Okay, I will start over.
I was asked a question about the replacement rate, which is 55%. I would note that the rate was revised downward during the reforms in the 1990s we are all familiar with. That percentage definitely has to be increased.
To my mind, the priority is the maximum insurable earnings, which has not seen a very pronounced upward curve.
I will give you an example. When the reform was brought in, in 1996, or the counter-reform that was called the Axworthy reform, the insurable earnings maximum was reduced from $42,000 to $39,000, and frozen for ten years. The curve has never gone back up. Today, the maximum insurable earnings should be around $90,000. That would benefit the middle class and working men and women. At present, the insurable maximum is stuck at $63,000, and the government is losing revenue. We have to consider the replacement rate, but we also have to look at eligibility.
The real problem is that people are not able to meet the eligibility requirements or are not eligible because of penalties associated with the reasons for termination of their employment. One claimant out of four is ejected from the system because of those penalties. It does not matter how it was done, but that is what was wanted in the 1990s. We have been stuck with this problem for 30 years.