Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Calgary Southeast. The debate has two levels. Clearly our parties disagree on the function of the retirement system. I think we would all agree on that.
I also marvel at the member's skills in terms of making speeches. He has a lot to bring to the debate, but to simply harp on about the form of the system when what he is really talking about is the function does not do any good.
One thing that disturbed me was when the member spoke of his youth. Clearly I do not know exactly what role that plays in the debate, but he opened the door and I will try to get my rickety old body through it. Just because the member speaks of his youth does not mean he speaks for the youth.
I watched that party across the way during the election. Its advertising strategy seems to be let Canada separate from Quebec. We recently went through a colleague of his going through let B.C. separate from Canada.
When he talks about the younger generation not being willing to pay for some of the deficits that are owed in terms of the plan to the old, I would caution him that generations should not be autonomous.
There is a generation of Canadians that went to war to pay the price for his freedom. He simply stood up and said “my generation now, at our age, doesn't think this is a good deal for us, so forget the older generation Canadians”.
I would like a clear answer from the member. Is he laying the groundwork for the third pillar of the Reform Party, which is youth separation? Am I going to have to stand up here and fight against that? Is that something that the hon. member does not stand for?