Lorne Nystrom

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

moved

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-2, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 36 the following:

“(4.2) Employer contributions for a self-employed person earning less than the prescribed threshold income shall, for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, be calculated on a progressive scale based on annual income in accordance with the regulations.

(4.3) Every regulation made pursuant to subsection (4.2) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within the first fifteen days of the next session after the date it is made, and the regulation shall remain in force until the day immediately succeeding the date of prorogation of that session of Parliament and no longer unless during the session it is approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-2, in Clause 71, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 41 the following:

“(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001 shall be two times the amount calculated under this Act.”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-2, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 45 on page 73 with the following:

“year being generally constant.”

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

moved

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-2, in Clause 61, be amended by

(a) replacing line 3 on page 31 with the following:

“20. The amount”

(b) deleting lines 8 and 9 on page 31.

[Human Rights, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.

The Prime Minister committed our country to be part of a $43 billion bailout to the investors, the speculators and even dictators like Suharto in Southeast Asia.

How much is the Canadian taxpayer on the hook to bankroll regimes with little regard for human rights? What is it going to cost the Canadian taxpayer? What is that commitment? Are we being taken to the cleaners by the minister? Are we going to be Martinized by this minister?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words on the two motions before the House in the name of the Reform member from the Calgary area. I concur with much of what she said in her remarks.

The member wants to eliminate clause 58 of the bill which calls for the CPP premiums to be made retroactive to January 1, 1997. The CPP premiums now are at 5.85% and once the bill goes through they will be increased to 6%. The employer will pay 3% and the worker will also pay 3%. However, we are still on the old regime of 5.85%. When this goes through the House and the Senate has given royal assent, part of the law will make this retroactive to January 1, 1997. So it is a retroactive premium or assessment. Some would say it is a retroactive tax on both the employee and the employer. Doing this retroactively is something that I am very uncomfortable about. It is like closing the barn door after the horse has already gone.

I do not think that assessing someone retroactively has been done very often by Parliaments. There seems to be something a bit unjust about it. People plan their lives, draft their personal budgets, businesses draft budgets and make plans according to a set of rules.

In general I guess people have been notified that this is going to happen. I am sure we could go out on Wellington Street in Ottawa or on Albert Street in Regina or the big main street of Thompson, Manitoba, and ask the first ten people who go by whether or not they were notified that there is going to be a retroactive increase in the CPP. I think of those people, all would say no, they were not aware of it, despite the fact that they have a very good MP from Thompson who notifies them of absolutely everything. I think that is unjust. I am happy that the amendment is before the House.

We might say that the increase from 5.85 to 6% is not that much. In many cases it is not because it is split between the employer and the employee. However, for some families and people living on the edge with very low wages, even an increase of a few dollars a year will be meaningful.

The other problem will be on the employer's side. A group of people came before the committee to make their case about the difficulty of collecting money retroactively from temporary help agencies. They are very, very labour intensive. Most of their costs are going to salaries, to labour.

They talked about the expense and the difficulties it would create for them as employers, the red tape, the bureaucracy and the bother and how tedious and cumbersome it would be. In some ways maybe the cost of doing it would be even more than the money they would collect from the federal government.

My understanding is that the federal government would have dropped the retroactivity part of this, but at a loss of about $400 million. That may sound like a fair amount of money, but the cost of collecting the money is going to be several million dollars as well. It might be wise for the government to consider not making this retroactive.

If we are concerned about money in the CPP fund, the most important thing we should do is make sure that we have a strong economy, jobs in the country and income growth, because when people are working they are going to be paying into the CPP. That is the way to raise the money, enlarge the fund and make the Canada pension plan sustainable. I do not think we can do it by making it retroactive, which people are not anticipating.

It is fine to say that people were notified, but I am sure there is scarcely a soul out there, including a lot of businesses, who realize this has to be done on a retroactive basis. That is going to cause needless hardship for Canadians across the country.

This is an example of an amendment which should be looked at seriously by the government. If it were to move in the direction of eliminating the retroactivity, it would make good sense. It would be good politics and would restore faith in the democratic system. It would indicate that parliamentarians do indeed listen to the people.

The second amendment before us today was moved by the Conservative Party and would attach EI premiums to Canada pension plan premiums. As much as the intent is positive, I would not support this amendment as part of the statute changing the Canada pension plan.

That being said, I believe the increase in CPP premiums of 73% over the next six years is too steep. It will be a hardship on Canadians. It is not progressive; it is regressive. The very fact that the government is eliminating the indexation of the basic yearly exemption which is now some $3,500 makes it even more regressive and more difficult for low income people.

