Debates of Sept. 29th, 2011

Opposition Motion--Canadian Economy

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his interest in small business. I hope that the next time the NDP proposes a 2 percentage point drop in the small business tax rate, to bring it from 11% to 9%, that he will vote in favour.

To get back to the debate, the Conference Board of Canada indicated last week that the gap between the wealthy and the middle class is growing rapidly. I would like to know whether the Conservative government is committed to reversing course and closing the gap between the wealthy and the middle class.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the NDP proposal to reduce it to 9%. However, I would point out for the member that when we reduced it from 12% to 11%, the NDP opposed that measure. It also opposed the measure with respect to the overall business tax reductions.

He raises a valid question with respect to what we do in terms of a gap between people who are wealthier and people who are struggling.

One of the measures I am most proud of, in terms of what this government has done, is the working income tax benefit. This measure was introduced a number of years ago to assist people who were moving from social assistance into the workforce. When they do that, they often lose an awful lot of benefits. When they get into the workforce and start working, they find it harder to make ends meet because they have an awful lot more expenses. The working income tax benefit is designed to help people at that level so, as they move up, they can move up much more quickly and they do not face that real hardship at the point where they move from social assistance to the workforce.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to let members in on a little secret. The hon. member is quite fond of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but he cannot say so publicly, otherwise he would be run out of his caucus.

I want to get the hon. member's comments on the paragraph with respect to fiscal sustainability in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reported dated today. It states:

PBO’s debt-to-GDP projection indicates that the current federal and provincial-territorial fiscal structure is not sustainable over the long term given projected demographic and economic trends. PBO estimates that permanent and immediate fiscal actions – either through increased taxes or reduced program spending, or some combination of both – amounting to 2.7 per cent of GDP annually would be required to ensure that the net debt-to-GDP ratio does not ultimately rise above its current level.

In other words, in English, it is debt to the horizon for as long as can be projected unless something changes, either by raising the taxes, or reducing program spending, or some combination thereof.

Given that in the last sentence in his presentation he said that we were on track to be balanced by 2015, does he not think the PBO has it right, that this is debt to the horizon for the foreseeable future?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the confession I would have is I am fond of that member. I am not sure how that affects my standing in my own caucus, but I have served on the finance committee with him and he is an excellent parliamentarian.

He raises a valid question. I would point out, though, that the PBO combined both provincial and federal debt. In fact, if we read the report carefully, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is much more critical of provinces in general, and specific provinces. We are having an election in Ontario. I am not supposed to delve into this, but I think he is quite critical of the provincial Liberal government in Ontario with respect to what it is doing with its finances.

I know he respects the IMF very much, but the IMF forecasted that Canada would continue to have, by far, the lowest total government net debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7, 33% in 2016 compared with the G7 average of 92%.

In terms of provincial governments, that is obviously something the federal government does not control. We as Conservatives are very respectful of provincial autonomy. Therefore, as a citizen of Ontario, that is something he will have to address on October 6.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Edmonton—Leduc and I have great respect for him. He served on the industry committee as chair. Now he serves as the finance chair. There are very few members in the House who have a handle on the file that my friend from Edmonton—Leduc does.

The question was raised a number of times about raising the taxes. We hear in the House so often that we have to get those oil companies and get those banks.

As the member comes from the area with the world's third largest oil reserves, the oil sands, could he tell us why the policies that we advocate on this side of the House are the right policies? Maybe he could just touch on the huge demand for employment and tie that into it as well.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, whom I sit with on the finance committee, is exactly right.

What we have to understand in this place is what David Emerson said to me shortly after he left office. He said, “The fundamental fact about economic life is that it is a supply chain”.

For anyone who comes to northern Alberta or to my constituency, if they go to the Nisku Industrial Park and go into a plant and asked where their materials come from, they will be told they are from Ontario, New Brunswick or Quebec. If they asked who the company is partnering with, it will name companies across the country.

If individuals were to come down to Ponoka, they would see Almita Piling inc. It recently did the pilings for the solar farm in Renfrew, Ontario, but it got the materials in Ontario and a lot of the engineering work there.

That is the way the economy works. That is why, when we play these regional games where we target certain areas, and Alberta unfortunately tends to be targeted quite a lot, we hurt ourselves. We are so integrated as an economy, not only within Canada but within North America. Everything is a supply chain. We have to keep in mind what David Emerson said.

