You had an interesting introduction, but you've gotten into an issue that is a rather tough one to publicly explain, because you're basically talking about a pension where some of the benefits are clawed back, and you articulated what those are.
I guess one of the things we have to remember is that there are two groups who actually pay into that pension plan, the employee and the employer, and usually, in this case, the employer—the government—is paying in more than the employee. It's not as if it's only one individual contributing to the plan.
At the end of the day, as with anything else, there would be a cost to government of eliminating that clawback.
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that clawback will apply to you and me upon our retirement as well.
From a human point of view, you can argue as to why government should do this, but at the end of the day it has to do with the costs we incur. It reaches across many branches of government.
I think the other thing you have to consider is that if in fact the clawback were eliminated, the cost to government at some point would have to be incurred by some other group. You could argue that even the pension plans themselves, as they operate and function, and given how the actuaries' projections and the costs extended over a number of years are calculated.... It would mean that at the end of the day if the clawback did not occur, the pensions would have to be reduced. In other words, at the end of the day there has to be a consolidation of all those facts in terms of what the net benefit would be to the recipient, the pensioner.
I guess what I'm telling you is there's no easy answer to it. I think everyone in this room, regardless of whether they're an accountant or were the President of the Treasury Board, would be sympathetic at a human level to the issue that occurs. But at the end of the day, it would have a huge impact on governments.
What I will tell you is—and “you” would be as a former cabinet minister and a member of the crown, if you will—that this is an issue the previous government has dealt with as well, unsuccessfully. At the end of the day, it's going to be a cost incurred by government, and I would argue that when everything is considered, in terms of the level of pensions received today and the fact that there are two contributors to the plan, it's much more complicated than it looks. I don't expect any federal government is going to step into that void in the near future. That would be my belief, Mr. Thibault.