Pensions are probably the most complicated area from a technical point of view, and I am not the expert from a legal drafting point of view or from an accounting point of view, but clearly it's very important that firms and workers do have the option and the ability to have defined benefit plans. They may choose not to; that's a different story. But we should have a framework that is not biased against the establishment of those plans.
For various reasons, in terms of accounting and the way some of the judgments have gone in courts, we've created a bias against employers sponsoring these plans and what we've seen is employers increasingly back out.
Now, that's a free choice that people have, but our view is that it is important because these are very important sources of savings for the economy, and for stability in the period going forward. So what we have simply argued is that we ought to have a legal accounting and regulatory framework that is neutral to this, that it doesn't bias the choice of employers against setting up these plans.
With respect to the Canada Pension Plan, we're kind of leaders in the world in having a public pension plan that is pretty sound. But as we all get older, we really have to look, I think, at the way the CPP is structured in terms of the transition from full-time work to full-time retirement. When it was set up back in 1966, that wasn't really thought so much about. That is a difficult issue and one that increasingly we will have to think about if we're to have the right incentives for older workers to continue to participate in the labour force to the extent they want to.