I want to acknowledge the member's work. I see the member for Oshawa and the other member whose exact riding I forget. The four of us and as well as members on the opposite side worked on something called accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing sector. We had that in a February 2007 committee report. It was in the March 2007 budget. It is extended in this budget. That was adopted unanimously in a parliamentary report in 2007.

That is one big reason why every member of the House should support the budgets and the economic action plan of the government.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the hon. member's speech, he mentioned a couple of companies in his area that could not find workers. This morning I met with the first nations in my office. One of their biggest complaints is they cannot get enough money for education and for training their youth so they can go out into the workforce and be employed.

Would the hon. member agree with me that the government should give INAC more money so it can educate and train their young people so they can go work to places looking for workers?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a valid question on how to specifically address this. There is obviously increased payments to all the provinces in terms of funding for education, but one of the challenges is a lot of the provincial education money does not get to first nations people who are on reserves.

In terms of education and training, I absolutely agree it is essential. On present labour and future labour, our first nations communities should be the first places we should look at for training and education.

I point out that there are some excellent programs. Eric Newell, the former chancellor of the University of Alberta and the former president of Syncrude, has an outstanding record in that sector and across Canada in terms of employing aboriginals, in partnership with the program pathways to education, and encouraging aboriginal people to finish high school.

That is the first step. A key period on which we should focus is having students finish high school and then going on to a trade school or university. This should be our primary source of finding young people to work in all of our communities.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak today about the increasingly obvious issue of poverty as well as the growing gap between the rich and the poor in this country. I agree with my colleagues, who are outraged at this government's lack of action. It is not taking concrete measures to deal with an alarming economic situation that is affecting Canada and all of its communities.

I think it is time for the government to take its head out of the sand. While it brags to potential foreign investors and the media about how strong and safe our economy is in these tumultuous times, it needs to understand that Canadians are not stupid and they know how fragile the country's economy really is. Numerous recent reports paint a very different picture of the reality all Canadians will have to face, if they have not faced it already.

A recent Conference Board report says that the gap between the rich and poor in Canada is widening, even more than in the United States. What is worse, Canada had the fourth largest increase in that gap among the 17 most industrialized countries. Obviously this is an unacceptable situation and urgent measures must be taken to strengthen the country's economic policy and provide more fair and equal distribution for everyone.

In light of this, it is quite understandable that Canadians wonder why the government is choosing to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

When a country is going through difficult times that could jeopardize its economic health, every second counts. Although other countries around the world seem to be experiencing even greater difficulties than we are, globalization means that our economy is very dependent on events beyond our borders. Therefore, the government must make a commitment to the voters and implement appropriate and equitable initiatives that will protect our economy, create jobs and ensure a well-deserved retirement for our seniors and a prosperous future for our youth. The government must be accountable for its actions and ensure the economic protection of the people. The solution to poverty is to be proactive and not passively implement reactive measures that come too late and are often inadequate.

In the National Council of Welfare's fall 2011 report, the chairperson indicates that readers will see a disturbing picture of poverty in Canada. He also confirms that the toll of poverty on the Canadian economy is too high, and I share that sentiment. To back up what I am saying, here are a few examples.

In 2007, the public cost of poverty, that is, government expenditures—and we have not even mentioned the private cost of poverty—totalled $24.4 billion. This figure is twice the poverty gap, which is the amount of money required to bring all Canadians out of poverty. Can Canadians afford to carry this fiscal burden when studies prove that investments in well-being are more profitable in the long term? The answer is no.

The annual cost of housing an offender in a prison cell is up to 10 times greater than the cost of supervised housing. We know very well that thousands of prisoners are incarcerated for minor crimes, that they have mental health issues, and that they do not receive adequate care for their conditions because of a lack of resources.

Twenty per cent of health care costs are directly related to socio-economic gaps. If the population that is in a precarious financial situation was not in that position, it would be healthier and more able to work.

At this point in time, the Canadian economy is losing between $3.5 billion and $5 billion dollars a year because the skills and experience of immigrant workers are not recognized. These are just a few examples of what poverty costs all Canadians every day.

Other troubling figures also confirm the concerns of Canadians, including the people of my riding who have trusted me to represent them. While poverty among families and seniors is becoming a major source of concern, which the government must pay more attention to, the unemployment rate among young people, even though they are healthy and well qualified, continues to rise.

If the government still believes that Canada's economy will survive the global economic turmoil, why is Canada's labour market so stagnant? Why are Canadian families finding it harder and harder to make ends meet and why are they being forced to drastically lower their standard of living in order to survive?

