be increased when there is a fragile economy, it is worth noting that when the financing of CPP was changed at the end of the 1990s, combined employer-employee CPP contribution rates nearly doubled, from 5.6% of covered earnings to 9.9% over that five year period, but unemployment fell from 9.6% to 7.6%. So there are other side benefits.

It should also be noted that PRPPs will do nothing to help the baby boom generation now coming up to retirement. It seems that this lost generation will remain lost as far as pension reform is concerned. As I said previously, it has been estimated that roughly one-third of Canadians now in the age group of 45 to 64 are likely to end up with incomes that fall far short of adequate minimum incomes and the kind of income that would allow them to maintain their standard of living in retirement. The adequacy of CPP benefits has been an issue for more than 30 years. It is time now for federal and provincial governments to set aside ideology and work together to solve the problem.

The study by the pension expert for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Monica Townson, provides a thorough analysis of the PRPP and argues that expanding the Canada pension plan would provide better retirement pensions for virtually all Canadians. Ms. Townsend found that the expansion of the CPP would provide a mandatory defined benefit pension to virtually all Canadians, giving them a basic retirement income that, for modest and middle-income earners, would preserve their standard of living in retirement.

The government's PRPP proposal does not do this, not at all. It does not guarantee a pension, the benefits would depend on selection of investment and stock market performance and participation would depend on the employer deciding to take part. As I indicated before, the stock market took an 11% hit in the most recent economic downturn. People cannot afford an 11% economic hit.

The pooled registered pension plan is basically a defined contribution pension plan. In defined contribution plans, there are no guarantees as to how much money will be left when people retire. The risks are borne entirely by the individual employees. In these types of plans, the amount of money available at retirement depends on the outcome of investment in the stock market and people cannot rely on it. I have indicated that very clearly. Defined contribution plans lack the security of defined benefit pension plans, like CPP and QPP, which pay guaranteed set amounts on retirement. This is important to remember.

Bill C-25 places no caps on administration fees. It merely assumes lower costs will emerge through competition. Financial institutions, like banks, insurance companies and trust companies, stand to profit substantially from these fees. If we look at all those recommending this pooled registered pension plan, it is those with a vested interest, like financial institutions.

However, expanding the CPP-QPP would not cost the government any more than its proposed PRPP. Most important, expanding CPP-QPP would not entail transferring huge management fees to private financial institutions.

How can I get through to the government that seniors need to be protected? The PRPP would not help families drowning in debt. It fails because it is a voluntary defined contribution plan run by wealthy institutions. With a tenuous economy and high rates of unemployment, families do not need more risk. They need the stability of the CPP and QPP. Economists and provincial leaders have said so for years, but the out of touch government has turned its back on families. We need effective and fair pension reform.

We have validators for this. An editorial in the Calgary Herald of November 2010 stated:

The CPP already covers almost all Canadian workers and thus spreads the risk and management fees. It is fully portable, offers guaranteed income to all retirees, and is the only risk-free investment broadly available to workers. Private RRSPs and employer pension plans have proven much riskier than initially billed. Those who are in company pension plans are likely in a defined contribution scheme, where the amount that goes in is predetermined, but the payout is based on how well the fund is invested and ultimately performs. Nortel workers know only too well how that worked.

We know that Nortel employees in Canada have taken a beating because of the bankruptcy of Nortel. Many of those retirees are receiving a pension that is 40% less than they planned on and believed would be available. Anyone who was a disabled Nortel worker has lost all benefits. It is interesting to note, and the House should note it, that in the United States and Great Britain, when Nortel sold off its assets, there were billions of dollars in liquid assets. The Americans and the British protected their Nortel workers but in Canada there was nothing. Our government did not see fit to protect those pensioners. That is why it is so very important that we come up with a remedy that works.

Seniors have worked hard all their lives and have played by the rules. Now they simply want access to programs and services that their hard-earned tax dollars helped to make. Every senior in Canada has the absolute right to pension and income security. This bill would not provide the pension security that seniors today want and need, nor would it help them in preparing for their retirement.

It is time for real pension reform, not this sham perpetrated by the government. Bill C-25 would not accomplish any kind of security. Canadians do not need any more private voluntary savings schemes. They want real action to ensure they can retire in dignity.

I will say this one last time. Expanding the CPP and QPP would not cost the government any more than its proposed pooled registered pension plan. It would simply mean that there would be real retirement security. People deserve that. They have earned it.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

moved 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.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the report stage of Bill C-25.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 17 consideration of Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Motions in Amendment

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had many discussions about is it this or is it that. At the end of the day I think it is going to be another piece of failed legislation that was perhaps introduced to derail the discussion about OAS and the rest of it, because this measure is really not going to help anyone save money.

At the end of the day, what does it do? It gives bread crumbs to a starving man. It is a little step forward on the issue of pension reform. It is inadequate, but there will be a few Canadians who will go forward with this plan.

I think it is better than nothing at all. Bill C-25 will provide an opportunity for a few Canadians to start thinking more about putting money away for their retirement. We want to move the issue forward and we know we need pension reform, so we will allow this tiny piece of legislation go forward. I suspect that the government will see that it is not what it thought it would be and hopefully will really start to look at pension reform in Canada in the future.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an impressive and thoughtful analysis. I learned a lot. It is quite clear that the hon. member does not really think much of Bill C-25. She thinks it is a poor substitute for enhancing our current CPP system.

Given the great job that my colleague has done in showing how the bill is not very good, I am wondering why the Liberals intend to vote for it at this time.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member will have an opportunity to ask some further questions since he seemed dismayed that his colleague's time was up.

When I last spoke to Bill C-25 on this issue, I expressed my concern that this was little more than breadcrumbs to a starving person. I supported it going to committee, as did our party, with the hope that some significant changes would be made to improve some part of what the government had called pension reform.

Bill C-25 is still nothing more than a mechanism for those who have money to save for their retirement and the government trying to pass it off as its answer to pension reform.

While I have no difficulties with creating savings vehicles, in fact we need to do more of that, we must also work to help those who have little means to save. Pension reform should be all about that. Bill C-25 is not pension reform and any claim that it is false, misleading and deceptive.

For the sake of clarity, it is still my intention to vote for Bill C-25 because it is a breadcrumb to a starving person. It is as simple as that and nothing more than that. It will not satisfy the demand, but perhaps it will offer a small portion of temporary relief to some. Therefore, I will cast my vote with deep concern for what this legislation fails to do.

PRPPs are nothing but locked-in RRSPs and Canadians will face a number of problems if they choose to join these plans. Members will bear 100% of the investment risk. A single market stumble could spell the end to any retirement hopes. There is also no ability to make up for the bad years by making additional tax deductible contributions. They will have to become administrators of their own plans and there is no ability to move out of an underperforming PRPP into a performing one or one that will offer better services.

Employers will be forced to create administrative systems to enrol their members. If provinces make them mandatory, then since both employers and members can opt out, they may incur a significant amount of costs for absolutely no reason.

It is still unclear whether any homemakers would be able to contribute or would it have to be from employment income only? Yet again, the so-called Conservative plan excludes those who contribute to society outside of the traditional workforce.

Why not learn from some of the others who have tried plans like the PRPPs that are being proposed today. Australia tried it well over a decade ago, in 1997. It was published in the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management. It found that the only ones who benefited from the plan were those in the financial sector. The study concluded that the Australian superannuation system was founded on the assumption that market competition would deliver economic efficiency in a largely private, defined contribution system. That did not work.

Management fees are a significant problem. PRPPs will be managed by the very same people who manage Canada's mutual funds, and Canadians already pay some of the highest management fees in the world on their mutual funds.

Morningstar released a report grading 22 countries on the management expense ratios levied on their mutual funds. Canada was the only country to receive an F. Why should we be striving for an F? I, like most, think we should be striving for an A. It would make far more sense.

The government already knows all of this. It was specifically raised in January when Bill C-25 was last before the House. The standing committee knew this too, which is why I am shocked it reported back to the House without any suggestions for improvement and without any insights of any kind, in spite of having a variety of individuals go before the finance committee and suggest some amendments and some ways to improve Bill C-25, clearly because Canada needs serious pension reform.

The standing committee was silent, despite witness testimony that said, “in its current form, Bill C-25 is an example of good intentions, creating a legislative response that will have numerous unintended adverse consequences”. Witnesses also stated that as an effective pension plan, pooled plans were unlikely to achieve that goal.

Expert witnesses at committee begged the government to make even minor changes, again because we need to move forward as a country on pension reform. They said:

There is a considerable body of academic work that shows that putting untrained and uninterested individuals in charge of investment selection is foolish.... If investing money was a simple matter, we'd all be rich. The reality is that investing is challenging, even for professionals, and that it remains to be a full-time job.

The world is becoming increasingly complex, financial innovation continually challenges practitioners and to expect Canadians to suddenly have the time required and the skill needed to manage money carefully is unfair and, to be blunt, ill-advised.

Despite all these warnings, the government had ordered its MPs on the finance committee to ignore all of that good advice and to vote down any amendments from the opposition.

We had suggested several amendments. At second reading the Liberal caucus said, and I led that discussion, that we wanted to work with the government to make Bill C-25 more effective. At the committee we introduced an amendment to address some of the problems raised by the witnesses. All of our amendments were defeated along party lines.

Specifically, the Liberal finance critic presented an amendment that would have addressed the issue of high management fees. Why would the government defeat it? The government decided that Canadians should be cast to the markets without any form of protection, despite the warnings coming from experts on the subject. In simple language, this means that investors, average Canadians interested in the PRPPs, would be legally required to pay fees that would guarantee a profit for the bank. That sounds to me like an inefficient way of delivering pensions.

These requirements are the cornerstone of the PRPP plan. With this in mind, I am left to wonder how PRPPs could possibly yield results for Canadians and pensioners. The simple answer is that PRPPs would not help the average Canadian prepare for retirement, just as millions of Canadians have not been able to max out their RRSPs.

Forcing Canadians 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 new megaprisons and $40 billion for an untendered stealth fighter jet deal is not a plan for pensions. PRPPs will not work for those who need them the most.

Why are we not learning from some of the mistakes of other countries? Australia adopted its version of PRPPs over a decade ago, in 1997. The recent study that I alluded to earlier, done by the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management, found that the only benefit from that plan went to the financial services industry.

Why not look at other options? Let me tell the House a bit about the Liberal option. 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 need it, while delivering the low overhead cost structure of the Canada pension plan.

A supplementary Canada pension would be a simple cost-effective solution to the pension question facing our country. It would be a defined benefit pension for everyone, even those who have left the workforce during their lives for child rearing, illness, seasonal employment 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. A supplementary Canada pension would be a plan for real pension reform.

The Conservatives could not care less. By ignoring the amendments that we had put forward, by ignoring our good intention of trying to work with the government on making changes to Bill C-25, the government is clearly showing that it has no interest in the idea that Canadians should have anybody help them to save money.

The government's fend-for-yourself attitude that we see every day in the House continues. Bill C-25 is just another example of good intentions but failed legislation.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise again to speak to Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act.

First, I would like to respond to the last Liberal speaker. When I listened to him, I wondered if there were warning bells that there would be a merger between the NDP and Liberals. Maybe he was talking about that. I wish them the best of luck.

Coming back to the business of the pension plan, I will speak to the NDP position later on. Right now I will speak about the Liberal position, which is typical. The Liberals are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They like this, but they want to do that. What do they want to do?

Let me tell them this. They should not mislead Canadians when they speak about the CPP.

We should look at the CPP legislation. CPP can only be amended by the consensus of two-thirds of the provinces, representing two-thirds of the population. That is how one can change CPP, and not by what the Liberal Party has said. The Liberals can talk about anything they want, but it will not change the fact that CPP can only be changed when two-thirds of the provinces agree to change it. We should be honest about it.

The provincial finance ministers, at their 2010 meeting, had strong objections to changes to the CPP. Maybe the Liberals should take that fact into consideration. The provinces have a strong objection to changing CPP in the way in which the member keeps speaking about as a good way to change it. For that reason, they will support it but they want CPP.

Yet, as was pointed out, the NDP government in Manitoba is different from the federal NDP opposition. However, all provincial finance ministers agreed that this was the right way to go. I am sorry to say that the objections made by the Liberals against this bill hold no water. It is typical Liberal rhetoric. They are sitting on both sides of the fence.

I will talk about the NDP's opposition to the bill. The NDP is now a party with its head in the sand. I look at what the NDP leader has said. He has been talking about the Dutch disease, creating division between resource rich provinces and so-called manufacturing provinces, not understanding that resources and manufacturing are intertwined.

The provincial economies in Canada are intertwined. Yet the Leader of the Opposition is going around the country and talking about the Dutch disease, saying that the resource sector is destroying the economy of the province of Quebec where he was born. He said that it was destroying manufacturing jobs in Quebec. What narrow thinking. The NDP is aspiring to be the Government of Canada? That is the most dangerous scenario one can think about happening in our country.

If the Liberal members would like to join the NDP, I would ask them to think about this. Do they want to join a party that is sowing division in our country? We have one of the best mobility systems in the world, considering Canada's economic situation compared with other countries. We can move from eastern Canada to western Canada within days and have everything transferred.

We have an economic system that benefits the whole country. Yet, what did the NDP leader say? He is blasting the resource rich provinces. Now he has also changed and is hitting northern Ontario. He does not like the forestry sector there.

I can tell the House that he will quickly change his tune when it applies to his province of Quebec. What kind of leadership is being displayed by the so-called Leader of the Opposition, whom some have termed the “prime minister in waiting?”

As long as I am on this side, we will fight tooth and nail to make sure Canadians understand how divisive that party is. That is why it comes as no surprise that the NDP opposes this legislation. When the NDP opposes something, we know we are on the right track.

Let me get back to talking about the pooled registered retirement. Those who have a business background know the value of having this pooled registered pension plan.

My wife ran a business for 15 years. I worked for the city and helped her with her business. I had a government pension plan then and I have a government pension plan even now, and so do many Canadians. Canadians who work for big corporations have a pension plan. After putting 15 years of hard labour into her business, my wife has no pension because there was no vehicle available to her. All she can do is put money into RRSPs to help her out with her pension planning because that is her only vehicle. When I talked to her about this pooled plan, she wanted to know why nobody had brought this idea forward before. Why did it take so long?

All provinces unanimously support this. Not all Canadians will benefit from this plan, but it will reach those people who have been left out, who do not have any other tools like we have. This plan would fill the crack in their retirement planning.

This plan is a strong tool. It would allow a portion of Canadians, those who are self-employed and those who cannot enter into this, the opportunity to have another vehicle for their long-term retirement plan. What is wrong with that picture? I do not understand what those members find wrong with that.

I hear members talking about the fee, saying they think it would be high. Let me get this straight. Those members are going to oppose a very good plan that would benefit thousands of Canadians because they think the fee would be high. Let me be clear. They do not have any proof that it would be high.

This plan would be based on experience, based on pooled resources and based on this being under an act of legislation. Those would ensure we get the best money for this pension plan. In the long term it would help thousands of Canadians in their retirement, which is key.

The opposition will fearmonger again about our government raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 to qualify for OAS. That does not apply to those who are currently getting it or will be getting it in the near future. We have to look at the long term.

On June 2, I will have been in the House for 15 years. When I was on the other side, we debated the Canada pension plan when the issue was raised by the government of the day. At that time, the Liberals sat on this side of the House. We changed to reflect the increase. We recognized that the Canada pension plan needed to be changed because otherwise it would not be there in the long term for Canadians.

Today, instead of raising the premiums, which would impact the fragile economic recovery, all we are saying is that the age be deferred from 65 to 67. This would apply to the younger population. This would provide them with enough time and tools to continue to build a retirement savings plan, which would be there for them when they retire. The plan will not be bankrupt.

To the Liberal who keeps talking about seniors, I am telling him to use the word correctly, when he is talking about 65 to 70. This is for the younger generation coming up. The current seniors and the seniors we will be getting in the next short period of time are not impacted. However, that is not what he is going to talk about because it does not fit into his agenda.

However, I am happy to note, irrespective of whatever they say, at least they will vote with us, so that by itself is a positive factor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I am able to add a few words today on what is a very interesting bill. It clearly demonstrates first-hand the differences among the Conservative-Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.

I will pick up on the member's reference to the Liberal Party's position, saying it wanted to make CPP optional. Of course, that is not true. Let me start by saying that the whole issue of pension has been a very interesting subject to Liberals for generations. In fact, the area of retirement and making sure our seniors are taken care of is nothing new for the Liberal Party. The Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement were all programs initiated by Liberal prime ministers, going back to some of the ideas that were at the forefront in making a difference and enhancing seniors' pensions today. The Liberal seniors critic today was talking about how we could have incorporated some form of additional contributions to benefit CPP.

What I like about this particular bill is it shows that there are differences among political parties. Let me reference the NDP's position. It is saying it does not support this bill. It does not recognize pooled registered plans as a viable alternative for consumers, individual companies and self-employed individuals. I do not understand why. Many individuals would see this as a positive step forward. It is not going to be the major pension supplement into the future for our seniors but many seniors would be able to benefit from this program.

It is not just the Liberal Party that recognizes that. Some provincial administrations across the country have also seen the value of it. Thousands of small businesses throughout the country have seen the value of pooled registered pension plans. There seems to be fairly tangible support for the concept of having pooled registered pension plans. This is where Liberals differ from New Democrats on this bill.

Then there are the Conservatives, or the Reform-Conservatives as they are better known as nowadays, saying they want to create the fund with management fees. Australia has developed a similar program and the management fees are a killer. They are taking away a great deal of profit, which would, in essence, go back to the seniors who are hoping to be able to use this money to supplement their CPP and OAS.

It was not that long ago that the leader of the Liberal Party spoke on this bill at second reading and talked about the overhead cost structure for CPP. Why are we not going out of our way to incorporate or allow for some sort of similar situation, perhaps one in which the pooled pension plan would have the same structure? What are the options we have? The government tends to turn a deaf ear. We have to ask why it is not looking for a mechanism that would allow for this tool to be maximized for our seniors?

I challenge the government to seriously look at that and to look at bringing in the potential for amendments. I recognize we are already into the third reading stage, but maybe we could get the Senate to rectify this issue. Obviously the government has not been sensitive to that.

It makes sense. If we can allow our seniors to generate more income on their savings and allow the employers that put money to the side to generate more revenue for retiring seniors, why would we not do that?

If we look at what happens in other jurisdictions, we can see these types of funds have huge administrative costs and management fees. There is a good number of people who make huge profits and those profits are in essence taken away from seniors in their ability to maximize their pension benefits.

We are not necessarily against profits. We recognize where the Canada pension plan contributes and relies on profits. A structure is in place where there have been great savings, compared to other types of pooled registered pension plans.

That is why we suggest the government open its eyes and look at how CPP is administered and structured to see how we might be able to maximum the benefits of a pooled registered pension plan and maybe allow some of those agents that manage the CPP an opportunity to deal with this pooled registered pension plan, at the end of the day believing that seniors will benefit.

The issues of pensions is very important nowadays. It is on the minds of a lot of Canadians because the government seems to be fixated on creating a crisis with respect to our OAS. The government has suggested Canadians not retire at age 65 but wait until age 67. That has sent significant shock waves through our communities.

From the perspective of the area that I represent, Winnipeg North, when the Prime Minister was overseas, musing about what he wanted to do with pension plans and the pensions of seniors, it was somewhat insensitive to the day-to-day decisions seniors had to make. Some of those decisions deal with things such as whether they should pass on lunch to buy medicine, or whether they have enough money to take their grandchildren out to a special event.

Seniors face some serious financial issues today in a very real and tangible way. They are looking for leadership from the Government of Canada. What they want to hear from the government is that it truly cares. They want it to provide hope for individuals as they get closer to retirement.

When I look at Bill C-25, I will give the government some credit. It proposes to expand the toolbox of what some seniors might be able to look at, including working with good employers that recognize the value of pensions. However, the bottom line is we need to think about pensions a lot more than we are, and we need to look at a wide variety—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from London—Fanshawe. I am glad to have my RRSPs. I have been trying to put money away in RRSPs. However, when one looks at their efficacy, one finds that overall they cost the system a tremendous amount and really provide little pension availability, and they provide less as we look down the income scale. The people who most need pension benefits are less likely to find them through RRSPs.

I am attracted to the idea of more municipal bonds. I know we are thinking outside the Bill C-25 box, but what does the member for London—Fanshawe think of Canadians being able to put their retirement savings in municipal bonds in their own communities?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-25 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Madam Speaker, it is important that we look very carefully at the pooled registered pension plan because it simply does not serve Canadians. In addition to not serving Canadians, it does nothing to solve Canada's pension crisis.

The pension crisis has been the subject of debate for the past several years. The issue is that more than 11 million Canadian workers do not have a workplace pension plan. Old age security and the Canada pension plan, which everyone has, do not provide enough money for people to live on in their retirement. To make matters worse, most Canadians are not making up for their lack of pension plan by saving for retirement on their own. Less than one-third of people entitled to contribute to RRSPs actually do so. There are now more than $600 billion in unused RRSP contribution room being carried forward, and only about one-third of Canadian households are currently saving at levels that will generate sufficient income to cover their non-discretionary expenses in retirement.

It also needs to be noted that the market is not a reliable place in which to gamble retirement security. Turmoil on financial markets has had and will continue to have a devastating impact on workplace pension. People who were saving for retirement through RRSPs have found all too often that the value of their investments has dropped so much that they are now faced with having to postpone their retirement or struggle to replace retirement savings by attempting to find some kind of work. The reality is, however, that finding employment at age 68 or 70 is profoundly difficult. The workplace has changed and the skills that retirees once brought to the job are no longer marketable.

For several years there has been a clear consensus among experts that real pension reform was and continues to be critical. However, rather than intelligently and positively engaging in reform that is practical, the government has instead introduced pooled registered pension plans, PRPPs, which, according to the federal finance minister, will make low cost, private sector pension plans accessible to millions of Canadians who have up to now not had access to such plans. It is magic.

The legislation introduced in mid-November would allow employers to offer PRPPs to their employees. The scheme would be run by insurance companies and other financial institutions that would pool the savings of workers whose employers sign up for the program. The financial institutions would run the program on behalf of employers and, of course, will charge fees for doing so. Employers would not have to contribute to the plan. Workers' savings would be locked in unless employees provide notice in writing that they want to opt out, which, apparently, would be allowed.

No pension would be guaranteed by this program. In effect, it is yet another voluntary savings scheme that would do nothing to address the pension crisis we face. Since very few people take advantage of existing voluntary retirement savings schemes, it is not clear why officials are claiming that proposed PRPPs will prove more attractive than existing programs. So far, the only advantage being promoted by PRPPs is that management fees will be lower than for individual RRSPs since contributions will be pooled. However, there is no guarantee of lower fees nor is there any certainty that this will be a big selling point for the plans. It is also worth noting that there is no evidence people are not saving through RRSPs because of the high management fees. It is far more likely that, because individuals are raising families, paying bills, trying to manage the cost of housing and educating kids, there is no money left at the end of the month for an RRSP.

The PRPP is not a defined benefit plans. It does not provide a secure retirement income with a set replacement rate of pre-retirement income. It is not fully transferrable. It is not indexed to inflation and will not increase with the increasing cost of living. Employers, not employees, will decide contribution levels and it will not be mandatory for employers to contribute or match workers' contributions. Without employers contributing, it is not really a pension plan. In fact, employers who do not help their employees save for retirement could end up with a competitive advantage over those who do.

Canada does not need yet another voluntary tax-assisted retirement savings program. It needs public pensions that provide all Canadians with a basic guarantee of adequate income that will protect their standard of living in retirement. Expanding the Canada pension plan would meet this objective.

In fact, federal and provincial finance ministers seemed set to take this route when they assembled for their meeting in Alberta in December 2010. However, because Alberta opted out, the federal government decided to abandon talks and introduce the PRPP scheme instead.

Improving the replacement rate of CPP retirement benefits would provide much better retirement pensions to virtually all Canadians. A relatively modest increase in contribution rates would be required, but that could be phased in over a period of time, as the Canadian Labour Congress and others have proposed.

The CPP covers all workers, including those who are self-employed, and its benefits would be guaranteed in relation to earnings and years of service. They would be indexed for inflation and fully portable from one job to another. This option would address the two key issues in the pension system that are causing concern, the lack of coverage of workplace pension plans and the fact that individuals are not saving for their retirement on their own. As well, of course, an expanded CPP could reduce federal expenditures on GIS, because more people would have adequate retirement incomes.

While the government says CPP contribution rates cannot be increased when there is a fragile economy, it is worth noting that when the financing of CPP was changed at the end of the 1990s, combined employer-employee CPP contribution rates nearly doubled from 5.6% of covered earnings to 9.9% over a five-year period, during which the unemployment rate fell from 9.6% to 7.6%. It should also be noted that the PRPP scheme will do nothing to help the baby boomer generation now coming up to retirement.

It seems this is a lost generation as far as pension reform is concerned. It has been estimated that roughly one-third of Canadians now in the age group 45 to 64 are likely to end up with incomes that fall far short of adequate minimum incomes and/or incomes that would allow them to maintain their standard of living when they retire.

The adequacy of CPP benefits has been an issue for more than 30 years. It is time now for federal and provincial governments to set aside ideology and work together to solve the problem.

The study by pension expert and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives research associate Monica Townson provides a thorough analysis of the PRPP program and argues that expanding the Canada pension plan would provide better retirement pensions to virtually all Canadians. Ms. Townson found that the expansion of the CPP would provide a mandatory defined benefit pension to virtually all Canadians, giving them a basic retirement income that for modest and middle income earners would preserve their standard of living.

The government's PRPP proposal does not do that. It does not guarantee a pension. Benefits would depend on selection of investments and stock market performance. Participation would depend on an employer's deciding to take part in the program. It is basically just a defined contribution pension.

In a defined contribution plan, there are no guarantees of how much money would be left when an individual retires. The risks are borne entirely by the individual employee. In these types of plans, the amount of money available at retirement depends on the outcomes of the investments, which cannot be relied upon. Defined contribution plans lack the security of defined benefit pension plans like the CPP-QPP, which pay a guaranteed set amount upon retirement.

It is important to remember that Bill C-25 places no caps on administration fees or costs, and merely assumes lower costs will emerge through competition in the marketplace. Financial institutions like banks, insurance companies and trust companies stand to profit substantially from these fees. However, expanding the CPP-QPP would not cost the government any more than its proposed PRPP.

More important, expanding the CPP-QPP would not entail transferring huge management fees to private financial institutions.

How can I get through to the government? Seniors have worked hard all their lives. They deserve decent retirement. Bill C-25 would not provide that.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-25. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government's priority is, of course, the economy. We are committed to job creation and economic growth.

As a result, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. This bill implements the budget, Canada's economic action plan 2012, to ensure certainty for the economy.

For the benefit of Canadians and parliamentarians, when we introduced the bill, we said we would vote on it on May 14. The second reading vote on the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act will be on May 14.

After tomorrow, which will be the final day of debate on this bill, we will have had the longest second reading debate on a budget bill in at least the last two decades.

On Monday and Tuesday we will continue with another bill that will support the Canadian economy and job creation, especially in the digital and creative sectors.

We will have report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act.

This bill puts forth a balanced, common sense plan to modernize our copyright laws. Committees have met for over 60 hours and heard from almost 200 witnesses. All of this is in addition to the second reading debate on Bill C-11 of 10 sitting days.

After all that debate and study, it is time for the measures to be fully implemented so Canadians can take advantage of the updated rules and create new high-quality digital jobs.

Should the opposition agree that we have already had ample debate on Bill C-11, we will debate Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act; Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan free trade act; and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act in the remaining time on Monday and Tuesday.

Wednesday, May 16, will be the next allotted day.

On Thursday morning, May 17, we will debate the pooled registered pension plans act. This bill will help Canadians who are self-employed or who work for a small business to secure a stable retirement.

In the last election, we committed to Canadians that we would implement these plans as soon as possible. This is what Canadians voted for and this is what we will do.

If it has been reported back from committee, we will call Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, for report stage debate on Thursday afternoon.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

As the Canadian Association of Retired Persons has said, and the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour has repeated very eloquently: we are punishing future generations in an effort to spend tens of billions of dollars on an over cost fiasco. We are saying Canadian families deserve better than that.

That was the F-35s. I am now going to address the issue of prisons, which are the second part of what we are discussing today, because these are the government's two priorities.

We already know that there are going to be budget cuts, cuts to old age security. We have already seen how this government is attacking ordinary families across the country. Middle-class families and the poorest Canadians are being affected by cuts to services. In this budget, the government claims that the bills it is proposing, for example, the crime bill, will not cost any money.

First, I must point out that, right now, there is a low crime rate. The number of crimes being committed in Canada is decreasing. At the same time, the government made major cuts to programs to prevent and combat crime across the country. We know full well that every penny or dollar spent on a crime prevention program will save us six times that amount—6¢ or $6—down the road in other parts of the judicial system, whether it be costs related to police, criminal courts or, of course, prisons. However, this government has cut funding for programs to prevent and combat crime.

Then, instead of presenting an agenda that we could agree with, the government presented its prison agenda. In the budget, the government says that this will not cost anything. Frankly, we do not believe it. In the studies that were conducted, the government never divulged the real cost of its programs and bills. It never made any estimates or calculations. As a former financial administrator, I am wondering how anyone could go ahead with a bill without doing any calculations at all to determine how much it will cost.

In this case, the government has not done any calculations or made any estimates. It has no idea of the cost. Even in the budget, the government clearly stated that we do not need prisons. Provinces all over the country know full well that the hodgepodge bills that the government has been introducing one after another will cost taxpayers a lot of money. The provinces will have to build prisons, and we also know how much that will cost us.

The Institut de recherche et d'informations socio-économiques did a study that took all these factors into account. It is too bad that the government did not try to do the same. I know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer provided a good estimate of some aspects of the programs, but the only valid estimate, the only valid and complete calculation of the cost of these programs comes from the Institut de recherche et d'informations socio-économiques, which said:

Don Head, the Commissioner of Correctional Services Canada [he did his own calculations], later said that he estimated that federal prisoner numbers would increase by 3,400, requiring 2,700 new spaces, at a cost of $2 billion to support that increase.

