Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-2 and to tell you why my party supports this legislation, thus acting in a responsible way, as it always does. Indeed, when a bill is good, we are prepared to support it.
First, I would like to briefly discuss Motions Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22. I am very disappointed by the behaviour of the Reformers, the Conservatives and the New Democrats. It has always been said that the opposition's role is to make constructive criticism. Again, I am disappointed by the Reformers, the Conservatives and the New Democrats as regards this bill.
Why is the Bloc Quebecois opposed to Motion No. 11? The purpose of this amendment is to delete the clause allowing for an increase in the contribution rate. We are opposed to this amendment partly because we will partially restore intergenerational fairness through a faster rate increase.
Present workers and babyboomers will pay more than expected, and this increase will ensure the viability of the plan in the coming years.
The increase in the contribution rate, as amended, is the result of an agreement between the majority of the provinces and is identical to the one proposed in the debate on the Quebec pension plan.
Motion No. 13 put forward by the NDP provides for the deletion of the basic exemption limitation provision. Contributors to both plans benefit from an exemption on the first portion. The basic exemption will be fixed and premiums on total pensionable earnings will continue to increase based on salaries. That means that the more you earn, the more you pay.
The Bloc will vote against this motion. This cap on the exemption will have the effect of reducing the gap between the amounts used for calculating premiums and benefits paid. This cap represents in fact an increase in premiums for everybody, but this increase will be proportionally higher for low income people.
The viability of the program for future generations and the need to maintain contribution rates at an acceptable level require that some concessions be made with regard to benefits.
Motion No. 14 put forward by the Conservatives calls for the same thing and we will vote against it essentially for the same reasons as those for which we will vote against Motions Nos. 13 and 15 put forward by the NDP. It makes no sense at all. I think even they do not understand. How can we understand this total mess? It makes no sense from beginning to end.
Motion No. 16, put forward by the NDP, also calls for the deletion of a provision that sets new rules for calculating benefits.
I will not read through the motion. For the same reasons as Motion No. 13, we will vote against this motion because we must make concessions to ensure the long term viability of the plan.
Motion No. 17 is the same as Motion No. 14. As I was saying, we did not understand what it was about and we will vote against it for the same reasons.
Regarding Motion No. 18, if the amount is to go from $35,000 to $70,000, we are against the motion.
As for Motion No. 19 proposed by the NDP, we will vote against it motion for the same reasons as Motion No. 13.
Finally, we will be voting against Motion No. 22 put forward by the NPD, because the lack of concern about the negotiations and the urgent need for action about the pension plan are costing us enough money without having to repeat the same errors.
Earlier, I said that I wanted to tell the House why I, as the hon. member for Manicouagan, and my political party will be voting for Bill C-2. I was elected four times to the Sept-Îles city council and during the last term I was responsible for the senior citizens and the pensioners. There were two associations with a total number of 3,000 members.
Some of these senior citizens came to me and said “We worked awfully hard, we gave everything we had to take care of our children and to get a good pension plan”. They explained their concerns and sent me and my party a message. They wanted us to protect their rights and to think about young people too.
If we want to preserve the pension plan for our children, for the next generation—and may I point out that I am a father of two and a soon-to-be grand-father—we have to be extra careful.
This is why our political party will vote against the amendments I mentioned, but for Bill C-2.