These are really difficult issues.
First of all, I think we have to be very careful about saying that there should be solvency at all times, because that solvency calculation is based on a whole bunch of hypotheses and a whole bunch of rules. Quite frankly, I worry that we've defined it so tightly that we have plans that are going to be perfectly solvent over a period of time and at another point in time may appear to become insolvent because of our rules.
So I think we have to be quite careful here. The task of trying to find a way to do it, to smooth through the wiggles that take place, is not easy. But the situation we currently have, where everything depends on the interest rate that exists on the last day of a calendar year, is not a very sensible way to look at it. It allows for comparability, but it doesn't make sense from a pension point of view.
The Netherlands one is a bit of a different thing. I think there are lessons in what the Dutch have done. They started with a total disaster and experimented with a way of going about this. I think there are lessons there for Canada that are worth looking at.
Finally, there's one thing I would caution very strongly against, and that is having something like the American Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. It really rewards the folks who don't manage their plans well and penalizes those who do. That's really quite a dangerous way to go at it. On the other hand, very clearly, if we run into a real economic or financial disaster, we would want to look at ways to try to stabilize through that. But I don't think the historic way of doing it, through something like the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, is a sensible way.