Okay, thank you.
Now I'd like to turn to Mr. Perkin. I don't really agree that you're offering a balanced approach. I think you're offering an unbalanced approach when you summarily dismiss any possibility of a supplementary Canada pension plan. We had this discussion with representatives of banks and insurance companies, and at the end of it, I thought they were not totally opposed to what I had to say, because I do think we can have a system in which many options are offered to Canadians so they have more choice. One of those options would be a supplementary Canada pension plan, and we're proposing a voluntary one.
I notice Ms. Eng's polling shows strong support among her members for a voluntary Canada pension plan. One of the advantages of that is it would offer far lower fees to the contributors than the private sector does, and by a large difference.
At the same time, I'm not opposed to what you propose in terms of opening things up and expanding coverage, including multi-employer plans, and all of those things the insurance companies have also talked about. I'm not opposed to doing that, but I don't think it's either/or. I don't think it's a matter of either expanding the Canada pension plan or expanding the scope of the private sector. I don't know why you can't do both. Then, depending on their circumstances, Canadians would choose one or the other or both.
So why do you insist on this? In the text of your prepared remarks, you called it “Myth Busting”. You wrote, “Don't mess with government programs such as CPP/QPP”, which “don't need to be expanded”. Well, that's a very bald statement. Why do you say they can't be expanded while at the same time saying that the private sector can be expanded and Canadians would have more choice?