Bill C-25 (Historical)

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

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

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

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[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.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome all members back to this place. I hope they all had a great Christmas and a great break.

The Minister of State for Finance would never intentionally mislead the House, so I will offer correct a part of what he said in his speech.

When he talked about the NDP plan and the rising cost to employers and that, he left out one important component. Should this plan to double the CPP be put in place, three years before it could even be implemented, there would a seven year additional phase-in period. I want to be very clear on that.

In his speech the minister spoke about the capacity for bulk buying that people would have under the PRPP. We already have bulk buying under the Canada pension plan. It has a proven track record. It is portable across the country. That is clearly the best vehicle.

Most important, the PRPP would be subject to exactly the same market pressures and potential market failures as RRSPs.

Why is the minister moving in this direction?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague back to the House of Commons after what I hope was a very restful Christmas break for him as well. I know how hard he works on behalf of seniors and I am sure he spent a lot of time talking to them. Therefore, I would hope he had an open mind when he was communicating with them.

We are not only dealing with seniors, but we are dealing with future seniors, future pensioners. Part of the government's overall strategy is to ensure that our wonderful system, which is the envy of the world, is there for our children and grandchildren and that we do not offload that burden of an unsustainable program on to them.

The Canada pension plan, as the hon. member mentioned, is a very good system. However, we have communicated with many businesses, as well as individuals who are part of that mandatory program, and they do not think this is the time, when businesses are struggling and coming out of the recession, to increase their burden. This provides an option for those businesses that want to provide a retirement plan for their employees to be part of this, to simplify the process.

As I reflected in my speech, many businesses find it a challenge. They are struggling to keep their businesses going. They are trying to grow their businesses. At the same time, they want to offer this to their employees.

In the long term, we continue to look at Canada pension plan. We share that jurisdiction with the provinces. We cannot make any arbitrary changes to Canada pension plan without the support of the provinces. We did not have unanimous support among the provinces to expand CPP at this moment. We did, however, have unanimous support from the provinces to move forward with the PRPP framework.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about PRPPs, about the Canada pension plan, about billions of dollars and about the retirement of Canadians. It is somewhat disappointing that the Minister of Finance would not have chosen this as an opportunity to clearly give an indication to all Canadians about where the government was on the broader picture.

On the announcement of this important bill, I would like to refer to this. Does the minister of state remember the 2006 Conservative election platform, “Stand up for Canada”, referred to in the blue book. The is a specific quote on security for seniors:

Confirm its commitment to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) as well as the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) as fundamental guarantees of income security in retirement years.

This was a commitment the Prime Minister gave to all Canadians just a few years back.

Even though I would have preferred to pose this to the Minister of Finance, my question is this. Is the Conservative, or the Reform government, prepared to commit to Canadians to support the CPP, the guaranteed income supplement and other pension programs? Are the Conservatives still true to the commitment today they made to Canadians back in 2006?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are true to our commitments. In fact, I might remind the third party members that they actually voted against an increase to the guaranteed income supplement to seniors in the last budget. They ran their campaign against it. We tabled our budget in March and they threw us into an unnecessary election. All the way through that we said that we wanted to raise the GIS support for seniors. They told us not to do it, that it was a terrible idea.

Seniors in my riding were shocked and amazed that members of the third party would suggest that. Then when Parliament resumed, they voted against it.

We have a great system, a three-prong one. The Canada pension plan is part of it, a mandatory contribution which is working well. We have reassured Canadians it is working well into the future.

The OAS is a good system, a guaranteed income supplement for seniors who most need it, and that will remain for Canadian seniors.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for Finance for his speech today. It is an indication of the seriousness the government takes on the pension programs when we create a minister of state to deal with those pension items. Never before in Canadian history have we had a minister of state specifically looking at what the issues are when it comes to pensions and helping seniors in our communities.

I also thank the minister for pointing out that any changes to CPP require provincial agreement. We can talk in this House all we want about changes to CPP but if the provinces are not on board, nothing will happen.

In talking about the PRPP, lower costs for Canadians and cost effectiveness, could the minister tell us how he believes this new pension plan would be a low cost solution for retiring seniors?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague from Burlington back to this House. I am sure he spent much of his Christmas also consulting with his constituents. I know he has had some prebudget discussions with them.

The pooled registered pension plan has taken a lot of time to design. We have looked at models all around the world, in Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain. In fact, Great Britain is now developing its NEST program that it had hoped to put together in a matter of months. It has actually been about three years now. It is a challenge to put one of these programs forward.

We have taken all of the good points out of those programs and put them into this framework with the primary purpose of keeping low costs. That is why we are opening this up to any valid potential provider, whether it is a financial institution, a pension fund or an insurance company, that can provide strong oversight and can carry out the fiduciary duty to be responsible to the plan members, the employees, to ensure that it guarantees the safety of those funds in the plan.

Competition and the volume of plans that will be involved in the pooled registered pension plan will keep the costs low, lower than we have seen in this country. That is why this will be successful. That is why businesses are coming to us and thanking us for putting this forward. Businesses to which I have spoken in the last two days have said that they will take this and provide it to their employees.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also want to welcome my colleague back to the House after the break. I take issue with a few of the things that were said and I would like some clarification by the member if possible.

First and foremost, trying to put words in the Prime Minister's mouth is really not acceptable. What was mentioned certainly was not what was said in Davos.

Aside from that, when we talk about the provinces and their jurisdiction over pensions, we mentioned several times the need for provinces to be on board in expanding CPP. The Canadian Pension Plan Act says very clearly that two-thirds of the population in two-thirds of provinces and territories must be on board and we do not have that, and the hon. member knows that. Therefore, when he cites different provinces that wanted to consider it, there was some room for consideration, but without meeting the criteria of that plan it was not possible. Therefore, I would hope the hon. member would correct his previous statements.

Is the hon. member's party suggesting that we expressly ignore the will of the provinces and territories, which have said very clearly that they want the PRPP, particularly in Quebec which has been our strongest ally in putting forward the PRPP? Is that what the member is suggesting?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the parliamentary secretary back. I clearly said in my remarks that the Prime Minister spoke in Davos, and I referred to the PMOs issuance that was given to the media. That is where the conversation began on changing age eligibility for OAS from 65 years to 67 years. The Prime Minister spoke on pensions as a whole and it was a combination of that. I am sure that all government members are hearing from their constituents that this is how they understood it.

As far as consensus on the CPP is concerned, I realize what the legislation says. I am saying that the finance minister should sit down with the provinces and talk to them and work through this. The Minister of Finance indicated in the House last June that he was prepared to do it. I asked him at an emergency meeting of finance committee and he said that now was not the time, and I agree.

If we get the go-ahead to change the CPP, there would be a three year window before it would be implemented and then a seven year phase-in period, which would allow companies and workers ten full years to adjust to those changes.

It is clear we have a different view, but we have to maintain communication with the provinces.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, late one night in the Manitoba legislature a group of retired teachers appeared before committee with a passionate plea. They talked in detail about the impact of their pension program and pleaded with the government to do more.

Over the last couple of days people have come to me again emphasizing just how important the pension issue really is. They have also emphasized the importance of having the ability to communicate their messages.

I listened to the member. NDP members may be a bit offside in the sense that they do not necessarily see a role for the private sector to play in helping with pensionable income.

There is an overall retirement issue, whether it is the retirement pensions of teachers, RRSP contributions or contributions to CPP. There is a mixture out there. The OAS, the CPP and the guaranteed income supplement make up the core, and the government has really fallen short in this regard.

I am interested in hearing the member's belief in terms of the overall need for a multitude of different types of pension programs that ultimately help supplement income in retirement years.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nobody is saying that there is no room for an option, but this option would fail the test. It would not offer any kind of guarantee as to what someone would have when he or she retired. It would be completely at the risk of market fluctuations. Anybody who has had investments in the last two or three years knows how bad the market can be. It is like riding a yo-yo at times. This would be another tool in the toolbox, but as far as I am concerned it would be a tool that would fail.

We have said, and I said again in my speech, that we should look at pensions as a whole. We should balance them. We should also look at the best possible vehicle for Canadians and that is clearly the Canada pension plan.

[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, very clearly, there is a difference of opinion between us and the government on this.

However, the government cannot shut the door on its relationships with the provinces. We have an opportunity here to, in a very direct fashion, deal with the provinces and talk to them about the changes necessary. As I indicated, our understanding is that at least six provinces were pushing hard for this. In some place on this, there is room for dialogue.

As far as the cost go, as I indicated, Canadians are willing to pay their share moving forward. They are not able to do so in the situation today where 12 million do not have pensions and do not have savings. However, it implies they need a bit of a nudge to put some money aside.

If we allow Canadians to put that money into the Canada pension plan, the safest vehicle there is for Canadians, then at the end of the day they will have participated in their own retirement fund and will have taken some of the costs away from the Government of Canada and the provincial governments.

If we do not do this, then 12 million Canadians are going to hit a wall and it will be a very desperate situation for seniors.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have been clear on the CPP issue that the members opposite are bringing forward that we need the consent of the provinces. We do not have it. We have been discussing it with them.

My question today is, if the NDP members really care about workers and the pensions of seniors, why are they not even voting to get this bill to committee so it can be discussed? Was it not the NDP members' premise that they wanted to have Parliament work and for us to work together to find solutions?

Not even voting for this bill to go to committee is not finding solutions for any senior or future pensioner in this country. Why is the NDP not allowing for a discussion of the bill at committee?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last time I looked there was a majority on the other side of the House.

NDP members will express our opinions in opposition to this particular flawed bill, and the government of the day with a majority will take it to committee. There will be a discussion there.

However, to go back to the member's first point about the cost of the CPP and the consensus required, it does not require 100% of the provinces. It does not require 100% of the representation of the people of Canada.

More importantly, we need the dialogue. We need to go back. The provinces as a whole, including those that object, understand there is a pension crisis in this country. To shut the door on that dialogue by using a flawed excuse that we do not have all of the consensus needed is disingenuous to the Canadian public, which deserves better than to hear that in this place.

The reality is that Canadians need help, and it is up to this place to provide it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek consent to split my time with my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[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.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, and some of the inaccuracies and the hyperbole that was used was rather worrisome.

My first question would be about why the Liberals voted against raising the GIS. When we look at what our government has done to improve the lives of seniors and their lot in life, there have been so many things done. We improved the GIS quite markedly. We removed thousands of seniors from the tax rolls and we abolished the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated workers. In addition, we introduced pension income splitting.

There are so many things we have done to support the seniors across our country. Why? Because we know our country has an aging demographic.

I would like to go back to my first question. We increased the GIS exemption and introduced the largest GIS increase in a quarter of a century. If the member is so concerned about the seniors in this country, why did she and her Liberal opposition party vote against the raising of the GIS?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, history shows where the government's priorities are. Today all we need to do is pick up any newspaper and we can clearly tell what the choices are for the government: $6 billion in corporate tax cuts, $30 billion in purchasing fighter jets and building prisons. Those are the issues that matter to it. It has little interest in improving the lives of seniors. Using income tax for those who have lots of money is one avenue. There are those on the bottom rung living on $15,000 a year and now we are suggesting that they will need to wait until age 67 before they can even start to live on $15,000 a year. It is total hypocrisy and ridiculous.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Liberals said that they would gradually enhance the pension plan; however, they have provided very few details since that time. We, in the NDP, believe that pensions should be doubled in the future in order to eliminate poverty, especially among seniors.

I would like the member to explain how the Liberals intend to carry out their plan.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we currently have a Canada pension plan that is administered very well, has very low investment fees and so on. We could include an add-on to the current Canada pension plan and call it a supplementary Canada pension plan that everybody who has a social insurance number would have. If people have an extra $100 a month, instead of putting it into an RRSP they could put it into their supplementary plan. It would be capped as RRSPs are capped but there would not be a question about where their money will be invested. It would not matter if people were homemakers, farmers, self-employed or unemployed. No one wants to live on only $15,000 a year but many of our constituents live on that and, quite possibly, some of them live on less than that.

The supplementary plan is there. It would include low cost minimum fees and it would be a great investment. People would not need to worry about what may happen to the stock market tomorrow. History has shown a steady return on the Canada pension over many years. Thank God we have the Canada pension plan program and that the Liberals had the foresight to bring in that plan.

[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.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is a former cabinet minister under the Liberal government and most of us have heard about the demographic issue coming forward for some period of time. For some of us, it has been over 30 years and certainly as baby boomers we saw this issue coming forward and what was going to take place.

What steps did the member, as a former cabinet minister, take to deal with these issues when he was in government? What substantive things did his government do at that time concerning these issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a terrific question because it was the government of Mr. Chrétien, and Paul Martin as finance minister, that made the fundamental changes to the Canada pension plan, which prepared the CPP for decades of prudential strength looking forward to the future. It was also the government, with Paul Martin as finance minister, that eliminated a $43 billion deficit, balanced the books and ensured that $100 billion was paid down on the national debt. Of course, we know we have now lost all that because of the Conservatives' ideological profligacy in the last few years.

As a minister specifically, I was part of the expenditure review committee of cabinet which was led by the hon. member for Markham—Unionville. During that time we saved billions of dollars. We did not do it based on ideology; we did it based on evidence. We looked at every department and every agency and we worked with departments and agencies. My department of public works saved over $3 billion, working with public servants, and $1 billion every year since by reforming procurement, by privatizing in some cases and by out sourcing in other cases, but also by getting better value for tax dollars. I am certain the hon. member would support all of those initiatives.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks by the member for Kings—Hants.

There seems to be some confusion around the announcement of the Prime Minister in Davos. It is not unusual for the Prime Minister to show contempt for this place by making fairly major policy announcements outside the country. However, there seems to be a lot of discussion on the OAS and the fact that it seems to be the government's objective to increase the time people can qualify, to move it ahead two years to age 67.

I ask the member for Kings—Hants this. Is it true that OAS and GIS are linked, that if we raise one, we will be raising them both? Is this not really just an attack on the most vulnerable in Canadian society?

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

Mr. Speaker, we understand that to be the case, that if we change the qualification age for OAS, we do the same for GIS. Of course, GIS is there for those seniors who are significantly below the poverty line.

However, beyond that, just the OAS numbers alone, over half the seniors receiving OAS in Canada make less than $25,000. Just think of that. These seniors are one of Canada's most vulnerable populations. It was bad and cruel enough that the Conservatives made the caregiver tax credit non-refundable, denying that benefit to low-income seniors, but it is heartless to attack seniors further.

I found it interesting that at Davos last week, at the World Economic Forum, there were world leaders almost without exception saying that income inequality and the gap between rich and poor was an issue that needed to be addressed in countries around the world. The only leader who did not talk about income inequality was the Canadian Prime Minister. Not only did he not speak to income inequality and the challenge it represents to societies, but he actually floated an idea that would make it worse in Canada.

This is another example of how we have a bit of a challenge with the occupiers in the NDP and the Tea Partiers in the Conservatives. We need a good, moderate, centrist, practical Liberal government focused on the future of Canadians and helping all Canadians achieve a dignified retirement.

[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.

[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, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his questions and I want to welcome him back to the House of Commons. I am quite pleased at his interest in our proposal for this pension plan.

When we talk about low cost it is important to remember one thing: when businesses can co-operate on pooling their purchasing power to reduce costs, it helps them to offer such a pension to all those who want to take advantage of the low cost. This purchasing power will help us tremendously in every province and territory, thanks to the program we are proposing today.

As far as the administrative costs the hon. member referred to are concerned, when provincial and territorial representatives spoke with our Minister of Finance, they strongly believed that the administrative costs would be quite low as a result of co-operation between the provinces and territories and the administrators. Purchasing power is a reason for that, as well.

I would like to reiterate that, through automatic enrollment, the people who will collect this pension will certainly be receiving benefits and advantages.

[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 latest 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?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my colleague from Malpeque back to the House. I am surprised he was able to hear anything I had to say because he continued to heckle the whole time I was trying to talk. I am surprised he was able to take anything from this.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's not true.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. If those members would give me a moment to finish what I am saying, it would be a much easier way to answer the member's questions.

First and foremost, the comments made by the member with regard to our Prime Minister are false. Frankly, I am quite shocked that he continues to perpetuate this kind of thing. Our Prime Minister has said very clearly that he intends to protect the income security of seniors. He intends to look at a long-term prosperity issue that is creeping up. He intends to make sure that we sustain these programs that are so vitally important to our seniors for generations to come. That is outside the scope of the PRPP.

The PRPP is what we are talking about today. It is a necessity to help the people who do not have pension plans through their employers to do something to save for their future. This is why the provinces are on board.

That member is insulting the provinces by suggesting they cannot harmonize things, that they cannot get along, that they cannot have discussions that are prudent and which lead to better things for our country. I am surprised that he would do that. It is important that we all work together. I would suggest he start doing so here in the House.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be back in the House after our hiatus over the new year.

It is always a great pleasure to hear my colleague from Saint Boniface, Manitoba so clearly articulate our government's plan for jobs and growth.

The contrast between this side of the House and the other side could not be more stark. The parliamentary secretary spoke at length about the need to create wealth and all we hear from the other side is to spend, spend, spend. Creating wealth is vital to our country.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance tell us what she heard during the consultations regarding pooled registered pension plans?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Manitoba caucus on Parliament Hill, my colleague is a wealth of information and a joy to work with. I want to thank him for his dedication to this wonderful place and to his constituents. I want to take a moment to read a couple of quotes from stakeholders.

This is what Dan Kelly, the vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, had to say:

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.

This quote is from Yves-Thomas Dorval from the Conseil du patronat du Québec:

The flexibility of the PRPPs will allow federally regulated businesses (especially small and medium-sized businesses) that do not already have a pension plan to offer one to their employees in order to ensure their financial security at retirement.

I repeat that this is exactly what our Prime Minister has been focusing on, to provide income security to folks for their retirement. We are looking at all aspects. The PRPP would be a tremendous advantage to those 60% of employees who presently do not have an employee pension. We are going to continue to fight for these folks along with the provinces and territories which are unanimous in their support for this.

I just do not understand why we cannot get support from members of the opposition parties. They know clearly that this is the will of the provinces, the will of the territories, the will of the people of Canada, and yet they intend to stand in their way and put up barriers. I just do not understand why they continue to act in this manner.

[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.

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.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Five minutes remain for questions and comments following the speech by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

Are there any questions or comments?

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[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.

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.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member easily criticizes the government in relation to what our proposed plan is, or what she expects it to be. I am curious as to what the NDP plan would be. We have heard the NDP continuously suggest spending and more spending, billions upon billions of dollars.

Where will that money would come from? Sooner or later it has to come from somewhere and somebody has to pay the bill. What is her suggestion relating to the large demographic we have? It looks like by 2030 there will be three times the yearly expense for these program. What proposal is her party coming forward with in this regard? It is spending more money. Sooner or later somebody has to pay for it. Who is going to pay for it?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer that question because it gives me an opportunity to bring forward very solid information about how the NDP has proposed that we pay for something like raising the GIS.

I will begin with January 1. This year alone we will see a corporate tax cut of $3 billion. I forget the exact number, but I think we have had over $60 billion since 2004 in corporate tax cuts. The loss of public revenue that the Conservatives have perpetuated and brought forward is driving their agenda and they are now saying that we have to have cuts. We know that it is about looking at where the revenue comes from and where the expenditures go.

All the proposals that the NDP have made for pension reform that would produce better access, fairness and be more equitable are based on affordability and on an ability to pay. Our tax system should be based on ability to pay. It should be progressive. The idea that we can just shave off the top and say that the bigger one is the less one has to pay is wrong. That is what is robbing our system and driving these cuts. We have to stand up to that, as I think Canadians will, and say that it is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East. I know her social democratic convictions. She explained quite well in her speech the problem with the program we are currently discussing. I would like her to say a few words about the current situation with women in their golden years.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that women face a disproportionate share of living below the poverty line. Many women worked but they did not necessarily contribute to the Canada pension plan. Therefore, the whole issue of unpaid work or wages is very big. There is a huge gender difference in terms of income equality in our country.

The government's proposal is just really pie in the sky in terms of telling people to go out and have a ball, invest money in stocks and in their own plan. It completely misses the point in terms of the tens of thousands of women who survive on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement and who maybe made contributions to the Canada pension plan.

The previous Liberal government supposedly said that there should be gender analysis of legislation, although it really did not seem to live up to that. That kind of thing has now gone completely by the wayside. It really requires that kind of examination because it would then show that seniors who are women are having a much more difficult time.

This brings me back to the point that it is just so reprehensible that we have a Prime Minister at a conference in Switzerland musing about his big agenda, which I think most people find incredibly scary. Our job here is to ensure he does not get away with it.

[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:

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.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member opposite. The government has presented a lot of half measures since the beginning of the session in September, and even in June. There are many small businesses and self-employed workers in my riding. When they heard about this bill, they were excited at first. However, when they read the bill, they realized it was a savings plan and not a pension plan or a retirement plan. It is a savings plan, like the one for students.

How does this government expect low-income individuals to put money aside, as this program requires? It is not a solution. It is a half measure.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are no half measures. A pension plan is a pension plan. It provides an option for the employee to contribute to a plan that will grow in the absence of taxes on capital gains or income. Therefore, it is essentially a deferral of income from the savings. There is an array of things and this government is providing the employee a choice. There is the CPP and the RRSP. Those who are lucky enough to be employed by a company that provides a registered pension plan will have that, too. However, keep in mind that some plans are not portable, with the exception of the RRSP, which is a self-funded plan. This pooled pension plan would be portable, universal and an additional vehicle for the employee to have a choice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party look at retirement as an issue with many different facets. The biggest and most important issue of concern to Canadians is the guaranteed income supplement, and so forth. Following the Prime Minister's recent comments on increasing the age from 65 to 67, to putting in freezes, to the possibility of having cutbacks, there are discussions taking place today throughout Canada as seniors try to understand what the Conservatives' hidden agenda really is in regard to the whole government pension program.

I am wondering if the member would be able to provide some clear and concise commitments that would assure Canadians from coast to coast that those pensions and the amounts and the age at which people are eligible to receive pensions, that is, at age 65, will continue under the present government. Is he prepared to make that commitment?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are still in a period of consultation on this.

For retirement a senior has to rely on an array of things. The OAS and the GIS and the CPP are government programs that we have inherited. We are trying to provide a better array of savings plans, including the tax-free savings account plus the proposed new pooled pension plan, to allow them greater options to save for their future. Probably one of the best pension plans for an individual is to invest in their own principal residence, but that is only one aspect of it.

Canadians are financially savvy and financially literate, and it would be a bonus to them to have these options to choose how they wish to retire.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has established himself already as a well-known member of Parliament. He has gone across the country and has even been working internationally. Many of us, including me, knew him well before in his role as a prominent businessperson both in Canada and abroad.

