Debates of Dec. 4th, 1997

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

I will therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, the Canada pension plan is one of the essential elements of the Canadian social safety net. It is therefore important to protect this public pension plan for the people who have worked all their lives and to provide for their retirement. The sustainability of the plan is also essential for future generations.

For these reasons and despite the numerous improvements that should be made to this bill, the Bloc Quebecois will support it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her comments. She shows good knowledge of the bill and its intent. The support of her party is very much appreciated. It is the right thing to do for all Canadians.

She referred to investment. The member will know that an important element of Bill C-2 is that it creates what is called the Canada pension plan investment board. Under the current plan the two years of funding held in reserve has been invested in provincial bonds and earning nominal rates.

Investment under the CPP investment board will be made in a broader balanced investment portfolio, managed by investment professionals who are fully accountable. The member will also know that the auditor general will continue to be the auditor of the Canada pension plan. We will have full access to that.

I am pleased the member raised the issue. It is an important element to the extent the investment portfolio earns the best possible return without being disruptive in the marketplace. It means that overall rates which have to be charged as premiums will be cast at their lowest possible amount.

My question for the member concerns the investment activity of the Caisse de dépôt. There is no question that the Caisse de dépôt has been a very successful investment fund and has invested in a number of regional economic and job creating initiatives.

Is the member suggesting, just to make it absolutely clear, that the five year funding of the Canada pension plan investment fund should somehow be used for other purposes such as regional economic development, which is what the NDP has been proposing, or is she suggesting that in Quebec, in concert with other things, there is a better place to do regional economic development rather than with the public pension fund?

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Mississauga-South, for his question.

I am glad that the member has emphasized like I did in my speech the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and recognized that this fund has produced important economic spinoffs for Quebec, especially in the area of job creation.

He also clearly outlined the procedures that the board would have to follow for making investments under this bill. And he said that the investment fund would be managed by professionals whose mandate will be to produce the best possible return while ensuring the lowest possible rate of contribution. This is a process that we fully support. Except that I feel that this bill does not go far enough.

And as I pointed out in my speech, the accumulated funds in the plan should provide the opportunity to go further by allowing major investments in regional economic development.

In this respect, and I think the Bloc Quebecois has reiterated this many times when it spoke, we believe that having professionals manage the investment board is a good thing in itself and indeed is an excellent step; it is important we ensure that this fund is managed professionally. Except that, when considering the types of investments that the board could make, what the Bloc Quebecois pointed out about Bill C-2 is that it does not go far enough to promote economic development and job creation. This is how I interpreted the member's question and I hope that I answered it.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.

Today we are speaking of a renewed Canada pension plan. I consider it an honour to have the opportunity to address the House on this very important piece of legislation.

A renewed Canada pension plan is one of the pillars in a national pension plan and it is has been a priority of this government from the beginning. Now, as announced in the Speech from the Throne, the government has introduced legislation to implement the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan to ensure Canada's pension plan is sustainable into the 21st century and for future generations.

I would like to point out to the House that the Canada pension plan concerns Canadians of all ages and in all walks of life.

National consultations that preceded these proposed changes showed that the Canada pension plan concerns not only seniors but Canada's youth. This government is a government that listens to youth. That is why the government called on young people to take part in the consultations that preceded the development of these proposals. Beyond that, they were invited to specific consultation sessions held here in Ottawa.

They have made their views very clear. Our young people want to be able to count on the Canada pension plan to help them not only plan for their retirement but also to help support them after retirement. They made it clear that they want to fix the Canada pension plan, not eliminate it.

It has become clear that the current plan needs fixing. In its current condition it is not viable. Changes are needed to ensure that the Canada pension plan can meet the income security needs of Canadians now and in the future.

The chief actuary has forecast that with the current ratio of contributions to benefits paid with this current rate, the Canada pension plan's fund will be exhausted by the year 2015. Changes must be made.

