Finance Committee on March 6th, 2012

[Leah Anderson]

Yes, I have a couple of points. One is that in every circumstance when an employee is giving notice, they have 60 days in which to opt out of the plan. There is a provision—and Lynn might be able to help me out with exactly which one it is—that sets out that, subject to the regulations, a member may set its contribution rate to zero for a time.

We are elaborating that regulation, but it is in keeping with the concept of hardship. So there are two instances: either up front...and then there is contemplated this setting of the contribution rate to zero in the future for that reason.

[Lynn Hemmings, Senior Chief, Financial Sector Division, Department of Finance]

I would just note that the setting of the contribution rate to zero is under subclause 45(2).

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Subclause 45(2) says:

Subject to the regulations, a member may, after notifying the administrator, set a contribution rate of 0%.

Thank you.

I have Mr. Marston.

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

Is there any time limit for which it can be left at zero?

[Leah Anderson]

In the initial period, if a member wants to opt out initially, it's forever. But the frequency and duration will be specified in regulation and be subject to further consultation with stakeholders.

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

So we really don't have the definitive answer, then, as to how long they could set it for at this point?

[Leah Anderson]

But it's contemplated in the act for that reason.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

I have Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

To clarify that, they're automatically part of it, but is it going to be as simple as their indicating to the employer that for personal reasons or whatever they do not want to be part of it and their having the option to put zero down?

[Diane Lafleur]

Yes. For the opting out up front, they don't have to justify why; they can just opt out.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

Mr. Jean, please.

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

I was just going to say that clause 46 also anticipates that they won't be charged anything and that they would have the option of opting out by the 61st day. This is consistent with what the officials are saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Monsieur Giguère.

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

Mr. Chair, I greatly appreciate this attention. But if we allow one person to opt out of a plan for religious reasons, which is perfectly acceptable, we should be able to apply the same justification in the case of someone who doesn't have much income and must choose between paying the rent or contributing to the plan. If we allow someone to opt out of the plan from the start for religious reasons, we should allow someone who doesn't make enough to deal with an economic situation to do the same.

I truly want to believe that we are giving religious justifications an important status, but economic status is the essential element in this matter. If someone wants to refuse, for his or her specific economic reasons or for any reason he or she provides, that person has the right to say no. You said that this was a choice, so why deny that person the choice right from the start?

In clause 41, you allow someone to opt out of the plan for religious reasons, at least 30 days before entering into a contract. Why not also allow anyone to opt out for economic reasons? If it's their choice, why not give it to them?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Anderson.

[Leah Anderson]

Subclause 41(5) is the provision with respect to opting out. Within that same section, whether it be for economic reasons or for whatever reason the employee may have, they have the right to opt out within 60 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Giguère, I don't know whether you'll accept the answer, but the answer the officials are giving is that they believe that what you want is accomplished in either other parts of the clause or other parts of the bill. Again, that's a matter of debate.

Monsieur Giguère.

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

That's your opinion, Mr. Chair, and I have a different one.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. That's why we live in a beautiful democracy.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 41 agreed to on division)

I'll go as fast as the committee allows me, but I do not have another statement from the chair until clause 57.

Are there any issues, questions, or concerns from clause 42 until clause 57? Can members indicate to me whether they have issues or concerns?

Monsieur Giguère, on which clause would it be?

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

I would like just one clarification about clause 56.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, Monsieur Giguère. Just wait a moment.

(Clauses 42 to 55 inclusive agreed to on division)

Now we'll go to clause 56.

Monsieur Giguère.

(On clause 56—Sex discrimination prohibited)

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

Clause 56 reads:

56. The sex of a member or of their spouse, former spouse, common-law partner or former common-law partner must not be taken into account in determining the amount of any contribution required to be paid by the member under a pooled registered pension plan.

When you say that their sex must not be taken into account, is "their sex" to be interpreted in a very broad sense or in a very limited sense? In other words, before we had women and men; now, people can be transgendered, transsexual. Is "their sex" being interpreted broadly?

[Diane Lafleur]

It's in the broad sense. It's the same wording that's currently in the Pension Act and it's consistent with what's in the Charter.