Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2010

Pensions

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for speaking tonight. I certainly know she is very sincere in her comments.

The consulting has been going on for two years. Several times I asked the Minister of Industry about changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or the pension issue. He would often tell me to wait, that it was coming, or that he would do something. I also asked what could be done on the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act when it came to Nortel and so on.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister of Labour just what influence she has exercised with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry to try to deal with the terrible situation that Nortel and AbitibiBowater have found themselves in.

Second, when we talk about the RRIFs, that is good. It is certainly a recommendation in the white paper that I put out. However, it is still only seniors who are withdrawing.

The fact is, many of them have not recovered from the impact of the income trust debacle when it was promised there would be no changes. However, immediately upon being elected, income trusts were one of the first things where the rug was pulled out from under them. We can talk about the good things that the government has done such as income splitting and a few other things, and praise is due. However, income trusts have hit seniors immensely.

We have been waiting for two years now for some sort of comment back on pension reform. Clearly it takes working together with the provinces to make any of these things happen.

I would be very interested to know what she has done to attempt to get her government to do something about the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or if not that, a stranded pension agency, or something that is going to help many of the people we are dealing with today.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am quite pleased to answer that question in the context of what I have done as Minister of Labour.

As the member knows, in labour we have a very privileged perch in that we get to speak to both employers and organized labour employees. They come together around the same table. In fact, tonight there was a meeting of the ministerial advisory committee on labour relations and there was a discussion of pension issues. People gave me their feedback and points of view on the matters.

There is no question that employers, employees with organized unions and non-unionized employees all share the concern about the future of pensions. They understand and respect that there is a process around what we are trying to accomplish and that we have but one chance to get it right. That is why we are taking more time in order to get the job done correctly.

The other aspect of discussing it from a labour point of view is we look at some of the other programs we have put in place that have helped in the same vein. We introduced the wage earner protection, for example, which dealt with certain aspects that we did not expect to encounter with respect to bankruptcies of companies. It has been a very successful program. I appreciate the member giving credit where credit is due in terms of that, the TFSA and what we have done with respect to income splitting.

The process I laid out in my remarks is important to think about as well. I appreciate the fact the member acknowledges it is not always easy to collaborate with all of the provinces. However, we are moving in the right direction and are going to get to the right spot.

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

Mr. Chair, I know the minister has dialogued with the Canadian Labour Congress and others. In fact, I was speaking with the secretary treasurer tonight and I know they are in discussions around doubling CPP, which the NDP is recommending.

I want to take us to a different place at this point in the conversation. I and the member for York West have repeatedly raised the issue of seniors living below the low-income cutoff, the ones living in poverty. Between 200,000 and 300,000 people are living below it.

Since the government has come in, it has lowered the tax rate. The corporate tax rate was at 22%. The comparative American tax rate is 36%. When the regime of corporate tax breaks has ended, we will have a 15% tax regime in Canada for corporate taxation.

With regard to people living below the low-income cutoff, the next stage of cuts in January 2011 will be approximately $1 billion to $1.2 billion. If we set that aside and say that corporations can survive quite well with the regime that would keep them in the area of 16% or 17%, would the government consider setting aside that tax break and invest that $700 million annually into the GIS to get those seniors above the poverty line?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I truly appreciate where the member is coming from. I was raised by senior citizens on Cape Breton Island and am very well aware of the issues surrounding the cutoffs and the amounts of pension and old age supplement that are available when trying to raise a family.

I am very proud that this government has taken action by taking 950,000 people off the tax rolls by dealing with those things. That is really going to the heart in a lot of cases of the poverty issue.

With respect to the broader question on what we plan to do on taxation of corporations, the fundamental truism is that we need corporations in order to generate jobs. One way to ensure we have employers generating jobs and creating growth is by having the most competitive tax regime we possibly can in the world. That is what is going to create jobs for us and drive our economy.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, something I do not think has received enough notice this evening is one part of what the ministers of finance, coming out of the Charlottetown meeting, wanted to discuss further, and that is financial literacy. The finance minister has put in place a task force that will report very soon, hopefully before the end of the year.

We are talking about current issues, and I am sure the minister will share this, being a parent. At what age do we teach our children about financial and economic literacy so they do not fall into the same trap that some people do when they have not prepared for their retirement?

