Evidence of meeting #44 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prpp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's his time. If you want to ask it, you ask it.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
NDP
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Oh. Sorry, I'm over time, and I'm brutal with everyone else, so I have to be brutal with myself.
Mr. Brison could follow your advice, though, if he chooses, because it's his time now.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I do not have much time therefore I have to choose my questions.
I have a couple of questions.
Mr. Frazer, you mentioned, from the perspective of the bar association, that you believe that part of the additional offering should include a defined benefit. There are advantages of defined benefits.
5:05 p.m.
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Section, Canadian Bar Association
There are definitely advantages, yes.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
And you also said that provincial regulatory issues could potentially increase the cost of the PRPP option.
Would a voluntary supplemental CPP option—since the CPP already has crossed that hurdle—not face those same options? Would that be an advantage in terms of fee structure associated with a voluntary supplemental CPP?
5:05 p.m.
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Section, Canadian Bar Association
Yes, those are things that would be.... I'm not sure of the entire framework. I understand the principle of it, but that would definitely be something that would cut through those barriers and could certainly work in addition to the PRPP. I don't see any reason why the two offerings couldn't work simultaneously.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
So you would support notionally the idea of a voluntary supplemental CPP in addition to the—
5:05 p.m.
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Section, Canadian Bar Association
Yes. The essence is coverage, low cost, accessibility. Those to me are all the same principles the government was trying to achieve when it introduced the PRPP legislation. So in terms of broad principles, it's something that definitely would achieve all those goals and something that the totality of our membership, representing both employees and employers, would support.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Turnbull, you said that the PRPP should also offer a defined benefit option among PRPP options. Could the voluntary supplemental CPP option fulfill that mandate?
5:05 p.m.
Past-President, Canadian Medical Association
It would be one of many different vehicles, so, yes, it could fulfill that mandate for our membership as well and their employees.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you.
Mr. Dubreuil, will your members support the principle of having another choice, a public choice in this case, which would be voluntary as well?
5:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Regroupement des jeunes chambres de commerce du Québec
If this remains voluntary, I do not really see why our members would not accept it. However, it always depends on how everything is presented. My main concern is still that the program be as simple as possible, because I am thinking about those entrepreneurs who are in the process of starting up businesses and already have a lot of things to think about without anyone adding more layers.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Wrobel—Marion, if I may, because we've worked together for quite a while—on the whole issue between defined benefit and defined contribution, I agree with you. It's a completely different model. But would you accept or agree that the investment criteria for a defined benefit pension manager, particularly one like the CPP, which has such a responsibility for so many Canadians, managing what is $152 billion now, is quite different from the mandate of defined contribution models?
As such, during times of buoyant markets it may not get the same returns, but during times of troubled markets it would not have the same lows. Would you agree with that in principle?
5:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Operations, Canadian Bankers Association
I would say that the risks and the benefits associated with a defined benefit plan are different from those of a defined contribution plan. There are some real advantages of having a defined benefit plan. But again, and I think I've said this several times, at the end of the day, the defined benefit plan has to earn a rate of return over time that would enable it to make its payments.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
You'd agree that the CPP Investment Board has achieved that over the last 15 years.
5:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Operations, Canadian Bankers Association
It has achieved that, but the question of sustainability over a long period of time will depend on it continuing to achieve that rate of return.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
Mr. Hoback, you have a couple of minutes. My understanding is that bells will be going at 5:15 for the votes. I do want to deal with the motions if I can today.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Okay. There are so many questions and there's so little time. I'm used to this.
I want to just to summarize, since it's my last chance to go. I want to thank you guys for being here and presenting both sides of the view. I always like to look for both sides of the argument and look at why we should do something over something else.
I think this meeting actually solidified in my mind why we need to move forward with this PRPP and why we need to look at this type of tool at this point in time, in our economy in this stage.
Ms. Eng, I appreciate your input, but I look at it and I see the risk involved in putting all our eggs in one basket. At this point in time, I don't think that's appropriate. I look at the risk to our economy by doing that, by raising CPP contributions at this point in time, and what that would do to jobs.
I know that the NDP likes sending members to Washington to destroy an industry. They'd like to double CPP and take away 1.2 million years of employment, which I think the CFIB has said over and over again.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I can't allow the member to continue to rant on like that. That doesn't have anything to do with this.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Actually, it does. It goes into the deeper question of why we're here. We're here to prepare for retirement. We're here to make sure we have good policies. We're here to hear both sides of the story, and I want to thank the witnesses for doing that here today. If it doesn't solidify in the NDP's mind why this needs to go forward, then it just proves to me they're going to oppose everything, no matter what it is. That's unfortunate.
Mr. Kelly, can you highlight for my colleagues across the floor here what 1.2 million years of unemployment actually looks like?
