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.

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

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

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

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

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, based on the NDP's position that the pooled registered pension plan would not be good enough because it is not a defined pension plan, does that mean the party is opposed to RRSPs? That is a voluntary program that has been around for many decades. Is that party advocating we get rid of RRSPs as a tool available to Canadians for saving for retirement?

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

Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, RRSPs have been around for a long time and they are quite significantly entrenched in our system. People need to know that unfortunately there are problems with RRSPs that the government simply does not talk about.

First and foremost, it is about $17 billion in terms of cost to provincial and federal governments in order to sponsor these RRSPs, $5 billion for the provinces, $12 billion out of federal government revenue every year. Imagine what we could do with $17 billion in federal and provincial government revenues in terms of making sure there is pension security for Canadians.

The government also does not tell people that the management fees I referred to take up as much as 40% of the investment an individual makes in an RRSP over a 40 or 45 year period. That means these folks think they are going to have enough and they are actually making headway, but the reality is they are not. They are being taken advantage of in many ways.

We cannot get rid of our RRSPs because they have been entrenched for too long. But we need to be cognizant of their downside.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, that is something we should be investigating.

In December 2010, the federal government said it was going to sit down with the provinces and talk practically in a progressive way about the retirement crisis we face. Perhaps future talks with a different government would find something solid and workable. I hope there is a different government in 2015. In fact, I know there will be a different government.

Perhaps we can sit down with municipalities and find something solid and workable that would invest our pension funds in a way that provides a significant return, safety and security, defined benefits and the kind of pension deserved by Canadians who have spent their entire lives building this country, putting in place the social safety net. It would be far better than allowing that bunch to destroy our social safety net, because, quite frankly, that is what they are up to.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from London—Fanshawe for articulating what really is wrong with pooled registered pension plans.

When clearly there is unlimited room in an RRSP for most folks, why does the government want to duplicate it? It is just the same plan all over again, only with a different fee structure; it looks fancy and has a nice name. It would let workers think that somehow magic will happen.

The reality is that if people do not have money for an RRSP, they will not have money for a pooled registered pension plan. The government would argue that it can come off at source and therefore the tax is lower, but people can do the same thing with an RRSP.

Does my colleague from London—Fanshawe think the government is headed in the wrong direction and is really handing out a fairy tale to workers across this country that somehow this plan would help them in their retirement years?

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a fairy tale. I would call it a myth. I would call it an attempt to create an illusion. The Conservatives are very good at illusions. They have a whole box of tricks. The point is that pooled registered pension plans are not what they are cracked up to be. They depend on the stock market. It is not safe out there.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in this timeframe we often make speeches about the legislation, but it is a debate and I am going to debate what I just heard from the member opposite.

It is unbelievable. First of all, the NDP members need to know that the CPP, which they like to claim is the panacea for all retirement savings, is invested in the stock market. We have a board that looks after the billions of dollars invested in the CPP, and it is invested in the stock market.

I am a bit frustrated and angry. I do not know why the members criticize the investments in the stock market as if it is something evil, something that is not going to return anything to anybody. Our CPP, the savings of every working Canadian, is invested in the stock market, and there is an investment board that looks after that investment. We cannot ignore the fact that all investments, whether CPP, RRSP or individual stocks, are invested in the stock market. We should get off the concept that there is something evil about or wrong with investing in businesses that will create jobs and growth in our country. That is what the stock market does for us. It provides retirement savings for every pension plan,--OMERS, for example, and all the pension plans, public and private. The stock market is a key component to every savings tool that is out there. We should drop the concept that because it is invested in the stock market, it is something risky or evil in which we cannot participate.

The other comment that was just made was in regard to RRSPs. Based on the NDP philosophy that I just heard, the members would remove the concept of people saving for themselves for their retirement, because it is taking tax money from the Government of Canada, and they think they can spend it better than we who are saving for our retirement.

I disagree 100% with that. It has been a very good tool for Canadians to save for their retirement. Is everyone taking it up? Even I have room in my RRSP. I have not taken it all up, and many Canadians do not, but that does not mean we remove the tool. We do things to improve the tool, and the pooled registered pension plan is an opportunity.

Our friends across the way talk about talking to Canadians at their kitchen table. A large number of organizations have come to committee and have told Canadians and the government that this would be a tool in the toolbox of retirement, that the pooled registered pension plan would be an opportunity that does not exist now that would be another piece of the puzzle for which to be able to save.

Why would members turn that down? The opposition may like something else, but does that mean that everything else is wrong just because they want something else? I disagree. If they were true to themselves, they would talk to the individuals in their ridings and say it is not the panacea that is going to solve everyone's retirement plan, but it is an opportunity.

For people who work for a small business that does not have a retirement plan, there would be a program that offers a pooled system, the key being that it would be pooled. Companies with small numbers and even those who are self-employed could belong to a plan that takes the risk and spreads it over a larger number of contributors. It would take the risk from the employer away because the administration would be done by a third party. It would take that liability away and it would pool the opportunity that is not available now.

Vitally important to me is the portability. This pension plan would be portable. People would take it with them. When people leave company A and go to company B, if company B does not have a pooled plan they could still keep their money in the pooled plan they are in. If company B has a pooled plan, they could move their money over to make that happen. They could keep their money in there.

There is nothing wrong with locked in. Part of the problem with Canadians, including myself, is that we are not great savers for retirement. We have all these other things. I have two daughters in university, for example, who cost me a lot of money. I did not do a good job of saving for that.

Lots of Canadians have issues with savings. Deductions at source help with savings. The pooled registered pension plan would have deductions at source. Those deductions would go into a pooled pension plan for individuals. If they moved or things changed, the funds would be locked in. Some could always be taken out if something happened, they become disabled or had other issues and needed to access the capital. That would be their capital and they would be able to get it, but really, it would be a retirement savings program.

Members opposite talk about the CPP as a panacea. It is a deduction at source and it is locked in. We cannot take it out until we retire. This is the exact same process. We are doing it so that Canadians have an opportunity to prepare themselves and their families for their retirement.

