Mr. Speaker, today we can situate this amendment within a context in which the Canada pension plan has, in the past, not had a very high yield when reinvesting the money paid into it. The reason for this is certainly that the cost-effectiveness of the plan was not really an objective, unlike Quebec's Caisse de dépôt et placement, which was intended to increase the yield on its investments as much as possible.
Today, then, in reading the proposed amendment, we see there is a continuity with this, in the desire for the investment board to try to solve this problem of profitability of the plan's investments.
It is, however, important to carry out a fairly detailed analysis, because the section of the act they wish to do away with says that the funds invested by the investment board must be handled differently than that invested in registered retirement savings plans. What is not said is that the 20% rule cannot help but be changed, but this will be done by considering all of the tax implications, for the RRSPs as well, and perhaps even other implications there may be within the Canadian federal taxation system.
So, the question we should be asking today is whether this is the right time to be changing the rules of the game in this bill, when no similar change will be made to RRSPs. In my opinion, parliamentarians should look at this with a concern for co-ordinated and logical taxation in Canada.
The investment board will surely permit a better return on investment, because it has been given the criteria for economic performance. In terms of investment objectives, types of investment, the only remaining constraint concerns the 20% maximum during the time the tax legislation in question applies.
So we see that within this no undue pressure is being applied to investment choices if, suddenly, tomorrow or in the coming years the board could invest as it likes outside Canada.
However, if this option is not available through RRSPs, we will end up with a double standard. The government will no longer be behaving like an employer and a lawmaker, but as an investor and a lawmaker and will not be giving private pension plans parity and the chance to the same investments. I think that at that point we could run the risk of making this sort of amendment.
So I think it would be better, in the context of the pre-budget consultations currently underway for the next budget, to take a look at the relevance of giving everyone equal opportunity. As the bill now stands, the day the tax system is changed, this amendment will apply to RRSPs, as it will to the Canada pension plan investment board.
This would, in my view, be more ethical and would avoid putting the government in a difficult situation vis-à-vis the representations that might be made to it in the amendments to come regarding RRSP rules. When the door is opened, it must be opened for everybody, so that the change will affect everyone equally, so that the government and private investors who must now contend with the 20% rule in every other sector will start off on an equal footing.
So, for these various reasons, we do not think it advisable to make this amendment today. It will be necessary to verify whether the change will be made for all investment programs affected.
In conclusion, the Canada pension plan investment board is the cornerstone of this bill. A major effort is already under way to obtain a better return on the money invested by the public in the CPP. Investments will be carefully monitored and special studies to evaluate effectiveness will also be possible. I think that now is not the time to remove the equality that will exist among the various investment vehicles. This change would be more appropriate in the context of a fiscal debate.