These are hardships. The premiums are going up. To attach CPP premiums to EI premiums is not the way to go.

Instead the government should have listened to what it heard in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. It should have listened to what it heard from the trade union movement, the progressive people across the country, and made the contributions more progressive. It should have continued the indexation of the yearly basic exemption.

In 1966 when the CPP originated, the yearly basic exemption was around $400. It was then indexed to the inflation rate. It has moved from $400 to about $3,500. This means that low income people have progressively been receiving a higher exemption. That has been a positive step in keeping this plan a bit more progressive. Now indexation will stop. It will remain at $3,500 for the next 5, 10, 20, 30 years and every time the inflation rate rises the plan will be a bit more regressive. It will be a bit more difficult for low income people in this country.

That is wrong. It is unfair. If I remember correctly, I believe that the Minister of Finance as much as acknowledged that in committee three or four weeks ago when he said that this should be on the agenda when the CPP is reviewed in the year 2000. I hope he does that. I hope there will be a change to once again index the basic exemption to make the premiums more progressive.

On the other side we have the employment insurance premiums. There was a bit of a reduction announced last Friday by the federal government. It was a small reduction. It was a step in the right direction, but the reduction should have been higher. There is now a big surplus in the EI fund and there should be a reduction in the premiums to help working people in the country. It would also help the business community in Canada, particularly small business.

I do not think we should be tying one to the other in this legislation. The government should keep both items as separate files. On the one hand the government should reduce EI premiums. That would put more money into the pockets of ordinary people. It would allow the small business community to create jobs. On the other hand the government should ensure that we have a more progressive Canada pension plan premium.

If we listened to public opinion, listened to what the people are saying, they would agree that these funds should be handled separately and that they be handled for good social reasons and for reasons of progressiveness in our income tax system and progressiveness in our social policy within Canada.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

You are a social democrat.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

This is very unfortunate, because it is my party.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

I wonder if the member would entertain a question. He is talking about this radical amendment. This is the same approach that Brian Mulroney and the Conservative Party favoured over the years. They suggested keeping this particular fund for the provinces. That is what is wrong with it.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 29, on page 28, the following:

“53.1 Notwithstanding any provision in this Act or any other Act, a provincial government is entitled to borrow funds from the assets managed by the Board at the lowest rate of interest available to the federal government.”

Madam Speaker, Group No. 4 has only one motion which I have moved. I want to spend a few moments on it this morning in the House.

Motion No. 9 reads as follows:

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 29, on page 28, the following:

“53.1 Notwithstanding any provision in this Act or any other Act, a provincial government is entitled to borrow funds from the assets managed by the Board at the lowest rate of interest available to the federal government”.

I alluded to this motion when I was making some comments on Motion No. 8 in the previous grouping.

The interesting thing about the Canada pension fund today is that the two year reserve, which is around the $40 billion mark, can be borrowed by provincial governments at the federal government long term bond rate.

If we look at the last 30 years, the federal government's long term bond rate has been a pretty good deal for a number of provinces. Over the last while many of them have not had the same credit rating as the federal government because of economic difficulties or their sheer size.

I am joined in the House this morning by my friend from New Brunswick. Over the years New Brunswick has a rather high unemployment rate as a small province with a small population. Its credit rating has probably always been lower than the federal government's credit rating. Therefore it is more expensive for the province of New Brunswick to borrow money for its schools, hospitals and universities other than from the federal government.

One goal of the Canada pension plan was to set aside its reserve for about two years and to allow the provinces to borrow moneys from it at the federal government rate. That made it cheaper for the province of New Brunswick to build schools, hospitals and universities. It could borrow money from the fund at a lower interest rate than if the fund had not been there. The federal government bond rate was at a lower rate of interest than New Brunswick could borrow money elsewhere.

The same thing was true in my province of Saskatchewan. It has been very helpful in terms of the infrastructure we have built in our province over the years.

It was also true for the province of Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces, not just New Brunswick, but Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia too, as well as every other Canadian province. It is a good thing, a positive thing. I recall very well—I heard the debates in the 1960s—that it was in 1966 that this bill became reality in Canada. It was under the Liberal Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson.

Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson, in a minority parliament in those days, supported particularly by the NDP, people like Tommy Douglas and David Lewis, brought the country the pension plan. One of its objectives was to provide the fund at lower interest rate to the provinces so they could build their infrastructures, become stronger provinces and build stronger economies.