Members opposite say it is voluntary, it is an opt-out program. If individuals join a company that has a pooled plan, they are automatically enrolled. They have to make a decision within perhaps the first six weeks or six months. There is a timeframe within which they can opt out. They may not interested in saving for their retirement in a pooled plan, and they may opt out. It is a program that attempts to ensure that Canadians put a little bit aside for their retirement, which I think is what we are all after. There is not one member in the House who does not want a decent retirement for those who have worked all their lives and for their families.

However, we have to have tools to do that. The RRSP is an individual tool. I agree with the previous speaker, the cost of those programs is high. It is exactly why we want to go with the pooled system. It is portable, it is locked in and it has a lower cost.

Let us look at an example. We can all buy paper individually for our offices. It is all basically the same thing, paper. If we purchase in a pool, everyone gets paper. It is cheaper, more efficient and more effective. That is what pooled registered pension plans are for. That is why it is important that we move forward with this.

Members opposite cannot support this because they want the CPP changed. They know and Canadians know that it takes two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population to make a change to CPP. We cannot unilaterally do it. It is not legal for us to do it, we are not capable of doing it and we do not have support from all provinces at present.

Not speaking for the government, but for myself, reviewing what is happening with CPP and making changes is a policy initiative that I fully support. However, if we cannot get the provinces to agree, we have to find other solutions. It might not be the final solution, but we have to find some other opportunities. Why are opposition members ignoring opportunities that exist for which we have general support?

Before I wrap up, I want to say that this is an opportunity that will pass this House and will be for federal employees. I would like each and every province, including my own province of Ontario, to take advantage of this opportunity. It would not cost a dime.

I understand from the Ontario budget that Ontario will not proceed with legislation required to enable this to happen in Ontario for other employment groups. I have no idea why the Ontario government would not do that. Why is it denying Ontarians the opportunity to save for their retirement? It does not make sense to me. It does not cost anything. We should be moving ahead. We should be looking for tools that solve the problem.

RRSPs do not solve the problem, but would we get rid of them? Absolutely not. We have to look for opportunities, we have to look for tools. The pooled registered pension plan is a tool that does not exist now that would help many working Ontarians and other Canadians. I would appreciate the support of everyone in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for commenting on this plan that we consider particularly toxic, in that people will be well aware of what they are investing but will have no guarantee of what they will get back. This is not savings; it is not really a pension plan. It is quite simply a financial instrument to enable financial institutions to make even more money.

The banks will be the first to benefit from this money. They are the ones that get paid first. Perhaps the hon. member can provide confirmation: it is the financial institutions that collect the administrative fees, that set rates to make a profit. Then, if there is a return, it goes to the participants' savings, and if there is a deficit, if the return is negative, the financial institutions are in no way prevented from collecting administrative fees and setting a profitable rate, which worsens the shortfall.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, what was just expressed by my colleague from the other side is a complete fallacy.

Of course the pooled pension plan would have fees. Administrators would charge a fee for administrating, but the law would set the level of those administrative fees, which could be much cheaper in a pooled system than individuals see through the RRSP system that we have now. Therefore, we would have some say.

I have no problem with organizations providing a tool for retirement. They are providing the service of administration, and taking that administrative burden off employers. Employers do not have pension plans, defined or otherwise, or DC plans, because of the costs and liabilities that go with them. This is an opportunity to remove that liability, to provide an opportunity for employees to have a savings program at a lower cost because it is pooled across a larger number. If the organization, whether it is a bank or a life insurance company, charged an administrative fee, it would be allowed to do so. Those administration fees would be reviewed and controlled by this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, speaking of tools, I want to talk about RRSPs. The member is right, they are a tool. When we consider the whole package of retirement funds, I agree that this pooled pension plan is one of the tools in the shed that is certainly of good benefit for many, but not really a lot.

If we are talking about doing a lot of heavy lifting with a shovel, what the member is armed with here today is a very large spoon. There is no doubt that it does its work. The problem is, when he talks about pooling the purchasing of paper to bring costs down, not everybody is buying paper. Therefore, I would suggest to him that, in addition to this, maybe he should look at using that CPP investment board that he spoke of as a voluntary option to supplement the current mandatory CPP payments. This would be a vehicle, another tool in the shed.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member across likes to ask me questions, and I like to answer them.

I am not sure if the Liberal Party will have this in its platform the next time, but in the past it put forward making CPP voluntary. People could take that deduction, voluntarily add more money on their own and the CPP board could manage it for them. That is what the Liberals' proposal has been. If they do not know that, or they do not understand it, they should read their own platform.

The pooled pension plan would allow small, medium and large companies that do not have a pension program to pool together and have required deductions at source for those under the plan, whether they are in the same industry or not.

The voluntary piece is what is at issue. Canadians are not great savers unless we take it off their paycheques, which has been the case, including for myself. If they are part of a pooled plan, it is an automatic deduction that is locked in, which is much better than the voluntary system the Liberals are advocating.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, it was not perfectly clear to me if the member intends to support the legislation. I ask that with all sincerity. Is it the position of the Liberals that because it is not enough, they will not support the bill, or can he recognize, as he did toward the end of his comments, that it is a step and a tool that is moving forward? If the Liberals look at it from that perspective, would they support it and then continue to work with parliamentarians to find additional solutions to improve the chances of Canadians for long-term prosperity?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it may be perfectly clear, as I believe I would have been in second reading, that what I like about the bill is it shows that there is a difference between all three political parties. We in the Liberal Party see this as a valuable tool and therefore will vote in favour of the legislation.

However, we also want Canadians to recognize that the government has dropped the ball in regard to the type of management fees that will be out there. A lot more dollars will go toward management fees than there need to be. Had the government looked at the structure for CPP and allowed CPP a larger role to play on the legislation, more money would have gone into the pockets of retiring seniors in the future. We would have liked to have seen incorporated into the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed to hear that the Liberals will support this very flawed notion of a pooled private system. I wonder if any of them, including that member, attended last spring when the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences hosted pension expert Keith Ambachtsheer for a big-thinking lecture series on the Hill. He is an internationally acknowledged expert on pensions. He made it very clear that we already had a superb system that operated at a tiny fraction of 1% in terms of administration fees, with guaranteed defined benefits at the end of the day, backed by government. He said it was a system that people could count on and that it was more effective and more efficient than a private system where the fees would be 2.5% to 4% or even more.

