Finance committee  Part of our recommendation is that the current regulatory regime needs to be fixed so that we don't get our companies' funds into the position that the Nortel pensioners find themselves in, to deal with contribution holidays, to deal with surplus, to deal with deficiency funding.

Finance committee  It is a large amount of money but one that we didn't pull out of a hat. We did consult with Bernard Dussault, who helped us come up with that number. Of course, as you know, David Dodge has also repeated that number in the C.D. Howe Institute's recent paper, indicating that regardless of how you do it, you have to set aside from 10% to 21% of your ongoing income, whether it's as you go along or all at once, in order to have amounts sufficient to take you through retirement.

Finance committee  That's accurate, and the numbers range, but there is some agreement in the literature on it being anywhere from 60% to 70%. Even the research papers sent out by the provincial finance ministers based on Mr. Baldwin's report indicated that it was anywhere from 50% to 60%. These are not numbers on which we can actually make a judgment.

Finance committee  Well, I will.

Finance committee  To make a point about Mr. Wallace's question, you'll find that this sub-sample of our membership is a strong supporter of the Conservative Party, and this makes its recommendations even more forceful.

Finance committee  This is why we recommend a universal fund that is not tied to the decisions of one employer or even to any group of employers. It needs to be something that is widely available, with no advantage or disadvantage for one employer over another if they opt in or out of the plan. When it's universal, the set-up costs may require government involvement.

Finance committee  Thank you for that. You have to understand that in that question we were asking members to distinguish among the different options there. You're quite right to point out that if we simply went on the basis of this, we would only be recommending a supplementary CPP. However, the point we're making here is simply that if you look at the whole thing, only 3% say do nothing at all.

Finance committee  Thank you. We've been asked about the issue of mandatory and voluntary quite a bit, and I'm not sure why it is that people are so frightened of the idea of it being mandatory. In fact, mandatory works. Obviously, our model focuses on a big-picture framework that says that if you want to get to your target quickly, and you can guarantee that everybody participates, mandatory works.

Finance committee  We present to our membership what we hope to be a well-reasoned advocacy position based on the research we have and the circumstances, and we get feedback from our membership, which is unlike many stakeholder groups who make the decision for the members. We try to give them feedback as to what their numbers are telling us as well.

Finance committee  There is a distinction.

Finance committee  That is the nature of pensions. You do not start benefiting from the first dollar you contribute. It does take a working lifetime, a career, to actually get a full pension. That's true of MP pensions as well. Even though people are criticizing it for being gold-plated, in fact you had to serve for 25 years to get a full pension.

Finance committee  No, but the future comes along pretty quickly. In this circumstance, people have to start saving now in order to have their money in place for their own retirement. If we don't start today, then it's going to be another 35 years.

Finance committee  That's right. For the supplementary pension, it's going to take that time. If your government is interested in helping people today, then you can increase the OAS and GIS right away.

Finance committee  The importance of a pension summit is so that all the people who have the authority to make changes—that is, all the finance ministers at all levels of government—have to be around the table and have to concentrate on finding solutions. But at such a summit, there should be representation of knowledgeable representatives of retirees in particular, because those are the people whose futures will be most affected by the changes.

Finance committee  No, there is an opportunity to use multi-employer pension plans. They have had some poor performance, mostly because there is a diffusion of accountability. Once you have multiple groups in there, the difficulty is that none of them are in charge. It is one option. It's not one that we rule out.