House of Commons Hansard #71 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was plan.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, in order for this bill to be effective provinces have to get behind it, accept it and pass provincial legislation. It would appear that a good number of the provinces are on side and want to see this bill passed.
My question for the member is, if provinces like Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia are showing support for this bill, is there any obligation whatsoever on the part of the NDP to allow this bill to go to committee?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, our obligation is to represent the working people of this country and the people who need pensions.
The fact is that the government barely made any effort to deal with the provinces. If some provinces think that we will take a stinky deal over a good deal, that is not good enough. The fact is that debate has been shut down here after less than 24 hours.
My colleague might want to go home early, and that is fine for him. I am here to debate this bill. I am here to find out what works in this bill and what fails in this bill. There is no reason that I should be expected to stand up in this House and vote for a bill that has been given less than 24 hours of debate.
My colleague might think that it is great that we can get out in time for an early supper or drinks, but this is about our pensions. I am here to debate it. I am here to make sure this job is done right.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, earlier today I posed the question that the member opposite brought up: why could we not just make voluntary payments to the CPP. The reply was that the administration costs would be far higher and there would be less flexibility than with the pooled registered pension plans.
My question for the member opposite is, why would he want more of people's money sunk into administration instead of keeping the money in their pockets and saving more for the future?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I like that my hon. colleague has come up with the money under the mattress theory for savings. The reason CPP works is that the contributions come off people's cheques. They go in the CPP to be used later. That is why it works. If we had a voluntary CPP, there would be no pension plan and everybody would be scrambling.
The member wants the keep the money in their pockets plan. We have had that in the past. It is called money under the mattress or burying something in the back yard. However, if we are going to have a system that people can retire on, we need a system that works. If my colleague thinks that CPP does not work, then maybe the Prime Minister should go to Davos and tell the millionaires that.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we resume debate, I will have to let the member for Selkirk—Interlake know that we will need to interrupt him at 15 minutes after the hour.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-25.
After listening to the debate in the House this afternoon, I must say that I was quite shocked at some of the comments I heard coming from across the floor. The suggestion that all our problems with pension plans can be solved by just increasing the CPP is a misleader. We know that when the finance ministers met and discussed the potential of increasing CPP premiums and benefits that there was no consensus. To have a change in CPP, we need to have the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of Canadians. However, there was not enough consensus around the table to move forward on increasing benefits in the Canadian pension plan. That is why we came forward with the pooled registered pension plan, which is being supported in principle by all provinces. There is unanimous support to go forward with the pooled registered pension plan.
In talking to people in Selkirk—Interlake and the businesses up and down the main streets throughout the 71 communities in my riding, they are glad that they may now have some options. Unlike a lot of places in urban Canada, not a lot of big businesses in rural Canada offer employee pension plans. By not having that employer-employee contribution going into a pension program, people have had to use their own savings or go into their RRSPs. Now there would be an option and the ability for all these small businesses to offer a pension.
If we look at the statistics, small and medium size businesses represent over 90% of the businesses in Canada. They employ 67% of Canadians. A lot of those businesses are owned by self-employed individuals. Now they would have an opportunity to participate in a larger fund that would pool their dollars and cut down on the administration cost so that they could make investments for retirement.
Over the break in January, I met with some of my chambers of commerce. I held some prebudget consultation meetings. Even last fall, in some meetings with municipal councils and chambers of commerce, they were talking about a pooled registered pension plan program. They see this as a benefit. They see this as an opportunity to help retain employees because their employees would now have an opportunity to participate in a pension program rather than having to relocate. We see a lot of people going after more lucrative employment opportunities and leaving for other areas of Canada and urban centres. That is the wrong approach for rural Canada.
By having the government move forward on the PRPP, small and medium size businesses and the self-employed would have a competitive opportunity to keep people in their communities. On top of enjoying the great attributes of rural Canada, people would have the ability to have the same potential for retirement earnings and be able to then retire in those communities. It would allow them to continue having the community services, the schools for their children and to make use of their recreational facilities with that taxpayer base through property taxes. Therefore, we need to maintain that population base and this is another tool that would allow us to do it.
I encourage everyone, when we vote in a few minutes on Bill C-25, to support it.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order. It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The House resumed from December 14, 2011, consideration of the motion.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 270.
The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-288, An Act respecting the National Flag of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-288.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
It being 6:19 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The House resumed from November 2, 2011, consideration of the motion that Bill C-306, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (political affiliation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.