Now that will disappear. That is one of the changes in the CPP legislation that I am personally very concerned about. Now every province will be on its own. That may not be a problem.

Alberta has a very strong and robust economy and a very good credit rating today. It will be a problem for Newfoundland that does not have a good credit rating. It will be more expensive for Newfoundland to go to the market for long term debt to build a university or to build the infrastructure than it will be for Ralph Klein in the province of Alberta.

If the government is worried about national unity, about building a strong federation and about doing some things at the federal level that help all Canadians regardless of where they live, surely to goodness this is one part of the bill that should be changed by the federal government across the way. If we are looking at equality for all our citizens and at equality of opportunity or condition for all our citizens, surely to goodness this is one of the changes the government should look at in terms of the Canada pension plan.

One of the reasons the governments of B.C. and Saskatchewan did not agree to the changes in the CPP was that it set up a balkanized Canada in terms of interest rates. It seems to be very bizarre that a so-called Liberal government would do this. Now provinces will be at the mercy of bond rating agencies like Moody's of New York. They will determine how much the taxpayers in Manitoba, New Brunswick or Newfoundland have to pay when they borrow money to build a project.

They will be at the mercy of Moody's or other bond rating agencies such as the Dominion Bond Rating Service. The bond rating agencies will fly into a province with their books and their own technocrats and sit down to determine at what rate of interest the provinces can borrow money. That decision is out of our hands as parliamentarians. It is out of our hands and in the hands of a few foreign bankers and bond raters. It does not matter what political party is in power, we are at the mercy of these people.

I know how important it was in Saskatchewan a few years ago when the province was in great debt and suffering from a humungous deficit. The bond rating companies had the province on the verge of bankruptcy. We are at the mercy of these New York bankers. They set the rates. What has happened in the last few years is that the province has recovered. It has a balanced budget, the debt is going down and the credit rating is going up.

How can a Liberal government put the provinces at the mercy of these speculators from New York and elsewhere? That is exactly what is happening in this bill.

Our amendment today is restoring to the Canada pension plan the same provisions that have existed since 1966 that will allow the provinces to borrow from the fund at the federal government's long term rate. The federal government's long term rate is a rate that is attractive because the federal government is large, it is credible, it has a good credit rating. It is the economy of the whole country that is supporting this credit rating.

It is only fair that the federal government accept this amendment. Accept the wisdom of a Lester Pearson, accept the wisdom of a Paul Martin, Sr. when they had a vision of trying to build a co-operative federalism where Canadians were equal and had equality of condition whether they lived in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Quebec or Saskatchewan.

Where is that Liberal vision of old that wanted to offer this equal opportunity right across the country? Why is it the new Liberalism in this country has the vision of a Brian Mulroney or the Leader of the Opposition where it is dog eat dog? Why is that happening?

I do know there are many Liberal backbenchers who are very uncomfortable with this new very conservative model of Liberalism. In fact somebody said that we have probably the most conservative government now in the history of the country sitting across the way.

Brian Mulroney did not try to do this. Brian Mulroney did not try this when he was Prime Minister of this country. If he had, the Liberal Party would have been up in arms. The rat pack would have been up in arms in this House. It would have denounced that government as right wing extremists and sellouts, balkanizing the country, a supermarket of Canadians where Canadians are different classes in different parts of the country.

Now the Liberals are in power. Now the sons and daughters politically of the Liberals of old, of the Pearsons and the Martins and the Pickersgills of old are changing that Liberal vision that talked about equality of condition.

I think this is a fundamental amendment to a fundamental part of the bill. I wish we had the independence and the freedom in this country where parliamentarians on the government side could get up and speak their minds and vote freely and independently and accept some of the amendments being put forth by members of this House.

People are getting cynical of this whole process. They get cynical when they see this kind of thing happening. They get cynical when they see this kind of radical departure and change and not so much as a peep from the Liberal members sitting opposite. Not so much as a peep.

I know how concerned everybody is about national unity and keeping this country together and creating equality of condition. Equality of opportunity is supposed to be a great principle of Liberalism in Canada. Can the Liberals explain why they are going to treat a Newfoundlander different from an Albertan? Why they are going to treat an Ontarian different from somebody from New Brunswick? Why they will treat a Manitoban different from someone in British Columbia?

We are going to have the balkanization of this country in terms of lending rates. That is not fair. That is not just. That is not equality. That is not the kind of vision of a country I want to build.

