I would respond to my colleague by saying that if we cannot improve the plan—and I have my doubts, because as legislators here, the plan must be approved by the Parliament of Canada—I suppose it is possible to change the terms.
But even if there were not a way to change the terms of a plan, could we, for example, lower the contributions employees pay weekly, daily, from their paycheques so they keep the plan they have now?
There are a number of solutions open to the government, but unfortunately it is not interested. It changes the figures when it is time to be judge and judged, in order to save money and then turn around and help itself to a surplus it often generated itself.
I was reading a very interesting article this morning written by a Mr. Paquet, who has worked in the union sector for quite some time. He says that plans are often based on actuarial forecasts that x billions of dollars will be needed to keep a plan going for x number of years. Yet actuaries are frequently wrong, and he compares them, quite surprisingly, to Quebec's JoJo Savard, a fortune teller.
When there are surpluses in the plan, there are two ways of using them. But that assumes one is not trying to help oneself, that one wishes to help workers and those wanting to see their regions benefit from these surpluses. The plan can either be improved, or contributions suspended for a while. These are ways of reducing the surplus, but this is not what the government is doing.
The government is maintaining contribution rates at existing levels, or very nearly, and claiming that the surpluses belong to it. This is completely wrong, in my opinion.