Debates of Oct. 7th, 1997

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast on his maiden speech in this House after an absence of 25 years. Perhaps there was a good reason for his return to debate the retirement system of Canada. I know the member opposite has a distinguished career in public service in British Columbia and I welcome his return to the House.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada pension plan investment board and to amend the Canada pension plan. This bill is a very important piece of legislation.

We cannot let our seniors down and we have to ensure that all Canadians have a sound pension plan for the future.

We realized some time ago that the Canada pension plan was not on very sound footing. We also understand that Canadians look to the federal government for leadership when it comes to the retirement income systems of Canada. We realized that the Canada pension plan is not unlike many pension plans around the world, whether they be private or public pension plans.

We knew we had to put the plan on a sound financial footing. There are many pension plans facing the same challenges. With changing demographics, changes in the birth rates and increasing life expectancy many pension plans in the public sector and in the private sector are facing challenges. It is not uncommon in the private sector to have unfunded pension plans, which only recently companies are beginning to address.

While the situation we found ourselves in with respect to the Canada pension plan was nothing that we are particularly proud of, it is not unlike many situations in many countries and in many private pension plans. Our government is taking the lead by making amendments to the act and by putting the Canada pension plan on a sound footing.

We realized that we had to make the plan fiscally sound, so we began consultations across Canada. We spoke to all Canadians. Canadians told us that they wanted the federal government to play a leadership role.

We worked with the provinces and basically we began to look at three different scenarios. One scenario was that we increase the contributions to the Canada pension plan. The second alternative was that we decrease the benefits under the Canada pension plan. The third scenario was that we look at some combination of the two.

We sat down with Canadians, we sat down with the provinces and we came up with a solution that I think is the fairest and most reasonable solution. In doing so we have avoided radical changes to benefits.

With respect to contributions, the rates will rise over the next six years to 9.9% of contributing earnings. That is 4.95% for each employee and employer. We avoided the increase of 14.2% that was actually estimated by the chief actuary.

Bill C-2 will establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board which will allow the invested funds to be put to uses that typically most pension funds have the capacity to invest in. They will not be restricted to debt instruments. They will have the capacity to look at equity and in so doing, they will be able to earn a greater return from the pension plan funds that are invested. This legislation will allow that to happen. Notwithstanding the fact that the Canada pension plan until this point in time has not had the flexibility that other pension plans would be permitted, the pension plan has still yielded an average of about 10% which is not good enough.

But when the opposition parties rant and rave about this hopelessly inadequate Canada pension plan I think they should sharpen their pencils. They talk about a real rate of return of 6%. A real rate of return is the nominal rate of return minus inflation. They say their self-directed super RRSP given that kind of return will put the Canada pension plan system on a sound footing.

First, Canadians are saying that they want a public pension system. Canadians are saying they want the federal government and the provinces involved. If Reform members say they want a real rate of return of 6%, then a lot of pension plans would be doing very well with a real rate of return of 6%.

We also have to look at the experience of other countries. There are some small countries that have experimented with the proposal that Reform discusses. What we have determined is that the administration costs for these super directed RRSPs or private plans are approaching 10% even though we do not have a lot of experience with them. There are only a few years of experience. Compare that with the administration burden of the Canada pension plan at 2%.

The proposal by the Reform Party would certainly make a lot of stockbrokers, investment advisers and retirement planners very rich and wealthy, but I am wondering what it would do for Canadians. In a self-directed RRSP would the average Canadian citizen have to sit there at night and work over all the numbers or hire some investment counsellor? What about the Canadian public not all of whom have the sophistication of the investors sitting opposite? How are they going to deal with securing their retirement future?

I guess it would do very well for all the friends of the Reform Party, their investment brokers and counsellors. Perhaps that is where they have been getting these suggestions from. Have they actually been listening to Canadians? I doubt it very much.

Another irony is that with the Reform proposal even though Reformers will not put it out very publicly, contributions will go to 14% whereas our contribution rate maxes out at about 9.9%. It will do very well for all the investment advisers and stockbrokers in the Reform Party's constituencies, but what about the average Canadian?

The private plan Reformers are proposing does not have the features of a public pension plan. For example, what about people who become disabled? Is that part of their plan as well? Will they look after them? What about survivor benefits? Does their proposal contemplate that scenario?