I spoke to an economist at Purdue University last week who suggested that the U.S. research said that we needed to educate these young people in financial and economic literacy between the ages of four and twelve. I was a little surprised by that, seeing as we do not legislate or we cannot get involved in education, which is a provincial matter.

Does the minister have any ideas as to how we can deal with that? How we catch these kids? How can we teach them the value of a credit card, the costs of a credit card, the financial responsibilities that go along with that and the need to prepare for their retirements?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I very much appreciate the parliamentary secretary giving me what is almost like a slow fastball in terms of a question tonight. I am the mother of two young sons, nine and six, and had this issue happen on the weekend.

We were at a charity event for the Hospital Foundation in Milton. One of my sons won, as the prize, a bank account with one of our chartered banks. It allowed us to have the conversation about financial responsibility, the importance of saving and the importance of thinking about the future.

As Minister of Labour, I have the opportunity to talk to youth groups because we are very much focused on the safety of our children and the first workers out there. One of the opportunities I take is to talk about what their plans are for the future and what their plans are fiscally in terms of where they want to be in the future and what kinds of things they want to have. I certainly do not want our generation to be the last one that does better than our parents. I want my children to do better than me, moving forward.

I very much appreciate the focus that the consultations have had on financial literacy. I hope we all do our part to ensure that our children understand the importance of the money they earn, the taxes they pay and the respect for the taxpayer, which we have on our side of the House.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, I commend the Liberal member for York West for all her tremendous work over the last few years in moving the pension agenda forward in Parliament.

Pensions have been a major priority for the Liberal Party and myself for the last few years. The party has already announced substantial proposals to improve the Canadian pension plan system.

As members may know, I was at the union press release in Whitehorse for its proposals and release of the CPP.

I am going to do something this evening that no other speaker will do. I am going to list four specific problems with existing pensions or proposals for improving pension plans. The government could act on these four problems or not. I predict that all the government members who speak tonight will wax eloquent on their support for pension improvement. We will see if it is just rhetoric from how they deal with the four problems people are expressing that I raise this evening.

The first is the simplest as it only requires providing some more required details on the government's announced plans to improve the Canada pension plan, CPP. However, as all members of Parliament are aware, the CPP is intricately interwoven with the Government of Canada's superannuation plans for the military, RCMP and government employees. There are complicated calculations bouncing payments between superannuation and CPP, depending on the retirement ages that people choose to receive their benefits from these pensions.

Dorothy Drummond and our Seniors' Information Centre want to know how the government plans to integrate their new CPP proposals with these plans. On the website announcing the CPP changes, the government does not explain how the new CPP will be integrated with the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

Seniors and elders want to know this and I am confident the government will be coming forward with all these details, as it should, before Christmas.

Problems number two and three deal with aspects of military pensions. Problem two deals specifically with reservists' ability to be eligible for pension benefits. Reservists across the country owe a debt of gratitude to reservist Mark Evans-Ehricht for preparing the following comments.

Remembrance Day is still fresh in our minds. Canadians demonstrated deep concern for the welfare of our veterans. Veterans spoke out about their needs. The work of Remembrance continues. Systemic injustices need fixing.

Reservists serve Canada. These men and women give us unique service. Reservists step away from the safety and security of their families, communities and employment, put on military dress and dedicatedly take up military arms on behalf of Canada.

Few other Canadians place themselves in harm's way for Canada like this. About 25% of Canada's Afghanistan forces are reservists. What would we do without them? They are veterans.

Reservists take care of Canada. They do their part. Parliament's role is to reciprocate, to be fair to them. That is our role. That is our least service to them. Ensure the rules of their service make sense, rather than offend common sense.

Military reservists deserve one simple, fair and reasonable change to one pension rule. The previous Minister of the Treasury Board confirmed, in writing, that the laws of in the Public Service Superannuation Act, combined with the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, have just one pension eligibility rule that applies to all the Canadian Forces, and for all federal employees.

That rule is that a person must work continuously for six months for pension benefits to apply. This is a huge barrier for reservists.The six months of consecutive service rule is only fair to persons working long continuous time periods. Almost everyone in service to the Government of Canada qualifies under that rule, except reservists. That is simply wrong.

