Actually, your time is up, unfortunately, Bernard. Thank you.
We're just about to go to the second round. But if I could take one minute, I'm still curious about the changes made in Bill C-45, the two significant changes of 60 to 65 years old and the 35% contribution to 50%.
With regard to the $50 billion surplus we had in the year 2000 that was legislated away from the fund, if that had been invested at the 4% annual compounding interest, would either of these steps have been necessary if the workers' deferred wages had not been taken away from them in the year 2000 in the big scoop of Marcel Massé's final move as Treasury Board president? Has anyone ever extrapolated the position the fund would be in if we had not been denied that $50 billion actuarial surplus that existed in 2000?
Monsieur Ménard, you've been here since 1999. Has that study ever been done?