There are a number of ways to do it. Remember that wage claims—unpaid wages—were initially debated in the same fashion. Should they be granted a superpriority and placed ahead of secured creditors, or should there be a fund set up to ensure that workers would be made whole and the government would be able to subrogate those rights and pursue those claims in insolvency?
That's what we did when we set up the wage earner protection program in 2005. We could do the same with the pension deficit. We could establish a national mandatory pension insurance so that there's no conflict for secured creditors, but pensioners and workers are made whole in terms of their pension entitlements through an insurance scheme.
The other way to do it, though, is to examine the priority of claims under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and see what material difference might have been made if the pension deficit had been, as the Syndicat des Métallos has said, immediately behind the secured creditors but ahead of other unsecured creditors—essentially, a preferred claim. My guess is that there would be a material and significant improvement in the payouts to pensioners and plan members. The problem is that we don't have the data.