I ask the Liberals and that member to rethink this, go with the advice from the real experts in the field and not let any of our ideologies drive this. I ask them to look at the facts and the science behind it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, having represented an area in the province of Manitoba for many years, one of the things I notice was the difference between the NDP in government versus the NDP in opposition. When NDP members are in government, they tend to think differently. NDP members in government tend to be closer to wanting to be Liberals and are more open-minded to allowing seniors the opportunity to have a multitude of ways in which they can invest in pensions.

I hope my friends in the NDP have many years of future success in opposition. I hope they retain the position in terms of withholding opportunities for seniors to really enjoy their retirement years by denying them what could potentially be a tool. However, not for every senior will benefit from this. That is why we have to ensure we stay on top of OAS, CPP and the GIS. This is to ensure that all seniors benefit.

However, let us not throw out good ideas or ideas that could be improved upon. Do not get me wrong, this bill can and should be improved upon. It does have a serious flaw, but keep in mind that there are thousands of small businesses across the country that like this legislation and many provincial jurisdictions accept it as a positive thing.

Therefore, we need to approach it with an open mind, but we need to keep in mind that the government dropped the ball in not allowing CPP to play a larger role. Canadians, as a whole, have a lot more confidence in CPP and OAS than any other pension program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is always with great humour that we welcome the comments of the hon. member opposite. What we want to do is defend the middle class, the people who are in need.

This bill contains no real incentive for self-employed workers, for non-standard workers who have been increasing in numbers over the past 15 years because this government, like the previous one, has been incapable of creating stable jobs. What he and his colleague said is rather infuriating, namely, that it could help everyone and that it would be voluntary. Sure, but this bill takes so much responsibility away from the employer, there is no incentive. I stress the word “incentive”.

How will part-time and contract workers be encouraged to contribute to it? And, furthermore, all it is going to do is that, in 2020 or whatever year, they will have to retire at age 67 instead of age 65. How can people find real incentive in that and how will the employer be involved and accountable for the amounts that will be invested in the pooled fund?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, he talked about humour. Let me talk about the humour he is talking about when he says they are there to defend the middle class. Amazingly, how is the NDP going to defend the middle class when it is fighting the natural resources, talking about a Dutch disease? He is talking about damaging the economy, putting divisive policies in the country, which will have a very negative impact on the whole economy of the country.

He should first get the facts right before he starts getting up and saying the NDP is going to defend the middle class. The way the NDP is going, there will be nothing left to defend anyway.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. Just to pick up on one of them in regard to the whole divisiveness, is the Leader of the Opposition very divisive, not very considerate to westerners? I am a westerner. I too was quite offended by his attack on premiers out west.

Having said that, when we talk about CPP, the member said that requires all provinces to come to the table and come up with an agreement to improve CPP, two-thirds, as has been pointed out. That is why I said it is important in my comments.

Seniors today are looking to Ottawa to see national leadership, a prime minister who is prepared to sit at a table and work with premiers. I am not suggesting he behave in the same fashion as the leader of the official opposition, but I am suggesting he sit down and demonstrate leadership in working on what is an important issue to all seniors in Canada, and that is to enhance programs like CPP. If he is not prepared to sit down with them and work with them in good faith, then agreement will never be achieved.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, in answer to his question, yes, in the 2010 meeting with the finance ministers, the government, through the Minister of State for Finance, my good colleague from Okotoks, met with the finance ministers of our country, all of them. They raised a strong objection. Once they raised the strong objection, it was very clear to us that we needed to find another method for going forward.

Therefore, to answer his question whether we met with the provinces, yes, we did.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I rise to debate this particular legislation. I noticed my colleague in his speech pretty well stuck with the topic of the economy rather than actually speaking to this rather insignificant and poorly designed bill that the government put forward. I do not blame him for doing that, because that is the case.

The Conservatives will say that, by bringing forward the bill, they have created something seniors. That is a very minor element and much of what is proposed in the bill can already be accomplished.

When I was mayor of a little town, Fort Smith, we did not have a pension plan for our employees, but we did have a plan by which they could have a certain amount deducted from their paycheque to go into RRSPs for their use once they had finished their working careers.

These types of arrangement can be made by companies. They were made by the community government I represented as mayor, and they carried forward. Were they successful? They were reasonably successful in some ways, but in other ways, because they were not mandatory but voluntary, they did not include a lot of issues. The municipality itself took the time to even enhance the value of these RRSPs, but still we found that many of the employees simply did not have the facility. They needed the money for their everyday life and did not participate in the program to the extent that we would have thought would have been appropriate.

When we have these voluntary programs for employees who, in this day of Conservative economics, are getting less and less in their pay pocket at the end of the day, a voluntary program to encourage them to save for retirement seems rather difficult for them in many cases because they simply need the money to survive in this world.

What we have is a program that may work for some people, but it is not a nation-building program that deserves the recognition of Parliament, that deserves the time and effort the government has put on Parliament to create. If this is the best it can do, it is certainly not adequate for Canadians, and that is what we see.

We compare this pooled program to other programs around the world that do the same thing. Is there mandatory participation by employers? In Canada, there is not; in New Zealand, yes; in the United Kingdom, yes; in Australia, yes.

Is there auto enrolment by employees? In the case of Canada, provided the employer chooses to offer a plan to that class of employees, there is an auto enrolment, but the employee has an opting out opportunity within 60 days for notifications for new PRPPs.

Is there mandatory employer contribution? There is not; but in all three other programs we are looking at, yes, yes, yes. Is there a minimum employer contribution? In Canada there is none; in New Zealand, 2%; in the United Kingdom, 3%; in Australia, 9%. Is there a minimum employee contribution? In Canada there is none; in New Zealand, 2%; in the United Kingdom, 4%; in Australia, none.

The government contribution is tax relief. In other cases, in Australia they top up by $1,000; there is an annual tax credit in New Zealand of $1,000. Are there provisions to allow employees to suspend contributions? Yes, and that is similar within the programs. Are employees restricted to a single lifetime savings plan? This is important, because in Canada the answer is no, in New Zealand, yes, and in the other two countries, no. However, we found with Australia's not having a single program and not having the ability to transfer programs that this causes a mushrooming number of savings accounts, and it emerged as a significant problem in Australia's superannuation program.