I am wondering if he could put on his businessperson's hat for a second and give us a sound commercial analysis on why this approach would make sense for Canadians.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his accolades.

I have done business both in Canada and internationally. From the employer's standpoint, in order to provide working income for staff and to expand the company's market and to make sure that the business is a going concern, there are a number of factors contributing to that. First is a stable environment, and second a low cost tax regime, and third the ability to access capital. From that base the employer then builds a business.

Employees are key to any corporation. Money is easy to borrow. Employers never exploit their employees, at least not in the five or seven companies that I have built, so it is key that we ensure that we retain those employees. To retain those employees we need to offer them the employment security they need in order to work for a long time in our corporations.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to something that the member opposite touched on when he spoke about the shared responsibility of employees, employers and the government, and the viability of the PRPP system being proposed by the Conservatives.

We find this system to be completely disconnected from reality for a number of reasons, mainly because the risks would be borne only by employees. They are being offered a plan that would produce results based on the market. We hope that the investment income will grow. However, we know that Australia introduced this type of plan and realized, 12 years later, that the plan was completely ineffective because management fees were too high and inflation was almost as great as income. This plan does not provide any guarantee that investments will grow in the end.

If all the risks are borne by employees, what responsibility will the government and employers have?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is providing three pillars in the retirement system for employees, those who are approaching retirement. There is the government portion, which is the traditional CPP-QPP, OAS and GIS. Then there is the individual portion which is the RRSP, and there are those who belong to a larger corporation. Only about 30% or 40% of Canada's population have those plans. That is the RPP.

We are providing another portion for those who are in small and medium size businesses which traditionally cannot go to a financial institution for a plan, because they only have three to five employees. For example, people in a private practice, such as lawyers, accountants, doctors, plumbers and restaurant owners do not have the ability to entice financial institutions to set up a registered pension plan.

With this pooled pension plan, the investment aspect is regulated to prevent the failures of the market of over-zealous managers. At the same time I think the costs will be pooled in such a way to manage it at a reasonable cost. Most of the pension plan costs run somewhere around 1% and 2%. That is a very reasonable cost.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we go to questions, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sudbury, Consumer Protection; the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and the hon. member for Windsor West, Canada-U.S. Relations.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. He is an extremely intelligent person in many respects. However, there are some considerations that I would ask the member to take a very close look at.

We will have more senior citizens than young people within approximately three years. That is what the demographics are showing. The number of Canadians over the age of 65 will increase from 4.7 million to 9.3 million over the next 20 years.

Listening to the parliamentary secretary and to the speakers who have stood on this side of the House, let us be clear, there will be no changes to the benefits seniors currently receive and any changes that are made would have a substantial notice and adjustment period.

As I listened to the member's speech, with the aging demographic, we also have less workers working toward those taxes. Is it not important to ensure that the OAS continues, but also that we look at the whole program to ensure that we have these very important programs sustained in Canada, not for 5, 10 or 15 years, but for the next 60 years?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul gives me the opportunity to raise the issue of the sustainability of the OAS.

Nothing has changed with regard to the sustainability of the OAS from where it first started to where it is now. This has always been carried by current funds. We have never had a reserve fund for the OAS in the history of it. What has changed with regard to the revenues that are coming in is the government has consistently said that it will give preference in the economy to certain groups and it will give large corporations major tax breaks. There have been over $100 billion so far and it will almost double before those tax breaks are finished.

If we take that out of the accounting column, on one side the expenses are continuing, the OAS expenses are continuing, and we are lowering the revenues on the other side. That is where the sustainability problems come. It has nothing to do with OAS; it has everything to do with policy decisions by the government with regard to tax breaks for the big corporations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide me some information in terms of the NDP policy. Whether it is the OAS, GICs, or CPP, all these are wonderful pension programs, we understand, in terms of where the Conservatives are coming from on this, which creates a great deal of concern, not only for Liberals but, I suspect, also for New Democrats and for the vast majority of Canadians.

Where I am a bit confused is in terms of what degree does the NDP, as a political entity, believe that an individual should be encouraged or the government should be providing any sort of incentive for individuals to participate in pension programs that go beyond those government programs, which in good part were formed by Liberal governments in the past.

[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.

[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.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that this is about protecting seniors. This is about dignity and respect. Clearly our side of the House has made it quite clear there would be no changes to the benefits that seniors currently receive. Very substantial notice would be given to any changes that would be made and an adjustment period, which would not reflect upon retirees or those close to retirement.

In actual fact, our government has shown a great deal of responsibility by projecting into the future. To do that, we have to ensure that these very special programs like CPP and OAS remain strong in our country.

With the aging demographic and with the change in the demographic in the country, we have to ensure that needs of seniors are met. It is about doing things in a balanced way that would ensure the future.

I would like to ask the member a question about some of her comments. How does she intend to have this balance maintained in our country if we do not look at these pension plans and do the right thing?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is fairly simple. The right thing to do is to invest in seniors instead of investing in megaprisons that we do not need and fighter jets that do not work. This is about choices.

The member says that that would not impact the people who are currently seniors. Oh, really? I do not think we have seen any of that before in this House. We have not received any guarantees. Except for what some of the members were saying this afternoon, we have not heard any specifics. Even if that were true, the people who would be impacted are the very workers who today are losing their jobs in plants from coast to coast to coast. Those workers are losing their workplace pensions because the government did not do its due diligence with respect to the Investment Canada Act, as was the case with Stelco when it was bought out by U.S. Steel. The workers there are now worried about their pensions. Workers at Vale are worried about their pensions.

I invite the member to go to London and talk to the folks working at Caterpillar. They are now worried about their pensions. They cannot count on their workplace pensions and now the government is telling them that they cannot count on their OAS pension either because it may be taking that away from them as well. If we do the math, that is taking $12,000 away from the people who are counting on their public pensions to support them in their retirement.

I do not know how the member can stand in the House and say that she supports retirements with dignity and respect when the government is taking money away from hard-working Canadians and not allowing them to have the retirement they have earned.

[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, by its very definition, a voluntary program will, obviously, not develop the same kind of sustainability and pool of pension funds that an excellent plan like the CPP has developed over time. That is one of the reasons that we are supporting the CPP as the best alternative for a public pension system to support retiring workers.

The member is absolutely right. We have the TFSA and RRSPs. Private retirement savings vehicles are already in place. We do not need pooled pension plans on top of that. The reason there is only 30% take-up is that people do not have money to put into these investment vehicles. Anybody in the House who has been following the news knows that we have been experiencing plant closure after plant closure. Decent paying jobs are lost in this country and are replaced by minimum wage jobs. People on minimum wage do not have money to put into TFSAs or RRSPs and they certainly do not care whether a pooled pension plan is created. They do not have the money to invest.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member, what comes to my mind is that many argue that there is a hidden agenda with the Conservative Party. It is when that reform element starts to pop its head. I recall the Prime Minister used to believe that we should privatize CPP, or the idea of moving in that direction.

I listened to what the member was saying and we kind of get the hint that this is what he is referring to. He is saying that the CPP does not necessarily have that same sort of support among the provinces and that it is too much of a challenge to increase the CPP or to gain that momentum. That is where one would expect to see leadership from a government, from a Prime Minister who says that he is committed to government programs, whether it is the CPP, the guaranteed income supplement or otherwise.

Where is the government's commitment to continue to support those programs into the future? Why does the government seem to want to waffle and tend to favour some of those old reform ideas from back in the late nineties?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the Liberal Party still has not given up on the hidden agenda canard that moved it from this side of the House to official opposition, down to the end as the third party. It continues to promote this idea that there is somehow a hidden agenda.

Nothing could be further from the truth. What we have said is that we are standing to support seniors. What happens when we bring forward initiatives to support our seniors? The Liberal Party votes against them. When we brought in income splitting, the Liberal Party voted against it. When we brought in a new GIS benefit in the last budget, the Liberal Party voted against that too. Whenever we bring in measures that support Canada's seniors, the Liberal Party of Canada will continue to advocate against them. It is on the wrong track. We will continue to move ahead with reasonable voluntary PRPPs that have the support of small businesses and Canadians.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is being called a hidden agenda because the Prime Minister forgot to tell Canadians during the election about his big plans on pensions and how he was going to start changing the OAS. He went to Davos, Switzerland to do that. I think Canadians feel pretty mad at him for doing that.

As the Minister of State for Finance said this morning, there is already $600 billion of room under RRSPs. With that much room obviously not been taken up by people who can even afford to contribute in the first place, why would the government set up a crazy scheme in the private market that is not going to benefit the people who need it the most? Why would it set it up in that way? Would the member agree that it is really just window dressing because nobody is going to take it up?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the take-up of the program, I will take the word of Dan Kelly, Senior Vice-President of Legislative Affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, CFIB, who 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”.

The provinces obviously agree that this is a positive plan because they signed on to it. They are moving to introduce legislation to allow this sort of program to be implemented across all of the provinces. There was no agreement to go down the road of the NDP plan, which would have put employees at risk and raised taxes through payroll hikes. That is not the road we are going down. We are going down the road of a plan that has the agreement of the provinces and the small and medium-sized business sectors. It is the right thing to do. I would encourage New Democrats to vote in favour of it.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my fellow colleague this question. Throughout the consultations that he had in his constituency and across the province of British Columbia, did he talk to business owners, as I am, and ask them what the impact would be on them of the increase in CPP? I would ask him to expound on that.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives have gone across the country consulting with Canadians on our economic action plan, we have heard many say, like the hon. member has heard, that this is just not the right time for an increase in CPP. It is too risky to raise payroll taxes at this time.

Again, the CFIB stated:

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.

That is not a plan that Conservatives can support.

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

Mr. Speaker, this global financial crisis and Canada's aging population have highlighted the important issue of retirement income security. Our government realizes that Canadian seniors 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. They have worked hard to build a better country for future generations. Our government's record shows that we are committed to the financial well-being of Canadian seniors, especially those with low incomes.

While the introduction of pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs, would not help today's seniors, PRPPs are a key component in providing future financial security for Canadians. Our goal is to provide Canadians with another tool to help them prepare for their retirement in an easy and cost-effective way.

From a young age, we have all been told of the importance of saving for the future, particularly for retirement. PRPPs offer another savings tool to Canadians to help them meet their retirement goals. Sixty per cent of Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. I am one of those. I was self-employed as a farmer. My land accumulated and, like many others, it was my pension plan. Many employers out there do not want the legal or administrative burden of offering a pension plan to their employees. I believe today's PRPP legislation would play a critical role in improving the range of retirement savings options available to Canadians.

This low-cost retirement savings opportunity is ideal for Canadians who do not currently have access to an employer-offered pension plan. PRPPs would make well-regulated, low-cost, private-sector pension plans accessible to millions who up to now have not had access to such plans. This is great news for many Canadians who are employees of small and medium-sized businesses and self-employed workers. They would now have access to a private pension plan for the very first time. PRPPs are designed to remove many of the traditional barriers that have kept some employers from offering pension plans to their employees in the past. PRPPs would be administered by a regulated financial institution, thereby decreasing the cost, complexity and resource demands for small employers.

PRPPs are a lower cost option due to 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. With PRPPs, participation would be encouraged by automatic enrollment of employees into a PRPP where an employer offers one. Automatic enrollment would encourage regular savings into PRPPs by making participation the default choice of employees who do not actively make a decision to opt out. This is a positive attribute of PRPPs. Employees could have their PRPP contributions automatically taken off their paycheque. It would make saving for the future easier.

In addition, PRPPs would allow members to create an appropriate portfolio that is in line with their investment objectives and risk preferences. The PRPP administrator would also provide members with the educational tools and other resources needed to help the members make informed decisions regarding their PRPP investments. This would be a key improvement to Canada's retirement income system.

PRPPs would also complement and support our government's number one priority, strengthening Canada's economy. That means creating jobs and economic growth.

Some of the retirement income system proposals we looked at in our consultations would have significantly raised costs for both employers and employees. That would have been unacceptable at a time of very tentative economic recovery. Canada's finance ministers opted to prioritize a PRPP framework over other options. It was considered the most effective and targeted way to address the prime areas for improvement identified in our working group's research, particularly modest income and middle-income individuals who do not have access to employer-sponsored pension plans.

PRPPs address this gap in the retirement system in a number of ways. A PRPP provides a new accessible, straightforward and administratively low cost retirement option for employers to offer 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. It enables more people to benefit from the lower investment management costs that result from membership in a large pooled pension plan. It allows for the portability of benefits that would facilitate an easy transfer between plans, and ensuring that funds are invested in the best interests of plan members.

Those points are all important areas where a 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.

Canada's retirement income system has already been recognized around the world as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among Canadian seniors and in providing high levels of replacement income to retired workers, but we should never rest on our laurels. Anything can and always will be able to be improved, and that is why PRPPs are at the top of that list right now.

Our government will make the right policy decisions to ensure it stays that way. In recent years we have made it even stronger, with a wide range of measures to support those elements of the system with a proven record of success. This includes: providing over $2 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; reforming the framework governing federally regulated pensions to better protect pensioners; working with the provinces to modernize the CPP, making it more flexible for those transitioning out of the workforce to better reflect the way Canadians currently live, work and retire; and most recently in our latest budget, announcing a top-up to the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, benefit for Canada's most vulnerable seniors.

With the introduction of PRPPs we will address the remaining gaps in the system by providing an attractive additional pension option to individuals and employers.

In conclusion, the addition of the PRPPs is clearly a step in the right direction to strengthening a retirement income system that has already delivered for Canadians. It offers Canadians another tool to help them meet their retirement goals.

I am sure there are many individuals out there, including my parents, who could have taken advantage of something like this. As I said earlier, while today's retirees will not be able to benefit from this, future ones will. We certainly look forward to that.

I urge all members in the House to support the government in this major step forward in securing Canadians' retirement income needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my esteemed colleague.

He has only good things to say about this new pension plan, but at the same time, the Prime Minister of Canada announced in Davos that cuts would have to be made to the income security system, because Canada would no longer be able to pay for pensions. If this system is so extraordinary and successful, why is it that they are not changing their actuarial studies in their conclusions?

In theory, if a pension plan is working, people no longer need the support of public pension funds like income security and the guaranteed income supplement.

Since that is not the case, this shows at the same time that they admit from the outset that the system is not working.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the member to read what the Prime Minister actually said instead of reading what is sent out by the offices of the member's whip's or leader.

The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that changes need to be made. There will be no reduction in retirement income because of this. As I said during my speech, we have a great system but it is not perfect and we should not sit back and rest on our laurels. All programs and all legislation should always be tweaked, and this is no different.

This is something new, and from all the consultation among the territories, provinces, federal government and the private sector, this is long overdue. I am very proud to be here supporting this today. It is going to be great for seniors.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot enlighten my colleague on which provinces have committed, but my understanding is there has been full-fledged consultation between all the provinces and territories. On the first day of Parliament we have this legislation and I would like to think that forward-looking provinces and territories will be looking at the benefit of this for their people to save for retirement and their role in it. I look forward to many, if not all of them, contributing in this. This is a good news story for anyone who wants to save for his or her retirement and in the long term it will help our seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with a quotation from Mr. Hollande, the French socialist party candidate for the upcoming presidential election in France. He said:

...my real adversary has no name, no face, no party. It will never run for office...and yet it governs...it is the world of finance...

That is certainly the case in France, as it is in Canada, when we look at what the Conservative government is doing. That is exactly it. The government decided that the financial sector is the key to the economic future of Canadian retirees. It wants to keep the financial sector happy instead of meeting the economic needs of future retirees.

Often, the less the Minister of Industry says, the better, but unfortunately, he said:

PRPPs will offer Canadians an innovative new, privately administered, low-cost and accessible pension vehicle to help them meet their objectives.

That is what he is offering future retirees, but none of it is true. There is nothing new about the plan. A similar program has been in place in Australia for 12 years, during which time Australians have had enough quantifiable experience to say that it is a failure. It does not work. It is not producing the outcome they expected.

“Privately administered, low-cost and accessible.” That is the problem. This plan is so private that there are no limits set by regulations. The bill is not supported by any regulations.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

There are no limits on the administrative fees that will be billed in this program and that will achieve their objectives. However, the problem is that even if the future pensioners know how much they paying, they will never know how much they will get back when they retire. Is that really achieving an objective, paying and not knowing how much one will receive? That is by no means an objective.

Our Prime Minister went to Davos. Speaking to his friends in the financial sector, far away from Canadians, he informed them—the people of Canada—that their pensions were no longer guaranteed. With remarkable complacency, he talked about the fact that people were seeing that their wealth, their services and their pensions no longer belong to them. He criticized developed countries for their general desire to pay for standards and advantages that they cannot afford. The problem is not that they cannot afford them; the problem is that wealth is being hoarded by a financial sector so speculative that it is losing vast sums of money.

The financial sector's greed is entirely to blame for the recent economic recession, but no one talks about that. Wilful ignorance and complete blindness are the status quo. Everyone seems to have memory lapses and to be complacent. We forget about all the money squandered by the financial sector, which is still not keeping its promises. In Canada, what grew the fastest were not bank dividends, but the bonuses the banks paid to their top executives. That speaks volumes. It speaks volumes about who earns money and who loses it. Generally, pensioners do not come out as winners with this government.

This same government, which brags about its record when it comes to the economy, is comparing itself to the worst. It compares itself to countries like Italy and Greece. It does not compare itself to Germany, Sweden or Norway. No. It compares itself to a small club of lesser countries that adopted the same bad policy it did. It compares itself to the very worst. One day I would like our government to compare our country to the best. Then it would realize that creating 100,000 net new jobs since 2008 is not really an accomplishment, losing 350,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector that have not been replaced is not an accomplishment, and replacing jobs that pay $25 an hour with jobs that pay $10 an hour is no way to create wealth in a country. It is shameful.

A myth has been circulating in the past few days that it is fiscally responsible to roll the dice with Canadians' pensions and bet the money on the markets. We can do whatever we want with other people's money. It does not matter. Regardless of what happens, pooled registered pension plans will always guarantee a source of income and administrative fees. Regardless of how they perform, good or bad, the financial sector will always make money.

However, the whole idea behind a pension plan is not to help a certain sector make money. The idea is to guarantee to pensioners that they will be able to collect their pensions and be sheltered from poverty. That is absolutely not what the government is doing, to the extent that RRSPs, TFSAs and all the other private savings plans have no impact at all on actuarial studies regarding future trends in the government's ability to cover the cost of the guaranteed income supplement.

The government says it will cost too much, but if there were a better alternative, people would not need to ask for financial support from the government. They would not need it and they would be able to provide good pensions for themselves.

That is never the case. It basically shows that the government's calculations are wrong and that this pension scheme has only one objective: to give the financial sector what it wants, that is, the economic governance of this country.

This type of pension plan already exists in Australia. We can use it for analytical and comparative purposes. It is interesting because it was introduced almost 10 years ago in Australia, which gives us some hindsight and allows us to analyze the results in detail. First, the plan was mandatory although it was possible to opt out. Employers were required to sign up their employees for one of the many defined contribution plans provided by the private sector.

The Australian government has analyzed the results. It was rather important that it provide some analysis of the financial results. Studies commissioned by the Australian government indicate that people are not really saving. The management fees are so high and the returns so low that it would be more beneficial for employees to directly deposit their money into very low interest bank accounts. They would earn more and not lose money. If they leave their money in the private sector, they lose it. That is unacceptable.

People are being asked to put their money into a pension plan and, to date, in Australia, they are receiving less than they paid in. And yet, the Australian financial system did not hesitate to demand investment and management fees. Things went wrong. It is a major problem.

Canada has a low-cost alternative that has already proven to be effective: the Canada pension plan. No one is disputing this fact. No other system is managed for such a low cost. No one is disputing this. No one is questioning that it is appropriately capitalized.

All they are saying is that the plan will be increased over a 10-year period, not tomorrow morning. That means that, over a 10-year period, a surplus—a portion of future earnings—will be skimmed off. Part of the increase in earnings will be directed to the pension fund. We cannot ask for more in terms of the gradual nature of contributions.

Nevertheless, this government opposes it. It prefers to deprive Canadians of a secure pension in the future rather than to deprive its friends in the financial sector of a single dollar.

Mr. Hollande said that his enemy was the financial sector. Here in the House, the financial sector is represented by a political party that, unfortunately, is in power. That party would do well to remember that it was elected not by the financial sector, but by Canadians. That party promised to represent Canadians, but it is more interested in spoliation than in representation.

The government has the financial means to do this in Canada without upsetting the economy, hindering economic growth or damaging the business sector in any way. God knows that we do not want to hurt the business sector. We want to create jobs. We will not stand by and watch unemployment numbers rise. We want to find a way to turn the unemployed into workers.

We will fight for it. We will fight as hard as we can because this plan is worthless. A pension plan should produce results and have a defined objective. The government has an obligation to produce results. That is what a pension plan is: a result. All the government is saying is that it will take people's money and, with luck, it might give something back to them when they retire. That is unacceptable.

That is why I invite all Canadians to fight this worthless plan and support a public Canadian pension plan that has proven its worth in the past and will continue to do so.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I probably disagreed with everything my colleague said in his speech. It was quite poignant that he was quoting a socialist politician from France to get his information.

Let us talk about the reality of today and let us talk about the head-in-the-sand politics of the NDP. If we look at what the Minister of State for Finance has done the last couple of years, he has listened to Canadians and has asked them what they want. From what we have heard, they want choice. They want improvements to their retirement income.

If the NDP members were paying attention, to make the changes they would want to the CPP would require the consent of two-thirds of the provinces and, frankly, in this day and age, there is no consensus. What do they want us to do? Do they want us to wait and rest on our laurels? No, we are providing options to Canadians.

Why is the member against options for Canadians? Would the NDP force the provinces and businesses to go along with a plan that they clearly have told the Government of Canada they do not want? What would the member do if he were in that situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making the same argument as his colleague from Saint Boniface, who said that many stakeholders came and spoke in favour of this plan at the Standing Committee on Finance. I was sitting on that committee and the people who were in favour of this system all represented financial institutions. However, those who stand in line at the food banks, who need a cheque to pay for their groceries, their rent and their clothes, all told us that they need improvements to the Canada pension plan.

Who is the government listening to, Canadians or financiers? We have decided to listen to Canadians, people who want something positive for their economic future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have acknowledged the importance of the OAS, the GIS and the CPP. I think there is a lot of agreement with the NDP quite possibly in regard to the support of that.