In the province of Quebec with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec there are not different lending rates for different regions. There is one lending rate right across the province of Quebec for their particular fund and their particular investment board and agency. This will not be the case now in the rest of the country. This will not be the case at all. That concerns me as a Canadian.

If I were Brian Tobin, the premier in Newfoundland, I would be up in arms denouncing the Minister of Finance and the minister of human resources for saddling him with a regime that will make it more expensive for him to borrow money for his schools and his hospitals than for Ralph Klein in the province of Alberta.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, we are resuming debate on Motion No. 8, tabled by the Conservative member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

What he is saying in this particular motion is that the regulations made under paragraph 1(b) must reflect the objectives of the board as set out in section 5.

This is something which appears to be highly technical. He is talking here, of course, about the investment board of the Canada pension plan.

We are going to have a radically new departure from the Canada pension plan when this legislation is passed through the House, through the Senate and receives royal assent in a matter of a few weeks.

Currently the Canada pension plan has, roughly, a two year contingency fund of about $40 billion. That $40 billion fund is now being loaned to the provinces at federal government long bond rates, which are the cheapest rates for long term debt. That has been very positive for a number of provinces in the country, including my own province of Saskatchewan which a while ago was going through a difficult financial time.

It has also been very helpful for Manitoba, which at times has not had a very positive credit rating. As well, it has been helpful to the provinces of Atlantic Canada, particularly Newfoundland.

That has actually been a pretty good part of the Canada pension plan. The provinces have borrowed to build schools, hospitals and infrastructure to make a stronger province and a stronger country. That is what the fund is used for.

However, there will be a change. Instead of having about two years of funding set aside, in a few years there will be five or six years of funding set aside through the establishment of an investment fund. In a few years that investment fund will grow to over $136 billion. The fund will invest in the market, similar to the way in which private pension funds are invested. A board will be established. That board will have regulations, objectives and goals.

Our concern is that we think the goals and objectives of the fund will be too narrowly defined. I do not support this amendment today because it reasserts support for that narrow definition of the objectives of the fund. We believe that the fund should have more broadly defined objectives, similar to the Caisse de dépot et placement in Quebec. Its objectives not only speak to the return to the eventual pensioner but also talk about some of the social objectives in terms of Quebec society.

It looks at things like creating jobs in the province of Quebec, investing in Quebec industries, building a stronger economy in the province of Quebec, and so on.

Quebec's Caisse de dépôt et placement has served Quebeckers well over the past 60 years. The province's economy is now stronger, partly because of this fund available to Quebeckers.

The economy gradually became stronger and unemployment diminished, thanks to the Caisse de dépôt et placement, whose objectives were broader and more encompassing, and whose vision was more positive. In fact, the vision was not at all the same in the federal fund for the rest of Canada.

There is a vision here that is more narrow. It talks only about maximizing the returns to the people who are making the contribution to the fund.

It is important to maximize returns but we need some balance as well. I think about jobs in Canada, creating more jobs. That is very important, investing in Canadian industry, in Canadian business. There are a lot of very profitable businesses in this country which, if they had access to more funding, major pension funds, might do even better.

I noticed in the House yesterday that we were criticized. Indeed the Bloc Quebecois was also criticized for talking about doctrinaire investment. We are not talking about doctrinaire investment. We are talking about an investment fund that has a similar objective to the Caisse de dépots et placements in the province of Quebec. That is not what I would call doctrinaire investment.

It is a fund which was supported not only by the Bloc Quebecois. Long before the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party was in office in Quebec, with Mr. Lesage, who had previously sat here as an MP if I am not mistaken. The Liberals were followed by the Union nationale, which was a conservative party quite similar to the federal one. The Union nationale also supported the Quebec fund and its objectives. Then came Mr. Bourassa and the Liberal Party again.

I think what is happening in Quebec in terms of the fund's objectives is very laudable, very positive and could serve as a model in terms of this particular investment fund. The concern we have is that the objectives are too narrowly defined, looking solely at the maximization of the return.

My prediction is that it is not going to be very long before the Minister of Finance will succumb to pressure from the investment community to lift the rule that says only 20% of the funds can be invested outside this country. I have asked that question to the Minister of Finance. He said for the time being we are not going to change the rules. He has always left that door open, that in the future those rules may be changed.

I believe they will because this will be the biggest investment fund in the country. There will be pressure from other funds as well to lift the rules so that more money can be invested out of the country. I think that is going the wrong way. This is the Canadians' money. It is Canadian workers' money. It is money from Canadian business, from small business, from the employers and the employees and most of those funds should be invested right here in the country.