At this time, we all know that the labour market is weaker than it was even before the financial crisis in 2008. Canada has recorded a net job loss for the first time since last March. In question period, the government boasts about the fact that it has created 600,000 net jobs. We cannot help but wonder about the beginning and end dates of that job creation.

According to Statistics Canada, in August 2011 employment was little changed for the second consecutive month and the unemployment rate edged up slightly to 7.3%. In the past 12 months, employment has grown by 1.3% and 223,000 jobs were created, primarily in Ontario and Alberta, and in the private sector. That is nowhere near 600,000 jobs. Where do those 600,000 net jobs come from, the ones several ministers, including the Prime Minister, keep talking about in question period?

Economists everywhere and the major banks have had to lower their growth forecasts.

Canadians are worried about their retirement and their savings for when they are older.

Madam Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I apologize for not mentioning it earlier.

The overall debt of the average Canadian family has now reached a record level—previously established at 150%. Families with two parents working full-time who used to be middle class are now on the low end of the income scale. Canadian families are suffocating and in debt. They do not have enough money and they do not have time to work more because they are already working as many hours as they can.

The unemployment rate among students reached 17.2% this summer, an increase of over 3% as compared to the rate before the 2008 recession. Students represent the workforce of the future; if they manage to graduate, they are the ones who will be actively participating in our collective growth by paying taxes. Without jobs, the cost of living is too high for students to be able to make ends meet, which leads them to drop out of school.

Is this the dark and difficult future that the government wants to offer these people? It seems clear to me that the government is completely out of touch with the everyday lives of voters and is not taking their situations into account when it implements strict measures and makes drastic budget cuts. Just when Canadians need the government—when they need support and resources to get their heads above water—the government is letting them down.

The numbers speak for themselves. If the government is bragging about keeping the Canadian economy healthy, it needs to redo its calculations. There are good economic strategies and there are optimal strategies. There is a huge difference between spending and investing and the government must recognize that once and for all. Why does the government not see spending to combat poverty as an investment in society?

Maximizing our collective wealth potential depends on full employment. That is why the government must act now to develop a clear and optimal national strategy that will attack poverty directly at the source of the problem rather than adopting strategies that only treat the symptoms.

If Canada is trying to help people survive poverty, I will admit that we are having some success. However, what the government is doing now has significant social costs. If, on the other hand, we want to work together to eliminate poverty and its costly effects, we must adopt a different approach.

What the NDP is proposing in its motion is a true investment strategy in order to optimize Canadian resources, a strategy whose benefits will be seen and felt in the long term. This is a strategy that puts more emphasis on preventing poverty than on spending once the harm has already been done.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the points that the NDP member has made regarding poverty, income inequality, some of the government's failures on the economy, and youth unemployment.

I have a different angle. There is no such thing as a general case. There are areas where unemployment is the biggest problem. However, according to the business community and the individuals I have talked to, there are parts of the country where there are simply no skilled people to fill the jobs there. I heard this in rural Canada and I heard it today at a skilled trades councils conference. What they are looking for from the government is a job creation program. That is what is missing. It is not in the motion.

Is it not important to the member and the NDP that there be a jobs plan that actually addresses the gap in skilled workers, which will be huge within the next 10 years, and gets rid of the barriers to mobility, apprenticeship and training?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for what she said. One of the solutions to the skilled labour shortage would be to recognize the credentials of newcomers to Canada, who are overqualified for the work they are doing.

I will give the example of one of my constituents, a Vietnamese dentist who arrived in Canada. Thanks to employment assistance agencies, she managed to find a dental assistant position after redoing some courses. She was asked to redo her entire education—secondary school, CEGEP and university—in order to be able to do her job. We are denying ourselves a worker and many other workers who are in the same situation. They could be improving the labour market and meeting the needs of the employers.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her eloquent speech. I was very glad to hear her talk about the gaps between the rich and the poor and the long-term cost of that to society.

In her opinion, what new or existing mechanisms could the government use to narrow those gaps?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

This is not the first time we are hearing about pauperization. This is not the first time we are seeing a growing gap between the rich and the poor. This trend goes back several decades. This trend was anticipated and strongly criticized by everyone working in community organizations to improve our society.