I have asked the member to provide a list of the provinces that would be enacting the provincial legislation that would enable this legislation, otherwise it would be very limited in terms of who would benefit from the program. If the province of Quebec, for example, were to indicate that it would like this legislation to go to committee, or if other provinces, ideally a half dozen or so provinces, wanted to see the bill go to committee, would the New Democratic Party support it going to committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, what he is proposing is poverty. You say that there is something good, but since there is no consensus, we are going to take money that should be going to the Canada pension plan and give it to financial institutions. How does that guarantee a pension for Canadians retiring in the future? You should—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. You must address your remarks to the Speaker and not to the other members. The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Liberal Party of Canada is saying one thing and doing another. That is not new. We cannot count on that party's support in the struggle to ensure that Canadians have a pension fund. All that political party wants is to look good and sound good, but there is nothing more to it. It is an old party that produces nothing. All it produces is a speech that calls for inaction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his speech and the passion with which he defends pensions. One of the NDP's proposals would protect pensions when a company files for bankruptcy. I would like to hear more about NDP proposals to reform or enhance pensions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a problem that clearly indicates how important it is to intervene politically when it comes to retirement plans. Too many companies—as was unfortunately the case with Nortel—have gone bankrupt when they had an unfunded actuarial liability in their private pension plans. As a result, pensioners saw their pensions cut down—by as much as 45% in the case of Nortel. That is huge. Half of each pension cheque disappeared.

To deal with similar situations, the NDP is calling for two measures. First, it is asking that the full amount of the actuarial liability in the pension fund be given preferred creditor status and that that liability be paid first. If there is any money at all, it should go to pensioners. That is crucial. It is a question of loyalty. Second, if that is not enough, the NDP is asking that any capital losses incurred in the private pension plan be deducted from future revenues. This practice is already widely accepted. We may buy a share for $200 and sell it for $100, with a loss of $100. This loss can be set against our income. That is all we are asking for, and it would help many people avoid poverty.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. At present, the problem with RRSPs and TFSAs, like this new group savings plan—and I mean “group savings plan” because that is what it is—is that they are not pension plans. A pension plan guarantees a certain income and protects people from poverty. This new plan is simply a way of saving. Unfortunately, like RRSPs and TFSAs, this group savings plan is also a tax loophole. Who can afford to invest a maximum of $22,000 in an RRSP when the average income in Canada is $37,000? It is a tax loophole for the wealthy. People in Canada complain because some people in the United States pay only 15% of their income, but it is a good thing that they are in the U.S., because they would pay only 5% in Canada.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important topic today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Oshawa.

Through numerous cross-country consultations, our government has talked to many Canadians and heard too many challenging personal stories not to realize that this is an issue that is too important to get wrong.

Our government has devoted considerable effort on the retirement security issue in order to get it right. We have been engaged in a very serious discussion with Canadians on pension and retirement income security issues over the past few years. Our record of support for seniors remains strong and has been since our very first budget.

Let us look at the facts.

In June 2006, we increased the age credit amount by $1,000 and then we increased it another $1,000 in 2009. This year alone, the age credit will provide up to $1,008 in federal tax relief for eligible seniors. That is significant.

Other significant tax relief measures provided since 2006 for seniors and pensioners include: doubling the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit from $1,000 to $2,000 in 2006; the introduction of pension income splitting in 2007; and the increase in the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs from 69 to 71 in 2007.

I would also like to mention the tax free savings account, a general purpose savings vehicle that helps all Canadians, including seniors, to meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax preferred basis. Of note, TFSA investment income and withdrawals do not affect eligibility for federal income tested benefits or credits, such as old age security, the guaranteed income supplement or the goods and services tax credit.

Those are things that our government has done that provide substantial benefits to seniors across our country. This is tax relief that is benefiting seniors right now as we speak. Seniors and all Canadians can be confident that it will benefit them well into the future as our government implements the next phase of Canada's economic action plan and the return to balanced budgets.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan announces new measures to improve the financial security of our most vulnerable seniors and ensure that seniors can benefit from and contribute to the quality of life in their community through active living and participation in social activities and access to a new low cost pension option.

The 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 activities, pursue an active life and contribute to their community. The program provides funding for projects to expand awareness of elder abuse or promote volunteering, monitoring and social participation of seniors, and this is important.

Going forward, a key component of ensuring financial security for all Canadians and for seniors will be the introduction of the pooled registered pension plan, or PRPP, as agreed at the December 2010 finance ministers' meeting in Alberta. The Government of Canada is working closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts to move forward with the legislative and regulatory changes necessary to create the PRPP. 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.

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 to their employers. These plans would help Canadians, including the self-employed, meet their retirement objectives by providing access to a new low cost, accessible pension option. Federal, provincial and territorial officials are working together to implement PRPPs as soon as possible.

The provinces and territories are essential partners in a strong retirement system. They play a major role in the regulation of private defined benefit pension plans. All of them are joint stewards of the Canada pension plan along with our federal government.

This is an important point to remember. We are not in this alone. It is a point that, sadly, seems to have eluded some on the opposition benches, judging by the hastily concocted proposals they have put forward today. For example, the opposition conveniently forgets that changes to the CPP require the approval of at least two-thirds of the Canadian provinces representing at least two-thirds of the country's population.

On this side of the House, we worked together alongside the provinces and territories, with an eye on the long term.

Seniors have worked hard to build a better country for future generations. Our record shows that our government is committed to the financial well-being of all Canadian seniors. Our seniors have made our country what it is today and with the introduction of the PRPP, Canadians can look forward to an even stronger retirement system.

[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.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very astute question and I would be very pleased to answer it.

This program is the first of its kind in Canada. It would benefit small businesses. It would benefit people who do not have retirement plans right now, and there are many Canadians who do not. Therefore, if people happen to own a business, or happen to work for a business, or have a home business, this would allow them to ensure their retirement plan in the future. As we know, a myriad of home businesses are run by women. A lot of women put forward their home businesses and they take care of their families,

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has done a lot of work in protecting young people who come to our country against their will, in terms of human smuggling, and thank her for all the work she has done in that area.

We have talked a fair amount about this plan being important to seniors and others who are getting close. However, what I think is more important is that with the pooled plan, if a young person joins a firm that is part of a pooled plan, he or she has to opt out of it and the person automatically gets a pension plan. That is not the case with an RRSP. People have to choose to do it themselves. This way people think about why it is important for young people to think about their futures and the pension programs that they may have.

Would my colleague comment on that?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is so important about this plan is that it is good for everyone. It is good for the employers because there are businesses that cannot afford the pension plans presently. They need the pooled pension in order to offer that pension plan to their employees. Young people are looking to their future. They know in a few short years time will go by and they will need to support themselves so they can live independently.

[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?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is so strong about looking at the fair, balanced approach to pension plans in Canada and ensuring that OAS and CPP continue to thrive, grow and meet the needs of seniors is the collaboration that our government has done throughout this whole process. The finance ministers have worked together. In fact, when the finance ministers were working together to assess the CPP program to ensure it was sustainable, which they concluded was sustainable for the next 75 years, that led to the PRPP initiative. All the finance ministers in all provinces together agreed that it was time to put the framework together.

Our federal government has taken the lead in this framework and presented this bill today. We will continue to work with all the provinces in this very collaborative project.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing in the House tonight to speak about an extremely important issue. It is an issue that affects not only the people in my home riding of Oshawa, but Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is an issue that we dare not put off and cannot put off any longer.

Last May Canadians gave our Conservative government a strong mandate to continue its strong and stable policy of guiding Canada through this fragile economic recovery. Canada is leading the charge and is the envy of the world in terms of our economic and fiscal policy. One of the major reasons Canada is hailed as an economic leader is due to this government's forward thinking and long term approach to the economic challenges of the future. Nowhere is this more evident than the issue of retirement security for our seniors and for future generations of seniors. That is why I am speaking tonight.

I strongly disagree with the implications of the members across the way that this government is somehow failing seniors. To put it bluntly, they are plain wrong. The Conservative government has done more to put money back into the pockets of seniors than any other government in Canadian history. In 2006 we increased the age credit amount by $1,000 and we increased it another $1,000 in 2009. For the 2011 tax year, the age credit will provide up to $981 in tax relief for eligible seniors. Other significant tax relief provided since 2006 for seniors and pensioners includes doubling the maximum amount of income eligibility for pension income credit from $1,000 to $2,000, introducing pension income splitting and increasing the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs from 69 to 71.

While our government is extremely proud of these measures, we are still faced with an even more pressing challenge of ensuring retirement security for seniors and future generations of seniors. What we will not do is what the opposition plans to do, and that is put its head in the sand and ignore the issue until a crisis is thrust upon us. We will not play on the emotions and fears of seniors and pensioners for political gain, as the NDP did with Bill C-501. Furthermore, the NDP is so focused on expanding CPP as a means of strengthening retirement security that it is preventing it from making real positive changes and improvements today.

I do agree with the opposition that the CPP is important. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers of finance have discussed a CPP expansion. However, the changes that the NDP would want would not only threaten our economic recovery, it would also require the support of two-thirds of the provinces. There is no current consensus or agreement among the provinces at this time. Where does that leave us? Do we just wait until the provinces come to a consensus? Waiting is not an option.

I am proud to say that over the past two years our government's commitment to a stronger retirement income system has taken my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, to communities across the country. He has been consulting with Canadians, meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts, discussing key considerations with small and medium-sized businesses and receiving valuable input from some of the most respected experts in the retirement income field. In response to these extensive consultations, the minister has come up with a viable and sustainable plan to help people prepare for their future retirement.

I would like to thank the Minister of State for Finance for helping the government unveil its pooled registered pension plan, or what we are calling PRPPs. I am proud to say that the PRPPs would mark a significant step forward in advancing our retirement income agenda.

PRPPs are a low cost and accessible option that would help more Canadians meet their retirement goals. The introduction of PRPPs marks a particularly significant advancement in supporting the retirement needs of small businesses and their employees, who up until now have not had access to a large scale low cost pension option.

As a chiropractor who used to be a small business owner, I can attest to the benefits that PRPPs would provide the self-employed and their employees. PRPPs would improve the range of retirement savings options to Canadians by: first, providing a new accessible, straightforward and administratively low cost retirement option for employers to offer their employees; second, 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 type of pension plan; third, enabling more people to benefit from the lower investment management costs that result from membership in a large pooled pension plan; fourth, allowing for accumulated benefits to move with people from job to job; and fifth, ensuring that funds are invested in the best interest of plan members.

Some of the retirement income system proposals that were presented in our consultations would have significantly raised costs for employers and employees. Introducing them would have been unacceptable during a very tentative and fragile economic recovery. On the other hand, PRPPs would be efficiently managed, privately administered pension arrangements that would provide greater choice for employers and individuals, thereby promoting pension coverage and retirement savings.

The Government of Canada recently introduced legislation to put in place the federal requirements supporting the framework for PRPPs. In addition, the Minister of State for Finance met with the provinces to encourage and assist them in making the same necessary changes from their side. Unlike the NDP's ideas, PRPPs have the support of all of the provinces. Furthermore, PRPPs would also complement and support the Government of Canada's overarching objective of creating and sustaining jobs, leveraging business investments and securing our economic recovery and sustainable private sector driven growth.

Again, unlike the NDP, support for this program is coming from the small business community as well. Dan Kelly, vice-president, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated in a press release:

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.

Chris, a small business owner from my own riding of Oshawa, told me:

The Pooled Retirement Pension Plan is of critical import given the great upcoming increase of retired persons and their need for balanced retirement income. As a small business owner since 1995 I consider the pooled pension program a commendable, voluntary, and low-cost means to effectively address a major gap in retirement income disparity.

Not only are PRPPs receiving support from the provinces and the business community but they are receiving support from the academics as well. Robert Pozen, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, stated in the October 23, 2011 edition of the Financial Times:

Like many developed nations, Canada continues to refine its retirement system. As part of that effort, the provincial governments will soon authorise a new savings vehicle – Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs). With the right policy decisions, PRPPs will go a long way towards increasing retirement security for millions of Canadians.

In short, PRPPs have the potential to increase significantly retirement savings in Canada....

That is what it is all about. The institution of PRPPs is a tangible and excellent step for enhancing income and retirement security for seniors. The broad support from the provinces, small business owners and academics and this government's initiative are something that the opposition has yet to build.

Working together with the provinces and small businesses, I am confident we can get these important new retirement vehicles up and running for Canadians in a timely manner. I ask the hon. members of the opposition to join us in helping seniors instead of voting against everything that we bring forward for seniors and people on pensions. Our record of support for seniors and strengthening retirement security for seniors remains strong and has been so since day one. Any claims to the contrary by members of the opposition simply cannot stand up when we look at the facts.

Bill C-25--Notice of time allocation motion

[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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is just typical. Here we are, on the first day back from being away from the House, and already the government House leader has to rush in. We have had one day of debate on this very important bill about the future of our pension system and the government has to rush in, close down debate and close down the democratic voice of this House. I think it is disgusting.

Members on this side of the House are here ready to debate the legislation on its merits. Hearing this kind of antic from the government House leader is becoming the pattern we have come to expect from the Conservative government.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health a question. We have heard that this pooled pension plan is good for everybody. The fact is that many people will not even be able to afford to go into this plan. Why is it that the banks will end up making a whole ton of money on this plan? There is no limit on the administration fees or costs. Why did the Conservatives leave that out? They could have at least put in some limits on the fees that will be charged so that people will not get ripped off.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had listened to my speech and to the speeches of other government members, she would realize that one of the reasons we are bringing this in is exactly that reason, to lower the cost for Canadians. In comparison to RRSPs, by having a pooled pension plan, it would distribute the costs across a wider sector enabling lower administrative costs.

This is what it is all about. We on this side of the House want to do is act now to see what we can do to allow seniors to keep more money in their own pockets. Ever since 2006, on every initiative that we have brought forward to help seniors and pensioners, the NDP has stood in this House and voted against it.

What kind of ideas are the NDP coming up with? What is the leaderless NDP coming up with today? It is coming up with exactly zero ideas that could be implemented. It wants to look at changing the CPP, which, as we have heard over and over again, requires two-thirds of the provinces, and there is no consensus to do that.

What we are doing on this side of this House is we are acting today, we are acting for seniors and we are supporting seniors. Let us see the NDP get on board with that.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will really try to stay calm after listening to the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my life.

We have just started a debate on something that is really important. We on this side of the House are trying to work with the government. Pension issues are important. We have a pension crisis looming in this country. We have talking about pension reform and our supplementary CPP. The NDP has its own proposals.

We have been talking about moving an issue forward. However, for the government to turn around and put closure on debate because maybe we are talking too much about all the other pension frustrations is very frustrating. There is no democracy left in this country.

I will get back to the issue I am supposed to be talking about, because I do try to focus on what the question of the day is. We are talking about wanting to move forward. We have many articles and this is one that I am happy to table today dated May 30, 2011. it reads:

Australian Pension Study finds that high fees and costs of private sector pension plans seriously limit investment returns for pensioners.

It goes on. It was a very extensive study that was done. Australia did it 12 years ago and it is now cancelling it because it is finding it to be a huge failure. The pensioners are the losers. Financial institutions and insurance companies are the big winners because of the management fees.

The government knew this was a problem beforehand and it still went forward. Is it so desperate to bring something forward that it will go with something we know is flawed, rather than trying to listen to and maybe work with the other parties on coming forward with some really good changes?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what would be extremely flawed is to do absolutely nothing and bring forward nothing, which is exactly what the Liberal Party did for 13 years and which is why it is sitting at the very end of the House of Commons.

I commend the Minister of State for Finance for not only going out and talking to the communities but for listening to them. He has listened to academics, the business community and Canadians. He wants to work with the provinces. The NDP and the Liberals, in pure socialist fashion, would like to just jam something down the provinces' throat without allowing debate and without allowing them to put forward their ideas.

I challenge the opposition members to stand up here in House and support our government instead of voting against all the initiatives that we have put forward since 2006. I ask them to work with us because we are on the side of pensioners and seniors and they just cannot come up with any new ideas.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it ironic listening to members opposite.

Despite all the heckling, and I am not speaking entirely from personal memory, but I can tell the Canadian people that the Conservative Party voted against the introduction of the old age pension in 1927. The Conservative Party was opposed to the original Canada pension plan.

The leader of the Conservative Party, in his then job as the president of the National Citizens Coalition, was opposed to the improvements in the Canada pension plan that led to its sustainability, for which he took credit at Davos in his speech last week. That required an act of contortion that one could not even find in a circus. Now members of the Conservative Party turn around and say that they are the ones who are going to protect the Canadian pension system.

We cannot trust those wolves to protect the Canadian pension system. It requires the determination of this House to really understand where we are going and how we need to go forward in order for us to get to where we need to get to.

The subject of the conversation today is with respect to the pooled pension plan, which I will come to in a moment, but first we need to understand the context in which we are working and living.

The Canadian pension system over time has evolved with the thought that fundamentally Canadians would be able to save at their workplace, that they would also receive a Canada pension plan and, if necessary, old age pension and a guaranteed income supplement as a way of sustaining them through old age. I might add that the guaranteed income supplement was also something that was brought in by the Liberal Party when it was in government.

We need to understand that the dramatic changes that have taken place in the Canadian economy, in the Canadian workforce and in the makeup of the Canadian workforce has meant that private company pension plans can no longer be relied upon to provide security for most workers. The Canada pension plan, as improved as it is, is still not a sufficient source of support for people as they get older. The old age pension is a very necessary part of retirement for people who are over the age of 65 and the guaranteed income supplement is essential for those low income Canadians who have no other source of income in their years of retirement.

Therefore, we need to understand the way in which the Prime Minister has attempted to frame this debate and the way in which the Conservatives, even in their speeches today, have attempted to frame this debate.

The Conservative Party specializes in attack politics and politics that try to put a spin on the issue. It says there is a crisis with regard to the sustainability of the system because in 2030 there will be more seniors and the cost of the system might increase by roughly 2% to 3%. Good grief, that is hardly a crisis.

Who is receiving this pension? Probably no one on that side or on this side will be affected by these changes. Even those who listened to the speech in Davos, in the Swiss Alps, will not be affected by the Prime Minister's decision. The Prime Minister himself will not be affected. People who earn less than $30,000 are the ones who will be affected, and that is what bothers me.

Is there a problem for the aging population? Indeed, there is, but the problem of the plan's sustainability concerns not only public finances, but also the finances of every family in the country.

What we find is a situation where more and more Canadians are borrowing in order to sustain themselves. We know that people who are older are even borrowing through their mortgages and so on in order to sustain themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to embarrass you personally, but I suspect you were one of the people on the platform talking to your fellow voters. I am sure if you were quoting from the Conservative Party election platform, you were saying that it would not touch transfers to health care, education and seniors. That is what the Conservative Party promised in the last election. That was the Prime Minister's promise.

Imagine our surprise when we saw the Prime Minister's grand plan on the front page of the Globe and Mail. Obviously, it was not a complete surprise to the Globe and Mail. These things do not appear with any spontaneity.

Quoting of the Globe and Mail, the grand plan of the Prime Minister is a plan that was never discussed with the people of Canada in the last election. It was not presented to the Canadian people in the last election. It was a grand plan that was worthy of his Alpine perch, but it was not worthy of a discussion on the factory floor and on the doorsteps and porches of the people of Canada. That is the problem we have.

If the Prime Minister thinks for a moment that he will be able to create this kind of evasive activity, avoiding the question of what is central to the issue of the people of our country, he is sadly mistaken.

The member for Oshawa who just spoke used the same words again, that the Conservative Party had received a mandate, blah, blah, blah. I can tell the members of the Conservative Party that the Liberal Party has received its own mandate. That mandate is very clear. That mandate is to hold the government to account. That mandate is to say to the people of Canada to call a spade a spade. When the Prime Minister of Canada does not disclose to the Canadian people what his real plan is, when he has to go to Switzerland to disclose what his real plan is, we will disclose that fact to the people of Canada very clearly.

The government's proposal with respect to the pooled pension issue is an attempt to deal with a serious issue that is facing the country. I say it is an attempt. We have to understand exactly what that serious issue is.

About 60% of Canadian workers, 11 million out of nearly 19 million, have no pension plan other than the Canada pension plan and the OAS. Also, 30% of workers have no RRSP savings and have no company pension.

In the meantime, we have to acknowledge that only 6 million people have contributed to current retirement savings plans.

There is definitely a problem, but the question is whether the government's response is adequate. That is the question. We are clearly saying it is not adequate because it does not meet the real needs of the public and it does not address the real problem.

We have to acknowledge that the majority of workers do not have a private plan and that the majority of people have not contributed to a registered retirement savings plan. That is the problem.

However, we have to look and see where we are with respect to what has been proposed. What has been proposed is the kind of lowest common denominator that the government says it was able to get consensus on with the provinces. It essentially means that we are now going to cover the next small tranche of people. We will see how big it is, we will see how major it is and we will see what the take-up rate is. A very small group of people is going to be covered by what is called the pooled pension plans, which would be run by the private sector.

What we also know is that the fees charged by the private sector in Canada to people who decide to save with the private sector are among the highest fees in the OECD. Why are they so high? Because there is not (a) effective regulation and (b) effective competition. That is why the Liberal Party, and my colleague from York West has been leading this fight very effectively, has proposed that we should grant to the Canada pension plan the opportunity to compete with the private plans for the voluntary approach that is being followed by the government. If we do not have the competition from the public sector to compete with the private sector for these savings, we will continue to see fees being charged that are completely out of line because of the structure of the Canadian financial industry.

This is a serious problem. I know the minister, with whom I have talked about this issue, says that he thinks the problem is solved and that it can be rectified. He does not think it is going to be a big deal. I can only say for the minister that I think our experiences speak long and loud to that. The experience in Australia speaks long and loud to that. We have to recognize that in what is being proposed by the government today there is still a serious problem and a serious inadequacy in dealing with the general challenge facing the people of Canada.

I was asked today by the CBC if I agreed with the Prime Minister that there was a crisis of sustainability in our system. I said, “I suppose if you ask the question, you could ask if there a crisis of sustainability with respect to public broadcasting”. If we listen to the way the Conservatives frame the argument, everything the government has ever done is under a crisis of sustainability, whether it is health care, pensions, education, just name it, and the answer is to get rid of it, shut it down, hand it over to the private sector and let some guy run it, but do not let the government take an interest.

We have to understand that there is a crisis of social justice in our country. There is a crisis of what is fair and right in our country. There is a growing gap between rich and poor in our country, as there is around the world. In fact, this was even the theme of the Davos conference. The theme was the contradiction between a system which produces prosperity and the fact that it does not produce prosperity for everyone and that prosperity is not being shared.

Yes, there is a crisis. The Prime Minister's answer to that crisis is to make the rich richer and make the poor poorer. Conservatives have no problem saying that they will split incomes for middle-class families. They have no problem granting a significant advantage to people by doing that income splitting, but they have a serious problem with respect to the social justice of the people who are making less than $30,000 or $40,000 a year. That is the problem they have and that is where we have to say, yes, everyone wants prosperity, but we want prosperity to be shared. We want the prosperity to be sustainable, but we want that sustainability not to be applied and supplied on a selective basis.