The increase will result from the bills this government has introduced without calculating the costs associated with them. This will also have an impact on the provinces.

The study also states:

Although passed by the federal government, many of the bills introduced will have a significant impact on the provinces and their public finances. According to some estimates...for Bill C-25, the provinces will be forced to bear most of the cost of funding the new prison system. The PBO predicts that, for the Truth in Sentencing Act alone, which came into effect on February 22, 2012, provincial and territorial responsibility for funding the prison system will increase from 49% to 56% compared to the federal level. The provinces will have to bear 78% of the cost of building these new cells, that is, $12.655 billion. Quebec's share alone will be $2.6702 billion. There is nothing to indicate that future legislation will reverse this trend.

As for all of the construction-related calculations, not to mention the annual costs associated with these bills, the eminent researchers with the Institut de recherche et d’informations socio-économiques, very reputable people, reported the following:

This socio-economic report has demonstrated the misleading nature of the Canadian government's statements regarding its crime-fighting policies. The changes made by Bill C-25 and Bill C-10 are very unlikely to have any impact on Canada's crime rate. As recent experience has shown, an approach that focuses more on offender reintegration and rehabilitation is more likely to effectively reduce the number of crimes committed. What this report adds to the file is that not only are the government's measures likely to be ineffective, but they will also be very costly for taxpayers.

This is a very important point.

They will require investments of at least $18.802 billion in prison infrastructure and engender ongoing costs of $1.616 billion for the federal government and $2.222 billion for the provinces. In addition to the federal investment, the changes will force Quebec to invest $3.057 billion in its own infrastructure. Bill C-25 will also cost the province an extra $407 million per year, and Bill C-10 will cost an extra $82 million per year. The government of Quebec allocated $379 million for prison operations in 2011-12. These additional annual costs will increase that budget by 129%.

Since the justice minister...promised that, “This is just the beginning of our efforts in this regard. We'll introduce other legislation as well," we feel it is important to point out other solutions. Focusing on reintegration and rehabilitation, which are proven solutions, would enable the government to spend much less on prisons, giving it more flexibility to invest in social policy.

This is extremely important. We are talking about two programs. One would probably cost about $40 billion and the other $19 billion, with additional annual costs of $1 billion to $2 billion.

We find all these priorities to be unbelievable. The government has no credibility since it is telling us that there are cuts coming for seniors and ordinary families, but then it is willing to spend whatever it takes on its pet projects.

We are saying that Canadian families deserve better.

I can honestly say that the NDP caucus, which is made up of dynamic and energetic individuals, is really the best in the world.

One would never imagine that we came from a convention over the weekend during which nobody slept and right into the budget deliberations. We have our new leader in place, the member for Outremont. Everybody in the NDP is still full of vim, vigour and energy. It is a wonderful thing to see. What a fantastic, amazing group. One can just imagine how much more energy we are going to have on October 20, 2015, when the first NDP government is formed.

It will not be a government that is going to spend $40 billion on a fighter jet whose costs have simply exploded. We are going to be tightly monitoring budgets so that kind of thing does not happen. If a project goes off the rails, we will cancel it. We are not going to spend $19 billion on prisons when the crime rate is actually going down. We think we should be investing in crime prevention programs. We think we should be investing in bringing the crime rate down even further. We should be investing in addiction programs.

We will be doing something for our police officers and firefighters as well. It is important to mention this. Five years ago the Conservatives voted for the NDP motion to establish a public safety officer compensation fund to ensure that when firefighters and police officers pass away in the line of duty, their families are taken care of. We have been waiting and firefighters and police officers have been waiting now for six years for the Conservative government to bring that in and the Conservatives have not done it. They have left those police officers and firefighters out in the cold. When an NDP government is elected, one of the first things we are going to bring in is a public safety officer compensation fund.

Ultimately, that is what we are all about in the NDP. We take care of Canadian families. We take care of Canadians. We are folks who work very hard. NDP MPs have the reputation of being very strong constituency advocates. We work very hard. We can see the energy people have been putting in, even over the course of the last hour, which is remarkable, given the last few weeks with everybody working double and triple shifts every day of the week.

We do that because our energy comes from Canadian families. We represent them because we truly believe that our place in the House of Commons is to stand up for those Canadian families, to represent them, to be their voice in the House of Commons.

The many emails and faxes, the postings we are getting on Facebook and the tweets that are coming in on Twitter all attest to the fact that the majority of Canadians out there are concerned about the direction this country is taking. They are concerned about the kind of country we are seeing increasingly, with a small minority of people who seem to have most of the pie and where families are increasingly left out in the cold. They are concerned about the fact that they see families struggling more and more to make ends meet as their wages go gradually, but on an ongoing basis, lower and lower. They are concerned about seeing families in their neighbourhoods lose a breadwinner because of plant closures. I prefaced my remarks this morning by talking about the dozens of plants and factories that have closed in this country only in the last few months. They are concerned about what they see as a meanspirited government, a government that does not respect democracy, a government that does not respect input, a government that says seniors and future seniors have to pay the price for its misguided priorities of prisons and fighter jets before future seniors and services that Canadian families depend on.

That is what is happening with more and more Canadian families. The majority of Canadian families are very concerned.

The Conservative government was elected on May 2 on the promise to maintain health care funding, on the promise to maintain retirement security, on the promise to maintain services for Canadian families.

This budget is a betrayal. It is a betrayal of those promises that were solemnly made by the Prime Minister. He looked Canadians right in the eye, shook their hands and said, “I will not touch health care transfers. I will not touch retirement security. I will not touch the services your family depends upon.” This is a betrayal--

Finance

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You're very prophetic.

Bill C-25, in clause 26, provides that any administrator of a pooled registered pension plan must provide those services at a low cost. The amendment attempts to establish a board that would seek to determine the criteria to be used to decide what an acceptable low cost for such services would be by examining the range of other investment options available to Canadians and their associated fees.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the creation of this board is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-25, and the amendment is therefore inadmissible. Additionally, the creation of the board may also infringe on the financial initiative of the crown, as the power to appoint persons to a board also includes the power to pay.

I will state that this also applies to NDP-6.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. I have a ruling. I will just remind members that rulings of the chair are not debatable. If there is a challenge.... The committee can challenge the chair, but I will inform you of this beforehand.

The ruling is as follows.

Bill C-25 creates a legal framework for the establishment and administration of pooled registered pension plans for employees and self-employed persons. A position of superintendent is created to be responsible for the control and supervision of the administration of this act. The superintendent issues licences to corporations to act as administrators of pooled registered pension plans.

Bill C-25 also contains provisions for the superintendent to oversee the actions of the administrators, with the power to transfer a plan's assets to another entity or even to revoke the registration and cancel the certificate of registration of the plan in question. These remedies are clearly defined, as is the system of objection and appeals.

This amendment attempts to transfer the administrative responsibilities and duties associated with the role of the administrator of a registered plan directly to the superintendent through means of trusteeship. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of this scheme is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-25, and the amendment is therefore inadmissible.

That is my ruling. It applies to NDP-1 as well as to NDP-4. NDP 4 is on page 6 of the documents I have. It relates to clause 34.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 1, 2012, we are doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-25, an act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other acts.

We have a two-hour session here for consideration of this bill clause-by-clause. You should all have the clauses in front of you. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed. Therefore, I shall move to clause 2.

My understanding is there is not an amendment until clause 21. Perhaps for simplicity, and members can just stop me at any time, I will ask if there is any discussion with respect to clauses 2 to 20. We will deal with the clauses for which I have no amendments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier this week, in testimony, we heard from the Canadian Bar Association and the CFIB and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons that the Liberal proposal to have a supplementary, voluntary CPP would help achieve the stated objectives of Bill C-25.

Mr. Laporte, first of all, you're a pension lawyer. You're a member of the bar association. Would the low-fee option help, for instance, provide some advantages, including competition to PRPPs, and as such help keep fees lower?

[Yves-Thomas Dorval, President, Quebec Employers' Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Quebec Employers' Council is comprised of several large Quebec companies and also includes the vast majority of sectoral employer associations. It is the only employers' confederation in Quebec.

The mission of the Quebec Employers' Council is to ensure that businesses have the best possible conditions, especially with respect to human capital, in order to prosper in a sustainable way in the context of global competition.

We thank the Standing Committee on Finance for giving us the opportunity to comment on Bill C-25 as part of its consultations.

The Quebec Employers Council supports the federal government bill providing for the creation of pooled registered pension plans for federally regulated companies. The flexibility and adaptability envisioned by the PRPP will allow federally regulated companies that do not already have a pension plan to provide a simplified one for their employees. Employers, notably those in the small and medium-sized business sector, will thus have the opportunity to offer a plan that ensures financial security for their employees when they retire but will not have the fiduciary responsibility or the obligation to make contributions.

Let's recall that, according to several evaluations, in particular from the OECD and Mercer, Canada's retirement income system is one of the best in the world. The three pillars of this retirement income system enable Canadians to maintain an adequate lifestyle when they retire. But it seems that up to 30% of Canadian workers do not save enough to ensure the same lifestyle after retirement as when they were working.

There is also a challenge for future generations. Some changes are desirable to improve retirement savings, even though we acknowledge that the problem of financial security is not necessarily generalized and that, therefore, the solutions mustn't be generalized either.

We need to keep in mind that, to finance their retirement, Canadians invest not only in pension savings accounts, but also in other assets, particularly the house they own and live in or in various financial vehicles. They can also choose to work full-time or part-time for a few years more, assuming they remain in good health.

The Quebec Employers Council proposes that discussions regarding the retirement savings issues be guided by four main principles: no transferring of the burden to future generations; no hindering of businesses' competitiveness; no removing of individuals' responsibility; and no increasing of businesses' administrative load. Any change should encourage a marked improvement in the investment rather than substituting one form of an investment for another form that already exists. The regulatory structure has to be simple and flexible. The simpler the plan is to put in place and the easier it is to administer, the better chance it has to be successfully implemented.

This bill clearly seems to be moving in this direction, and we have a few specific comments to make.

First, this bill offers a greater number of workers who were not covered by a retirement plan, especially those working in small and medium enterprises, the possibility of being covered. It also allows employees in SMEs to benefit from the economies of scale that large plans do. The intended employees would automatically be enrolled in their employer's PRPP, but could withdraw if they wish to. According to all the examples we have seen, being signed up automatically generally encourages greater participation.

Second, we also want employers to be able to offer their employees this kind of plan without being required to contribute. Companies that wish to may do so, but companies, particularly SMEs, often cannot afford to contribute more.

[Kevin Skerrett, Senior Research Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Kevin Skerrett. I work as a senior research officer on pensions at the national office of CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. In my role as researcher for the past 15 years, I've provided support to our locals and provincial sections dealing with pension issues, including collective bargaining.

We would first like to thank this committee for the opportunity to present to you today on Bill C-25. As we are all aware, this proposed legislation arrives in a period of very significant challenges for those of us working to defend, strengthen, and improve retirement security for Canadians.

CUPE is the largest trade union in Canada. We represent well over 600,000 workers, mostly in the public sector, but not entirely. While a majority of our members belong to secure defined benefit-type workplace pension arrangements, we have a significant minority, maybe about a third or 200,000 members, who do not have any workplace plan, or only have some form of defined contribution system or an RRSP.

I'll limit our comments today to three main issues. First of all, I'd like to strongly affirm our agreement with the written submission that was provided to the committee by our colleagues at the CLC. CUPE is the largest affiliate of the CLC. We feel that submission presents a powerful and comprehensive case that the basic design of the PRPP as represented in this legislation is fundamentally flawed.

Insofar as our common goal, the goal we all share, and the government's stated goal, is to enhance the current and future retirement security of Canadians, we do not see evidence that the introduction of a completely voluntary individual savings scheme, with absolutely no benefit security, will do anything to achieve this objective.

In contrast, the proven viable proposals from the CLC and other quarters for a fully funded and phased in doubling of the CPP at no cost to government budgets would greatly improve the pension and retirement prospects for those lower- and middle-income workers the current system is now failing.

This leads me to the second point we would like to make today, and that is about workplace pension arrangements. It is no secret that the defined benefit workplace pension plans that most of our members belong to, and many other workers, are under significant attack in both the private and public sectors.

In the private sector many of us have seen some high-profile cases where secure defined benefit arrangements with large employers—we think of Inco, U.S. Steel in Hamilton, the Royal Bank more recently, and even Air Canada last year—saw decent defined benefit-type arrangements replaced either entirely or partly with less secure defined contribution arrangements for newly hired employees. That's part of the landscape that is evolving.

Public sector workers, the bulk of our members, are also seeing pressures to give up secure benefits, often in the form of losses of indexation provisions—protection of the purchasing power of pensions.

In this context we believe that it is not only workers that have an interest in expanding the secure and efficient CPP, but also many employers. While most employer organizations will express opposition to expanding the CPP, we are convinced that many individual employers would in fact be supportive if an expanded CPP were recognized as an opportunity to rearrange their workplace-based pension arrangement and thereby reduce their cost and cost volatility.

[Leslie Byrnes, Vice-President, Distribution and Pensions, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and to share our views as the Standing Committee on Finance considers Bill C-25, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

The CLHIA is a voluntary association whose member companies account for 99% of our country's life and health insurance business. The industry provides a wide range of financial security products, such as life insurance, annuities, and supplementary health insurance, to about 26 million Canadians. Also, over two-thirds of Canada's pension plans, primarily defined contribution plans for small and mid-sized businesses, are administered by our life insurance companies.

We commend the government for introducing Bill C-25.

It targets the gap in Canada's retirement savings system that was identified in Jack Mintz's 2009 research for the joint working group of finance ministers, that gap being modest and middle-income Canadian households that may not be saving enough for retirement. It builds on the consensus among all federal, provincial, and territorial finance ministers, and it does so by seeking to build on the strengths of the third element of our three-pillar retirement saving system, namely, private sector savings.

The goal of the first two pillars, the public part, through OAS/GIS and CPP/QPP, is to provide a minimum income to meet basic needs. Canada is recognized internationally as doing a very good job at that.

It's the third pillar, private sector savings through workplace plans and individual savings, that's intended to provide income beyond the basic needs. This is where the shortfall exists, particularly with those who don't have access to a workplace retirement plan.

We believe PRPPs can be a vehicle to make a fundamental difference to the retirement savings landscape in Canada. The keys to their success are several.

One is their low cost: pooling will help to enhance scale and efficiencies. Another is simple designs that help keep those costs down. Also, professional administrators will relieve small and mid-sized businesses from the administrative and legal burdens that prevent so many businesses from offering retirement plans today. Next is harmonization across the country, which will be important in gaining the scale and efficiencies and which, again, are so important to getting at those low costs. Also, there are automatic features that provide behavioural nudges to encourage people to start saving, with appropriate opt-out provisions, of course.

We're hearing that small businesses are keenly interested in PRPPs. We've provided the clerk with the results of a survey of small and mid-sized businesses that we commissioned before Christmas. I'd just like to highlight a few points.

First, and hardly surprising, the smaller the company, the less likely they are to have a workplace retirement plan. Second, two-thirds of respondents said they would be interested in offering PRPPs. Third, over 70% of that group said they would be interested in contributing to a PRPP, even though they realize they wouldn't be required to do so. Finally, over 70% of all respondents thought that all employees should have access to some form of retirement savings plan at the workplace.

Clearly, there is still work to be done. Bill C-25 sets out the framework, but much of the detail will of course be spelled out in the regulations. As well, to ensure that PRPPs can be effective national plans, we'll also need provincial legislation. We look forward to working with governments and policy-makers on these next steps.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair, for the chance to appear here today. I'd be pleased to provide any further input.

[Chris Roberts, Senior Researcher, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to appear before you today and to present our views on Bill C-25. My remarks to the committee today are developed and amplified in the written submission that I believe you all have before you.

Just as a quick word about the Canadian Labour Congress, it's the national voice of 3.2 million workers in Canada. We bring together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, and in all parts of Canada.

The CLC is particularly concerned that a growing body of evidence suggests that a very significant proportion of middle-income earners are entering retirement with significant debt levels and facing a major post-retirement decline in their standard of living. The most recent study suggests that half of baby boomers earning modest incomes—so between $35,000 and $80,000 a year, on average—risk at least a 25% decline in their standard of living after retirement.

While the causes of this are several, a significant factor contributing to this outcome is the declining access of employees to workplace pension plans. By 2009, just under 10 million employees, or over 60% of all paid workers, had no workplace pension plan coverage whatsoever. Factoring in the self-employed, there are 12.4 million Canadians in the labour force with no pension plan coverage. The problem is especially acute in the private sector, where three-quarters of paid workers have no access to a pension plan at work.

In the CLC's submission, a phased-in, fully funded doubling of future Canada Pension Plan retirement benefits remains the most efficient and cost-effective means of addressing the problem of inadequate retirement savings in Canada. Unmatched by any private sector retirement savings scheme, the CPP delivers a secure, dependable retirement benefit, protected against inflation and payable until death, at a very low cost. The CPP is funded through earnings based on contributions so that future beneficiaries are not dependent on future tax revenue. Virtually all working Canadians are already members and contributors to the CPP.

By contrast, PRPPs are voluntary arrangements that employers may choose to make available to employees, and to which both employers and employees may choose to contribute. Significant challenges confront PRPPs in achieving anything close to the universal portability that the CPP already provides. Built on voluntary individual savings accounts, PRPPs cannot provide income predictability or security in retirement, as the CPP now does.

In the CLC's submission, PRPPs will not reverse the decline in workplace plan coverage. The crisis of workplace pension plan coverage in Canada is largely a crisis of coverage in small workplaces. Currently the vast majority of workers employed by small employers have no access to a workplace pension plan or a workplace-based voluntary savings vehicle. This has to do with a higher likelihood of bankruptcy and high rates of job creation and destruction, as well as high labour turnover in small enterprises.

Taken together, the economic and financial circumstances facing small and medium-sized enterprises make the voluntary take-up of PRPPs by small employers no more likely than the take-up of group RRSPs or defined contribution plans. The reasons for that are developed more extensively in our written submissions.

I want to say, finally, that there is little evidence that savings rates are a function of fees. To be sure, high fees are a serious problem for building retirement savings, but it is the presence of a mandatory plan in the first instance that predicts adequate savings in retirement, not low fees in voluntary savings plans.

In sum, PRPPs are unlikely to significantly expand workplace pension coverage. Rather, they are likely to further undermine defined benefit pension plans that currently exist and distract from what many pension experts already agree is needed: an expanded CPP.

Thank you very much.

[Jean-Pierre Laporte, Pension Lawyer, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. My name is Jean-Pierre Laporte. I'm a pension lawyer with the law firm of Bennett Jones LLP in the city of Toronto.

I welcome the opportunity to provide to the committee some expert testimony on pooled registered pension plans. My sense is that Bill C-25, in its current form, is an example of good intentions creating a legislative response that will have numerous unintended adverse consequences. Let me explain myself.

The stated goal of the legislation is to make it easier for Canadians to save towards their retirement. This is a goal that is shared by most Canadians. The vehicle chosen by Parliament is this pooled registered pension plan, or pooled plans. My remarks will explain why pooled plans are unlikely to achieve this goal.

First, at its core a pooled plan is a locked-in RRSP. As such, it shares all of the flaws of the RRSP, which I will discuss later, and has the added disadvantage that it doesn't have a lot of flexibility.

One of its three main deficiencies is that it locks in money until retirement. In other words, withdrawals are strictly restricted until retirement age. This may make sense in a traditional pension plan for someone who has a good salary and where every penny doesn't need to be used up to balance the family budget, but clearly this isn't the population that is targeted by pooled plans. We're talking about small entrepreneurs and their employees, and the self-employed.

The second is that it doesn't compel any employer contributions. This means that 100% of the funding responsibility rests on the backs of those who already have a hard time saving. At least under a defined contribution plan, the Canada Revenue Agency has imposed a minimum 1% employer contribution. I don't understand why the pooled plans don't have that 1% rule.

The third deficiency is that it doesn't give participants the right to vote with their feet. As I understand the legislation in its current form, it is the employer who selects the pooled plan from private sector providers, not the employees. So as long as the participants are employed, if they're not satisfied with the pooled plan, they're stuck with it. This isn't like an RRSP, where if you find higher returns somewhere else, you can always transfer your money.

Let me return to the RRSP flaws. Because it's a capital accumulation plan, the responsibility for the investments rests on the shoulders of the member. The member often is unsophisticated or doesn't have the time or the inclination to become an investment expert. So it ends up that bad decisions are made, which mean lower returns.

Finally, one of the fundamental flaws with all capital accumulation plans, including RRSPs, is that when there is an economic downturn and the value of the assets under management shrink, and you happen to retire at that time, the losses cannot be made up with additional contributions, the way they are in defined benefit plans, like the benefit plan the federal civil servants participate in. So there are no special payments and no way to make up for bad years. You're playing Russian roulette with the savings of Canadians. To me, this is a lot of taxpayer assistance going down the drain after decades of investing, so I have some real reservations about the current legislation.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is the 45th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. I want to welcome all of our guests here today.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 1, 2012, we're continuing our study of Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans.

We have before us seven witnesses.

First we will hear from Mr. Jean-Pierre Laporte.

Welcome.

We have, secondly, the Canadian Labour Congress. We also have the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. And we have the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

We have a representative from the Quebec Employers' Council.

We have Teamsters Canada. And as an individual, we have Monsieur Michel Lizée via video conference.

Can you hear me, Monsieur Lizée? Is the sound coming through for you? We can't hear him....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here to respond our questions. It was a very lively debate. If you have anything further to submit to the committee, please do so. We will all consider it.

Colleagues, I just wanted to see whether there was agreement to proceed with the proposed operational budgets for Bill C-25, Bill S-5, and Bill C-311. You should all have the numbers in front of you. Is there agreement to these three bills and the witnesses?

[Dr. Jeffrey Turnbull, Past-President, Canadian Medical Association]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

The Canadian Medical Association represents 76,000 physicians from across the country. Over the past 30 years, we have been very proactive in the area of pensions, and have engaged in a wide range of public consultations. In fact, the CMA was advocating for retirement savings plans even before the creation of the RRSPs in the 1950s.

Like the Canadian population at large, physicians represent an aging demographic; 38% of Canada's physicians are 55 years or older, for whom retirement is an important consideration. In addition, the vast majority of CMA members are self-employed physicians, and as such do not participate in workplace registered pension plans. Physicians, therefore, rely heavily on registered retirement savings plans relative to their retirement savings vehicles.

Our research shows that our membership favours plans that would enable the self-employed to participate in pension plans like the PRPPs. Further, physicians employ an estimated 155,000 Canadians, meaning that in fact they operate small businesses. Their employees would also be eligible for and benefit from the PRPP process.

CMA members believe that PRPPs will begin to address the imbalance between retirement savings opportunities for self-employed Canadians and those with workplace pensions. We are, however, concerned about the proposed structure and limitation of the PRPPs in three particular areas, which I'll bring to your attention, if you'll allow me.

To achieve adequate income replacement in retirement, CMA believes that Canadians should be encouraged to save more for their retirement through tax-deferred vehicles. The current percentage of dollar limits on contributions for vehicles such as the PRPPs and the RRSPs are well below the limits in the United States and the United Kingdom. Maximum dollar limits were essentially frozen 25 years ago, and despite a modest increase in 2004, these limits are easily attainable, and could now be easily improved or increased.

CMA therefore encourages this committee to consider amending Bill C-25 to increase the retirement savings capacity for self-employed individuals by raising the combined limit of the RRSPs and the PRPPs.

As for defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans, the summary report on retirement income adequacy research highlighted that defined benefit pension funds and annuities enable investors to share longevity risks as well as pool risky investments to diversify risk. By pooling risk, defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans provide more secure saving vehicles than defined contribution plans. The PRPP proposal should thus not be limited to defined contribution pension plans but also include targeted benefit and defined benefit plans. That should be considered and encouraged.

The CMA also believes that the sponsors of PRPPs should not be limited to financial institutions. Large, well-governed professional associations that represent a particular membership should be able to sponsor PRPPs for their own members, including self-employed members. The CMA recommends that clauses 14 to 26 of Bill C-25 be amended to clarify the type of organizations that can qualify for PRPP sponsorship.

As Canadians age, concerns about long-term care are also on the increase. The CMA encourages the government to consider options for pre-funding long-term care, including private insurance and tax-deferred, or tax-prepaid, savings approaches.

In closing, while the CMA supports the proposed PRPP framework in principle, we strongly ask you to consider our recommendations, as in our view they would improve the proposed legislation before us today by ensuring that PRPPs provide value to all self-employed Canadians, including physicians.

We appreciate this committee's work in seeking retirement solutions for all Canadians. We believe that together we can find innovative ways to provide hard-working Canadians with income security and dignity after retirement.

Thank you very much for listening.

[Mitch Frazer, Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, good afternoon.

On behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today to discuss our submission on Bill C-25 and to answer any of your questions. We are grateful for your parties' interest in securing the pension promise for all Canadians.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national organization representing more than 37,000 legal experts, including lawyers, law students, notaries and law professors throughout Canada. The primary objectives of the association include improvement of the law and the administration of justice. It is with these objectives in mind that I am speaking to you today.

The CBA submission you have received was prepared by members of the pension and benefits law section. This section consists of lawyers who have specialized knowledge and expertise in pension and benefits. They provide advice to a wide range of stakeholders, including pension administrators, employers, unions, employees and employee groups, and trust and insurance companies, to name a few.

The CBA has encouraged the government to adopt legislation permitting PRPPs in Canada as one means of improving the retirement savings system by providing an accessible, straightforward, and administratively low-cost retirement option for Canadians. We provided advice and recommendations to the government on the framework for PRPPs and on related tax issues as Bill C-25 was being developed.

The CBA was pleased with the government's introduction of legislation to allow PRPPs, which should fill a gap in the retirement savings system, particularly for the self-employed and for employees of small to medium-sized businesses that do not currently participate in registered pension plans. However, based on our expertise and knowledge of pension law, we have four general concerns about the bill's proposed framework.

First, PRPPs, as contemplated by the bill, do not appear to be a traditional pension plan, such as a defined benefit plan. Rather, they appear to be a new savings plan vehicle, analogous to group RSPs. As such, PRPPs may not, by themselves, provide adequate retirement income.

Second, PRPPs should strive for provincial harmonization to achieve the government's desired effect of offering simple, low-cost plans. Having to accommodate for different provincial treatments increases costs and could prevent eligible administrators from offering a single PRPP across the country.

Third, the bill should specifically allow associations of professionals to act as plan sponsors. We believe that this would help achieve the government's primary goal of achieving expanded pension coverage.

Fourth, the bill requires PRPP administrators to act as trustees, which will give rise to a fiduciary duty on their part. The CBA section questions how that duty will be reconciled with the administrator's ability to offer a commercial service.

Our written submission to the committee also contains a number of technical recommendations that we believe would help clarify the interpretation of the bill. While I do not have time to go through all of these recommendations in detail, I'd be pleased to answer any questions during the allotted time.

We at the CBA would be pleased to respond to any follow-up questions at a later date.

On behalf of the CBA, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

I would like to thank you for the interest and time you have given me.

We commend all of you for your efforts with respect to this extremely worthwhile initiative.

Thank you.

[Susan Eng, Vice-President, Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons]

Thank you very much.

CARP is a national, non-partisan organization with more than 300,000 members and 50 chapters across the country. We advocate for policy and legislative changes that will improve the quality of life for all Canadians as we age, and retirement security is the issue that brings us here today.

The core goal of any country's pension system is to provide an adequate system that is available to the full breadth of the population, sufficient to prevent poverty in old age, affordable to employers and employees, and robust enough to withstand major shocks, including economic, demographic, and political volatility. Recent events demonstrate that Canada's retirement system is not meeting that goal, in part because of inadequate pension coverage.

The question is whether the pooled registered pension plan envisioned by Bill C-25 fulfills the goal of a robust system.

It is not universal, but is optional. It's at the employer's option.

It's not necessarily low-cost. We have already heard the Minister of State for finance indicating that they may not set fees according to section 26 of the act.

It is a strictly defined contribution plan, which is little different from a group RRSP and not as attractive in some cases, since this plan is going to be locked in. And it is not as portable as it could be, given the challenges of the bureaucratic changes.

So it is respectfully submitted that material improvements are necessary, including proceeding with the promised enhancement of the CPP in order to ensure that the vast majority of Canadians can actually have access to an affordable and reliable pension savings vehicle to save for their own retirement.

To speak specifically first on the issue of universality, the PRPPs are dependent on the voluntary choice of employers to enrol their employees, and once enrolled the employees have an option to opt out. If they are not enrolling in RRSPs now, then what are the improved incentives going to be that will have employees choose to remain within PRPPs? Certainly deductible contributions are welcome, but mandatory employer contributions would be even more welcome. Even the existing DC plans require a 1% payroll contribution by the employer in order to be registered.

We would suggest that some reconsideration be made of the locking-in provision, because at this point, for many people it's a disincentive. It is important to allow some flexibility to employees, because they are now, according to the scheme of the act, not able to change their own administrator once an employer makes that change.

Auto-enrollment is something we have recommended, because it would improve uptake. But it's only beneficial if the plan itself is providing a predictable and adequate pension; it's not necessarily valuable if it is driven into the arms of a private-sector plan.

The second point that's important is that any new plan should enhance the adequacy of any retirement income, in terms of both sufficiency and predictability. The pooling and professional management envisioned by the PRPPs will of course improve adequacy, but high fees can still erode the earnings, as evidenced by the Australian experience with its superannuation fund. We are concerned with the reported comments that the government will not use section 26 to regulate the fees but will rather let it go to competition among relatively few players.

Finally, defined contribution plans leave the risk with the employees.

We are also a little bit concerned about the governance and fiduciary responsibilities, which at first seem to impose a fiduciary obligation, but we find that as soon as an employee makes a choice, this is going to be relieved.

I want to make a final comment on the CPP enhancement.

I left with the clerk, Mr. Chair, a copy of a chart that I think the members might find useful and, if it's acceptable to you, I'd ask that it be circulated.