Our legislation on which we have a consensus of the vast majority of the provinces does not affect people who are disabled. It treats them in a fair and equitable manner. It contemplates survivor benefits. And it does not affect anybody over 65 years of age as of December 31, 1997. The benefits will remain fully indexed to inflation and all the current retirement ages remain the same.

I think we have struck a very reasonable balance. In fact if we look at the ratio of the changes we made to the benefits as opposed to the contributions, 25% can be attributed to the changes in retirement benefits and 75% can be attributed to changes in the contribution rate and also the actuarial estimates of the income that will come from this more advantageously managed fund.

Those who say that the CPP is a tax grab either do not understand economics or they do not understand tax. The contributions to the Canada pension plan go into a separately administered fund. They never hit consolidated revenue ever, ever, ever. Members should read the estimates and they will discover that the Canada pension plan is a separately administered pension plan. It goes nowhere near the revenues of the government. If that is not political hyperbole to say it is a tax grab, I don't know what is.

In conclusion, this plan is going to secure the future for all Canadians. It is going to make sure that we look after our current seniors. I am hoping that all members of this House will support this very important bill.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the act to establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to amend the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The bill is now at second reading, the stage at which we deal with the underlying principles of the legislation. Like all Bloc Quebecois members who spoke before me, I fully agree with the principle of the bill, since the overall objective of the reform is to preserve the sustainability of a public pension plan. I insist on the word “public”. The Reform Party would rather have private plans. Yesterday, their leader tabled an amendment which basically says: let us stop considering the bill. The Reform Party is opposed to this legislation. It would prefer a super RRSP.

This is my fifth year here, but I am still surprised at some of the things I see in this House, such as the tabling by the NDP of an amendment to the amendment by the Reform Party. As I understand the rules, the purpose of an amendment to an amendment is to improve the original amendment and it implies that we agree with it. It is quite surprising to suddenly see the NDP agree with the Reform Party to reject a proposal from the Liberal government.

I was among those who congratulated the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, first for defeating the former Minister of Human Resources Development during the last election—which is a praiseworthy accomplishment in itself—but also for his speeches on employment insurance.

While the intention may be good, the means used create confusion, unless the words “women”, “disabled”, etc., are added, because it implies that the two parties agree with the Reform Party's amendment seeking to reject the idea of a public pension plan for Canadians, including a number of Quebeckers.

I should point out for the benefit of those who are listening that less than 1% of Quebeckers are affected by this bill, since the Quebec pension plan is in effect in our province. That figure is made up of Quebec residents who, at one time, worked in another province and came back to live in Quebec, and of people who served in the armed forces or the RCMP.

So, at this stage, the issue is whether or not we support the idea of a public pension plan. As for the Bloc Quebecois, I reaffirm that we are in favour of a public pension plan, because it is not true that everyone has the possibility individually, over his or her lifetime, to prepare for retirement by contributing to an RRSP. This is not the case for low wage earners, and I am also thinking of those who are becoming more and more common, unfortunately, the single mothers—and single fathers too—who have difficulties the whole time they are raising their children, even when the children have reached young adulthood and are still pursuing their studies. It is hard for many people, therefore, to contribute to an RRSP.

We absolutely must have a public pension plan so that opportunities at the time of retirement are as equal as possible. I would therefore invite the new NDP members to reflect on this, for I am sure that it falls in line with their usual values.

When one is in favour of something, and has very little time, there is no point in arguing the point further, but I would like, as the member for Lévis, to—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Charlotte, on a point of order.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, there should be a minister present and I believe that is not the case.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

According to someone much more familiar with the rules of the House than the Chair, there is no such requirement.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative Party with little to say are interested in points of order.

Two initiatives from groups in the riding of Lévis are similar. While they agree with the principle of a public pension plan, they want people to prepare for retirement as early as they can.

Accordingly, the Association des coopératives d'économie familiale (ACEF) in my riding yesterday invited me to attend the launch of a training course intended to help people of all ages prepare for retirement. They will of course get information to prepare them to save, even a little. I think this applies not only to the people in my riding, but to all ridings, because even if the program is the creation of the south shore ACEF it will be available to all the ACEFs in the various regions of Quebec.

I invite those interested to contact the ACEF. The entire program is aimed at enabling people to come to terms increasingly with the need to prepare for retirement. In 1996, seniors groups met at a summit in my riding. Among other things, they discussed at length the issue of information on retirement and the ACEF responded to their need.

