I suppose we could go around and around in circles. That's not my intention. I have the highest regard for the members across the way as well, and I firmly believe that they believe that's the right approach.
I would say this. The changes we are proposing will take place in 2027. There's ample time for people to get ready. I would even say, furthermore, that if we're wrong, that can be adjusted again. I'm willing to go to the people in Chatham-Kent—Essex, and when they ask me, “Dave, why did you make this change?”, I will look them squarely in the eyes and say that it was because I wanted to make sure that when the time comes, when they retire, the funds will be there.
When we talk about those countries, Ms. Nash, with all due respect, their problems are with their bonds. They can't satisfy the bond buyers anymore. It's a great big IOU, and no one trusts that. It's the situation not only in those countries. It's the same situation in the United States. In this country, we want to make sure that the funds will be there and that those people who are ready for retirement will be able to expect to have those funds in place.
I know this is prudent. I know the reasons we are doing this are the right reasons. I believe, as you said, that I can look my constituents squarely in the eyes and tell them that we're doing this in their best interest. I believe that most of them will agree with the stand this government has taken, too.