The point I want to make about CPP enhancements simply is that it is an opportunity to provide for a mandatory contributory plan. CARP members were very encouraged in June 2010 when the finance ministers offered both a CPP enhancement and the PRPPs. Now that the CPP enhancement is off the table, that is a concern.

Our point to you simply is that even a modest improvement in the CPP—say, a 10% improvement to the benefit—would be a very cost-effective method to improve on people's retirement security. The cost is no more than $45 a month for employer and employee at the maximum levels, and for a low-income person—for whom this matters the most—at, say, a $20,000 income, the cost is an additional $18 a month for employer and employee.

We believe that Bill C-25 is mostly an important first step in addressing the retirement savings gap among Canadians, but we believe more can be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order this 44th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 1, 2012, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-25, an act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other acts.

We have with us here today six organizations: the Canadian Association of Retired Persons; the Canadian Bankers Association; the Canadian Bar Association; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; the Canadian Medical Association; and the Regroupement des jeunes chambres de commerce du Québec.

You have five minutes to make your presentation.

Ms. Eng, we'll begin with your presentation, for five minutes, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed an honour to be sitting directly in front of you, instead of beside you, and cheering you on in your balanced decisions, to which we listened many days and many nights at this committee. I enjoyed it all.

Welcome to the new members here.

It is great to be back, and great to be back to speak to what I think is a well overdue option for our pension or income retirement system in Canada.

I should mention that I'm here with some very learned people, some from our Department of Finance—Diane Lafleur, Leah Anderson, Lynn Hemmings, and Yasir Syed—and as well from OSFI, or the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, a couple of experts, Carol Taraschuk and John Grace. John Grace and I and Lynn covered a lot of miles developing this new concept. They have been a tremendous help. Bill C-25, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, is the reason we are here.

Mr. Chair, Canada's retirement system is recognized around the world by such experts as the OECD as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among Canadian seniors and in providing generous levels of replacement income to retired workers. Simply put, our system is the envy of the world. The introduction of the pooled registered pension plan, or, as it has come to be known, the PRPP, will only build on this well-earned reputation.

The success of this model rests on the strength of the three pillars. The first pillar is made up of the old age security, or OAS, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, often referred to as the GIS. These programs provide a basic minimum income guarantee for seniors and are funded primarily through taxes on working Canadians. Our government has a responsibility to ensure that programs such as these are available for the next generation of Canadians as well. That's why our government will take a prudent, balanced, and responsible approach to making sure that OAS remains sustainable.

The second pillar is the Canada Pension Plan as well as the Quebec Pension Plan. These are mandatory public target benefit pension plans that provide a basic level of income to Canadian workers when they retire. There are currently 16.5 million workers contributing to either CPP or QPP. With these programs paying $44 billion in benefits per year to now more than 6.5 million Canadians, the CPP is the centrepiece of Canada's pension system. I'm proud to say that it is fully funded, it is actuarially sound, and it is sustainable for the long term.

The third pillar is composed of tax-assisted private savings opportunities to help encourage Canadians to accumulate additional savings for retirement. It includes registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans. In total, the cost of tax assistance provided on retirement savings is currently estimated at $25 billion per year.

How do the PRPPs fit into what, as I say, is a good system already?

In 2009 a joint federal-provincial research working group conducted an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy in Canada. While the working group concluded that Canada's retirement system is performing well, it also found that some modest- and middle-income households may not be saving enough for retirement.

Of particular concern were the following findings. Participation in employer-sponsored registered pension plans was declining. The proportion of working Canadians with such plans has declined from 41% in 1991 to 34% in 2007. Also, Canadians are not taking full advantage of other retirement savings options, such as the RRSP. Currently there is over $600 billion of unused room in RRSPs.

Through you, Mr. Chair, let me reassure the committee that our government recognizes the importance of ensuring that all Canadians have adequate income for their retirement. The report by the working group sent a clear signal that a gap exists on the voluntary side of Canada's retirement system.

With this information in hand, our government took immediate action to fill that gap. Over the past two years, our government's commitment to strengthen Canada's retirement system has taken me to every province and territory and countless communities across this country. In my travels, I've consulted with many Canadians, met with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and held discussions with small and medium-sized business owners as well as self-employed Canadians.

At our federal-provincial-territorial finance ministers meeting in December of 2010, after examining the various proposals that came out of the consultations, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments unanimously decided to pursue the pooled registered pension plan framework. This decision was taken because the PRPP was considered an effective and appropriate way to target those modest- and middle-income individuals who may not be saving enough, and in particular those who currently do not have access to an employer-sponsored registered pension plan.

What then are the PRPPs? They are in fact a large-scale, broad-based pension arrangement. They will be available to employees with or without a participating employer. As well, they will be available to the self-employed. This is particularly important as, incredibly, over 60% of Canadians do not now have access to a workplace pension plan. In short, PRPPs will provide these Canadians with access to a low-cost pension arrangement for the very first time.

By pooling pension savings, PRPPs will offer Canadians greater purchasing power. Basically, Canadians will be able to buy in bulk. This means more money would be left in their pockets for their retirement. The introduction of PRPPs also marks a significant advancement for small and medium-sized businesses. Small and medium-sized businesses have, until now, experienced a significant barrier in being able to offer a pension plan to their employees. Under a PRPP, most of the administrative and legal burdens associated with a pension plan will be borne by a qualified, licensed, third-party administrator.

We all 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 just that. Bill C-25 represents the federal portion of the PRPP framework and is a major step forward in implementing PRPPs. Once the provinces put in place their PRPP legislation, the legislative and regulatory framework for PRPPs will be operational. This will allow PRPP administrators to develop and offer plans to Canadians and to their employers.

Working together, I am confident we can get this important new retirement savings option up and running for Canadians as soon as possible. Let me quote Dan Kelly, the vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:

This can't come soon enough from our perspective. We think this has great potential.

Before I take questions from committee members, I cannot stress enough how the introduction of the PRPP is just the most recent example of this government's continuing commitment to ensuring that Canadians have a dignified retirement.

I would like to take some time before you today to highlight some of the actions our government has taken to secure retirement income for Canadians. Financial literacy, for example, is an area where we are working to improve retirement income outcomes. Obviously, a strong system depends on the ability of its users to make informed decisions. That is why our government launched the task force on financial literacy to make recommendations on a cohesive, national strategy to improve financial literacy across Canada.

Since 2006, our government has increased the age credit amount by $1,000 in 2006 and then another $1,000 in 2009. We've doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for pension income credit, up to $2,000.

We introduced pension income splitting. We increased the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs to 71, up from 69 years of age before.

All told, we have provided about $2.3 billion in annual targeted tax relief to seniors and pensioners.

In addition, Budget 2008 introduced the tax-free savings account, which is particularly beneficial to seniors, as it helps them meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax-efficient basis after they no longer are able to contribute to an RRSP.

Our record also includes important improvements to several specific retirement income supports. In Budget 2008, we increased the amount that can be earned before the GIS is actually reduced. We raised that to $3,500 so that GIS recipients will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money without any reduction in their GIS benefits. Also, Budget 2008 increased flexibility for seniors and older workers with federally regulated pension assets that are held in life income funds.

In May 2009, Bill C-51 reformed aspects of the CPP to increase flexibility and fairness in the plan and allow it to better reflect the way Canadians live, work, and retire.

In Budget 2011, we announced a new GIS top-up benefit for the most vulnerable seniors. Seniors with little or no income will receive an additional annual benefit of up to $600 for seniors and $840 for couples.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan provides an additional $10 million over two years to enhance the New Horizons for Seniors program. This additional funding is enabling more seniors to participate in social events, pursue an active life, and contribute to their community. The program provides funding for projects to expand awareness of elder abuse, promote volunteering and mentoring, as well as encourage social participation of seniors.

Clearly, Mr. Chair, our records show our government is committed to the financial well-being of Canada's seniors, a commitment we've demonstrated since our first budget.

The PRPP is only the latest example of our government's continued commitment to helping Canadians realize their retirement dreams. The introduction of the PRPP not only fills a gap in Canada's retirement system but makes a system that is the envy of the world even stronger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order the 43rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Our order of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 1, 2012, is study of Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts.

We want to welcome our guests here today from the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and particularly the Hon. Ted Menzies, Minister of State for Finance, in his first appearance before the committee on which he used to sit as a very valuable member.

Welcome, Minister Menzies, to the committee. It's a pleasure to have you here today.

I'll note that we have Mike Wallace back at the committee as well. He came just to say hello to you—as well as Mr. Marston.

Minister Menzies, I understand you have an opening statement to present to the committee, and then we'll have questions from all the members.

Report Stage

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-19.

Once again, the Conservatives are showing their narrow ideology in trying to eliminate the Canadian firearms registry. This registry is strongly defended by our police forces and by the majority of Canadians, but this government is choosing once again to ignore reality. It continues to reject all the recommendations by the opposition parties and the provinces, showing utter contempt.

The arguments in favour of this bill are not very convincing, while there are many arguments against the bill that are backed by data and by groups that work in protecting Canadians. The Conservatives' three main arguments—that the registry is expensive and ineffective and it violates the rights of hunters—do not hold water.

Yes, the initial cost of the registry was exorbitant, but it has already been paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Abolishing the registry will not bring back the money that has already been spent. In addition, today, the government is refusing to even give the provinces the data when they are the ones that paid for it. The provinces will therefore have to once again spend taxpayers' money to recreate a registry that already existed. In short, the Conservatives are once again making the provinces pay, just as they are doing with Bill C-10 and Bill C-25 and just as we saw recently with the proposed changes to increase the age of eligibility for old age security benefits.

Also, according to the RCMP, abolishing the registry would result in direct savings of only $1 million to $3.6 million. That is what the lives of the thousands of people saved by this registry are worth to the Conservatives. This government claims to want to destroy the registry to save money. To the government, then, a life is worth nothing.This so-called savings is nothing compared to the increased cost of police investigations that will inevitably result from abolishing this registry.

In other words, the Conservatives' main argument for wanting to abolish the registry is simply a ridiculous lie. The annual cost of the registry is negligible and the government could easily cover this low cost if it stopped wasting taxpayers' money on exorbitantly priced military aircraft and the ridiculous promotion of royalty.

The other argument frequently used by the Conservatives to justify destroying the registry is that it is supposedly ineffective. This argument is no more convincing than the others. Police forces consult the registry more than 17,000 times a day and want the registry to be maintained. It allows police officers to plan their operations better when they have to intervene with individuals, which contributes to the safety of our police forces. The registry also helps reduce the cost of police investigations. When a long gun is used in a crime, police officers can easily track the firearm and its user.

The registry has also helped save many lives. Even though the majority of murders are committed with handguns, long guns are used in the majority of spousal murders and suicides in which firearms are involved. Various women's advocacy associations want the registry to be maintained. Year after year, long guns are used in two out of every three murders involving firearms. The registry has helped greatly diminish the number of spousal murders. For example, only a third as many spousal murders were committed with long guns in 2007 as in 1996, despite population growth, which shows the usefulness of the registry.

These long guns wreak even more havoc on Canadian society when we consider suicide. Year after year, close to 60% of firearms suicides are committed with long guns. The registry makes it possible to quickly determine if, for example, a depressed person owns a firearm, which allows authorities to save many lives. The number of firearms suicides dropped from 569 in 2001 to 475 in 2004, proving once again that the registry works.

Since we know that most homicides committed with firearms are suicides, it is of the utmost importance for the government to take action. However, this government is irresponsible and would rather ignore the facts and introduce a bill that will lead to the death of hundreds of Canadians.

The survivors of the various massacres that have occurred in Canada also want the registry to be maintained. The Conservatives say that they are on the side of victims of crime, but they ignore and turn their backs on those victims when they take a stand that does not match the Conservative ideology. These same Conservatives accuse the opposition parties of being against victims.

If, as they claim, the Conservatives are on the side of victims, why are they not listening to them? Why are they making their retrograde Conservative ideology a priority rather than addressing the concerns of victims? This government is illogical: it says that it wants to make our streets safer by imposing repressive bills, but it wants to allow the free circulation of firearms. This clearly shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Conservative ideology.

In addition, one of the main reasons that there are problems with the registry is that the Conservatives did not enforce the legislation. Instead of fining or, depending on the seriousness of the case, prosecuting those who did not register their guns, the Conservatives gave offenders amnesty. Since 2006, this government has been sending the message that the laws pertaining to the registry are not important and that the Conservative government supports offenders. As a result, millions of firearms are still not registered. What credibility does this irresponsible government have when it states that the registry is ineffective, given that it is directly responsible for the problems with the registry? The Conservatives have done nothing but sabotage the registry since 2006. This government claims to want to enforce the laws but, instead, it is sending the message that only the laws that are consistent with the Conservative ideology have to be respected.

Another argument put forward by the Conservatives to justify destroying this registry is that it violates the freedom of firearms users by imposing red tape. That does not stand up either. Only 2 million people have to deal with the registry's red tape out of a total population of almost 35 million Canadians. Why destroy this registry and sacrifice the majority of Canadians to save a very small minority from the administrative irritants of the registry? Should we stop registering vehicles? Now there is a question. Yet there are far more users of vehicles than of firearms. Obviously, vehicle registration does not go against the Conservative ideology, which is modelled on the mentality in the United States.

It is pathetic that this irresponsible government is again trying to destroy the registry. Once again, this government is lying to Canadians in order to justify its actions. Once again, this government is allowing the United States—in this case the powerful gun lobbies—to dictate our country's policies. It is time that this government started to listen to reason and the facts: abolishing this registry will lead to more suicides and spousal murders. Abolishing the registry will complicate the work of our police officers and make it more dangerous.

I could go on for hours, but I know that the Conservatives do not listen to anyone. They refuse to listen to the recommendations put forward by the opposition parties and the provinces. They do not have enough respect for the loved ones of those who take their own lives, the victims of killings and abused women to consider, at a bare minimum, providing the provinces with the data from the registry.

They do not even have enough respect for our police forces to listen to them when they say that they need the registry. In short, these Conservatives, who always claim that they are tough on crime, are promoting crime by allowing weapons to circulate freely. They are completely forsaking victims by ignoring them. This bill clearly demonstrates the extent of the Conservative's contempt for our constituents. I will continue to stand up for all those Canadians who have been abandoned by this Conservative government.

Opposition Motion--Old Age Security

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for sharing her time with me and for an excellent speech. There were good points, it was well argued and it was an important message from our new generation of NDP MPs.

It is useful, as we enter into a debate on the old age security regime in this country, to pause and reflect on some of the steps that got us to the position we are in. I am very proud, as an NDP member of Parliament, to take up the cause of defending the integrity of our old age security system, as has been our function and role throughout much of the last century.

I represent the riding of Winnipeg Centre, which is home to two of the greatest champions of social justice, I might say, that this country has ever known. In 1921, the Government of Canada wanted to send J.S. Woodsworth to prison for his role as the leader of the 1919 general strike but the good people of Winnipeg Centre sent him to Parliament in Ottawa instead and he stayed there until his untimely death in 1942.

I raise that subject because, only three years after J.S. Woodsworth arrived in Parliament, the prime minister of the day, William Lyon Mackenzie King, was in trouble. He was going to lose his government and needed the coalition support of what J.S. Woodsworth called the ginger group at the time, the Independent Labour Party. Woodsworth negotiated with Mackenzie King a deal, a condition, a compact, a coalition so to speak. The very art of politics is forming compacts, coalitions and agreements. Woodsworth went to Mackenzie King and said, “If you agree to introduce an old age security regime, I will support your government”. That was the birth of the Canadian old age security system. We have that letter on file at NDP headquarters. It took Mackenzie King a long time to live up to his promise but he indeed did introduce old age security.

When J.S. Woodsworth passed away, he was replaced by the man who is known as the father of the Canadian pension plan, Stanley Knowles. Stanley Knowles represented my riding from 1942 until his stroke in 1984 made it impossible for him to continue. He served continuously, except for the Diefenbaker sweep of 1957. During that time, he was not only the undisputed champion of the Canadian pension plan but he fought and fought to introduce it and the old age security system. There are famous speeches on record that people published in their entirety and circulated across the country as this movement gained momentum. He did not stop fighting until he managed to have the old age security pension indexed to inflation as a secondary objective. This took his entire career but it was his proudest achievement and perhaps one of the most proud achievements of the NDP.

It always seems to fall to us to defend the integrity of the pension system, which has been under continuous assault by successive Conservative governments that do not fundamentally believe in this type of universality of old age security systems.

We can trace what is going on today with the terrible notion that the Prime Minister of Canada would announce fundamental social policy changes in a speech in a foreign country. We can trace it back, or I do at least, to the musings of the unofficial prime minister of Canada at the time, Thomas d'Aquino, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Mr. d'Aquino had a checklist of things he thought Canada needed to do that consisted of 10 or 15 items. One by one he was checking them all off and one of them was, which he announced quite publicly, that Canada had to get out from under the crippling legacy costs.

Nobody really paid too much attention because the term “legacy costs” did not ring any bells. What he meant was pensions. Sure enough, the right wing think tanks started to fall in line and also blame pensions for all of our economic woes. There was no mention of the fact that corporate tax cuts had taken over $100 billion worth of fiscal capacity in the two last governments, the Martin regime and this one.

Even when General Motors and the big auto companies ran into trouble, nobody said that maybe people were not buying their cars because they were making models nobody wanted. Immediately they said that the reason they could not function was because their legacy costs were too great, that they had to get out from under their pensions.

With this notion of never let a good crisis go to waste, they started to segue from the real root cause of their industrial woes and blamed it on this notion that we deserved to retire in some dignity and that we could take seniors out of poverty.

We have three pillars to our old age security system. One is personal savings, whatever one can save and invest during one's working life. Second, hopefully one has a pension through one's workplace, although that is becoming a rarity because of this full frontal assault by the right on the very notion that workplace pensions are possible. Third, is a robust universal government-sponsored pension plan.

The government would have us believe that there is something luxurious and comfortable about the pension system as we know it, the OAS and GIS. In actual fact, when compared with other countries, the replacement of earnings in retirement does not come anywhere close to a lot of western developed nations. It is really quite a modest system.

We have seen this assault on pensions and on the notion of pensions gaining validators and momentum, or currency. In fact, some experts in the field challenge whether it is an emergency at all. Yes, there is a demographic blip, but we would have had the fiscal capacity to provide were it not for the choices made by successive Liberal and Conservative governments to hollow out that fiscal capacity. However, we seem to be able to find money to spend in corporate tax cuts. Let us not kid ourselves. When $6 billion in corporate tax cuts is granted, that is spending money. We argue that is wasteful spending of money, and we believe that has been validated.

The logic was that if we gave those tax cuts to corporations, they would spend that money in the economy, create more jobs and a virtuous cycle would begin. In actual fact, they have been hoarding that money away. Our worst fears are realized. They are stacking it up and stockpiling it like Scrooge McDuck in the comic books, rolling around in their piles of dough but they are not reinvesting. There is no empirical evidence to prove it.

Not a single study in the world has ever proven that a tax cut equals more jobs. The only predictable and verifiable outcome of a tax cut given to companies is that they will have more money and greater profits. That is what was done. It was a transfer of wealth.

In the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world, the government cannot tell me that we cannot afford to lift every senior citizen out of poverty.

Our former leader, Jack Layton, costed this out and we ran on that as a platform. Instead of the $6 billion for corporate tax cuts, we could spend $1 billion of that and all 250,000 seniors, who are currently below the poverty line, would at least get to the poverty line. They would not be wealthy, rich or even comfortable. They would still be poor, but out of the depths of abject poverty. That is the cost and it is achievable, yet we go in the opposite direction.

Again, in the spirit of never let a good crisis go to waste, the Conservatives are cutting, hacking and slashing upon ideological lines just as we predicted they would. They are coming up with these dummy saving accounts to offset it. Bill C-25, the bill we were forced to vote on yesterday, is nothing but a 401(k). The only ones who will get rich on that are the stock brokers who will charge a commission every time that money is moved around. It is a 401(k), the Americanization of our pension regime.

We are here to defend the integrity of the old age security in the spirit of Woodsworth and Stanley Knowles. The NDP is proud to present this motion today to flush out the enemies of the public pension system, to denounce them and hold them to account so they will not get away with this. There will be a blue rinse revolution in this land if they proceed in this way.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today is February 2. It is fitting that it is Groundhog Day, as I rise again to ask when the government will once again bring in measures to shut down debate in the House.

Just this past Monday we witnessed the deplorable spectacle of the Conservative government for the 13th time using the guillotine to shut down democratic debate in the House. It is like a nightmare: it happens again and again and again. That is right; this week, after less than one single day of debate on a brand new bill the government had just introduced, the government House leader moved tyranny of their majority on Canada's elected representatives by moving to shut down debate.

It has become routine for this government, which apparently knows no limits, to shut down debate. This is a blatant attack on House of Commons tradition and an attempt to gag Canada's elected representatives, and it is unacceptable. I am not just talking about opposition members. Conservative backbenchers, too, should insist that their political boss give them the right to speak on behalf of the citizens they represent.

On the schedule for this place going forward, I note that the government seems to be wrapping up what I would call attacking seniors and their retirement security week after passing second reading of Bill C-25, a bill that will clearly undermine the public pension regime on which all Canadians rely in order to retire with dignity.

Next week I wonder, will it be failing artists and users in favour of corporate rights holders week with Bill C-11, the wrong-headed copyright bill, or will the government perhaps be tabling the 2012 version of its undermining Canadians to further enrich banks and oil companies executive budget plan? Which one will it be? I ask the government House leader to let us know.

Opposition Motion—Old Age Security

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my honoured colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville.

I appreciate being invited to participate in the debate regarding the old age security program, or the OAS, as it is commonly known. This discussion provides the perfect context to clear up some of the confusion, the miscommunication and misinformation that surrounds the issue of seniors' poverty.

I would like to start by assuring everybody that the Government of Canada recognizes financial security as a factor that has an obvious impact on our seniors' quality of life. As the Prime Minister has said, any seniors currently receiving benefits as well as those nearing retirement will not be affected.

Our government is vigilant on this issue and we truly appreciate the contribution seniors have made and continue to make in building our communities in Canada.

A key priority for the Government of Canada is to help Canadians prepare for and achieve financial security in their later years. We know that seniors are concerned about the economy and maintaining their standard of living in retirement. That is understood. This is an issue that has come into even greater focus in light of the demographic shift that we are experiencing.

It is no secret the Canadian population is aging. Events around the world and our aging population make it clear that the government needs to make responsible decisions to ensure that social programs are sustainable.

In 2011 the first baby boomers reached the milestone of turning 65. At the same time, Canadians are living much longer than ever before. Canadians can enjoy one of the longest life expectancies in the world at close to 81 years old. Taken together, these phenomena are profoundly affecting our country. The result is that the age structure of the population is changing so that there is a higher proportion of senior citizens.

There is a demographic projection we will hear quoted many times today that in less than two decades, close to one in four Canadians will be over age 65. To put it into some context, the proportion of seniors in Canada currently stands at one in seven.

There are obvious financial implications to living longer, as more seniors begin to rely on retirement income for longer periods. As a government we have done a great deal to ensure that Canadians have financial security in their later years. As I stated before, it is one of our key priorities.

The most important financial support we provide to seniors is through the public pension system. This system is highly regarded internationally, and for good reason. It has played a very significant role in reducing lower income rates among seniors. In fact, the incidence of poverty among seniors in Canada has dropped from a rate of 21% in 1980 to 5.2% in 2009. This is one of the lowest rates in the world.

We describe Canada's retirement income system as being made up of three pillars. The first pillar is one that dominates our discussion today, the OAS. The Canada pension plan, CPP, is the second pillar. The third pillar consists of personal savings, including employee pensions, registered retirement savings plans, tax-free savings accounts, as well as other savings and investments.

As members are likely aware, the government is seeking to build on the third pillar. To do this we recently introduced Bill C-25 to create the legislative framework for the establishment of pooled registered pension plans, PRPPs. PRPPs would provide the majority of Canadians who do not have workplace pensions with access to well-registered, low-cost, private sector pension coverage.

Let me revisit the first two pillars, OAS and CPP. Together these two public pillars are designed to provide a modest base upon which to build additional retirement income. This year Canadians will receive close to $72 billion in benefits through the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, GIS.

It is true that these benefits do not come automatically. All Canadians have to apply for them. That is why we have taken steps to inform Canadians about their eligibility for these benefits and to help them through the application process.

Through HRSDC and Service Canada, our government is using direct mail, information campaigns, partnerships and community organizations to reach seniors who may be eligible for OAS and GIS.

Some of these efforts are aimed at seniors who are particularly hard to reach, such as those who are homeless, those who live in remote communities, immigrant seniors, aboriginal seniors, seniors with disabilities and those who do not speak either English or French.

We issue more than 600,000 application forms to Canadian seniors who are not yet receiving their CPP or OAS to encourage them to apply. Every year, we mail out thousands of pre-filled applications to people we think may qualify for GIS and the target group changes every year. Most GIS recipients now only need to apply once in their lifetime and have their benefits automatically renewed simply by filling out their annual tax return. As members can see, we are making great efforts to reach out to low-income seniors and to inform them about their benefits.

Speaking of benefits, I will speak a little more on the GIS.

As I said, the GIS provides extra support for seniors with little to no income and has a great success in reducing poverty among seniors. Our efforts to combat senior poverty does not stop there. In our last Speech from the Throne, we pledged that the government's low tax plan would permanently enhance benefits for Canada's most vulnerable seniors. We honoured that pledge last year by providing the largest GIS increase in 25 years. This measure will help Canada's lowest income seniors out of poverty. More than 680,000 low-income seniors are benefiting from this increase. These seniors are now receiving additional GIS of up to $600 for a single senior and up to $840 for couples.

In 2008 we increased the GIS exemption from $500 to $3,500. The earnings exemption allows low-income working seniors to keep more of their hard-earned money. This year we are providing more tax relief for seniors and pensioners, saving them $2.3 billion.

The measures I have just outlined demonstrate that the Government of Canada is taking concrete steps for seniors. We are actively helping Canadians prepare for and achieve financial security in their latter years. This is an ongoing effort for us because it is a key priority.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I wish to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. She said it was an honour to speak to this bill, knowing that over the past few months, those of us who are new here have had the opportunity to understand the honour and the significance of such a responsibility. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Pontiac on the work he has done on this file and his bill. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore who carried this torch for many years.

I would like to come back to the comments made earlier by one of my colleagues from the other opposition party. He said that this would jeopardize members' ability to follow their conscience and to speak out when their party heads in a direction that goes against the wishes of their constituents.

When considering such a comment, it is important to remember one nuance in the bill. After deciding to leave a political party, a member may sit as an independent. That is very important because sitting as an independent provides an opportunity to say that the choices made by his or her political party no longer correspond to the choices of the electorate. The member would not have to join a party with ideas that are contrary to those of his or her voters.

There are a number of examples. Some of our provincial colleagues, in Quebec for example, acted this way. Without commenting on debates that are not within our purview, the fact remains that, in their case, they said they left their party because they believed it was no longer the party their voters voted for.

It is understandable that by joining another party they give the opposite impression. Recent events are a perfect example. There was a glaring example this evening, during a vote on a bill. Bill C-25 deals extensively with retirement and pensions. One of our colleagues has left one party and joined another, and she voted against the NDP. I have a great deal of difficulty believing that the voters of Saint-Maurice—Champlain would have agreed with her decision, in light of the fact that they chose a certain political platform on May 2.

Choosing a political platform is very important. I will again reiterate the comments of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. All members work very hard to represent the voters in their ridings as best they can. In spite of the individual work of a member, he or she cannot be everywhere at the same time. That is when a party's platform is very important. When people choose a political party, it obviously plays an important role because the name of the political party is on the ballot. The most hard-working member must have people in the riding who will identify with the name of the political party that appears beside their name on the ballot. Every member works to transcend the existence of his or her party. The member must do such a good job that we forget their political affiliation and we really think about what they do. We are at least associated with this work.

I can speak from personal experience and I am certain that many of my colleagues would agree with me. When a person decides to enter politics and to represent a political party, he is very aware of the principles of that party, as are the voters. That is probably the reason—at least I hope it is—that the person chose to become involved in that particular party in the first place. I find it very hard to believe that someone would be prepared to put his name on a ballot and, if he wins the election, fulfill the responsibilities of a member of Parliament for a political party whose values do not completely correspond to his own.

I find it very hard to understand that situation. I would also like to come back to an example given by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway—the case of David Emerson. At that time, I was in the middle of my political science degree. When this event occurred, I was sitting in a class of political science students. These are informed people who understand our country's parliamentary system and electoral realities. No one in the room was prepared to say that he made the right decision and no one could begin to understand why a member of Parliament was prepared to go against the wishes and will of the voters so soon after an election—whether it be two weeks, as in 2006, or seven months, as was the case recently.

I have a personal example to illustrate this point. One morning in my riding, Chambly—Borduas, I was having coffee with a resident of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, where I live. She made a very interesting comment about the work of my predecessor, whom I respect very much. She said that, despite the fact that he had done so much for our region and our riding, it was time for change; there were things that needed changing. Among other things, she mentioned my predecessor's stance on various issues as a member of a particular political party with particular ideas. In the end, she said that she had nothing against the person in question, who was a hard-working guy like the other MPs here, but that he was bound by certain ideas and had to make decisions based on his political party.

One could easily argue that if ever that MP had stopped believing in those ideas, he could have switched parties. That may be true, but the fact remains, as I said at the outset, that he was elected under a banner, and the fact that he could choose to join a party whose ideas stood in stark opposition to the platform on which he was elected is utterly incomprehensible. Just consider some of the examples given. I gave one recently. Take Mr. Emerson and Ms. Stronach. I would bet that no Liberal or Conservative would be prepared to say that they have anything in common. Yet individuals elected as members of one political party were prepared to switch to another. Would my colleagues say that their ideas are similar? Not at all. People in the ridings voted for certain ideas, which the MP no longer espouses. I think that is what we have to keep in mind as we talk about this bill.