The NDP developed a platform to support families. We called for a decrease in the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses to 9%. It is a matter of helping employers hire more employees and lowering the tax rate. The government opposite is telling us that it has made an effort. It has, to a certain point, but we are asking it to go further and not to include these measures in a broader policy, which forces us to vote against their good measures, instead of being able to support them and to weed out the good from the bad.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Monday, October 3, 2011, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Motion agreed to)

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this opposition day motion.

Just this week economists before the finance committee commented on the situation that Canada faces during this current economic turmoil. They were nearly unanimous in their view that due to the lack of investment by the business community combined with Canadians' personal debt burden neither would be likely to stimulate our economy in this time of need. We were told there are some $500 billion that corporations are holding onto. In fairness to corporations, when we consider the experience they had in the recent lending crunch in the last recession it is quite understandable that they would want to protect their cash assets not knowing what the next months and years might bring.

The economists were united in stating that it was time for the government to take up the slack in our economy and invest in our infrastructure. Today in Canada there is a 7.3% unemployment rate. New Democrats believe that it is closer to 11% when we include the people in society who have given up and lost hope. Really we are saying that one in ten Canadians is not working or contributing to our economy and, in many cases, he or she is sadly nosediving into poverty.

Last week the Social Planning & Research Council of Hamilton released a report about seniors poverty. As members will know, in the last session I was the critic for seniors and pensions, but the member for London—Fanshawe has taken over the seniors part of it. This report was very striking. It reported that 7.5% of seniors in Hamilton live in poverty and the rate of poverty among senior women is double that of senior men.

During the last session, I stood in this place month after month calling for the government to dramatically increase the guaranteed income supplement to deal with this untenable situation of seniors poverty. The government responded and in its budget gave them $50 a month as an increase to the guaranteed income supplement. That is a pittance. We need to understand that seniors are living on about $15,200 a year. The poverty line is above $22,000 a year. When I say that $50 is a pittance, I am glad we no longer hear it being trumpeted in the House because it was very troubling to hear that day in and day out.

New Democrats know what is needed. The government needs to stop talking about its record and stop trumpeting its recent electoral victory. Conservatives are the government of the day. It is a victory that cannot be used to once again justify putting on the blinders when it comes to dealing with the needs of Canadians across our country who are facing a crisis. Conservatives continually repeat in this place that they have a clear majority. A clear majority of 61% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives or their agenda.

We need spending that is targeted to: real job creators; the $130 billion deficit in our infrastructure, as identified by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities; construction and the repair of roads and bridges, like the bridge in Montreal; and, public transit. Discussions are taking place regarding a Quebec to Chicago high-speed rail link. There are examples of things that we could be doing.

We also need to target the training and retraining of Canada's workforce. When I was a school board trustee in Hamilton there was a dropout rate of about 28%. In so doing, those people were isolating themselves from being part of the economy. We all understand the need for education and retraining. In my community of roughly 500,000 there are over 112,000 people living in poverty. We need to find a way to bridge the gap between these people and work. Over the next five to eight years employers are going to be crying out for skilled workers.

One of the presenters at our committee today was from a community college. That individual talked about the gap that is going to be there even with our new immigration policy. The gap figure that we will not be able to fill was 30% I believe. Yet, we have people living in poverty who have the capacity to work, if we can find a way to bridge them to that work.

I want to quote Glen Hodgson, the chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada, who was one of the presenters at committee. He said, “We believe that we're severely under-invested as a country in infrastructure. We haven't got the numbers, but others have, engineers have, the federation of municipalities has, and I think their number of going back five years was a deficit of about $130 billion in terms of infrastructure investment”.

He further commented, “This tells me there is huge scope for realigning government spending priorities and making sure we're making adequate investments in roads, in ports, in bridges to ensure that--”, and I am paraphrasing, he said economies like that of Montreal function well. If we lost the bridge in Montreal, what would that do to the economy of that community and the economy of our country? It cannot be allowed to happen.

There are other things that he went on to talk about, such as social infrastructure. Again, he was commenting on the facing of an aging population. We would like to see more Canadians working, and he stressed more women and aboriginals working.

There are programs such as childcare that we could put in place to allow more women to go back to work and improve our labour force participation and make sure companies have the workers they need.

Another presenter at committee was Marc Lavoie. He is a professor with the department of economics at the University of Ottawa. To paraphrase, he said that the Canadian government already in his opinion should abandon this goal of balancing the budget that has been set for 2014-15. It should give up its budget cuts already announced. It must establish a new stimulus package on infrastructure.

