Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say to Mr. McCallum that when he talks about 1963 and those headlines, it was Stanley Knowles who proposed CPP. With the Liberal government of the day, we were able to proceed with that. Things can be done together when we want to work together.
I'm concerned here, lately, because the government's speaking points on pensions seem to be changing. We've had conversations with them. Mr. Menzies and I have had very positive conversations. But it makes me nervous. Something that helps me feel somewhat better is that the government was saying roughly the same thing before the economic downturn. They said that there wasn't one, and then all of a sudden they were prepared to backstop the corporations, which I have no problem with them doing, by the way. I'm not pointing a finger. I'm giving them some credit here.
On the other side of that, I think we have to look at the situation so many Canadians find themselves in today. Mr. Cadieux, I want to commend your organization and others in the labour movement, who have defined benefit pensions and have protection now, for proposing changes to CPP because they see the value not only to their members but to people across the country who have problems.
On the proposal the NDP put forward, we talked in an opposition day motion last June, and prior to that, of doubling the CPP. The rates are 4.5%, and you indicated less than 6%. We were talking about 5%. The total is 13.9% to do that.
We had a presentation last week from a young lady from a firm--I think it was Manulife, if I'm remembering correctly--who said that their administration fees are 2.5%. That's a ballpark figure.
The area of contention is that the Liberal Party, for instance, and some of the provinces are talking about a supplemental CPP, with new administration costs and costs for setting up all these things. We believe that introducing that should go directly to the core assets of CPP. You don't have the new administration--none of the set-up fees. But I would agree with you on the critical point of mandatory versus voluntary. Canadians, we've also heard in testimony here, are moving more debt forward into retirement than at any other time in history.
To some extent, we have to change the dialogue we hear. I heard that in your presentation. Stop calling these things payroll taxes, and start understanding that they're deferred wages. They're not the assets of the company; they're the deferred wages of the employees. That brings us right back to the Nortel situation.
I'm leaving this kind of open for anybody who wishes to respond. I'm trying to lay some track, as we used to say where I worked.
Ms. Nielson, nobody's asked you a question. Here is one very simple one. You mentioned people managing pension plans going forward rather than buying annuities right now, if I understood your presentation. One of the proposals we've talked about is that if you have a company winding up the pension plan, instead of buying annuities for the younger people, you move the plan forward by having it managed by the CPPIB. That's something you can think in terms of.