ตู้ปลาคาสิโน_สล็อตออนไลน์ฟรีเครดิต ไม่ต้องฝาก_ฟรีเครดิตทดลองเล่น 2019 https://www.google.com//352/topics/retirement en Planification de la retraite https://www.google.com//352/node/4377 <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><h3>V¨¦rification de la dur¨¦e du service ¨¤ temps plein et ¨¤ temps partiel ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension</h3> <p>La majorit¨¦ des minist¨¨res et des organismes f¨¦d¨¦raux remettent aux employ¨¦s des relev¨¦s annuels de pension et de prestations. Pour ¨¦viter toute surprise ou d¨¦ception au moment o¨´ ils prennent leur retraite, les membres doivent v¨¦rifier leur service ¨¤ temps plein et ¨¤ temps partiel ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension aupr¨¨s des sp¨¦cialistes de la r¨¦mun¨¦ration et des avantages sociaux de leur minist¨¨re bien avant la date pr¨¦vue de leur retraite. Nous encourageons aussi les membres ¨¤ tenir leurs propres dossiers et documents d¡¯emploi en cas de diff¨¦rend ou de d¨¦saccord au sujet de la valeur de la prestation de retraite fond¨¦e sur le service ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension.</p> <h3>Service accompagn¨¦ d¡¯option ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension et accords de transfert de pension</h3> <p>Comme cela a ¨¦t¨¦ mentionn¨¦ pr¨¦c¨¦demment, le montant d¡¯une pension au titre de la LPFP est directement fonction de la dur¨¦e du service ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension de la cotisante ou du cotisant au titre de la LPFP. La LPFP offre aux cotisants la possibilit¨¦ d¡¯augmenter leur service ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension par des dispositions de service accompagn¨¦ d¡¯option et des accords de transfert de pension.</p> <h3>Service accompagn¨¦ d¡¯option</h3> <p>Les types de service accompagn¨¦ d¡¯option pour lesquels une cotisante ou un cotisant au titre de la LPFP peut obtenir des droits ¨¤ pension sont les suivants :</p> <ul><li>Service ant¨¦rieur dans la fonction publique f¨¦d¨¦rale non inclus dans le service ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension</li> <li>Service dans les Forces canadiennes</li> <li>Service dans la Gendarmerie royale du Canada</li> <li>Service de guerre</li> <li>Service civil de guerre</li> <li>Service en tant qu¡¯employ¨¦ engag¨¦ sur place</li> <li>Service dans une organisation internationale</li> <li>Service en tant que parlementaire</li> <li>Emploi ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension ¨¤ l¡¯ext¨¦rieur de la fonction publique f¨¦d¨¦rale ? imm¨¦diatement ant¨¦rieure ? ¨¤ l¡¯embauche dans la fonction publique</li> <li>P¨¦riodes de cong¨¦ non pay¨¦ ant¨¦rieures non incluses dans le service ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension</li> </ul><p>L¡¯AFPC encourage ses membres ¨¤ consulter la ou le sp¨¦cialiste de la r¨¦mun¨¦ration et des avantages sociaux d¨¦sign¨¦ dans leur minist¨¨re si n¡¯importe lequel des types mentionn¨¦s pr¨¦c¨¦demment repr¨¦sente une occasion de service accompagn¨¦ d¡¯option. Il est possible d¡¯obtenir ¨¤ l¡¯avance une estimation du co?t afin de d¨¦terminer si transformer du service ant¨¦rieur en service ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension est une option valable. Le site Web du Secr¨¦tariat du Conseil du Tr¨¦sor contient un <a href="http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/remuneration-compensation/awr-cwa/index-fra.html">estimateur du rachat de service</a>.</p> <p>Le co?t du rachat de service ant¨¦rieur est fonction d¡¯un certain nombre de facteurs, dont le type de service accompagn¨¦ d¡¯option en question, le moment du choix et le mode de paiement pour le service accompagn¨¦ d¡¯option. Dans tous les cas d¡¯option ? tardive ? (c.-¨¤-d. plus d¡¯un an apr¨¨s le d¨¦but des cotisations au titre de la LPFP), la cotisante ou le cotisant doit aussi subir un examen m¨¦dical de Sant¨¦ Canada pour valider le rachat.</p> <h3>Accords de transfert de pension</h3> <p>Les accords de transfert de pension (ATP) assurent la transportabilit¨¦ des prestations de pension et du service accumul¨¦ entre le r¨¦gime de pensions au titre de la LPFP et d¡¯autres r¨¦gimes de pension.