I agree, and that was the point I was trying to make. We talked earlier in this particular meeting about something needing to be done for OAS and GIS right now, for those people who are in poverty now, and then we're looking at the mid-term in the evolution of a plan.
Mr. Cadieux talked about seven years doubling the CPP before you start to get some return, 40 years before it's fully funded. That was at the 5% for each.
If you think in terms of a national process—CPP—it takes you away from the encumberment of all those different provincial laws as well if we're able to make that adjustment there. Would that not make sense to the private employers who are struggling through the maze that they have to go through, especially if they happen to have their business over two or three provinces?
You have yourself a national plan to begin with. We're seeing that as a foundation. We're not seeing that as a resolution of all the problems. God bless them; if somebody has a private defined benefit plan, more power to them. If somebody is an entrepreneur and can make better and invest, that's wonderful too. That's not meant to be an impediment to future investment; it's to build that foundation going forward to ensure that we capture the bottom end who are getting lost along the way now.
So I'm pleased to hear that you did take those people into account, but again, as you said yourself, 90% of minimum wage is still 90% of very little.
On the CCAA, Mr. Lockwood, there is Bill C-501, which Mr. Rafferty has put in for our party, which was originally my bill. Are you aware that there was an Australian study in 2005 that said that having preferred status for pensions had very little impact on the investment climate?
You're aware of that.