Vote No
An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to survivor pension benefits
This bill removes the “marriage-after-60/retirement” restrictions across federal and federally regulated pension laws so that spouses or common‑law partners are eligible for survivor benefits regardless of when the relationship began. It repeals election provisions that forced retirees to permanently reduce their own pensions to create survivor benefits, and deems past reduction elections revoked. It updates child allowance calculations and clarifies payment diversion to satisfy family-support orders. It also amends private, federally regulated pension rules to entitle survivors to variable benefits in DC plans and requires joint-and-survivor benefits for members who have a spouse or partner even after pension commencement.
The bill meaningfully improves survivor financial security and simplifies rules, but it creates significant unfunded liabilities and new mandates without identified offsets, risking higher costs for taxpayers and federally regulated employers. The cost and competitiveness downsides outweigh the red-tape reduction benefits.
What is the actuarial cost of expanding survivor eligibility across the CFSA, PSSA, RCMP, Judges, and MP plans, and how will contribution rates or general revenues be adjusted to fund these new liabilities without raising taxes?
For federally regulated private pensions, how will plan sponsors practically deliver a joint-and-survivor benefit when a spouse emerges after pension commencement, and will the government clarify waivers and transition rules to avoid plan deficits and legal disputes?
Will the minister amend the bill to apply prospectively and include a simple, consistent minimum cohabitation period across plans to prevent abuse while protecting legitimate spouses and ensuring survivors’ financial security?
Improves household financial security for survivors but increases pension liabilities; net effect on national prosperity is unclear.
Simplifies pension rules by removing marriage-after-60 restrictions and election mechanisms, reducing administrative complexity for members and administrators.
Raises mandatory benefit costs for public plans and federally regulated employers, which can crowd out productivity-enhancing investment.
Pension survivor eligibility changes do not directly influence export capacity or trade performance.
Higher mandated pension obligations and retroactive changes may discourage private investment and hiring in federally regulated sectors.
Expands unfunded liabilities in major federal DB plans and revokes reduction elections without identified offsets or efficiency gains.
Does not address tax structure; any tax implications would be indirect through higher pension funding needs.
A targeted benefits change rather than a broad economic growth strategy; scale of impact on prosperity is limited.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]