By June 2010, there were 32.9 million super pension accounts in Australia, an average of three accounts per employee and almost double the number 15 years before. Many of them are inactive or are lost member accounts. It is a program that really does not work all that well when there are seasonal employees or employees moving from one business to another.

We have seen voluntary pension pairing plans and pooled registered pension plans around the world and the one that is proposed by the Conservative government seems very weak. It seems to be mostly window dressing on things that could be accomplished and carried forward in a good fashion with the existing legislation and pension opportunities.

We want to see something that is more universal and expands opportunities for the universal Canada pension plan, that raises contribution levels and creates greater defined benefits so people will know they have surety in their retirement and that they can work to the age of 65 and retire with dignity. Now the Conservatives are changing that as well by raising the age of retirement, not for those who are seniors now but for young people who will be entering the system. By young, I mean people under 50 years old, not really young, but they will see that change come about.

What is the reaction within the population? We are seeing that seniors are moving to the NDP in greater and greater numbers across the country because seniors understand what it means when the age of retirement is changed from 65 to 67. They do not want to burden their children and grandchildren with that additional cost when the additional cost to the government turns out to be not that bad. It turns out that the Conservatives are overinflating the costs and creating panic in the system when the panic in the system does not need to happen. The Conservatives are once again living to their name: cons. They are working the Canadian public like we are rubes but seniors are not buying it. They are moving away from the Conservatives in droves right now because they understand the reality of what the government is doing.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Not the seniors in my riding.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

One only has to look at the polling numbers to see that seniors are moving away from the Conservatives.

Why are they doing that after the Conservatives introduced this notion of changing the retirement age from 65 to 67? It is because the seniors in this country understand what that means. People who are at the age of retirement understand what the Conservatives will be doing to their children and grandchildren, and they do not like it. I do not blame them. Fair is fair in this country. We have a system that says that the retirement age is 65, so let us keep it there. We need to make the adjustments on what it costs to maintain that program, not this tricky little measure of trying to promote it by saying that it is not really happening right now so people do not have to worry about it. What is that all about?

We are here to make measured and careful decisions for the future of this country. The government is definitely doing that in a bad fashion. It should be held to account and will be by this side of the House going forward over the next three years until we can get rid of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one could emphasize the importance of providing for our aging population and looking for tools to assist seniors in their elderly years and those who would like to retire at 65 and quite often even younger than that.

My question for the member is with regard to the government in Manitoba, which happens to be a New Democratic government. The Government of Canada has made it clear on several occasions that the provincial NDP government in Manitoba actually supports this legislation. Does the member know if that is true or false?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I would need to examine when the so-called endorsement of this took place, what particular details were laid out by the Conservative government to the Province of Manitoba, when it understood the nature of what was going on here and whether it accepted it simply because that was all that was being offered.

I am not standing here in Parliament to promote things that are only half good for Canadians, a quarter good for Canadians or things that are already available to Canadians under the existing law. That is not why I am here. I am here in the hope that I can provide a better vision for where we can go with this country in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, if I understood the hon. member, he is questioning the competency of the Government of Manitoba by saying that it did not know the full results, that it did not get this thing.

I cannot believe a member in this House would get up and say that the Government of Manitoba does not have the full facts and that it made a decision sitting in the darkness. Amazingly, it is the same concept that his leader, the leader of the official opposition, used when he talked about Dutch disease. It is pitting one province against another, which damages the whole economy of Canada. If the whole economy of Canada is damaged, how does he expect to help Canadians?

It is amazing to hear the NDP members say that they do not like and now they are talking about how other Canadians do not have the expertise or do not have what they believe in. What an amazing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I am incredulous at the member across who, after having heard the debate over the F-35 fiasco, is telling me that somehow the government has given the facts on anything correctly to any other group in this country.

The government has a record of totally obfuscating financing issues and of presenting things in such a fashion. I refer back to the budget implementation bill, when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development said that the bill would raise the borrowing limit for the Government of Northwest Territories when it was doing no such thing.

How can we believe anything the government says? How can we understand anything it presented to the provinces six months or a year ago?

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

Madam Speaker, many of my constituents would love to have a pension plan, but they are struggling to make ends meet from week to week. How would this particular scheme help those who are struggling from week to week?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, as I outlined, compared to other pooled pension plans across the world, this plan is very much remiss in this regard. Even with those plans, many people found that their contribution was left in an account and was turned into nothing.

This is something that has not been addressed in this bill. This bill is inadequate and flawed, and does not need to be passed.

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

Madam Speaker, we are discussing retirement security. Our people are getting older and living longer. What does this mean to our retirement system and what should we do about it?

I will start with some incredible facts.

In 1951, when the old age security system was put in place, life expectancy was age 69 and the age of eligibility was 70, meaning that the average person would not live long enough to collect old age security at all.

Today, the average life expectancy is 82 and eligibility starts at 65, meaning that people, on average, will collect OAS for 17 years.

Back in 1975, there were seven taxpayers for every one senior. Right now, there are four taxpayers for every senior. In two decades, there will only be two taxpayers for every senior.

As we move forward, life expectancy is growing by 47 days per year. That means that in two decades the average person will live until he or she turns 84, which means that under the existing rules of old age security he or she will collect for almost two decades.

Put together, these facts mean that in two decades the number of people collecting OAS will double, the cost of the program will triple and the number of taxpayers supporting each retiree will fall by half. By consequence, OAS will rise from 15¢ on every dollar the federal government spends to 25¢ on every dollar the federal government spends.

According to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, on the current trajectory of demographics and program spending, the government will have a shortfall of $67 billion annually in today's dollars by the year 2040.

We should think of OAS as a glass of water. Retirees can only drink out of the glass in benefits what workers pay in taxes. If retirees are drinking out faster than taxpayers are paying in somebody goes thirsty. We have seen the costs of drinking from the glass of profligacy in places like Greece and Portugal. In order to avoid that kind of financial drought, we have put in a plan to make the system affordable and sustainable by gradually raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 starting in the year 2023. People over the age of 54 will not be affected in any way, shape or form by these changes. Those under the age of 54 have a lot of time to plan for these changes.

