Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed the member's speech because it verified what I have been saying in the House all along. The Reform's program is pretty general. It does not get into specifics. I want to ask the member one specific question to see if he can answer it.
If the Reform Party removed the Canada pension plan and replaced it with a super RRSP, I want to know what the member proposes to do with the $600 billion liability that exists today. What does he intend to do with the disability benefits which would not be there under a super RRSP? What will he do with the death benefit?
There is a social component to the Canada pension plan which is different from what my friend is advocating. He is advocating an RRSP system which would be based on income replacement but would have no social component in it.
I would like him to answer those two questions. So far all he has given us is the Chile example. I do not want to talk about the Chile example because quite frankly it is not a good one. It is not our system.
I was referring to countries which have a public pension plan. Not one of those countries has gone from a public pension plan to a private pension plan. When the two plans are put together side by side, it is obvious that the public pension plan is better for Canadians.
The member says that we are increasing the clawback by 80%, but that will only affect one out of ten people. Nine out of ten people will benefit from the seniors benefit. One in ten will see a reduction.
I do not know who the people are who the member is looking at. They must be those in the $100,000 to $200,000 range. They certainly are not the people in the $15,000 to $25,000 range.