Whether defined contribution or defined benefit, this stuff about a free lunch...these are negotiated plans, regardless. Benefits are in exchange for wages. The question, though, at the end of the day, is this. Is it guaranteed or is it not guaranteed? In terms of who suffers the risk, if it's defined contribution, it's the employee, at the end of the day, who ends up potentially without any money.
I think the point that Mr. Skerrett made is instructive about the reality out there in terms of what kind of money ordinary working people are taking home from their pensions. It's tough out there. There are an awful lot of low-income Canadians, and their pensions reflect that.
Maybe you can expand a bit on that. Also, there have been many before our committee—and members of our committee—who have talked about the idea that increasing contributions to CPP over a number of years is going to just devastate the economy in this country. There are going to be unemployed people lined up down the street and around the corner, everywhere. I wonder if those who support the idea of using the CPP to actually achieve what the government has talked about in terms of enhanced retirement income security could talk about what that plan actually looks like in terms of its impact on the economy.
Maybe, Mr. Roberts, you could start.