We do not want a woman on provincial welfare waiting for her pension and her application for the guaranteed income supplement to be told, “Sorry, you have to wait for another year”. That is going to cost her $10,000, $12,000, $15,000, $20,000 a year. That is the difference for the person, only that person in the Conservative world will be invisible. Conservatives will not worry about her because her problem is one of sustainability. There is a crisis of credibility here.

When the Prime Minister of Canada stands up during an election debate and says, “I promise you”, looking right into that camera, “I will not cut transfers to the provinces for health care. I will not cut transfers for education and I will not cut transfers for individuals”, meaning seniors, and when he says something else in Switzerland and something else in the law that is coming in March or April, we have a serious problem, and the Liberal Party will be fighting that all the way.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party was talking about a crisis in credibility. I would like to remind the House that coming from that seat, being that he was premier of the socialist New Democratic Party in Ontario, when we had days in his name and he did all kinds of things, he had no credibility as the premier of the province.

Now he is saying this government should ignore what the provinces have to say, what the premiers have to say about the pension fund, which they have with CPP and the plan they are involved with, should we ignore—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Burlington wants to finish his question. The difficulty is there is a number of hon. members who I am sure would want to hear the question, and I am sure the hon. member for Toronto Centre would want to as well, but there is too much noise in the House. I would ask the hon. member for Burlington to finish his question and then we will go to the hon. member for Toronto Centre for his response.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not have to yell because they are quiet over there now.

The point is that during his speech the hon. member talked about credibility. We treat with respect the premiers of the provinces. They have the right to decide for their provinces what they want to do in terms of the pension plan, the CPP and this pooled plan of which they are in support.

Does he want us to ignore the rights and responsibilities of the premiers when he was once a New Democratic premier of Ontario? When he was premier, would he have tolerated the federal government ignoring his wishes?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let the record state that I was the premier of Ontario. The member failed to mention that while I was premier, the Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series, not just once—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Are you taking credit for the Blue Jays?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

He is asking me if I am taking credit for the Blue Jays. He is giving me blame for everything else.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I appreciate hon. members' enthusiasm this afternoon, but we do need order in the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with all the heckling, I am not sure if the leader of the Liberal Party actually wants to hear a question because there is so much noise going on. Maybe those members do or maybe they do not, I am not sure.

This issue around pensions is a crisis that has been developing for a number of years as we have seen more and more seniors fall below the poverty line. Certainly those of us who were around in the days when there was a Liberal majority government, a Liberal minority government and certainly with the new Conservative government, raised this issue, and continue to, of the need to increase the OAS and the GIS and to, in effect, bring about changes to the Canada pension plan. Therefore, I am glad to hear the Liberal leader speak about his opposition to the government's proposal.

Does he agree with me that the proposals we have to basically focus on the Canada pension plan as a sound system that is fully funded and that does reach Canadians across the country is the proper way to go in terms of sound public policy? We have a proposal to increase the Canada pension plan. Would he agree that this would be the proper way to go?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try to score too many points, but the last time we went through a difficult process of negotiations with the provinces and substantially increased the contributions of individuals, it was opposed by the New Democratic Party at the time. We have no problem with saying we need to continue to talk to the provinces about improvements in the Canada pension plan. There is a very legitimate argument that the provinces have not agreed to the changes in the CPP and that we cannot ignore what the provinces are saying and doing.

My difficulty is that we have to see this problem in a much broader context than that in which it is currently being discussed. That context is one in which there are so many seniors and so many workers today who are not covered by any plan, who are not covered by RRSPs and who are not sufficiently covered. If the government is going to go ahead with this pooled plan which has the support of the provinces, at the very least, we should not only increase the GIS and improve the situation for people who are on old age pensions, we should also allow the Canada pension plan to compete effectively with the pooled plans in order to keep the rates down on administration of the pooled plans.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member deserves a serious question. We are not trying to score points or to be cheap like certain members opposite. The matter is clear. At present, there are many seniors and workers who are worried because they do not have a pension plan. They do not know what will happen in 20 or 25 years.

How does the member explain this crisis fabricated by the government? What kind of debate should we have to reassure people and not trigger pointless crises?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a well-used strategy by neo-conservatives in Canada and other parts of the world. They create crises here and there so that the people will say that solutions must be found quickly. That is what has happened. We must have a serious debate. We cannot control every event until 2030 or 2050. We must discuss what we can and what we must do right now.

We have to deal with the problem: companies are no longer able to provide secure pensions for their employees. An employee no longer does the same job for an entire lifetime. People leave their jobs and change jobs often. We have to find other ways. If the provinces are not yet prepared to enhance the public pension funds, that is, the CPP and the QPP, we have to establish real competition for the plans being proposed by the Conservative Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the leader of the Liberal Party, I was very pleased when I first heard of the Prime Minister's remarks in Davos. I saw headlines which read “Prime Minister's Retirement Plan” and I was excited because I thought it meant he was retiring. I am one of the many Canadians who have no pension at all. I have been self-employed all my life. I have put a little bit in RRSPs now and then when I can afford it. I know how hard it is to ask employees to voluntarily set aside money for retirement. The voluntary nature of this pooled plan and the fact that it will be managed by the private sector speak against its benefits.

Does the hon. member think we can expand CPP right now to deal with those people who do not have pensions?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can. The CPP is a joint plan. It is run jointly by the federal government and the provinces. I agree with the hon. member that we have to recognize that the economy of the past, where people went into the workforce after high school or university and thought their jobs were for life and that they had secure pensions, has changed. Thirty years ago, who would have thought that Nortel would be gone, or that companies we relied on and thought would be there would not be there?

I see my colleague from Sudbury looking at me. When I first started working in Ontario in the 1970s there were 18,000 hourly employees at Inco. There were 15,000 at Hilton Works in Hamilton. Those days are gone. We have to recognize the need for change. The public sector needs to step up with a flexible plan. Until we get the provinces onside, the best we can do is to have some sort of competition for the proposed private plan. We have to recognize that we still have a long way to go to get to a better situation for our current workers and future retirees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the work of the member across the way.

The pooled registered pension plan has been agreed upon by all of the provinces and all of the territories. This legislation here in the House would allow the provinces and territories to continue to make that plan better.

Is the member going to allow his party to vote in favour, along with the provinces and territories, for this PRPP?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member is one of the members opposite who has respect for what I have been doing over my political life. As I hear from some others, I am not sure that respect is broadly shared by the other side. I appreciate the comment.

We will be deciding as a caucus what our response will be to the legislation. We do not think this is the great, big, bold step as it has been described by her party. We certainly do not think it is going to provide a resolution to the current challenges facing this generation of workers and the next generation of senior citizens.

[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.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, several years ago, a private company that I used to work for allowed certain employees to withdraw their pension funds and invest them into the stock market or wherever they wanted to. That was a lot like what the Conservative government wants to do today with this PRPP, invest money in the stock market. It was a substantial amount, several hundred thousands of dollars.

The stock market goes up and down and in the employee's case the stock market went down and he lost all of his investment. Today, at the age of 63 or 64, this former employee with a big pension is now working, not because he wants to but because he has to.

My question is for the member for Prince Albert. Why do the Conservatives-Reformists enjoy watching seniors live in poverty?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that type of language does not working necessarily for moving this legislation forward.

It is actually very interesting that the member talks about this because in n the PRPP there can be third party providers and it can be a variety of different agencies. It could be a bank or a credit union. However, when people sit down with that provider, they will have the option of looking at the types of investments they want to put their PRPP in.

Depending on their age, people may be looking at different risk levels as they invest. For example, people who are a little younger may be willing to sustain a little loss and ride through the markets for the longer term. They may want to take on more risk. People who are getting closer to retirement may say that that is their nest egg and will not want to submit it to a lot of risk. They may put it in a portfolio that will actually have very little risk. That portfolio may not be stock market related, it might be government bonds or other things.

The market does what a market does. It goes up and it goes down. We all know that and we have all seen it. We tell our kids that. To try to predict the market is a very dangerous game.

I think people need to work with a good, proper third party person who is an expert in this field and who can help manage that risk so that they can actually get that value out of their money when they go to retire.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about confusion, rhetoric and fluff. The member talked about the plan specifically to the official opposition, which was about raising EI premiums, and went on at length about being the job killer that it is, yet earlier this month premiums did just that, they went up.

I was wondering why the member let that happen under his watch if he truly feels that they are job killers?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member was not listening. I was actually talking about CPP and what would happen if we were to raise CPP, which is that it would actually kill jobs. That is why we did not want to see that.

Again, in looking at what was in my speech and what I said, I was very clear. In talking to groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about raising CPP, they actually said that it would reduce jobs. That is why we did not go that route.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for clarifying exactly what this is about.

I would like to know, from someone from Saskatchewan, what the importance of portability is in this pension plan where people are able to move from one job to another. Is that important to the people of Saskatchewan?

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Prince Albert will have five minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on this question.

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.

Second Reading

[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.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked simultaneously about two contradictory policy objectives. One, she said that we should bolster public pensions. Two, she said that we should raise business taxes. What does one have to do with the other?

The reality is that every public or private pension program in this entire country is deeply invested in the Canadian stock market. For example, Canada Post workers have a pension plan that has billions of dollars invested in banks and oil companies. In fact, the top five holdings of the Canada Post pension fund are all banks, insurance companies or oil companies. As of the spring, that fund had $200 million invested in TD Bank.

The benefits paid by these corporations to these pension funds are done entirely on an after-tax basis. That means every time business taxes are raised, the dividends paid to pension funds go down. Roughly half of the Canada pension plan is invested in equities of this kind. Again, only after-tax profits can be paid to the CPP on those equity holdings.

Why would the member want to raise taxes on the pension holdings of millions of unionized workers and Canadians who are invested in the CPP?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting and in fact I find it absolutely fascinating that the member would have the nerve to talk about the pension plans of postal workers when last June the government sought to gut those pension benefits.

If it is so secure, if this is such a good idea, why did the government take the pension benefits out from under the CUPW workers and legislate them back to work from a lockout, robbing them of their pensions, wages and dignity? I find it fascinating that he would have the nerve to even talk about this.

When we say increase contributions to the CPP, it is gradual and it is over time in terms of incremental and will not be felt.

The member talked about this being bad for business. I would say that a whole generation of impoverished seniors who cannot participate in the economy is likewise bad for business.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday our critic in the Liberal Party, the member for York West, did a wonderful job in terms of explaining our party's position.

To give a bit of a history, the Liberal Party, through prime ministers like King and Laurier, is the one that implemented the pension programs that we have today. I believe the Liberal Party is just as strong today as it ever was in terms of wanting to ensure that these critically important programs are going to be there and will be healthy going into the future.

When we talk about OAS, GIS or CPP, we are very much concerned with respect to recent announcements by the Conservatives and the impact on these important programs. We are going to fight for the integrity of these programs.

I ask the member, if provinces such as Quebec and others are asking for programs such as the one in this bill, which we would suggest needs major changes to make it better legislation, would the NDP have any problems with it going to committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously this legislation should and must go to committee once it has passed second reading.

The only problem is that committees have been so limited. They have been hamstrung by the government. The government consistently refuses committees to sit in public. It is very selective in terms of to whom the government wishes to listen. This creates problems.

I have to confess I do not have a great deal of confidence in the democratic nature of what would happen to this bill in committee. I do not think we would we be heard anymore than we are going to be heard in this House. A closure motion has just been moved by the government. The government quite clearly is capable of undermining just about everything.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech and ask her to explain to Canadians and this House why this bill does not in any way secure our retirement pensions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has none of the attributes that the government insists it has.

It is voluntary for the employer to contribute. The employee may very well decide to make a contribution that the employer decides upon. The employer sets the amount of that contribution and the employer himself or herself may simply refuse to contribute. In addition, it is placed in the stock market. We know that in the last few years seniors have taken a beating in the stock market. Their retirement security has been much diminished. There is no indexing. There is no guarantee. There are management fees.

This is just another group RRSP. It has none of the benefits of the Canada pension plan.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada pension plan, which the hon. member seems to love so much, has $18 billion invested in Canadian equities. That means it holds large, profitable Canadian companies, the same kind of companies on which the NDP would raise taxes.

Will the hon. member explain how the CPP would make up the loss of money it would suffer if it raised taxes on the very businesses the CPP holds in its portfolio to the tune of $18 billion?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are back to tax fairness. If the government had any sense of propriety and tax fairness, it would not have given away $60 billion to the most profitable corporations between 2006 and 2011. It would not be giving an additional $13.5 billion in tax benefits to the same profitable corporations over the next three years, all the while telling Canadians, "Sorry, but you have to pay up. There have to be cuts. We are going to reduce your services. We are going to reduce the departments that provide you with services".

According to the Prime Minister, the government is going to reduce the security of the seniors of the future. We have heard musings about ending or reducing the OAS and GIS. The point is that Canadians across the country who have contributed all of their working lives are counting on those benefits. They have made that benefit possible and now they are being told, "Sorry. Too bad. It's going away".

If the government were really interested in the seniors of the present and the future, it would reform our pension system and make the CPP the centre stone by allowing increases to its benefits to cover the cost of living so that no senior would live in poverty.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Conference Board of Canada, 1.6 million senior citizens live in poverty in Canada. Right now 12 million Canadians do not have any type of pension plan for their retirement.

I ask my colleague, why is it important to have a reliable and safe pension plan for all Canadians, as well as health and social programs? Why is it important to make sure that money is put in the right places?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that seniors be secure in their retirement. They are great contributors to the economy. All of their lives they have contributed to the well-being of Canadians. They absolutely deserve pension security. It makes economic and ethical sense.

A country is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. We will be sorely judged if we do not ensure that our seniors are protected.

[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.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, but we still have the same problem, in that many Canadians cannot afford any kind of voluntary system to which employers do not contribute. There is no requirement within this pooled retirement savings plan to cause employers to contribute. Therefore, employees who are making minimum wage will never be able to contribute to it. I have negotiated a number of times with employers whose employees were down near the bottom of the food chain as it were, and there was no way they could contribute anything extra to any form of pension plan.

What will the government do for those kinds of individuals who have no opportunity and will not gain an opportunity by the introduction of yet another saving scheme?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the pooled registered pension plan system and the pension plan act will fill a very important gap. As I indicated in my remarks, 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. This important government initiative will help to fill that policy gap. It will provide small business owners, small business employees, entrepreneurs and the self-employed with access to a retirement savings vehicle, an option they do not have today.

This is part of our government's overall concern not only for a strong and sustainable retirement income system here in Canada, but a strong and stable economic recovery as well.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the advice and points of view of the hon. member of the government who is proposing this particular piece of legislation.

I want to ask a very specific question. While the member has lauded certain advantages that could be accrued from this investment initiative, are there some downsides?

Since the hon. member has indicated that he has a deep and intimate knowledge of the program his government is proposing, I would ask him if there would be any financial consequence in terms of eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement for an individual who contributes and then draws down his or her pension? Will contributions to this particular investment vehicle when paid out in the form of a pension later in life during a person's pensionable senior years be considered income? Normally, income results in a consequence in the means test for someone's eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement.

Will there be that means test? Will drawing down from that particular pension affect a person's GIS eligibility? If so, does the hon. member actually believe there is an incentive then to contribute?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact I do strongly believe there is significant incentive for small businesses to participate in this new pooled registered pension plan regime. There will be significant incentive for employees of those small businesses to contribute, participate in and encourage their employers to participate in this new option.

Of course, this is part of a suite of income security and retirement plans that we want to make sure is available to Canadians, in addition to group RRSPs, the RRSP vehicle, and the CPP that we are very proud of in this country, as well as the GIS and OAS. It is one more option, in this case for Canadian small business owners and employees, to take advantage of and that is not available to them today.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and represent the constituency of Crowfoot in Alberta and speak to our Conservative government's efforts to help Canadians save for their retirement through the pooled registered pension plan. This is a modern effort to assist Canadians who are self-employed or who work for small firms or businesses. Our intent is to help Canadians who work where there is no company pension plan to have another avenue to invest into a company-style pension plan.

In my riding of Crowfoot, a large number of my constituents are not employed by large corporate firms or businesses or even small companies with a pension plan. I believe this is true in most rural areas of Canada.

In 2010, Canada's finance ministers agreed on a framework for a defined contribution pooled registered pension plan. When I talk about Canada's finance ministers I speak of the provinces and territories coming together with our federal finance minister and recognizing a need for this type of pension plan. It has already been noted that a number of ministers, such as the member for Macleod, and others travelled across the country and heard this from Canadians as well. Unity among the finance ministers is something that can be applauded, but certainly when they recognized the significant need for this type of pension plan. Our Conservative government's finance minister and those ministers from the provinces and territories agreed to work together to come up with a savings vehicle that would help them meet their retirement objectives.

Everyone agrees that this new option to save for retirement should be low-cost, efficiently managed, portable and accessible. We do not want to burden Canadians who are willing to set a little aside every paycheque to save for their retirement. We want the new pooled registered saving system to be well managed. It needs to be able to serve the many needs of Canadian workers using it and still must remain easy to access. We want Canadian workers to take their pooled pension plan from job to job to job.

Over the Christmas break I had the opportunity to be in Japan for eight days. During those eight days, we talked a lot about trade, beef and all those important things for our country to be able to access the Japanese markets. One of the things I learned when I was there was that the average citizen in Japan who begins with a company early out of university or college will stick with that company through his or her lifetime. As a result, there are those in Japan who have worked for the same company for 40 or 50 years. It is our experience here in Canada that many people go from job to job. They go from one opportunity to another opportunity. We want to be certain that this pension plan will allow those Canadians to take it with them and maintain that same plan as they go from one job to another. That is what we are trying to accomplish in the House today.

We are going to construct this system, get it up and running and help hard-working Canadians create a retirement fund for themselves. The pension plan will be called the pooled registered pension plan, or PRPP. PRPP members will pool their pensions through administrators to keep the cost of managing this new system down. By providing this low-cost retirement savings opportunity for employees, as well as the self-employed, PRPPs will play a key role in improving the range of retirement savings options available to Canadians.

I remind the House that this is especially important for the millions of small business owners and their employees who would have access to a private pension plan for the very first time.

Before I came into politics 11 years ago, I owned a farm and was a farmer but I also owned a small business. I guess that would be two small businesses. The farm was a business but I also owned an auction company. Although we had more contract workers than full-time employees throughout the entire year, I was never able to afford to offer such a pension plan to the workers. There were other businesses that had a number of employees and this incentive could never be offered to the employees. They continued to get their wages, maybe excellent ones and sometimes not quite so excellent, but one thing that was always a frustration for many of the workers was that they did not have a pension plan because their companies were too small to provide it. By providing this type of retirement savings opportunity, the PRPP would play a key role in improving the range of retirement savings options available to Canadians.

This could be one of the best things that the federal government could for the farmers and agricultural workers in my riding, and not just the farmers themselves. With this type of plan, many small companies in my riding, such as grain, fertilizer, hardware, the bumper-to-bumper types of businesses, could have a formal pension system. They do not even have a way to save for their retirements now through a company other than their own RRSPs. However, with the PRPPs they will and we will see that they will use this type of pension plan.

Husbands and wives, fathers, sons and grandparents pitch in on the farm and get to the job at hand. They try to get the crops and money in as quickly as they can. When they do this, they sometimes find that there are moneys left over at the end of the year so they may put it into a farm account as they know the farm may need it the next year. This plan would help them to identify something that has been missing for a lot of them, which is that there will be a need in their retirement years to supplement the CPP or whatever they have coming in at that point in time.

We have the option now of using RRSPs. I have heard the comment that we already have that option, as well as the TFSA that we brought forward. Now we have another option. This is not a stand-alone retirement plan. This is another option that we can be involved in and excited about.

There are numerous obstacles to seniors trying to retire in rural Canada. A pooled retirement pension plan would not only help but, in some cases, it would be the single thing that would allow a farmer to retire. Currently, farmers understand that their land is their retirement plan. They pay off their ranches or farms and know that when it comes time to retire they will be able to sell their land. These people may be in a vulnerable position depending on the real estate market when they try to sell. The PRPP is another tool that they could use to hold off on selling their land until market conditions improve. It would provide them with the opportunity to gear down without having to sell off their family farms.

One of the frustrations that all those in agriculture have is that we feel that we have missed a generation of young farmers starting out. I think this would afford many people the ability to dip into those savings without selling off their land and perhaps being able to use their land as an incentive for the next generation, their sons or daughters, to begin farming. This is worthy of debate today and I am excited about the new plans being proposed.

As a businessman, I wish this had been available many years ago. The sooner we can proceed with this the better. We recognize that, although we may be in a global downturn, Canadians can put themselves into a vulnerable position if they are not looking forward to their retirement years. This is just another one of those ways of helping Canadians to be prepared as they retire.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members on that side of the House do not want healthy debate to look at the pitfalls of any legislation they may put forward. We have debate in the House to ensure that, if there are any pitfalls or problematic areas, we can look at fixing those.

This registered pension plan is another tool but, at the end of the day, is it really what we need? Do we not need a pension that would be indexed to inflation with which we would be extremely sure that at the end of the day people would be able to retire?

One of the pitfalls in this bill is that there is no cap on administration fees or costs and merely assumes that lowers costs will emerge through competition in the marketplace.

Would the member tell those people who would look at investing in the pooled registered plan whether they would be at the mercy of the market? A lot of our constituents and Canadians across Canada could lose their money at the end of the day because investing in the market is not a secure thing to do.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will just back up a little bit. The status quo is not good enough. Currently, 60% of people in the workforce in Canada have no pension plan. They have nothing. Would they be at the mercy of the market? Jobs are at the mercy of the market. Everyone, in some respect, is at the mercy of someone or something. This is another one of those things that takes the risk out of the market.

The member is nodding her head, but a job is dependent on being able to sell the product that is being made. Certainly, when we try to diminish risk, we want to be able to set things aside in a secure way. That is why all provinces are stepping up to this and saying that we need to work together on this. In NDP provinces, Liberal provinces and Conservative provinces, finance ministers are working together and saying that we need to build something here that will help the 60% of employees who have nothing.

That is what we are intending to do, working in unity with everyone. Unfortunately, it does not look like we are working with the NDP members but we want them to come along and work with us.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Crowfoot talk about support from the finance ministers across the country. I talked to one of the finance ministers in this country this morning. What the member for Crowfoot did not say was that this option was not the first choice of the majority of finance ministers and their support for this option was conditional on the enhancement to the Canada pension plan or to some other scheme.

My question is for the member for Crowfoot who attempted to leave the impression with the House that there was unanimous and unqualified support from the finance ministers. What other pension reforms will be brought in to meet the consensus, to meet the demands and to win the acceptance of the provincial finance ministers?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the new member understands that when all finance ministers come together, there is always negotiation. They do not just sit down at the table, with everyone initially accepting everything exactly as it is laid out.

