Let's take the lifetime one first, and then we can come back to the increased age, because I know life insurers suggested a specific age, and they might want to comment on that.
I think the idea of a lifetime limit—and, you know, I don't have a fully worked-out plan. There are a number of commentators who have proposed this, and it seemed to make sense. Again, there is its flexibility over the life cycle. There is an element of that already in the RRSPs in the sense that you can make up contribution room, but because it's tied to employment income, when you're younger, the amounts are lower.
If you had a set amount—and different analysts will say whether it's $1 million or more—what it would allow you to do, I think, particularly when you're in a position to make more contributions as you get older, is to top those up, whereas if you had that employment-income-based catch-up, as you do in the RRSP, and you didn't do it in your earlier years, you would have perhaps a smaller amount. We just think it's a more flexible way.
There are a lot of people who go through their working career and they have disruptions. They're out of a job for a while, or they have a period of low income, or they're out of work, or whatever. If there's an ability for those people to do some catch-up when they're in a position to do so, that might help.
I'll turn to my friends from the CLHIA.