Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It would be useful to confirm the scope of the audit. As the member has pointed out, we have not audited the plans and concluded that the plans are not sustainable. The concern and the issue we raised was that there weren't any systematic and regular assessments of the sustainability of the plans, as opposed to our concluding that the plans themselves are not sustainable.
In the report, we also highlighted some factors that could bear on the sustainability, which could actually have adverse impact on the actuarial obligations, determined obligations, of the pension plans.
We spoke to economic conditions, but one of the factors that the chief actuary Mr. Ménard has pointed out is indeed the improved longevity. If I may point to the report, Mr. Chair, I would like to point to the table 1.2, on page 8. There you will see that back in 1970, on average Canadians worked about three years to collect one year of pension. Fast forward 40 years later, in collecting one year of pension, the Canadian worker would have worked only about 1.7 years.
Mr. Ménard pointed out that the impact on the actuarial assumption on longevity actually amounted to $7.7 billion. That's a big number. We also did some sensitivity analyses, and if I could point to another table in the report, on page 13, exhibit 1.3, you will see the actuarial assumption being increased by either one year, two years, or three years. The numbers are $4 billion, $8 billion, and $11 billion, so they're in the billions of dollars. That's why it's important that we emphasize that it needs to be assessed on a regular basis.
The issue today is not that the plans are currently not sustainable. The issue is that we need to make sure that we keep an eye on it, continue to do regular assessments to indeed make sure that they are sustainable.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.