The other important element of this bill is the notion of respect for the electorate. If we look at what happened in 2006 or even more recently, the concerns of Canadians are clear. People made it very clear that they wanted byelections. Thus, we must bear something in mind when making a decision: the people's wishes. We must respect those wishes. And if a member makes a decision knowing that it is in the best interests of his or her constituency, riding or region, I have no problem with that person running in a byelection. If his or her convictions are right, I am 110% convinced that the people would share those convictions. And this would show in the results of the byelection. Being in politics takes courage—the courage to be accountable for what we say and do, especially what we do. This is what would happen if that individual were to run in a byelection. If that person had made the right choice, as I said, the result would reflect the people's wishes. I think that is the basic idea of this bill.

That is why I invite all members of the House, with their parties' convictions and those of the people they represent, to support this bill.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-25.

After listening to the debate in the House this afternoon, I must say that I was quite shocked at some of the comments I heard coming from across the floor. The suggestion that all our problems with pension plans can be solved by just increasing the CPP is a misleader. We know that when the finance ministers met and discussed the potential of increasing CPP premiums and benefits that there was no consensus. To have a change in CPP, we need to have the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of Canadians. However, there was not enough consensus around the table to move forward on increasing benefits in the Canadian pension plan. That is why we came forward with the pooled registered pension plan, which is being supported in principle by all provinces. There is unanimous support to go forward with the pooled registered pension plan.

In talking to people in Selkirk—Interlake and the businesses up and down the main streets throughout the 71 communities in my riding, they are glad that they may now have some options. Unlike a lot of places in urban Canada, not a lot of big businesses in rural Canada offer employee pension plans. By not having that employer-employee contribution going into a pension program, people have had to use their own savings or go into their RRSPs. Now there would be an option and the ability for all these small businesses to offer a pension.

If we look at the statistics, small and medium size businesses represent over 90% of the businesses in Canada. They employ 67% of Canadians. A lot of those businesses are owned by self-employed individuals. Now they would have an opportunity to participate in a larger fund that would pool their dollars and cut down on the administration cost so that they could make investments for retirement.

Over the break in January, I met with some of my chambers of commerce. I held some prebudget consultation meetings. Even last fall, in some meetings with municipal councils and chambers of commerce, they were talking about a pooled registered pension plan program. They see this as a benefit. They see this as an opportunity to help retain employees because their employees would now have an opportunity to participate in a pension program rather than having to relocate. We see a lot of people going after more lucrative employment opportunities and leaving for other areas of Canada and urban centres. That is the wrong approach for rural Canada.

By having the government move forward on the PRPP, small and medium size businesses and the self-employed would have a competitive opportunity to keep people in their communities. On top of enjoying the great attributes of rural Canada, people would have the ability to have the same potential for retirement earnings and be able to then retire in those communities. It would allow them to continue having the community services, the schools for their children and to make use of their recreational facilities with that taxpayer base through property taxes. Therefore, we need to maintain that population base and this is another tool that would allow us to do it.

I encourage everyone, when we vote in a few minutes on Bill C-25, to support it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are stories across the country of how our parents' generation had to work hard without any notion of a pension.

I want to mention something. I hope the hon. member will not mind. The hon. member for York Centre made the same error. I would like to remind us all that we in this Parliament are the Government of Canada. The Prime Minister and the cabinet are Privy Council members, but as a Parliament we are the government. We too often refer to Conservative Party members, whose membership makes up all of Privy Council, as though they are the whole of government. We here as opposition members are also government.

In the view of the hon. member and in the view of the Conservative Party members, would Bill C-25 work for the mobility of workers? About half of Canadian workers have had five or more employers since they started working. Would this plan be viable when the contributions from employers are voluntary and when workers are so mobile?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the member would ask me such a question. The focus of our remarks today are on the PRPP. Bill C-25 is about that. However, he did reference that he wanted to ask it of the government. I would suggest that the government is the Prime Minister and the cabinet and that he has ample opportunity during question period to pose his questions to the Prime Minister or to the appropriate members of cabinet.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-25. Ensuring that Canadians are able to retire with financial security is of paramount importance to our government. Therefore, we are helping millions of Canadians save for retirement more easily by introducing the pooled registered retirement pension plans. This new low cost and accessible option will help more Canadians meet their retirement goals. This is especially important for those working in small business and the self-employed.

PRPPs will improve the range of retirement saving options by providing a new accessible, straightforward administratively low cost retirement option for employers to offer their employees. It will allow individuals who currently may not participate in a pension plan, such as the self-employed and employees of companies that do not currently offer a pension plan, to make use of this new type of retirement vehicle. It will enable more Canadians to benefit from the lower investment management costs that will result from membership in a large pooled plan. It will allow accumulated benefits to move with each individual as he or she moved from job to job. It will ensure that funds are invested in the best interests of the plan members.

What has led to the development of PRPPs? Canada's aging population and the global financial crisis have highlighted the need for retirement income security. In this context, a joint federal-provincial working group was established in May 2009 to undertake an in-depth examination of retirement income. The working group concluded that overall the Canadian retirement income system was performing well and provided Canadians with an adequate standard of living upon retirement.

However, some Canadian households, especially modest and middle-income households, are at risk of not saving enough for retirement. There are a number of factors that may be contributing to this risk, including declining participation in employer-sponsored registered pension plans. 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 advantage of the discretionary savings opportunities offered to them through individual structures like RRSPs. Participation in RRSPs reached a peak of 45% of the labour force in 1997, before levelling off to 39% in 2008.

After careful consideration, the ministers of finance agreed to pursue a framework to establish pooled registered retirement pension plans as an effective and appropriate way to help bridge existing gaps in the retirement system.

There are many benefits to PRPPs.

First, PRPPs are an innovative new pension plan designed to address the lack of low cost, large scale retirement savings options available to many Canadians.

Second, some Canadians may be failing to take advantage of the savings opportunities offered to them through individual structures like RRSPs. For an example, on average, each Canadian has over $18,000 in unused RRSP room.

Third, many Canadians can only access a workplace pension plan if their employers offer one. Many employers do not want the legal or administrative burden of offering a pension plan. As a result, over 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension. Recent data suggests that 97.8% of total business establishments are small firms, those that employ 15 people or less, and at this time these firms are unable to efficiently provide a pension plan for their employees due to the costs presented by such plans. As a former business owner, I understand the difficulties associated with the costs and burden of administering a workplace pension plan.

Fourth, the designed features of the PRPP will remove a lot of the traditional barriers that might have kept some employers in the past from offering pension plans to their employees.

Fifth, the design of these plans will also be straightforward to allow for simple enrolment and management. A third party PRPP administrator will take on most of the responsibilities that employers bear in existing pension plans, including the administrative and legal duties associated with administering such a plan.

Sixth, by pooling pension savings, PRPPs will offer Canadians greater purchasing power. They will be able to buy in bulk. Achieving lower prices than would otherwise be available, means they will get greater returns on their savings and more money will be left in their pockets when they retired.

Finally, PRPPs are intended to largely harmonize from province to province, which also allows for lower administrative costs.

Bill C-25 is of great importance to Canadians. We must give Canadians the confidence that when they finally do retire, they will be financially secure. In order to achieve this goal, our government has put forward a strong proposal to provide Canadians with the ability to save for their retirement on their own terms. Our government is working tirelessly to ensure financial stability for all Canadians. Providing proper pension opportunities is one of the ways we can ensure we stay firmly focused on what matters most to Canadians, jobs and a strong economy.

Pooled registered pension plans are a smart and effective way for our people to save for tomorrow today. Therefore, I urge all those present today to join me in supporting Bill C-25.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my NDP colleagues for their various interventions on the government bill before us here today. I think this is a very important subject, one that Canadians are really concerned about. A number of people from my riding have contacted me to share their concerns about their retirement. That is why I wanted to speak here today.

In a democratic country like Canada, the right to retire in dignity after working hard one's entire life is absolutely fundamental. What I mean by “in dignity” is having enough money to pay for groceries, to pay the rent and to pay for health care. The current economic situation, economic projections for the future and our aging population are all crucial factors in determining how we, as a society, should manage our retirement programs.

In that regard, I must commend the government for recognizing the issues that will affect how and when Canadians retire and for trying to come up with solutions to ensure a decent retirement for everyone. Where I disagree with the Conservatives—and where I agree more with the NDP's opinion—has to do with how the government is going about solving the growing problem of access to a decent income when the time comes to retire. Bill C-25, introduced by the government, has many flaws that really need to be examined and understood by Canadians, because, I would remind the House, it is their money on the line.

According to the main points of the bill, the new pooled registered pension plans, PRPPs, a retirement savings vehicle very similar to RRSPs, would enable plan members to pool their funds to reduce costs associated with managing the plan's investments. The bill notes that the benefits of PRPPs are transferable, but that they are not indexed to inflation. These plans are intended for self-employed workers and small and medium-sized businesses that do not have the means to manage a private sector pension plan.

Despite the government's claims, pooled registered pension plans will not enable Canadians to achieve their retirement goals. The plans will not improve income security for retired workers. The plan proposed here is a defined contribution plan, not a defined benefit plan. In this kind of plan, employees set aside funds throughout their working lives, and those funds are invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds and so on. Investment income depends entirely on market fluctuations. That is an extremely important point. The employees absorb all of the financial risk associated with stock market ups and downs.

If the government made an effort to listen to all of the Canadians whose RRSPs melted away like snow in sunshine in 2008, it would understand that more stable and secure savings options should be made available. People who can tolerate significant risk can turn to the stock market and RRSPs. Worse still, depending on the province, employers could potentially be required to offer this plan to their employees without having to contribute. People already have the option of contributing to a savings plan without employer participation. That is called an RRSP. What more does the government have to offer?

Last November, in its press release announcing Bill C-25, the government said:

...over 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. Because of this, our government acted by introducing legislation...that implements pooled registered pension plans.... Our Conservative government is delivering PRPPs to offer a new, low-cost and accessible pension option to help Canadians meet their goals.

What low-cost, accessible pension is the Conservative government talking about? Last year, only 31% of eligible Canadians contributed to an RRSP. The rest just could not afford to. Currently, Canadians have $500 billion in unused RRSP contribution room available.

Let us say it again loud and clear: Canadians do not have access to an affordable and accessible retirement because they have absolutely nothing left at the end of the month to put into savings. And the Conservatives are asking them to take what little they have managed to put aside and put it into investment funds administered by banks, the very banks that have nearly wiped out the global economy, with no guaranteed income and no guarantee that the funds available will see the workers all the way through retirement?

And the Conservatives want these funds to be managed by fund management “experts” at the banks and insurance companies without any limits on the cost of their management fees and bonuses that will be paid out of the pockets of our future retirees?

During a radio interview, the Minister of Industry said:

By pooling retirement savings, PRPPs will allow Canadians to benefit from greater purchasing power. We are talking about economies of scale here. Canadians will essentially be able to buy in bulk. Professional administrators will exercise a duty of care to ensure that the funds are invested in the best interests of the plan members.

In my opinion, the advantage of economies of scale is quite questionable. We should learn from the Australian experience, but this government is again turning a deaf ear, as it did to the warnings from the United States about the omnibus Bill C-10.

Ten years ago in Australia, a similar system provided very disappointing results. Their system was mandatory, with the possibility to opt out, a bit like what the government wants to do here. The Australians came to the conclusion that, even though people saved because it was mandatory, the returns on investment did not outpace inflation.

The report commissioned by the Australian government attributes these discouraging results to the high costs and fees, even though it was thought that competition among the banks would, as we just heard, lead to reduced costs and economies of scale. So much for that argument; it does not fly. Let us have the wisdom to learn from our Australian counterparts and avoid making the same mistakes.

What Canadians want is not another incentive to save more money. The average Canadian is already trying to save and can barely manage. First we have to come up with a solution closer to the source of the problem. Canadians want to have a decent income that will allow them to save. The solution is job creation.

The excessive debt of Canadian households has made the headlines again, and 1.6 million Canadian seniors are living in poverty. By OECD standards, the CPP system is relatively miserly since other similar countries have much more generous public pension plans.

In 2010, one in four workers had a low-wage job. Does the government think that a Canadian who earns $13 an hour will be able to meet his needs and the needs of his family and contribute to his PRPP, where his hard-earned money will be at the mercy of the stock market as it operates today?

Canadians must understand that the measures proposed here are superficial and risky. The government has not taken the time to carefully consider the problem.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Northumberland--Quinte West and participate in the debate on Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act.

Much like my colleague from Crowfoot mentioned yesterday, the bill is vitally important to the constituents of Northumberland--Quinte West.

As other members have also highlighted since the debate began on the bill, most rural ridings in this country depend on small and medium size businesses as primary employers. These businesses are vital to the economic growth and continued job creation within my riding. We owe a great deal of gratitude to the hard-working people who ensure that our economy continues to grow. However, not all small and medium size businesses can afford to provide their employees with a third-party pension plan. That is, of course, why this government has introduced Bill C-25.

As most members will recall, in December 2010, the federal and provincial governments agreed on a framework for defined contribution pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs. The PRPPs would provide Canadians with a new, low cost, efficiently managed, portable and accessible savings vehicle that would help them meet their retirement objectives.

PRPPs are the new kind of defined contribution pension plans that would be available to employers and employees, as well as self-employed individuals. As a result of this legislation, millions of Canadians would be able to save more for retirement and their retirement goals.

This legislation would allow individuals who currently may not participate in a pension plan to make use of a new mechanism that encourages retirement savings. Ultimately, this new pension plan would enable more people to benefit from the lower investment management costs that result from membership in a large pooled pension plan that few small or medium size businesses can afford.

Moreover, in an age of economic uncertainty, PRPPs would provide the people of Canada with a great deal of flexibility considering the fact that PRPPs would allow for an individual to accumulate benefits and carry those benefits forward as individuals transition from job to job. Additionally, there would be assurances that this fund would be invested in the best interests of plan members.

I have listened to the debate over the past few days and I would like to take a few moments now to address some of the concerns the opposition has raised.

Foremost, with respect to the cost of PRPPs, I can inform my hon. colleagues that this government will ensure low contribution costs of PRPPs through their scale and their design. These plans will result in large pooled funds that will enable plan members to benefit from the lower investment management costs associated with such funds.

Second, I have heard some hon. colleagues question why the government does not simply expand existing CPP benefits. My hon. colleagues ought to know, and I am sure they should know or could know if they wanted to I suppose, that changes to the CPP require the agreement of at least two-thirds of the provinces with at least two-thirds of the population of this country. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers of finance have discussed CPP expansion but there is currently no agreement.

This government understands that a fragile economic recovery is not the right time to increase CPP contributions, which would be required if the CPP were expanded. In other words, it would be an additional payroll tax, counterproductive to the beginning of better times as we exit the great economic downturn that commenced in 2008.

In these uncertain times, Canadians need assurances that their government is working diligently to ensure the very best for their economic security and prosperity. This bill is yet another example of this government's commitment to the financial security of retirees in our dear country.

During my budget consultations in January and throughout my meetings in and around the great riding of Northumberland—Quinte West, I heard from constituents who support the Government of Canada's plans with regard to seniors and the improvements we have made to guaranteed retirement security, such as the guaranteed income supplement, the largest increase in the last 20 years.

However, it is not just this government or those we represent who support this bill. Provincial governments, stakeholders and industry leaders alike have come out in support of Bill C-25. For example, the Ontario finance minister, Dwight Duncan, said that the McGuinty government supports, in principle, the federal Conservative PRPP proposal.

Additionally, in 2011, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said that the PRPPs had the potential to benefit an estimated 60% of Canadians who had either no or insufficient retirement savings. The chamber also believes that PRPPs, which rely on simple and straightforward rules and processes, would give many businesses the flexibility and tools they need to help their employees save for retirement.

Finally, Dan Kelly, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said:

A new voluntary, low-cost and administratively simple retirement savings mechanism will allow more employers, employees, and the self-employed to participate in a pension plan. CFIB is particularly pleased that firms will be given a choice as to whether to register for or contribute to a PRPP.

Bill C-25 would provide a new, accessible, straightforward and administratively low cost retirement option for employers to offer their employees. This bill would support individuals who currently may not participate in a pension plan, such as the self-employed or employees of companies that do not offer such a plan or any plan whatsoever.

As such, I will be supporting this legislation on behalf of the good people of Northumberland--Quinte West. I would ask that all my hon. colleagues consider seriously supporting this bill given the benefits of PRPPs that I have highlighted in this speech.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the image that haunts me from the May 2011 federal election, from campaigning in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl in the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is that of the seniors I met at their doors, in the middle of the afternoon, in their winter coats. They wore their winter coats inside their homes, decent homes in the suburbs of St. John's and Mount Pearl, because they could not afford to turn up the heat.

The number one issue in my riding is seniors, people living on fixed incomes, people trying to make ends meet.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, 1.6 million seniors across the country live in poverty, and it is slowly and steadily getting worse. The cost of everything is going up, the cost of food, the cost of oil, the cost of gas, except their incomes. Seniors are having a hard time. People are worried about their retirement years. Lately, people are practically panicking about the thought of retirement.

The Conservative government has thrown out the idea of raising the age of eligibility of old age security to 67 from 65. I have to stop myself there and offer an apology to the man in my riding who wrote to me to complain about the term “old age security”, which he finds, “disgusting”. To quote the man further, he said:

—it is very obvious that the term is not only outdated and lacking creativity as a program title, but it is insulting and downgrading to individuals reaching age 65, and are very active and independent members of society.

That is a very good point.

However, my speech is not about OAS, although it is what most Canadians are talking about from coast to coast to coast. I am on my feet in this esteemed chamber today to speak about pooled registered pension plans and to speak against them.

Pooled pension plans are not the solution for the retirement security of Canadians. Why? Because they amount to gambling even more of their retirement savings on failing stock markets.

Here is the $64,000 question. Will they have a decent retirement income from a pooled registered pension plan? The answer is, who knows. Roll the dice and see, but do not count on it. Do not take it to the bank, do not dare take it to the bank. Is that how we want to see their retirement, as a big fat question mark, as a gamble, as a crapshoot?

Bill C-25 is designed to appeal to the self-employed, as well as workers in small to medium-sized businesses, companies that often lack the means to administer a private sector pension plan. The plan created would be a defined contribution plan, and Canadians need to understand that. Employees will kick in a portion of their salaries into a retirement account where it could be invested in stocks, or bonds or mutual funds. Companies can contribute or they can decide not to. It is up to the individual company. Canadians have to understand there is no guarantee how much of their money will be left when they retire. Their pension will depend upon how well their money is invested. This is not a defined benefit plan. Again, it is a defined contribution plan.

Anyone who has watched their RRSPs nosedive in recent times knows how incredibly risky it is to tie savings to the stock market. Most people have taken losses in recent years, and that is most people who can afford to put money into RRSPs.

When people think about retirement, they want stability. They want to know that their retirement years will be comfortable years. Forget that with the pooled registered pension plan.

Here is what the New Democrat position comes down. The NDP will not support pooled registered pension plans. Although this is not a pension plan so much as a savings scheme. Canadians need to understand that as well.

The NDP will not support this savings scheme because the Conservatives are offering this up instead of taking real action to protect both existing pensions and enhance pension retirement security for those who lack a workplace pension plan.

An estimated 12 million Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. That is more than one in three Canadians. Bill C-25, an act relating to pooled registered pension plans, or pooled registered savings schemes, would not give them one.

A New Democratic government would double the guaranteed Canada pension plan. The CPP is a universal program for all Canadians, whether self-employed, in small or large businesses, or in the public or private sector.

Why give workers a savings scheme to roll the dice on their retirement when we could simply expand the CPP? Participation in the CPP is mandatory, meaning its expansion would impact everyone. No one would be left behind. Is Canada not all about leaving nobody behind? That is the New Democrat line. That is what New Democrats are about.

However, the Conservative line is about money for prisons. The Conservative line is about money for fighter jets. Prisons and fighter jets have a higher priority than our seniors who are most vulnerable.

The Conservative's safe streets and communities act was debated here last fall. It would make it much safer for seniors to line up outside of soup kitchens. That is what our country is coming to. Our Canada is changing. The safety net that makes our country a great country, one of the best in the world, is under Conservative attack.

At the recent World Economic Forum in Switzerland, the Prime Minister said, “Our demographics also constitute a threat to the social programs and services that Canadians cherish”. Funny, I would say the Conservatives constitute a threat to the social programs and services that Canadians cherish. The Conservatives pose that threat.

The Conservatives have only been a majority government for nine months and already they have attacked or are in the process of dismantling core services across the country and across my province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Look no further than to the closure of the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's, a service that is vital to our mariners. It is a closure that the regional minister defended by sneaking away in a decoy car.

Look no further than to the defence minister using our search and rescue Cormorant helicopters as a taxi for his holiday on the Gander River.

Look no further than Service Canada and how it is being gutted. Just last week two EI claimants tried to kill themselves because their claims were delayed or rejected.

Look no further than the Canadian seal hunt and how the Conservative government has allowed market after market to ban products from an industry that is central to our heritage and our culture.

Look no further than to our precious seniors. The Conservatives would have it so that the retirement of so many Canadians is a crapshoot.

Again, the Conservatives constitute a threat to the social programs and services that Canadians cherish.

The Prime Minister also said in Switzerland that there would be major transformations coming to Canada's retirement pension system. The only transformative change that Canada needs in terms of retirement security is to lift every senior out of poverty and expand the Canada and Quebec pension plans. However, all the Conservative government proposes is yet another privately administered voluntary savings scheme like several others already on the market. It is the same old, same old. Canadians are not impressed.

I will conclude with this quote from a constituent in my riding, one of about a dozen who have written my office in recent days concerned about retirement and the Conservative agenda that transformed Canada into a warped shadow of itself, “Young people do not stand a chance in this world. Everything we have worked so hard for to make things better for them is slowly being taken away. What a sad message we are sending”.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this chamber today to speak to Bill C-25, an act relating to pooled registered pension plans.

Innovative measures like pooled registered pension plans demonstrate our Conservative government's focus on the issues that matter most to Canadians: economic growth and financial security. This focus has continually achieved results. Under the leadership of our Conservative government, the Canadian economy has maintained the strongest job record in the G7. I'm very proud to say that over 600,000 net new jobs have been created since July 2009. We have also ensured a higher standard of living for Canadian seniors and our government has provided an additional $2.3 billion in annual targeted tax relief for seniors and pensioners, with measures like increases in the age credit amount and the introduction of pension income splitting.

While these are all very positive and necessary developments, there remains much to be done. Unlike the members opposite, who continue to promote job-killing tax hikes that threaten the growth of wealth and prosperity in Canada, our government has been working hard at crafting prudent, responsible and creative plans to move Canadians forward in these very fragile economic times.

I have just recently spent some time in Europe and seen first hand the difficulty that the EU is in and I am thankful that this government has ensured that we have stayed ahead of all the G7 nations. However, this requires continual improvement, vigilance, innovation and flexibility in how we manage our economy and the long-term financial prosperity and security of all Canadians well into their golden years. We must encourage all Canadians to save for their retirement and to plan for it early. To help the many Canadians who presently have no plan, the pooled registered pension plan is a vehicle that would help address that very need.

While some of the provinces raised serious concerns about expanding the CPP, there was unanimity among the provinces about pursuing the PRPP framework. Continued consultations with our provincial partners have revealed that a key area to help the Canadian economy move forward is the retirement income system. How else can we explain the fact that there are still Canadians who face a serious risk of not saving enough for retirement? This is especially true for the self-employed and Canadians working in companies that presently do not offer a pension plan. Pension reform is a key priority considering that over 60% of Canadians have no workplace pension.

Existing retirement income structures, while good vehicles, are not the key to addressing this problem. Instead, programs like RRSPs continue to be underutilized. On average, each Canadian has approximately $18,000 in unused RRSP room. Shortcomings and holes in our pension options pose a real threat as our population ages and more people reach retirement age. With this in mind, our government is proposing new low-cost and accessible pooled registered pension plans. Their introduction would widen the range of retirement savings options for Canadians and allow a greater percentage of our citizens to reach their retirement goals.

Employers would be drawn to the pooled registered plans because these would allow them the opportunity to forego the prohibitive burdens that traditional pension plans generally carry. Instead, a third-party administrator would take on most of the legal and administrative duties associated with the maintenance of the plan. Plan members would rest at ease, knowing that this third-party administration would come from regulated financial institutions that have already demonstrated a capacity to fill fiduciary roles and to act in the best interests of potential plan members.

Canadians joining PRPPs would also gain greater purchasing power, as they would essentially buy into a pool of investments. This would allow members to benefit from greater economies of scale and lower management costs, which would be an improvement over the existing smaller RRSPs. The fact that the regulatory framework of PRPPs would be harmonized between the provinces would also reduce the cost of these measures and remove administrative burdens. PRPPs would also be flexible enough to allow members to easily transfer between plans. This feature would undoubtedly also increase the attractiveness of the plan to small business owners who may find the locking-in provisions of other plans too much of a barrier.

The innovative design and new features of PRPPs have garnered universal praise. All of our provincial partners are enthusiastic about the positive effect of PRPPs on small and medium business. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Association of Canadian Pension Management and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have all declared their support for PRPPs.

In my riding of Etobicoke Centre, PRPPs would be a very effective means to help many of my constituents start a pension where many do not have one today. I have a huge number of small and medium-sized businesses that this will apply to perfectly. I know that the people of Etobicoke Centre working in those businesses will benefit from this tremendously.

The introduction of the pooled registered pension plans does not preclude us from continuing on our work on other retirement savings vehicles. However, our government understands that in these economic trying times Canadians cannot afford further increases in CPP contributions. Because of this, the provinces have stalled their debate on reforms to CPP.

Already entrepreneurs are making plans to enrol their employees in new PRPPs.

The Ontario Medical Association recognizes the tremendous positive potential PRPPs will have on essential professions, like doctors, and praises the government for creating savings opportunities that have hereto been unavailable to them.

At this point, the introduction of a new alternative pension plan like PRPPs has been far better received than have other reforms.

Pooled registered pension plans have an enormous potential to improve the retirement security of all Canadians, particularly the 60% of Canadians who do not have the luxury of a workplace pension. This program has already drawn the interest of small business employers and relevant stakeholders, including all of our provincial partners.

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

The House resumed from January 31 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.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the pooled registered pension plans bill. I rise to speak for small business owners in my riding of Kitchener--Conestoga who want to provide for their own retirements and the retirement of their employees.

I will take a moment to put this into perspective because this improvement to Canada's retirement system cannot be viewed in isolation. Our government has provided tax relief for seniors by doubling the amount of income eligible for the pension income credit and through increases to the age credit. Even more significant, we have instituted pension income splitting for seniors, creating a more fair tax system for those who built this great country. As well, we have increased payments available to low income seniors by way of the guaranteed income supplement. In fact, budget 2011 announced a new guaranteed income supplement top up benefit for most vulnerable seniors. Seniors with little or no income other than old age security and the GIS will receive additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples.

Before that, budget 2008 increased the amount they can earn before the GIS is reduced so that recipients will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money without suffering clawbacks. Also in budget 2008, we introduced a tax free savings account, which is particularly beneficial to seniors as it helps them to meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax efficient basis after they are no longer able to contribute to an RRSP. We built a framework for federally regulated pension plans that ensures retired workers will continue to receive benefits should their plan be terminated.

We have also worked with the provinces to bring new flexibility to the Canada pension plan that makes it easier for Canadians to transition in and out of the workforce to better reflect the reality of how Canadians live, work and retire.

Despite all this progress, though, and despite the work we have done to help seniors have an easier time living through retirement, we still face challenges. More than six out of every ten Canadians do not have access to a pension plan at their place of work. On average, each Canadian has over $18,000 of unused room to contribute to an RRSP. One reason that many employers do not offer a pension plan is simple: they are too costly to administer and they impose a number of legal burdens. One reason that many Canadians do not take full advantage of their RRSPs is also simple: properly balancing the combination of risk and cost is beyond their ability.

These challenges are not new but they are growing in urgency. Clearly, a new approach is needed and pooled registered pension plans offer Canadians that new approach, that new hope.

PRPPs would offer a simpler enrolment and withdrawal process than traditional retirement plans. This would allow small and medium size enterprises, struggling to balance their books while keeping valued talent, offer a valuable incentive to their employees while keeping their own administrative burden down.

Canadians want to plan for their retirement. They want to plan for their golden years. It is not the job of government, as some hon. members would have us believe, to take away that ability. Our job as government is to facilitate their plans, not to dictate those plans. Our job is to make it easier for employers to offer retirement plans.

All employers are eager to hire highly skilled workers but there is always a challenge for those with smaller businesses. How can they compete with larger corporations who are able to not only offer attractive wages and career growth plans but also have the administrative support and the buying power to offer good pension and retirement benefits. Many Canadians can only access a pension plan if their employers offer one and many employers do not want the legal or administrative burden of offering a pension plan. The end result, as I mentioned, is that over 60% of Canadians have no workplace pension in place.

PRPPs are designed to address Canada's lack of low cost, large scale retirement savings options for the majority of Canadians. The innovative design features of the PRPP would remove many of the barriers that traditionally kept employers from offering pension plans to their employees.

A straightforward design leads to simple enrolment and management. Whereas now employers much choose hiring an expensive outside party, taking on the cost themselves, or forgoing any pension plan for their employees at all. A third party administrator would now take on the legal and administrative duties associated with running a pension plan. These costs would be spread across participating employers, allowing for an economy of scale that would keep costs down. When the costs of investment drop due to the economy of scale, the net return will increase. That is basic economics. By building a design that will function across provinces, administrative costs will be reduced even lower and an even larger economy of scale can be achieved.

Offering pooled registered pension plans would make it easier for Canadians to fund their retirement but no one on this side of the House believes that PRPPs are the last step this government will take to ensure Canadians are able to enjoy their golden years.

I think all parties could agree that improving Canadians' financial literacy would be a big step forward. I do not mean training every Canadian to be a stockbroker, but things like the bottom line benefits of selecting the best credit card, the responsible use of credit and the power of compounded returns and the damage to compounding caused by taxation. A better understanding of these issues and how they interconnect can only lead to a more prosperous Canada and better retirement living for all Canadians. That is why launching the task force on financial literacy was the right thing for our government to do.

