First of all on the question of why equality and amounts of retirement income will not be achieved through CPP, it all relates to Dr. McDonald's point about earnings differences prior to retirement. The chief actuary projects women's CPP benefits getting up to 84% of the men's level by 2050, but that's the end of that story.
Concerning the caregiver, you're right that it would be possible to exempt periods of caregiving. I presume that one needs a non-obtrusive administrative routine to figure out when people are caregiving and when they're not, but if you can overcome that problem, you could probably do it.
Having to draw down your RRSP accumulations by age 90 is a case of just not having caught up with the evolution of changing mortality. Indeed, I was going to mention, in the unedited version of my comments, that there are a number of things we don't know about RRSPs and defined contribution plans. One of them is that we don't know what actual experience people have drawing them down on their own. We don't know whether people run out of money before they reach the end of their lives or whether they're actually being too cautious. It's one of those important things that we should know more about and don't, especially since there are more of these arrangements in place.
Finally, I think your comments on the tax-back rate under GIS are very important, not only in terms of the incentives people have to save before retirement, but incentives people have to work after they're retired, if they're on low income. It's also an area wherein you have a real tension between what you might want to do for fiscal reasons and what you might want to do to have a good benefit design. You relieve those problems, of course, if you boost OAS and scale back GIS, but then you have a lot more money flowing through your public accounts, and that creates problems of it own. So you have a real dilemma here.