Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech, which part of it I heard from here and part of it from my office, but I was especially surprised at the attack on the RRSP.
I know we all want money for vacations and stuff like that and, as the member said, we should have money for that, but I also think we should be encouraged to save for larger vacations rather than small ones.
The RRSP is a program that encourages people to save. I also know the member is concerned about overtaxation. Well the RRSP is also a way of saving and reducing taxation so I was surprised to hear him attack it.
One aspect of the RRSP is the RESP which is where people can save money, avoid taxes and put the money aside for the education of their children at a later stage. By the way, when they draw it out they do not pay the taxes, so this is great encouragement.
Another part of the RESP is the Canada educational saving grants program whereby, when people put money into an RESP for their children's future education, they receive a grant of 20% up to a certain maximum for each child.
Another facet of the RESP is the Canada learning bond for very low income children, which I know the Conservatives supported. In this case, an RESP account can be opened in the name of a low income child either by a parent, a guardian or the Children's Aid Society if the child is in care, and the Government of Canada will place $500 in the account and another $100 every year until the child is 15. The money will accumulate and at the age of 18, for a good number of years, it is available to that person for lifelong learning. In that case, there is a 40% top up. Therefore, if the family decides to add money to the $500 and the $100 allocations, they will get a 40% top up, subject to a maximum, by the Government of Canada.
What does the member have against the RRSP?