Further, he has projected that to sustain the plan, contributions would have to increase from the current 5.8% of eligible earnings to 14.2% by the year 2030 if no changes are made. This is a burden too large to place on the shoulders of the next generation of income earners. Canada's young people are facing challenges of career development and meaningful employment. They do not need the additional taxation or to have to support in addition the Canada pension plan. They are planning for their retirement and they have to have contribution rates that they can afford.

The proposed changes to the Canada pension plan avoid the burden of a plan that drains the resources of our young people to sustain the retirement income of those who have already retired. Contributions must increase, of course, and have been scheduled to rise to 10.1% by the year 2016.

However, to ensure that the costs of sustaining the plan are shared fairly across all age groups, a strategy has been devised to increase the contribution rates to 9.9% by the year 2003 and then to retain that rate indefinitely. This is in sharp contrast to the long term rate of 14.2% forecasted by the chief actuary. This requirement is necessary if this plan is to be sustained.

As with the present Canada pension plan, employers and employees will continue to contribute equally. Contributions will go into an investment fund building on a larger fund which will be prudently invested and will allow stable benefits in the future.

The fund will be managed at arm's length from the government and managed to ensure a maximum rate of return consistent with the security of the contributor's investment.

Through freezing the year's basic exemption, reforming future benefits paid and providing new investment and management methods, the proposed contribution rates add up to a sustainable plan for the future and the future of our young.

Persons begin contributing to the Canada pension plan when they reach the age of 18 as long as their earnings are above the year's basic exemption. Freezing the year's basic exemption at its current level of $3,500 means that now more low income earners will be able to contribute to the Canada pension plan, increasing their eligibility for future benefits.

Another tough choice was to sustain an affordable and equitable plan. We had to curtail the growth of paid benefit expenditures. Once again, following the concerns Canadians had expressed during consultation, the proposed changes ensure fair treatment across all age groups.

The new benefit provisions will not affect current benefit recipients, nor will the changes affect disability or survivor benefits of anyone who is currently receiving them.

The impact of the changes will be shared among future retirees, future survivors and future recipients of disability benefits. A new formula is proposed for calculating average yearly earnings for pensionable purposes.

Average earnings for pension purposes will be updated based on the average of five years of the year's maximum pensionable earnings instead of three. There are also some limited proposed changes to Canada pension plan provisions such as disability and survivor benefits.

That brings me to two points that I would like to emphasize which I think are often forgotten when discussing the Canada pension plan. Providing disability and survivor benefits, the Canada pension plan is more than just a retirement pension scheme. It may also be seen as a partial insurance.

For example, Canada pension plan provides survivor benefits to widowed spouses and disability benefits to contributors with severe and prolonged disability. Furthermore, the plan provides child benefits to the dependent children of deceased or disabled contributors. These facts should be kept in mind when considering changes or, more to the point, when contemplating replacing the plan, which has been suggested by some critics.

A second related point to the Canada pension plan is that it was not designed and should never be considered to be the sole or primary source of retirement income. Its original goal was and continues to be to provide 25% of earnings up to the average wage of Canadians. This principle also extends to the survivor and disability benefits under the plan.

By all means, Canadians and particularly young Canadians should be encouraged to invest as much as they can in alternative retirement income plans such as registered retirement savings plans and to consider extra insurance for death or disability.

The Canada pension plan was introduced because it was demonstrated that Canadians, particularly those at the lower end of the earning scale, cannot save for their retirement and therefore run the risk of spending their senior years in poverty. For many it has become that they cannot afford to make investments.

The Canada pension plan pools both resources and risks. Since the plan includes virtually all Canadian income earners under its umbrella, the pool is much larger than any private plan.

It is clear that the government's measures to renew and revitalize the Canada pension plan are based on the expressed wishes of the people of Canada, in partnership with most of the provinces.

The renewed plan will be fairer, more affordable and sustainable. The new Canada pension plan will provide a reliable, secure basis for retirement planning for Canadians of all walks of life well into the future.