</p> <p>On peut trouver dans le site du Secr¨¦tariat du Conseil du Tr¨¦sor une <a href="http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/pensions/plan-regime/peserv-servpe-fra.asp#toc3-3">liste des ATP actuellement en vigueur entre le gouvernement du Canada et d¡¯autres promoteurs de r¨¦gime de pension</a>.</p> <p>Cette liste est mise ¨¤ jour fr¨¦quemment par le Secr¨¦tariat du Conseil du Tr¨¦sor. Habituellement, l¡¯option de transf¨¦rer du service ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension par le truchement d¡¯un ATP existant expire apr¨¨s un an de cotisation au titre de la LPFP. Cependant, les membres qui ont un service ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension accumul¨¦ dans le cadre d¡¯un r¨¦gime de pension qui ne fait pas l¡¯objet d¡¯un ATP sont encourag¨¦s ¨¤ consulter r¨¦guli¨¨rement cette liste du Secr¨¦tariat du Conseil du Tr¨¦sor pour l¡¯¨¦ventualit¨¦ o¨´ un ATP serait conclu entre le gouvernement du Canada et le promoteur de cet autre r¨¦gime de pension. Dans ce cas, les membres vis¨¦s pourraient transf¨¦rer leur service ant¨¦rieur ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension dans le r¨¦gime au titre de la LPFP de fa?on rentable, et efficace sur le plan administratif.</p> <h3>Documents personnels</h3> <p>Les documents personnels manquants ou erron¨¦s causent des erreurs ou des retards dans le traitement des prestations de retraite. Le R¨¨glement de la LPFP d¨¦signe les preuve documentaires ¨¤ fournir pour ¨¦tablir l¡¯admissibilit¨¦ aux diverses options et prestations de retraite. Pour ¨¦viter tout inconv¨¦nient ou difficult¨¦ inutile, les membres de l¡¯AFPC devraient veiller ¨¤ ce que leur dossier personnel au minist¨¨re ou ¨¤ l¡¯agence o¨´ ils travaillent soit ¨¤ jour et contienne tous les documents et renseignements personnels pertinents, notamment :</p> <ol><li>preuve de l¡¯age de la cotisante ou du cotisant;</li> <li>d¨¦signation juste de la ou du b¨¦n¨¦ficiaire de la prestation suppl¨¦mentaire de d¨¦c¨¨s (formulaire PWGSC-TPSGC 2196 ¨C D¨¦signation ou changement de b¨¦n¨¦ficiaire)</li> <li>nom et coordonn¨¦es d¨¦taill¨¦es de la survivante ou du survivant et des enfants;</li> <li>preuve de l¡¯age du survivant et des enfants;</li> <li>documents relatifs ¨¤ la situation conjugale et familiale : <ol><li>acte de mariage ou preuve documentaire de la cohabitation en union de type conjugal;</li> <li>jugement de divorce, documents de s¨¦paration ou certificat de d¨¦c¨¨s du survivant;</li> <li>dans le cas d¡¯un mariage ant¨¦rieur, l¡¯acte de mariage de ce mariage et le certificat de d¨¦c¨¨s ou le jugement de divorce relatif ¨¤ l¡¯ancien survivant;</li> <li>dans le cas o¨´ le cotisant ne vit pas avec son survivant, ¨¦nonc¨¦ ¨¦crit du cotisant de sa perception des circonstances;</li> <li>documents pertinents ayant trait aux enfants (p. ex., preuve d¡¯age, papiers d¡¯adoption, preuve de la tutelle, preuve de la fr¨¦quentation continue d¡¯un ¨¦tablissement d¡¯instruction agr¨¦¨¦, etc.);</li> <li>d¨¦claration ¨¤ titre de preuve ayant trait ¨¤ un changement de nom (autre que par mariage) ou expliquant toute diff¨¦rence entre le nom dans les documents personnels et le nom dans le certificat de nomination.</li> </ol></li> </ol><h3>Politique sur les cong¨¦s de transition pr¨¦alable ¨¤ la retraite</h3> <p>Pour les employ¨¦es et employ¨¦s admissibles ¨¤ une pension imm¨¦diate d¡¯ici deux ans, il existe une politique du Conseil du Tr¨¦sor qui pr¨¦voit une transition progressive vers la retraite. La Politique sur le cong¨¦ de transition ¨¤ la retraite permet aux employ¨¦s dans de telles situations de r¨¦duire d¡¯au plus 40 % leur horaire hebdomadaire de travail, mais leur participation aux r¨¦gimes de pension et d¡¯avantages sociaux demeure inchang¨¦e (tout comme leurs protections en vertu de ces r¨¦gimes). Il faut cependant noter que le cong¨¦ de transition pr¨¦alable ¨¤ la retraite doit ¨ºtre approuv¨¦ par la direction en tenant compte des besoins op¨¦rationnels.