Well, I'll tell you where it's going to create complications. It's going to create complications with the guarantee fund. If the guarantee fund is paying pensions that wouldn't have been paid, then people aren't getting credit that the federal government would have paid, and instead the province is going to have to put up the money, so they'll try to figure out how they can be second payer. The whole thing will get complicated.
It's very bad when people don't get the pensions they were promised. There's a whole debate going on about that. This isn't that debate. This isn't about preventing pension funds from leaving people high and dry. This is about compensating people who are left high and dry. If the other task succeeds, this will prove not to be very expensive and not to be very necessary.
For me, though, the issue here is... And Mr. Paillé said it very well. He said that you can't compare miseries and yet he thinks some miseries are much more important than other miseries. There's never anything to suggest that the people who are victimized by embezzlers or by bad investments or by bad markets in RRSPs deserve equal consideration, and I'm mystified as to why that is.