The subamendment, as I mentioned, is about showing Canadians exactly how much money they would save if the CPP contribution rates were reduced. Right now, the subamendment requires reports on the impact of the CPP changes. The subamendment would require those reports to include examples for Canadians to analyze and understand.
There were three examples of different income levels, as I mentioned, in the subamendment: $50,000, $70,000 and the maximum pensionable earnings for the relevant year. For example, if the CPP contribution rates were reduced by one percentage point, for instance, then the report might have to show differently. That's what the subamendment is about. It is, again, about showing Canadians more information, clear information and relevant information, which is, in fact, the opposite of what the spring economic statement and the redefinitions mean for Canadians.
As I was mentioning before, the changing definitions create a scenario where, for simple terms for Canadians to understand, it's like calling your grocery bill a mortgage payment, or a utility bill an RRSP contribution. Unfortunately, Canadians don't have the luxury of being able to follow exactly what the government is doing in terms of its reporting, and so, in a number of these amendments, what we are proposing is more information and greater transparency at that.
When the government takes Canadians' money and then gives it away, for example, in subsidies—