</p> <p>Pour de plus plus amples renseignements visitez <a href="http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/remuneration-compensation/paye-centre-pay/vie-life/conge-preret-holiday-fra.html">Cong¨¦ de transition ¨¤ la retraite</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-publisher field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Publisher:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/publisher/programs-section">Programs Section</a></li></ul></section><div class="field field-name-field-publication-date field-type-datestamp field-label-inline clearfix view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-label">Publication Date:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">Wednesday, December 9, 2015 - 12:00pm</span></div> </div> </div> Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:59:58 +0000 clawson 4377 at/352 Planning for retirement https://www.google.com//352/planning-retirement <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><h3>Verification of length of full-time and part-time pensionable service</h3> <p>The majority of federal departments and agencies provide employees with annual pension and benefit statements. In order avoid any unforeseen surprises or disappointments at the date of retirement, members should verify their length of full-time and part-time pensionable service with their departmental pay and benefits officer well in advance of a pending retirement date. Members are also encouraged to maintain their own employment records and documentation in the eventuality of a dispute or disagreement over superannuation benefit entitlements based on pensionable service.</p> <h3>Elective pensionable service and pension transfer agreements</h3> <p>The amount of a PSSA benefit entitlement is directly dependent on the PSSA participant¡¯s length of pensionable service. The PSSA provides contributors with opportunities to increase pensionable service through elective service provisions and Pension Transfer Agreements.</p> <h3>Elective Service</h3> <p>The types of elective service for which a PSSA contributor could obtain credit include:</p> <ul><li>Prior Federal Public Service Not Included as Pensionable Service</li> <li>Service with the Canadian Forces</li> <li>Service with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police</li> <li>War Service</li> <li>Civilian War Service</li> <li>Service as a Locally-Engaged Employee</li> <li>Service with an International Organization</li> <li>Service as a Member of Parliament</li> <li>Outside Pensionable Employment which is ¡°immediately prior¡± to employment with the Federal Public Service</li> <li>Previous Periods of Leave without Pay Not Included as Pensionable Service</li> </ul><p>PSAC members are encouraged to consult with their designated departmental pay and benefits specialist if any of the foregoing represents an opportunity for elective service. A cost estimate can be obtained in advance to assist with assessing whether pursuing a past service election is a viable option. The Treasury Board Secretariat website also includes an <a href="http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/remuneration-compensation/awr-cwa/index-eng.html">elective service buyback estimator</a>.</p> <p>The cost of electing prior pensionable service is dependent on a number of factors including the type of elective service, the timing of the actual election and the method of payment for the elective service. In all cases involving a ¡°late¡± election (i.e. more than one year subsequent to commencing contributions to the PSSA) the contributor is also required to pass a medical examination administered by Health Canada in order to validate an election.</p> <h3>Pension Transfer Agreements</h3> <p>Pension Transfer Agreements (PTAs) provide for portability of accrued pension benefits and service between the PSSA and other pension arrangements.</p> <p>Treasury Board Secretariat website has a <a href="http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/pensions/plan-regime/peserv-servpe-eng.asp#toc3-3">list of PTAs in force between the Government of Canada and other pension plan sponsors</a>.</p> <p>This list is updated frequently. Ordinarily the option to transfer pensionable service via an existing PTA expires after one year of contributor status under the PSSA. However, members retaining pensionable service entitlements with another pension arrangement where no PTA currently exists are encouraged to continue to monitor the Treasury Board Secretariat listing in the eventuality that a PTA is eventually concluded between the Government of Canada and the sponsor of the other pension arrangement. This would then provide the opportunity to transfer the prior pensionable service to the PSSA in an administratively efficient and cost effective manner.