I completely understand that. As members of Parliament, basically as of next election, we have dramatically cut our pension plan going forward. No one was particularly wildly thrilled about it even though we thought it was the right thing to do, so I can understand that.
Would you also say the value of your organization is in the people? We have the machinery; we have the equipment; we have everything.
What I don't understand about this is that if they start to lose people, the value of the organization goes down. Why wouldn't the new owners or operators of this want to have a compensation package that is competitive with that of the rest of industry?
I'll throw this out to both Mr. Walker and Mr. Fitzpatrick. Basically whoever is operating this is stuck. They have to give the market rates. Otherwise the talent and the value of the organization, which is almost exclusively in its people and not so much in its equipment, will up and go. The only way to keep this organization valuable is to pay the market rate. If the market tightens up in other places, the value of compensation will go above what it currently is. If the market loosens up because all of a sudden there is no longer a need for this, it will drop. So, more than anything else, are we trying to guess what the market is rather than dictating what the salary and pension benefit levels are?