That is what Canadians want. That is what young Canadians have told us they want. That is what the government has provided.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some members of Parliament, almost exclusively Reform members, gave up any entitlement to a member of Parliament pension during the last Parliament. Most other members, mostly Liberals, NDP and the leader of the fifth party, retained their pensions. They will get out as much as six dollars for every dollar they contribute.

I would like to know how the member who just spoke can justify and support this Liberal boondoggle of a CPP where members contributing today, new members, young people, will get out less than they put in. How can she continue to support a member of Parliament pension plan in which she could get out as much as six dollars for every dollar put in, paid for by those same taxpayers who are going to get out less than they contributed because of the failure of the Liberal CPP?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

When the Canada pension plan came into existence there were eight workers for every recipient. Currently there are five workers for every recipient and in the future, with the demographic aging of the population, that number will decrease to three workers for every recipient.

This government is acting in a very even handed, far reaching, responsible manner in revising the pension plan. We hear over and over again from young people that they do not expect it to be there for them. We have made the necessary revisions which will allow young people to have a pension plan that they will be able to count on when they reach the age of retirement.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke very well in support of the new Canada pension plan. However, I polled young people and the results of that poll showed that young people are entirely in opposition to her way of thinking. I asked them to take their contribution, put it together with the employer's contribution, take the money to a credit union, bank or investment office, tell them how long the money is going to be invested and compare that to the CPP. I did not get one reply saying they would like to contribute to the Canada pension plan. They would rather go into a different plan.

I do not know where the Liberals are coming from. Of all the replies I got, I did not get one single response saying they wanted to join the Canada pension plan.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question.

It is interesting to hear that the hon. member surveyed his constituents. I believe that a fellow Reform member brought forward a letter which was full of a lot of hardship and concern from a young mother of two children who had a husband who was working six days a week. I suggest those are exactly the kinds of Canadians who will need to rely on the Canada pension plan because they do not have the money to invest in an RRSP.

This plan is more than just a retirement plan. A very large component, one which Canadians have said they value and want protected, is made up of disability and survivor benefits. This government has ensured that those benefits will continue to be there for people who need them in the future.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the member for Kitchener Centre for the very lucid presentation that she gave. I wish the members of the Reform Party would have listened attentively with an open mind.

One member of the Reform Party was talking about speaking for the common people. If the Reform Party offered only the super RRSP, only the very rich could afford to make those kinds of contributions. In fact, such a plan would have no benefits for people who may be left behind by a deceased husband and father, the women and children.

I ask the member for Kitchener Centre what she thinks will be one of the greatest benefits of the CPP for the women of Canada.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Women are often the main caregivers of children and aging family members, as well as when they take time out of the workforce to rear their children they are exactly the people who will need a Canada pension plan because they have interrupted employment so they do not have the benefit of private pension plans nor the disposable income. They are exactly the group that we are looking at to benefit from this.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Island North, Fisheries; the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Canadian Heritage; the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, Privacy; and the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment Insurance.

The hon. member for North Vancouver, on a point of clarification.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in what you just read, you said the member for Vancouver North and I wonder if that was Vancouver Island North.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Yes, thank you. It is the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. The Chair stands corrected. Thank you.

Resuming debate. While I am on my feet, when one member stands when I ask for questions and comments, we will keep an eye to see how many stand. If there are a number of members, then I will point to who is going to get a chance. I am going to ask members to keep their questions brief. When I say brief, I am talking 45 seconds and the response as brief as well. In that way we will get more activity in the debate.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on on this bill before us and in particular on those elements that affect Canadians with disabilities.

The Canada pension plan is one of the most important elements in the social fabric of this country. Most of us will use it at some point in our lives, when we retire or become disabled by serious illness or accident or if we lose a spouse or parent who was a contributor.

Consequently Canadians have come to rely on the security that the Canada pension plan provides. It has proved worthy of our trust over the years. However, even the best of plans must change with the times. The Canada pension plan is no exception.

