Survivor pensions for late-life spouses

Summary#

This bill removes age and timing limits that block survivor pensions when someone marries or starts living common‑law after age 60 or after retiring. It updates several federal public sector pension laws and rules for federally regulated workplace pensions so a spouse or partner can receive benefits even if the relationship began late in life.

• Lets a surviving spouse or common‑law partner (living together as a couple) get survivor benefits even if the relationship began after age 60 or after retirement.
• Applies to pensions for federal public servants, Canadian Armed Forces, RCMP, judges, Members of Parliament (and Prime Ministers), and to federally regulated workplace plans and pooled registered pension plans.
• Ends the need for retirees to permanently reduce their own pension to “buy” survivor coverage for a spouse met after retirement; past reductions are cancelled going forward.
• Clarifies children’s benefits: if there is no eligible survivor, children receive a higher share; if there is a survivor, the usual (lower) child share applies.
• Keeps existing rules that allow courts to divert pension payments to meet support orders.

What it means for you#

• Retired or near‑retired federal employees (public service, Armed Forces, RCMP, judges, MPs)

  • If you marry or start a common‑law relationship after age 60 or after you retire, your spouse or partner will be eligible for a survivor pension when you die.
  • You no longer need to take a reduced pension to create survivor coverage for a new spouse or partner.
  • If you already chose a reduction for this purpose, that reduction will be cancelled when the law takes effect, so your monthly pension would go up.

• Spouses and partners

  • You can receive a survivor pension even if your relationship began after your spouse turned 60 or retired.
  • For MPs and Prime Ministers, the bill confirms you qualify if you were married at death or lived together as a couple for at least one year before death.

• Children of deceased members

  • If there is no eligible surviving spouse or partner, children’s allowances increase to make up more of the basic pension.
  • If there is an eligible survivor, children’s allowances follow the usual, smaller share.

• Workers in federally regulated private sectors with pension plans (banking, telecom, interprovincial transport, etc.)

  • Your plan must provide survivor benefits to a spouse or common‑law partner even if the relationship starts after your pension begins.
  • For defined contribution and pooled registered plans, a survivor will be entitled to the remaining account funds as variable payments, under tax and plan rules.

• Taxpayers

  • The bill does not change taxes or contribution rates in the text. Expanding survivor eligibility may increase costs for the affected pension plans over time.

Expenses#

Estimated fiscal impact: No publicly available information.

• Expanding survivor eligibility means plans will pay more in survivor benefits over time.
• Cancelling existing pension reductions (taken to fund survivor coverage) raises current payments to some retirees, adding to plan costs.
• The bill does not specify new funding sources or contribution changes.

Proponents' View#

• Ends an outdated rule that penalized people who find a partner later in life.
• Helps protect widows and widowers from poverty by guaranteeing survivor income.
• Simplifies choices for retirees by removing the need to permanently cut their own pension to cover a new spouse.
• Creates consistent survivor rules across many federal and federally regulated plans.
• Recognizes modern family patterns, including common‑law relationships.

Opponents' View#

• Could increase long‑term costs and liabilities for public sector and regulated private pension plans, with potential impacts on plan funding.
• May invite rare cases of marriages of convenience aimed at accessing survivor pensions.
• Adds administrative complexity for private plans to adjust benefits if a new spouse or partner appears after payments start.
• Retroactively cancelling prior pension reductions may upset past actuarial assumptions and planning.
• Could create conflicts with existing divorce, separation, or support arrangements that already divide pension benefits.