We need to put what is being proposed into perspective. The government is proposing to cut services in this country that Canadians need. It is proposing to take some of the workers who work for the government in various programs and put them on the street. We should find a way to move forward.

I know we have great debates in this place over taxes. I keep hearing commentary from the other side stating that the NDP wants to raise taxes. The corporate tax rate in this country in 2000 was 38% and the American rate was 36%. The finance minister to the previous prime minister lowered the Canadian tax rate to 20%, right in the middle of the G20. It was a more than reasonable move, but it took billions of dollars out of the economy, billions of dollars out of this place that we could have used to help Canadians.

What did the present Conservative government do? It took that corporate tax rate of 20%, which was already well below the American 36% rate, and dropped it to 15%. It is on its way to 15%. That takes $16 billion a year out of the government's ability to do things for Canadians in this time of crisis. We had a report of a $12 billion deficit a year ago. Is it not interesting how that matched up very closely with the changes that the government had made? This was a planned deficit that was put in place by the Conservative government.

I recall a minister of education in the government of Ontario talking about causing a crisis in education so the government could address it. We have a government here that has not caused the economic crisis, but it is not responding to it properly. It is exacerbating the crisis and making it much worse than it needs to be.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

I liked what he said about investing in infrastructure, which is strongly linked to the economy and the unemployment rate. For example, this summer when I met the mayors in my riding, the mayor of Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu, a bedroom community, told me there was a lot of vandalism in his community and that the young people were causing a lot of problems. It is a very small municipality and does not have the necessary resources to build recreational centres and arenas. Thus, the young people start to get involved in criminal activity and that is a big problem.

By investing in infrastructure, we can help these young people become great contributors to our society. I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that happens in any society when we have a high level of poverty is that we have people who have a certain sense of desperation, other people who are malicious in what they do. However, with that sense of not having self-esteem that comes from that, we will find that a lot of young people get involved with drugs, alcohol and other substance abuses. Many commit minor offences. That is their way of pushing back at society. The only way to fight that is to give them reasons to remain in school. We have to give them an opportunity that they can turn to and understand that they are going to have a chance for a decent life.

In order to do that, we need the full participation of the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government. There has to be a strategic plan to create jobs, especially for young people.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech, particularly his comments on seniors' poverty.

I am going to take a slightly different tack. The highest living standards will be generated by a strong growth rate and a healthy environment. The most vibrant economies will be the cleanest, energy efficient and resource efficient. Transition is happening around the world. Economic prosperity and environmental responsibility should be mutually reinforcing. Going forward, I think the government should develop a green economic and job strategy to create a more environmentally sustainable economy.

I wonder what specific measures the hon. member might include, greening energy supply, industry, transportation and waste, and what measures the hon. member would suggest for tracking new jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, very clearly, a first step for this country would have been to implement Bill C-311 on the environment. We had the opportunity as a Canadian group of politicians to be a leader in the world and that was defeated, as I recall, in the Senate. I think that would have been an amazing step, and that was originally sponsored by the late Jack Layton who spent a lifetime involved with the environment.

As well, we talked about the revitalization of buildings across our country, the variety of things we could be doing to put people to work. People could start off at a lower level in construction trades by refitting homes and learn the skills necessary to progress in a trade so that project, which we estimated at $2 billion, over time would have created a situation where homes were properly protected from the environment, heating and cooling loss, and all of those things, and at the same time train people and supply some hope for them.

This was a comprehensive question that requires a lot more time than I have to answer it.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to this very important topic. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the opposition motion on pension and retirement income issues. As we know, our government's top priority remains jobs and the economy. Certainly, this is a priority for many retirees and retirement savers.

Today, I would like to speak to what our Conservative government has accomplished in the area of retirement income security. However, before getting into the details, I will touch on what our government has done for the overall economy.

In 2008 Canada was faced with the worst global recession since the 1930s. Our government acted quickly and decisively. Through Canada's economic action plan, we delivered extraordinary support for jobs and growth during a turbulent global economic period, and it worked. With the creation of almost 600,000 net new jobs since July 2009, Canada has more than recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession. It has posted the strongest employment growth among the G7 countries.

Canada has also maintained the best fiscal position among the G7 with the lowest net debt and among the lowest deficits in the G7 as well. Even better, the IMF and the OECD both project Canada to be among the strongest in growth in the G7 and, for the fourth straight year, the World Economic Forum rated our banking system the world's best. Undoubtedly, Canada has an enviable position relative to our G7 counterparts.