In recent years a number of social, economic and demographic trends have developed a threat to the continuity and viability of the plan. To address this challenge we held public consultations on the Canada pension plan to discover what role Canadians wanted the plan to take and what action they felt was needed. The chief actuary also provided input.

We began a series of in depth meetings and negotiations with our provincial and territorial government partners. At the end of this process, we and our partners put together a blueprint for renewal.

The resulting bill before us represents a balanced package of measures aimed at ensuring the sustainability and fairness of the Canada pension plan. It adjusts contribution rates and benefits. It improves the way in which funds are invested. Once implemented, this bill will ensure the future of the plan and keep contribution rate increases as low as possible.

Of course, this cannot be done solely by adjusting contribution rates and investment strategies. We had to address the benefit side of the equation as well, but as we did this, we rejected calls by some for deep cuts in survivor or disability benefits. Instead, we tried to minimize benefit changes and to make them fair across all groups and all generations.

To do this we have tried to spread the responsibility for change across all benefit categories while keeping the fundamental characteristics unchanged. We recognize that today's senior citizens have already made their financial planning decisions for their retirement and could not be expected to respond to changes in the plan.

That is why the new measures will not affect the benefits current seniors are receiving. That same principle applies to the so-called “near seniors”, individuals between the ages of 60 and 64 who have chosen to take early retirement. Their existing pensions will also be protected. If they are receiving benefits now, the amount will be unaffected.

As members will see, some small benefit adjustments have to be made which will affect future pensioners, including some changes to the Canada pension plan disability program. These proposed changes respond in part to concerns raised by the auditor general who said that disability administration costs need to be brought under control. Again, I want to clarify that the new measures will not affect current Canada pension plan disability benefits.

Under this bill, workers will be expected to demonstrate a slightly stronger attachment to the workforce to be eligible for disability benefits. Currently, individuals can work for as little as a few months over the course of two years to receive a Canada pension plan disability benefit. Under the proposed amendments, workers must have made contributions in four of the previous six years. Even so, the new coverage rules are still more generous than the original rules of the plan.

Before 1987 workers had to contribute in five of the previous 10 years and at least one-third of the years from their 18th birthday to be eligible for disability benefits. There are also changes to the requirement benefit formula for disabled beneficiaries.

Pensionable earnings will be updated based on the average wage at the time of disablement rather than adjusted for wage levels when the recipient turns 65. Like retirement and survivor benefits, Canada pension plan disability pensions will be fully price indexed from the time they are put in play.

The Government of Canada is helping Canadians with disabilities to participate more fully in the economic and social life of this country with an investment of some $280 million per year in tax measures, employment and vocational support, as well as support to organizations and for people with disabilities.

Let me also assure the House that we are committed to responding positively to the recommendations of the Scott task force. We have already acted on some of these recommendations and will act on others in the near future. However, I also want to emphasize that the Canada pension plan should not be confused with programs specific to the needs of people with disabilities. The Canada pension plan disability benefit was designed as a wage loss insurance for workers. It was never intended to provide benefits to all persons with disabilities.

The changes contained in this bill will ensure that benefits go to those for whom the program was originally intended. They will enable us to continue to provide disability benefits in a fair, consistent and responsible manner. They reaffirm the Government of Canada's concern for people with disabilities, while maintaining benefits at sustainable levels.

Canadians from all regions and walks of life have told us they expect us to act decisively to preserve the Canada pension plan. They have told us that they want us to make it sustainable, but they want to do so in a fair and consistent manner.

Significant elements of the CPP remain unchanged. First, benefits have not been changed in the case of all those currently receiving CPP pensions, disability benefits, survivor benefits or combined benefits.

Second, all CPP benefits, with the exception of the death benefit, which is paid only once, remain fully indexed to inflation.

Third, the age of early, normal or late retirement remains unchanged.

This bill responds to this call for action from Canadians. Once implemented, it will ensure that the Canada pension plan will be able to serve Canadians as well in the future as it does today. It will do so in a way that is fair to all.

