Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My apologies to all the witnesses for the vagaries of the votes here on Parliament Hill.
My first question is essentially about your overall view. When I read the document that was submitted, I noticed that the studies were all done with a view to the short term. It would have been useful to see objectives for the very long term, especially since we're dealing with pension funds.
What would have been the macroeconomic benefit of investing the full $151 billion in obligations and transferring them to the pension fund post-2000?
As far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, it is currently facing problems related to veterans. Is it a structural problem or purely a temporary one that can be fixed with a few administrative reforms? Should the responsibility for veterans pensions have been returned to the Department of National Defence?
Funded pension obligations apply to crown corporations such as Canada Post, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, VIA Rail Canada and CBC/Radio-Canada. Would it have been preferable to put them all in the public service pension fund?
If we look 20, 30 or 40 years down the road, what is your objective for the fund from a macroeconomic standpoint, in order to support Canadian investments? Is that kind of information relevant? If so, can we expect that kind of research to be done at some point?
On the subject of the RCMP, what would the long-term consequences be of police officers unionizing?
In short, talk to us about your plan for 15, 20 or 30 years down the road, when those pension obligations will need to be used.