Along with our strong fiscal position, solid financial system, and our low tax approach to encourage investment, we are helping to ensure that Canada is well positioned to address any challenge ahead.

As prosperity ties into savings and ultimately retirement, I will move from the topic of overall economy and back to pensions. In so doing, let me begin by saying 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 working and focusing on improving our retirement income system. Indeed, we have already taken major action to strengthen Canada's retirement income system.

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

Since forming government in 2006, our enviable record includes more than $2.3 billion in annual targeted tax relief such as increasing the age credit amount by $2,000; doubling the amount the of income eligibility for pension income credit; and increasing the age limit for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans to 71.

We have introduced the tax free savings account, particularly beneficial to seniors as it helps them meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax efficient basis after they are no longer able to contribute to an RRSP.

Jonathan Chevreau, a noted financial commentator, has declared, “TFSA is also a welcome tax shelter for Canadian seniors”. On pension income splitting for 2007 and subsequent taxation years, Jamie Golombek, a financial commentator, has noted that, “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”.

Furthermore, our record also includes important improvements to several specific retirement income supports. We have dramatically increased the amount working seniors can earn before facing a clawback under their guaranteed income supplement, GIS, allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money.

We have enhanced the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, for those seniors who rely almost exclusively on their old age security and GIS, and may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties. This measure will provide a new top-up benefit of up to $600 annually for single seniors and $840 for couples. This measure will improve the financial security of more than 680,000 seniors across Canada.

Finally, we increased flexibility for seniors and older workers with federally regulated pension assets that are held in life income funds.

Second, we took major steps to reform the legislative and regulatory framework respecting federally regulated private pension plans. Indeed, these steps represented the most significant reforms in nearly 25 years.

Announced in October 2009 after extensive cross-county and online public consultations held in the months beforehand, the reforms include 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 are warmly applauded across Canada. A diverse and broad group of public interest groups ranging through the National Association of Federal Retirees; the Association of Canadian Pension Management; the Canadian Institute of Actuaries; CARP, Canada's association for the 50-plus; the Common Front for Retirement Security; the Bell Pensioners Group; the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association; and even the Canadian Labour Congress welcomed and expressed their pleasure with it.

A Globe and Mail editorial heralded the reforms as a good step. John Manley, a former Liberal Party of Canada member of Parliament, finance minister and deputy prime minister of Canada, declared them 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. This leads to the third and final area of our focus on improving retirement security and pensions in Canada, wherein we are working with our provincial and territorial partners.

While many Canadians may not realize it, the vast majority of pension plans, approximately 90% in Canada, are provincially regulated. In other words, the federal government only has the constitutional authority to make laws related to the private pension plans of federally regulated employers, such as airlines, chartered banks and others, which employ fewer one than one in ten of all 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.

We have demonstrated this by establishing a joint research working group on retirement income adequacy and by holding numerous federal-provincial-territorial summits on the issue.

We also fundamentally believe that the Canadian public had 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 like CUPE, typically not supporters of our government, were forced to begrudgingly admit we had conducted a serious public policy discussion.

Following these extensive and necessary consultations, the findings strongly suggested we explore opportunities to build further on the strength 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.

Indeed, it is one of those innovative improvements I would like to talk about for the remainder of my speech: pooled registered pension plans.

These pooled registered pension plans, PRPPs, available to employers, employees and the self-employed, will provide Canadians with a new low-cost accessible vehicle to meet their retirement objectives.

Once implemented, PRPPs will play a critical role in improving the retirement options available to Canadians, providing a low retirement savings option. Indeed, PRPPs will be a new savings option for the millions of Canadians who have never had a private pension before.

As Rob Brown, a former professor at the University of Waterloo and past president of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries recently stated, “Pooled Retirement Pension Plans could be a big step towards the redesigning the retirement income security systems required for Canadians for the 21st century. Pooled Retirement Pension Plans are a good idea; one clearly worthy of pursuing. Furthermore, PRPPs will be especially important to small businesses and their employees who will now have access to a low-cost private pension plan for the very first time. As many small business employees and employers will pool their pensions, a lower management cost will be achieved, meaning many new savers and Canadians will be buying retirement savings in bulk”.

As a small business owner Ingrid Laderach Steven from Toronto Swiss-Master Chocolatier knows firsthand, after meeting with the Minister of State for Finance about PRPPs, and here is what she had to say--