It has often been said that there are two kinds of people: those who spend first and save what is left over and those who save first and spend what is left over. Improved financial literacy will encourage Canadians to save first and PRPPs would make it easier for them to do so.

As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce noted on November 17 of last year:

—PRPPs--with simple and straightforward rules and processes--would give many businesses the flexibility and tools they need to help their employees save for retirement.

The chamber also noted that employers want to offer their employees retirement benefits, such as a pension plan. It went on to say, “(PRPPs) would be a great option to attract new talent to our business”.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small business in Canada, made the case for PRPPs even more strongly. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business noted that while a 1% increase in CPP would destroy 220,000 person years of employment and drive wages down, PRPPs would expand the retirement savings options for thousands of Canadian small businesses and their employees. Currently, it is worth noting, less than one in five small businesses that belong to the CFIB offer their employees a pension plan.

In conclusion, PRPPs present an innovative solution for Canadians to finance their retirements. PRPPs make it affordable for employers to offer retirement plans and make it possible for employees to participate. Canadians want to save for their retirements and employers desire a low cost, low administration path to helping them. I encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting Bill C-25.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the previous speech, we were told that it was possible to educate people with the famous financial literacy bill. In fact, half of all Canadians do not file their own tax return, something that is an unavoidable annual event, a civic duty. This is so because those people feel incapable of doing it themselves. They ask their loved ones or a professional to handle it for them. Unfortunately, they have to pay for a basic task that they should not have to pay for because the tax system is far too complicated.

As far as I understand it, Bill C-25 will create the equivalent of hedge funds for the retirement of future workers because they will live with uncertainty. What does the hon. member think of the uncertainty and stress this will create for the future of the country? With their growing numbers, retirees represent a significant contribution to our economy.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for his speech and ask him a question. Does he really believe that this bill will ensure a secure retirement for more Canadians than today? People will be investing money in unstable financial markets. Will Bill C-25 give these people a secure retirement? After their careers, will they have a stable income for the rest of their lives like they do with the Canada pension plan? Or, does this plan merely fool Canadians into contributing to a pension plan that is not really a pension plan? In my opinion, this is more of a savings plan and it will not ensure that these people enjoy a secure retirement at the end of their careers. I would like the hon. member to comment on this.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing is clear: it is difficult to govern a country and simultaneously consider each and every citizen of that country. Governments must make choices on behalf of citizens. They must not favour certain groups of citizens over others. It is becoming increasingly clear that, under our government, it is better to be rich and in good health rather than poor and unwell.

The right to live in dignity is not a right that belongs solely to certain age groups or social classes. Attempting to make this a generational issue by using the demographics argument is a little pathetic. Any thinking person understands that everyone grows old and that we all have an expiry date. Unfortunately, some people were born at the wrong time and they will be forced to wait two or three years to receive their old age pension. The Conservatives say that they will not go down this path, however, generally, when they talk about something, they unfortunately usually follow through with it.

If the Prime Minister and his predecessors only just realized that demographics are real and that changes are inevitable, that is unfortunate. The only hope that then remains for certain segments of the public is reincarnation. They believe that, perhaps next time, the chips will fall more favourably.

Bill C-25 is a prime example. The Conservatives call them pooled registered pension plans, when they should be called “swimming pool of champagne for banks and insurance companies”. The plan is surreal. It did not work in Australia, where, after 10 years, it has barely managed to keep up with inflation.

A mandatory public system would ensure a sufficient volume of investments and give Canadians a safety net. Fragmenting the system by creating a new entity will lead us nowhere. The financial sector and banks brought us to the brink of an abyss, and our economy almost slipped in a few years ago. I do not see why things would be any different in the future.

If we are on the brink of the abyss, perhaps the Conservatives are going to give us a little nudge forward. I do not exactly consider that desirable. I have difficulty giving any credibility to a government that tells people that they will have to wait two years to get their old age pension cheque, while at the same time signing a blank cheque over to Lockheed Martin for aircraft that may or may not even get airborne. I find that a tad irresponsible.

I think the government’s priorities committee has a little problem, because the first thing it focused on when Parliament returned was Canadians’ right to hang a flag on their balcony, when many Canadians do not even have a balcony or even have a home. I think that is something to think about.

My constituents are asking me the question much more simply. They are asking me what those people are smoking.

When I hear the government’s promises, I feel like I am listening to the cannibal chief telling me there are no more cannibals because they ate the last one the night before.

I do not see why, after looting the savings of millions of people around the world, the financial industry would suddenly become generous and not gobble up the principal with management fees and annual bonuses of $800,000 or $900,000 or $1 million. I do not see what a bill like this can contribute.

There are already systems that are working, like the Canadian system and the Quebec system. Those systems just need to be improved. But what they are going to do is provide what amounts to an open bar for the big financial corporations that are going to get rich off it. The only thing I see as extremely unfortunate is that in the House, we really do not have to worry about it because our pension fund is indexed and we do not have to be afraid for our future. It will be really unfortunate, however, for the people who have scraped together a little money and gone without basic necessities so they could save, when they see that their money has been invested in projects like Bre-X or outfits like that. They will really be living in poverty.

I think the government is on the wrong track yet again. Dividing people accomplishes nothing. These days, we hear that the baby boomers are wallowing in money and they are all in Florida playing golf and eating bacon and then they come home for their health care, but that is not the reality. I see ordinary people my age or a little older who have worked very hard all their lives. They are looking at having nothing and they are worried. They are not worried about the right to hang a flag on their balcony. They are worried about their future and their children’s future.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss the very important measures that are contained in Bill C-25, an act that is key to implementing the federal framework for the PRPP, the pooled registered pension plan. I can ensure personally that Canada's seniors will have the retirement that they deserve with the implementation of this kind of plan.

It is innovative. It is new. It is privately administered. It is low cost. It is an accessible pension option, and I highlight the word “option”, to help Canadians meet their retirement goals.

This is particularly significant for small and medium-size businesses like mine. I was in business for 35 years. I only wish there had been something like this for me to offer, not only to my family, but also to my employees. Certainly many of us would not be sitting in challenging situations today without options. The legislation would enable many owners and employees to have access to a large-scale, low cost private pension plan for the very first time.

By pooling the pension savings, PRPPs would offer Canadians greater purchasing power. Basically, Canadians would be able to buy in bulk, then they would have the opportunity to get a better bang for their buck. Achieving lower prices than would otherwise be available means that they would get greater returns on their savings. More money would be left in their pockets when they retired.

The design of these plans would also be straightforward, to allow for simple enrolment and management. Simplicity is always best.

Finally, they are intended to be largely harmonized from province to province, which would further lower administrative costs.

Automatic enrolment would encourage regular savings in PRPPs by making participation the default choice of employees who do not actively make a decision to opt out. In other words, a reverse onus would encourage more people to participate.

Canada's finance ministers, both provincial and federal, decided to proceed with this PRPP framework precisely because it was considered the most effective and the most appropriate way to target those modest- and middle-income families and individuals who may not be saving for retirement. It is an option available to people who have not been served before, in particular, those who currently do not have access to an employer-sponsored registered pension plan.

Certainly I never did; neither did my employees and many of the thousands of self-employed people in this country.

With the federal PRPP legislation introduced, provinces could easily and seamlessly use it as a model for their respective frameworks so that the system could get up and running. Really, it is not necessary to go into a full duplication of a bureaucratic maze to administer this. Once the provinces put in place their PRPP legislation, the legislative and regulatory frameworks for the PRPPs would be operational, thus allowing PRPP administrators to develop and offer plans to Canadians and their employees. This would be a very competitive process, thus driving the price down even more.

It is crucial that we continue to maintain this momentum for a stronger retirement system. The PRPP would not carry the system entirely on its own, but it certainly would go a long way toward dealing with people who have not been served.

I also want to take time today to discuss other actions our government is taking and has taken to secure Canadians' retirement income needs and to strengthen Canada's retirement income system.

One particular instrument which I think is very important, yet is not given its due consideration, is financial literacy. For example, this is an area where we are working to improve the retirement income outcomes.

A strong system depends upon the ability of its users to make informed decisions that are critical to its success. I was very pleased when the member sitting in front of me, the chair of the finance committee, put forward a private member's bill that strongly promoted financial literacy in this country. I think that bills like that serve Canadians well.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments are also continuing our work by reviewing options to improve the CPP. While the CPP is efficient, effective and well managed, there are serious considerations around imposing mandatory payroll deductions in the context of the fragile state of the global economy that have to be taken into account.

CPP is an option, but due to time constraints and the economic malaise, it is deemed by many, particularly our provinces, to not be the right decision at this time. As a matter of fact, it could even be harmful to our recovery.

As I made clear at the outset, changes to a system that is so interconnected with our economy must be considered with a great deal of care. A lot of thought has been put into this across the country. The minister of state has spent a couple of years travelling across this country literally meeting with every financial authority and provincial representative. Collectively, they have come up with the unanimous mindset that this is the way to move forward.

We must be mindful that any legislation must have a bottom line. Above all else, it must do no harm. I am confident that we are on solid ground there.

Canada's retirement income system has been recognized around the world as a model for reducing poverty among seniors and providing high levels of replacement income to retired workers. Be assured that our government will make the right policy decisions to ensure it stays that way.

We welcome ideas and considerations, particularly those that are not just driven by a parliamentary ideology that we sometimes find ourselves in, in rather disturbing circumstances in this House of Commons, but are driven by some really sharp, well intentioned and capable suggestions.

In recent years, our government has introduced measures to support a system with a proven record of success. This has included, as most people here would know, but I repeat this as I think it is important, a number of steps.

We have provided over $2 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief to seniors and to pensioners through measures such as pension income splitting. That is huge in a riding like mine. I have the second highest concentration of seniors in the province of Ontario, so I recognize the need for programs to allow them to have a disposable income. We increased the age credit amount. There was a doubling of the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit. It included reforming the framework governing federally regulated pensions to better protect pensioners.

It also included working collaboratively with the provinces to modernize the CPP, making it more flexible for those transitioning out of the workforce to better reflect the way that Canadians live, work and retire. Most recently, in our latest budget, we announced a top-up to the guaranteed income supplement for Canada's most vulnerable seniors.

In conclusion, with the introduction of the PRPPs, we would address the remaining gaps in the system by providing an attractive additional pension option. This would not be one size fits all; it would be an additional pension option to both individuals and employers.

Through all of these measures, combined with the government's determined efforts to make PRPPs a reality, I sincerely believe that we are making a retirement system that is good. Can it be better? Yes. Is it strong? Yes. Can it and should it be stronger? Yes, that is our duty and our responsibility as parliamentarians.

This is something of which I think we as Canadians, and certainly the Parliament of Canada, can and should be very proud.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-25.

Bill C-25 proposes to establish pooled registered pension plans, extending pension coverage to the self-employed and those who work for small companies. It is geared at those small businesses and entrepreneurs, who do not have access to affordable pension plans and will help them secure financial freedom in their retirement.

Speaking with residents in my riding, especially those approaching retirement age, there is grave concern for their future. More and more I am hearing worries over whether they have enough money for their retirement.

The next generation of retirees includes a large number of workers without pensions who are left to their own devices and facing an uncertain financial future. As formal pension plans become increasingly less common, many Canadians face a savings burden that many are unable to shoulder.

For a big chunk of the population, for the self-employed, for those who work at small businesses, for professionals, for immigrants, a secure, comfortable lifestyle after working for years is now in question. At a time when our population is aging, more than six out of ten Canadians have no formal pension plan. That is more than eight million Canadians.

Statistics Canada finds the percentage of the population with some sort of pension has been dropping steadily for three decades, to 38% of Canadian workers in 2007 from 46% in 1977.

The problem is most acute at smaller businesses. There are about 5.1 million Canadians, or 48% of the private sector workforce, at small companies.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, only about 15% of small and medium-sized businesses offer some form of retirement savings plan for their employees.

A joint federal-provincial working group, established in May 2009, undertook an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy in Canada. The working group concluded that while overall the Canadian retirement income system was performing well, some modest and middle-income households were at risk of not saving enough for retirement. From the working group's exhaustive research came a plan to pursue a framework for a new type of pension plan.

Our government aims to help millions of Canadians save for retirement more easily by introducing pooled registered pension plans. There will be an innovative new pension plan designed to address the lack of low cost, large-scale retirement savings options available to many Canadians.

Pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs, are defined contribution pension plans that will be available to employers, employees and the self-employed.

The design features of PRPPs will remove a lot of the traditional barriers that might have kept some employers in the past from offering pension plans to their employees. The design of these plans will also be straightforward to allow for simple enrolment and management.

A third party PRPP administrator will take on most of the responsibilities that employers bear in existing pension plans, including the administrative and legal duties associated with administering a pension plan.

By pooling pension savings, PRPPs will offer Canadians greater purchasing power. Basically, Canadians will be able to buy in bulk. Achieving lower prices than would otherwise be available means they will get greater returns on their savings and more money will be left in their pockets when they retire.

PRPPs are also intended to be largely harmonized from province to province, which also lowers administrative costs. In short, PRPPs would be efficiently managed, privately administered pension arrangements that would provide greater choice to employers and individuals, thereby promoting pension coverage and retirement savings.

Reaction to Bill C-25 has been overwhelmingly positive. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes that pooled registered pension plans would give businesses the flexibility and tools they need to help their employees save for retirement. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation feels the legislation is a very good legislation, both for Canadians planning for retirement and for taxpayers. All the provinces are on board with the idea. British Columbia finance minister, Kevin Falcon, believes that our government has “responded to a real need out there in providing pension opportunities for small business people and those that don't have access to their own private pension plans”.

Pooled registered pension plans are the latest in a series of important steps our government has taken to strengthen Canada's retirement income system. This system is already seen around the world by experts like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among seniors and in providing high levels of income replacement to seniors.

We recognize, however, that we can always do more. That is why we have already made a number of targeted improvements to the system. Bill C-25 is just one more step our government has taken to assist Canadians as they age and enter their retirement years.

Since first coming to office, we have offered more than $2.3 billion in annual targeted tax relief specifically for our seniors. We have also provided over $2 billion in annual tax relief for seniors and pensioners. We have completely removed 85,000 seniors from the tax roles. We have raised the GIS exemption from $500 to $3,500. We have introduced pension income splitting. We have introduced an automatic renewal of the GIS, meaning that our seniors no longer have to reapply each year. We have made significant investments in affordable housing for low-income seniors. We have raised the age credit amount twice. We have doubled the pension income credit. We have provided a top-up benefit to the guaranteed income supplement that will provide up to $600 extra per year for single seniors and up to $840 per year for senior couples. We have introduced the tax-free savings account. We have modernized and streamlined the application process for the Canada pension plan and old age security, making it easier for seniors to apply and receive their benefits. We have allocated $220 million over five years to the targeted initiative for older workers, which has thus far assisted over 10,000 unemployed older workers.

In addition, we have appointed a Minister of State for Seniors, someone who can bring the concerns of older Canadians to the cabinet table and stand up on their behalf. We also created the National Seniors Council to provide advice to the federal government on matters related to the well-being and quality of life of seniors.

Our government is supporting older Canadians and we are committed to ensuring that they have the opportunity to enjoy their retirement in comfort with an improved quality of life.

Bill C-25 is important legislation that deserves the support of all members in the House. We would be helping millions of Canadians save for retirement and more easily meet their retirement goals.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. When we speak to this piece of legislation it is important to recognize who will benefit from this, if they will benefit at all. Sometimes we lose sight of the person on the receiving end of the legislation we put together. I am talking about seniors in our country who from time to time find themselves in very desperate situations.

Any suggestion of doing something that will be less than helpful to a senior requires public debate and public discussion and that is what we do in the House of Commons. So when a member of the government suggests that members of the opposition are raising questions, putting doubts in people's minds, and saying the sky is falling when they speak to a piece of legislation, in reality that is what debate is all about. The only way to formulate sound policy and good legislation is to listen, learn and to recognize that no one individual and no one party has all the answers.

When we look at this piece of legislation, we are saying that while it is a tool, it is not the be-all and end-all. We are suggesting that we look at other options and that the government should work with us and recognize that other parties can make a contribution as well, that we have some sound advice that should be taken into account. I have real problems when we are dealing with issues that have an impact on seniors and somehow there is not the willingness to listen to what others have to say.

Take a senior, for instance, whose income is about $13,000 a year. I have seniors with that income in my riding, as do all of us. We know how difficult it is for them to make ends meet. They need to find ways to put some savings aside. It is very hard for them to do that. When they scrape to somehow have a little bit of savings that maybe they can invest, then they need to know that they are going to be the beneficiaries of that investment.

The problem with Bill C-25 is that by and large when we are talking about pooled investments it is the banks that will benefit from the high fees associated with these pooled investments. I say to members of the government, look at what happened in Australia. Why can we not learn from the mistakes that others make instead of going full steam ahead and making the same mistakes? That is exactly what we are doing here.

In fact, we found out that a similar pooled pension system in Australia, in its first 12 years, posted a disappointing $161 billion in net investment earnings largely because plan providers scooped up a generous $105 billion in fees. Now that is money that seniors could not avail themselves of, because it was used to manage the pooled investment plan. That is not what should be happening.

We should be looking at opportunities for seniors that will enable them to live a life of dignity, to be able to live in comfort to the extent possible, given their income anyway. OAS is not a lot of money. Here I will refer to a quote from a York University professor, a political scientist, who said:

The OAS isn't really a lot of money.... The OAS isn't going to cause the federal budget to crash

That was Thomas Klassen.

We need to recognize the importance of providing for our seniors. When I hear the Prime Minister speaking in Davos and suggesting that we need to look at raising the age from 65 to 67 for a senior to receive OAS, I wonder where the Prime Minister is coming from. He obviously is not speaking to the same constituents I deal with on a daily basis, people who are looking forward to being able to access, not a lot of money, but at least a secure income, which a lot of seniors do not have right now.

When the Prime Minister chooses to go to Switzerland and make those remarks and does not have the courtesy to announce in Canada what he is thinking, where the individuals who are going to be impacted live, then I have a real problem with anything he is proposing with respect to seniors. Is it any wonder that we question this particular piece of legislation?

Okay, it is a tool, and we need to make sure that our seniors have access to as many opportunities as possible, and that tool is just one of them. However, whatever we do, we should not close our minds to other possibilities. The government should work with other parties and recognize what the Liberal party is proposing, a voluntary plan where seniors can invest their savings, if any, on a voluntary basis and be able to realize the gains from that investment instead of having the banks and the other institutions who are going to be responsible for the pooled management plan taking exorbitant fees and benefiting from the meagre incomes of our seniors.

We should never lose sight of what it means to a senior to have to exist from day to day on a limited income. We are seeing food banks grow. We are seeing many more food banks becoming established, and we are seeing seniors availing themselves of those food banks. It should never happen.

We have so many Canadians who do not even have a private pension plan. They have nothing to fall back on but OAS. Any suggestion at all of raising the age from 65 to 67 does not even warrant consideration when we consider that there are people right now between the ages 60 and 65 who are really looking forward to receiving their old age pension. It is a security tool for them. It is one they desperately need. The possibility of that being taken away from them must leave them wondering how they are going to survive.

What the Prime Minister and the government have done is to manufacture a crisis where no crisis exists. That is exactly what Thomas Klassen has said. The OAS that we are talking about is not a lot of money. It is not going to break the bank. If the Conservatives want to save money, if they need to deal with the deficit they have created, then they should look in the Prime Minister's Office, where we have seen an incredible 30% increase in expenditures.

Why would we be increasing the number of MPs in the House of Commons? Why would we be building megaprisons when everything is pointing to the fact that crime is on the decline? Why can we not learn from the example in the U.S.? Again, we could learn from their mistakes. They built megaprisons and today they are saying it was the wrong thing to do, yet this government is going full steam ahead to do just that.

There are examples. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. We do not have to try something. If it has not worked elsewhere, let us learn from that.

If the pooled pension plan did not work in Australia, if the megaprison system did not work in the U.S., and Texas in particular, why would we bother to go down that path? It does not make sense. Let us get our priorities straight in this country.

The government needs to recognize that this is about people, but more important, it is about seniors.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting listening to my hon. colleague. He seemed close to the point of rapture with his satisfaction with Bill C-25. I am very glad that he is very happy about it.

. Bill C-25 is the PRPP and then, apart from that, we have the social safety net programs: the Canada pension plan, the GIS and the OAS. Yesterday on television, the House leader said that the CPP and the GIS would not be touched. I will take the government's word for it but it seems that the OAS may be touched at some point in the future.

Does the member feel that with the PRPP, this legislation, plus those other programs, the pension needs of Canadians will be addressed for the foreseeable future?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He referred to all of the problems with the stock market in 2008. The government had to intervene because the rules governing the market failed. Governments reinvested in banking systems. This suggests that Bill C-25 is very dangerous and risky for the people, who would take on all of that risk. Many union leaders and economists have said that we would be better off enhancing the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan, which would cost no more than going ahead with the proposal in Bill C-25. Let us choose stability and security for retirees and seniors.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his question. I will concentrate on what we are discussing, namely, Bill C-25. When we talk about contributing to a public plan and helping people, we must take into account the economic times. Right now, we are in a situation where we must help people, not further jeopardize their future. It is said that we are in a precarious situation and that we must be careful with our money. If we must be careful with our money, we have to be careful with the money of Canadians in general. If we allow people to contribute to a stable system like the CPP or the QPP, we are showing them that we are fiscally responsible and that we respect them. We cannot play Russian roulette with their savings. In addition, people who want to save for their retirement already have access to RRSPs and TFSAs. According to the statistics I have here, 70% of people do not contribute to RRSPs or TFSAs because they do not—

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in this House as a member of Parliament to speak on behalf of the people of Beauharnois—Salaberry. I would like to take this opportunity to wish all my colleagues and everyone in Beauharnois—Salaberry a happy new year. I especially want to thank my assistants, who work hard and do an excellent job.

I am very proud to be here to represent Canada, a country that to me and to many of my constituents represents not only a peaceful and welcoming land and a land of opportunity, but also a society that respects individual differences, that takes into account individual social realities and protects the least fortunate. In these tough economic times, it is very important to remember this country's basic values, the values of solidarity and justice that are the envy of countries the world over.

It is in that spirit that I rise today to speak to the fundamental issue of the retirement of Canada's seniors. What the Conservative government is proposing here in its Bill C-25 is a legal framework for the establishment of pooled registered pension plans. These plans are designed for self-employed workers and workers in small and medium-sized businesses who do not have access to the pension plans of large companies or the public service. The goal is commendable, but my colleagues and I fear that this bill will do nothing to resolve the problem retirees are facing.

Bill C-25 would create a new kind of savings plan, the pooled registered pension plan, enabling plan members to pool their funds. Employees would contribute a portion of their earnings to a retirement fund, and that money would be invested in stocks, bonds and investment funds, which are very volatile. The plan would be administered by the banking sector—once again, the private sector—and employers would be able to contribute if they wanted to. As for any other defined contribution plan, the amount of money available upon retirement is not guaranteed. I repeat: no guarantees. That is very risky. In 2008, we saw the bottom fall out of the stock market, eating away at people's savings in the process. We all suffered as a result. Given the subprime mortgage scandal that dragged financial institutions worldwide into a huge mess, we have reason to be skeptical about the future of our savings.

The Minister of Industry says that the plans provided for in Bill C-25 would give workers “an innovative new, privately administered, low-cost and accessible pension vehicle”. Let us take a closer look at that.

The government makes many claims in this bill, but does not back those claims up with fact. We already have optional savings plans, such as registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs. These programs work well for the middle class, but there are still over 12 million Canadians who do not contribute to optional plans because they do not have any money to save.

I should not have to point out that one in four Canadians works at a low-paying job and has trouble making ends meet as it is. In my riding alone, 12% of residents are seniors. More than one in ten of my constituents lives on very little income.

Bill C-25 would entrust responsibility for the proposed retirement funds to the private sector because, according to the government, the private sector will save us money. Yet Bill C-25 does not cap the management costs or fees that fund managers can charge. Small-scale management will increase management fees, and once again, workers will foot the bill.

Entrusting these plans to the public system would ensure far greater economies of scale and the burden would not be on the workers. We should not forget that we are talking about self-employed workers and employees of small and medium-sized businesses. I do not believe that they would like to have their savings eroded by management fees or inflation. Yes, I did say by inflation because the plan proposed by the Conservatives will not be indexed to the cost of living. Once again, it is fairly risky.

The government claims that the proposed pension plans will be accessible. If we consider that more than 60% of Canadians do not contribute to a pension plan at work, it is naive to believe that another plan, similar to what is already available on the market, will spur people to save, especially if there is no guarantee that their employer will contribute to the fund.

The Australian example clearly illustrates the limitations of such a savings plan. An analysis of the Australian super fund, a similar program, shows that even though people saved, the return on investment was not much higher than inflation, a disappointing result due mainly—and I will say it slowly—to the high management costs in the private sector.

The pooled registered pension plan does not resolve the basic issue that we are currently facing: how to ensure all Canadians can retire with dignity, no matter their financial situation. What the government is not saying is that it intends to slash the whole Canada pension plan. The statements made by the Prime Minister in Davos, Switzerland, provide insight into this government's real intentions. The Conservatives want to make changes to the Canadian retirement income system. But what are they? We have every reason to believe that they will slash public programs that Canadians value.

We should not forget that old age security is the last defence against poverty and isolation, and it is vital to those who have lived and continue to live on low income and who have not been able to save for their old age. Many women are in this situation, because they hold the majority of part-time or precarious jobs. If programs such as old age security are cut, that will have a direct impact on the physical and psychological health of the most vulnerable in our society.

Well, I would remind the Prime Minister and the members of the government that they have an obligation to govern for all Canadians, including seniors, regardless of their earnings or their financial status. If the Conservatives really want to make reforms that will ensure the continuity of the Canadian pension system, we in the opposition have four alternatives to propose.

First, we must increase Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan benefits. Both plans are working perfectly well and simply need investments. Some 93% of the population already contributes to those plans, which is very effective. Second, we need to work with the provinces to make it easier for people to contribute to an individual pension plan. Third, we need to amend federal legislation to ensure that when businesses go bankrupt, they do not take off with all of the workers' savings. Fourth—so there are several choices—we must increase the guaranteed income supplement to lift seniors out of poverty and help them live in dignity.

How will we achieve all of this? Where will we get the money? That is what the Conservatives always ask. Well, we make political choices, social choices. Instead of handing billions of dollars in tax breaks to large corporations that are already earning huge profits, we could redistribute that revenue equitably and fairly among the population.

Must I remind the House that over a million Canadian seniors live below the poverty line? That is serious. Thus, the federal government has a responsibility towards our seniors. It should be investing in areas where it could make a real difference in public pension plans, instead of letting financial institutions and insurance companies line their pockets.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this second reading debate on Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans.

As the hon. members of the House know, pension plan coverage is an important issue to those Canadians who have not had access to pensions because they are employed by small and medium-size businesses or because they are self-employed. We want to help those Canadians. Therefore, we will be working with the provincial and territorial governments to meet the budget 2011 commitment to introduce a new kind of pension plan called the pooled registered pension plan, or PRPP as it has become known. This commitment is among the many commitments that this government has made to help improve Canada's retirement system.

In 2006 our government has increased the age credit amount by $1,000 and by another $1,000 in 2009. We have doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit to $2,000. We have introduced pension income splitting and also increased the age limit for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans to 71 from 69 years of age.

We are happy to see that our government has also provided $2.3 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief to seniors and pensioners through measures such as pension income splitting, increases in the age credit amount and a doubling of the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit.

I have heard from many seniors in my riding of Leeds—Grenville who appreciate what we have done to relieve the tax burden. Often when I am out at events around the riding, and I do attend many of them, this is what I hear. In my riding the average age is a little higher than it is in other parts of Canada. This is something that is very important to my constituents.

In addition, in budget 2008 we introduced the tax-free savings account, the TFSA, something that is particularly beneficial to seniors, as it is to everyone, as it helps them meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax-efficient basis after they are no longer able to contribute an RRSP.

Our record also includes important improvements to several specific retirement income supports. In budget 2008 we increased flexibility for seniors and older workers with federally-regulated pension assets that were held in life income funds. In our latest budget we also increased the guaranteed income supplement that is available to seniors.

The introduction of the pooled registered pension plan is only the most recent action that has been taken by our government to strengthen Canada's retirement income system.

Going forward, a key component of ensuring financial security for Canadians will be this PRPP.

Today's PRPP legislation will play a critical role in improving the range of retirement savings options available to Canadians by providing a low cost retirement savings opportunity for employees with or without a participating employer, as well as those who are self-employed.

PRPPs will make well-regulated, low cost, private sector pension plans available to millions of Canadians who up to now have not had access to such plans. Many employees of small and medium-size businesses and self-employed workers will now have access to a large-scale pension plan for the very first time. This will be a key improvement to Canada's retirement income system.

PRPPs will also complement and support the Government of Canada's overarching objective of creating and sustaining jobs, leveraging business investments, securing our economic recovery and encouraging sustainable private sector driven growth.

Some of the retirement income system proposals that we have looked at in our consultations would have significantly raised costs for employers and employees. They would have been unacceptable at a time of a very tentative economic recovery.

Canada's finance ministers opted to prioritize the PRPP framework over other options because it was considered the most effective and targeted way to address the prime areas for improvement identified in our working group's research, particularly the modest and middle-income individuals who did not have access to employer-sponsored pension plans.

PRPPs address this gap in the retirement system by: providing a new, accessible, straightforward and administratively low cost retirement option for employers to offer to their employees; allowing individuals who currently may not participate in a 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; enabling more people to benefit from the lower investment management costs that result from membership in a large pooled pension plan; allowing for the portability of benefits that would facilitate an easy transfer between plans; and ensuring that funds that are invested are in the best interests of the plan members.

These are all important areas where our retirement income system can and should be improved. That is why federal, provincial and territorial governments are working to implement PRPPs as soon as possible.

If it were up to the NDP, it would double CPP contributions, meaning increased payroll taxes on small and medium-sized businesses, the types of businesses that are very prevalent in my riding of Leeds—Grenville.

