Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of whether the public will still like us on election day in 1997. That is the challenge I am throwing out to members opposite: bring in a realistic pension plan and I think the Canadian public will have some faith in the whole process, but if we continue to set our standards higher than those of ordinary Canadians they will have no faith.
We have heard the debate in the House that takes place on old age security and Canada pension. We know those two programs are under heavy pressure and it may not be possible to sustain them. There has even been talk about moving the age limit back to 67 for people to receive old age security. That suggestion was made because we are in such serious financial difficulty in the country that the interest on the debt is consuming more and more of these very, very important programs.
That is the kind of pressure the public is going to face: a Canada pension plan that may not be sustainable, old age security that may not be sustainable. At the same time, in what direction are MPs going? We are going with a gold plated pension plan-not as much as before, but significantly higher than the public and private sector.