Finance committee  You're welcome. It is in the order of millions. I don't have the statistics in front of me. I believe the statistics are in the submission that we sent on March 13. If you would like that detail, we can certainly provide it after the meeting as a follow-up.

Finance committee  Yes, I can tackle that. Just to clarify your question, it's concerning the regulatory regime and whether or not we think we would benefit from an intergovernmental body to coordinate. Yes, I do agree. I think there are two areas where there is a problem. One, as you've mentioned, is on the pension regulation side and the other is on the securities regulation side.

Finance committee  I don't have the exact figure in front of me, but I'll just start by saying that the PIAC submission does specify “prudent person”.

Finance committee  Our organization is an organization that is made up of volunteers, so we can't specifically respond to the issues of salaries and bonuses because there are none related to PIAC, other than that we have an executive director. So if you're asking me my opinion, my opinion is that the compensation practices for each organization should be determined by the board of directors and they should be transparent.

Finance committee  PIAC's constituency is a lot broader in that we represent corporate plans, public sector plans, and quasi public sector plans. When we're looking at asking for relief, the reason we're asking for relief is because the solvency funding requirements can actually put a financially strong company into jeopardy because the requirements are onerous based on the existing rules.

Finance committee  I think in a situation of a bankruptcy you wouldn't see a situation where a plan sponsor would be able to set up such an account.

Finance committee  A bankruptcy situation would probably not lend itself to having the ability to set that up.

Finance committee  The account would be held separately from the sponsor's assets and separately from the pension plan trust assets.

Finance committee  I think the rules for ownership would be complex and would depend on the situation; however, they would provide the ability for the plan's sponsor to access those assets in times when the plan is in a fully funded position.

Finance committee  If the account was set up for the purpose of plan funding, and if that funding was required in the event that the company failed and the plan was wound down, it would go to the plan. If there was a fully funded pension plan in that situation it would revert back to the sponsor.

Finance committee  I can't answer that question because I don't know. It would depend on the specific circumstances.

Finance committee  The proposal is centred around financially strong companies. The ability to use a letter of credit provides a security for the pension plan. Also, as you say, letters of credit can be revoked. The financial health of the particular plan sponsor will dictate whether or not that plan sponsor is able to put a letter of credit in place.

Finance committee  I agree completely that the employer-employee contribution holiday, which largely arose out of surpluses, and which did not end up being permanent, created some of the problems we're facing today. Your situation at OMERS probably mirrored the experience of a lot of other plan sponsors and beneficiaries.

Finance committee  Just to clarify your question, is it asking what compromises the plan sponsor community would be willing to accept to achieve that ten-year funding rule? Is that the question?

Finance committee  Okay. I haven't had a chance to think about that, so I may ask if we can provide a response later to the committee on that particular question. The position we've taken is that's a requirement to help ease onerous funding requirements under solvency and that any additional restrictions, such as putting in place more quantitative limits to further constrain the plan sponsors, would just be counter-productive.