This rule should not apply to reservists for their service to Canada. They serve shorter periods of time, a sequence of weeks, or of months is the norm. Very few serve six continuous months and longer. So this rule shuts almost all reservists out of superannuation benefits for the time they serve Canada.

That is what happens when only a full-time rule exists and applies to those whose service is by its nature part-time. This one size fits all rule defies common sense. Whether this situation was intended, or was intentional, which would be terrible, it is systemic unfairness. It is wrong. It is a flaw. It can be corrected simply, Parliament can correct it. Reservists need their own rule.

This issue is ripe for all party support. All parties support basic fairness for our troops, the full-time and the part time. To start collective thinking on this, I propose two months of consecutive service as the standard for reservists. It would accord with part-time service. It would be a vast improvement. It seems fair.

The cost would need to be determined. I expect it would be well within our means; a cost we must afford.

In fairness to our serving reservists, making the two month service rule retroactive must be considered. It would allow reservists to buy back service periods of two consecutive months or more. Their service to Canada is as dedicated as our service. They stand on guard for us all.

He thanks the government for looking into and solving this problem quickly out of respect for these reservists who dedicate so much for our nation.

Problem three is also related to the military and the people in the forces should thank the navy reservists for bringing the point forward. The fact is that the government has severely short-changed members of our forces by not providing sufficient human resources staff to compute and calculate the military pensions for regular forces and reservists in a timely fashion. Members of the forces are waiting months to have their requests to buy back pension time calculated. This is totally unacceptable and I hope the government will act quickly to deal with this problem that is hurting employees of our armed forces who sacrifice so much for us.

The fourth and final issue is a very serious set of problems the government has created for its own government employees with the centralization of Public Service Superannuation Act services.

I provide information from the Yukon government and employees' unions. Presently, the Yukon government employees are part of the public service superannuation plan. The Yukon government, at no cost to the federal government, does a lot of the calculations for employees approaching retirement, looking to buy back service, start benefit payments or collect survivor benefits. Now, all of this is being taken away and being centralized in New Brunswick, thousands of miles from my constituents who previously could just walk in to a local office and get the answers they needed as they prepared for retirement.

The Yukon government has noted that some wait times have extended as long as four to five months between an employee's retirement date and the receipt of pension or benefits. How would the minister or her staff or the parliamentary secretary or the employees in the lobby providing answers feel if their income was interrupted for four or five months because of their government's disastrous mistake? These are the most vulnerable seniors who can least afford these long delays in getting their payments.

The Yukon government may be late in getting information on whether the employee is eligible for severance annuity or allowance, which just exacerbates the situation and seniors' financial precariousness.

The employees cannot attend pre-retirement seminars as they cannot get their personal information in time. These employees could also build up huge future deductions from their limited cheques because of delay in information that puts off for months buy back deductions, which then accumulate to huge amounts. Other benefit entitlements and information and survivor benefits will also likely be delayed.

These unacceptable delays and lack of effective timely service is no way to treat senior citizens, those government employees who have dedicated their lives to providing important services for us all.

It is up to the federal government to move quickly to solve these four administrative problems. They are not difficult to solve. They could be fixed fairly easy. However, as a result of these problems, the government is hurting our most vulnerable Canadians, military and government employees, senior citizens who have done so much for our country and who do not deserve to be treated like this in their sunset years.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for Yukon for raising the issue of the military because there has not been a lot said in the debate tonight regarding them.

He raised the issue of military superannuation and the CPP, which is important, but he made mention of a new CPP. The proposition, as I understand it, is not for a new CPP but a growth of the core assets of CPP over a period of 35 years which, if at the rate that we would like to see, would ultimately cause the payout of CPP to go from $908 a month to over $1,800 a month.

In my mind, that period of time and with people of goodwill in this place,we would be able to deal with the concerns he has about that balancing between the military superannuation and the CPP. What I hear in this place are people who are willing to come together to try to overcome issues like that.

The member's party has proposed a voluntary supplemental CPP. My concern is that, if 63% of Canadians today have no pension and no savings, they are the generation that is also living on credit. They are people who have not had a record of savings for a variety of reasons. It strikes me as very unlikely that the supplemental CPP would be any different for them than the RRSP system is today and as ineffectual for them in their future. We need to act wisely on this. As the government has said repeatedly, it is necessary to give solid consideration to the outcomes.

