Just to speak to Mr. Menzies' point, this is a matter that has been hanging around for quite a while. There's no reason this couldn't have been introduced as a separate piece of legislation. It could have been introduced months ago if in fact there was a timeline that it was of concern.
I don't know whether I'm in favour of it or against it, because I haven't heard from witnesses, but the witnesses are going to be jammed into a short period of time, and then it's kind of an all-or-nothing deal. So I reject the premise of Mr. Menzies' point.
With respect to the issue for the workout scheme, you say, “Will the workout scheme result in the employer being able to force the plan members into an agreement that is not in their best interests?” The answer is no. And then further on you say, “The workout scheme will permit sponsors, plan members and retirees of a distressed pension plan to negotiate funding arrangements.”
That strikes me as saying the gun is at your head and there isn't enough money, so too bad for you, retirees, go visit your friends in Nortel. That's what it strikes me as.
I haven't absorbed the material entirely, to be fair, but it strikes me that the retirees will be in some sort of negotiation, it will be stalemated, they'll come to the minister and the minister will make a decision, and, boom, the retirees will have no recourse.