</p> <h3>Personal Documentation</h3> <p>Missing and inaccurate personal documentation will result in errors and delays in the processing of superannuation benefit entitlements.</p> <p>PSSA Regulations identify the documentary evidence required to substantiate entitlement to various superannuation options and benefits.</p> <p>To avoid any unnecessary hardship and inconvenience, PSAC members are encouraged to ensure that their personal file with the employing department or agency contains current personal documentation and information including:</p> <ol><li>proof of age of contributor;</li> <li>accurate designation of beneficiary for Supplementary Death Benefit (Form PWGSC-TPSGC 2196 ¨C ¡°Naming or Substitution of Beneficiary¡±)</li> <li>names and detailed contact information of any survivor(s) and children;</li> <li>proof of age of any survivor(s) and children;</li> <li>documentation related to marital and family status: <ol><li>marriage certificate or evidentiary documentation to substantiate cohabitation in a relationship of a conjugal nature;</li> <li>divorce decree, separation papers, or death certificate of survivor;</li> <li>where there was a previous marriage, the marriage certificate of that marriage and the death certificate or divorce decree in respect of the former survivor;</li> <li>where the contributor is living apart from his/her survivor, written record of contributor's view relating to the circumstances;</li> <li>relevant documentation relating to children (e.g. proof of age, adoption papers, evidence of guardianship, evidence of continuous attendance at qualified educational institution, etc.);</li> <li>declaration of evidence relating to a change of name (other than by marriage) or reconciling any difference between name on personal documents and name on the appointing certificate.</li> </ol></li> </ol><h3>Pre-retirement Transition Leave</h3> <p>Policy For interested employees within two years of eligibility for an immediate annuity, a Treasury Board of Canada policy exists which provides the opportunity for a gradual transition to retirement.</p> <p>The Pre-retirement Transition Leave Policy allows employees in these situations to reduce the length of their workweek up to 40 per cent and maintain pension and benefit coverages (as well as required contributions/premiums) at pre-arrangement levels. However, please note that pre-retirement transition leave is subject to managerial approval and discretion, based on operational feasibility.</p> <p>For more see: <a href="http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/remuneration-compensation/paye-centre-pay/vie-life/conge-preret-holiday-eng.html">Preretirement Transition Leave Policy</a> (Treasury Board)</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-publisher field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Publisher:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/publisher/programs-section">Programs Section</a></li></ul></section><div class="field field-name-field-publication-date field-type-datestamp field-label-inline clearfix view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-label">Publication Date:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">Wednesday, December 9, 2015 - 12:00pm</span></div> </div> </div> Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:21:56 +0000 clawson 4376 at/352 Quand vient le moment de quitter la fonction publique du Canada pour prendre sa retraite https://www.google.com//352/node/4198 <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><p>Un outil technique qui aideront les membres et les retrait¨¦s ¨¤ r¨¦pondre ¨¤ leurs questions ou pr¨¦occupations se rapportant au r¨¦gime de pensions.