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.

Bill C-25—Time Allocation Motion

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, not only for his work on this matter, but for a very intuitive question. This is the challenge that many small businesses have dealt with. They have raised this with us in our consultations. They want to be able to provide some assistance. Not every business, but many businesses said, “We want to be able to help provide an option for our employees.”

New companies starting up and many of the long-time companies would like to offer a pension option to their employees. However, for the type of registered plan that most employers can offer, the employer carries the fiduciary responsibility. If something does not go right with that investment, who are the employees going to blame? They are going to blame their employer.

That is the beauty of the pooled registered pension plan. All the employer would have to do is offer it to his or her employees. The fiduciary responsibility would be on the pension plan provider.

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

Madam Speaker, this morning is all about time allocation. The Conservatives have told us to be silent 24 times. However, it is important for us to be able to speak on various issues.

There are tax-free savings accounts for the richest members of this society, and the government plans to increase the maximum amount that can be deposited into such accounts to $10,000 per year. There are RRSPs for people who are able to save and who choose to go that route. And we are familiar with the public pension funds that are already protecting all Canadians—the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan.

Why take risks? There was a white collar crime scandal not too long ago that jeopardized some people's savings. These people were putting money away every day from their net income—not their gross income—to try to have a pension. They lost $10,000, $20,000 and sometimes even more. Why risk Canadians' savings by investing their pension funds in the stock market?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good question, which is, how well protected are seniors' investments?

We had a very serious conversation with our provincial partners. We were putting forward a Canadian or a common securities regulator. We put forward the legislation to be able to protect those investments. Unfortunately, the opposition members voted against that. They did not see far enough down the road to see that they were leaving investors vulnerable.

The question the member asked me might not have happened if we had a common securities regulator in place, that not only makes it simpler for businesses that want to invest in this country and employ more Canadians, but helps protect investments that are already made, whether they are in pension funds or mutual funds.

However, I guess the opposition really does not care about protecting Canadians' money.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I asked the Treasury Board President, with respect to the 19,200 jobs lost and the $5.2 billion cuts in the budget, if he would be more specific and explain it all to the PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and to Parliament. His answer was:

...I would remark that we are reporting to Parliament precisely in the normal means, through the estimates, the quarterly financial reports and the public accounts.

In effect, he is saying the government will let us know as it goes along.

If this were a public company and the CFO was asked by the board of directors to explain the budget, where the cuts were and why those amounts, and he or she said, “We'll let you know as we go along”, he or she would be fired on the spot.

My question to the hon. member is, when will the government be more specific about the cuts and where they will most dramatically hit?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, staying on subject, I think what the member actually wanted to ask me is, why is it that the Liberals and the NDP are not standing up for Canadians, the Canadians who do not have a pension plan they can count on?

If I were a Canadian watching this debate, I would be quite aghast at that sort of comment that, once again, is simply about process. That hon. member and obviously the rest of the opposition have completely forgotten what we are here for. We are here to help Canadians, not debate process.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it absolutely fascinating that the government would talk about being here to watch out for Canadians and then refuse to allow us to do our job and ask the questions that are essential in regard to this pooled pension scheme. It is nothing but a scheme. We know it is the employees who will take all the risk. We know it does not provide a defined benefit plan.

In other words, employees will not have any idea what their so-called pension will be worth. It is not indexed to inflation. It will increase in terms of costs as time goes on because the employees will be expected to make all of the contributions and employers are not required to make contributions.

We have a vehicle. That vehicle was discussed at the Minister of Finance's meeting. That is the Canada pension plan. It is absolutely solid. No matter what they said years ago about it being in jeopardy and about to evaporate, we know it is solid.

Therefore, my question is, why not take the advice of all of those who know, and simply make sure the Canada pension plan provides the kind of pension that will secure Canadians' future?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were a number of factually incorrect comments in that. Once we completed our triennial review in conjunction with our provincial and territorial partners, we reminded Canadians that the Canada pension plan is actuarially sound for another 75 years. We should get that message out to Canadians. Because of the statement the member just made, obviously the NDP sitting across from me has not even heard that. It bothers me that those members are sending out false statements.

I do need to raise one point. The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek was the NDP critic for pensions. I put the emphasis on “was”. He was doing a great job consulting with Canadians. He worked with me. He and I did not always see eye to eye, but we were supportive of the main goal. He is no longer the critic, and I find that very disappointing. There is no one over there who has the depth of knowledge that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek had on pensions.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague the Minister of State (Finance) for his outstanding job on this file. He has been working on this pooled pension fund project for a couple of years now. He has travelled across the country and met with a variety of stakeholders, small independent business owners, moms and dads, and the gamut of business operations and individuals across this country.

In the remaining time that my hon. colleague has left, I wonder if he could share with the House how many hours of debate has taken place. Could he tell us what he has done to date with respect to consulting with Canadians? I know he has come to my riding and gone to other communities. And could he tell us the timeline for implementing the act once it is passed by Parliament?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will not be able to answer the question in one minute, but we have looked at this. We have had six days, 20 hours, of debate; 63 speeches; 4 days, 6 hours and 40 minutes, at committee; and 26 witnesses appeared. The member for Burlington, who is not sitting in his seat, but he is here, has spoken three times. He gave three 20-minute speeches on this issue.

The Speaker makes sure that time is shared equally on both sides of the House. I would suggest that, not only have our members spoken to the attributes of the bill, the NDP and the Liberals have had lots of opportunity to speak to its attributes as well. Apparently, they do not want to help Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that he does not have the right to point out a member's presence or absence in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

That is correct.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise for a few minutes and respond to the fact that we are faced with the 24th time allocation motion by the government. If the government is so proud of what it is doing in terms of this legislation and other bills, why does it keep bringing in motions to limit debate?

Let us understand that the reason Canadians have a crisis in terms of saving is because they are not making enough money to be able to put money aside to save for their retirement. It has been shown that the best way to deal with that is through the Canada pension plan. There is less overhead, less cost and it provides more safety for retirees.

The reason we have this hatched up bill is because the Minister of State (Finance) and the Minister of Finance did not have the courage or the fortitude to deal with the provincial ministers of finance to get a deal on the Canada pension plan. That is why we are dealing with this mess right now.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, is that hon. member suggesting we should have rammed our views down the throats of the provincial finance ministers? That is not the way we work with our provincial partners.

We actually work with our partners. That is why we are bringing forward pooled registered pension plan options for Canadians, because the provinces all agreed it was the best framework available at this time.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the government is trying to shut down debate on its bogus pension plan, because it does not have the courage to go talk to the senior citizens of the country. This is a government that went to Davos to talk to the millionaires to say it was going to make senior citizens work another two years. That kind of myopic contempt is reflected here.

I look at the member for London—Fanshawe, who has tirelessly spoken up again and again for seniors, and then I see the clowns on the backbenches laughing at them. That is completely unacceptable.