I reported earlier tonight that Professor Kesselman, who is an expert on pensions from out west, has endorsed the NDP's view in a discussion that there seems to be a consensus coming on increasing the CPP. Jack Mintz, the head of the task force itself, has agreed with that.

On balance, why is the Liberal Party still holding on to this idea of a supplemental CPP that will not apply to these particular people?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, the member raised two very good points.

His first point on the integration of the CPP and the military superannuation was a very good point. When we talk to the people in the legions, it is incredible how animated Red Grossinger and Wayne Wannemaker can get about what they feel is a slight against their service to their country. As the member said, there seems to be a will in Parliament to raise the amounts so that discrepancy does not occur anymore.

I have always been for expanding the Canada pension plan. We are for an expanded Canada pension plan, plus the supplementary plan.

I think the voluntary Canada savings account has $16 billion. Therefore, to some extent people do invest in these voluntary options. Personally, I am willing to look at any option that will help those 63% of people who the member quite correctly outlined do not have adequate pensions at this time.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I applaud my colleague from Yukon. About every two or three days, I get an email or a question about something to do with pensions. The member is very connected to his riding and I know he is very concerned about the people in his constituency having a better future and a more positive future.

I would like to ask him for his comments on the recently released white paper document, which was as a result of 18 months of work with an expert working group across Canada. It contains 28 recommendations, one of which was the issue of the cost of living, which has been raised a couple of times by the member. Even though there is a difference between different provinces and different territories, there is one flat cost of living across the board. I would like the member to comment on that.

I also would like the member to comment on the supplementary pension plan program. The fact that $16 billion has gone into TFSAs, which is the tax free savings account, on a voluntary basis, proves that if we provide a good vehicle people will contribute.

The supplementary plan is an automatic enrolment with the ability to opt out. If people are employed they can contribute to Canada pension plan but if they are not employed they cannot. Therefore, the supplementary plan would provide farmers, the self-employed, caregivers and women who are at home with a vehicle to contribute toward their pension.

I would like to hear a comment from my colleague on that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member for York West for her tremendous work on pensions over the years. I would like to make two comments related to her question.

The first is related to a unique issue that I have not mentioned tonight. It came from an aboriginal first nation that would like to provide tax-free support to its very poor elders. It suggested that other governments can give certain tax-free benefits, so why can it not? This should certainly be up for discussion.

She mentioned the cost of living. As the official opposition critic for the Arctic and the north, this is a very important point. People may appear to have similar wages right across Canada, but the cost of living in the high Arctic, for instance, is two to four times what it is elsewhere in Canada. In the north people can pay $20.00 for a jug of milk. People living in the northern parts of provinces who may appear to be equally as wealthy as everyone else can be living in abject poverty, with very limited pensions. Imagine the cost of heating when temperatures dip to 30° and 40° below zero, or the cost of shipping food by air all that distance. Those are things that definitely have to be taken into consideration for the seniors and elders of northern Canada and the Arctic.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have certainly enjoyed the member's speeches over the last couple of years.

When it comes to the issue of pensions, doubling the CPP from $908 a month to $1,800 a month phased in over 35 years is the solution almost everybody I talk to agrees with. I cannot find anybody who agrees that a supplementary voluntary pension plan is the way to go. The Liberal Party should recognize that. The idea has been out there for six months. It is not getting traction anywhere. There is no real support for it. It is time to give it up, get on board with the majority and support the idea of increasing the CPP.

Even the government, after all of the hearings that it had, has agreed that increasing the CPP is the way to go.

We should all be working together here. Voluntary plans do not really work. Only people who have money who are thinking in terms of retirement will invest in these plans. Other people will simply spend the money on other things. At the end of the day, we would have a very uneven system. We would have people who are very poor who do not have pension plans and other people who have extra resources who have decent plans. That is not a very good way to plan retirement in this country.

The errors and mistakes that we have in the system right now, it is the Liberal governments in the past that have set up all the pension schemes we have right now. And here--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I am going to stop the member there because we are almost out of time. I will give the member for Yukon a chance to respond.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of points in response.

