If I could just comment on the Quebec solution, if you're an organization and the plan is 85% funded—and perhaps Ms. Cameron can peer-review what I'm saying here—the Caisse de dépôt then takes over the pensions at that 85% level. So people effectively have to accept that at that moment in time, their pensions have dropped in value.
The object is that the Caisse de dépôt would then invest, using certain principles, and hope over time to push that 85% back up towards the 100% mark. In order to do that, they may have to take a little risk, and as I understand it, if the risk goes the wrong way and the plan members are receiving their 85% and the pension fund that the Caisse is holding for that particular group does not have enough money in it, then it's the Quebec taxpayers who have to come in and boost it back up to the 85%. So the risks are actually being borne by Quebec taxpayers. If that's a solution on the table, I suppose it's worthwhile talking about it, as long as it's understood where the backstop is coming from.