Finance committee  It's simply that the funding of the plan is not connected to the solvency of the employer. The contributions for employees and employers are fixed, and regardless of the solvency and of the funding of the plan itself, those contributions do not change.

Finance committee  It's true. In our legislation, “defined benefit” is used to distinguish between defined contribution plans, which are essentially savings accounts, and plans that have a monthly payment in retirement. That's how we use it, not in terms of the employer liability on insolvency or f

Finance committee  I'm not sure I understand the question. These 14 negotiated contribution plans are all multi-employer plans.

Finance committee  Just to finish Kathy's sentence, the funding requirements will be done through regulations. There already exist legislative authorities to do that.

Finance committee  The regulations already contain a solvency funding requirement. As part of the framework we propose, the legislative requirements are simply adding governance and funding policy requirements for these plans. The framework would also remove solvency funding for these plans.

Finance committee  No, it's not in the same way for the typical defined benefit pension plan that you think of, for which the employer is liable for the funding requirements and puts new funds into the plan. For these plans, if there is ever a funding deficit, the fixed contributions mean that no n