Human Resources committee  My answer is the same with respect to the New Brunswick case. We weren't involved in that case, but the Supreme Court was dealing with the legislative interpretation. On the issue of whether courts talked about the impact on benefits and pensions and so on, in the Vilven decisio

Human Resources committee  Mr. Farrell mentioned the human rights benefit regulations, and they do use the same language of “normal age of retirement”. So there would need to be some corresponding amendments to those regulations—

Human Resources committee  With respect to other legislation, it seems that, legislatively speaking, it wouldn't be as direct as for those regulations, but factually, there are some elements to consider—

Human Resources committee  I know for a fact that there would be one regulation to change—

Human Resources committee  —and that's the benefit regulation.

Human Resources committee  Other than that, I couldn't say.

Human Resources committee  In those decisions, yes, we do, and in that legislation in Ontario as well.

Human Resources committee  I can say briefly that you're correct with respect to the New Brunswick plan. It does allow it if it's part of a bona fide pension plan. That, in fact, was the subject of a Supreme Court decision last year when it debated what a bona fide pension plan meant. Did it have to be jus

Human Resources committee  Thank you. It is a function of the limits of the administrative tribunal's authority. They were given the ability to interpret the charter and to make a ruling that a piece of legislation like section 15 is unconstitutional. But they don't have the power the courts have to stri