I would now like to go to Mr. Farmer.
I'm interested in your formula. Basically, under the federal government's formula, you never get across the road, so to speak. One can see it in your graph. There is an asymptotic line and you never get across the road.
You say that if there is a 5% surplus, a company can stop making contributions, but that there is no obligation to have a 5% surplus. You say that there should be measures in place to ensure a surplus and to go with that. It's on page 2. You state: "We find the 5% situation regrettable".
This is my question. If a company has a deficit in its pension plan, but then the plan's funding is brought up by one-fifth per year, instead of stopping contributions when the plan is fully funded again—having erased its deficit—could the company not top its plan up to 105%, after its experience of falling into deficit? There would be a built-in mandatory incentive—I know that's redundant—for companies which let their plan fall into a deficit—or who were on the brink of falling into a deficit—so these companies would have to top up their plans to 105%.