For these reasons, I intend to vote for this bill and urge other members to do likewise.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to this House in my comment that I think it is so unfortunate that what we do is we emphasize messaging.

The Liberals are saying over and over again “We want to preserve the Canada pension plan because it is so wonderful. If we don't, all these poor people are going to suffer”.

Here is the brutal fact. No one who has a low income or no income or who is poor is paying into Canada pension. Therefore, they are not eligible for benefits. That is a fact. The government keeps passing it on as if that is not true. It keeps trying to connect this. The fact is that anyone who has an income, who has a job and has deductions for the Canada pension plan would have that same amount of money available for RRSPs or other investments which he or she could choose, get a much better rate and end up with more money.

While the government is saying it is protecting the poor, what it is in fact doing is taking from particularly the middle income and the lower income people who are paying into the Canada pension plan, and it is giving them a tremendously poor return on their investment. It is somehow trying to message and image that as being the great heroes, the Liberal Party, saving the country from all these woes.

I would like a response to that.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

I was recently interested in listening to a group which represents poor people in this country. They genuinely supported what the government was doing with respect to the Canada pension plan. They reiterated something I had forgotten. That was that this is a great pillar of our society and our economy. It represents social justice in this great nation of ours, rather than going off on a half-baked, hare-brained scheme like super RRSPs which no one understands, and I think only the rich would be involved with, which is what the Reform would have us do without knowing where that is going. It seems important that we stand firm and stand solid with the scheme that CPP is and represents to all Canadians something which poor Canadians, middle-income Canadians and all Canadians want and need and will benefit from as a result.

I think this is very important and is worthy of note.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a question for the hon. member opposite.

We recognize, as most Canadians do, that up until this point the investment of the government with the clients' funds has a deplorable record. What guarantee can this government give that the new CPP investment board is going to have one thing in mind and one thing only, to maximize every dollar put into the plan to the benefit of the clientele? What guarantee can the member give me of that?.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It is an important one.

It seems to me that when the various provincial and territorial leaders signed on to this very important change, they too were concerned with the kind of question which the member is asking. What they said and said unanimously was that we would be proceeding in a fair and equitable manner. The same rules that apply to the public CPP would be similar to what the private people have done.

We have to remember that the same kind of common sense approach would be taken in both private and public. The board that has been put in place would make sure that that is done in a fair, consistent and equitable manner.

It is important for Canadians to know that that kind of process will be taking place by men and women who know what they are doing, by men and women who have the best interests of Canadians at heart, by men and women who will progress and proceed in a manner consistent with the great values of this country.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rare opportunity to be able to speak to a bill of major consequence. In my last opportunity to speak in the Chamber on Bill C-2 respecting changes to the Canada pension plan I begin by expressing a great deal of regret and disappointment. One can only be left with the conclusion that the government is profoundly undemocratic.

I had some experience in the political arena before I came to the Chamber. It came as a real shock and surprise to learn that the government was willing to bypass the democratic process, to bring in closure on debate after only seven hours at second reading and to deny many of us in the Chamber the opportunity to speak on behalf of constituents.

Citizens everywhere in Canada want to have their voices heard. They believe in the democratic process. They believe members were elected to speak in their behalf and to bring their concerns to the Chamber. Now they are left feeling more cynical and more sceptical about the democratic process because the government could not even allow a reasonable amount of time for proper debate on a major topic.

Many of us on this side of the Chamber did not have a chance to speak at all. Certainly we did not engage in the kind of debate we expected to happen, given the seriousness of the issue. Equally disturbing has been the government's treatment of the committee process and of the thoughtful amendments proposed at report stage. The government ploughed straight ahead from day one with no intention of consulting with other Canadians or members of Parliament, of listening to the views of organizations that have developed some expertise in this area, or of taking seriously any thoughtful amendments on the whole process.