First, it is not an either/or situation. The Liberals are in favour of expanding Canada pension plan benefits. I think I just mentioned that, but I will mention it again.

As I said, I was at the Canadian union's announcement and I was quite supportive of expanding Canada pension plan benefits.

For those who do not have that, the supplementary system has been approved by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and about 22 other organizations, as was mentioned by the member for York West. There is an example of a recent plan in which $16 billion was invested very quickly. People do invest in voluntary plans when they have no other option.

We are providing both options: increasing the Canada pension plan and, personally I hope, also increasing the old age supplement, and also offering a supplementary plan for those who do not fit into the other plan.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on pension and retirement income issues and to speak to what our Conservative government has accomplished in this important area in recent years.

My riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale has one of the highest concentrations of retired Canadians of any community in the nation. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to participate in this debate which is focused on improvements to Canada's retirement income system, including the ongoing dialogue between federal, provincial and territorial governments and consultations with all Canadians.

Let me start by stating that our government shares the deep-rooted concerns of many Canadians about their retirement security. We understand the importance of a secure and dignified retirement, especially after a lifetime spent building a better Canada through hard work.

For that reason we have been aggressively focused on working to improve our retirement income system. Indeed, we have already taken major action to strengthen Canada's retirement income system.

What have we done? In recognition of their lifelong contributions to our country and our government's core belief that Canadians should keep more of their hard-earned money, we dramatically lowered the federal tax bill for seniors and pensioners.

Since forming government in 2006, our enviable record includes more than $2 billion in annual targeted tax relief, such as: an increase to the age credit amount by $2,000; doubling the amount of income eligible for the pension income credit; increasing the age limit to 71 for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans; introducing the tax free savings account, which is particularly beneficial to seniors as it helps them meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax efficient basis after they are no longer eligible to contribute to an RRSP.

Jonathan Chevreau, a noted financial commentator, has declared the TFSA is “a welcome tax shelter for Canadian seniors”.

Another thing we have done is we have provided pension income splitting since 2007 and subsequent taxation years. Jamie Golombek, managing director of tax and estate planning at CIBC and a financial commentator has noted, “pension splitting is probably one of the biggest tax changes in decades, in terms of the amount of tax savings this can mean for pensioners”.

What is more, our record also includes important improvements to several specific retirement income supports, such as dramatically increasing the amount working seniors can earn before facing a clawback under their guaranteed income supplement, allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money. As well, we have increased the flexibility for seniors and older workers with federally regulated pension assets that are held in life income funds.

What else have we done? We have taken major steps to reform the legislative and regulatory framework respecting federally regulated private pension plans. Indeed, this represented the most significant reforms in nearly 25 years.

Announced in October 2009 after extensive cross-country and online public consultations held in the months beforehand, the reforms included: enhancing protections for plan members; allowing sponsors to better manage their funding obligations; making it easier for participants to negotiate changes to their pension arrangements; improving the framework for defined contribution and negotiated contribution plans; and modernizing the investment rules.

These key reforms were warmly applauded across Canada. A diverse and broad group of public interest groups ranging from the National Association of Federal Retirees, the Association of Canadian Pension Management, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, CARP, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, the Common Front for Retirement Security, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, and even the Canadian Labour Congress all welcomed and expressed their pleasure with these changes.

A Globe and Mail editorial heralded the reforms as a “good step”.

Even John Manley, former Liberal member of Parliament, finance minister and deputy prime minister, declared them to be “significant reforms that will enhance protection for plan members”.

However, those reforms to federally regulated private pension plans were only one step in a much larger process.

That leads to the final area where we have made some improvements. We are focused on improving retirement security and pensions in Canada by working with our provincial and territorial partners.

While many Canadians may not realize it, the vast majority of pensions are regulated by the province. Only 10% are regulated federally. In other words, the federal government only has the constitutional authority to make laws related to the private pension plans of federally regulated workers, such as those who work for the airlines, chartered banks and so on, which employ less than one in ten workers in Canada.

That is why to address larger pan-Canadian concerns about pensions, we have been examining the relevant issues with our provincial and territorial counterparts in a co-operative and constructive manner, not by imposing unilateral or fragmented solutions as some would have suggested even here tonight.

