Human Resources committee  I think most of these clauses were put in at the outset of.... Sorry, do you want me to stop?

Human Resources committee  At the outset, when human rights statutes were being introduced, there was this fear that we did not know what was going to happen to pension plans, so they wanted to put something in there that would protect them.

Human Resources committee  The Supreme Court said in our potash case that if a plan isn't a sham, then it's a bona fide plan.

Human Resources committee  With our act, because it specifically says “termination of employment”, that's allowed. It specifically says that. There was a recent decision in P.E.I. —

Human Resources committee  Most of the provinces have that type of wording. It's commonly accepted that that allows for...because a pension plan has a lot of age requirements in there, such as when somebody can take an early pension, the normal retirement age, and how long they can work if they choose to w

Human Resources committee  I'm not sure. One thing to remember too, in terms of the issue of the safety and some of the things that are coming up, is that those exceptions already exist in every single human rights statute, including the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Human Resources committee  That could be. I think the common thought is that those types of differentiations again would fall under the other exception. You'd still be allowed to do them as long as you can show there's a reasonable.... It goes back to the reasonable justification. It's just not a concrete.

Human Resources committee  Hi there. I've been asked here today to discuss the pension plan exception found in New Brunswick's Human Rights Act. What's unique about New Brunswick's Human Rights Act is that it specifically allows for the termination of employment in relation to a valid pension plan. Unlik