Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-513, the so-called retirement income bill of rights. As I will describe in greater detail later, I have very serious reservations about supporting the bill even at this stage, but on balance, I believe that it is more important that the bill be sent to committee for careful scrutiny than it is to vote against the bill at this time.

The stated goal, as the member for York West noted, is to enshrine in law the notion that all Canadians have the right to contribute to a decent retirement plan. Unfortunately, this Liberal bill contains some very vague declarations and half measures, which we will not oppose, but does very little to actually improve the retirement security of Canadians. I will discuss the actual contents of the bill later.

In the meantime, let me talk about what the bill is not about.

Canadians are not saving enough for their retirement. No one disagrees with that statement. I am particularly worried about the younger members of our workforce.

Last January, the Prime Minister announced that he would increase the eligibility age for old age security, effectively raising the Canadian retirement age from 65 to 67. New Democrats have committed to reversing those changes, and expert bodies such as the OECD and the Parliamentary Budget Officer agree that this dramatic change was not necessary. The old age security system as it was is entirely sustainable.

By 2030, Conservative cuts to the OAS will slash $11 billion in retirement income from seniors as they raise the retirement age to 67. That amounts to $13,000 in retirement savings out of the pockets of every Canadian senior. Combined with cuts made by the previous Liberal administrations, cuts to both CPP, the Quebec pension plan, and OAS will take $26 billion in retirement income away from Canadians.

Retirement security is one of the most pressing economic issues facing Canadian families today. As many as 5.8 million Canadians, nearly a third of our workforce, are facing a steep decline in their standard of living once they retire.

The simple truth is this: a great number of Canadians are simply not saving enough. As a result, provincial governments, the Canadian Labour Congress, Canada's largest retirement group—CARP—and various financial experts have all been calling on the federal government to move forward with plans to increase the Canada pension plan.

The chief executive officer of the CIBC, Mr. Gerald McCaughey, has also been speaking out about the need to improve our public pensions, and the former chief actuary of the Canada pension plan, Mr. Bernard Dussault, supports doubling the CPP. We hope the Liberals do the right thing and get on board. So far they have opposed expanding the CPP, even though provinces, experts, unions, and CARP have all been on side.

Provincial finance ministers have indicated strong support for an increase to the CPP, yet in June, the Minister of Finance failed in his commitment to meet with provincial and territorial finance ministers to get going on this job. When will the Conservatives stop standing in the way of the reforms that so many take for granted as necessary and indeed vital?

Let me turn to this bill.

The title, “retirement income bill of rights”, is very misleading. The bill only addresses certain features of the retirement income system. It purports, as the member said, to promote certain goals, such as adequacy, transparency, affordability, and so forth, but it is entirely unclear how those goals would be achieved.

To call it a bill of rights is misleading in the extreme. What does it mean? As a lawyer, I must point out that this is no Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has no constitutional force. It has no way to render an inconsistent regulation or bill of no force and effect, as the charter can do under our Constitution, so it is rhetoric. To call it a bill of rights, or in French, une déclaration des droits, is misleading in the extreme. It is empty rhetoric.

If it is enacted, it is just going to be another statute. It might have some interpretive force, but for reasons I will describe, it is hard to believe it will have any real impact.

The bill is also very badly drafted. Sometimes it says “every individual has the right...”, and then it says “every individual must have the right...”. In French it only says, tout individu a le droit. Why are there differences in drafting? It is of no particular force and effect. Lawyers are going to have a field day with the bill as it is currently drafted.

A couple of the sections are entirely superfluous. It says it applies to Canadian legislative authority, the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. Obviously that is the case. Why put a section in? There really are only nine substantive clauses in this bill.

Let me turn to the first of them. Clause 4 says, in part, “Every individual has the right to accumulate sufficient pension income...to provide for a lifestyle in retirement that the individual considers adequate...”. What does that mean? It is an entirely subjective standard. If I believe I have a right to a Rolls Royce pension in my retirement, what does this bill say about that? It is my belief that counts, it seems to say. Moreover, clause 4 of the bill goes on to say that even that right is “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by a federal law”, except those restrictions cannot be based on “...[such] personal characteristic[s]...as age, sex, national origin or occupation”. Most of those things are already covered, and have long been covered, by the Canadian Human Rights Act, so they would make no difference and would change nothing.

As for the “occupation”, I have a lot of trouble understanding what that would mean. Is it not obvious that one's occupation will determine in part the extent of one's retirement income? Is that not a reasonable restriction? If one person is a CEO and another person is a cashier, are not their respective occupations reasonable restrictions on their retirement income? According to this bill, as I read it, that would not be the case, and so I do not know what it means.

Clause 5 discusses how an individual can “...determine how and when to accumulate pension income...”. It goes on to say, “...except that an individual who participates in a workplace plan may be required by that plan to save for retirement”. How would that change the status quo? Would it simply prohibit an employer from forbidding workplace pension plans? If so, it may be of very little value indeed.

Clause 7 would require retirement income plans to provide a “full, accurate and timely disclosure of...[all] material risks...”. Presumably, if consumer protection legislation to that effect does not already exist, that may be of some value.

Clause 8 would codify common law. All it says is that those providing investment advice could not have a conflict of interest. I assure members that is pretty well standard in the industry. It is hard to believe that would add any value.

The bill goes on to say a number of things about training and financial literacy that are all very useful, I suppose. However, greater clarity would be achieved if the laws the bill refers to were actually amended themselves, rather than putting pious statements in this other bill.

This bill contains very little of substance that would address why Canadians are struggling to save for their retirement. Portions of the bill refer to transparency of plans and access to information. That would certainly be helpful, but it is regrettable that the bill is mostly made up of grandiose proclamations of retirement rights, which would do very little to change real people's lives.

New Democrats are committed to addressing retirement security needs of Canadians. We have made strong commitments to strengthen our pension plan system and to ensure that Canadians have a secure retirement. This bill would do nothing to change those fundamental issues. It also fails to include any reversal of the Conservatives' retrograde changes to the old age security and guaranteed income system, which will leave seniors more vulnerable at the time of their greatest needs.

In conclusion, I hope that by introducing this bill the Liberals are not demonstrating that they think window dressing is sufficient to address an issue that affects the future retirement security of Canadians. New Democrats are proposing real solutions, such as increasing the CPP and reinstating 65 as the age for accessing old age security. We will support this bill and hope we can strengthen it at the committee stage.

Murray Rankin

Transcript

Private Members' Business

Discussions (0)