In the words of Ontario Liberal finance minister Dwight Duncan, “Our preference is a pan-Canadian solution as opposed to each province on its own”. We have demonstrated this recently by establishing a joint research working group on retirement income adequacy, and by holding numerous federal-provincial-territorial summits on this issue.

We also believe that the Canadian public has a fundamental right to be involved in and at the centre of this debate. That is why we have ensured that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have had the opportunity to have their voices heard in person and online. From March to May 2010, we invited public input through round table discussions, expert conferences, online consultations and public town hall meetings to gather feedback directly from Canadians.

Even labour organizations, such as CUPE, typically not supporters of our government, have been forced to begrudgingly admit that we have conducted “a serious public policy discussion”.

Following these extensive and necessary consultations, the findings strongly suggested that we explore opportunities to build further on the strengths of Canada's retirement income system. As a result, we agreed, along with the provincial and territorial governments, to explore a set of innovative improvements. While no final decisions have been made at this point, options are under study and development for further review when federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers meet again at the end of 2010.

Clearly, our Conservative government is taking a leadership role in addressing the concerns surrounding retirement income adequacy. However, as with many issues, there is always more that could be done.

As a member of the Commons finance committee, I have had the opportunity to hear a great deal from experts on the issue of retirement savings in recent months. We have been given countless suggestions, but I would like to focus on a few that will not cost our government much, if anything, but may improve the long-term prospects for many future retirees.

First, we can work toward making RRSP contribution limits fairer for Canadians without pension plans. The incomes of non-salaried Canadians vary widely from year to year, and the self-employed and small business employees are often challenged to achieve the same savings as those with employer-contributed pension plans.

One solution may be to base RRSP contribution limits on an average income, allowing the carry forward or back of earned income above the annual limit to maximize RRSP contributions.

Another solution may be to adopt a lifetime savings limit, so that workers can obtain the necessary retirement savings at any point in their lifetime.

Another approach to helping those without an employer-provided pension could be to allow for the creation of pooled pension plans. Delinking employment from pension plans and allowing workers to participate in pooled pension arrangements would allow many Canadians to access greater retirement security at no cost to taxpayers.

We had a couple of suggestions regarding lost RRSP contribution room, which impacts the ability of Canadians to maximize the full benefit of RRSPs. RRSP contribution room is lost when workers make withdrawals due to financial hardship, a lost job or other circumstances during their working lives. Restoring that RRSP contribution room when withdrawals are made would allow workers to replace their retirement savings once their personal crisis was past, and ensure that the funds would be there for their golden years.

RRSP contribution room is also lost when those who do not contribute to RRSPs early in life lose the value of their contribution room through inflation. This probably applies to most Canadians, as mortgages and children tend to be major expenses earlier in their earning years as workers, and their RRSP contributions are often delayed.

By indexing their unused RRSP contribution room to inflation, we could introduce additional fairness for these Canadians.

Another suggestion we heard concerned allowing Canadians greater diversity in the choice of their registered foreign investments. More diverse investment opportunities spread and reduce investment risk and could lead to greater returns for investors.

However, the number of stock exchanges where Canadians can invest retirement savings is currently limited. Currently, foreign stock exchanges must apply to be listed to sell securities to Canadians. Expanding the list of stock exchanges worldwide would increase the diversity of Canadians' investment portfolios.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to have to stop the member there. His time has expired.

I will open the floor up now to questions and comments. The hon. member for York West.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I know the hon. member is well aware from the work he does in committee of all the things that have been done by his government, but what about the things that have not been done?

We have heard all year about the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and what has happened with Nortel, AbitibiBowater and others. Has the member come up with any suggestions on things that he would support and has he advocated to the government for some of the changes that would have helped the 17,000 Nortel people who, in another few weeks, will end up with very little income? That is one question.

My second question is that I would be interested to know what the member's thoughts are on the mandatory retirement age and what he thinks should happen when he is moving along that avenue.

My third question is about the stranded pension agency. One issue is that pensioners are being forced to liquidate their savings now as a result of the bankruptcy. It would have been a very simple thing for the government of today to do. I actually thought the Minister of Industry was going to do it in order to help many of those people.

I would be interested in the member's comments.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague from York West has raised a number of questions and I will do my best to answer as many of them as I can.

