Well, I think the notion was that.... The proportional repayment is 3:1, so it was felt that this was a big enough disincentive to prevent a premature reduction of the RDSP assets, but at the same time that the existing rule whereby, if you made a small withdrawal, you would have to repay everything that had been contributed over the last 10 years in terms of grants and bonds, was too harsh.
Certainly I think there was a recognition, but the view was that this change to the rule gives people more flexibility and perhaps prevents, in some cases, overly harsh results.