I am concerned about this. Members who sat in the last Parliament will recall that I was the training and youth critic. Since then, I have aged and, since May 15, at 50 years of age, I have been eligible to join seniors clubs. I know many of our colleagues opposite are also in the same position, which means they are able to plan for their own retirement and, more importantly, to help other people do the same, and walk them through the process. As members of Parliament, we have a duty to monitor legislation, and this one in particular.

To conclude, we support this legislation because it is designed to help future generations plan ahead so they are not faced with an empty fund at some point in time. Had the government not introduced this legislation as it did on September 25, action would have been deferred unduly and we would have found ourselves in a situation where the financial security of those coming after us might have been jeopardized. That is why we are in favour of immediately making changes to the plan by, first, increasing premiums because fuller funding is required right away to build a fund out of which pensions can be paid to those who will come after us.

We, members from Quebec, are pleased to note that, from time to time, the federal government imitates the Government of Quebec. As you know, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is in charge of making sure that the revenue from premiums is invested in businesses to produce the best possible return.

One of the objectives of this bill is to have the board see to it that the amounts collected in the form of premiums are invested in a such a way as to produce the best possible return to ultimately make the retirement fund grow. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have nothing against that, since, in Quebec, the Caisse de dépôt et placement—which dates back to 1964, I think—has worked wonders and, moreover, fosters economic development.

I will conclude by repeating that we are all in favour of this. At the same time, while being in favour of a public pension system, I think individuals should be encouraged to plan for their retirement, within their means, as early as possible.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. We are discussing the future of our national retirement plan, the Canada pension plan.

The legislation was introduced after talking to Canadians. We asked them about their future and they responded. They asked us to preserve the Canada pension plan. They told us that they needed to know it would be there when they retired or if they became disabled. They also told us they wanted to see some changes. They asked for better financing of the plan. They asked for improved investment practices. They asked that the growing costs of benefits be slowed to ensure the long term stability of the plan.

The government has addressed those concerns. We have put forward a bill that has the support of each provincial government representing two-thirds of our population and three political parties.

I remind members opposite that the bill was first introduced in February 1997 and was a result of joint provincial consultations. It is a first class example of participatory democracy. I cannot think of a better testament to the government's determination to find a solution with broad based support. It goes to our commitment to building and working in partnerships as we confront the challenges facing us on a daily basis.

It is a shame that the governments of Saskatchewan and British Columbia could not see it as the only viable way to guarantee the future of the Canada pension plan, a program I know they value as much as I do.

The CPP is a public plan funded by employer and employee contributions. It is jointly managed by federal and provincial governments. The plan provides retirement pensions and a range of survivor benefits for a family in the event of death.

The Canada pension plan provides a fully indexed pension system. It provides replacement of a quarter of insurable earnings. It provides benefits that are portable and universal. It provides protection against periods of low or no earnings including years spent raising children. It provides benefits to workers who are unable to work due to disability, and death and survivor benefits including benefits for dependants.

Canadians told us they wanted their plan fixed now, not scrapped, not privatized. We have come up with a solution that is fair, equitable and balanced. I am proud to stand here in support of it today.

Our loudest critics are the members across the way. They claim we are ripping off the taxpayer, but the funds generated by this premium increase will not be put into a general revenue fund. They will be held for the sole purpose of providing future CPP payouts. While the fearmongers among us would have us believe this is a sinister tax grab, I remind them that these premiums are no less than a prudent investment in the future of retiring Canadians who are most in the need of this portion of their retirement income.

The critics say they have an alternative. Let us look at their alternative for a moment. Their super RRSP is a fully indexed tax deferred trust fund similar to the conventional RRSPs that promise to pay more with lower contributions, but their scheme does not take into consideration any volatility in the market. It assumes that all investors will make wise investments. It puts all the risks on the worker. It does not provide benefits for children. It does not provide a child rearing drop out provision and it will not provide indexation.

Reform has not indicated a clear plan of how it would implement the system. For example, what contribution would the employers have to pay, if any? How would they deal with seniors who are already benefiting from the CPP? Who would pick up the tab to provide protection for these pensioners?

Reform says it will guarantee benefits for current seniors, but it does not say how it will provide funding for it. Obviously workers will have to pay twice: once for their RRSP and once again to guarantee the benefit for current seniors. The estimate of the funding that would be required is $18 billion a year.

