Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of the bill put forward by my colleague. I would to take this opportunity as well to correct some of the misstatements by the NDP and Conservatives on this matter.

I think my NDP colleague does not really understand the limitations of a private member's bill. What this would do is set out in law the legal framework, the bill of rights. It would also address issues of financial knowledge and literacy. However, he seems to imply that this means it is the only Liberal policy. That is far from the truth. A private member's bill, he should know, does not allow expenditure of funds. The Liberals have very concrete proposals outside the scope of this law that do involve funding and which would improve the pension situation of Canadians.

As for the Conservatives, it was amazing listening to that speech. It was eight minutes of boasting about previous Conservative measures with virtually nothing about pensions at all, except a litany of what the Conservatives had done, but nothing whatsoever about the problems and challenges of the future facing Canadians as the population ages.

Let me just remind the House of some of the problems that the Conservatives have failed to address. Then I would like to speak about some of the Liberal proposals, which my NDP colleague has studiously avoided.

Members may not know that 75% of Canadians working in the private sector do not have access to any pension plan, except those provided to all of us by the Canadian pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. These three provide a maximum income of some $27,000 per year, although the great majority of people receive significantly less. Experts tell us that Canadians in the private sector earning between $30,000 and $100,000 who plan to retire in 20 years will not have enough retirement income to cover necessary living expenses. Those are enough statistics to give us the idea that we have a problem. We have a challenge in our country about our future pensions, a challenge that the Conservatives studiously ignore.

Let me now come to proposals for dealing with this problem.

First, a Liberal government would certainly repeal the idea of increasing the age for the old age security from 65 to 67. Contrary to what the government says, the chief actuary and other experts say that the current system is indeed sustainable. There is no need to move in this direction.

Second, even if we wanted to save money, this is the most heartless, cruel way to do it. By raising the age from 65 to 67, we deprive people who may have had hard-working physical labour and cannot work longer of not only old age security but also of GIS. It hits hardest the weakest and most vulnerable members of Canadian society and will throw them onto provincial welfare.

If the government did have to save money, and we do not believe it does, a better more humane way would be to reduce the maximum income level at which one collects OAS from something over $100,000, which it is today, to a lower figure. That would be a better, more humane way to do it than raising the retirement age. However, our view is we do not have to do either because the system is sustainable.

That is the first action by the Conservatives on pensions, which is completely negative, retrograde and will hit the most vulnerable.

The second is their pooled retirement plans, which the Conservatives have introduced with great fanfare, but which are really nothing more than a glorified registered retirement savings plan. The take-up by provinces has been minimal. The guarantees against excessive charges by the private sector are non-existent. The inadequacy of these proposals are such that provinces have been led to propose increases to the CPP to the point where I believe two provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, have said that if the government will not go ahead with the CPP enhancement, they will make their own provincial pension plans.

That, as experts tell us, is distinctly a second-best solution compared with an increase in the national plan, but they are so frustrated and aware of the challenges, which the federal government fails to address, that they are going to go this route on their own should sufficient numbers of provinces and the federal government not agree to go with the Canada pension plan.

In order to deal with this issue of inadequate pensions, the Liberal Party previously proposed a supplementary Canada pension plan. It would be a voluntary plan involving auto-enrolment so that a high proportion of individuals would likely participate. Since the last election, we have evidence from the U.K., which has introduced a similar plan with good enrolment and with minimal cost. In other words, this could be a good solution to our future pension challenges.

One major advantage it would have over the government's pooled plan is cost. This would be a government plan with costs equivalent to the Canada pension plan, significantly less than one percentage point per year, compared with private sector plans, which are one, two or even three percentage points per year, a much higher cost.

As experts have shown us, a fairly small difference in those costs, between say 1% and 2.5%, can cause a reduction in one's pension in the order of 25% to 30% because of the power of compound interest. As I have said previously, let a thousand flowers bloom. Let the supplementary Canada pension plan proceed to provide competition with the private sector. Let it put forward its best products and let the consumer decide whether to go with the private sector or the supplementary Canada pension plan. I think that would provide more choice and better options for Canadians to deal with their retirement challenges in the future.

Finally, we are also very interested in the proposals currently being put forward by Prince Edward Island, and supported by Ontario, to expand the Canada pension plan, if only because the government's actions are so totally inadequate. Some reaction is necessary, whether it is a supplementary Canada pension plan, as we propose, or a moderate expansion of the existing Canada pension plan put forward by a number of provinces. As I said, certain provinces are even prepared to have their own provincial pension plans should this one not materialize.

Both an expanded CPP and our previous proposal for a supplementary CPP have the advantage of low cost, 1% or less per year, and that, compared with the private sector alternative favoured by the government, would produce materially better pensions in the future for Canadians.

In summary, I believe that my colleague's bill is a good bill. I think it provides a legal framework setting out Canadians' rights, a bill of rights. It also deals effectively with the financial literacy issue.

It is not a panacea, as my colleague would be the first to admit. Private members' bills cannot spend money, just as the NDP's bill on housing strategy does not have any money either. That is not the function of private members' bills.

However, when the member's bill is combined with other proposals, first of all, not to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67, and also to go with either a supplementary CPP or a moderate expansion of the existing CPP, then the bill, in combination with those actions, would provide a groundwork or a good start in dealing with the pressing pension needs of Canadians.

Contrast that with the Conservative speech, which did not even acknowledge future problems, let alone make proposals on how to deal with this problem. Contrast that with the NDP speech, which, while that member supported our bill, seemed to have a false or inflated idea of the eligible or permitted scope of private members' bills in general.

When we put all these things together, I am very pleased to support the bill.

John McCallum

Transcript

Private Members' Business

Discussions (0)