Everyone recognizes the need for this type of option. Everyone recognizes the need to work together. That is commitment the government has given to other provincial governments, that we are willing to sit down and work together with them.

Right now we have a very good avenue called the RRSP. It has been there for many years. Back in 1991, 41% of the workforce bought into the idea of RRSPs. We still know how important it is to have the RRSPs, but we recognize that it will not solve all the problems. In 2007 the average of buy-in to RRSPs was about 39% of Canadians, yet we know from the demographic of our country that we have an aging population. We need to be aware and have that right in our face, that we all need to be saving for our future. We need to be saving for those retirement years.

CPP is strong in our country. However, when we see this changing demographic, we need to understand that there will be problems 10 years down the road. There has to be problems 15 years down the road. This government has the foresight to look ahead and say that we need to fix it now before it is completely broken, that we need to put in a remedy to maintain what we have now, so that in 10, 15 years, when we really see the pitch, we are not all left here scratching our heads saying, “would of, could of, should of”.

[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.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what kind of actions could the government take to ensure that Canadians in their retirement would have the necessary income to live a life of dignity?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to understand. Canada's pooled registered pension plan is simply one of many retirement products, including RRSPs, group RRSPs, pension plans and TFSAs, which may be good options for those who are already able to contribute. The new plan, therefore, is a good option for those who already have money to invest in RRSPs. However, the NDP will not support this savings plan because the Conservatives want to offer this system instead of taking concrete measures to protect existing pensions and enhance the retirement security of those who do not have a workplace pension plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that yesterday the government stated its intention to bring in time allocation. Today it moved the motion and then, with its majority government, passed the motion which is not going to allow for a healthy debate inside the House of Commons.

I have found that Canadians are very much concerned about the pension issue, about the fact that the Prime Minister and his government want to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67, and about the government's commitment to the CPP and the guaranteed income supplement.

I wonder if the member might comment on how she feels about the government's decision to force this legislation through without allowing for adequate debate.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard in my hon. colleague's speech reference to registered retirement savings plans as an existing option. Yet, if we look at the history of RRSPs we find that a minority of Canadians participate and by far the largest number of those who have any substantial savings in RRSPs tend to be higher income Canadians.

Does she not agree that expanding the Canada pension plan would be far more likely to provide coverage for those who currently are not covered by any pension plan and who do not contribute to RRSPs?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. I did indeed say that people who have money to invest in RRSPs will have money to invest in the PRPP. But, will people who do not have money to invest in RRSPs have money to invest in a pooled registered pension plan? We need to look at this logically. By improving the QPP and the CPP, we would ensure that workers have a pension plan and a decent standard of living during their retirement.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted a few minutes ago when a colleague of mine across the aisle said that it is time for us to have a fulsome debate. Unfortunately, a motion that was passed this morning does exactly the opposite. We have limited time to discuss something that will have a fundamental impact on Canadians as they look forward to their retirement.

When I look at the title of the bill, the pooled registered pension plans act, I cannot see too many elements in it that look like a pension. It reminds me of the visa system that used to exist. We now have super visas. In many ways, this is more like a super RRSP. I would argue that once someone puts money into this pooled idea, that individual will lose the kind of control that he or she has over investments in a personal RRSP that can be managed through a banking institution.

The government is being reckless. There is nothing in the bill that requires an employer to make any guaranteed contributions. That would be optional. With many small businesses struggling, I cannot see employers making voluntary contributions to a pension plan for their employees. That is a major flaw in this legislation.

There is another major flaw in the bill. We seem to have turned a blind eye to what we have experienced over the last few years. We just need to look south of the border and hear the heart-rending stories of people who lost their pension plans totally as a result of the market going down. People who thought they were about to retire suddenly found themselves having to work longer. Even then, they will not make up the money they lost. Here in Canada, those of us who invested in mutual funds held in RRSPs also watched our savings disappear.

This pooled plan is only a defined contribution plan. Savings can disappear at the whim of the stock market. The situation in Europe and around the world is very volatile. If I had a limited income, would I choose to put my money into this plan? Would I gamble with my hard-earned money and put it into a pooled fund?

This is an open chequebook for banks. There is nothing in this legislation that says a cap will be set on management fees. This would really be a lose-lose situation for the person who puts money into this pooled fund. For those people who could afford to put money aside, they would be worse off putting money into this fund than if they put it into their own RRSPs.

I come from the riding of Newton--North Delta. I have had the privilege over the last month of meeting hundreds of my constituents. Most of them told me that they have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Many of them do not have a pension plan and they do not have money to put into RRSPs.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a study that says that over $500 billion in RRSP contributions was not utilized by Canadians. All of the people who could have had this great tax break did not make use of it. I would argue that some of them were scared because they saw what happened to the market and they saw their RRSPs shrinking. The vast majority of them do not have the wherewithal to put money into this pooled fund.

If the government wants to address the pension issue, this is a critical time for us to be taking a look at old age security. Senior after senior came to my office and I visited them in the seniors' centres. They told me the same story over and over again. They are having to go to food banks. They are hand stitching their torn clothes. They are telling me that the old age security pension is not enough. I actually had an 83-year-old who told me that she applied at Wendy's and three other locations to get a part-time job, but nobody would hire her.

Is this the life of dignity we talk about for our seniors? Is this the reward given to the people who built this country while we enjoy the fruits of their labour?

I have had the privilege of visiting a lot of high schools and elementary schools in my district. I was so touched by the concern of so many students for those living in poverty, especially seniors.

When I spoke at North Delta Secondary School, students asked me, “What do you do? Who comes to see you in your MP office?” I told them the story of three people who had been to see me that morning. I told them of a senior who came to see me who lives in a garage that he rents for $300 a month. He only cooks twice a week because that saves on energy costs. He has to time when he can have his heat on. He only has one outlet in that garage, so he can either have the computer or the lights on. He showed me the state of his clothing. He told me how embarrassing it was for him to have to go to the food bank. This is one of the veterans we purport to treat with such dignity and respect.

When I told that story to the grade 10, 11 and 12 assembly, the vast majority of those young people had tears in their eyes. Over and over again, they said that they did not realize that in Canada our seniors, who are like their grandparents, are having to live in such poverty.

If the Conservative government brought a bill forward that would lift our seniors out of poverty immediately, I and every NDP member would stand up and speak for it. Let us not come up with a bill that does nothing to address the poverty our seniors live in, that puts into jeopardy Canadians' hard-earned money as it lures them with a false pension scheme. That is what it is.

I will read from an editorial in the Calgary Herald, which is located in a very progressive city. It states:

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.

I plead with my colleagues across the aisle not to gamble with our citizens' hard-earned money in a scheme that is so volatile and has no protection. Let us not do that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have a member of the NDP saying that we cannot trust the caprice of the stock market with the savings of the Canadian people who would use it for their retirement. Instead, those members argue that we should increase the CPP. Unfortunately for the NDP, there is an inconvenient fact that $18 billion worth of the CPP's holdings are invested in the Canadian stock market. About half of the entire portfolio is invested in equities both in Canada and around the world. Therefore, when the member disparages the stock market, she is disparaging the CPP.

I should also point out that those Canadian companies owned by the Canada pension plan can only pay returns to the Canada pension plan after tax. When the NDP proposes to raise taxes on Canadian businesses, it would reduce the after-tax payout that those businesses could pay into the CPP and other pension plans that hold them. For example, the CPP owns an oil sands company, Canadian Natural Resources; a bank, the TD Bank; Devon Energy, another oil sands company; Cameco, a uranium company, which the NDP would shut down.

How can the NDP support the CPP when it wants to shut down the industries on that index and raise taxes on the businesses that pay dividends to the Canada pension plan?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, what my colleague fails to comment on is that there is a huge difference between defined contributions and a defined benefits plan.

The CPP, during some of our most volatile periods in the stock market, lost ground by 1%, whereas the stock market outside of the CPP lost ground by 11%. There is a buffer in the CPP that does not exist when money is put into a pooled plan, which is just another RRSP.

Once again, I would urge my colleague to do his homework and study the difference between a defined contribution plan and a defined benefits plan. The CPP is a defined benefits plan that actually is indexed for inflation as well.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments and the passion with which she spoke about people in poverty.

During this debate, we have heard members opposite say that 60% of Canadians have no plan. The day after this bill is passed, what is in it that will make it more affordable for employees or employers to save for their retirement? If we start from the basis that there are so many people without a plan that they cannot afford, what is in the bill that will make it more affordable for employers or employees?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. When we look at it, it is like saying to people who are working two or three jobs, still living on the edges of poverty or in poverty that tomorrow they can go shopping. If they go shopping, they will get a bit of a tax break on it. Folks would need to have money in their hands first to go shopping before they could earn the tax break.

A young woman phoned me this week and said that she had been duped by the government. I asked what she meant. She said that there was a tax credit she could get if her children were registered in sports and things. She said that she had three kids who she had registered in sports, and now she was being told it was a tax credit. She will not get anything because she does not make enough money. However, she does want her children to participate.

In many ways, this is something similar. There is nothing in the bill that improves salaries or incomes to families that are struggling. When there is $500 billion worth of contributions that are not being utilized, and those are tax breaks, that should send a strong message to my colleagues across the way. Let us address poverty for seniors today instead of trying to pretend we are doing something.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made reference to the fact that the provinces are onside, and I am encouraged to hear that. Could she give any kind of clear indication of the commitment she has received from the provinces in terms of implementation? Are we to anticipate that more than half of Canada's provinces would be bringing in provincial legislation over the next 12 months? Does the government have any indication of that whatsoever? I think it would be helpful to know that before the bill actually goes to committee.

It is also important to ask the member why her government has made the decision to limit debate in the House of Commons on this very important issue. Does she not see the valuable role that the House of Commons plays in this? The government has sat for eight-plus months on this idea, brings it to the House and then expects the House to pass it in four days.

Could the member address those two issues?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that with regard to CPP there was not agreement with the provinces and the finance ministers from across the country. However, there was great agreement to move forward with PRPPs. We have had this out for a number of months. We talked about it with people during the election. I actually discussed this at round tables recently when we were looking at the budget. I can say that it was enthusiastically greeted as an additional tool in terms of a retirement savings program.

Again we need to recognize that there are many pillars to our program and this creates another great tool. I know that constituents are looking forward to having this option. it is important to move it forward quickly so the committee has the opportunity to look at the details.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo repeated something that I had heard in previous speeches. I have already asked this question, but I have not yet received an answer, so I will try again.

The member mentioned in her speech that the economies of scale offered by pooled registered pension plans will lower management costs, but I have yet to see proof of that.

Can the member tell me where she got her numbers, given that the largest private sector mutual funds in Canada, which have many, many contributors, still have management costs on the order of 2% to 2.5%, which is much higher than the CPP's management costs at 0.5%? Instead of just telling us that the management costs are expected to be lower, can the member point to any studies clearly showing that such costs for this program will really be lower?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that when we create economies of scale and people pool their retirement programs together, there is an opportunity. This would be a large-scale competitive environment and certainly very different than the RRSP option. It is a great opportunity for a lower fee option.

The other important thing is that many employers have told me that they would actually use this, especially the ones having difficulty with recruitment. Having an opportunity to offer this as a benefit to their employees they see as a real positive and a benefit that will not be a headache for small business owners. I think of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which very solidly supported us moving forward. It is a great additional option for employers and employees.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking over the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The NDP has risen again and again to claim support of CPP. I am looking at the holdings within CPP and I find that the CPP Investment Board has invested the savings of Canadians in the company TransCanada Pipelines. That is the same company that was going to build the Keystone pipeline that the NDP opposes. It is just one more example of how the NDP's attack on business is actually an attack on the CPP, which holds so many of these businesses in its portfolio.

I wonder if the hon. member would be prepared to comment on that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important part on which I need to expand. Not only is it the CPP but it is the many pension plans across this country. Whether it is the teachers' pension plan or the municipal pension plans, they all rely on investments in the banks, oil companies and companies that generate profit and pay dividends. Having a low tax plan actually adds to the profits companies make, the dividends they pay out and the retirement security of all our seniors.

[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.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. It was nice to hear his history and his expertise.

PRPPs are all about pensions, so I would like to talk about the broader issue.

Thomas Klassen is a York University political scientist and a leading Canadian on pension reform. He says that the OAS will not cause the federal budget to crash.

Ed Whitehouse, who researches pension policy for the World Bank and who was asked by Ottawa to study and report on how Canada stacks up, said:

--Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes...there is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pension ages in the foreseeable future.

Does the hon. member think that people should be able to expect the rules under which they made their retirement plans will still be in place when they retire?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the very pertinent question.

The examples she has provided are pertinent and corroborated by the findings of the Chief Actuary of Canada. There is no public pension crisis in Canada: the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are not in jeopardy. In fact, if there is a crisis, it is that old age security, in particular the guaranteed income supplement, does not meet the needs of our seniors who are currently having trouble making ends meet.

My colleague is right to say that there is no crisis. The examples she has provided in this regard are all factual. When we talk about old age pensions, as mentioned by the Prime Minister in Davos, we are talking about an increase equivalent to 1.7% to 2.4% of gross domestic product at the height of the demographic crisis that is looming. Consequently, no change is needed and the Chief Actuary of Canada is in agreement. If we must review these programs, we should do so not as a budget exercise to reduce the deficit built up by this government, but in order to help the most disadvantaged retirees.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his magnificent speech. It was very interesting.

He ended his speech by talking about some of the advantages of the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, and the benefits of investing in such plans. He did not have time to speak further about this. I would like to hear more about this matter. It seems very interesting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to speak to this issue.

The NDP plan is quite simple. It aims to double Canada pension plan benefits with minimal increases to the contributions. We are generally talking about an increase of 0.43% in employer contributions and 0.43% in employee contributions over seven years. A former chief actuary of the Canada pension plan said that from an actuarial point of view, it was a good solution and it could double the benefits with minimum impact on the private sector and employees.

I have heard the arguments that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has made repeatedly. The arguments are quite interesting, but not very logical. We are talking about an increase for the employee of 9 cents an hour a year for seven years. That is not a lot. That amounts to a $3.47 increase a week for seven years. Even for a small business, that is not a lot.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business fails to mention the economic spinoffs of this measure. If Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan benefits were doubled, the money would be reinvested in the economy. The little money the businesses would pay to improve the benefits would be reinvested in those same businesses. There could be economic growth that would strengthen the businesses, including small and medium-sized businesses. In that sense, it is the best solution for the economy and for retirees.

[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.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having 50 people talking about pooled registered retirement savings plans seems strange for that party.

Has the member opposite been listening to the debate and the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who said several times that reducing tax cuts to already profitable corporations will hurt already profitable businesses by reducing their profits? Yet the Minister of Finance has told us that these tax cuts for already profitable corporations were to create jobs. The government cannot have it both ways. The money cannot be used to create jobs and to raise profits. Which one is it? Why are we harping on this?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport here and in my office.

My colleague is absolutely right. We do not understand why the NDP does not understand that pensions, including the CPP, are funded by investments in the marketplace. In fact there is a board that looks after the public service retirement plan and invests in the marketplace.

If we hurt businesses trying to do well in the marketplace by adding to their tax burden, they will be less profitable, less able to contribute, and it will hurt pensioners.

I do not know why those members are afraid to understand that the marketplace will help create value in pensions, which will eventually be returned to those who collect those pensions.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I do not understand about this plan. If a company has excess resources to offer its employees via a pension plan to which it would contribute, why would it not just call in a company like London Life and have it create a group plan?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

That is what this does.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

At 3%.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

It can already be done, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, my second question is about the following.

If an individual has some money to invest for retirement, he or she can go to the bank and buy a mutual fund and the risk in that mutual fund will be spread out over thousands of people in the market. The individual can choose a very low risk mutual fund or a GIC.

I just do not understand why this proposal is so special.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the plan is special for one particular reason, which those members seem to miss. If a business belongs to a pooled registered plan, employees are required to opt out if they do not want to be part of the plan. I do not want to use the word “force“, but it requires them to participate. An employee has to opt out.

First, individuals who have not been thinking about their retirement may not go to a bank and invest in an RRSP. Second, the RRSP system is very expensive. Canada has one of the highest cost RRSP systems of any nation in the world. However, with a large pooled system, the costs can be lowered, which will add to the pension amounts people will be able to collect after they retire. That is why having a pooled system is better than individuals doing it on their own.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for resuming debate, I will let her know that I will need to interrupt her speech at about 2 o'clock for the commencement of members' statements.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When we next resume debate on this matter, the member for Vancouver Centre will have six and a half minutes remaining for her speech and five minutes for questions and comments.

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.

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has six and a half minutes left to conclude her remarks.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, if the government were really interested in securing retirement income and pensions for its citizens, it would do what the Liberal government did when we looked at the Canada pension plan and secured it for 75 years. We did not send it off to some private sector to look after, but decided it was really important. Because that Canada pension plan is secure now, I would want to know why the government would not look at expanding the Canada pension plan to meet the needs of seniors for their retirement. It could look, for instance, at people who are in the non-paid work force and expand it to them, so that instead of their having to depend on OAS only, they would get a CPP pension down the road. This is the kind of creative thinking that the Conservative government does not seem to care about.

It is easy to dump on seniors. It is easy to cut whatever they are hoping for in the next few years, and there are going to be a lot of people in this House who are going to suffer the consequences of this. If the government were really interested in looking at changes that would benefit seniors and, at the same time, in looking for sustainability in the system, what it would do is to look at the evidence. The CPP is a good example and expanding it might be a good way to go. Let us look at the evidence of Australia, which has, for a decade, this same kind of pooled pension with private sector and insurance and financial institutions running it. After 10 years the Australians discovered that the financial institutions were the only ones that benefited from it.

So did the government listen to the evidence? Does it look at evidence when it is talking about the way to help Canadians? Does it listen to experts? We have the economist Don Drummond saying that if we are going to increase the retirement age by two years, it is going to have a severe domino effect on the workplace across all economic sectors and that it should take about 20 years to phase in. However, the Conservative government does not listen to the experts or to evidence. It is manufacturing a crisis when the OECD and the World Bank has said that there is none.

Here is what the government might be able to do to help Canadians save for retirement. Instead of making the already-rich financial and insurance sectors richer, it might want to look at a non-profit way of doing this. We have been told by the OECD that here in Canada we are one of the lowest contributors to a public pension plan. So here is a way that the government could contribute to the public pension plan if it does not like the CPP idea and if it wanted to look at a non-profit way of doing this. It could do it and it would help a lot of people who are trying to put aside money for retirement.

The argument is that people will be asked to voluntarily save in a private sector plan when they are the same people who do not have RRSPs because they do not have the money to put into them. So where would those savings come from? This is a non-starter. It is a no-brainer. It does not make any logical sense at all.

All I have to think is that it is part of the game. The government says it wants to double the rate at which it pays off its deficit, so it is doing it on the backs of the people who it thinks are the least likely to give it a hard time. The government is doing it on the backs of people like veterans, as we have heard earlier, because we know that the veterans who are suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder are not getting any help from the government. We know that the veterans are having a huge problem with being given a lump sum pension, not knowing how long they will live and how long it will last them, which is putting stress on the people who fought for us. We also look at the fact that the government is cutting health care funding without considering whether that is the appropriate thing to do. Is that an investment in productivity or are jails an investment in productivity, unless, of course, building jails is the government's way of looking at a housing and mental health strategy.

However, the problem here is that good fiscal management, if they are talking about deficit reduction, should be looked at from an evidence base and should not be done on the backs of the most vulnerable. One should look at where one cuts and where one invests. An investment means putting money into programs that will reap, down the road, good jobs and economic prosperity to be shared by everyone. This does not do that. We have seen the government make bad choices with its fiscal management of this country, and so this is something we want to talk about.

When the government says there is a crisis, I would point out that OAS costs 2.4% of GDP today. When the number of baby boomers reaches its maximum in 2031, OAS will cost 3.2% of GDP, and that cost will then begin to drop. So tell me where this crisis is? When is it going to occur? It does not seem that it will occur for a long time.

Therefore, as the government looks at ways to become fiscally sensible and prudent, it should look at evidence and try very hard not to cut the things that will in fact assist people and their quality of life. If pensioners do not have strong retirement incomes, they will need more health care. This does not make sense.

It is about logic. It is about making good financial decisions. However, the government shows that it is incapable of doing any of those things.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past 25 years, the OECD data have clearly demonstrated that costs in the field of health care are far lower when the public sector is responsible for service delivery. The same logic applies to the pension benefits our employees receive. Moreover, Canada's public pension systems are well funded, safe and reliable, according to all the experts.

Can my colleague explain how gambling with Canadians’ money in much higher risk schemes than the ones the government offers will reassure Canadian workers and guarantee them a pension?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are helping millions of Canadians save for retirement more easily by introducing the pooled registered pension plan. This new, low cost and accessible option would help more Canadians meet their retirement goals. This is especially important for those working for small businesses and the self-employed.

PRPPs would improve the range of retirement savings options for Canadians by 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 type of pension plan. It would enable more people to benefit from the lower investment management costs that result from membership in a large pooled pension. It would allow accumulated benefits to move with the person from job to job. This new pension plan would help all future seniors.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister a specific example and maybe she could explain how the government is helping those constituents who I and all MPs represent.

Those individuals who have worked for 20-plus years already throughout the manufacturing industry, retail industry and other industries and who are now entering into the 55-plus era of their lives and looking forward to retirement, now hear the government saying that they will not be able to retire and receive benefits at age 65, that they will have to wait an additional two years.

How exactly would those constituents benefit pension-wise from what the government is doing in regard to the CPP or in regard to this particular bill? I am looking specifically at the age category of 55-plus.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the PRPP is designed for employees and employers of small businesses. Employers do not want the legal or administrative burden of offering a pension plan. We are helping small businesses with a red tape reduction plan and this would be easy to administer.

I have a couple of quotes from other people who also think it is a great plan.

In November, Ontario Liberal finance minister, Dwight Duncan, said that the McGuinty government supports, in principle, the federal Conservatives' PRPP proposal.

Stewart Kennedy, president of the Ontario Medical Association, said:

Ontario’s doctors and the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) commend the federal government for introducing legislation that will enable self-employed individuals to establish a pension plan.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce 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.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women and the member for London North Centre, on an excellent speech.

It is very evident from her comments the caring, compassion and hard work that she has been doing for her riding. Could she explain, in the short time we have left, why the PRPP is a good thing for the employer and the employee?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pooling pension savings will offer Canadians greater purchasing power because Canadians can buy in bulk. A third party PRPP administrator would take on most of the responsibility that employers currently take on with their pension plans. This would allow for simple enrolment and management. It would be helping small business owners and employees.

I, myself, was a small business owner and I know that we were always looking for a plan like this. This is a great plan and I hope everyone supports it.