She started with pensions that are regulated provincially. It is important to recognize that we are very concerned about these individuals, but we also have to recognize the limits of our jurisdiction. As has been mentioned many times this evening during the question and answer period, we are working with the Province of Ontario to address the concerns she has raised, but we have to recognize that a court has made certain decisions and that the provinces ultimately have the prerogative to decide how they will address this. We will be working with them in whatever way we can to facilitate that.

She also raised the question about mandatory retirement age. That is a very interesting question. I think many Canadians, although they do not want to be told when to retire, would like to have the option of deciding for themselves when they would like to retire. I know from an earlier conversation with the Minister of Labour that she is in fact consulting Canadians on this issue at the present time.

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

Mr. Chair, throughout this debate and over the last 18 or 20 months I have been curious about the government's view. When I was listening to the member talk about the TFSAs, pension income splitting, and what a retired senior who is working can earn before there is a clawback, it occurred to me the lens the government has been looking through is a different lens from the one the rest of us have been looking through.

In my community of 500,000 people, Hamilton, there was an exposé called “Code Red” in the local paper, which said that 20%, or 100,000 people, live in poverty in that community. That gives us a different lens.

The things I hear the government talking about are things it has acted upon with finances. It says it only accounts for 10%. But it has legislative authority over old age security, GIS and CPP. Will the government not raise the GIS to support seniors living in poverty?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to serve with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek on another committee.

With respect to his question, it is important to note that this government has taken 950,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. The average family in Canada saves more than $3,000 a year, thanks to the tax cuts of our government. We have cut over 100 taxes in every way that the government collects taxes, whether it be personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes, excise taxes and more.

Regarding the tax free saving account, the Minister of Finance was before our committee today and noted that more than four million Canadians had taken the step of saving in this fashion.

I want to note what Peter Aceto, chief executive officer of ING Direct, said with respect to the TFSAs. He said, “We think the tax free savings accounts are a great gift the government has given to Canadians to help them save. It is the most important thing that has happened in that regard since RSPs were introduced 50 years ago”.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to quote a Liberal member from earlier this evening, not in this debate but in a debate regarding a private member's bill on pensions. That Liberal member said, ”We either come here to make a point or we come here to make a difference”. In my view he is absolutely right, and this government has made a difference. The Liberal approach is to always try to make a point, but they never actually make a difference.

This government has made a difference. I have a long list which includes the introduction of pension income splitting, the increase in the age credit amount by $2,000, doubling the amount of income eligibility of pension income to $2,000 from $1,000, and the list goes on and on. We talked about RRIFs.

The point is we are making a difference. My colleague spoke about what we are hearing at committee. I happen to sit on the same committee. There were a number of suggestions.

Is it not important that the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Finance consult with all Canadians, including those in the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to have to stop the member there to allow the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale a chance to respond.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to serve with the member on the finance committee. He is one of the shining lights on that committee, as is the parliamentary secretary.

The member raises a good point. He has listed the things that our government has done as accomplishments. I listed some of those as well.

It is important for Canadians to recognize that when it comes to consultation, we are setting a higher standard than perhaps any previous government has done in terms of inviting Canadians to provide us their input, whether it is on pension reform or prebudget consultations on the next budget.

We are listening to Canadians in a way that I do not think has ever been done in this place. I am proud of the fact that our government is setting such a high standard in this regard.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, the member spoke of the importance of the integrity of a third tier of the retirement income system in Canada, which is the self-directed, self-contributed registered retirement savings plan.

The Conservative member emphasized how essential that tier, that key plank was to the overall security of the retirement income system in our country and basically implied to Canadians, through the House, that messing with that was a mistake. Yet the government messed with it.

The government messed with it in May 2010 through a functional and guidance order to staff when dealing with applications for the guaranteed income supplement. It changed the rules. It fundamentally changed the message to Canadians about the safety and security of their investments, which they thought they were making when they were in their working lives and which have now changed now that they are in their retiring lives.

I want to hear from the member, not whether the government is reviewing the situation and not whether it is assessing the situation. The government made a decision in May 2010 to eliminate tens of thousands of dollars in value from RRSP and RRIF contributions by amending the orders for RRIFs and it did so without any thought or even giving one word of advice or information to seniors—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there.

The member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale has less than a minute.