</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/pensions">Pensions</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-publisher field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Publisher:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/publisher/programs-section">Programs Section</a></li></ul></section><div class="field field-name-field-publication-date field-type-datestamp field-label-inline clearfix view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-label">Publication Date:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">Thursday, October 8, 2015 - 4:00pm</span></div> </div> </div> Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:42:30 +0000 clawson 4198 at/352 Retiring from the public service of Canada https://www.google.com//352/retiring-public-service-canada <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><p>A technical aide for PSAC members and retirees on federal superannuation issues.</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/pensions">Pensions</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-publisher field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Publisher:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/publisher/programs-section">Programs Section</a></li></ul></section><div class="field field-name-field-publication-date field-type-datestamp field-label-inline clearfix view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-label">Publication Date:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">Thursday, October 8, 2015 - 4:00pm</span></div> </div> </div> Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:37 +0000 clawson 4197 at/352 La version conservatrice des r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles compromet la s¨¦curit¨¦ du revenu ¨¤ la retraite https://www.google.com//352/node/2706 <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><p>Le gouvernement conservateur vient de terminer ¨¤ une consultation sur son projet de r¨¦forme de la Loi sur les normes de prestation de pension (LNPP). Son but?: y inclure les r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles. Son enthousiasme pour cette formule nous incite ¨¤ la vigilance.</p> <h3>Des membres de l¡¯AFPC seraient touch¨¦s</h3> <p>Les soci¨¦t¨¦s d¡¯¨¦tat et les employeurs du secteur priv¨¦ sous r¨¦glementation f¨¦d¨¦rale (les a¨¦roports, par ex.) sont assujettis ¨¤ la LNPP.</p> <ul><li><a href="/352/regimes-prestations-cibles-proposition-des-conservateurs">Aper?u des r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles et de la proposition des conservateurs</a></li> <li><a href="/352/afpc-regimes-prestations-cibles-memoire">Le m¨¦moire de l¡¯AFPC</a></li> </ul><p>Le gouvernement a d¨¦clar¨¦, bien s?r, que sa proposition ne s¡¯appliquait pas ¨¤ la Loi sur la pension de la fonction publique (LPFP). Mais en enchassant les prestations cibles dans une loi, on ouvre la porte ¨¤ d¡¯autres r¨¦formes l¨¦gislatives, visant, cette fois, les r¨¦gimes de retraite de la fonction publique.</p> <h3>La proposition du gouvernement met en danger les revenus de retraite</h3> <p>Un r¨¦gime ¨¤ prestations cibles c¡¯est mieux que rien, n¡¯est-ce pas? Peut-¨ºtre. Mais cela ne compense pas tous les probl¨¨mes qu¡¯engendrera la proposition du gouvernement. En voici quelques-uns?:</p> <ul><li> <p>les employeurs pourraient niveler par le bas les r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es existants;</p> </li> <li> <p>les employeurs pourraient r¨¦duire les prestations de retraite vers¨¦es aux personnes retrait¨¦es. Or, selon la loi f¨¦d¨¦rale en vigueur, corrobor¨¦e par des d¨¦cisions judiciaires, il est INTERDIT de proc¨¦der ainsi sauf si le r¨¦gime est d¨¦ficitaire;</p> </li> <li> <p>les contributions seraient plafonn¨¦es, et ce, m¨ºme si l¡¯employeur et les employ¨¦s sont pr¨ºts ¨¤ payer davantage, ce qui m¨¨nera fort probablement ¨¤ la r¨¦duction des prestations;</p> </li> <li> <p>chaque employ¨¦ devrait assumer une grande part du risque.</p> </li> </ul><h3>Prochaine ¨¦tape?: l¨¦gif¨¦rer les r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles</h3> <p>Le gouvernement affirme que les commentaires recueillis dans le cadre de la consultation men¨¦e par le minist¨¨re des Finances le guideront au moment de r¨¦diger la nouvelle loi. Entretemps, il continue ¨¤ nous vendre sa salade.