With a great deal of respect to my colleague of the Conservative Party from New Brunswick, I cannot support the motion before the House today because I think it just reinforces the narrowness of the objectives and goals of that board of directors. The board of directors, I believe, will be lopsided in terms of who it represents. It will represent mainly the business community.

We moved an amendment in committee that would have a balance in terms of the board of directors between the two stakeholders, between labour and business. That amendment I moved in committee was supported by the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservative Party, the four opposition parties, but the government across the way would not accept that very reasonable amendment that there should be balance on the board of directors between business and labour to stakeholders. If we do not have that balance and if we have narrow objectives in terms of what the board should do, then I am even more concerned about the use of the money of the working people of this country.

It is bizarre that we have a Parliament now where the Liberal Party represents only 38% of the Canadian people and the opposition parties represent 62% of the Canadian people, as of the results on June 2. Yet the government has refused to accept even a single opposition amendment at the committee stage and appears unwilling to accept even a single opposition amendment here at report stage. Is that parliamentary democracy?

We do not expect all the amendments to be carried or accepted, but surely to goodness some of them could be accepted. They have been suggested by business groups before the committee. They have been suggested by social action groups before the committee. They have been suggested by trade union groups before the committee. They are reasonable amendments. Some of the amendments would not need the approval of the provinces yet they have been turned down. They have fallen on deaf ears.

That is one reason we need a serious effort at looking at democratic reform so that the people's wishes can be expressed and accurately reflected in the House of Commons. It is ironic that 38% of the people can elect a majority government and that majority government does not listen to the representatives of 62% of the people.

We still have some time left. The parliamentary secretary is sitting across the way. I once in a while see his head nod but that is about all I see. I hope he will be more receptive and will consider some of the amendments, in particular amendments where we have a three or four party consensus on this side of the House.

This amendment is obviously not one where we have consensus. I think two opposition parties support this amendment and two opposition parties oppose it. Maybe this reflects a difference between social democrats and conservative ideology, but on many amendments there is four party consensus.

Why can the government not listen to the people and reflect the wishes of the people by accepting some amendments that are reasonable? I do not know whether the rules permit, but I would like to have a response from the parliamentary secretary or from the gentleman on my left who has been very active in the committee on whether or not they might accept some of the amendments. I will wind up by asking them to be reasonable and to accept a few of the opposition amendments.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 26th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-2, in Clause 96, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 81 with the following:

“period in which the report is prepared;

(d) set out the manner in which that contribution rate was calculated; and (e) describe how the contribution rates presently set out under this Act will affect the income level of future retirees as well as their income share relative to the income of those working.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on a couple of the motions I have presented under Group No. 1 before the House at this time.

The first motion we are dealing with asks to establish a panel of experts to review the conflict of interest procedures established by the board of directors. We are talking about the board of directors of the new investment fund that will be established.

We believe it is very important that there be an independent panel of experts which will help to set up a court of conflict for the boards. The reason is that we want to make sure the board is as independent as possible from the government. It seems wise to have an independent panel of experts. It makes it more independent from the government. It is fairer, more transparent and something that should be done. I hope the government across the way would be willing to consider it.

In committee a number of amendments were moved. On many of the amendments in committee the four opposition parties were in agreement but the government did not accept them. It has now had a chance to think about another whole series of amendments. I hope this time around it will be a bit more receptive to some of the wise ideas coming from the opposition parties in the House.

The second amendment I am moving in Group No. 1 is Motion No. 24. This will establish a new reporting requirement by the chief actuary in terms of how he or she reviews the Canada pension plan.

Right now the actuary only focuses on costs. In the future the actuary should focus as well on forecasting the income of seniors. That has not been done. What will be the income of seniors in 20 years or 30 years? That is a very important aspect of the bill before us today. Those are the kinds of things I believe should be done.

We support the idea of a pay as you go plan, but a number of things in the new Canada pension plan bill are not fair and not progressive. There have to be a number of changes to make the plan more progressive. It is important to say that at the beginning of the debate.

For the most part the Canada pension plan cannot be amended without the support of two-thirds of provinces representing two-thirds of the people of the country in addition to the federal Parliament of Canada.

When the provinces were negotiating with the government a while back, the federal government obtained the support of eight of the ten provinces. The two provinces not in support of the amendments being made to the Canada pension plan are the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia, both of which have NDP governments.

