Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all of our witnesses who are here today.
I'd just like to ask Mr. Marlowe Fraser a few questions.
On the one-time lump sum, it's obvious that the reason that was put in place was to kind of help with that transition. There was a compromise, maybe, on the 75% of the income that was.... Basically, you're getting some of that benefit upfront; let's put it that way. That was the approach and I'm hearing that it's not the best approach.
If that were taken away and there were 100% earnings so that, as you said before, you could continue with your normal pay and you could get by, do you think there would be some push-back afterwards if we did that? Would there be people saying they'd like to have a lump sum so that they could have some adjustment? Did you discuss that and its implications?