Ted Menzies

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by apologizing to my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I should not have suggested that she was not following the debate. What I intended in my remark was to suggest that she was not listening to the facts and figures in that debate. I would like to offer that apology to my colleague.

We talked about the length of time. We have had double the time to discuss the overarching budget implementation act that is no different from any other budget implementation act. We call it budget implementation act one because there is a lot in a budget. There is a lot in a government's plan that is put forward during the year. It usually takes two budget bills to get all of this through.

This is a momentous year for us. We have been recognized around the world as being on the right track financially. We need to continue on that. It takes decisive actions. That is exactly what we put into the budget implementation act, the decisions that will keep us on the right financial track.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, starting off, the hon. member's address to me as parliamentary secretary actually shows that she has not been following the debate. I was quite honoured to be asked by the Prime Minister to become the Minister of State for Finance. I carry that challenge honourably. I would also like to point out that was just the first mistake in the question or first unfactual comment.

I understand there were actually 70 hours of witnesses appearing at two subcommittees, not only one. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those individuals, all of those elected members of Parliament who sat until midnight many nights listening to all of those witnesses. That is the way policy should be debated in the House.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, democratic debate is exactly what we have had. Democratic debate was taken away from all of the members in the House, if we will recall. Madam Speaker, I am sure you will recall the 13 hours of Twitter regurgitation that we sat through. In my books, that is not exactly learned debate.

We had a budget that was tabled in this House. Merely moments after, a very substantive budget document was read into the record outlining the government's overarching plan for this year. The NDP members announced that they would vote against it. Then they put up a speaker, the speaker for Burnaby—New Westminster, who basically stole everyone else's time. Every other elected member of Parliament who could have had an opportunity to either speak in favour of, or to ask questions of, the budget chose not to.

However, 13 hours of tweeting is not substantive debate.

[The Budget, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let us remind the opposition what is actually in the budget bill, what they claim after a few short minutes. Our finance minister delivered his speech here in the House of Commons. It was only minutes after that, obviously before the NDP members had read the budget, that they said they were going to oppose it. I would like to know if they have actually changed their minds? Are they still going to vote against extending the hiring credit for small and medium-sized businesses? Are they going to vote against funding for skills and job training? Are they going to vote against funding for infrastructure? I would like the answer to that. Most of all, why would they vote against that?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and take us through to the beginning of question period.

I have listened to many of the debate today, or the false information, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you have been able to recognize this, having listened to many of these debates. We have certainly given this fulsome debate in the House as well as in committee. We have brought in witnesses who talked about the benefits of the pooled registered pension plan.

It has been said many times, but not enough and it deserves repeating, that this will be a low-cost option to those Canadians, 60% of those in the workforce, who do not now have available to them a workforce pension plan that their employer can choose to contribute on their behalf. That is the option of the employer.

We, on this side of the House, think that option is exactly what our businesses want. They have asked us for an opportunity so they can choose to offer this pension option, this retirement option, this savings option to their employees and, if so, they can choose to contribute as well on their behalf.

We see it as accessible, which has been mentioned many times, by any Canadian. In many forums I have been asked if this is this only for small businesses. Absolutely not. It is available to any business that chooses to offer it.

For the first time in history, this is available to self-employed Canadians who can contribute to their retirement. A lot of self-employed Canadians have not had the option to become part of a larger pool at low cost, where the administration costs are low.

I have heard lots of comments from the other side that are very much ill-informed. Canada has been accused of having very high MER rates, management expense ratios, to put it in layman's terms, and of course the industry will complain that those are required because of the complications of the pensions they offer.

We have simplified it down so the parties that are interested, once they qualify, in offering the pooled registered pension plans. They have told us that they can bring their costs down very low.

We are trying to provide a realistic low-cost option so Canadians can actually participate in a larger pool, the same type of pool that the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan is. That is what makes sense for Canadians.

The NDP continues to harp on the fact that all we should do is double the Canada pension plan. That absolutely negates the position in which many Canadians are. They do not want another mandatory reduction from their paycheque, and it would be mandatory, because that is the makeup of the Canada pension plan. Many people are saving in other ways and they do not want it deducted from their paycheque.

Many businesses have said that they are struggling to hire new people and make their businesses profitable. Now is not the time to add another cost, albeit a tax, on them contributing on behalf of their employees. This gives those businesses an option if they feel comfortable to offer a savings plan for their individual employees. That is very important.