I come from Saskatchewan and want to and do reflect, on behalf of my party, a number of concerns of those two governments about the amendments moved at committee stage and again here at report stage. Now we are finding that there is going to be a rapid escalation in the premiums facing workers and employers of this country. In fact over the next three years after this bill takes effect on January 1 there will be an increase in premiums of some 73%. That is a rapid escalation in premiums that will be very difficult to meet by a number of people.

It is particularly going to be difficult for the self-employed and more and more people are self-employed. The self-employed have to pay both sides of the premiums, the employer and employee premiums. Instead of being the current 5.3% or 5.4%, in six years they are going to have to pay 9.9% of their earnings in terms of CPP benefits. That is going to be very difficult for the self-employed and very difficult indeed in terms of many workers who are receiving wages at the lower end of the scale.

We are also very concerned that the whole thing is not progressive enough, that the basic yearly exemption of $3,500 is no longer going to be indexed. From 1966 on, that exemption was always indexed so that when the cost of living went up, the basic exemption also went up, giving a bit of a break to low income people. That is going to be eliminated and it is going to be a hardship on a great number of people across this country.

On the other hand, the maximum on which one has to pay contributions is going to be $35,800 per year. We are suggesting that that should be increased as well so that people who are making more money, such as members of Parliament, senators, the Minister of Finance or many of the wealthier people in this country can pay a greater share of those CPP benefits.

Again that was a suggestion made by two of the governments during the round of negotiations on changes to the Canada pension plan. It is another area which I believe we should look at.

The contributions are going up and they are going up in a very regressive way. That regressive way is also going to hit generationally as younger people, many of whom are not in the workforce yet, are going to be paying more and more in order to pay the CPP to people who are retired or who are going to retire in the next five or ten years. That is also very unfair.

On the side of the benefits, on the side of the recipients we are also seeing very regressive changes under the amendments to the Canada pension plan. The benefits are going to drop. They are going to drop in particular for low income people, the majority of whom of course are women in this country.

We are also going to see a drop in the survivor's benefits. With respect to the survivor's and death benefits, once again most of those recipients are women because women live longer than men. There are more widows than widowers. It is going to discriminate against women in this country. That of course is a concern to us as well.

Those are some of the concerns we have about the changes that are being made to the Canada pension plan. We strongly believe in a public pension system in this country. We do not believe as the Reform Party is suggesting that we should privatize the whole thing or abolish the existing Canada pension plan or the public pension plan and move to a super RRSP plan.

If we do that, what do we do with the so-called unfunded liability of $600 million that is going to increase to over $1 billion within a few short years? How do we do that? How do we cover that? Those are questions that have not been answered appropriately in terms of getting rid of the Canada pension plan, in terms of a radical solution for the problem that is facing us today.

The other thing that should be pointed out is that the Canada pension plan is not strictly a pension plan. In fact it is misnamed. It should really be the Canada pension and insurance plan. A lot of the money, about one-third of it, is paid out for insurance benefits. It is somewhere around that amount. When we are looking at insurance benefits in terms of CPP disability, which by the way will be harder to get under the amendments, survivor's benefits, death benefits and all of these other benefits are really insurance benefits.

If we were to privatize the Canada pension plan, what happens to the insurance side of it? Those questions have not been answered.

I do not think those are amendments that should be seriously considered at all by the Parliament of Canada. The important thing is to make sure that this country has a very strong public pension plan.

CPP in its first 30 years has been a great social program in terms of helping to redistribute some income in Canada. If we look at the statistics we find that the number of seniors who are living in poverty is a lot lower today than it was in 1966 when the Canada pension plan was first formed. Any regressive change in the CPP in terms of who has to pay the premiums and who will get the benefits is something which is not going in the right direction.

On behalf of my party I have recommended a whole series of amendments, two of them in this particular group, which will help improve the Canada pension plan to make it more transparent, to make it more accountable.

An independent group that would advise on the code of conduct is something the government can certainly live with. It is not going to detract in any way, shape or form from the Canada pension plan to have an independent group to advise on how to set up the code of conduct and look at conflict of interest rules for the board of directors of this new investment fund.

The new investment fund is going to be a big fund. It will eventually be over $100 billion, perhaps the largest investment fund or largest pension fund in this country in a few short years. It is important that there be very stringent, very transparent conflict of interest rules. Some of the people who will be investing in that fund will be involved in other investment organizations. It is very important that they be at arm's length from any kind of conflict of interest.

Those are some of the reasons why I am moving these amendments. I hope the government will be receptive to some of these amendments. I am reminded that the government across the way had the vote of only 38% of the people so the majority is actually on this side. Therefore, the government should take some of our advice very seriously.