[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.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks were impassioned and thoughtful.

I do not know if the member was here earlier, but the Conservative member for Burlington suggested that this matter go to second reading and that possible changes and recommendations to improve the legislation might be thought of and talked about there.

With that in mind, would the member support the leader of the Liberal Party's suggestion? Yesterday the member for Toronto Centre suggested that the Canada pension plan be allowed to compete with private investors, who would be investing most of this money under the pooled plan, and that the Canada pension plan be allowed to compete for those same funds in order to keep the costs down, which as we know from the Australian experience would be excessively high?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did hear what the member said yesterday, but I do not know why the Canada pension plan should compete with anything else.

The Canada pension plan is a plan on its own. It is a plan where we know the fixed amounts. It should not compete with the program that the government wants to give to financial institutions and private companies that will look after it. We will see what happens to the pension plans of the workers across the country. Companies have no interest in the workers. Companies will take them away when they have a chance to do so. If employers want to take the pension off the collective agreements, taking it away from the workers, and if the workers do not agree with it, they will just close the doors. This is what happened in Quebec City not too long ago. This is also happening in Ontario. Caterpillar wants to do the same thing. It wants to cut wages and pension plans, with no care for the working people.

That is why I believe the Canada pension plan is the way to go. It is the one that belongs to the public. It belongs to all Canadians, the men and women of our country. That is the way we should go about it to guarantee a real pension plan for our men and women who have worked so hard all their lives.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague speak. He is so spirited and really believes in what he says. That much is evident. I would like him to elaborate on alternatives to the Conservatives’ plan and talk about initiatives that would really help Canada's seniors.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there are certainly alternatives that would not adversely affect seniors or push back the qualifying age for old age security to 67. That is not an alternative. It is time-honoured and must not be touched. It is guaranteed.

Moreover, the government should pass legislation to ensure that people working for businesses receive a pension. The time has come to stop stealing workers' pension money and then turning a blind eye to it.

If you ask the government what is happening with private companies, it says that it is a matter for employees and their employers to resolve. That is what we have heard in the last few days from the government. When workers are mistreated, the government turns a blind eye, but things are different when employers are affected. The government supported Air Canada and Canada Post to the bitter end in an effort to crucify workers. Members will excuse me for my choice of words. The government had no qualms about doing this. But when it comes time to protect the welfare of workers, the Conservative government is nowhere to be seen. Legislation is required to protect workers' pensions. That is what is needed and that is what the government should do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Acadie—Bathurst has long been a voice for workers in the House, whether it was employment insurance and now pensions.

Could the member comment on the fact that we have many seniors who are falling further and further behind and are looking more at living in poverty stricken conditions? Could the member comment on how he sees women in particular being able to take advantage of the so-called pension plan that the government is proposing?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if we do not know what the end result will be, how can anyone take advantage of it. That is what I am worried about.

Here is a new plan where companies do not have to invest in it. Employees will invest. It is in the hands of the financial institutions with no guarantee at all of what they will get.

People work hard. They have a view of what they will do when they retire and then all of a sudden they are there. Now when the workers get to their retirement, they could find out there is no pension.

This bill will not protect a pension plan for the working men and women of our country. That is why I say it is wrong. That is why we have to go with a program like the Canada pension plan, then the workers will know what money they will get when they retire.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada’s private pension funds are already suffering from the unfavourable market conditions. The base interest rate is very low, which makes for negligible and even negative returns in the stock market. There are already chinks in the armour of the pension funds in which Canadians voluntarily participate, and Canadians’ pensions are already in peril.

With this kind of system, the additional influx of money would flood an already saturated market and fuel unfettered speculation. In some ways, it would create the perfect storm, which could threaten the future of our retirees.

How can my colleague justify supporting such an ominous plan for the future of our pensions and the economy in general? After all, our retirees play a major role in Canada's economy.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to understand that this would be an additional vehicle in order to support those who are planning their retirement. This would be an additional way that those who are self-employed or who work for companies that do not have pension plans could participate in a pension plan.

We have continued to work with the provinces in terms of the CPP, as all Canadians expect us to do. Right now that plan appears to be viable for the long run. The opposition has suggested that we double the contributions. We all know the impact that would have on the economy and on growth.

This is a very positive development. I cannot see why the opposition would oppose this. There are other things that can be done but this is another positive development for those who are planning their retirement.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Leeds—Grenville for his fine remarks.

What concerns me is that participants would be captive customers. Imagine young people who contribute to this PRPP. They would put their money in for 40 years. It would then convert to annuities and they would be customers for another 20 years. I am worried that fees may be too high and may cut into the investment returns, especially now when returns are so low and are expected to remain low for quite a while. The legislation should say something about regulating fees. A study of the Australian program found that the fees paid to financial institutions were a significant chunk of the investment return.

Would the member support an amendment in committee to regulate the management fees that would be charged to these captive customers?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Kingston and the Islands is the riding next to mine, and I know that the member is working hard for the people in Kingston. His question has to do with ensuring that we have a low-cost plan. That is what this PRPP would be.

There are many different ways that people can save. We all know that there are other vehicles to save for retirement, such as the tax-free savings account. The PRPP, by pooling funds in a pooled registered plan, would allow low costs. People would be able to participate with others and that would cut down on the costs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member's remarks about this being a way to provide security for people. In the RRSP experience over the last couple of years, people who had invested for their retirement saw their savings eroded, sometimes by up to 30% or 40%.

Could the member address the fact that the PRPP would still put people at risk, as they would be investing their hard-earned dollars in something that may or may not provide them with money when they retire?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all are working for a better, more positive economy. That is why this government has been focusing on the economy and jobs. That is what is going to drive up the value of investments. Many people have lost some value in their RRSPs over the last number of years. However, many people have not cashed them out. With this government focusing on a positive economy and moving forward with economic growth and jobs, the value should come back to some of those RRSPs. I know this government is working hard on that.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me wish a happy new year to the hon. member, her family and her constituents.

She raised some very important questions. One of them was the volatility of the stock market. She then talked about the Canada pension plan. The Canada pension plan is administered on the basis of what is happening in the market. When we talk about the volatility of the stock market, we are also looking at how the Canada pension plan would be affected. Of course, it is guaranteed by the federal government, but we cannot keep on guaranteeing something that needs to be fixed.

The Canada pension plan is doing very well. The OAS is what we are talking about, but this government has a very clear policy. There will be no shortchanging of any seniors in this country. As a matter of fact, this government has worked very hard for the seniors.

I want to tell the hon. member that she should go back and look at the record before she came into this House to see how much this government did for seniors to get them out of poverty, through pension income splitting and other initiatives. Perhaps she would then understand. Let me remind her that her party voted against all those measures.

[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—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for questions and comments.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again we see that the Conservatives have learned nothing from the 2008-09 financial collapse and that they are going back to their bad neo-liberal habits. I would like to commend the hon. member for her excellent speech, which painted a very clear picture of the situation and of the different options that are available.

I would like her to talk a little bit more about how the FTQ and the Canadian Labour Congress are calling for improvements to the most effective, most solid, most robust plan—our public plan, the Canada pension plan or Quebec pension plan. I would also like her to tell us why it is dangerous to encourage people, with this bill, to bet all their savings and close their eyes and hope that there will be money left in the fund when they retire. This is gambling; it is not taking care of people.

[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.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about the importance of a secure and dignified retirement for people who have spent and will spend their lives building a better and more prosperous Canada for us all.

We have devoted considerable effort on the retirement security issue in order to get it right. Over the past two years our government's commitment to a stronger retirement income system has taken my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, to communities across this country. He has been a very busy man making sure that Canadian voices are heard.

While travelling across the country, the minister has engaged and challenged opposition parties in constructive dialogue, met with his provincial and territorial counterparts, discussed key considerations with business and labour groups, and received valuable input from some of the most respected experts in the retirement income field. Most important, he has consulted with day-to-day Canadians in all of our communities. We have made significant progress as a result of these efforts. I would like to thank the minister for his incredible effort to reach out to Canadians.

As a result of these meetings and round tables, the pooled registered pension plan, PRPP, was created. The PRPP will mark a significant step forward in advancing our retirement income agenda. It will be a vital improvement to Canada's retirement income system. PRPPs will be a large-scale, broad-based pension arrangement available to employees with or without a participating employer, as well as the self-employed.

As a former self-employed small businessman myself, I know first-hand how difficult it is to save for retirement. When one is running a business and is the head of operations, the president of human resources, the director of purchasing, the supervisor of maintenance, and the marketing expert, sometimes just ensuring the sidewalks are shovelled or all staff are in place is more important and takes priority over thinking of retirement or how to save for it. In small business one less thing to think about is one more chance to give better customer service and one more way to ensure survival in the world of free enterprise.

PRPPs will fill a 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 had no access to large-scale, low cost pension options.

To quote the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, “The legislation introduced...has the potential to benefit an estimated 60% of Canadians who have either no, or insufficient, retirement savings”.

Dan Kelly, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses said that the pooled pension plans are desperately needed because only about 15% of small- or medium-size businesses that the CFIB represents offer some form of retirement savings plans for their employees”.

As members can see, there is great excitement and enthusiasm for this plan.

PRPPs will also complement and support the Government of Canada's over-arching objective of creating and sustaining jobs, leveraging business investment, securing our economic recovery and sustainable private sector driven growth.

Some of the retirement income system proposals that were presented in the consultations the minister had would have significantly raised costs for employers and employees. Introducing them would have been unacceptable during the very tentative economic recovery that we are currently going through.

PRPPs on the other hand will be efficiently managed, privately administered pension arrangements that will provide greater choice to employers and individuals, thereby promoting pension coverage and retirement savings, people saving for their retirement.

This legislation is to put in place the federal requirements supporting the framework for PRPPs. It would improve the range of retirement saving options for Canadians 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 type of pension plan; enabling more people to benefit from the lower investment management costs that result from membership in large pooled pension plans; allowing for the portability of benefits that will facilitate an easy transfer between plans; and ensuring that funds are invested in the best interests of plan members.

In addition, my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, met with the provinces to assist them in making the necessary changes from their side. All provinces are on board with the idea of providing small and medium businesses with pooled registered pension plans. My own provincial finance minister has stated that the McGuinty government supports the federal Conservatives' PRPP proposal. Working together, I am confident we can get these important retirement vehicles up and running for Canadians in a timely manner.

Our record of support for seniors remains strong and has been since our very first budget. One only has to look at the facts. I will give some examples of things that our government has done since 2006, many of which have been mentioned today.

In budget 2011 we announced the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for the most vulnerable seniors. Seniors with little or no income other than the old age security and the GIS received an additional amount through the GIS this year.

Our government increased the age credit twice, with $1,000 in 2006 and another $1,000 in 2009. We doubled the maximum amount eligible for the pension income credit to $2,000. We introduced pension income splitting, something that is really talked about back home. We increased the age limit for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans. Boy we have done a lot. We increased the age credit amount and doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit.

In addition, in budget 2008, we introduced the tax-free savings account. This is particularly beneficial to seniors as it helps them meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax-efficient basis after they can no longer contribute to their RRSPs.

In closing, the formula is nearly perfect. We want to make it work and it will accomplish having Canadians save for their retirement. We want to make it simple and seamless. As I stated before, most small businesses, employees of those businesses, and the self-employed really do want to save for their retirement to put away for their future, but we failed to act.

For example, each Canadian has about $18,000 of unused RRSP room, some because they have not got around to it. A plan like this would help to correct that. Making the option of PRPPs available relieves the already very busy small and medium businesses of the burden of administering a pension plan while creating an easy and simpler process for employees to enrol and save.

As an entrepreneur, like many Canadian small business owners, I am not an expert in all areas of business, admittedly even in some of the areas of my own business. To have the opportunity to use the PRPP to provide a professional plan for retirement savings administered by experts in that field allows me to offer something to my employees that is currently not possible.

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

I will support this legislation. Canadian families will benefit because of this legislation.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

One point stood out: plans, plans and more plans. We already have a public pension plan, as well as RRSPs and registered retirement income funds. We have TFSAs, which some people use as a retirement fund. We have all of these things, and we know that not everyone contributes. And now here we have another plan.

Does my colleague think that ordinary Canadians are soon going to have to take a university-level financial literacy course to figure out what their best option is? Should we not just improve what we already have, simplify things and make the existing tools more accessible?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the PRPP does. It creates large pools of retirement pension ability for businesses that otherwise do not have that expertise.

Many small businesses, like my own and many across Ontario and Canada, employ two, three, five or ten people. The owners of those businesses are hard-working men and women who go to work every day and know their business very well, but do not know something like administering pension plans. The PRPP would give an opportunity for those businesses to use the expertise that is already out there to take advantage of a very large pool of pension funds in order to help themselves and their employees plan for their retirement.

[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?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sat here today listening to the debate. I understand the role of opposition and I understand the negative side that often needs to be taken. However, it reminds me of a cartoon character from my youth who walks around with a little cloud over his head and it is always raining just on him.

I, on the other hand, as he says, do tend to look positively and favourably at things. I like to find what is good and agree with it. His question just reinforces that there is no one right answer. There can be a number of right answers. This is the place where we come to talk and find that out. However, does it always have to be how bad my country is from the other side rather than, “Hey, Joe, that's a great idea. Let's vote for that.”?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would tend to say that, rather than ecstatic, my friend was a little out of puff as he was going through all the things that we have done for seniors.

As a small business owner, talking about the pooled registered pension plan, how does he see this as an advantage to attract and retain employees from the standpoint of the pension option and also the possibility of employers using matching contributions to attract and retain people?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was not enough time during my speech to cover that good point, so I thank my colleague for the question.

Small businesses in this country attract great employees and love to keep them. Sometimes, as I said, with small businesses of maybe only three, four, five or ten people, there is always the worry that after they have trained great employees and can only offer them so much, they will be attracted by some other large corporation out there and they will go off and work for them because the benefit plan may be better or the future pensions may be better. This would offer the opportunity to small and medium businesses across this country to retain employees by offering a pension plan like a big business because they are pooled in with many other small businesses.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Poverty; the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, Auditor General; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to this pension plan. All I am going to say, for my wife specifically, is that this pension plan came 15 years too late. I will explain why it is 15 years too late.

First and foremost, I will say that my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, has been working very hard on this file. I personally know that he went across this country and met his provincial counterparts, business leaders and a vast number of Canadians to see how we could close this gap that has been hanging out there for years and years. He, along with the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, finally came up with a plan that was very well accepted. It is a very sound plan and I will explain why.

I will also say quite clearly for the opposition and, most important, for the NDP members, as I said in my answer previously, that they should go back and look at what this government has done for seniors, as my colleague stated very loudly when listing all of the things that we have done. He, however, neglected to mention, which I would like to put on the record, that a lot of the new members of Parliament should look at their former colleagues' records in opposing any of the measures that we brought forward to help seniors.

My wife was a business woman. She ran a dry cleaning business for 15 years. During that period of time, she worked very hard for her business. In contrast, I was working for the City of Calgary, the local government, and I was covered by a pension plan through the city. I can say that she worked twice as hard as I did. I am not saying that city and municipal workers do not work hard because they do, but she was a business owner and worked extremely hard to make a success of her business. As all business owners know, business is always up and down. Today she does not have a pension plan. She has nothing to show for her 15 years of hard work, except what she could scrounge and put into RRSPs at the end of each year, which was all based on the profit of her business.

In small businesses, RRSPs are always at the end of the year and the money comes out of their profits. What she really needed and does not have even today is anything to show for her retirement. The good thing in this plan is that it says we should look after ourselves first. I have sat down and talked to my wife. Fortunately enough, she can jointly share in my pension plan. However, that is not the issue. In her case, the issue was one safety net, which is my pension. However, what about her own health and her own efforts and sweat to bring that business up? There was no plan.

My colleagues went right across the country and there was recognition by the provincial governments and everybody else that the gap needed to be filled. Today, following the promise that was made in the election campaign, we are fulfilling that promise.

It does not come as a surprise to me that the NDP and the Liberals are opposed. They will always oppose. They have opposed anything this government has done for seniors. However, this plan is, quite clearly, one of the many plans that could be available to Canadians to allow them to save. As I pointed out, small businesses had no other options in the past and now they will have options. This is not the icing on the pension plan. This addresses an issue for small businesses and people who cannot join other pension plans. They would finally have a pension plan in which they can contribute.

Doubts have been raised here about the cost. When one is opposing an issue, one will raise all kinds of questions, such as questions about the cost of running this kind of a plan and questions about the stock market going down and the plan losing money as people have lost money. Everybody seems to forget about the time when the stock market went up and people made money.

The Canada pension plan is sound because it has made sound investment decisions. Investment decisions need to be made to ensure that there is a future for the plan.

This plan is a very simple plan and it is in co-operation with the provinces, the territories and businesses. There would be a large pool of money. It would not be an expensive proposition for people to put their money away for retirement. For small businesses, this is a key element. We all know small business is one of the strongest economic engines of the country, as well as self-employed people.

I do not understand why the opposition would oppose this plan when we are providing an option. It would be another option for people who have not been covered by a pension plan. to join a pension plan. What is wrong with asking them to join a pension plan?

Of course there is the issue about the Canada pension plan. The Canada pension plan requires the co-operation of all finance ministers. It does not require the co-operation of the NDP.

My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, went across the country talking to all the provincial finance ministers and a sound decision was made by them taking into account that this was the best, low cost option available to cover those Canadians who were not covered by a pension plan.

What is wrong with that whole picture? There is nothing wrong with this picture. The Canada pension plan, the OAS, the GIS, RRSPs, income-splitting and TFSAs are all there, so why not have something else for retirement? We all need a retirement income. As the population ages, who will carry the burden?

Yesterday, a report came out of Japan where the population is aging very rapidly and where 40% of the population will need to take care of 60% of the population. There needs to be a sound system of pensions.

We should be proud of the fact that the government has created a sound regulatory system in Canada. We did not have to bail out our banks in the 2008 recession because of our sound fiscal calculations.

We now have another issue and we brought in something that was discussed around the country. It was on the table of all finance ministers who said that this was the right option to go with.

The opposition members should listen to their constituents and their provincial governments or to the Ontario Liberal premier. They could ask them why they are supporting this plan. It is because it is something that was needed and, as I said, it is something my wife would have actually benefited from if she had had this option 15 years ago.

I know other colleagues will be speaking but I am very happy to say that I will be fully supporting this based on my experience.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have said a number of times that we think the plan was full of good intentions, but it has one huge problem: it is tied to the stock market. The past few years have been full of fluctuations, losses and the collapse of markets. So this is very risky.

What will the government say to a woman in my riding of Hochelaga who struggles to put aside some savings and then loses up to 10% of her income? That would be enough to determine whether she can afford groceries from one week to the next.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed stock markets go up and stock markets go down. It all depends on the financial viability up here. If we let an NDP government up here, as there was in Ontario under the interim Liberal leader, it would create uneconomic conditions out there and we all know what would happen to the stock market. If the NDP continued raising payroll taxes, it will create the uneconomic conditions.

There are a lot of investment options in this country. The stock market is one of them. There are high-level stock markets as well as safe stock markets. Stock brokers can advise where there are safe markets.

I will remind the hon. member that the Canada pension plan has an investment board that invests money from the Canada pension pool. The teachers' pension plan is another one that also makes investments. The idea is get management that will invest wisely, and a wise investment will always give a good return. We are not looking at the short term, but the longer term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the minister of state on his excellent questions, but if the government made the necessary effort with the provinces to improve public pension plans, results would definitely be achieved. However, considering this government's record in that regard, clearly, the war continues. This is obvious with securities authorities.

One of the major problems with the government's bill is that it places all of the risk squarely on the shoulders of Canadian workers. A defined contribution plan makes workers and pensioners vulnerable to all kinds of events, both unintentional and deliberate. This has the potential to turn into something very shameful.

I have an excellent question for the minister of state. How can the minister of state and his colleagues possibly promote pension plans that could jeopardize workers' savings, since workers could be held hostage by incompetent individuals or even crooks?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the Canada pension plan has an investment board that is investing money, which the member says is dangerous. Does he mean to say that the Canada pension plan investments are wrong? What about the teachers' pension plan? All pension plans invest in the market to ensure a return. There are different kinds of investments. There are very sound investments, conservative investments, and there are high-risk investments. For the member to say that we will be held hostage is just a criticism.

I would say to the member opposite that this is one of the many plans that have been discussed around the country. He said that we should be talking to the financial experts. Of course we are talking to the financial experts, and we will continue to do so. Should there be another need to do something else when the provinces and the Minister of Finance are looking at other options and determining if they want to use the Canada pension plan, nothing stops them from doing that. However, what is important at this time is that everyone agrees that this low-cost pension plan will fill one of the biggest gaps out there.

[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.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech.

I agree with her on two things: people who work their entire lives are entitled to their dignity; and it would be a real shame and unimaginable for them to have to rely on food banks because there is not enough money to help them.

Can the hon. member tell me what she thinks about the NDP idea to put more money into the public plans in order to increase the minimum allowable amounts for the people most in need? What does she think about improving the public plans as a primary solution to the problem?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are finding ourselves in a situation where we need to do whatever we can to take care of our seniors. Whether that is to look at the public system and what exists today, or whether it is to look at the Liberal supplementary voluntary plan that we have proposed, or whether it is to look at the pooled investment fund, we need to look at a host of opportunities that will, in the end, make it better for our seniors to live with dignity and be able to do the things they need to do after working so hard all of their lives. They should never have to avail themselves of food banks.

If it means more money in the public system, if it means the voluntary supplementary system that we have talked about in the Liberal Party or if it means a combination of things, we need to do something that recognizes that the money seniors invest goes back to the seniors and not to the institutions managing the plans.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the remarks of my colleague were impassioned and thoughtful.

Given the likely fate of this legislation, that it is will pass second reading and wind up at committee because of the majority government's position and for no other reason than that, I would ask the member this. Yesterday the member for Toronto Centre, the leader of the Liberal Party, suggested that the Canada pension plan be allowed to compete for these moneys that may be put into pooled pensions, where they would have more stable and secure returns and far less costs, money that would not find its way into the hands of fund managers, as has been the experience in Australia.

Could my hon. colleague comment on that option?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that what has been suggested by our leader is in fact a very credible recommendation and one that should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, we do not see any indication at all that the government is willing to open its mind to other possibilities. That is the problem we are having.

I hear my colleagues across the way applaud when they hear it is very likely this legislation will pass second reading because they have a majority government. They have 39%. Another 60% of the Canadian population did not vote for them.

It is time they listened to what other Canadians have to say, including what both opposition parties have to say.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member present her views of a changing demographic and a pension plan.

I am wonder how she knows all about the dire circumstances of these things happening when today we heard that the pooling operation would benefit people and, at the end of the day, would be as good as what now exists, if not better.

