It was maybe just a raised eyebrow.
As Mr. Jackson said, reasonable people can have reasonable discussions about this. On the PRPP, I may make about three or four points.
A comment was made that there are high costs. In fact, the PRPP is designed, by definition, to be low cost. The thing that will guarantee that is the nature of the design of the product. We have not seen that yet. The nature of the regulatory system that will surround that will help guarantee that. As Minister Menzies has said recently, one of the advantages of this is that you are, in effect, buying in bulk. We have every confidence this will be a low-cost alternative.
Mr. Jackson made a good point about mandatory versus purely voluntary. The way we see it, and the way we have advocated that the government proceed on PRPPs—and it's a fair point—is to think about ways of getting as many people into the tent as possible. That gives you the scale and the scope. We have suggested that there be auto-enrolment of employees, but with the option of opting out if people do not wish to do it and wish to go a different route. We think that would help.
The third point I would make is that on a CPP system, as has been said, it's a mandatory premium—or a mandatory tax, if you would like—on the individuals. That's a very blunt instrument. They could be at times in their lives where they would rather use that money for something else. Just like we would offer this opt-out, individuals might say, “I think I can do a better job.” We have worries about the mandatory employee participation.
Those would be some of the comments I would offer on that.