Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses who have come here today.
Ms. Blanchard, please don't ever feel humiliated to come here to a committee. We're happy to have you here. We need to hear what is happening to our constituents all across the country. Whether you're in Quebec or Nova Scotia, your comments are credible. You have every right to be here, so please don't feel humiliated to be here appearing in front of us. We do appreciate that.
Mr. Beaudoin, your association came to our town hall in Quebec City. Forgive me, you may have been there yourself, but we do appreciate that.
But I'm hearing so much and I wouldn't ordinarily get partisan here...until I saw the display from Mr. Paillé. What he didn't lack in sincerity, he certainly overcame with volume.
We have asked the Bloc to participate in communicating what their constituents are telling them about overall retirement income, and I'm sorry, but we've had nothing. We've had not one ounce of feedback on what their constituents are saying. You say they've been supportive; I would argue they haven't. We've reached out to the Bloc to contribute to this, and the Bloc doesn't quite understand that we represent all Canadians. We hear your story, and it's a troubling story, but we hear it from all across this country. What we're trying to do is put forward something that will help all Canadians.
Please understand that we have a real challenge ahead of us. If we decide on that for one group or for two groups, if we approve a piece of legislation for them, how does that impact the rest of the country? That's not to say we shouldn't do that, but we have that dilemma.
To go back to Mr. Malcolm Hamilton, your comment is what troubles me. Do we then take the responsibility away from a plan sponsor so that they would just find it easier to walk away from a pension plan? Can you explain that? Am I misinterpreting that? The way this legislation is written, it would be an incentive for a plan to fold and leave its plan members stranded.