What crystal ball allowed her to make those statements that seem to be far removed from what we heard from this side of the House?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been listening to the rhetoric that is being put forward by government supporters and by those who they want to believe.

We have heard differently. We have heard so much expert opinion against pooled pension plans that it would make all the sense in the world for us not to go down that path, or at least not to go down that path solely, but look at other options in conjunction with it.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that members opposite, including her, continue to speak about the fact that this is supposed to help millions of Canadians, yet nobody seems to be able to address the experience with RRSPs. I have some numbers. Only 31% of the eligible Canadians contributed to their RRSP last year and unused RRSP room now exceeds $500 billion.

Would the member talk about why she thinks people would suddenly invest in this proposed plan when the RRSP experience has not reflected that?

The second piece of that is we know that people who have invested in RRSPs have taken a significant hit over the last couple of years during the economic downturn. How does she feel Canadians would be served by a plan that would continue to require people to invest this way and face the potential of losing significant amounts of money?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let opposition members know there is a lot of confusion regarding this plan. I will make it very clear once again, as did the members who spoke before me on the Conservative side. This plan would help millions of Canadians save for retirement more easily by introducing pooled registered pension plans. This new, low cost and accessible option would help more Canadians meet their goals.

This is especially important for those working for smaller businesses and the self-employed. The PRPPs are a new kind of defined contribution pension plan that would be available to employers, employees and the self-employed. The PRPPs would improve the range of retirement savings options for Canadians. They would provide an accessible, straightforward and administratively low cost retirement option for employers to offer their employees, allowing individuals who currently may not participate in a pension plan, such as—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I will have to stop the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells there. I am sure there are other members who would like to ask questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question that I asked of the member's colleague a little while ago but did not get an answer.

If we make the assumption that the PRPP is made into law along with the other federal programs, CPP, OAS and GIS, does the member feel that the needs of Canadians with respect to their pensions for the foreseeable future, meaning in the next few decades, will have been entirely addressed or is there more to come?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about this plan in answering the member's question. This is a good plan. We are standing up for Canadian families, businesses, employers, employees and small businesses. They will really benefit from this plan. As I have said before, this is a good plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on my train ride to Ottawa, I was reading a columnist in Les Affaires who was saying that unfortunately, in light of the low interest rates, it is already a nightmare for private pension fund managers to invest future retirees' money and hope for a return.

Between pirates who invest recklessly in speculative markets, imbeciles and white collar criminals, not to mention life's challenges, how does my colleague justify causing our future retirees and our seniors so much stress?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that about eight million low- and middle-income Canadians have no workplace pension plans. This includes nearly 2.7 million self-employed workers, one-third of whom are women. Pooled registered pension plans are geared at small businesses and entrepreneurs who have had no access to affordable pension plans. This is a good plan and he should understand that.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member opposite on his speech. He was very sincere in his delivery. If that speech had been made before Davos, it would have been much less awkward to say the government is concerned about the fate of our country's seniors. I have a question for him about the polls that often suggest that three-quarters of Canadians do not contribute to an RRSP because they are unable to. How is this new program any different?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us take a look at human nature. Whether it is a tax-free savings account or RRSPs, come tax time we all want to maximize our capacity and leave more money in our jeans. However, it is sometimes very difficult to come up with that $500, or $1,000 or $5,000 contribution, whatever it might be within the affordability of those individuals, to try to end up with some money after Revenue Canada has not taken its portion of the share back to the Canadian taxpayer. How do we do it when we do not necessarily have it? Canadians and human nature itself makes it a challenge to come up with a larger portion of money.

With the reverse onus, if we are able to take selective small amounts on a consistent basis with the full co-operation and planning mechanisms of the individuals involved, then it can happen literally, certainly not painlessly, with a heck of a lot less pain. In other words, a dollar a day. A penny saved is a penny earned. All of a sudden, at the end of that time period, it is a significant amount. The pooled registered pension plan would work very favourably to address that element of human nature.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has given me hope. He said of the pooled registered pension plan that it is an imperfect tool, but one tool among many. With the Canada pension plan, the Quebec pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, all of which provide a safety net for Canadians, I wonder if he truly believes that there is something else that we should be doing. I have already asked the question twice, but I will do so again. Is the status quo enough, or are there other things that should be done to ensure that retired Canadians receive an adequate pension?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite might actually be a little surprised with my response, but I totally agree that it is not enough. Quite frankly, it will never be enough. The day that it is enough is the day that we really cease to have a sense of purpose in this place. There must be a manner in which we always seek to improve ourselves. As the great poet Browning wrote, “Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?”

We should always be looking for a way to better society and all of the components of that society, be it our youth, seniors, or our working people. That means that we should be vigilant. We should always be looking for means by which we can improve, whether it is a program adjustment, an evaluation of a program, or quite frankly making a new program.

As Bob Dylan said in his song, and I know I am getting a little rhetorical, “the times they are a-changin'”. Well the times perpetually change. We cannot sit in a straitjacket. I personally believe that this plan is the right plan for this time. It is a component of a solution, but not the total solution. I would encourage all members to view it in that manner.

Collectively, as we move forward and embrace suggestions that will take us incrementally towards a better society, I really think we can fulfill our responsibilities here and be proud of our contributions, regardless of which side of the political fence we find ourselves.

[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.

[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, it seems to me that this plan will provide a secure retirement for the managers of these funds. There are two important criteria involved in ensuring the success of such an undertaking. I listened to all the specialists and heard every analysis imaginable. Such a plan would require immense volume and everyone would have to participate. That is the only way to ensure a stable return in the long term. Once again, this is a voluntary plan. Not all employers will participate. We do not know what will happen with the financial markets in the long term or what type of returns this plan will generate.

[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.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, we hear the same thing every day in the news: the Americans have just announced that they are keeping their interest rates ridiculously low for the next three or four years. The Bank of Canada is saying more or less the same thing. The global economy is stagnating and the crisis in Europe is far from over. This is going to have negative consequences. Betting on financial markets is just about the last thing to do these days.

[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.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on this new savings scheme that the government has decided to allow workers to do with a negative billing option. I thought we did away with that with some of the other folks who used the negative billing option because new workers going into a place of employment gets registered and then they must opt out if they want out.

The idea that somehow this will be a pension at the end of the day for folks, I fail to fathom the logic of that when we know there are literally millions of Canadians across this land who cannot contribute any money to an RRSP, let alone anything else. All of a sudden, this is about to become something magical that will make it happen. It is not magical. It is called, “I don't have enough money to meet my daily needs and get to the end of the month as a worker, let alone invest in what might be my future when I do not even know if I will pay the rent at the end of the month or have to go to a food bank because I am working poor”.

My hon. colleague said that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that if we had a 1% increase in CPP it would eliminate all these jobs. It would be nice to know, and I wonder if the member does know, since the Canadian Federation of Independent Business thinks it is such a great deal, is it committed to match any moneys that employees put into that account on a compulsory basis and allow them to sign up as businesses, just like the member does?

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

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that we would be here trying to support Canadians in their efforts to save and make it easier for them by having a small amount deducted from their salary into a pension plan and have the employer contribute to it.

As the member indicated, the CFIB does say that even a 1% increase in CPP would destroy 220,000 person years of employment. By making this a low cost option so that employers can pool their resources by buying the administrative and legal support to make it possible for average Canadians to access a retirement plan, this side of the House believes strongly that this is a great option.

It is unfortunate that members of the NDP and many of their colleagues on that side are really not in this to support ordinary Canadians. I am really disappointed to hear that kind of response.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives on this issue. The Liberals believe in social programs, such as the CPP, the OAS and the GIS. It was Liberal prime ministers who brought in those programs because we believe in them.

The present government's response to those programs was that it did not have the support of a majority of the provinces and that is reason it could not do anything in that area. It is unfortunate that we did not see stronger leadership from the Prime Minister to try to improve the CPP. That would have been option one. In this option, in order to make the program work we need to have the provinces onside. If the provinces are not onside, more than half the workforce will not even have the opportunity to participate.

I wonder if the minister, who has implied that he has the provinces onside, could tell us which provinces in Canada are currently onside and are committed to passing legislation that would enable all Canadians to benefit if the bill were to pass.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to review what led to where we are today in terms of the development of the PRPPs. A joint federal-provincial working group was established in May 2009 and it undertook this in-depth examination of the retirement income inadequacy in Canada. That research, led by the finance ministers in December 2010, agreed to pursue a framework for a pooled registered pension plan.

As I understand it, the provinces and the finance ministers from the provinces are supportive of this concept, and that point needs to be made very clear. This is not something that we are mandating top-down. This is something the provinces have bought into and is something that small business is buying into. From my experience in my dental practice for 27 years, I wish I could have offered a plan like this to my five or six employees so that at the end of their employment they would have had access to some kind of a retirement pension income.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to this bill, because so many Canadians do not have a pension and they are looking to the government for some kind of leadership. This is a hugely important issue and the government is offering a solution that is going to be excellent for the banks and lousy for Canadians who do not have a pension at this point.

In my riding of Davenport there are hairdressers, taxi drivers, carpenters, bricklayers, web designers, women who clean offices overnight. None of these people have a pension. There is nothing in this scheme to help those people or to protect an investment that these people make in a pension. However, there are going to be some excellent returns for the banks, which is why the banks are falling over themselves with glee over this proposal. Regular workers have been left out of the pension scheme and have been abandoned by the government and by many large employers. The government, in the wake of the shedding of massive amounts of retirement savings, is inviting Canadians to roll the dice again with the market. How is this a plan that Canadians can bank on?

Many members opposite talk about their experience running small businesses, and some of them might be running small businesses as we speak. However, none of them talk about the real issues that face working people in this country who do not have a pension, do not have benefits, have no job security and no way of accessing the kind of supports they need to raise a family, pay the rent and plan for the future. This is a narrow focus, and I would venture to say it is not focused at all.

If the government really thought it had an excellent plan it would not have limited debate on this bill. Canadians really want to talk about pensions. Why would we have to limit debate on this? This is certainly an issue in my riding. On Thursday night I will be leading a public forum on pensions, on this very issue. I would be very happy to invite members opposite to come to the meeting so they can meet people who do not have the resources to risk in the market. In 2008 Canadians lost billions of dollars in pension savings. Why would we invite Canadians to roll the dice once again?

This is the very lack of care and focus on the real issues of Canadians and Canadian families. Increasingly, workers in Canada do not have a pension. Increasingly, workers are left out of our employment insurance scheme. Increasingly, workers do not have access to parental leave. Nothing the government is proposing would be an answer to the pressing issues for many Canadians. It is a failure on many levels.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. He will have five minutes remaining for his comments when this bill returns to the House.

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members’ business as listed on today’s order paper.

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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, this PRPP proposal reminds me of another debate.

Canadians called for years, and are still calling for, for a national childcare program and the Conservatives gave them $100. Now Canadians are asking for secure pensions and Conservatives are giving them a weak and voluntary program so they can roll the dice in the marketplace.

There are already private pension investment vehicles out there, so can somebody explain to me how yet another voluntary risky program is an improvement?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I reject entirely the premise of the hon. member's question.

This is not risky at all. As we said, 60% of Canadians do not have a pension plan of their own, especially those who are self-employed or work in small and medium-sized enterprises. This is an important ability for them to save for their future in the long term and well into their golden years.

This government is a very innovative government in that we provide many tools, vehicles and abilities for our Canadian seniors to benefit and live in dignity in their golden years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the member would try to put himself in a mindset of an individual who has been working 25, 30 years, maybe in a manufacturing industry, or the restaurant or hospitality industries, and who is now in the age range of 55 to 57 years of age. He or she watching the news now sees the Prime Minister and the government talking about increasing CPP up from age 65 to 67.

I am sure the member can appreciate the nervousness those types of individuals would have, when the government of the day is talking about making those types of significant changes. It is all a part of pensions, whether it is this bill or government pensions, something for which we have long advocated.

Those individuals are looking for a very simple answer. We could not get it today during question period. My challenge to this member is this. Is he prepared to say that the Conservative government will not increase the CPP age from 65 to 67? Could he give that simple guarantee that this will not happen?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member spent too much on his laptop. I was talking about pooled registered pension plans.

I can put myself in the mindset of those individuals. Starting off as a young teen I bussed tables, I cleaned toilets, I was a waiter, I built cars and I delivered furniture. I had so many other jobs that put me through school, but they were very difficult jobs in their time. I understand what Canadians go through.

On the pooled registered pension plans, this is another opportunity for Canadians to save. It is never too late to start planning and saving for retirement, with good prudent tools that the government is providing all Canadians.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given the fragile economic times that we currently face, what would an increase in CPP premiums do?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a very difficult time because this is a fragile economy. It also takes two-thirds of the population in order to change that rule. Right now, in very difficult economic times, like those I observed in Europe recently, this would be a burden that we could not fairly place upon Canadians.

[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”.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to opposition members for a number of months now and I continue to be very puzzled. They speak against every industry that would great jobs, create progress and, ultimately, invest in pension plans and create the wealth of the pension plans we have.

On the one hand, the opposition members want to shut down all the pension plans. Then we hear them talking in terms of the Canada pension plan. We have had conversations with the provinces but the opposition members are missing the important detail of needing the agreement of the provinces in order to move forward. Then they are speaking against something that is an option for our businesses, our employees and employers, which is the pooled registered pension plan. It is a great option, another opportunity.

Perhaps the hon. member could put some clarity to the reason that he would vote against an option that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports. Many people say that it is an additional, very important tool for our retirement scheme.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple answer to that question. The message that all Canadians need to understand about this pooled pension plan is that it is a gamble. We put money into a fund that will be invested into the stock market, into mutual funds, and it is a gamble.

Nobody knows what amount of money they will end up with when they are of the age to retire. It is a gamble. This is not the answer to retirement security. It is as simple as that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the federal New Democrats' position in that they oppose unilaterally PRPPs.

If the province of Quebec, the province of Manitoba, which is currently governed by New Democrats, or other provinces were to approach the New Democratic Party and say that some form of PRPPs is a good thing, would the NDP then change its position on this issue and allow the bill to go to committee or even allow PRPPs to come into existence?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the question is a hypothetical one and I will not answer hypothetical questions.

I will say that registered pooled pension plans are a gamble. Canadians who invest in these plans will have no idea, when they are at the age of retirement, what they will end up with. This is not the answer to the retirement problems we have.

The Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan are the answer. We need to support those and make them better. We need to put more money into them so people will have a decent amount to live on when they retire.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. The government often says that it has no more money and asks how, in this case, it could invest more in the Canada pension plan. I know that tax cuts for big business total $2 billion. Could we have invested that money in our Canada pension plan?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a hell of a lot of money that we could take from savings.

We could take tens of millions of dollars in savings from the fighter jets that the Conservative government is trying to purchase. We could take untold millions of dollars from tax breaks to big businesses. We could take it all that and put it into the CPP to ensure that all Canadians have a decent retirement plan and will be able to live their retirement years in dignity. Untold millions could be saved.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has touched on a very important aspect of this bill: not all Canadians can afford to retire. That is what he said word for word. With this bill, the worker contributes to his future retirement, but the employer is not required to do so.

A Canadian who is currently unable to contribute to an RRSP does not qualify for the related tax refund. I am talking about hundreds and thousands of Canadians. How will they manage to come up with the money they need for their retirement by making a mandatory contribution to a fund that does not provide a subsidy, rebate or tax credit, as an RRSP does? I would like the member to tell us that.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the contributions to this plan would be tax deferred. I agree that not everybody may be able to afford to put money toward a PRPP. This is just another tool.

Here is one critical aspect of all registered retirement plans. As I listened to other members speak, I heard some questions from across the way about increasing and doubling the Canada pension plan. That requires a lot of co-operation on behalf of the provinces and that is not there right now. What the provinces have said is that this is the plan they think the people of Canada should be offered. Not only that, the small businesses that employ some of these very people,which the good member is talking about, have told us not to raise their payroll taxes. They are already having a hard time just existing and now the government wants to raise their payroll taxes, which the CPP would o.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the province of Ontario as one of the provinces that support the bill. I am wondering if the member can provide the House with a list of which provinces are onside with the bill. I am sure the member would acknowledge that without the provincial governments bringing in legislation, the bill itself would not apply to the majority of Canadians.

While he is answering that question, I would also ask him to answer the CPP question I asked one of his colleagues. Is he in a position to guarantee that the Conservative government will not increase the CPP eligibility age from 65 to 67?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those are two very important questions.

In answer to the first question, to the best of my knowledge all my notes and research indicate that all provinces in Canada have indicated they would opt in to the PRPP so the citizens of each province would have the ability to get involved in this great retirement tool that would be available to over 60% of Canadians who are not enrolled in a pension plan.

In answer to the second question, as the member knows, the Canada pension plan is a plan to which all working Canadians contribute. To the best of my knowledge, that plan is actuarially sound, at least into the foreseeable future and generally that means 15 to maybe 25 years. Those are the numbers I am hearing. To the extent that anyone can guarantee anything, I would say that if it is actuarially sound, that pension plan will be there for Canadians who pay into the plan.

I heard a member on the other side say that the NDP would ensure that every single Canadian would be entitled to the CPP. I want to inform him that some very close relatives of mine who, because they had larger families, chose to stay home to raise their children and never worked in the workplace are not eligible for CPP. They are eligible for CPP survivor benefits, but because they did not pay into the plan, they are not eligible. New Democrats need to be very careful.

New Democrats also say the PRPP is a risky plan because it is invested in the stock market and other things. Where do they think the CPP is invested? The CPP is invested in the stock market, although in very cautious investments. The NDP members need to listen to some of their questions because the answers lie with them to be more knowledgeable before they ask them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out something that is very obvious. When I think of pensions, I think of the wide spectrum of pension options, whether it is the RRSPs or even to a certain degree people's private investments as they look forward to their retirement years.

There are three fundamental cornerstones of our pension safety net: the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and the Canada pension plan. Those are the cornerstones and I believe the Government of Canada needs to stand by that.

While the Prime Minister was abroad he announced that the government is looking at making some fundamental changes to that program. Then in response to question after question during question period over the last few days the government has been in denial and does not want to share any bad news with the public. Let there be no doubt there is some bad news, but the government is just not bold enough or courageous enough to be transparent on the issue.

Today I asked two different members for a guarantee. The Prime Minister and other ministers were afforded the opportunity earlier today to answer. I asked if the government would guarantee that it would not increase the age from 65 to 67. Not one of them was prepared to give that guarantee.

That is why Canadians should be concerned. We do not know what the intentions of the government are in terms of making the reforms. We have not been privy to the documents in the Prime Minister's office. I suspect that probably the vast majority of the Conservative MPs are not aware of it either.

Let us not be fooled. The Prime Minister does have an agenda, and I do not think it is a healthy agenda for the cornerstones of our pension program.

This is a great issue, because it shows the differences between the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats. We have long advocated the importance of these programs. In fact it was Liberal prime ministers, King, Laurier and Chrétien, who built those programs, who put them into play.

We recognize the value and importance of pensions for our seniors, so that seniors can afford the necessities and hopefully a little bit more than just the necessities here and there. That is why we believe very passionately that this is something we are going to fight for.

We believe that we will uncover the truth. We will find out the true intentions of the government. We will continue to press the government on the issue indefinitely, up to the next election if need be. We will circulate petitions and cards. We want Canadians to know that this is something the government is looking at. Canadians want leadership. We are prepared to provide leadership in the fight for this issue, because we believe in this issue. I asked the New Democrats what their position is on this bill.

The pooled registered pension plans do have a role, but there are some fundamental problems with this bill. There are some serious issues. We need to create an opportunity where there is more competition, maybe involve the CPP planners or managers to a certain degree, and have access so there is more competition. Management fees under the PRPPs will be of concern. Whether it is in the House of Commons or in the different legislatures across Canada, it will be of concern.

The Liberals have an open mind toward it. We recognize that many of the provinces, although the government says it is all of the provinces, are in agreement. I hope the government is being honest about that. We will find out over the next year or two. We will wait to see which provinces bring in the necessary legislation to give Canadians the opportunity to participate in this program, if in fact they are in a position to participate.

Let there be no doubt that we are going to continue to fight for those fundamental cornerstones, the CPP, GIS and OAS. However, we are not going to put on blinders and ignore other pension issues that are also important to Canadians.

We want to see stronger leadership on this issue. The Prime Minister should meet with the first ministers on this issue.

Member after member stands and says that we cannot do anything about the CPP because constitutionally we are required to get two-thirds of the provinces onside and they would not agree to it. I wonder to what degree the Prime Minister has really tried to push for that.

We know that before he was the leader of the Conservative Party and a member of the Reform Party, he advocated that we might not even need the CPP, that it could be privatized. I am not convinced that the Prime Minister demonstrated any leadership whatsoever in terms of advocating for a healthier CPP.

We appreciate that the provinces have a role to play. However, the provinces have to recognize the reality of what the population as a whole wants. The pension issue is very important. The Prime Minister made it that much more important in terms of some of the announcements the Conservatives have made over the last number of days. That is why there is an obligation on the government to come clean in terms of its actual position. Many, including myself, believe that its intentions are to belittle the importance of those three very important fundamental cornerstones to future pensions.

After making an enquiry I was told that in the province of Manitoba over 7,000 seniors 65 years of age and older have to use a food bank on occasion every month. I suspect many of those are from the riding I represent. However, whether I represent them or whether they live in a different riding, it is important that we stand up for seniors who are having a difficult time in trying to make ends meet.

More and more, pharmaceutical costs have been shooting through the roof. Far too many seniors are having to decide between buying the prescribed medication they are supposed to be taking or buying food, which is absolutely essential. Many members might be surprised at the number of seniors who are having to make that decision. I would have expected the government to act on this issue in terms of looking at ways in which to provide more funding for our seniors who are in need.

The government will say that the Liberals did not support the last budget, so the Liberals did not support the last increase to the guaranteed income supplement. Nothing could be further from the truth. We support the increase. In fact, we believe there should have been a larger increase going to our seniors under the guaranteed income supplement because we recognize the hardships they are having to endure.

We want to see a government that believes in protecting seniors' interests, those pension issues that are before us. This will be an issue that I will continue to push on and ask the government to do the right thing in addressing those basic three programs that I have emphasized, the OAS, the GIS, and the CPP. These are very important national social programs that Canadians have grown to respect. Canadians acknowledge how critically important they are to the future of our country.

Sixty-five years of age is what we should be keeping the OAS at. If we can afford some of the expenditures the government is making, surely to goodness the government can come up with a little more money to support the GIS in the upcoming budget, and maybe make our seniors a little better off so they can better afford to get food and not have to make a decision between it and prescription drugs.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my friend across the way. One of the things he said was that they would “continue to fight for” things.

