I'll have the first kick at the can and in the interest of honesty say something that I think is true for all parties at this table.
What we're dealing with often in a situation like Nortel's is a company that has taken advantage of weak funding rules, in contrast to a lot of its fellow companies, which actually do fund pensions properly. When Nortel became a company that was worth pennies a share and not $126 a share, it encountered risks, but it utilized the flexibility of pension rules to which it was privy to allow for that.
What this committee is contemplating is supporting the back end of protecting people's pensions in bankruptcy, but the front end--the funding rules making sure that there are regulatory cops on the beat at OSFI who pay a little more attention to how pensions are funded under the federal jurisdiction, which you're responsible for--is crucial.
There are forestry companies that have lived through the last two or three years, such as Domtar, that have properly funded their pensions. Then there are companies like AbitibiBowater, often in the same community and producing the same product, that have taken advantage of the flexibility of funding rules and have then imposed upon their retirees and their workers to bear that risk, which I think is absolutely unconscionable.