Thanks, Chair.
I'm having a little trouble understanding the government's position, so rather than my being argumentative, help me understand. This has been complex all along the way; everybody acknowledges that, so let's move cautiously. The purpose was to eliminate what was perceived as a loophole: that right now, if you're expelled, your pension is on the line if you meet the right circumstances. If you resign before you're expelled, you get to keep your pension. The purpose of the bill, originally, was to close that loophole. Our amendment has tied that action to the expulsion, which seems to be the most logical, common-sense, and easiest approach that leaves the least amount of leeway for error, if you will.
I remember when we started having discussions about going down the road the government is talking about, we got into the weeds big time. We got advice from legal experts who were saying, “You're going to run into problems if you're going this way; you're not going to line up with an alignment or a match the way you want.”
I'm having some trouble understanding why the government, notwithstanding pride of ownership, wouldn't agree with the simplest approach that effectively deals with the very basic purpose that the bill was originally brought in to do.
Through you, Chair, before I relinquish the floor, I would ask Mr. Lukiwski to help me understand why we go the complex way rather than the straightforward, simple way.