My colleague says it is a good balance. It is very important to maintain balance, both domestically and abroad. Again, we want to make sure of this. Obviously the objective is important in terms of making sure that it is consistent, and consistent with other plans. That is why I will not support the amendment of my colleague across the way: It would not be consistent. I have already said that in 1999 we increased it from 20% to 30%, so we are continually reviewing the foreign property rule. It is not as though we have not responded to this issue. In fact, we are continuing to do so I think in a very responsible way.
We need sustainability. Sustainability is very important, as I have said before. If we had not increased the dollars that were going into the plan from contributors, the benefits would have gone up while the amount of money going into it was going down. It would have dried up. What has happened is that the rates will go up faster than they otherwise would have, but not as high as they could have because of the prudent, responsible and appropriate steps taken by the government.
On this side of the House we recognize the issue of the foreign property rule. We recognize that we have increased the percentage, but I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to take the steps outlined across the way. I would urge hon. members not to support this amendment.