Might I also remind the NDP the changes to the CPP require the agreement of at least two-thirds of the provinces with at least two-thirds of the population. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers of finance have discussed a CPP expansion, but at this time there has been no agreement. However, they did agree to pursue the PRPP framework. That is because the PRPP strikes the right balance.

Our government understands that during a fragile economic recovery, it is not the right time to increase CPP contributions and tax small and medium-sized businesses any more than they already are.

When it comes to the economy and helping Canadians save for their retirement, they can count on this government to stand up for Canadians.

I and my colleagues on this side of the House could stand here and talk about how great this plan is, but there are other voices to be heard on this issue. I want to take a few minutes to review what others have been saying about the PRPP.

Gregory Thomas, federal and Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said the following:

This new pension legislation is good for Canadians planning for retirement and for taxpayers. 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.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce released this information. It said:

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes PRPPs - with simple and straightforward rules and processes - will give many businesses the flexibility and tools they need to help their employees save for retirement. PRPPs will also provide individuals and the self-employed with additional retirement savings options.

Dan Kelly, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated:

A new voluntary, low-cost and administratively simple retirement savings mechanism will allow more employers, employees, and the self-employed to participate in a pension plan. CFIB is particularly pleased that firms will be given a choice as to whether to register for or contribute to a PRPP.

Many others across Canada have made similar comments. PRPPs will help Canadians save for their retirement. Through numerous cross-country consultations, our government has talked to many Canadians and heard first hand how difficult it can be to prepare for a financially secure retirement. That is why we have devoted considerable effort on the retirement security issue.

We believe PRPPs are a step in the right direction. I urge all members to support the government in this major step forward in securing Canadians' retirement income needs.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts. Since this bill does not guarantee a pension, the term savings plan would be more appropriate.

Among other provisions, this bill will create a new type of savings plan enabling the funds from plan members’ accounts to be pooled in order to reduce the costs associated with the management of investments and of the plan itself. The program will be called the pooled registered pension plan, or PRPP. The benefits will be portable.

This bill is designed for self-employed individuals and employees of small and medium-sized businesses, which are often unable to manage a private sector pension plan.

The intentions behind this bill were probably good since, according to the statistics, up to 65% of workers do not even have a pension plan. The attraction of such a pension plan is therefore clear. It would be a good pension plan for those who do not have any plan at all, such as small business employees, the self employed, and others.

However, after further scrutiny, it becomes clear that this pension plan ultimately offers no guarantees, and that is the problem. Instead, it is an investment at the whim of the financial institutions. It is not like the Canada pension plan where Canadians’ money is invested and they know how much money has been invested to date, the age at which the pension can be drawn, and approximately how much money will be paid out. The plan in question is not like that at all.

Moreover, the bill states that employers can participate, but on a voluntary basis. What a fine pension plan. Employers must participate in the Canada pension plan. It is their responsibility. The reason employers must participate in the pension plan is to provide additional money to ensure that the system remains sustainable, which is the case with the Canada pension plan.

The NDP opposes this bill because it does not go far enough. It does not protect workers. The same problem arises when company pension funds are not protected. For instance, we know what happened in Nakawick when the company went bankrupt. The workers lost their pensions.

In Quebec, for example, there was a company that wanted 60% of the pension plan and 30% of the salaries of new workers and, because it did not get these things, it shut its doors and left. That is unacceptable. That is outrageous for a person who has worked all his life.

What did the Conservative government do? It turned around and introduced Bill C-25, which is significant. It is obviously important to examine the bill and determine whether it contains something worth considering. But what do the Conservatives do? They impose time allocation. They do not want to discuss this bill—in a democratic country like ours. We saw this after the election and until December. What has this government done? Once again it has imposed time allocation. This is the place we are able to discuss bills. It is standard procedure for everyone to have the right to talk about the bill and state his or her opinion. That is why we were elected. We have to be able to voice our opinions. Every member of the House must have the right to stand and express his or her opinion about a bill.

Before Christmas, during the previous session, what did the government do? It said that we had been talking about these bills since 2006, that it had heard enough, that it could put an end to the debate and that it was time to vote and move forward. For those who do not know, that is what a time allocation is.

The NDP disagreed with the Conservatives because there were new members who had the right to speak in the House of Commons. Even if we had agreed with them, it does not give them any excuse to now reduce the hours of debate in the House of Commons for the new bills. They introduced the bill on Monday. It is now Tuesday and there has already been a motion introduced in the House of Commons to halt debate.

This will be a wonderful four years. Canadians will have four wonderful years under the Conservative government.

This really is a lack of respect for democracy and the right to speak. I have said this several times in the House of Commons and I will keep repeating it as long as the government keeps acting in this way.

We send our soldiers to fight in other countries to give them democracy, a parliament, the right to speak. We do that to give the citizens of those other countries the right to know the direction their government is going in and the power to have someone speak for them.

But this Conservative government is taking that right away with time allocation motions, as it has just done, so debate ends, even though the subject is important.

This government is prepared to cut pensions for our seniors, for our women and men who have worked very hard. We are talking about the baby boomers, people who started working at the age of 14, people who started working at the age of 13, and people who went away into the woods and worked hard for our country. This government is telling them that they cost it too much and it is prepared to make 67 the age of retirement.

It is shameful, it is monstrous, even to think about that, for people who are reaching retirement. What will we do for people who had bad luck, who were sick or who had to receive social assistance, for example? This government is going to transfer the debt to the provinces. People thought that at age 65 they would finally have an income that would mean they did not have to be afraid to buy groceries to put food on the table, and they thought they would have a little money to live on for the years that were left to them, but the government wants to take that away for two more years, and it wants to transfer those costs to the provinces. They are the ones who will have to pay for it. I hope the provinces will stand up to this and tell the Conservative government it is not acceptable in our country.

Ten years after Australia tried the same pension system as is being proposed here, it was determined that that kind of pension system did not work. We have to have a better system than that.

The system the NDP wants to put in place will double the Canada pension fund. It is a guaranteed program under which people know in advance what they are going to receive.

Experts said it had to be revised because in the past people did not live long; they lived to the age of 67 or 68. Of course. They had no pension and they had to work right up to the last minute. That meant they worked themselves into the ground, they damaged their health, they wore themselves out. Perhaps the reason people’s health has improved is that they are able to retire and live in peace for the years they have left to live. Technology and the new drugs and pills that people take when they are 60 are not the only reason. People have been able to stop working. There are people who have worked hard all their lives. If the government wants to make budget cuts, let it make them somewhere else.

For example, when it comes to the F-35 jets, it seems they are going to cost about $29 billion. The federal government is spending on all kinds of things. Let it look somewhere else rather than going after our seniors, our women and men who have worked all their lives. Let it stop going after them. They do not deserve it. These people have worked hard. This is not a matter of just workers. There are even companies that also want a new generation to employ. They want to hire young people. How many people are there in Canada who have no jobs and who are capable of replacing the people who retire, who will make room for them in their place?

It is fine to make decisions like this and say it is the right thing to do, but who is going to pay for it? It will be the most vulnerable people, the people who have not had a chance to have a pension. Bill C-25 is not going to protect those people. They are not going to be protected by this.

Once again, and it cannot be said loud enough, the NDP’s plan is well designed and has been accepted by the Canadian Labour Congress, by all the unions in Canada. The Canada pension plan is what we should be looking at. That would help even the people who are not union members; it would help all these workers who have worked all their lives.

I hope the government will revise this bill, send it to committee where amendments will be proposed, and allow the time to examine it properly. I hope members will be able to examine it, call experts, and propose amendments. However, knowing this government, I do not think that is going to happen. For the four years they are going to be here in the House of Commons, they are going to ignore democracy in our country and in our institution, Parliament.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak about our government's plan to address the gaps in our nation's retirement income system.

Our Conservative government is squarely focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. As opposed to the opposition's empty rhetoric and high tax plans that would result in massive job losses in my city and across our country, our government has been taking real action to create and sustain jobs and strengthen London's economy.

In budget 2011, our government provided a new hiring credit for small businesses, as well as a one-time $1,000 credit against their increased EI premiums paid in 2011 over those paid in 2010, an investment that will directly benefit Londoners.

What did the members opposite do? They turned their backs on small businesses and their employees and voted no to this and other investments that directly benefit my constituents.

Last week, I was pleased to be joined in my riding by the hon. member for Beauce who, of course, is the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism). We visited innovative small businesses in London, such as Voices.com, Big Viking Games and EK3. We also sat down with small business owners and London's mayor to discuss issues that are important to small businesses in our city.

We heard them loud and clear. Eight days ago, our Conservative government announced an investment of $5 million in training programs for the manufacturing sector in southwestern Ontario. This investment will directly benefit Londoners. The next day, I was pleased to announce over $1.2 million in research grants for Western University to help drive job creation in our city. As a side note, I would like to offer congratulations to Western University on its new branding. Again, that is an investment that will directly benefit Londoners.

There is more. The following day, along my colleague, the member for London West, I was pleased to announce over $497,000 in funding for job skills training programs at Youth Opportunities Unlimited in my riding, an investment that will directly benefit London's youth.

That is over $6 million of federal investments in London in just one week.

Our Conservative government has continued to build a strong foundation for retired Canadians. Since 2006, our Conservative government has twice increased the age credit amount, by $1,000 in both 2006 and 2009; doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit to $2,000; introduced pension income splitting; and increased the age limit for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans to 71, from 69 years of age.

Low income seniors in my riding of London North Centre are directly benefiting from budget 2011, which contained a new guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for the most vulnerable seniors. Seniors with little or no income other than old age security and the GIS will receive additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples.

Today, we are discussing an initiative that would build a strong foundation for tomorrow's retired Canadians who do not have access to a workplace pension plan. Currently, many Canadians can only access a workplace pension plan if their employers offer one. Many employers do not want the legal or administrative burden of offering a pension plan. As a result, over 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension.

Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act, would afford these Canadians the opportunity to make use of a new low-cost pension plan. PRPPs would be an innovative new pension plan, designed to address the lack of low-cost, large-scale retirement savings options for many Canadians.

Canada's aging population and the global financial crisis highlighted the issue of retirement income security. In this context, a joint federal-provincial working group was established in May 2009 to undertake an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy in Canada. The working group concluded that, overall, the Canadian retirement income system was performing well and providing Canadians with an adequate standard of living upon retirement. However, some Canadian households, especially modest and middle income households, are at risk of not saving enough for retirement.

Ministers tasked senior officials to work collaboratively to analyze the wide range of ideas put forward to effectively address the issues identified in the research report.

Some Canadians may be failing to take advantage of the savings opportunities offered to them through individual structures, like RRSPs. For example, on average, each Canadian has over $18,000 in unused RRSP room.

The design features of the PRPP would remove a lot of traditional barriers that might have kept some employers in the past from offering pensions to their employees. The design of these plans would also be straightforward to allow for simple enrolment and management. A third party PRPP administrator would take on most of the responsibilities that employers bear in existing pension plans, including the administrative and legal duties associated with administering a plan.

By pooling savings, PRPPs would offer Canadians greater purchasing power. Basically, Canadians would be able to buy in bulk. Achieving lower prices than would otherwise be available means they would get greater returns on their savings and more money would be left in their pockets when they retire.

PRPPs are also intended to be largely harmonized from province to province, which will also lower administrative costs. PRPPs would facilitate low costs through their scale and design. These plans would result in large pooled funds that would enable plan members to benefit from the lower investment management costs associated with such funds.

Earlier today I saw the NDP member for London—Fanshawe stand in the House and speak against yet another federal government investment that would directly benefit Londoners. Instead of supporting her own constituents, the member opposite spoke in favour of a massive and reckless NDP pension taxation plan that would only hurt our city's businesses and result in massive job losses across the board. Perhaps if she spoke to London small business owners, as opposed to offering empty rhetoric, she would realize the direct benefits this bill would provide their city.

I am pleased to say that, unlike the NDP member for London—Fanshaw, I consulted with small businesses in my riding and across the city to obtain their feedback on this important bill. Just what did they have to say?

James McInnnes, CEO of Cyborg Trading Systems, a remarkable small business located in my riding of London North Centre, said: “By pooling resources with other small businesses across Canada, this initiative will help Canadian small businesses support their employees with securing a solid retirement plan.”

Paul Johnson, CEO of Quantum5X Systems, another innovative London small business, added: “The PRPP will offer another way to attract and reward employees. With time and critical mass, the PRPP funds under management should be significant and management expense ratios should be relatively low. These should become attractive options for retirement planning for many people who don't currently have access to a pension plan.”

Peter White, President of the London Economic Development Corporation, said: “The LEDC sees the advent of the PRPP as being an excellent step to ensure that businesses and employees without the benefit of a pension plan could utilize an excellent resource such as the PRPP. With the majority of businesses and employees in London not having a defined pension program, the PRPP would be a great tool to provide a cost effective plan for employees to ensure they are able to provide additional income for their retirement. The ability to use the PRPP plan would provide a well managed, secure program that would encourage employees to save more for their retirement. This PRPP is a great tool for companies.”

Bill C-25 is an investment in small businesses and their employees, an investment in tomorrow's seniors, an investment in job creation, and an investment in economic growth. Most importantly, Bill C-25 is yet another federal investment that would directly benefit Londoners.

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.

Second Reading

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to stand in the House and speak about Bill C-25 and its pooled pension plan. I know everyone has had various emotional and other responses to it, but first and foremost, I have to be cynical. I suggest that the government is playing games with Canadians' financial security when they retire.

It is playing games because we know that its own consultant, who has been working with the OECD and the World Bank on pensions, has said very clearly that there is no crisis with the OAS at the moment, that in fact we do not need to raise the retirement age at the moment and that we are one of a few OECD countries with the lowest investment in public pensions. Accordingly, there is room for us to look at how we would invest in a public vehicle to help Canadians who cannot afford to retire.

A game is going on here. In the last election we know that the Prime Minister promised the government would not cut transfers to health, education and to individuals. However, it is obvious what a difference a few months and a majority government will make to promises made and promises broken. Slashing health transfers, attacking old age security and raising the retirement age to 67, I can only name as a few of those broken pre-election promises.

I listened yesterday to members on the other side talking about how we must respect the provinces, that we must listen to the provinces and not tell them what to do. I suggest that perhaps the government should heed its own advice to us when the provinces ask it to hold a premiers' conference on health and it does not listen to them. When the provinces tell the government it cannot unilaterally decide without consultation to cut transfers, the government is not listening to them. It is the same when the government forces the provinces to pay for the cost of its omnibus crime bill as well. One cannot speak out of both sides of one's mouth, but the government manages to do it quite well.

When government first announced it was looking at Canadians' retirement security in January 2009, it agreed it would look at expanding the public vehicle, the Canada pension plan, as the way to go, and that it would seek agreement from the provinces. That was not impossible. In the mid-1990s, when the Liberal government looked at the CPP and all provinces were getting very worried about retirement pensions, the Liberal government talked to the provinces. We built trust and listened and looked at securing the CPP for 75 years. The CPP was secured for 75 years, and that was done with the provinces. It is a very secure vehicle that we can now look at as we try to help Canadians to retire with some dignity and some comfort, instead of looking at a private pension scheme as the first tool in the toolbox.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak to Bill C-25. I welcome everyone back in the new year and I welcome those who are watching at home. It is hard to believe that people do watch the debates at home but I have two grandmothers who actually watch so I want to say hello to my grandmothers and wish them a happy new year if they happen to be watching today.

I want to talk a bit about how we got here today and why Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plan, is important. I had the opportunity, as a Conservative member on the finance committee over the last five years in the previous Parliaments, to be part of finance and we did an extensive study on pensions. It took a number of months and, out of that study, came a number of issues, one of which was a pooled registered pension plan. Business, labour and individual business owners were coming to our committee and asking us to look at the possibility of being part of that group of those who were eligible for pensions. As has been previously mentioned, about 60% of people do not have access to pensions. They were looking for an opportunity to have access to a pension plan.

Out of that, we recognized the issue that pensions play, not just currently but in the future. The Prime Minister had the foresight to take the parliamentary secretary at the time and make him a Minister of State for Finance with a focus on pensions. We are the only government in Canada's history that has a focused ministry on that particular item. We care about our seniors, our future seniors and where this country is going in terms of the demographic. We need to be on top of the pension plans and retirement issues that are facing this country, which is why the Prime Minister has dedicated a ministry to that effect. So that is how we got here today.

Who asked for it? Members have heard over and over again from my colleagues on this side of the House about the small business organizations that have come to see us to talk about why they need access to a pension plan. One reason is that it is good for their employees. There is no doubt that having access to a pension plan and having some planning in terms of eventual retirement are important. However, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue previously said, it is also important for retention and attraction of employees. It is very difficult for small and medium size businesses to compete with large businesses that have pension plans and other benefit programs to attract high-quality employees. One of the things small business representatives told us at committee was that they needed a pension plan that would help them, not only retain their great employees but to help them attract new employees to their industry or business. A pooled registered pension plan would allow that to happen.

I want to remind members of the House and those watching that we are at second reading. What we are trying to do today is move this from the House to committee. With the three days that we have allocated for second reading, we have 42 speakers in 42 time slots. The bill then goes to committee so we can discuss the individual issues. We can have witnesses come to talk to us about what components are working, what needs to be changed and what can be improved. That is what we are doing today.

However, let us look at the components. One is the low cost. I have heard my colleagues across the way ask how we can guarantee it would be low cost. I am a member of OMERS as I used to be a municipal employee. OMERS now has the ability to allow me to have my own independent investments through RRSP managed by it. Why does it tell me it is a good idea? First, it is a good investor. It has a good group of people managing it as a third party and they are smarter than me on the investment piece.

Second, because of the numbers OMERS has, there are lower costs than for me to invest individually in RRSPs. It is a pooled system that OMERS is offering to members for other investments that it will manage at a lower cost. This is exactly what the pooled registered pension plans would do. It is large pools of revenue that it is able to invest at a lower cost because it has a larger pool to deal from. it knows that is coming.

Another piece that is vitally important here and that people seem to be missing the point on is this. They are saying that it is just another RRSP. However, people voluntarily put money into an RRSP, whereas if a company has a pooled retirement pension plan, people are automatically enrolled in it. They would have to withdraw from that plan. It is just like the CPP, in which people are automatically enrolled. Someone has to make a personal investment decision as an individual employee to withdraw, otherwise that person is in the plan.

Frankly, I think it is a better way to go to have people automatically enrolled in the program. Then they at least have to look at their investment plan and make a decision on their own. For lots of people, my neighbours and I included, making investment plans and decisions can be difficult. It is often much more practical, efficient and appropriate to leave it to a third party to do. People will be enrolled in this plan and will be saving for their retirement. Someone would have to decide not to save for their retirement to get out of a pooled retirement pension plan. That is a fundamental difference with an RRSP, which we have heard lots about.

Portability is another important issue I want to talk about. In a pooled retirement pension plan, if someone leaves a company to go to another one, that person can continue to have those retirement benefits in the pooled plan.

Let us be honest, if they leave one company to go another and do not contribute to the plan as a new employee, the company will lose that employee's contribution. That is true, and that is a choice people will make when they change jobs. They will have to look at the benefits they are going to get, including the opportunity for retirement, all of which will be part of that pension plan decision and the reasons they might move. At least it is portable and people will not lose those benefits, as they can move from one company to another.

The final thing I want to talk about is that it would effectively be available to everyone. Right now large corporations have some sort of contribution plan. Some have a defined pension plan, which I know is becoming increasingly rare. However, larger firms seem to be able to have contribution plans, as they can afford the management costs and they have HR departments to look after those types of things.

The largest employer in my riding of Burlington employs 600 people. The vast majority of the thousands of people who work in my riding work in small- and medium-sized businesses or sole proprietorships. All three will now have the ability to join a pooled registered pension plan, an option not available now.

Finally, I want to say this. We have heard lots about the government not boosting the CPP. The parliamentary secretary who spoke before me talked about it. Let us deal with the facts: the facts are that we need the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces, with two-thirds of the population, to actually make a change. We cannot disrespect the provinces and premiers. If they do not want to move on the CPP issue, we do not have the right or legislative ability to override their decision.

However, we do have agreement to move forward with a pooled registered pension plan program. All the provinces, at different levels, will have to have their own legislation. We have been clear about that. We will have to have legislation here, and the provinces will have to have legislation. We have commitments for that to happen. That is why we are moving forward.

We can talk about CPP, as we have as a government with our counterparts at the provincial level, until we are blue in the face, and I do not mean Tory blue, but mean regular blue. However, it will not happen without the provinces' agreement. We will continue those discussions because CPP is an important pillar, an important tool, for the retirement of everyone who is working.

Nonetheless, we need to find other tools. This is one that we have agreement on, and this is one that the business community is interested in. I even had 50 people at my house on Friday night discussing pooled retirement pension plans. These people were asking if they would qualify.

This is something we need to do. We have 42 time slots for discussion. Let us get the bill to committee. If members have problems with this legislation, they can bring their issues forward there. Let us move forward and do something for Canadians, as our NDP friends claim they like to do but never do. We are doing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-25, which, as we know, is about setting up a pooled registered pension plan. This is an important issue today for the future economic security of retirees. Many members have talked about the 12 million Canadians who do not have a workplace pension plan. We have to deal with this issue.

However, the NDP—myself included—believes that the government's proposed solution is a very bad idea. It will distract us from good solutions, and we will end up with a program that does not meet its stated objectives. Let me explain why.

So far, many members have talked about how the economic crisis highlighted the weakness and vulnerability of private pension plans. I am well aware of this because, in my previous life, before becoming an MP, I dealt with very sensitive situations where pensions were at stake, such as the AbitibiBowater employees' pension. Now other companies, such as White Birch, are having problems. In those workplaces, pensions are typically defined benefit plans, not defined contribution plans. These are real pensions that provide economic security, but the present economic climate is undermining that security.

That is what is happening to the Canada pension plan, a defined benefit plan that provides people with economic security because they know how much they will get once they stop working. With defined contribution plans, people do not know how much they will get. That is up to market fluctuations, and it is one of the weaknesses of the government's proposal.

The government often says things to suggest that it accepts the argument that the public pension plans are solid and secure programs; these include the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. It is essential to provide Canadians and Quebeckers with economic security, but the pooled registered pension plan proposed by the government does not do that.

Before getting into the major shortcomings of the proposed pooled pension plan, I would like to address one of the arguments that has been raised many times since the beginning of the debate: that we have no choice but to move in this direction because the provinces have refused—the necessary consent was not given by two-thirds of the provinces. That argument is a fallacy.

I followed the issue when I was in my previous position and I also followed the Kananaskis meeting where this was discussed. I would like my colleagues to refer to an article from the Globe and Mail that was written on the eve of the Kananaskis meeting. I will read it in English because the article is in English.

Provinces are planning to fight for enhancements to the Canada Pension Plan at a key meeting on Monday, setting up a showdown with the [federal] government over how Canadians will fund their retirements.

Just days before federal and provincial finance ministers meet in Kananaskis, Ottawa made a surprise move to reject CPP enhancements for now in favour of a new privately run savings vehicle.

Ontario's finance minister, who is quoted in this Globe and Mail article, said he did not think the provinces would oppose it. In the same article, the only province to oppose improving the Canada pension plan was Alberta. It was possible to get approval from nine provinces at that time. Since the government announced that the option of improving the Canada pension plan was not on the table, the provinces wanted to try to make the meeting worthwhile by proposing any option that might seem like progress. That is what is being proposed right now. To say that we have no choice but to take this direction because the provinces have said no is a fallacy. It is not true. It is baloney.

The Canada pension plan has several major flaws. Now we are talking about another voluntary plan. It will be introduced in a workplace and it will be optional. People will be able to opt out if they want. In other words, it will be a voluntary program. Tons of voluntary programs already exist, including group RRSPs and the more recent TFSAs. Both of these plans offer tax incentives to encourage Canadians to invest. Yet only 30% of Canadians invest in RRSPs, despite the significant financial incentives. It costs the federal government a fortune in tax expenditures. So why do only 30% of Canadians invest in RRSPs? Why do 70% of Canadians not invest? Because they do not have enough disposable income to do so.

I can also talk about TFSAs. Some 40% of Canadians invested in TFSAs last year. Half of that 40% earn $100,000 or more a year. For them, this program in another tax loophole. In the end, over 60% of Canadians are not investing in TFSAs, despite the advantages of the program, because they do not have the disposable income needed to invest. So, there is a good chance that low-income employees will not have enough incentive to participate in the proposed program because they need all of their income to meet their basic needs. Many of the employees who have the program available to them will opt out for that reason. The reason many voluntary programs do not work, despite tax incentives, is because people need to have enough money to invest.

We compared the management fees of the program proposed by the government to those of the Canada pension plan. Management fees associated with the CPP are less than 0.5%. Private plans, such as mutual funds, are also a form of pooled investment, since everyone has a share of the overall envelope in a mutual fund. The largest mutual funds do not benefit from any economy of scale. Management fees range from 2% to 2.5%. This may not seem like much but when a mutual fund generates a return of 3% to 3.5%, the 2% to 2.5% in management fees must be deducted from it. If the Canada pension plan delivers the same return as a mutual fund, only 0.5% must be deducted. Thus, the Canada pension plan already provides a return that is 2% greater than private plans like the one the Conservative government wants to implement.

As a side note, the Canada pension plan delivered a return of 15% in 2010 and 12% in 2011. On average, private plans in Canada delivered a return of 10.5% in 2010—from which 2% to 2.5% must be deducted—and 0.5% in 2011. We are talking about a total cumulative return of 27% over the past two years for the Canada pension plan and a return of only 11% for private plans. If there are any doubts about the effectiveness of the Canada pension plan as compared to private plans in the past two years, a time of economic uncertainty, this fact should dispel them.

With respect to economies of scale and management fees, Australia has a super fund very similar to what the government is proposing. About 10 years after setting up the super fund, Australians discovered that there were no economies of scale and that management fees were the same as for private funds, such as mutual funds.

I have already briefly addressed the third element, defined contributions.

Fourth, this distracts us from the real solution that the NDP has proposed: enhancing the Canada pension plan. Gradual premium increases would make it possible to double benefits, thereby ensuring a secure retirement for Canadians. That would be a true financial security program.

I do not have enough time to point out all the advantages of this solution. I hope that someone will ask me a question about that in the next five minutes. This is the right solution. This solution would also provide economic stability because beneficiaries would spend their bigger pension cheques. After all, they no longer need to save. The money would be reinvested in the economy to play a major role in battling economic uncertainty and fuelling the economy.

That makes our solution far better than the vague one the Conservatives have proposed.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-25, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. This legislation is the result of some three years of careful preparation and consultation on the part of our government in partnership with the provinces, territories and other stakeholders. As a result, we are now in a position to pass legislation that will help millions of Canadians, who do not have access to a pension plan, to prepare for their retirement.

I would like to begin by taking a moment to reflect on why the legislation is so important and what prompted its creation.

First, governments have known for a number of years that a demographic shift is taking place in Canada. In spite of immigration and the growth of certain sectors of the Canadian population such as among first nations, the overall demographic trend is toward the growing number of Canadians reaching retirement age. This is due not only to the retirement of the baby boomer generation, but also to the fact that more Canadian seniors are living longer.

The challenge this creates for us as the government and for Canada as a society is how we can contribute to a basic quality of life for our aging population in the face of increased strain on our retirement income system. This challenge is made all the more poignant by the immense contributions that our retirees have made to the growth and prosperity of our country. Our seniors deserve dignified retirement. That is why in recent years our government has taken action through a range of measures to support elements of our retirement income system that have a proven record of success.

For example, we built on the framework for federally regulated registered pension plans and took steps to ensure that employers fully funded benefits if the pension plan was terminated. Working with the provinces, we also modernized the CPP making it more flexible for those transitioning out of the workforce.

In budget 2011 we introduced a new guaranteed supplement top-up benefit for Canada's most vulnerable seniors. I would like to note that the opposition voted against that important increase in GIS for seniors. As a result, more than 680,000 low-income seniors now receive additional benefits of up to $600 for a single and $680 for a couple. In addition, we have provided some $2.3 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief to seniors and pensioners through measures such as pension income splitting, increases in the age credit amount and the doubling of the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit.

Although all of these measures are intended to provide greater flexibility and security to our retirement income system, additional measures are required to safeguard Canadians as they reach retirement age. That is why in May 2009, as the world reacted to the global financial crisis, the federal-provincial-territorial finance ministers met and agreed to form the working group on retirement income adequacy.

After months of consultation, the working group concluded that while our Canadian retirement system was on the whole performing well, some Canadian households were at risk of not saving enough for retirement. A gap identified by the working group was the large number of Canadians, 60% in fact, who had no access to a workplace pension plan.

In December 2010 the finance ministers from across the country agreed that a defined contribution pension plan could be made available to 60% of Canadians and they agreed to pursue a framework for pooled registered pension plans.

Members of the opposition have repeatedly stood in this place during the debate on the bill and have argued against the position of our finance ministers from across the country. They suggest that the key to retirement security is simply to expand Canada pension plan benefits. We know that changes to the CPP would require the agreement of at least two-thirds of the provinces with at least two-thirds of the population. The federal-provincial-territorial ministers of finance have discussed this very notion of a CPP expansion, but there has been no agreement.

Beyond that, if the CPP were to be expanded, Canadians could count on increases to their CPP contributions as a result. Surely a fragile economic recovery is not the right time to increase the amount Canadians have to pay on their CPP contributions.

That being said, moving forward on a PRPP does not preclude some future change to the CPP. The opposition needs to understand that this government is not closing the door on CPP. Rather we are opening the door to a new low-cost and accessible option that will help Canadians meet their retirement goals.

This is especially important for those working for small businesses and the self-employed. Currently, owners of small businesses who might want to create a pension plan for their employees but lack the resources and expertise to do so, or for those in companies that do not have pension plans or are self-employed and want to have access, they are not able to under our current system.

PRPPs would be administered by a financially regulated institution thereby decreasing the cost and complexity for small business owners in setting up such a plan. PRPPs would be accessible to those without an employer-employee relationship, allowing the self-employed to benefit from the advantages of PRPPs, including the lower costs that would result from the pooled funds.

