Well, I think your point is a bit of a red herring, because there already exist bank-run funds that are life cycle funds, with the investment mix being a function of the age. I would suggest, even though it hasn't been fully worked out, that a supplementary defined contribution, supplementary CPP, could be modelled on exactly the same lines. And there you have it: the problem is solved.
But I'd like to now return to the question of the cost and the 60 basis points. I had my other source of information saying that's closer to 100, but in any event, if it's 60, so much the better. You'd be even better placed to compete with a new public sector plan, because 60 is pretty low.
So I guess I will repeat my question. Given that we have a life cycle type of plan, which the CPPIB is saying they could do if asked, and it's similar to something provided by the private sector, then to go back to my earlier question, why can't we have that and your expanded multi-employer plan that you're asking for? Why can't the two coexist, compete with each other, and offer more choice to Canadians?