Thank you for your question.
I am a member of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, which has more than 2,000 members across Canada.
Perhaps I can use your question to explain this. Of course when we do assumptions, for example, we have to consult with experts and with our colleagues in Canada, but for the Canada pension plan, an independent peer review was put in place in 1999. It's three actuaries from the private sector, and sometimes they're academics, who look at the most important assumptions.
I want to talk about two assumptions that have an impact on the Canada pension plan and/or the public service pension plan: one is longevity improvements, and two is the real rate of return on investment. In the most recent peer review report, which was published in May of this year, they said, “Well, mortality, fine; but if we were the guys who'd selected the assumptions, maybe we'd have used a different assumption.” They were looking at more improvements, something that was raised in the report of the Auditor General. On the other hand, for the real rate of return, they looked at our assumptions and they said, “Well, in our reviews, maybe you are too prudent.”
Among the ten major assumptions, for three they would have selected a different assumption. For inflation, they would have selected 2%; we have 2.2%. For mortality, the improvements were as I said, and the rate of return on investments.
This process is extremely important for us to recalibrate, let's say, and consult more when there's a need for that.