On that score, a problem of these pension benefits guaranty funds is that if you're a planned sponsor and you're running your plan as best you possibly can, and it's reasonably well funded or very well funded, then the risk is that you will end up putting your moneys into this guaranty fund, and thereby protecting other plans that may have been run with more risk in their asset portfolios and so on. As the better-run plans' sponsors, and the ones who are managing their plans more carefully, you potentially end up subsidizing the other ones. That is one of the reasons why it's an extremely unpopular deal for companies that are in voluntary pension arrangements.
You've only presented two choices, between the preferred creditor status and a pension benefits guaranty fund. Where FETCO would come from, and I think where many private sector defined benefit plans would come from, is let's strengthen, through OSFI and through all the provincial regulators, the funding of pension plans so that each organization will be perhaps doing actual evaluations more often, perhaps having a cushion of extra funding, and so on and so on. In other words, strengthen the funding of pension plans and at the same time provide some quid pro quos to making it easier to keep these DB plans going.