That addresses some of the cost problems with old age security but there is another problem with our retirement system, that being that 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension. That is because many of their employers are too small to afford the cost of assembling their own defined benefit or defined contribution system.

I will use the example of a couple named Joe and Martha. One is a manager at a restaurant and the other works at a corner store. Both of them would love to have the ability to save for the future in an employer-based pension plan but neither of their employers are large enough to manage such a plan on their behalf. As a result, they only have RRSPs to supplement the government income programs that exist. However, because they find investing on their own to be too intimidating and the markets too mercurial for their risk profile, they do not save for the future.

Imagine if thousands of workers like Joe and Martha could pool their risks and share the management costs of an employer-based pension plan through a pooled system. That is exactly what we are proposing.

The design of these plans would be straightforward with simple enrolment and management. A third-party administrator, normally a bank, insurance company or pension plan, would be responsible for the administrative and legal duties. What a relief for the small business owners. These plans would also be subject to the standard pension rules that exist for plans across the sector right now, unlike RRSPs which have no similar standard regulatory practice.

The opposition opposes giving small businesses the ability to join together and pool their resources to provide their employees with a pension for their retirement. Instead, it proposes massive new government entitlements. Not only do opposition members fail to deal with the existing $67 billion shortfall that will result based on existing demographics and policies, they propose to stack billions of dollars in new promises.

For example, the deputy leader of the NDP and the leader of the Liberal Party have both moved and seconded bills that would make people who have lived in this country for only three years eligible for OAS when the rest of Canadians have to pay their whole lives in taxes in order to afford that benefit. That would raise the cost of OAS and exacerbate the shortfall that exists in the current system.

How would they pay for it all? Well, they say they will tax big business. What businesses are they referring to? Maybe they mean Canadian Natural Resources Limited, the country's largest independent oil and gas producer with over 100,000 barrels out of the oil sands each day; a perfect target for the NDP and Liberals.

The NDP proposes to raise taxes on that company's profits, but where do those profits go right now? Right now, they go to the shareholders, one of the largest being the Quebec pension plan, which is Quebec's equivalent of the CPP. The dividends that Canadian Natural Resources Limited pays to the Quebec pension plan today are enough to cover the full pension requirements of 1,100 Quebeckers every single year. If we raised taxes on Canadian Natural Resources Limited, we would reduce the dividends it pays out to its shareholders, one of the largest being Quebec pensioners. Here we have the NDP proposing to raise taxes on a public pension plan. One wonders where its priorities lie.

CPP is the same way. Over half of its assets are invested in companies like the Canadian Oil Sands, Suncor Energy, Imperial Oil and Athabasca Oil Sands. The Canada Post pension plan's top five holdings are the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor and Canadian Natural Resources Limited. Banks and oil companies, the twin villains in every left-wing storyline, are the ones that are paying the dividends into the Canada Post pension plan. To increase taxes on those companies, dividends would be reduced to the postal workers' pension fund.

What happened to solidarity forever? The truth is, there can be no solidarity when one's entire narrative is based on dividing us and them and believe that the only way for one person to prosper is for another person to fail.

In this country, the mail man relies on the profitability of the energy companies in order to have his pension cheque. We are all in this together. Through a symbiotic system of free market economics, the success of one is the success of all. We have a shared destiny, a common future, a united Canada. That is how we succeed, by sticking together and standing for what is right. That is the formula for this government.

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

Madam Speaker, sometimes it is hard to sit here and listen to the rhetoric. There is an implication here, in my hon. colleague's presentation, that seniors in this country do not pay taxes. I can tell members that many seniors, in my generation and others, are paying their share of taxes. Just because they retire does not mean they stop paying taxes, and we have to remember that whenever we start expounding numbers.

My question for my colleague is very straightforward. For families who are struggling to make ends meet, families who, because of the policies of the government, are now working two or three jobs at $10 to $12 an hour and each month their only intention is to get to the end of the month and put food on the table, how does the member think this plan is going to put pension security on the table?

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

Madam Speaker, the member says seniors are paying too much tax and she is right. A recent study showed that Canadians spend more on taxes than they do on food, clothing and shelter combined.

Let us look at the cup. The NDP wants to drink out of the cup of profligacy again and again. It wants a government-run daycare program, $15 billion. It wants to give OAS to people who have only lived in Canada for three years, $700 million. It wants a 45 day work year, so a person only has to go to work for 45 days and then collect EI for the rest of the year, another $6 billion. I could stand here all day and talk about the ways the NDP would drink out of the cup of profligacy with the spending promises it makes.

However, what the NDP members forget is that somebody has to pour back into the cup in order for it to be replenished and that somebody inevitably is seniors, through higher taxes. She is the one who has to explain why she would raise taxes on seniors to pay for all of this irresponsible spending.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting when the member provides all these factual numbers. The question I have is one of credibility. The parliamentary secretary says that today we spend 15¢ on every Canadian tax dollar. Then he says that if we do not make these changes we are going to be spending 25¢ of every tax dollar on the OAS program. I do not buy it. I just do not believe the numbers that the member is telling Canadians. In fact, I would suggest that the government has created this crisis situation.

We have heard from professionals, statisticians and actuaries. They have made it very clear that Canada as a government can afford to keep providing seniors the option to retire at 65, that the age of eligibility does not have to go to 67 and is not going to be this huge burden. Why should Canadians believe that if it does not change, that it is going to go from 15¢ on every dollar to 25¢ on every dollar, when the member himself likely knows that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, why should they believe it? Because the number of retirees collecting OAS will double, the cost of the program will triple and the number of taxpayers supporting each retiree will fall by half. These are unavoidable statistics that members can access by going to Statistics Canada's website.

The average person now lives 47 days longer than the average person last year. That will continue into the future, meaning longer lifespans and more collection of OAS. The reality is that we cannot have a situation where we have two people carrying one person on their shoulders, in addition to all the other social obligations that our tax dollars fund. These are inescapable mathematical realities.

