Veterans Affairs committee  I was just going to add, with regard to what if the marriage after 60 clause were removed, that when we talked about costing and that cost earlier on, it was really only in reference to those who are still contributing. There is always that question of how to treat those who have

Veterans Affairs committee  Essentially, right now the current government has yet to respond in Parliament to Bill C-221 and, as such, I wouldn't be able to comment on the government's position in this respect. That being said, I understand that similar private member's bills and petitions have been introd

Veterans Affairs committee  That's correct. Again, it depends on what the member opted for—30%, 40% or 50%. Assuming it's 50%, that's what they would get for the rest of their lives.

Veterans Affairs committee  It's accurate, but I will also point out that it is the same for the entirety of all defined benefit pension plans. I could pay in as a member for my entire life. I could have a spouse and we both pass away within a few years of my retirement. I would have paid in hundreds of tho

Veterans Affairs committee  It's half of what the survivor benefit is, I believe. It's 1% instead of 2%, so it's half.

Veterans Affairs committee  In that example, it would be.

Veterans Affairs committee  That's correct, and I will add a precision, which is that it's half of their unreduced pension as well, because often plans—early retirement, CPP, etc.—can be reduced, so it's probably more than half. Anyway, for simplicity we will say it would be half, and you have that right.

Veterans Affairs committee  Again, these are members' funds, so all members contribute and they risk-pool together. Someone is actuarially calculating what the cost is projected to be for the plan on average, and they're trying to offset this to be neutral to the plan.

Veterans Affairs committee  That's effectively a fair statement. Again, when we're looking at this as an actuarial calculation, they're trying to assume very much what this will cost the plan, and that's kind of looking at another alternative with a set of assumptions about what you could get as a return fo

Veterans Affairs committee  I'll defer a bit to our colleagues at Veterans Affairs. If you're speaking generally to pension plans across Canada, there are different forms of pensions, which provide different types of guarantees in benefit payouts, both for members and survivors. They're more or less consis

Veterans Affairs committee  No, it's also a pooled risk set-up there. It's always a trade-off. It's always risk pooling. The payouts are dependent on how long people live. It's very individually dependent.

Veterans Affairs committee  I would suggest that the Department of National Defence would be better prepared or suited to answer this, simply because we don't deal with their membership directly.

Veterans Affairs committee  This $1 billion or $2 billion or whatever the final amount would be is an adjustment to the overall liability. This would be a one-time adjustment to the obligations of the pension plan to reflect these new expected benefits to be paid out over the course of current members' life

Veterans Affairs committee  That $2-billion figure notionally is the removal of the marriage after 60 clause from all three public sector pension plans.

Veterans Affairs committee  It's only for current members paying in, not for those who predeceased and not those...beforehand.