Madam Speaker, I was a minister in Quebec briefly in 1985, and I remember at the time the government of René Lévesque brought down an orange paper. The colour stuck in my mind. What was it about? It was on the need to better finance the Quebec pension plan. That was in 1985. The Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan serve the same purpose, which is to ensure that people who have worked receive universal benefits so they can enjoy a comfortable retirement.
What I find surprising is that a number of members in this House are just discovering the problem. What I also find surprising is the fact that this government, in power since 1993, has not looked at this urgent matter before now. What I find even more surprising is that we are not hearing the Conservatives repent openly, saying “We should have looked at the viability of the Canada pension plan when we were in office”.
In Quebec, some 0.5% of people receive a pension from the Canada pension plan, while the others receive theirs from the Quebec pension plan.
The motions in Group No. 6 concern viability. I understand those colleagues who would like people not to have to pay for this collective insurance and would like them to receive more. Unfortunately, over the years, we have learned that when we pay out benefits we must ensure there is money to cover them, otherwise the plan is threatened, and with the passage of time young people are increasingly facing the prospect of no benefits.
This House must quickly go through the democratic process to approve the increased contributions proposed, even if they hurt. This is the only way to ensure that future generations can benefit from this program, which is rightly considered the jewel of the social safety net.
No other system can do the job. Some people, of course, can invest in RRSPs, but everyone agrees that it takes a certain salary level and a secure income. Only people with no problems in life, who do not have to stop working because of illness or pregnancy, for example, can afford to invest in RRSPs.
So, as a supplement, yes. But there must be a universal plan that is viable and not only for one generation, but for all generations to come. This is why this bill, which increases contributions, must be approved quickly.
The government must also further reduce unemployment insurance premiums. I think I was the first to say in this House that unemployment insurance premiums had to be cut. When we were elected, I was the human resources development critic. It was true then, but today it is outrageous. I say it as I see it. It is crazy for the government year after year to plan surpluses of $6 billion a year from the premiums paid by workers who earn up to $39,000 and then stop paying premiums. I am speaking primarily of small and medium size businesses, because capital intensive businesses pay much higher salaries and so pay proportionately less. It is the people who work, the small and medium size businesses that pay these premiums, which are not even a disguised tax but an obvious tax imposed to reduce the deficit.
We in the Bloc have been saying for some time that premiums must be reduced and that the plan must be improved. With a surplus of at least $13 billion already in the fund, we will never be in a situation—given the current plan's structure—where it could become empty.
Let us not forget that the former unemployment insurance plan incurred an annual deficit of $2 billion during the 1990-92 crisis, but it was a more generous plan and the unemployment rate was also extremely high.
It is absurd and outrageous to have such a high payroll tax. The government is in a position to lower contributions while promoting the growth of the Régime des rentes du Québec and the Canada pension plan.
To ensure the viability of the plan, the bill provides that it will be managed by a board. In my speech at second reading, I mentioned that, in Quebec, a board was set up in 1965 to not only manage the fund, but also to promote economic development. I do realize however that in Canada a board with such powers will necessarily have centralizing effects. I must say that if I thought I had to live with that board for a long time, I would be concerned about its centralizing effects. Members from other parties should look into this, because there is a lot of money involved.
We know that the Caisse de dépôt et placement now has assets—and I am quoting from memory—of at least $62 billion. It has investments in all large corporations and also in small and medium size businesses. It plays an important economic role, and Quebec is a mixed economy, partly thanks to the Caisse de dépôt et placement. We are very proud that, in 1965, the government of the day, whose motto was “masters in our own house”, decided to co-ordinate management of the premiums paid by workers and employers.
The bill is not perfect, and nor is the Régie des rentes du Québec. Personally, I would like to see some conditions changed but, generally speaking, if we are serious in our commitment to younger people, we must quickly ensure adequate financing of the Régie des rentes du Québec and the Canada pension plan. The RRQ must continue to serve as economic leverage.