Mr. Chairman, I will follow up on Mr. McCallum's question, because I would have thought that he would have directly addressed question No. 26. Perhaps he doesn't like it so much. A few years ago, I studied the way polls are conducted, and I am afraid that your poll is fairly biased. For example, on page 14, it says that 64% of people are already retired. So our pension system basically works fairly well, and this stands in relation to question No. 25. Statistics are for an economist what a streetlight is for someone who has had too much to drink. It is something to hold him up rather than to show him the way. However, I think that statistics can nevertheless be useful, but they have to be interpreted cautiously.
I have a couple of questions for the representatives of the FTQ. If our public pension systems were stronger and more complete—for example, if they had a replacement rate far over 25%, 30% or 40%—are you not afraid that you would be shooting yourselves in the foot because, through the Fonds de solidarité, you have an additional pension system? Further, is there not a danger that people will say their retirement income from the public system is plenty, and that, consequently, they might choose not to contribute, or to decrease their contributions, to the Fonds de solidarité?
To take that idea one step further, say Canada improved its retirement benefits, would you adopt specific investment policies, either by investing in a region or in a province, or pan-Canadian investment policies, rather than a more scattered approach?