Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
This is a good discussion, actually, because both gentlemen have touched on an issue that I have been discussing for some time, and some of us have discussed it back and forth for quite a number of years now.
I just want to make sure that when we talk about pension splitting, we mean the same thing exactly. If I'm not mistaken--and someone could correct me--the current budget for pension splitting is only for the purpose of taxation. So it's not really splitting money. That doesn't really do very much, and it doesn't accomplish--I don't think-- what you're suggesting, Mr. Wilson.
True pension splitting would mean that when the couple retired, the actual pension would be split, just as if they were divorcing, and a cheque would go into her hands and a cheque would go into his hands. So she now actually has an income that she can handle. We forget sometimes that in families where there is either abuse or difficulties throughout life, they don't necessarily disappear when people retire; they continue. However, regardless of that, if the woman's pension is lower--and in most cases it has been and probably will continue to be--for all of the reasons that both of you have stated, and I don't want to go over that territory, splitting pensions for the purpose of taxation doesn't really help the woman, nor does it mean that when the husband passes on, a portion of that pension actually goes to the wife and is not taxable and what have you. She does become poorer.
We had an organization in here last week. That organization, Senior Link, has about 2,600 seniors whom they serve. Seventy-five percent of them are single women. It goes to show you a bit of what that population looks like.
So help me understand. Do you mean pension splitting in the way that I'm describing it, where you actually split pensions, or do you mean simply for the purpose of taxation, which I don't think will do what you're suggesting it will?