It has been suggested under their proposal that a retiree might collect $117,000 more over the course of 30 or 40 years, or about $25 a week. This scenario is only correct if they do not drop out, if they do not get disabled and if they actually make their contributions. Let us consider how many actually make RRSP contributions now. It assumes they invest wisely. It assumes they will not be ripped off by a disreputable financial adviser.

The cost to administer over 10 million individual RRSPs and insurance plans would be greater than the administrative costs of the CPP. In 1994 administrative costs of the CPP were $20 per contributor while the administrative cost of an RRSP plan are between $125 and $175. The administrative cost of the Chilean system the Reform holds out as being the model actually costs 10% compared with 2% for the Canada pension plan.

Reform would create jobs to profit the insurance industry and RRSP sellers, but it would not provide a better deal for workers. Under the Reform proposal workers would be asked to put all their eggs in one basket, one RRSP account. We support a mixed system where workers receive a basic benefit from the public plan. Under the CPP individual workers can add RRSPs for extra retirement income if they wish.

The Reform plan would require families to purchase separate insurance to cover disability and death benefits already provided under the CPP. This insurance would be expensive. Reformers do not tell us about that when they tout the effectiveness of their RRSP plan.

The Canadian pension plan is family friendly, something I thought the Reform Party cared about. Our plan covers people who leave the workforce temporarily to look after their children. It is a good example of how Canadians help each with special needs. Under the Reform Party everybody looks after themselves. The Reform Party stand on this issue contradicts its commitment to represent its constituents.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Témiscamingue on a point of order.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members would appreciate hearing the hon. member's speech, regardless of whether or not they agree with it. We would appreciate hearing her and we would ask you to call some Reform Party members to order. We have trouble hearing the speeches.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remind members that the Canada pension plan is a family friendly plan, something I thought the Reform cared about.

Our plan covers people who leave the workforce temporarily to look after their children. As I said before, it is a good example of how Canadians help each other with special needs. Under the Reform plan every household is completely on its own. Its stand contradicts the Reform Party's commitment to represent its constituents.

The majority of Canadians clearly wants a public plan which demonstrates a basic retirement benefit for all workers and shares some risk of disability and death. The Reform is saying this is not true. Clearly this has the support of eight out of ten provinces.

Canadians reject the individualistic survival of the fittest approach being advanced by some of my hon. colleagues.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

I seem to be hitting a nerve. I served as vice-chair of the Whitby seniors advisory committee—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

A point of order, the hon. member for West Nova.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if we agree or not it is important to be able to hear what the hon. member is saying. I would really appreciate it if we could.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We should all keep in mind that we need to be courteous to one another.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

As I was saying, I served as the vice-chair of the Whitby seniors advisory committee for six years. I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue over and over again with my constituents. I had the opportunity during the last campaign to discuss it.

The residents of my community overwhelmingly support the retention of a Canada pension plan. They all agree that a universal plan, an affordable plan and a secure plan is necessary.

We are providing this. We are providing a good deal of dignity to those workers who cannot afford to participate in a private venture. When these workers collect their pension they will know it is their pension, not a government handout.

Given the substantial changes in our demographics, a much higher than anticipated ratio of retirees to worker and the longer life expectancy, I believe we found the best possible solution. I call on members opposite to support this very important legislation.

I remind members of the House of words of the finance minister in his budget speech:

The ultimate test of a nation is its will and capacity to support those who are most vulnerable, to sustain the programs on which everyone of its citizens depend.

The government continues to demonstrate that it has the will and the capacity to provide a Canada pension plan that is fair, accountable and affordable.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it is a real pleasure to discuss the bill in the House but I cannot. However, I can tell you how disgusted I am with the government for moving closure on what is probably the most important bill it will bring before parliament in this mandate.

We have had eight hours of debate and already the government has moved closure. Hon. members in the Reform Party, and no doubt in other parties as well, will tell the House that when people come to their town hall meetings the issue that is highest on their agenda is the issue of pensions.

I guess the government does not think it is important enough to allow parliamentarians to debate this issue. After merely eight hours it has said “Enough, we are going to close off debate”. That is absolutely disgusting, anti-democratic and typical Liberal.

Last time around the Liberals jumped all over the Tories who set a record for introducing closure. This time around the Liberals have already gone well beyond what the Tories did. It proves the old adage of my friend, the member formerly for Beaver River, now from Edmonton North, Liberal-Tory, same old story.