Currently some Canadians may be failing to take advantage of the saving opportunities offered to them through individual structures like RRSPs. In fact, on average, each Canadian has over $18,000 in unused RSP room. Even among those who do make a concerted effort to maximized their retirement income through voluntary contribution structures, a PRPP could provide avid stability.

For example, I will touch on a story of one self-employed Canadian's retirement savings experience. This gentleman worked as a self-employed stone mason prior to retirement and his main form of retirement savings was through RRSPs. Particularly in the last years of his career, he increasingly worked toward maximizing his RRSP contributions and ensured that they were invested reasonably securely, but nevertheless provided some return on investment. Today he is able to live on the retirement income he was able to provide for himself, but only after a lot of hard work on his part to educate himself on RRSPs and investment. In his own words: “It takes years to develop a way of investing that is wise”.

While it is a stated goal of our government to improve financial literacy, we are also aware that many Canadians may not have the time, opportunity or the desire to study investing and not everyone has access to a broker or financial adviser. This is where PRPPs would provide a great benefit because the responsibility for implementing the pension plan would be taken on by the third-party administrator.

The administrator will be responsible for the management of the pension fund and the day-to-day administration of the pension plan. This will include ensuring that the money being contributed into the plan is being managed prudently, that appropriate investments and options are offered and that plan members are informed with up-to-date plan information. Additionally, because PRPP investments are pooled, it is expected that members will be able to benefit from greater economies of scale and lower costs compared to RRSPs.

Another major benefit of the PRPP is its universality and portability. In my own riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo many people rely on seasonal work for employment, which is a fact of life for many rural Canadians across the country.

For example, let us say that a constituent of mine named John works at the ski resort of Sun Peaks during the winter, but during the summer must find work at a local ranch. Under our current system, John would be left to his own initiative to invest in RRSPs or contribute to his tax-free savings account. Now, thanks to the portability of the PRPP, John can contribute to the same pension plan, regardless of which employer he happens to be working for.

Providing a new, accessible, straightforward and administratively low-cost retirement saving option will allow more Canadians to benefit from secure retirement savings. I am therefore proud to support the government's move to implement PRPPs and hope, with the support of the provinces and territories, that we may speedily implement this important reform for our retirement system.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. It is true that Canadians are very concerned about this issue. That is what I heard people talking about the most when I was in my riding of Montcalm recently. It is important to note that, at present, 12 million Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. Bill C-25 will not help meet that objective. Canadians do not need a new, private, voluntary savings plan. They need concrete measures that will allow them to retire in dignity.

I hope that I am answering the hon. member's question. Why give workers a new, less reliable savings plan—the PRPP—when we could simply improve the reliable pension plan that is already in place, the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan? CPP or QPP contributions are mandatory. It thus stands to reason that improvements to this plan would help more workers than the plan proposed in Bill C-25. This would be a way of ensuring that workers have a decent retirement.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

Today, we are talking about a bill that 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.

In short, we are talking about a new savings tool and not a plan that would secure retirement pensions. In fact, rather than addressing pension security, the government is proposing a new savings tool that will depend on the state of the stock market. This is another way the Conservatives have found to gamble with our retirement funds. The government recognized that there is a pensions crisis when it adopted the NDP opposition's motion. Members will no doubt recall that the motion outlined the need for a national pension insurance plan to protect workers' deferred wages or pension plans in the event of employer bankruptcy. At the same time, we initiated a discussion regarding the gradual increase of Canada pension plan contributions in order to increase benefits. Yet, although the government recognized that there is a problem, it is turning its back on seniors who are simply seeking to secure their futures.

Let us talk a little about what these pooled registered pension plans would do.

The measures proposed in Bill C-25 do not even guarantee a pension. This is more of a savings vehicle than a stable, reliable pension plan. While this savings plan would pool funds from participants to reduce the costs associated with managing the plan and investments, this bill does not cap the fees charged by the fund managers. Experiences in other countries show that these costs often chip away at pension savings to the point that the rate of growth in savings does not even match inflation. This bill is supposed to help self-employed workers and employees of small and medium-sized businesses, which often do not have the means to offer a private sector pension plan. A similar system was set up in Australia 12 years ago and has not yet proven worthwhile. Because of high fees and costs, returns on investment have not been much higher than inflation.

There is another big problem with pooled registered pension plans: they do not seem to offer anything new. They look just like a regular RRSP. This option would be just another defined contribution pension plan. Employees would deposit a portion of their salary in the retirement fund, and that money would be invested in stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Well-intentioned companies that care about their employees' well-being can match contributions, but they are not required to do so. However, considering the current climate in the business world, I think that companies will try to cut costs wherever they can.

Even more worrisome, this defined contribution plan in no way guarantees the amount of money that would be available upon retirement. The money employees set aside while working hard their entire lives would not be protected from the risks associated with fluctuating markets. As is the case with registered retirement savings plans, the individual or employee in question would completely and exclusively assume all market risks. Regulated financial institutions like banks, insurance companies and trust companies would manage the PRPPs for a fee. Canadians also need to consider the fact that PRPP benefits would not be indexed to inflation, unlike Canada pension plan benefits. The provinces and territories would determine whether the employers or employees of businesses of a certain size will be required to contribute to a PRPP.

Pooled registered pension plans, as they are defined in Bill C-25, do not provide any retirement security because they encourage families to invest even more of their retirement savings in a declining stock market. When the stock market is rising, savings increase of course, but conversely, savings take a nosedive when the market declines.

Anyone whose RRSPs took a hit last year knows very well how risky it is to invest one's savings in any products linked to the stock market.

By encouraging families to invest in the same system that is already failing them, the Conservatives are showing just how out of touch they are with the reality facing Canadians and Quebeckers.

Over the pas three years, the NDP has suggested a number of proposals to ensure retirement income security. As we have indicated, the NDP first proposed increasing Canada pension plan benefits for a given period. Benefits would increase to $1,920 a month. Of all the possible solutions for pension reform, increasing Canada pension plan benefits is quite simply the most effective and affordable solution.

The NDP believes that retirement income security for seniors cannot be built on just one plan or one option. We believe that pensions need to be discussed in a more general way. We think that Canadians want us to examine all pensions as a whole. Our goal is not to reduce them, but rather to ensure their continued existence in order to protect our seniors for many years to come.

Our plans for retirement security were laid out in our election platform. The New Democrats were clear in last May's election campaign: we want a substantial increase in the guaranteed income supplement to help seniors who qualify for these benefits escape poverty. This measure targets 250,000 Canadians, most of them women.

As for the Conservatives, there was no indication in their election platform that, once elected, they would change the eligibility criteria for old age security and raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67. However, that has been the talk recently.

In recent weeks, in my riding of Montcalm, I have spoken to people who are worried about their future and their retirement. Someone wrote to me this week and told me that he had worked until he was 69 and was forced to get food aid at the age of 70. I find this unacceptable.

A couple from Saint-Roch-de-l'Achigan told me that the population is aging and no one deserves to lose their life savings, especially after working hard all their life.

Michel Janyk, from Mascouche, is also worried about Bill C-25. He believes that we should guarantee and protect our retirement funds.

My constituents are not the only ones who are worried. Jason Heath, a certified financial planner at E.E.S. Financial Services Ltd., has said that pooled registered pension plans are, generally speaking, no different from RRSPs. Contributions are tax deductible and allow tax-deferred growth. Taxes are paid after retirement and the contributions are often invested in mutual funds. According to a 2006 report entitled “Mutual Funds Fees Around the World”, mutual fund fees are higher in Canada than anywhere else. It is not surprising that investment and insurance companies are applauding the arrival of pooled registered pension plans.

You can see how Bill C-25 to establish pooled registered pension plans does nothing to make the pensions of thousands of Canadians more secure.

The Conservatives' pooled registered pension plan does nothing to help the families who are being crushed under debt, and it is bound to fail since it is a voluntary plan—I repeat, “voluntary”—a defined contribution plan administered by wealthy financial institutions that sometimes invest in collapsing markets.

This uncertainty and volatility leave families with no guarantee that their savings will still be there when it comes time to retire.

At a time when the economy is so precarious, families do not need additional risks. They need the stability of the CPP or the Quebec pension plan. Economists and provincial leaders have been saying that for years, but this government, disconnected as it is from reality, is once again turning its back on families.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the esteemed member for Crowfoot. Our government understands the importance of a secure and dignified retirement for people who have spent their lives building a better and more prosperous Canada.

I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, for his hard work and his dedication to improving the retirement system in Canada. Over the past two years, he has travelled to communities across this land to consult directly with Canadians. He has met with business and labour groups to discuss key considerations with them. In addition, he has received valuable input from some of the most respected experts in the retirement income field. He has also engaged the opposition parties in constructive dialogue and given serious consideration to their ideas and suggestions. He has worked closely with his provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure their collaboration going forward.

I am happy to say that we have made real progress as a result of these efforts. Last November, our government introduced Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. This legislation would implement the federal portion of the PRPP framework and change Canada's pension system to make saving for retirement easier for millions of Canadians. PRPPs would fill a gap in the current pension landscape where more than 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. This includes small business owners and entrepreneurs and their employees, who often do not have access to company pension plans.

In my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, this would have a tremendous impact. We are proud to be a centre of innovation where start-ups and small high-tech companies flourish. According to a recent report by Communitech, an organization that supports local technology companies in our area, 300 new companies were established last year in Waterloo region alone, creating 450 jobs. Over the past three years, 531 new companies employing over 1,400 people have been added to our local economy.

The importance of small businesses to Canada's prosperity cannot be overstated. They are the drivers of economic growth and job creation. They foster and reward creativity and innovation, ensuring that Canada will continue to lead in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. That is why our government has taken a number of steps to support small businesses in Canada and the introduction of the PRPPs is one more way that we can help address their needs.

PRPPs would offer a new low-cost pension option that would be especially important for the self-employed, and small businesses and their employees. For the first time, they would have access to a large-scale, low-cost pension plan with professional administrators working to ensure that funds are invested in the best interests of plan members. Since these plans would involve large pooled funds, plan members would benefit from the lower investment management costs associated with the scale of these funds. Essentially, they would be buying in bulk. These features would remove barriers that might have kept some employers in the past from offering pension plans to their employees, and prevented employees and self-employed individuals from participating in large-scale pension plans.

I am very pleased to see that this new initiative has been widely praised in the small business community. For example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a statement last November supporting this legislation. Its senior vice-president, Dan Kelly, said:

A new voluntary, low-cost and administratively simple retirement savings mechanism will allow more employers, employees, and the self-employed to participate in a pension plan. CFIB is particularly pleased that firms will be given a choice as to whether to register for or contribute to a PRPP.

He added:

We believe that, if properly implemented by provinces, PRPPs have the potential to expand the retirement savings options for thousands of Canadian small businesses and their employees.

The support from small business leaders is also echoed in my riding. The president of the Greater Kitchener-Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, Ian McLean, believes that his members will benefit from the introduction of PRPPs. He said:

An increasing number of Canadians are employed by small and medium sized enterprises. If governments want to assist Canadians in saving more for retirement, our Chamber believes that the best option would be to make it easier for these businesses to offer workplace plans for their employees.

The pooled registered pension plans announced by Minister Menzies last November are an important measure for meeting this national public policy priority and we fully support their implementation. The plans will provide Canadians with a simple, efficient and cost-effective opportunity to save for retirement.

The introduction of the pooled registered pension plan option will also contribute to the ability of small businesses to attract and retain employees. In the Waterloo region, with our concentration of high-tech start-up companies, this will be especially valuable.

According to recent estimates, currently there are approximately 1,300 tech job vacancies in the region, and I have heard first-hand of the difficulties some companies are having in filling these positions. The ability to offer prospective employees access to a retirement savings plan will help small, innovative enterprises to compete with larger companies in attracting the top quality, specialized talent that will allow them to grow and thrive.

There are many solid reasons to support this legislation, which represents a vital improvement to Canada's retirement system and a significant step in advancing our pension agenda. PRPPs will complement and support the Government of Canada's overarching objective of creating jobs, leveraging business investment and securing our economic recovery through sustainable private sector-driven growth.

Bill C-25 is the result of careful consideration and consultation with provinces and territories, key stakeholders and experts and Canadians themselves. I would also like to point out that over the course of our deliberations we took a serious look at other retirement income system proposals put forward by the opposition and other interested parties. We were concerned because many of them would have entailed significantly raised costs for both employers and employees. Introducing them would have been unacceptable during a very tentative economic recovery.

Dan Kelly of the CFIB, whom I quoted earlier, warns against the proposal to hike CPP premiums, and cites data showing that even modest CPP increases would be detrimental to the economy, employment and wages. PRPPs, on the other hand, would be efficiently managed, privately administered pension arrangements that would provide greater choice to employers and individuals, thereby promoting pension coverage and retirement saving.

With the introduction of the PRPP act, our government has taken an important step to expand retirement options for Canadians and we have devoted considerable effort to the retirement security issue in order to get it right. I encourage all members to support this legislation.

In addition to our passing Bill C-25, the provinces and territories will also need to introduce their own enabling legislation to ensure that this new initiative can be introduced and implemented in their jurisdictions. Working together, I am confident that we can get these new retirement vehicles up and running for Canadians as quickly as possible.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to Bill C-25, an act regarding the pooled registered pension plan. Certainly there will not be many more of us who have this opportunity.

As members may have already noted, the plan would fail to adequately address the current needs of Canada's aging population. Seniors represent one of the fastest-growing populations in Canada today. The number of seniors in Canada is projected to increase from 4.2 million in 2005 to 9.8 million by 2036. With so many seniors retiring in the years to come, we need to have the social safety net in place now to avoid dramatic increases in the rate of poverty in the future. We need real pension reform, not a savings scheme that is dependent upon the ups and downs of the stock market. Canadians know all too well how ineffective and expensive that kind of savings plan is. Too many saw their savings crumble away as the markets took a nosedive. This is most definitely not how savings for retirement should be organized.

The CPP, when it was established in 1966, was set up with the assumption that individuals would also have workplace pensions and individual savings to complete their CPP benefits. For the average Canadian, real wages have failed to increase, making savings for retirement a virtual impossibility. More and more, workplaces have cut pension programs, leaving only about 25% of workers with a private pension plan.

This savings scheme that we have seen proposed by the federal Conservatives purports to address the pension savings shortfall, but fails to address the problems at the heart of the retirement savings problem in Canada.

For employees, a PRPP is like a defined contribution, or group RRSP. It is a savings vehicle, limited by RRSP limits and regulations, purported to allow workers to save for retirement, but it would not guarantee retirement security. PRPPs would be managed by the financial industry, the same crew receiving huge corporate tax breaks from the Conservatives. The PRPP is not a defined benefit plan. It would not provide a secure retirement income with a set replacement rate of pre-retirement income. It would not be fully transferable. It would not be indexed to inflation and would not increase with the increasing cost of living.

It is noteworthy that employers, not employees, would decide contribution levels and it would not be mandatory for employers to contribute or match workers' contributions to these PRPPs. Without employers contributing, it would not really be a pension plan. In fact, employers who do not help their employees save for retirement could end up with a competitive advantage over employers who do. This would have a huge limitation on the effectiveness of PRPPs as a means to increase retirement security at all.

The proposed PRPPs do not guarantee low management fees, nor prevent the large management fees that eat up such a large portion of retirement savings now. In fact, there is only a promise that PRPPs will result in large pools of capital and that they might lower fees, with no guarantees or legislative results. Nothing in the PRPP proposals sets management expenses at levels equal to or lower than those of the Canada pension plan. As a result, CPP is still a better deal than PRPPs, not only because CPP is guaranteed and indexed but because it has much lower management fees.

The pooled registered pension plan would not help those who are struggling the most, the poor. The government's own advisory group, the National Seniors Council, in 2009 reported that, generally, most people did not experience dramatic declines in income when they turn 65, rather low income as for seniors is the result of the inability to accumulate assets over time. The council also argues that given their greater longevity, women are far more likely to be unattached in later life and at greater risk of experiencing low incomes. Indeed, women represented about three-quarters of the 179,000 unattached low-income seniors in 2006.

The National Seniors Council also points out that Canada's retirement income system, the OAS, CPP and private pension savings and investments, has helped reduced the incidence of low income among seniors and helped increase overall living standards. The OAS and GIS programs play a critical role in ensuring that seniors have a modest base of income. Still, a core group of seniors remain vulnerable: the unattached, recent immigrants, those with fewer than 10 years in the labour force and aboriginal seniors. The council points out that low income seniors spend most of their money on housing, food, transportation and health-related costs.

I have met with Canadian seniors and seniors organizations representing people from across the country. I have taken the time to listen to what they had to say and they are very concerned about access to health care, medicine, being forced from their homes and losing their autonomy. All of these things hinge on one simple thing, financial security. This current scheme, the one we have before us, does not provide security and without financial security, our seniors are left vulnerable to abuse and poverty.

Fixing our pension problem is not the only step we can take. We should provide education and financial literacy so Canadians can be better informed about planning for their retirement. To underscore that point is the 2005 report from the National Council on Aging. It found in a review of under-subscription to the OAS program and Canada pension plan that large numbers of eligible seniors had not applied for these programs. About 55,000 eligible people did not apply for their retirement pension. In 2004 alone, about 1,000 people made a late application for their CPP.

The council recommends that the federal government work to reduce the failure rate among people who are eligible for old age security and CPP benefits. It should also make public the number of eligible seniors who have not applied for the various benefit programs.

This is important because of the negative impact it has. Women are three times more likely to be late applying for CPP. Late applicants are also noticeably more numerous in Quebec, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, regions where there are more seniors living under the poverty line.

The fact is that late applications for CPP benefits causes serious consequences. Currently, a person who is late applying for his or her pension under the CPP is only entitled to 11 months of retroactive benefits, whereas the QPP provides up to 5 years of back benefits. The federal retroactive period for CPP is clearly insufficient and unfair because this program is based on employee-employer contributions. The money has been contributed and it should be available to the retiree.

The council therefore recommends that the federal government allow fully retroactive benefits, plus interest, when someone applies late under the Canada pension plan because it is a contribution-based program.

I will also say a few words about RRSPs, as they are much touted as a safe and valuable retirement savings plan. The National Council on Aging argues that people with low incomes actually derive no advantage from investing in RRSPs, an investment program that allows contributors to delay paying income tax until the invested amounts are cashed in. However, people with low income pay little or no income tax during their working lives anyway. If they are entitled to the GIS upon retirement, they will actually be penalized when they cash in their RRSPs, since these amounts will inevitably lead to a reduction in GIS benefits.

For example, a person receiving the GIS who cashes in a $1,000 RRSP could see his or her GIS benefit reduced by $527. Furthermore, those GIS recipients, who are among the 50% who pay income tax, will see a further reduction of $250. Finally, other benefits such as provincial-territorial income supplements or subsidized housing may be lost or reduced as well. The clawbacks discourage low income earners from making the already difficult effort to save.

Among people aged 55 to 64, 21% have no retirement assets and 32% have assets of less than $100,000. Seniors with no retirement income will receive maximum benefits from the government. However, those who have saved a little, about $23,000 in RRSPs, will have a significant portion of their assets confiscated by provincial and federal governments because both of these governments will recover the money through income tax and through reduced benefits paid out of their income tested programs.

This reality points to another, better way to assist low income seniors in gaining economic security. We must end the clawbacks. This would be a smarter investment and first step in eliminating poverty for seniors in Canada.

I would like to talk numbers now. The CCPA outlines the cost savings in investing in pensions. I think the House will find these numbers very interesting.

The federal government estimates that the net cost to the government of tax assistance to RRSPs, the third tier of retirement income, was $9.3 billion in 2005. This was projected to rise to $12.1 billion by 2010. The net cost of tax subsidies to registered pension plans in 2005 was $13.3 billion, projected to increase to $16.8 billion by 2010. Net cost is the cost in lost tax revenue by government for RRSP contributions. It is significant that the net cost in lost tax revenues of tax subsidies to registered pension plans and RRSPs in 2010, at $28.9 billion, is greater than the total cost of OAS benefits, estimated at $27.6 billion for 2009-10.

The CCPA, using data from Statistics Canada, points out that only 38% of employed Canadians have a workplace pension. It is also important to note that most Canadians who are entitled to contribute to an RRSP fail to do so. In many cases it would appear many of those eligible to contribute cannot afford to do that. Statistics Canada reports that 88% of tax filers were eligible to contribute to an RRSP in 2006, but only 31% actually made contributions. They used only 7% of the total contribution room available to them. In other words, there is now more than $500 billion in unused RRSP contribution room being carried forward.

Pension reform should reconsider the high cost of taxpayer subsidies to RRSPs and private pensions. A reduction of the tax subsidies to the third tier of the retirement income system would free up funds to improve benefits for CPP. A secure retirement for all Canadians would be ensured with $28.9 billion.

There are many among us who have concerns for the future and those concerns are entirely justified.

As I mentioned earlier, only 25% of Canadian workers have workplace pensions and nearly one-third have no retirement savings at all. More than 3.5 million Canadians are not saving enough in their RRSPs for what used to be called their golden years and 75% of workers are not even participating in a registered pension plan. Clearly the notion that retirement savings can be adequately accounted for through purchases of RRSPs does not work. Urgent government action is needed.

It should further be noted that private retirement savings are concentrated in a small percentage of Canadian families. According to Statistics Canada, 25% of Canadian families hold 84% of current retirement assets, while three out of ten families have no private pensions at all.

Seniors have worked hard all of their lives. They have played by the rules and now they simply want access to the programs and services that their hard-earned tax dollars helped to make possible. Every senior in Canada has the absolute right to income security.

In a series of polls conducts by the Canadian Labour Congress in 2004, 73% of Canadians polled said that they worried about not having enough income to live after retirement. The number of people who worried about income security had increased by almost 20% from two years before.

Canadians are worried about the solvency of their private pensions, the adequate nature of CPP and public income support and their ability to cope with what Statistics Canada confirms is a higher rate of inflation for seniors than average Canadians. We know life is getting more expensive. Those fears are well-founded. Right now, more than one-quarter of a million seniors live below the poverty line. Since the mid-1990s, the income of seniors has reached a ceiling and the gap between the income of seniors and that of other Canadians is now increasing.

According to the government's own National Advisory Council on Aging, between 1997 and 2003 the mean income of senior households increased by $4,100 while the average income of other Canadian households increased by $9,000. The situation is even more pronounced for seniors living alone. A life of poverty is most prevalent among women, those widowed, separated or divorced, recent immigrants, tenants, those without private pension coverage, and not surprisingly, those with low wages.

Senior women face harsh realities upon retirement. The poverty rate for senior women is almost double the poverty rate for senior men. In particular, unattached senior women remain very vulnerable. They make up 60% of seniors living below the poverty line. In 2003, according to a Government of Canada report, 154,000 unattached senior women lived in poverty. Poverty is a real issue for seniors. Income insecurity makes them vulnerable to abuse. Financial security equals autonomy.

New Democrats have concrete solutions to solving the pensions problem that faces Canadians. We would work with the provinces to bring about increases to the Canada and Quebec pension plan benefits with the eventual goal to double the benefits received. We would work with the provinces to build in the flexibility for employees and employers to make voluntary contributions to individual public pension accounts. We would amend federal bankruptcy legislation to move pensions and long-term disability recipients to the front of the line of creditors when their employers enter court protection or declare bankruptcy.

As government, we would increase the annual guaranteed income supplement to a sufficient level in our first budget to lift every senior in Canada out of poverty. Seniors are important to our party, so much so that our first opposition day in the House after the 2011 election was dedicated to asking the government to invest in seniors and raise the GIS sufficiently to eliminate seniors poverty in Canada. We did our homework and discovered that in combination with increases to the GIS set out in the June 2011 budget, the cost to taxpayers would be significantly less than $700 million. This is an intelligent, practical and affordable investment that would make a positive difference in the everyday lives of seniors currently living in poverty.

The argument that we as a country cannot afford to lift seniors out of poverty is preposterous. The most recent round of corporate tax cuts will cost the Government of Canada $13.5 billion over the next three years. A tiny fraction of this money would be enough to lift every senior in this country out of poverty. Canada is a rich and privileged country. Our wealth and prosperity are in no small measure the result of the lifetime of work done by Canadians who are or will be seniors. We absolutely must support these people because it is the ethical thing to do and, in practical terms, because they in turn support our economy and their communities and families. They contribute a great deal.

New Democrats are proposing an easy, affordable, targeted solution to a very real problem. As politicians, we have an obligation to make this happen. It is time that we abandoned partisan rhetoric and acted as one to stand up for seniors.

While I am very pleased that in June the NDP motion passed unanimously in the House and that all parties supported that initiative, the budget implementation bill and this Conservative pension scheme failed to take the NDP motion into account, despite its passing unanimously. The Conservatives seem to have conveniently forgotten their duty to the people they have pledged to serve. It seems that the government is only willing to pay lip service to democracy, as witnessed today, and to seniors struggling to make ends meet.

Canada does not need yet another voluntary, tax-assisted retirement savings program. It needs public pensions that provide all Canadians with a basic guarantee of adequate income that would protect their standard of living in retirement. Expanding the Canada pension plan would meet this objective. Improving the replacement rate of CPP retirement benefits would provide better retirement pensions to virtually all Canadians. A relatively modest increase in rates would achieve this.

The CPP covers all workers, including those who are self-employed. Its benefits would be guaranteed in relation to earnings and years of service. They would be indexed for inflation and fully portable from one job to another. This is the real solution, not the Conservatives' bogus pooled registered pension plan.

The House resumed from January 30 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.

Bill C-25--Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, it is ironic to listen to the House leader on the government side stand in the chamber and accuse one of my colleagues of not understanding procedure. This debate is about time allocation and closure. It is not about Bill C-25. He should understand that.

With regard to that, he also stands in the House and repeatedly says that this is what Canadians voted for. The Conservatives promised repeatedly, in every single election since they have been both a minority government and in the run up to this majority government, that they would clean up the democratic process in the House. What have we seen? Fourteen times now they have invoked either closure or time allocation. What about those promises? Are they going to honour those or are they going to break those promises to the Canadian people to clean up the democracy in the House?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-25--Notice of time allocation motion

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have a question in regard to the bill. I must commend to member for sticking to the topic, which is Bill C-25, the PRPP.

In Saskatchewan, the importance is very huge. We do see employees change jobs, one to another, especially the younger they are. If people have a job when they are 25 and start a PRPP, they can keep moving that. That versatility is with them as they change jobs or maybe even change career paths. The PRPP is theirs until they retire. That is the beauty of this legislation.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

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

Before I start, I want to thank the Minister of State (Finance), the member for Macleod, for his work on this in close cooperation with the provincial ministers of finance. It is no easy task when we are told to look at the retirement packages that Canadians will have and what they will be able to spend in their retirement years. We want to ensure that we are able to provide that. We want to ensure that they have the tools to provide that, too.

I think the PRPP would do a good job. I think if all parties put away the rhetoric and the verbal diarrhea we have just heard and looked at Bill C-25, they would see that this is not a bad way to move forward. It is a reasonable and prudent way, considering today's environment. Bill C-25 would provide a pension plan that individuals could take on. It would provide a pension plan that small companies could offer to their employees.

Last weekend, I attended a Chamber of Commerce function in Nipawin. The guest speaker was Eric Anderson, a very good speaker who talked about the resource sector in Saskatchewan. He talked about all the opportunities and about the labour shortage. Saskatchewan will face a labour shortage as it sees expansion in potash, uranium, gold, and oil and gas, and the re-emergence of the forestry sector.

I have to thank Brad Wall and his Saskatchewan government for doing such a great job in allowing that growth to happen. Under the NDP government, that would never happen. We have seen people leaving this province under the NDP government. Under the Saskatchewan Party government, we have actually seen people come back. We are now trying to draw in people from all over Canada and around the world to work in the great province of Saskatchewan.

However, because we are so short of labour, the smaller companies are trying to figure out how they are going to be able to retain employees. How do they compete against the big, multinational companies? How do they compete against government organizations? How do they take a mechanic they have seen through to journeyman status and keep him or her in their organization?

When I worked for Flexi-Coil and Case New Holland, talking to our agriculture dealers, that was a common problem. How do they keep that mechanic in their dealerships, after having spent time and effort getting him or her trained to understand their equipment? That was a big problem.

The PRPP is one tool that would allow the employer to do that. I think it is a great tool. Small businesses do not have the ability to take on big pension plans. They do not have the resources. They do not have the fiduciary capacity. They do not have the administration. They cannot afford it. If they only have four or five employees, or one or two employees, they cannot hire a person to administer a pension plan. They have to be a certain size in order to get economies of scale. That is the beauty of this plan: it would allow a pension to be built. It would allow the pooling of resources to get economies of scale.

Another nice thing about this program is it would actually allow a third party to come in and administer the plan. The employer would not have the burden of hiring somebody to administer a pension plan. It would allow the third party to coordinate and work through this pension plan with that employee.

As an advantage over existing pension plans, if an employee decided to change jobs, the plan would follow the employee. If I, as a mechanic, decided that I wanted to take a job at a different dealership, I could take it with me. It is my money. It would follow me wherever I went. That is a great plan. It would allow the retention of employees. It would allow an employer to say, “I have a pension plan here that you can contribute to”. Yet it would allow the employee the freedom to change jobs and that pension plan would follow him or her. It is a great idea.

This plan is the federal portion of it. Of course, the cooperation of the provinces would be needed in order to see this plan move forward and be implemented throughout Canada. I am sure we would have that cooperation, considering the amount of work the member for Macleod, the Minister of State (Finance), has put into the plan.

He has consulted with the provincial ministers of finance over and over and over again. He has talked to business groups, employees and employers about options that they could look at to provide that stability for people during their retirement days. This would be a good result.

One of the arguments was that we should just raise CPP. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that one thing about raising CPP is that it kills jobs. In parts of Canada, killing jobs would be very serious. In my area, we actually have a shortage of labour. We are sitting at about a 4% or 5% unemployment rate. We need everybody we can get. However, some areas are not that lucky. We do not want to kill jobs. We want to see jobs continue to grow. We still want to see jobs and people employed in different regions of the country.

I know the opposition members do not want to kill jobs, so I think they can understand. When we talk to third parties, professors and experts in the industry, we do not want to raise CPP. That is not the option in this day and age that is correct.

