Madam Speaker, I welcome the interventions from colleagues in the House on my motion.
The message and signal that I heard from the parliamentary secretary was that the finance department welcomes this initiative. Obviously I am pleased to hear that. I am pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say this concept of an after tax personal retirement account is worth investigating.
It is my belief that many Canadians would endorse this initiative if and when they become aware of the concept. I welcome the parliamentary secretary's statements as they probably represent the view of the department.
The parliamentary secretary was correct that there are many questions and much research that needs to be done in order to determine the appropriate design of an after tax personal retirement account. I also said that in my speech. All the points I made were only examples in order to lead the discussion in the right direction.
I urge the department to get on with it. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his supportive comments but there was no sense of urgency. If it were a worthy initiative then we should simply get on with it.
I share the concern of my colleague from Elk Island. Canadians are feeling poorer, especially our seniors. They do need other options available to them to look at when they reach retirement.
The hon. member for Dartmouth missed my point. The government gets the taxes sooner rather than later. The hon. member for Dartmouth talked about this retirement savings vehicle and described it as a tax loophole. It is hardly a loophole. As a matter of fact many governments would view this as a tax grab, a tax windfall. That is exactly my point. It is not a tax loophole. Taxes are paid up front rather than deferred until later.
Many low income earners would choose this after tax way of saving for retirement because of the certainty of what their later income would be, or could be, and also because withdrawals in a flexible way would have no impact on income for taxation purposes when people are more vulnerable to government tax grabs. That is the point the hon. member for Elk Island made with the senior with the leaky roof. Those kind of rainy day withdrawals would be much more enabled through an after tax personal retirement account than under the RRSP program.
I am not arguing against an RRSP program. I am saying a judicious mix of the two would be appropriate. The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough spoke on the motion and I too advocate other tax relief measures.
The motion is not votable. It was deemed not votable by a small all party committee requiring unanimous consent. This drives private members' business into mundane business at times rather than substantive issues. It is time and it is overdue for all private members' business to be votable in the House.