We have seen the member's vision. It is called Greece. We choose here Conservative economics, not Liberal Greekonomics.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to rise today on behalf of the residents of York South—Weston, who sent me here to look after them and to try to make sense of what the government is doing.

One of those residents, a young fellow named Scott Jackson, finished in the top 12 in the Canada's Got Talent show last week. We want to congratulate him for being such a great self-employed musician. I say self-employed musician because those are the kinds of people who are going to suffer most from the kinds of policies and practices the government is putting forward to try to deal with the future of the retirement scheme in Canada.

First and foremost, people like Scott are going to work until they are 67, make no doubt about it. The minister may say people have time to prepare for that, which means they are going to save more money, but that is not unless they can earn more money. They cannot earn more money in the systems we have today, when the government is telling employers they can now bring people from other countries and ask them to work for 15% less than the people who are currently working in Canada.

It makes no sense. The government is driving down wages as quickly as it can. It is working hard to prevent organized labour from getting any further in the wage battles in this country. Its friends, the CEOs and captains of industry, are doing quite well. I do not see any 15% regulation for CEOs of big corporations, or calls for them to be replaced by temporary foreign workers. That is the reality the Conservatives put forward.

I am going to call this a scheme, because that is really what it is. The suggestion that this scheme of pooled registered retirement plans will somehow be the solution is just looking at the world through such rose-coloured glasses as to be laughable. If one wants to be generous to the government, it is perhaps an addition to an arsenal of possible retirement schemes, but it is really fundamentally no different from what is already there, except in the ability to pool. There is already a registered retirement savings plan scheme and a tax-free savings account scheme, which most Canadians cannot afford to contribute to. In fact, 74% of Canadians do not put money into RRSPs, and yet 60% of Canadians, as the minister opposite already stated, do not have a workplace pension plan.

The number of workplace pension plans is actually going down, and they are being converted, as we speak, from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans in record numbers. Employers across the land are discovering they can no longer afford to continue the good, solid, defined benefit plans that are similar to the Canada pension plan and were supposed to work in tandem with it.

The systems that current and previous governments have put in place make it impossible for employers to deal with the huge deficits these plans rolled up. These deficits are not caused by some kind of structural problem with the defined benefits system. They are caused by the abnormally low interest rates that we have in this country, which are forcing employers to put huge amounts of money into pension plans for a potential windup of those plans. It is not likely to happen. If a company continues to exist and is profitable, it will continue to contribute into that defined benefit plan.

The windup costs become enormous. As soon as one tries to buy annuities, with the windup of a pension plan, one has to come up with enormous sums of money, so employers all over this country are dropping them like hot potatoes. The government has not provided them any relief. There has been no discussion by the government to find a way around this, to make it possible to preserve the system of a combination of the Canada pension plan, OAS and a defined benefit plan in an employer setting. Those are the three pillars of what we have now. Two of them are under attack and the third is being left stagnant.

The NDP has a plan. The NDP plan is to suggest that the Canada pension plan is so successful that it should be doubled. It is clearly the cheapest, the most reliable and the most sustainable form of pension in our country. The Canada pension plan, which is a type of defined benefit plan that is a recognition of years of service times wages, which is how most good pension plans in our country are calculated, provides a portion of what is intended to be the pension regime for Canadians when they retire.

One portion is the old age security, one portion is the Canada pension plan and the third portion is either personal savings or a workplace defined benefit plan. Because 60% of Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan, and a number of those Canadians are now in workplace pension plans that are precarious and dependent upon the stock markets, and if people happen to retire at the wrong time and the stock markets are down, woe betide them, they will not be able to retire.

We have not come up with an overall scheme. The government has put a band-aid on a scheme that needs something more than a band-aid. The only thing it has proposed is kind of like a bigger group RRSP. It still has the same precarious nature, depending on market forces for its success. It still has the issue of no mandatory provision to it, so people do not have to belong and do not have to contribute. It has no requirement for the employer to contribute.

With those three things missing, with those three things being a problem with this pooled system, it is a bad system. It may suit a very small minority of Canadians and a small minority of Canadian corporations, companies, businesses, owners that have no other alternative. However, if that is going to be the case, the better solution is to double Canada pension, gradually over time.

The Conservatives call it another tax. It is not a tax; it is a pension. It has nothing to do with taxing anybody. It is a way of maintaining a pension. If we are suggesting employers are contributing already to the Canada pension plan and that over time those contributions should double so Canadians who have no other alternatives will at least have something sensible to retire on, a portion of money that comes from a Canada pension, let us think of the downstream benefits to that.

First, it will reduce poverty. Reducing poverty is a good thing. Second, it will reduce the government's reliance on guaranteed income supplement. If Canadians have a doubled Canada pension plan and old age security, fewer and fewer of them would need that government handout.

We are making the future more sustainable through a present that looks forward. That is not what the government is doing. The government is trying to scare Canadians by suggesting that somehow the old age security system we now have is unsustainable and that this in combination with the guaranteed income supplement will bankrupt the country.

That is the absolute furtherest from the truth. Yes, there is a slight bump when the baby boomers retire, but the plan allows those baby boomers to all retire anyway and continue to collect OAS. Therefore, the bump is not being dealt with. This belies the fact that the government considers this to be a problem.

By the time we get around to implementing the government's plan, we will be on the downward slope of the baby boomers and we will end up with a sustainable system again. The plan is crazy. It is not an effective way to create sustainabilty in our pension system.

We in the NDP have determined that the best way to go forward, and the best way for the sustainability of the entire system, is to double the Canada pension plan. The government is not doing that. The government is suggesting that we should put our money into more personally risky investments. As long as that is the case, as long as there is a personal risk, then it is a roll of the dice on which year to retire. If people retire in a bear market, well, too bad, so sad, they will run out of pension.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of issues in common when it comes to our desire to improve our pension system. However, when he talks about the NDP plan to double the Canada pension plan, which is very admirable, this would have a huge impact upon Canadians and businesses.

Does he not have consideration for the impact that would have upon our business community if the NDP were to become government and decided that it would double the taxes, which is effectively what it would be?

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, this is not a tax. This is in fact a pension.

