Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech and to the debate generally.
It seems to me one precious part of this argument is missing. There are two different types of pensions in the private and public sectors. One is called the defined benefit program. The other one is a fluctuating benefit program.
The fluctuating benefit is determined by the amount of money that is invested in the plan. In other words, it is an actual calculation of how much money is invested and then the benefit level is determined.
This plan is a defined benefit plan. It means very simply that the benefits are predetermined. It is irrelevant how much money physically is in or is not in the plan. The beneficiaries will get the same pension.
The Reform Party's position is even more ludicrous. The Reform Party is saying to leave the money in the plan. But there is no money. It is a notional amount that does not exist. There is no bank account with $30 billion in it. Whether we left it in the plan or took out it will not improve the employees' benefit levels.
This particular intervener talked about defending the workers of Canada. I suspect that those workers are also taxpayers. What he is talking about is giving this $30 billion of the taxpayers' money that has built up in this fund to somebody else. I just said that it would have no impact on the calculation of people's benefit packages.
How could the member justify taking a predetermined benefit package and increasing people's benefits for which there is no legal framework to do so, in other words, taking it off those very workers he claims to defend and giving it to another group of workers? It makes no sense.