I want to speak now to the essence of the bill. First, the Canada pension plan is in serious trouble. Everybody knows that. It has a $560 billion liability. We know that in order to deal with the problems of the plan, the government is raising the premiums by an astounding 73%, the largest tax hike in Canadian history, a $10 billion tax hike by the final year that the new premiums go into effect. Despite that $10 billion when people retire they will still only get a pension of $8,800.

[An hon. member]

What about their MP pensions?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

In other words, people will pay in some cases $3,300 a year for 47 years if they happen to be self-employed, and at the end of that time they will get a measly pension of $8,800, and that is the best case scenario.

If a you happen to be a widow, under the government's plan, after your husband has paid into the plan for 47 years at $3,300 a year, you can count on $460 a month. That is absolutely disgusting. And the government says that this is some kind of reform as though it is good? No one believes that.

However, that is not the worst of it. It also raises the huge issue of the inter-generational transfer. Many members know, if they have talked to young people, how cheated young people feel by what is being proposed in this legislation. Young people are asking why in the world they are being asked to contribute to something that they will never draw from. That is their attitude.

I am sure that hon. members know if they will examine their hearts that in a few year's time when young people form the majority in this country they are going to be sorely tempted to change the plan to ensure that they will get some of the benefits that will now only go to some people who are currently in the plan.

The government has set up a plan that is going to set young people against their parents. It knows this is one of the problems with the plan, but it has done nothing about it.

Because I do not have a lot of time, I want to talk about the Reform Party proposal.

My hon. friends across the way have tried to scare people, which is their typical way of dealing with these things, by suggesting the Reform Party plan is something radically new. I would point out to my friends across the way that not only have about 25 different countries around the world adopted this sort of plan, countries like the U.K., Switzerland, Denmark, Australia now has a version of it, and Argentina. The U.S. is looking at this right now. It is talking about going to this sort of plan.

I make the point that the Reform Party is simply taking the best of what is being offered around the world and offering it to Canadians. Why are Canadians second class citizens to this government? Why can they not have some of the great benefits that this plan has brought to other countries?

I would point out that Singapore has had this plan or a variation thereon since 1955. It has the highest savings rate in the world. Eighty-five per cent of the people in Singapore own their own homes. It is because there is a tremendous amount of prosperity in that country, due in part to this plan. We need to talk about these issues.

When the government members held consultations did they want to hear about this sort of plan? No. Their consultations were limited precisely to the type of plan they wanted to consider.

I invite my friends to consider what the Reform Party would do if it was in government. First, it would bring in tax relief. Now, that is novel for the government to hear, tax relief. Under the Reform Party plan it would take 1.3 million Canadians right off the tax rolls. That would do something to deal with the problem of the hike in premiums that the government is proposing and 300,000 seniors would be lifted right off the tax roll. I think that is important to talk about. The Reform Party would target seniors benefits so that people on the low end of the income scale would get more through the seniors benefit.

We would also guarantee that existing seniors would get the CPP benefits which were promised to them. We would bring in an improved survivor benefit. Under Reform's super RRSP we would have the situation where we could actually turn over the entire amount of the annuity to the surviving spouse.

As my friend from Calgary pointed out earlier in the day, under the Reform Party plan, if the mandatory CPP premiums were put them into an RRSP, and accumulated in an account in the individual Canadian's name, at the end of the 40 years they would have an annuity of over $250,000, paying them an income of about $24,000 a year. That is three times what the government plan offers. It would be a tremendous benefit which would be turned over entirely to the surviving spouse.

I do not know why government members do not want to adopt something like that instead of paying a measly $436 a month to the surviving spouse.

Beyond that Reform would provide the super RRSP plan so that people who are just coming into the system would start to pay into an account in their own name. As I mentioned a minute ago, that would build up over a period of time. It would give them a tremendous retirement nest egg, far greater than what the government is proposing.

At the same time we would start to contribute a bit into the existing CPP because under successive Liberal and Tory governments it has run up a $560 billion liability.

Finally, I point out that the Reform Party plan would give Canadians the power of choice. It would allow them to direct where their money was to be invested. That is a novel idea.

Under the government plan we know where the money would go. It would go to the super investment board, which would probably represent the largest intervention in the Canadian economy since the second world war. The government would be directing about $130 billion. We would have a team of bureaucrats or political appointees, chosen by the finance minister, to direct where $130 billion would go in the economy. That is ridiculous.

