Evidence of meeting #46 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, so that is NDP-3.
I'll deal now with the Liberal amendment, which is LIB-1, which is on page 5 of your package. That's in the name of Mr. Brison. I'll ask Ms. Sgro to move this amendment.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll read it out:
(2) For greater certainty, an administrator must not charge the members of the pooled registered pension plan management fees that are more than twice the prescribed rate of the management fees reported by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
I think you're well aware of the concerns we have. I think we all are concerned about the same thing, the whole issue of management fees and keeping those fees low. Australia's example made a lot of money for insurance companies, etc., but the Australians didn't quite benefit as much as the insurance companies and banks did. So this is a way of trying to protect the intent of what I believe the PRPPs are trying to do, but it's another way of protecting Canadians and protecting their savings.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to welcome Ms. Sgro back to our committee. I know she takes this very much to heart.
I was actually excited when Ms. Sgro mentioned another clause, earlier on, about competition, and that would be why this side would not want to see this clause and this amendment to this clause contain anything that resembles some kind of a cap. It would be very important in an effort to keep the costs low that there be competition and that there not be any fee caps. We strongly believe that any time there is such an amendment or such a provision that the fees actually start to very much lean towards what the cap is. For that purpose, it would go directly contrary to what we're trying to accomplish, which is low cost because competition exists.
For those reasons, we will be against this amendment proposed by the Liberal Party.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just going to reiterate what she said. We actually heard evidence to that degree. They suggested a cap was not in order because naturally the fees would actually go right to that cap, and they would feel they were priced accordingly. So we did hear evidence to that.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'll put you on the list, and I'll go to Mr. Marston first.
Mr. Marston.
4 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I just want to say we'll be supporting the amendment because we believe there needs to be a cap. We disagree with the testimony. I'm sure the government side disagrees with some of the other testimony that they've heard as well here. Just because somebody gave a particular testimony doesn't guarantee that this will be the outcome. In fact, we think it's important to have a cap on fees. That's one of the reasons you heard us raise the AustralianSuper fund as many times as we did. That was one of the things lacking. The government side said they learned from the Australian example, so we were hoping there would be a movement on this.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
This is just a question to those who are more intimately familiar with the bill. Are there any protections in the bill at all that will monitor fees? Or is it going to be left wide open to the provinces to establish whatever they want?
4 p.m.
Director, Financial Sector Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
We will have detailed regulations in this respect that will set up the criteria for determining low cost, and these will be monitored regularly—by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, in this case, who is the supervisor. It is also a condition of their licensing requirements. The licensing provisions are under development, as they are subject to regulation, but will again require a demonstration of how the administrator plans to achieve low cost. Over the course of that plan, this will be regularly monitored.
4 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Ms. Anderson, I'm curious. What remedy would there be if the decision were made that the fees were too high?
4 p.m.
Director, Financial Sector Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
In the extreme, if they're not made in the terms of their licence, OSFI has powers to deal with that. That's like an—
4 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
But it is going to be hard to figure out how you define what that abusive fee is. That's what we feel is lacking here.
4 p.m.
Director, Financial Sector Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
That will be elaborated.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
If there is nothing further....
I should have mentioned that the vote on this amendment applies to amendment L-2, because it amends clause 76 in the same manner. That is amendment L-2, which is on page 10 of our amendments document, relating to clause 76.
We will take the vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived) [see Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 26 agreed to on division)
The next amendment I have is on clause 34. Are there any issues--
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'm still at clause 27.
The question I was asking was whether there are any issues with respect to any clauses from 27 until 33, because I do not have any amendments. I'm happy to entertain any discussion on any one of those clauses. Which clause would you like to—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, Mr. Giguère. I'm just doing this in a very orderly fashion.
(Clauses 27 to 29 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 30—Employer not liable)
We will go to clause 30.
Mr. Giguère.