Here we are at third reading with hardly any debate, no serious treatment of our amendments, and the government wants us to rubber stamp its bill. It wants to get the bill through before anybody wakes up and realizes the devastating impact it will have on Canadians. It is appalling on the basis of the democratic process alone.

Our concerns are raised in the Chamber by very serious substantive inclusions in the bill. In my last opportunity to speak on the bill I remind the House of the work of Stanley Knowles for years and years and years.

[An hon. member]

Move on to this century.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

A member across the way suggested that we get into this century. Is the member suggesting that the work of Stanley Knowles in helping to shape and create a universal pension plan is not significant, is not worthy of note or is not there to guide us in the future?

Stanley Knowles worked from 1942 on trying to make changes to ensure we had an adequate income retirement system. He started back when the old age pension act allowed Canadians $20 a month and was means tested. He stood up to fight that meagre, mean program and made some difference. He kept fighting until 1963 when the Canada pension plan was first introduced. He fought to see that benefits were indexed. He kept his fight going until 1967 when we were able to see come to fruition some semblance of a guaranteed income supplement program. He kept fighting through to 1975 to try to change the spousal allowance which only guaranteed women between the ages of 60 and 65 years, if they were single or widowed, some measure of security.

After that long struggle I would like to quote what Stanley Knowles said:

I sometimes think that if our party or if I had done nothing else in this country but play a part in getting this kind of improvement, it has been worth all the effort and all the struggle. We have done well and I am proud of having been involved in it but we are just getting started.

If only he were here today to see what it means to be just getting started. If only he knew just how much of what he fought for will be taken away by a single move on the part of the Liberal government by way of Bill C-2.

We can do nothing less than try to carry on the struggle and try to fight for the values that guided him throughout his life and helped make the income retirement system one of value.

Members can comment all they want about getting into the next century, but I suggest the values of decency, security and living with some semblance of quality of life are as good today as they were back in 1942 when Stanley Knowles started his struggle.

Stanley would have been shocked by the mean-spirited provisions of the legislation that target the weakest members of society and that imposes a 10% cutback across the board, having a particularly disproportionate impact on women and persons with disabilities.

We will continue the work Stanley Knowles began in 1942, much of which has to be started all over again. We are acutely aware of the fact that this is just the first shoe to drop. The government has a bigger agenda that would do precisely what Stanley Knowles said was abhorrent when he started in 1942, a plan that is means tested and mean spirited.

Maybe members on the Liberal side are not aware of what the seniors' benefit as being proposed by the Minister of Finance and his colleagues will do. It will do away with everything we have fought for long and hard and that must guide us in the future.

I conclude by saying the work of Stanley Knowles is not over. We are talking about the meaning of human life. It is the value we attach to quality of life in society. It is about ensuring that everyone in society, regardless of income, sex, ability and—

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening very carefully to my colleague opposite. Could you ask her not to continue to use a prop. We do not believe in using props in this place and she has waved that book about Stanley Knowles around quite long enough.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair has been following the dissertation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and has found no such implication in her use of the book from which she was quoting.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has one minute to sum up her remarks.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would heartily recommend that all members of the government read the book entitled “Stanley Knowles: The Man from Winnipeg North Centre”, written by Susan Mann Trofimenkoff.

Let me conclude by saying that the concerns we have brought to the debate are serious. They are based on the values of dignity and security. The debate is about ensuring that everyone who reaches their retirement years will live with some feeling of economic security and some sense of dignity about who they are and what they have contributed to the country. It is about our sense of being a civilized country. It is the least we can do. The fight will continue.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre whose riding is close to my riding of Winnipeg North. I certainly share her passion for social dignity, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul equally professes. I am sure she will agree with me that the CPP reflects the soul of Canada.

In beginning her debate she alluded to the profoundly undemocratic process used by the government in reforming the CPP. Is it undemocratic for the government to follow the CPP rule which says that it can only be amended with the consent of two-thirds of the provinces reflecting two-thirds of the Canadian population? That was done. Two-thirds of the Canadian population agreed.