We have a very good system in our country. The NDP loves to talk down our economy, our seniors and what a great country this is in which to live. We should be proud of the fact that we have a great country, a great financial system and a great retirement system for our seniors. It is the envy of the world.

I have spoken at many pension conferences in Canada and around the world, and I have also listened. Many approach us and ask how we have done it in Canada and could they follow our model. Many have asked about the pooled registered pension plan. They think it is a good idea and they would like to adopt it in their countries. Some people recognize that, but obviously not the opposition.

The opposition members stand over there and say that we have done little for seniors. We have done a lot for seniors. We have given the largest increase in the guaranteed income supplement for those low-income seniors. We on this side of the House thought that was a great idea. Apparently, the NDP did not like it because its members voted against it. They stand in here and say that they support seniors, yet they voted to keep them as low-income seniors. That is an incredible position for them to take.

We have the Canada pension plan. As I have said before, it is actuarially sound for 75 years. We co-share the jurisdiction of that with the provinces. It is in good shape. We have discussed whether we can increase that, and that discussion continues among our officials. As well, the Quebec pension plan is there for seniors.

We have the tax-assisted registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans. Those are good. They have had some struggles, but, over the years, averaged out, they have done well.

However, we think there is an option that is missing, and that is the option for so many of our Canadian workers who do not have that.

In the last few minutes I have, let me just share a bit of the chronology from where we started.

In 2008, when we saw some of the insolvent pension funds in trouble, we realized we needed to look at those that were federally regulated. The Pension Benefits Standards Act had not been changed since 1985. We took a serious look at that, through consultation. We have improved that to protect the federally-regulated ones. We moved from there. We saw the challenges that individual pension funds were facing, so we moved to make improvements to them through a working group.

We did extensive analysis and we found out what segment of the Canadian population was not saving enough for their retirement. This is directed toward the middle section of income earners who need the support to help them save. This process will help them save and they are sharing in the contributions for that. Most Canadians think that is only fair that they help save for their own retirement.

We know the socialists love to share everybody else's money but their own. We would like to suggest that is probably not the way most Canadians think.

We have shared this challenge with our partners, the provinces.

I mentioned earlier how progressive the Quebec government had been on this. In fact, in its last two budgets, it has addressed this. It wants to move forward with it.

It is very unfortunate that the NDP is the sole roadblock in us being able to move forward, the Quebec government being able to move forward and other governments that actually want to put in place mirror legislation to this so we are able to provide pooled registered pension plans to those Canadians who want them and those Canadians who need them.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that you find that sort of language offensive in this place. We are all here for one purpose, and that is to help Canadians, not to call each other names. That is deplorable, and I would ask you to ask the hon. member to apologize.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

I have a point of order, Madam Speaker.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, is that hon. member suggesting we should have rammed our views down the throats of the provincial finance ministers? That is not the way we work with our provincial partners.

We actually work with our partners. That is why we are bringing forward pooled registered pension plan options for Canadians, because the provinces all agreed it was the best framework available at this time.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I will not be able to answer the question in one minute, but we have looked at this. We have had six days, 20 hours, of debate; 63 speeches; 4 days, 6 hours and 40 minutes, at committee; and 26 witnesses appeared. The member for Burlington, who is not sitting in his seat, but he is here, has spoken three times. He gave three 20-minute speeches on this issue.

The Speaker makes sure that time is shared equally on both sides of the House. I would suggest that, not only have our members spoken to the attributes of the bill, the NDP and the Liberals have had lots of opportunity to speak to its attributes as well. Apparently, they do not want to help Canadians.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, there were a number of factually incorrect comments in that. Once we completed our triennial review in conjunction with our provincial and territorial partners, we reminded Canadians that the Canada pension plan is actuarially sound for another 75 years. We should get that message out to Canadians. Because of the statement the member just made, obviously the NDP sitting across from me has not even heard that. It bothers me that those members are sending out false statements.

I do need to raise one point. The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek was the NDP critic for pensions. I put the emphasis on “was”. He was doing a great job consulting with Canadians. He worked with me. He and I did not always see eye to eye, but we were supportive of the main goal. He is no longer the critic, and I find that very disappointing. There is no one over there who has the depth of knowledge that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek had on pensions.