However, if we do not have that option what else do we have? Employers say that they cannot afford to provide a pension. They cannot afford the administrative costs. They say that they cannot afford to hire someone to administer a pension. Some businesses are not big enough and do not have enough economies of scale to pay for a pension plan.

This is why PRPPs came about. It is a good idea. It is a good cross balance. It would allow employees to have that benefit and would allow employers to offer that benefit if they chose. They could even contribute financially to it. Again, it would be up to the employer and the employee, their relationship and their benefit package. It would give them that flexibility to move forward. It would allow the employees to have a few more tools in their basket for what they can use for retirement. They could have an RRSP, a pension and a PRPP, if their company offers a PRPP. They would have a lot of options. I think it is just being prudent.

It also would encourage people to save for retirement, which is something all of us have been told we should be doing. We all know that the younger we start the better off we will be when we come to retirement age. We should always keep encouraging members of society, especially young members, to be saving more and more as we move forward.

When I look at the intent of the PRPP and how it would to work, and when I see how it would benefit the employees, this is a very positive step forward.

There has been a lot of confusion today, which is really too bad because this bill should have intelligent debate. It should be debated on the merits of it, not on a wild range of speculation and hip hurrah over other things. We need to talk about the PRPP and refocus on what this legislation is actually about.

We need to look at the situation as if we were in that employee's shoes. We are in our mid-40s and wondering what retirement benefits are available. We might have RRSPs, which we could maximize on or do the best on that. However, we know a lot of Canadians are not doing that. We have been paying into CPP so we know that will be there. We have GIS, which the government actually raised, so we know that will be there. We have OAS, old age security. We know that is in the works. We understand there are some challenges with OAS but again we will discuss that at a future date. However, that is not this bill. This bill is the PRPP, the pooled registered pension plan. That is what we are discussing here today.

I encourage other members to put away all the noise and focus on the PRPP. We need to ensure we get a proper piece of legislation that moves forward and actually works for employees and employers. If we were to agree to put politics aside and just focus on the employer and employee, we would actually look at this bill in a different light. When people turn 60 or 65, or when they decide to retire, what will they have in benefits? If the PRPP is in that basket, 15 or 20 years from now they will be thanking us for voting in favour of this legislation.

I think this is great legislation. I again thank the member for Macleod, the Minister of State for Finance. I also thank the parliamentary secretary for all her hard work on this file. I know she has worked very hard on the background to this. All the members of the finance committee on both sides of the line have also worked hard in different consultations, too.

I encourage members to focus on the pooled registered pension plan, on Bill C-25. We need to get this legislation through and, once we get it through, then we can get on to other business. Members can be reassured that their constituents will thank them for doing it.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Our government continues to focus on the economy and the long-term economic security of Canadians and the pooled registered pension plan act that we are now debating does just that by making it easier for millions of Canadians who are self-employed or work for small businesses to save for retirement. As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says, “This can't come soon enough from our perspective”.

I would like to advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage. As a courtesy to the House, it is my intention to propose that two further days of debate be allotted in addition to today.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we should be very much aware that this program would not apply for everyone. In order for it to apply for everyone, we need to have the different provinces onside.

What I like about the debate on Bill C-25 is that it really puts into perspective the difference between the Conservatives/Reformers compared to the Liberals. The Liberals believe in the CPP. We believe in the GIC. We believe in the OAS. The government, on the other hand, chooses not to support those programs, in favour of just talking about the PRPP as the answer to all the issues related to pensions, with which we disagree. It is not the answer to all the situations.

The member talked about the need to have three-quarters of the provinces onside in order to change the CPP, which would have demonstrated a need for strong leadership from the Prime Minister, which we did not see.

How many of the provinces today are in support of Bill C-25, if in fact it goes to committee and passes, and how many would actually bring in their own provincial legislation? Does the government have a number on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the brief comments made by the member who just spoke. I would like her to elaborate on what she believes to be the added value of the system proposed by Bill C-25 as compared to existing retirement savings plans to which Canadians do not seem to want to contribute.

I do not see how this bill, with the proposed plan, will suddenly be popular with Canadians when registered retirement savings plans, which are very similar to what is being proposed in Bill C-25, are not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's excellent speech. What strikes me, negatively of course, about the government's arguments is that the program set out in Bill C-25, that is, pooled registered pension plans, comes in response to Canadians' lack of savings and the difficulty they have saving. Let me remind the House of some facts: 70% of Canadians do not invest in RRSPs despite the tax incentives; 60% of Canadians do not invest in TFSAs; and of the 40% of Canadians who do invest in TFSAs, 20% earn $100,000 or more.

So we already have voluntary systems that Canadians do not use. The government's response to this is to propose another voluntary system, rather than examine the reasons why Canadians do not have enough disposable income to save, either because people do not necessarily have the income or because they want to use their income for household expenses considering their low income. The system therefore seems to be inadequate.

I wonder what my colleague has to say about the government's response, which I think is a little off the mark, considering the current situation, that is, insufficient incomes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members will know what my feelings are in regard to how the government is handling the CPP file and government pension programs, which is not very well at all and it is very disrespectful toward those programs. This has caused great concern for many seniors today and for those who are looking at turning the wonderful age of 65.

My question is in regard to the type of support the government has for Bill C-25 and how Canadians will benefit. I am sure the member would acknowledge that Canadians only benefit if provinces are onside to bring in the necessary legislation in order to complement the bill. If that does not happen, hundreds of thousands of Canadians will not even be able to benefit from what the government has proposed.

Could the member provide the House with any indication as to which provinces have agreed to bring in the legislation that would complement Bill C-25?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in favour of Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Ensuring that hard-working Canadians can retire with dignity has been a top priority of this government since our election in 2006. I am proud to say that we have taken a number of initiatives to help Canadian seniors.

In 2009, we introduced a number of changes to the framework for federally regulated registered pension plans. Improvements included ensuring that an employer fully funds benefits if the pension plan is terminated and providing sponsors of defined benefit pension plans more funding flexibility.

Also in 2009, Canada's governments completed their mandated tri-annual review of the CPP, which modernized the plan to better reflect how Canadians currently live, work and retire.

Our government is delivering for seniors.

Just recently, the 2011 budget announced a new GIS top-up benefit for Canada's most vulnerable seniors. Seniors with little or no income are receiving additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples, benefiting 680,000 seniors across Canada.

We introduced the tax free savings account, a flexible, registered, general purpose savings vehicle that allows Canadians to earn tax free investment to more easily meet their lifetime saving needs, including retirement savings.

We also provided $2.3 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief to seniors and pensioners through measures such as pension income splitting, increases in the age credit amount and a doubling of the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit.

There is much good news to report on the state of Canada's seniors. Among OECD countries, Canada has one of the lowest poverty rates among seniors, 4.4% compared to the OECD average of 13.3%. The disposable income of Canadians over the age of 65 is 90% of the average disposable income of other Canadians.

The problem we have today is that 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. Addressing this issue has taken my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, to communities across this country where he has been consulting with Canadians, meeting with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and discussing key considerations with small and medium-sized businesses.

As a result of these consultations, Canada's finance ministers agreed on a framework for the introduction of an innovative new private sector retirement savings vehicle, the pooled registered pension plan, or PRPP. This marks a significant step forward in advancing our retirement income agenda. It is the result of careful consideration and deliberation with the provinces and territories, key stakeholders and experts, and Canadians themselves.

I want to be clear. The move to create pooled registered pension plans was unanimous among the provinces and territories. The finance minister of my home province of British Columbia, the hon. Kevin Falcon, said:

British Columbia is of the view that pooled registered pension plans could be part of a package of reforms to make saving for retirement easier, more affordable and more secure for Canadians.

Quebec's minister of finance, the hon. Raymond Bachand, said:

The Government of Quebec welcomes the federal government’s decision to quickly make changes to tax legislation to accommodate PRPPs. This announcement will allow us to fulfill our commitment made in the 2011–2012 budget to put in place new voluntary retirement savings plans.

What the province of Quebec does not support is higher CPP contributions from employees, employers and the self-employed as some members of the opposition have advocated. In fact, the minimum two-thirds agreement among provinces to expand the CPP could not be reached because, at a time of global economic uncertainty, such a plan would have put at risk thousands of jobs.

Let me tell the House who else supports our plan, and that is small and medium-sized businesses.

A Leger Marketing poll conducted for the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association found a majority of 800 small and medium-sized companies polled were supportive of the PRPP. Frank Swedlove, president of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, said:

These savvy employers know a good thing when they see it. Universal access will assure that all Canadian workers have an opportunity to save at the workplace.

There are many benefits to our pooled registered pension plan. First, our straightforward plan is accessible. It is an administratively low cost retirement option for employers to offer their employees. This would allow individuals who currently may not participate in a pension plan, such as the self-employed or employees of companies that do not offer a pension plan, to make use of this new type of pension plan.

Second, there is flexibility for both employee and employer. Companies can choose whether or not to participate in the plan, and early indications are that many will. Employers can choose to match their employee contributions either fully or partially. Employees can also choose to opt out. At the time of retirement, employees would have the same options available to defined contribution pension plan members. These include the purchase of a life annuity, transfer to an RRSP or a registered retirement income fund. Employees would also have the option to receive payments similar to RIF benefits from the employee's PRPP account.

Third, there is portability. Employees would be able to transfer their savings between PRPPs if they move from one job to another. Most workers will have several careers and work for a multiple number of employers. As they move from job to job, workers could continue to build for their retirement in confidence.

Our plan would fill the gap on the voluntary side of our retirement income system by providing millions of Canadians with access to a low cost pension arrangement for the very first time. The introduction of PRPPs marks a particularly significant advancement in supporting the retirement needs of small businesses and their employees who until now have not had access to the same private pension options.

PRPPs would also complement and support the Government of Canada's overarching objective of creating and sustaining jobs, leveraging business investment and securing our economic recovery in sustainable, private sector driven growth.

Some of the retirement income system proposals that we looked at in those consultations I talked about would have significantly raised costs for employers and employees. Introducing them would have been unacceptable during a very tentative economic recovery. PRPPs on the other hand would be efficiently managed, privately administered pension arrangements that would provide greater choice to employers and individuals, thereby promoting pension coverage and retirement savings.

Through numerous cross-country consultations, our government has talked to many Canadians and heard many challenging personal stories. Canadians have made it clear that this is an issue too important to get wrong. That is why we have devoted considerable effort on the retirement security issue in order to get it right. Our plan has found unanimous support among the provinces and territories. It has wide support among small and medium-size businesses. It would help secure the retirement incomes of millions of Canadians who do not have a private pension plan.

I call on members opposite to join with our government, do the right thing for working Canadians and support the passage of Bill C-25.

[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.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to offer the New Democrats' perspective on Bill C-25. However, before I do that I want to refresh the memory of the House and Canadians who may be watching.

In June 2009, the House unanimously passed an NDP opposition day motion that laid out how the House should address the pension crisis that was rising rapidly at that time in our country. We will no doubt remember that the motion spoke of the need for a national pension insurance plan to protect workers' deferred wages; that their pension plans would be protected if their companies were to collapse. We also started a conversation at that time regarding a phased-in increase with the goal of doubling the Canada pension plan.

In that opposition day motion, but first in the platform of the NDP in the May election, was an increase to the guaranteed income supplement, a significant increase to raise seniors on GIS above the poverty line. That was for 250,000 Canadians, most of them women. Our party ran an election platform that showed Canadians what our s intentions were for Canada's retirement security program. Nowhere in the Conservatives' platform was there a plank that indicated to Canadians that, once elected, the Conservatives would be changing the eligibility for old age security from 65 years old to 67 years old.

Last week, at the Davos convention, the Prime Minister told Canadians, along with a stunning PMO release, that many Canadians would need to work an extra two years before receiving old age security. Seniors pay taxes all of their lives expecting to have OAS as part of their retirement income. Now, the Prime Minister, apparently, wants to move the goalposts on them. What about single unemployed women? Those are the women who live in poverty under the GIS. They will now need to stay on some sort of provincial assistance for an additional two years because they are already in poverty and need Canadians' help.

I wonder if the government has considered the statistic that people in the bottom 20% of the workforce pass away five to six years earlier than those in the top 20%. In fact, that very condition exists between Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek where the life expectancy differs because of people's poverty rate. Did the government consider that half of all low-income men will collect OAS-GIS cheques for only a short period of 10 years? Raising the retirement age would clearly have a negative impact on those persons aged 65 who are in poor health and unable to continue working.

What about the cost? The latest actuarial reports on the OAS-GIS project that the number of recipients will increase from 4.9 million today to 9.3 million by 2030. I think the opposition and the government agree on that statistic. However, the increase to the projected total cost is much more modest, which is from 2.4% of GDP to a peak of 3.2% of GDP by 2030, and that is because the economy is expected to grow.

However, we need to think about this for a moment. We have a government that, since taking power, has decreased corporate taxes by $16 billion a year. That is $16 billion taken out of the fiscal capacity of this place to make determinations for things that Canadians need and there is nothing Canadians need more than old age security protection.

Therefore, it should be of no surprise to anybody that, if the moneys coming in are removed, somewhere along the line we need to face the problem of what we need to pay out. We should never ever put that burden directly on our seniors, as suggested by the Prime Minister last week.

One may ask what all this has to do with Bill C-25. That is a fair question. The NDP believes that seniors' retirement income security is about far more than one plan or another option. We believe that we need to have a broader conversation on pensions and that Canadians want us to look at pensions as a whole. It is not to cut them but to ensure they are there to protect our seniors in years to come.

I will now speak specifically and more directly to Bill C-25. I would suggest that Bill C-25 appears to have been hastily put together. In fairness to his work, I know the minister of state did travel the country, as I did, listening to seniors. However, there also was a corresponding campaign across this country coming from labour, seniors groups and political parties, most notably the NDP, talking about increasing the Canada pension plan and the need to build the foundation because 12 million Canadians today do not have any savings or pensions and we need to build that foundation to protect them in the future.

The proposal in Bill C-25 would not even guarantee an actual pension. I would suggest that, at best, we should be referring to this as a pension scheme, not a pension plan. It is true that it would be a savings scheme that would pool the funds of members' accounts to achieve lower costs in relation to investment management and plan administration. However, a cautionary word must be put into this at this point. The fees to be applied by the plan managers would not be capped by this legislation. The experience elsewhere in the world is that the fees often erode pension savings to the point that they do not even keep pace with inflation. Clearly, the bill is designed to appeal to the self-employed and workers at small and mid-sized firms, companies that often lack the means to administer a private sector plan.

Another caution is that this plan would be just another kind of defined contribution plan. Employees would contribute a portion of their salary into the retirement scheme where it would be invested in stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Does that sound familiar? It sounds like an RRSP to me. Some companies with a clear conscience that want to see that their employees are well taken care of, although they are not required to do so, may choose to make matching contributions. However, I would suggest that in the climate of the business community today they cut every corner they can.

I want to caution again that this defined contribution plan would in no way guarantee how much money would be left when people retire. As with an RRSP, the market risks would be borne entirely and solely by the individual or the employee. PRPPs would be managed at a profit by regulated financial institutions like banks, insurance companies and trust companies.

As I already cautioned, Bill C-25 places no caps on administration fees or costs. It is flawed in that it merely assumes lower costs will emerge through competition in the market. Did people's telephone bill go up? Did their cable bill go up over the last 25 years since the market was deregulated? Of course they did. PRPPs allow for but do not require matching funds from employers so I believe they simply will not contribute.

Another caution for Canadians is that, unlike CPP, PRPPs would not be indexed to inflation. Provinces and territories would determine whether it would be mandatory for employers or employees of certain sized companies to offer PRPPs. Pooled registered pension plans, as envisioned in Bill C-25, would fail to protect retirement security because they would encourage families to gamble even more of their retirement savings in a failing stock market. If that market goes up, yes, they go up, but if it goes down, they go down with it.

Anybody who has watched their RRSPs plummet over the past year knows exactly how risky savings tied to the stock market can be. Telling families that investing in the same system that is already failing them shows how out of touch with Canadians the Conservatives truly are. The NDP has for the past three years championed a suite of retirement income security proposals, the first, as we have indicated, being that they should increase the Canada pension plan over a period of time that would double the benefits to $1,920 a month in 30 years. Growing the CPP is simply the best, lowest cost pension reform option that is available to us today.

The government must also amend federal bankruptcy legislation to move pensioners and long-term disability recipients to the front of the line of creditors when their employer enters court protection or declares bankruptcy. We have seen company after company across the country take the savings of its workers and treat it is as a secondary fund to pay off its bills.

As I said in my opening remarks, the bill seems to have been hastily thrown together in response to pressure from labour and other groups. However, according to the Conference Board of Canada, something we must keep in mind is that 1.6 million Canadians live in poverty and 12 million Canadians lack a pension plan. By OECD standards, Canada's CPP/QPP system is relatively miserly. Other countries similar to Canada provide far more generous public guaranteed pensions. Social security in the United States has benefits of about $30,000 a year. The maximum benefit in Canada is less than $12,000 per year. Even if we add old age security to that, which is, at a minimum, $7,000 a year, the total is still far below U.S. social security. Most workers have no RRSPs because they cannot afford it. In fact, only 31% of eligible Canadians actually use their ability to invest in RRSPs.

Meanwhile, the latest numbers for the return on CPP investments show that the CPP barely lost ground by 1%, while the stock market fell by 11%. There goes the pooled retirement pension plan down 11%.

The Minister of State for Finance stated that one of the places the government studied was Australia. Australia had a similar plan to PRPPs, but the plan was mandatory, with an opt-out provision. The Australian super fund required employers to enrol their workers in one of the many defined contribution plans offered by the private sector. A recent review commissioned by the Australian government, after 12 years' experience, reported that the Australian super fund did not even match inflation, again, because the fees being charged were eroding it.

For six years, the Conservatives have done next to nothing by way of securing retirement for Canadians. Bill C-25 is yet another hastily thrown together half measure in lieu of real action. Canadians want and deserve better. The government, once again, with these fees, almost like bonuses to the executives, has put the interests of Bay Street ahead of the interests of hard-working Canadian citizens.

We on this side of the House often hear comments about our ability or our chance to govern. If the NDP were to govern, it would ensure that our pension plans would be there to give retirement security to seniors, as they deserve. Canadians do not want their retirement savings subject to the market. If they did, they would invest in RRSPs. It is very clear they need protection.

For some of the reasons that I have just spoken of, New Democrats will not support this savings scheme, because the Conservatives are offering it up instead of taking real action on both protecting existing pensions and enhancing retirement security for those who lack a workplace pension plan at all.

PRPPs are not pensions. While the government claims a PRPP will provide Canadians with lower fees to potential economies of scale that do not exist with RRSPs, there is no data that proves that. In fact, less than one-third of the people entitled to contribute to RRSPs do not do so.

Over 24% of those surveyed use the TFSAs for retirement savings. Yes, that is one tool in the toolbox. However, it is time for the government to take real action to provide retirement security for those 12 million Canadians I referred to earlier, the 12 million who have no savings, who have no pension and who, God bless them, have a very bleak future. Canadians do not need yet one more private plan: a voluntary savings scheme. Voluntary savings have not worked, for a lot of reasons.

This scheme, if enacted, will do little or nothing to improve the ability of Canadians to foresee their future and live in dignity. Expanding CPP on the other hand, would not cost the government any more than the proposed PRPP. Expanding CPP would not entail transferring huge management fees to private institutions because we have the CPP Investment Board already managing the funds.

The PRPP, as outlined in the bill, fails to extend coverage to those who are unable to afford a pension in the first place. I repeated that several times in my speech because that is the essence of the problem facing many Canadians today. They have very little hope for their future in retirement.

I would like to read from the Calgary Herald, November 27, 2010, which says:

The CPP already covers almost all Canadian workers and thus spreads the risk and management fees. It is fully portable, offers guaranteed income to all retirees, and is the only risk-free investment broadly available to workers. Private RRSPs and employer pension plans have proven much riskier than initially billed. Those who are in company pension plans are likely in a defined contribution scheme, where the amount that goes in is predetermined, but the payout is based on how well the fund is invested and ultimately performs. Nortel workers know only too well how that worked.

Professor Jon Kesselman, Canada Research Chair, Public Finance, Simon Fraser University School of Public Policy, says:

Expanding the CPP is the best option for improving Canadian workers’ retirement income security; it can ensure results that none of the many alternative reform proposals for private schemes can provide.

CARP, which has made many presentations to our finance committee over the years, and the director of political advocacy at CARP, Susan Eng, writes:

CARP remains committed to improving retirement benefits for the current crop of seniors, including increasing CPP, OAS and GIS payments, getting a moratorium on RRIF withdrawals, making access to Tax-Free Savings Accounts retroactive and lobbying to remove the HST on seniors’ energy bills.

At this point I will stop with the other commentary and add that the government has been clearly and repeatedly on notice in the House, since 2009, of a crisis situation for the pension security for Canadians going forward. It is not that this was a surprise out of the blue.

We heard commentary earlier today from the member for Burlington, who talked about the fact that we needed the agreement of the provinces in order to move forward on the Canada pension plan. It is smoke and mirrors because we do need a majority of the provinces. Going into Kananaskis, six finance ministers from across the country wrote to our finance minister in support of expanding the CPP.

There are issues for the provinces, but in the last round of talks between the finance ministers and the Minister of Finance, there was very little said or done on the Canada pension plan. There is room for action on the Canada pension plan and very clearly the NDP believes that is the vehicle of choice and it is the most secure vehicle for moving forward.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts.

As hon. members are aware, our government understands the importance of a secure and dignified retirement for people who have spent their lives building a better and more prosperous Canada for all of us. This legislation would take Canada's retirement income system one step further by helping more Canadians realize their retirement goals.

PRPPs, an acronym people will hear many times over, refers to pooled registered pension plans. I will outline how PRPPs will help millions of Canadians save for their retirement, but first I will provide some context as to why our government is introducing this new low cost and accessible retirement option. Just because Canada's retirement system is strong does not mean it cannot be improved. That is exactly what will happen when the House passes Bill C-25.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, concerns related to retirement income adequacy and pension coverage began to emerge. In response our government took action and established a joint federal-provincial research working group in May 2009. This working group conducted an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy in Canada.

The working group concluded that overall the Canadian retirement income system is performing well. It is providing Canadians with an adequate standard of living upon retirement. However, the report also found that some modest and middle income households may be at risk of having insufficient savings once they retire.

Of particular concern is the finding of declining participation in employer-sponsored registered pension plans. The portion of working Canadians with such plans has declined from 41% in 1991. As well, Canadians are not taking full advantage of other retirement savings tools such as registered retirement savings plans. For example, currently there is $600 billion in unused RRSP room in Canada. While aggregate RPP and RRSP participation rates for middle and higher income earners are quite high, the research nonetheless indicates that a portion of Canadians is not saving enough.

With these findings in hand, our government went to work on behalf of Canadians. Over the past two years our government's commitment to a stronger retirement system has taken me to every province and territory and countless communities across this country. In my travels I have consulted with Canadians. I have met with our provincial and territorial counterparts. I have held discussions with owners of small and medium size businesses as well as self-employed Canadians. Today's legislation is the culmination of these consultations.

In short, PRPPs are an innovative, new, privately administered low cost and accessible pension option to help Canadians meet their retirement goals. They are particularly significant for small and medium size businesses. They will enable owners and employees alike to have access to a large-scale, low cost private 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 the plan members. By pooling pension savings, PRPPs will offer Canadians greater purchasing power. Basically, Canadians will be buying in bulk. Achieving lower prices than would otherwise be available means Canadians would have more money left in their pockets when they retire. The design of these plans will also be straightforward to allow for simple enrolment and simple management. Finally, they are intended to be a largely harmonized process from province to province, which will further lower the administrative costs.

Overall the design features will remove many of the traditional barriers that might have kept some employers from offering pension plans to their employees. It is my firm belief that this will lead to a greater willingness for small and medium-size businesses to offer PRPPs to their employees. That is crucial because, incredibly, just over 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan to date.

With PRPPs, participation will be encouraged by automatic enrolment of employees into a PRPP where their employers offer one. Automatic enrolment will encourage regular saving in PRPPs by making participation the default choice for employees who do not actively make a decision to opt out. Canada's Minister of Finance decided to proceed with the PRPP framework precisely because it was considered an 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 registered pension plan.

If the NDP had its way, it would increase the payroll taxes on small and medium-size businesses when it suggested doubling the CPP contributions. At a time when Canada's economic recovery is still fragile, imposing a job-killing tax on job creators is simply irresponsible. PRPPs would be an efficiently managed privately administered pension plan that would provide greater choice to employers and individuals and would promote pension coverage and retirement savings.

Once the provinces administer their PRPP legislation, the legislative and regulatory framework for PRPPs will be operational. This will allow PRPP administrators to develop and offer plans to Canadians and their employers. Working together with the provinces, I am confident we can get these important new retirement vehicles up and running for Canadians in a timely manner.

It is important to remember that PRPPs do not stand by themselves. They are part of a bigger picture. They are part of Canada's retirement income system. We must remember that our system is based on a balanced mix of public and private responsibility. It is also a mix of compulsory and voluntary vehicles that provide the basic minimum pension for Canadians, ensure a minimum amount of earnings replacement for all Canadian workers and offer an additional opportunity for voluntary retirement savings. The system both supports and draws upon the strength of a sound financial sector and complements our overall economic objectives of creating jobs and stimulating economic growth.

The success of this model rests on its three pillars. The first pillar is made up of the old age security, or the OAS, and the guaranteed income supplement, which provide a basic minimum income guarantee for seniors. These programs are funded primarily through taxes on Canadian workers. Our government is committed to ensuring the retirement security of Canadians. That is why we have to ensure that programs like the OAS and the GIS remain sustainable so they will be around for Canadians in the future.

The second pillar is the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. These are mandatory publicly-targeted benefit pension plans which provide a basic level of earnings replacement for all Canadian workers. There are currently 16.5 million workers contributing to CPP and QPP, with these programs paying $44 billion in benefits per year to 6.5 million beneficiaries. The CPP is the centrepiece of Canada's pension system. I am proud to say it is fully funded, actuarially sound and sustainable for the long term.

The third pillar of Canada's retirement system includes tax-assisted private savings opportunities to help and encourage Canadians to accumulate additional savings for retirement. This includes registered pension plans and registered retirement savings pension plans. In total the cost of tax assistance provided on retirement savings is currently estimated at approximately $25 billion per year.

All in all, these three pillars support each other in a way that is effective and also fair.

The introduction of the PRPP is only the latest example of our government's commitment to ensuring that Canada's retirement system continues to deliver for seniors.

Since 2006, our government has increased the age credit amount by $1,000, increased it by another $1,000 in 2009, doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for pension income credits to $2,000, introduced pension income splitting and introduced the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs to 71 years from 69 years.

In budget 2008 we introduced the tax-free savings account, which is particularly beneficial to seniors. It helps them meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax efficient basis after they are no longer able to contribute to an RRSP.

In budget 2011 we announced a new guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for the most vulnerable seniors. Seniors with little or no income will receive an additional annual benefit of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples.

Overall, since coming to office, our government has provided over $2 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief to seniors and pensioners.

Our government has a proven track record when it comes to ensuring that Canada's retirement income system is the best in the world. By introducing PRPPs, we are taking that system and making it stronger. This is something of which Canadians can truly be proud.

PRPPs would build on our commitment to improve the retirement income system in our country. This new private sector pension vehicle would improve the range of retirement savings options available to Canadians. PRPPs would provide a low cost retirement savings opportunity for hard-working Canadians, who currently do not have access to a workplace pension plan.

It is my hope that the provinces will follow our government's lead and introduce PRPP legislation on a timely basis. The many businesses and employees who I meet with fully support PRPPs. They believe, and I think the provinces appreciate this, that their governments should work together to deliver results on their priorities. The PRPP is a prime example of what we can do collectively to accomplish for Canadians when we do act together.

On that note, I encourage all hon. members to support the bill and ensure that Canada's retirement income system continues to be the envy of the world.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to give my last Thursday statement of 2011. The fall has been a productive, hard-working and orderly session. It has been capped by results that we have seen in the House during delivering results month since we returned from the Remembrance Day constituency week.

Of particular note, this fall the House passed Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act; Bill C-20, the fair representation act; Bill C-18, the marketing freedom for grain farmers act; and Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

Other things were also accomplished, from the appointment of two officers of Parliament to the passing at second reading of Bill C-26, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act. I would like to thank the opposition parties who made these accomplishments possible. Nevertheless, the House has a lot of work to do when it returns in 2012.

The things I am looking forward to in 2012 include, after 48 speeches so far, returning to Bill C-19, the ending the long-gun registry act; after 75 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act; after 73 speeches so far, continuing debating the opposition motion to block Bill C-4, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act from proceeding to committee; and, after 47 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-7, the Senate reform act.

This winter, the government's priority will continue to be economic growth and job creation. We will thus continue to move forward with our economic agenda by debating legislative measures such as Bill C-23 on the implementation of a Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-24 on the implementation of a Canada-Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-25, which is designed to give Canadians another way to plan for retirement through pooled registered pension plans; and Bill C-28 on the appointment of a financial literacy leader.

Needless to say, I am looking forward to the 2012 budget, the next phase of Canada's economic recovery, from the Minister of Finance, and I am looking forward to what I am sure it will deliver for the Canadian economy. This will be the cornerstone of the upcoming session.

With respect to the precise business of the House for the week of January 30, 2012, I will advise my counterparts in the usual fashion in advance of the House returning.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, please let me wish you, my fellow house leaders, all hon. members and our table officers and support staff a very merry Christmas.

In particular, I want to thank the pages, many of whom, as we know, spent their first significant amount of time away from home with us this fall. I wish them a pleasant time back home with family over Christmas. Perhaps we have provided some good stories for them to tell around the dinner table.

Merry Christmas, happy new year and all the best for the break. Here is to a productive, orderly and hard-working 2012.

Merry Christmas and happy new year. May the members of the House rest up in preparation for the hard work to come in a productive and orderly 2012.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, An Act relating to pooled registered pension plans and making related amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)