Part of our recommendation is that the current regulatory regime needs to be fixed so that we don't get our companies' funds into the position that the Nortel pensioners find themselves in, to deal with contribution holidays, to deal with surplus, to deal with deficiency funding. That is something that's necessary.
If there is a universal pension plan, then companies that are in trouble might choose to find some safe harbour within the larger plan. That will be a help. If the pension benefits are detached from the whims and the choices of employers and what happens with their industry, for example, then you have a more stable fund, as the CPP did weather the economic storm better than, say, the auto industry.
Those are the opportunities that come out of a universal fund like this, and that's why it's important to have that kind of pre-emptive strike, if you want to call it, but pre-emptive opportunity for us to avoid the kinds of situations that we have. So it's two-pronged: on one hand, change the regulatory regime to ensure better funding, more stable funding of the ones that exist to the extent that they will continue to exist, but provide the option that there will be a safe harbour in a larger fund so that they never need to see themselves in this situation again.