Will he continue to fight for an increase in the age limit for seniors before they pay income tax? Will he be ready to fight for and support anyone who raises the guaranteed income supplement, the largest increase in the last 20 years? Will he stand up for senior Canadians who will be able to split their pension? Will he stand up for the fact that this government has taken well over 100,000 seniors off the income tax roll? Over a million Canadians no longer pay any federal income tax. We did more than that: For those who do not pay federal income tax, we reduced the only tax they do pay, the GST, by 2%. Therefore, not only did we remove them from the federal tax rolls but we even reduced the consumption tax they pay.

He sits there and looks at the Speaker and looks into the camera and says his party will “fight for” things, yet they voted against all of those things. He just said they wanted an increase in the next budget for the guaranteed income supplement. We just raised the guaranteed income supplement the most it has been raised in the last two decades, and they voted against it. Surely the member must remember there is a difference between action and rhetoric.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is right: there is a difference between action and rhetoric. When a government presents a bill that spends billions and billions of tax dollars, some of that money is actually being spent well. It is a question of priorities.

This is where we really are out of tune with the Conservatives. The Conservatives say, “We need more politicians”, and they are going to spend tens of millions of more dollars on more politicians inside the House of Commons. That is their priority. The NDP members happen to agree with that one. We disagree with them. However, that is a priority for them. If we supported the budget, using the logic the member is using, that would mean we would be supporting the billions of dollars toward the F-35.

We cannot have it both ways. The Liberal party is telling the House what we support in terms of social programming and pensions for our seniors, stating that we support the OAS, the GIS, the CPP. We want to see the GIS increased so that we can take more seniors out of poverty. That is what is important to Canadians. This is not just something that Liberals sitting in the House want, but Canadians as a whole, from coast to coast. They want fewer seniors living in poverty.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am sure that other hon. members may wish to put a question to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

The hon. member for St. John's East.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Liberals want to reduce, for example, the number of seats in the House of Commons for Newfoundland and Labrador, but the debate today is about the pooled registered pension plan.

I want to ask the member what makes the pooled registered pension plan different from the RRSPs we currently have? I ask him because group RRSPs are an available option that has not really been used. In fact, the take-up rate of RRSPs by people eligible for them is around 24%, and the amount they contribute is 6% of what they are allowed. How are PRPPs going to be different? The PRPP seems to have been put forth as a great panacea, yet it does not really solve any of the problems of people who, even now, cannot contribute to an RRSP. We obviously need a plan where there is a contribution from the employer and employee to actually make it work and provide a decent retirement income.

Would he care to comment on that? Why would we bother with this if RRSPs are already there?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

One of the reasons we have to bother with it is that we have to recognize that, yes, there are some mistakes within the legislation that if amended would make it even better. We also need to acknowledge that we live in a federal state with provinces that have also requested it. When members of the New Democratic Party stand up and speak about the bill, they have already made their determination about it, even if the people of Quebec say, yes, they want to have this option.

That is really what this is: it is an option. How we define that option so that people would be able to maximize the benefit of this option is something that we have some difficulty with in terms of the way in which this government is approaching it, especially when we have provinces across Canada that appear to want to see the legislation.

The best I can tell is that the New Democratic Party is alone inside the House, not necessarily in other provinces. The NDP in provincial jurisdictions seem to be timidly supporting the principle of it.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Etobicoke North, the Environment; and the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Service Canada.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, over 60% of Canadians have no workplace pension. That is because many employers do not want the legal or administrative burden of offering them. These costs can be prohibitively high and the benefits inordinately low for a small business with a limited budget and only five or ten employees.

Let us consider or create an example. Joe and Martha Stephens are a married couple without a pension plan. He owns a corner store and she works as a restaurant manager. Neither the restaurant nor the corner store has enough employees to justify the cost of running a pension plan for its people. It is true that RRSPs help as an option, but some people find them too intimidating or time consuming to establish. On average, each Canadian has about $18,000 in unused RRSP room.

What if thousands of Canadian workers from these kinds of businesses could pool their benefits together to achieve the bulk-buy savings that come with a pooled plan? That would spread the risks and costs among a larger number of people. That is exactly what the pooled registered pension plan offers. Canadians would be able to buy in bulk and get better purchasing power. All of a sudden, the Joes and Marthas and millions of people like them who are on their own could join forces and secure affordable pensions. The design of these plans will be straightforward with simple enrolment and management. A third-party administrator, normally a bank, insurance company or existing pension plan, would be responsible for the administrative and legal duties.

What a relief for a small business owner. These plans would also be subject to the standard pension rules that exist for plans across the sector right now, unlike group RRSPs, which have no similar standard of regulatory practice.

The opposition parties oppose this idea because it is a private sector solution. They believe that government should run and operate everything. They particularly oppose the fact that these pooled pension plans would invest in the stock market. What they fail to realize is that the entire pension system, public and private, relies heavily on the stock market already. Consider the Canada pension plan, 49.6% of which is invested in equities or stocks. These stocks can only pay income into the CPP out of their after-tax profits. Liberals and the NDP want to raise taxes on the very businesses that the CPP invests in. The result would be increased pressures on our public pension system.

For example, the CPP owns $59 million in Bank of Nova Scotia shares. When that company profits, so does the CPP and, ultimately, so do the millions of Canadians who rely upon it. The CPP also owns $13 million in TransCanada shares. Does TransCanada ring bells in this place? I ask because TransCanada is the same company that is attempting to build the Keystone pipeline, which, admittedly, would profit that company but would, by definition, also profit its owners of whom $13 million is represented by the Canada pension plan and the 17 million Canadians who are invested in that plan. The opposition, which opposes this pipeline, is attacking a company that is literally paying its profits into the CPP fund.

The opposition parties are also attacking workplace pension plans, even though they do not realize they are doing so. Take the Canada Post pension plan. During the debate over the postal strike, members of the New Democratic Party simultaneously demanded that the existing pension plan for mail workers be bolstered and that business taxes go up. These concurrent demands are painfully ironic.

The top five holdings of the Canada Post pension plan are the Toronto Dominion Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor and Canadian Natural Resources. The banks and oil companies, the twin villains in every left-wing storyline, paid dividends into the pension fund of these unionized workers. These dividends come exclusively from after-tax profits. That means that if we tax these profits more, pensioners will ultimately get less.

On January 1, 2012 the final instalment of our business tax cuts took effect, dropping the rate from 15% to 22%. That is a one-third reduction. By contrast, the NDP election platform proposed increasing the business tax rate from 15% to 19.5%, a one-third hike. That would be a $9 billion tax increase on job creators, the companies in which pension funds are invested. Liberals propose a similar hike on these job creators. That would drastically reduce the after-tax earnings left to the pension funds that own these shares.

We should celebrate the fact that workers are invested in capital markets. It is good for everyone involved. People grow their retirement savings while their money provides investment capital to companies that create jobs.

However, the benefit is not just economic but also societal. Politicians always like to divide people along socio-economic class lines, the workers versus capitalists. However, the two are increasingly becoming one and the same due to direct or indirect share ownership by workers. The old utopian socialist dream was for workers to become owners of the means of production through a process of forced collectivization, nationalization and expropriation.

In an ironic twist of fate, it was the capitalistic stock market and not the state that made workers into business owners. Pooled pension plans, tax free savings accounts, lower taxes on businesses and workers give Canadians ownership over their own destinies. Herein lies the sharp difference between this side of the House and that side. Members on that side want to turn workers against business owners; we want to turn workers into business owners. That is the hopeful, uplifting message that our government offers Canadians who aspire to a brighter, more secure and prosperous future.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my colleague's speech.

Once again he has reiterated the Conservative Party's second story about tax cuts for businesses, that the tax cuts for businesses have resulted in greater profits.

His colleague, the Minister of Finance, would suggest that is not the case, that the tax cuts for businesses were to create jobs. One cannot suck and blow at the same time: Either there are profits to be made in otherwise profitable corporations by lowering their tax burden, or they will create jobs. We cannot do both. Which is it?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact the hon. member is wrong. That is the core difference between us and them. We believe that the amount of wealth in a society can actually grow, and that by investment there is more to go around for everyone. They believe there is a finite, static amount of wealth in existence and that the only way to give more to one is by taking away from another, that the only way for one person to move up the ladder is by pulling someone else down.

The answer is that when we cut business taxes, we increase the return on investment for the investors, and that means they invest more because it is a more lucrative proposition.

Who are these investors? They are pension funds. They are people who are retiring and using mutual funds as income for their families, their kids and grandkids. How does this create jobs? It allows more capital so that businesses can hire, purchase new equipment and create more economic activity, all of which put people to work.

The answer is that when we lower business taxes, yes, we increase the return on investment to the pension funds, the mutual funds and the savings that our seniors have invested, and in the process we make it possible for businesses to grow, hire more people and expand opportunity.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I now know why Newt Gingrich likes to give a shout out to Canada. After hearing something like that, he must really like us now.

The member talked about the beauty of having the private sector involved in all of our pensions, most notably, the one which I am particularly fond of, the CPP. The Canada pension plan and its activities with the investment board does this country a good service. The private sector, no doubt, plays a major role, far more major than we even know. The member says that we should celebrate pensions involved in the private sector.

Since the member has been here six years, how come his pension is not involved in the private sector?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I personally do not run the pension system around here but I am interested to learn that the hon. member has all of a sudden taken an interest in it. I have never once heard Liberals say that they wanted to cut their own entitlements. In fact, entitlement has been the driving force behind the Liberal Party for approximately a generation. It is the uniting principle of the Liberal Party.

Today we are talking about the pensions of Canadians and the fact that we need a strong, robust business sector in order, not only to employ people today but to pay out the dividends that form the income of our pension plans. That requires a strong, free enterprise economy, and that is what we are providing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to perhaps amend his remarks. I think he mistakenly referred to a postal strike. I think he meant the postal lockout.

My question is on other urgent pension matters that I do not know that the government is dealing with. I wish we were able to look at pension issues and not be merely focused on this quite inadequate private sector pooled registered pension plan. Instead, I wish we were able to look at the urgent issue that pensions that were not protected in the private sector be protected as secured creditors in bankruptcy, such that the workers at Nortel would not be wiped out by what happened to them. This is a continual problem in our economy.

Why are we not acting to protect the pensions of people under the superannuation scheme, of retired RCMP, military and civil servants who lose pension benefits to their surviving spouse if they remarry after age 60.

Those are urgent issues and I do not see the government addressing them.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised good questions.

I would simply add that in order for any of our pensions, public or private, to function, we need a strong business sector generating the wealth to pay into those funds.

We have created a vibrant business sector by signing nine new free trade agreements, by lowering business taxes by one-third, by cutting red tape and by moving forward with a budget that is coming this spring that will reduce the cost and the burden of government so that we can unleash the strength of free enterprise so that people can aspire to provide for themselves, their families and, eventually, for their retirements.

[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.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I get to do so on regular occasions because we share standing committee duties together.

My question is with regard to the gap between the rich and poor. We have heard countless times in the House, and Statistics Canada releases regular reports, about how the gap between the rich and the poor is widening and how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That is mostly due to things like market investments and the way the tax system is currently structured.

I wonder if my colleague could tell me how this particular bill might contribute to either widening or reducing the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that, in our society, there are ordinary folks who do not even have the money to contribute to an RRSP each year. They are unable to put money into a TFSA, as the government suggests, to save money. These people are earning salaries of $28,000, $30,000 or $35,000 a year. Some of them have spouses and some have children.

These salaries are below or close to middle-class wages. These people really do not have money to invest. The gap between the rich and poor continues to grow. They cannot even make ends meet, let alone get caught up. I do not understand how the government can think that people will be able to save and invest in a pension plan if the employer and the public purse do not contribute to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have tied their pension reform agendas to reforming MP pensions. Perhaps it is because I am long way from qualifying for a pension here, but I think MP pensions should be tied to the average pension of Canadians.

Why have Conservatives moved to make MPs decide on their pensions in camera behind closed doors? Many Canadians would see this as being like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Why will the Conservatives not let an independent panel decide what should happen with our MP pensions?

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

Mr. Speaker, we were all surprised to hear that our pension funds are protected with an interest rate of approximately 10%. In any case, the new members are probably not thinking about pension funds yet. They still have some way to go. Canadians should be able to invest in funds that will allow them to earn a profit and they should be able to have a pension that will allow them to buy food and pay their rent when they are retired.

[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.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the point that most Canadians had upward of $18,000 in unused RRSP limits.

My experience with RRSPs, and those of my friends and people around my age, is that we are not using up all that space because we do not have the money to invest in the first place because there are no good paying jobs or jobs that come with benefits and defined pensions.

How does the member think that this new pooled pension plan will somehow solve that problem if Canadians do not have enough money to invest in their pensions in the first place?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is actually making our argument for us. People do not have enough money, ergo they will need a secure pension when they retire.

Right now Canada has the strongest economy in the G8. However, our economic recovery is fragile and can be affected by circumstances beyond our control. Therefore, what we have decided to do as a government is introduce at this point in time a pooled registered retirement pension plan so when Canadians reach the age of retirement and are able to withdraw from their work, they will have a secure income in which to do so and have the confidence to carry on a good quality of life.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a question that I presented this afternoon during question period. I did not get an answer from the minister, so I will ask it of that member.

I had raised the question of whether there would be any changes in policy or legislation that were being contemplated by the government regarding the Old Age Security Act. I raised it from the premise that previous changes had been made to the policy, which affected current beneficiaries of the old age security benefits under the guaranteed income supplement in 2010.

The government has said that there will be no changes that affect current pensioners. I could not get an answer from the minister though when I asked if the government was contemplating any changes in either policy or legislation to the OAS Act. Is the answer yes or no?

[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.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a number of small businesses have the option of signing their employees on to group RRSPs, and many do. What would the advantage be of a company signing on with the pooled registered pension plan as opposed to going the group RRSP route?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very insightful. I would suggest that the advantage of going the PRPP route as opposed to being able to fill out one's full complement of RRSP or group RRSP is like comparing apples and oranges.

The PRPP represents a payment at time of retirement, without having to contribute as much income as one would into an RRSP. It is much more cost-effective and would also cover those people who just do not have enough discretionary income either at the employer level or employee level to contribute to an RRSP or a group RRSP. Therefore, the PRPP is certainly the way to go and much more cost-effective for everyone concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to stand and represent the people of Timmins--James Bay.

The voices of the people of Timmins—James Bay are once again being shut down by a government that is afraid to deal with the pension crisis that it is creating. The government has shut down debate on an issue that is fundamental to the future of Canadians, their pensions. The government shows amazing contempt for the democratic process.

However, I think the government really wants to get the pension issue off the table as fast as possible. When people look at this so-called pension plan, the average Canadian knows this is a scam and it is not going to fly.

Pensions were the first thing I learned about in politics. My granny Angus lived in a little room upstairs in our townhouse. She was a mining widow. Every month when that Canada pension cheque came in, she would come downstairs, hold up that cheque and say, “The NDP fought for this.” I used to think my grandmother was a little crazy. I would say, “Nanny, there has always been a pension.” She would say, “No, there wasn't always a pension. People fought for that pension.”

My grandfather, Charlie Angus, worked 38 years at the largest gold mine in North America. Those men had no pensions because it was expected that they were going to die young. They were going to die from silicosis, emphysema or heart failure in their early forties. That is what happened to all the immigrant miners. They were going die in a run of muck or a rock blast. They did not have to worry about pensions. However, if they lived long enough, they were stuck. Charlie Angus went to work and died on the shop floor at the Hollinger mine when he was 68 years old. The miners worked until they died. That was the way it was when I was born.

Sixty-eight years old. I was thinking about what a different world that was, when my grandfather had to be at the mine at 68. Just a few months ago, at a Tim Hortons in Timmins, a guy came up to me and said, “I can't live on my CPP. I worked my whole life as a contract miner. I'm going back underground.” I said, “How old are you, sir?” He said, “I'm 68 years old.”

The pension crisis that exists in our country is not this fabricated crisis that the Prime Minister told the millionaires about in Davos. The pension crisis in this country is that we have a system that works but that citizens are not able to pay enough into it. The CPP is an excellent, well funded system. It is the simplest and the lowest cost. It guarantees people the chance to retire in dignity. So, in my riding 68-year-olds would not have to go back to work.

When the Prime Minister spoke to millionaires in Switzerland, the message he delivered to them was that our senior citizens are living too high off the hog. He did not have the guts to come back to tell senior citizens in this country what he was going to do.

We have been trying to get a straight answer from this attack on old age security. Old age security represents the poorest people. It delivers the most basic pension. Pension plans are built over 30 years. Over the last 30 years, we have had maybe 15 years of Liberal and 15 years of Conservative governments. Did they not see the demographic crisis that now, suddenly, the Prime Minister has become aware of? Did they not see that these senior citizens were getting too much? We are trying to get an answer as to how this could be.

The human resources minister said today that we have to worry about future invasions of our country. Is this conspiracy stuff? It has been 150 years since the Fenians came over the border at Buffalo and fired off a few muskets. Are the Conservatives saying that our senior citizens should not be getting old age security because the human resources minister is worried about future invasions?

The Prime Minister has floated the trial balloon and has now gone to ground. He sent out my favourite conspiracy theorist, the Ron Paul guy, the parliamentary secretary, who told us today that one of the companies that is behind the Keystone development has money in pensions. If we increase pensions it is going to cost that company money; he considers this another attack by the NDP on the Keystone pipeline. I was thinking, is this crackpot bizarre republicanism or is this just the normal course for the Conservatives?

Is this man anywhere close to reality? I do not think he has ever had a real job. He has always lived within this Conservative attack bubble. However, my people back home do have real jobs.

I hear Conservative backbenchers saying that the problem with RRSPs is that people have unused capacity. I was a contract worker. I raised three children on various jobs. I was never able to save enough money for RRSPs so my capacity was “taken up”. When people go from contract to contract, which goes for most in my generation, in between the contracts they use up their savings. That is the reality. I am now 50 years old. I am almost there, but people can see from my grey hair that I am older than a lot of the demographic. In my generation, people have not paid into a pension plan. They have been trying to save in RRSPs.

Now people are being told the government is going to change the name of the RRSP and the best thing is, the employer might contribute. It is not that the employer will contribute. The government will just change the name. If RRSPs worked, it would be sufficient, but they have not worked. I am sure my colleagues have friends with private sector savings who, like many of my friends, lost 40% of the value of those savings in 2008 when the recession hit. We are possibly going into years of negative real growth. Yet we are being told to tell people to put more money into the RRSP system and that the system will deal with it.

Meanwhile, we have a system that works. We have the CPP. When talking to pension experts, the one thing they say is that the CPP works and we should allow workers to contribute more to the CPP. That is a reasonable solution. However, that is a public solution. The government does not believe in the things that have made this country work. We put our resources together and created a public pension plan that is sustainable and doable. CPP has protected Canadians for 40 years. Pension experts say that is where we need to go, but that is where the government does not want to go.

What have the Conservatives done? They have come up with this glorified RRSP program, but they do not want to debate it. They do not want Canadians to hear about it. It is our job as members of Parliament to stand in the House and represent the concerns of our people. The Conservatives do not seem to like it; it might bother the attack message crew around the Prime Minister. However, that is the parliamentary Westminster tradition. Canadians can hear the debates and judge whether they make sense. Yet forcing through a fundamental change on pensions within 24 hours of introducing this bill would be denying Canadians a perspective on a bill that is going to affect their future.

I would say that the Conservatives know this plan does not hold water. They know Canadians are not stupid and are concerned about their future. When I go back to Timmins—James Bay, I hear more and more about financial insecurity. People do not have what they need. These are people who have done it right, but despite having been careful their whole lives, it is just not there for them. We have a chance to fix this for the next generation, but instead we are seeing a destabilization of old age security. We are seeing an attempt to create this supposed private solution where nobody really has to contribute, nobody really has to participate. It is there to help people add to their savings.

CPP has lots of unused capacity, if we are going to use Conservative terms. In fact, if we compare with the United States, the senior benefit there is $30,000 per year while the maximum in Canada is $12,000. People cannot live on $12,000 a year. They cannot pay their rent on $12,000 a year. Even if we add old age security to that, which is a maximum of less than $7,000 a year, it is still far below. We already have a system that works. It is low cost. It does not create any hassle for the employers because the contribution is already being deducted.

If we allow working people and the self-employed, the contract workers, to make contributions to the CPP, a publicly pooled pension plan, there will be the level of security that a previous generation of Parliament sought for this generation. It will continue to the next generation. However, if we continue to shut down the ability of Parliament to do its work, we are going to get shoddy work. That is what we are seeing from the government.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member makes an excellent point. The new reality of working is that people move from job to job. The days of private pensions have been pretty much deep-sixed. However, people can bring CPP contributions with them.

I do not see anything in this bill that is different from RRSPs except the claim that employers can contribute. If employers really wanted workers to stay, they would say, “Hey, come work for me and I will contribute to your RRSP.” That is not going to happen.

We have a system that works, that is mobile and that people can take with them. Then we have this chimera that is being held out there. The government is trying to push it through as quickly as possible because my dear colleagues in the Conservative Party could not go home and sell this to their people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in order for this bill to be effective provinces have to get behind it, accept it and pass provincial legislation. It would appear that a good number of the provinces are on side and want to see this bill passed.

My question for the member is, if provinces like Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia are showing support for this bill, is there any obligation whatsoever on the part of the NDP to allow this bill to go to committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, our obligation is to represent the working people of this country and the people who need pensions.

The fact is that the government barely made any effort to deal with the provinces. If some provinces think that we will take a stinky deal over a good deal, that is not good enough. The fact is that debate has been shut down here after less than 24 hours.

My colleague might want to go home early, and that is fine for him. I am here to debate this bill. I am here to find out what works in this bill and what fails in this bill. There is no reason that I should be expected to stand up in this House and vote for a bill that has been given less than 24 hours of debate.

My colleague might think that it is great that we can get out in time for an early supper or drinks, but this is about our pensions. I am here to debate it. I am here to make sure this job is done right.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I posed the question that the member opposite brought up: why could we not just make voluntary payments to the CPP. The reply was that the administration costs would be far higher and there would be less flexibility than with the pooled registered pension plans.

My question for the member opposite is, why would he want more of people's money sunk into administration instead of keeping the money in their pockets and saving more for the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, I like that my hon. colleague has come up with the money under the mattress theory for savings. The reason CPP works is that the contributions come off people's cheques. They go in the CPP to be used later. That is why it works. If we had a voluntary CPP, there would be no pension plan and everybody would be scrambling.

The member wants the keep the money in their pockets plan. We have had that in the past. It is called money under the mattress or burying something in the back yard. However, if we are going to have a system that people can retire on, we need a system that works. If my colleague thinks that CPP does not work, then maybe the Prime Minister should go to Davos and tell the millionaires that.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will have to let the member for Selkirk—Interlake know that we will need to interrupt him at 15 minutes after the hour.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #106

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)