We have heard in the House today and in previous days how corrupt are some of the things that go on in this government. Do we really want to turn over the keys to the vault to these people? We are talking about $130 billion.

These people forget to whom that money belongs. These people think it belongs to them. They think it is their God given right to tax it out of people's pockets.

I would argue that is wrong. That money belongs to the Canadian people. It is their hard earned money and it should accumulate in an account in their name, far from the grasping fingers of the government.

That is why it is time for the government to wake up and realize there are other options. Just because an idea comes from the opposition does not automatically mean it is wrong. Maybe it is time to look at alternatives. The government should start to look at the alternatives which exist around the world. If it did that it would begin to realize that the Reform Party is on to something.

To force closure on this issue eight hours into the debate in a brand new Parliament sets a precedent which I believe will resonate throughout the entire mandate. I hope my friends across the way will seriously consider the impact that moving closure on a bill of this magnitude will have on this Parliament. To me it speaks to the anti-democratic nature of the government. I trust that very soon it will be punished when Canadian voters once again get the chance, just like it was punished in the last election when it lost 30 members.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, good afternoon.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

That wonderful gesture by the member opposite reminds me of something that George Bernard Shaw once said: “He thinks he knows everything, yet he knows nothing, which points clearly to a career in politics”.

Hopefully I will elucidate on the reasons I am speaking today in support of this wonderful legislation to amend the Canada pension plan.

Once again, for the benefit of members opposite, there are changes in the wind. I guess it was Heracleitus, the Greek philosopher. who said “Nothing in the world endures except change”.

We must amend some of this legislation to make it better, more propitious, more benevolent for the wonderful workers of this great country of Canada.

I have in front of me a few questions that have been asked of ordinary Canadians. I did not realize until tonight that some members opposite could not participate, would not participate or were prevented from participating in this debate. I am truly sorry for that.

We have the friendly giant across, the hon. member from Munchkinland. I see him sitting on the steps over there so he can see what is going on. Perhaps I will lend him my fedora because I am getting blinded here. He suffers from premature “defolication”.

I guess it was the hon. member for Calgary Southeast who say that business was suffering as a result of the CPP. I beg to differ. I am at variance with that. I come from the field of business. What hurt business in the last 10 to 20 years more than anything else was high interest rates. We now have the lowest interest rates in 35 years.

CPP has not prevented me from hiring anyone unless they were not good workers. Perhaps some of the members opposite might fill that bill. It was not the CPP that was stopping me from hiring people. It was the high interest rates, and now we have the lowest interest rates in 35 years and doing a remarkable job.

How do the proposed changes make the CPP more sustainable, affordable and fair for Canadians? Just the simple fact we have raised these premiums a bit, it is sustaining everything for our entire lifetime. Some members opposite could live to be 75 or 80 years of age, although some of them already look like they are octogenarians.

I will go on now to the affordability. Certainly it is affordable. We have six years before it gets up to the top premium price of 9.9%.

Is it fair? Certainly it is fair. I want some of the hon. members opposite who are under the age of 30, mere pups, to take advantage of the wonderful system we are putting in place. The hon. member for Elk Island will not be around that long to look after it, but some of the younger members under the age of 30, still in diapers, will be able to look after it.

Another question is will the CPP be there for me when I retire. I am having so much fun here I do not think I will ever retire. I will not have to take advantage of this. With the system we have put in place to look after the pension plan, it will be there for one and all when we retire, if we so choose to retire.

Here is the question the Reform Party is very interested in. It was asked at many committee meetings. Instead of making changes why don't you scrap the CPP? Can't better pensions be provided through RRSPs?

My answer is simply that Reform Party members have clearly indicated through their own actuaries that the RRSP program is more expensive than the CPP. Why? Not only would they be contributing to their own RRSPs. They also must pay for the benefits that have accrued through the CPP.

That in itself should be clear evidence to the members opposite.

[An hon. member]

It is obvious.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

It is quite obvious I agree with that. One would not have to be a rocket scientist. A mere cerebrally challenged farmer such as myself could figure that one out.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek advice and help from you. There are words in this House that are unparliamentary. For example if someone lies, we are not allowed to call them a liar. Having listened to the hon. member across the way, I wonder if there is some word you could provide me with that I could use that would be acceptable in this House to point out the error of his way.