What we are suggesting is that over time, gradually giving people time to prepare, the Canada pension plan should be increased. It is by far the most effective and most consistent form of pension in our country.

The Ontario Liberal government in 2007 reacted exactly the same way when it was suggested that the minimum wage in Ontario should go from $7.00 to over $10.00. It said that businesses would fail, that it would be a huge burden on businesses to raise the minimum wage. That was not the case. It did not happen.

The kind of fear-mongering that goes on when we talk about this as a tax, which it is not, when we talk about this as somehow harmful to business is wrong and has the same illogic as suggesting that the minimum wage in Ontario would kill business, which it did not do, and which eventually the Liberal government adopted.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate today because it is a very important one, not just for us now, but for future generations of Canadians.

It was an interesting question from my colleague in the Liberal Party. If she looks at CPP and doubling it perhaps over the next 10 years, 12 years or whatever the case might be, it is not a tax; it is an investment. That is where we need to come from.

However, my question is for my friend from Toronto. He talked about risk in a pooled retirement savings plan. We have a real life example? Many people who had RRSPs in 2008 found out they had lost 30%, 35% of the value of their RRSPs. We know they is risky. Would my friend like to make comment further on that?

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

Madam Speaker, there is a two-fold risk to having our money in a vehicle in which we must actually make the decisions about how to invest it and, at the end, about how to take it out of the plan.

We are at a situation right now in Canada where the stock market has not performed the way it did in the 1980s and 1990s. It has certainly not been the pillar that it ought to have been. People did wake up one day and discovered that their portfolios were worth sometimes as much as 50% less. Add to that the fact that interest rates are at historic lows in our country. When we take that money out, we get nothing in return. Now when people go to one of these friendly insurance companies to buy an annuity, they discover that they are lucky if they get $600 a month or $500 a month. Ten or fifteen years ago, when interest rates were at 5% and 6%, for $100,000 they could get $1,200 a month.

Those two things are combining together to make that kind of pension plan a disaster for persons who wish to retire.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forcing Canadians to work longer and harder to save for retirement on top of asking them to pay for $6 billion in giveaways to the largest corporations, $13 billion for new megaprisons and $40 billion for an untendered stealth fighter jet deal is not a plan for pensions. PRPPs will not work for those who need them the most.

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

Why not look at other options? Let me tell the House a bit about the Liberal option. A supplemental Canada pension plan, already proposed by the Liberals, would provide the best of both worlds. It would create a new retirement savings vehicle for Canadians who need it, while delivering the low overhead cost structure of the Canada pension plan.

A supplementary Canada pension would be a simple cost-effective solution to the pension question facing our country. It would be a defined benefit pension for everyone, even those who have left the workforce during their lives for child rearing, illness, seasonal employment and educational advancement. It would use proven and existing resources to give every Canadian man, woman and child a reliable and stable investment vehicle for the future. A supplementary Canada pension would be a plan for real pension reform.

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

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

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

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

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

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

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

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

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

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a follow-up to the last question, I wonder if the member could actually define what “a few Canadians” actually amounts to? Are you talking ten, a thousand, hundreds of thousands? You have left it open to interpretation, and I think you need to be honest with your constituents and the rest of Canadians right across the country.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Just before I go to the member for York West, I would remind all hon. members to address their comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for York West.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it depends on what one calls success in relation to a piece of legislation. PRPPs will be put out there and advertised by banks and insurance companies as the greatest saviour for Canadians. At the end of the day, success will be gauged on how many Canadians participate in the program, given that both employers and employees realize that high management fees are built into that program and that the banks and insurance companies will be able to get their management fees out of it even if the individual loses.

It will all depend on what one would call “a few Canadians”. Based on all the information I have received, I do not think there will be a huge take-up. It is a flawed piece of legislation, but there will be a few, and the member can figure out what “a few” is. Since the government talks about a billion here and there, I suppose a few could be a few thousand, but I doubt very much that there will be a huge take-up once Canadians realize that they are on the hook for huge management fees.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's questioning to me, she referred to the notion that the Canada pension plan is a tax or is hurtful to employers. However, we have discovered over the past 60 years of pension system history in Canada that if it is not mandatory for employers and employees to contribute, a large section of our populace does not, or cannot, save for retirement. Given that this plan is voluntary, what does she have to say about mandatory increases to the Canada pension plan?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank goodness we have the Canada pension plan, which was brought in by a Liberal government. Without it I would hate to imagine what would be happening today to the thousands of Canadians who rely on the Canada pension, given the fact that the government is going to make people wait two extra years to get OAS.

Part of what we recommend is a gradual increase in the Canada pension plan. When we are talking about all these changes, it sounds wonderful to simply say that we should double the Canada pension. If we could ultimately get to that on a very slow, gradual basis, it would be wonderful for Canadians. That is why the supplementary plan allows people to do that. However, to turn around and ignore the impact that the changes could potentially have on businesses is also to put our heads in the sand.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to the government's bill. It is what I call the proposed private, for profit, pooled pensions plan. That leaves me speechless.

More seriously, few things are more important to Canadians than their retirement security. For decades they work hard to build a good life for themselves and their families. Every paycheque deduction includes a little something tucked away in their pension plan.

When it comes time to retire, people rightfly expect to be able to live in dignity and with some financial security. However, as too many Canadians have found out in recent years, their retirement may not be as secure as they were led to believe and were hoping. RRSPs have taken a beating, and many of those who had been counting on a company pension plan have had a rude shock.

Many found out their plans were underfunded, or they lost everything when their company went bankrupt and took workers' pensions with them. This has been a particular problem in Thunder Bay—Superior North, where a host of creditors, often including the actual owners of the failed subsidiary company, have claims that take precedence over those of pensioners. In a modern industrialized democracy, that just should not be allowed to happen, and my friend representing Thunder Bay—Rainy River has tried to introduce a private member's bill to put pensioners first.

One thing that has been rock-steady throughout turbulent times is the Canada pension plan, to which 93% of Canadians subscribe. Companies come and go and iInvestment vehicles like income trusts may arise and then be snatched back the next year by fickle governments, but people can count on the CPP.

