I guess I would say that nothing we're proposing precludes anybody coming from a labour background, for instance, from being involved. I'm simply arguing that their background in that regard isn't nearly as relevant as the skills they bring to the table when it comes to managing the account. Their job is to ensure that these things are brought into balance, which benefits both employers and employees over time. It's in everyone's interest to make sure that is done.
We want to make sure that, on the one hand, we don't take any more money than is necessary from employees so that we can, over time, if situations warrant, reduce premiums, which helps workers. On the other hand, we want to make sure that we have adequate revenues coming in to pay for the benefits.
You know, when the mandate is so narrowly described--and I think it's appropriate that it should be--what becomes a lot less relevant is your previous attachment, whether it's labour or on the government side. It's really the skills that you bring to the table when it comes to managing these funds that become very important. But again, it doesn't preclude people from labour being involved in this, which I'm guessing would be your interest.