It would limit the scope and it would limit the cost to government because it would apply in far fewer circumstances.
I don't think it does much to fix the technical complexity, because if you look... For instance, some Nortel people will settle by transferring lump sums to lock in RRSPs. That really doesn't even create a ripple in their tax return. There is no inclusion. There is no deduction. It's not at all visible. So you'd have to create an event where there was none to identify how much should have been transferred had they not had a loss, versus what was transferred.
In other cases, when you have a pension benefit guarantee fund claim—so part of the money is the pension fund and part of it is the guarantee fund—the loss in any given year might be different than it is in other years, given indexing and other things, so you basically create a tax reporting requirement whereby you have to constantly keep track not just of what is paid, which is the easy thing, but of what would have been paid in an alternative world where this loss hadn't occurred. That's a formidable task.
I don't think administration should be used as an excuse for not doing something that you think is worth doing, but I wouldn't underestimate the challenge of getting this properly drafted so that it doesn't inadvertently apply in a number of cases where it wasn't intended to apply.