It is the most secure retirement vehicle we have. The CPP remains the single most effective solution to ensure retirement security. It is portable, it is sustainable, and it spreads the risk to minimize risk. It is publicly and cheaply administered at a fraction of the administrative costs of private plans. It is far more sustainable than private plans and it pays predictable benefits that do not fall if markets collapse.

The one drawback is that it is not high enough. The maximum benefit currently is only $986 a month, and the average is only $528 a month. That, as we know, is not adequate to live on.

People are expecting to make up the shortfall by investing in private investment vehicles such as the pooled pension plan the government is advancing, but private savings vehicles cost many times more than saving in public pension plans.

The administration cost of the CPP is about one-quarter of 1%, while the cost of RRSPs and mutual funds ranges from 2.5% to 4% or even more. Private plans are great for brokers and bankers in Bimmers, but not so great for real, sustainable growth in pensioners' hard-earned investments, and there is little indication of any cap on fees for those pooled plans.

That 2.5% to 4% or more every year eats away at people's retirement. It adds up. When it comes time to retire, Canadians will have many, many thousands less, so why not have it adding up and working for pensioners instead of for private investment companies? Allowing Canadians to opt for contributions up to an extra 2.5% to the CPP would double their benefits, and those are defined benefits, secure benefits. They are a retirement benefit that future seniors can actually count on.

The benefits of the CPP over private schemes do not stop there. Unlike public pensions, private savings are rarely indexed for inflation. That could mean a further lost savings of from 1% to 3% per year, a loss that alone cuts people's initial investment in half over a 30-year period.

As well, the CPP is highly portable for everyone throughout Canada. Pooled registered pension plans are much less so.

By far the biggest fault in this whole pooled pension plan scheme is that it fails to address the needs of Canadians who cannot afford to save for retirement. The vast majority of Canadians do not pay into plans like RRSPs because they simply cannot afford it. According to StatsCan, 60% of Canadians currently do not have any formal pension at all. There are already private retirement investments available out there; if Canadians could afford them, we would not have millions who do not have a pension.

Adding another voluntary and speculative investment plan they cannot afford will not significantly help the situation.

There is a lot we can do in this House to improve retirement security for Canadians. We should be seeking to insure Canadians' pensions, like we do their bank deposits. We should protect pensions when companies go bankrupt by putting pensioners first as creditors, ahead of banks, ahead of shell companies that skim the profits and dump the subsidiaries, as has happened in Thunder Bay—Superior North.

After all the ruined retirements these past few years due to corporate bankruptcies, including many in our forest sector in northwestern Ontario, it is absolutely incredible that the government has not taken action on that front. We should be taking action on all these fronts and allowing Canadians to choose to contribute more to the CPP as well.

There is no reason to continue preventing Canadians from saving more through the one vehicle open to all workers, including the self-employed, a vehicle that is low-cost, universal and portable. It is inflation and risk-proof, with defined benefits, guaranteed by the Government of Canada, that is not yet another private investment scheme that most Canadians will not invest in. That is the CPP.

Instead, all we have is a proposal from the Conservative government to help line the pockets of banks and investment companies some more. It may help some well-off Canadians who can already afford to contribute to private investment vehicles, that may be true, but it will not help the people who need it most, the majority of Canadians. Now we have the added insult and injury of Canadians having to wait from 65 until 67 years old for their old age supplements.

The Conservative government does a great job of looking out for the interests of big banks, big oil companies and other global multi-nationals with little commitment to any country or workers or their families. This past spring the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences hosted international pension expert, Keith Ambachtsheer, for our big thinking lecture here on Parliament Hill. For the MPs who got up that early to attend, this pension expert made it very clear that the administrative fees on private pension plans usually eat up any pension fund growth. He made it clear that the best pathway to any truly safe and sustainable pension plan for Canadian families was retaining and expanding CPP.

I realize that this is an ideologically driven party and government that rarely wants its beliefs to be confused by facts, research, statistics, senseless data or science but, hopefully, on this absolutely crucial question of pensions, it will, it should, listen to experts like Mr. Ambachtsheer. Hopefully it will follow his expert and sage advice and build upon the excellent and sustainable Canada pension plan, a safe, predictable, cost-effective and sustainable model admired worldwide. It just needs expanding to meet modern costs of living.

Canadians know and trust the CPP. They do not want to gamble their pensions, their lives and their retirement futures on a lottery run by expensive bankers and investment brokers.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to our colleague's comments and to how he railed against the investments in stocks and bonds, and yet I know he is really a proponent of the Canada pension plan. It is interesting to note that the Canada pension plan has huge investments in the stock portfolios of many companies. I just wonder why the member is in opposition to investing in the stock market while continuing to extoll the benefits of Canada pension plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to investments at all. Investments should be intelligent and voluntary. It is a form of gambling, let us face it, no matter how good a job we think we are doing. We need to average the risks. We need to average the costs. We need to have skilful people planning and making those investments, and we need to do it at that one-quarter of 1% affordable rate of investment and administrative costs compared to the expensive costs of having brokers do it.

In my province of Ontario, it has become very clear for many years that the security and exchange investment community is badly in need of regulation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North raising this critical and pressing issue of pension plans not being protected when corporations go bankrupt. Clearly we need legislation that places corporate pension plans as secured creditors in bankruptcy.

The member mentioned that in his riding, Catalyst Paper's current situation is causing real problems for people in Saanich—Gulf Islands, and people in the Ottawa area know well the disaster that befell so many Nortel workers, particularly those with disability pension plans that they had been counting on.

What does the member think it will take to get government action to protect private pension schemes in bankruptcy?

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River introduced private member's legislation that was excellent and would put pension plans first ahead of other creditors. I hope he will reintroduce that legislation in this House and I hope all members of Parliament will support it. Just as paycheques should come before creditors, so should their pension plans, which are really paycheques held in arrears.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments? Resuming debate? Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The vote is deferred until Monday at the end of government orders.

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

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #225

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the vote for the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the chief government whip have the consent of the House to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is willing to proceed, but will vote against.

We would also like to add two “no” votes by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster and the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree, and we are voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc votes yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes no.

[Peter Goldring, Independent, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just been made aware that the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is not in the vote. Discount her name for this vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #226

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.