</p> <p>L¡¯AFPC, d¡¯autres syndicats et le Congr¨¨s du travail du Canada ont d¨¦moli la proposition du gouvernement, sachant pertinemment qu¡¯elle profitera uniquement aux employeurs. Pourquoi? Parce qu¡¯il n¡¯y a absolument rien dans cette proposition qui inciterait les employeurs ¨¤ implanter de nouveaux r¨¦gimes, ou ¨¤ bonifier un r¨¦gime ¨¤ cotisations d¨¦termin¨¦es d¨¦j¨¤ en place. Au contraire, ils voudront plut?t r¨¦duire leur part du risque et les prestations de retraite des employ¨¦s.</p> <h3>L¡¯AFPC ripostera</h3> <p>En plus de faire conna?tre notre position au gouvernement, l¡¯AFPC, de concert avec d¡¯autres syndicats, ripostera ¨¤ cette nouvelle attaque du gouvernement contre les pensions.</p> <p>Notre strat¨¦gie?: montrer au grand jour les failles de la proposition du gouvernement et les dangers qu¡¯elle rec¨¨le. Nous proposerons aussi d¡¯autres solutions pour am¨¦liorer la s¨¦curit¨¦ de la retraite de tous les Canadiens.</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/pensions">Pensions</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-publisher field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Publisher:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/publisher/communications-and-political-action">Communications and Political Action</a></li></ul></section> Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:39:55 +0000 clawson 2706 at/352 Conservatives¡¯ version of target benefit pension plans a threat to retirement security https://www.google.com//352/conservatives-version-target-benefit-pension-plans-threat-retirement-security <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><p>The Conservative government has just finished a consultation process about their proposal to change the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act to include target benefit pension plans. They¡¯re enthusiastic about this type of pension plan which is a good reason to pay attention.</p> <ul><li><a href="/352/target-benefit-pension-plans-and-what-conservatives-have-planned">Quick facts about target benefit pension plans</a> and what the Conservatives have planned</li> <li><a href="/352/position-psac-department-finance-consultation-paper-pension-innovation-canadians-target-benefit-plan">Read PSAC¡¯s submission</a></li> </ul><h3>PSAC members would be affected</h3> <p>The federal Pension Benefits Standards Act applies to federally-regulated private sector employers (such as airports) and Crown Corporations.</p> <p>While the government has said that this proposal does not apply to the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA), if their proposal becomes law it would set the stage for similar changes to the PSSA and federal public service pensions.</p> <h3>The government¡¯s proposal makes retirement income less secure</h3> <p>Target benefit pension plans might be better than no pension at all. But that doesn¡¯t compensate for all the problems the government¡¯s proposal will create. The government¡¯s version of a target benefit pension plan:</p> <ul><li> <p>will give employers an opportunity to downgrade existing defined benefit pension plans;</p> </li> <li> <p>will allow employers to reduce pension benefits being paid to retirees; existing federal law, supported by court decisions, does NOT allow employers to reduce retirees¡¯ pensions except when a plan is in bankruptcy;</p> </li> <li> <p>will put a limit on contributions, even if the employer and employees want to pay more, virtually guaranteeing that benefits would be reduced at some point;</p> </li> <li> <p>will shift a lot of the pension plan risk from employers to individual employees</p> </li> </ul><h3>The next step is to legislate target benefit pension plans</h3> <p>The government says that the input received through the Department of Finance consultation process will guide it when preparing the new legislation. Meanwhile it continues to spin the supposed benefits of its proposal.</p> <p>PSAC, other unions and the Canadian Labour Congress have panned the government¡¯s proposal because we know that only employers will benefit. There are no incentives for employers to create new pension plans or improve existing defined contribution plans. They¡¯ll just be encouraged to reduce their risk and reduce employees¡¯ pension benefits.</p> <h3>PSAC will be organizing against this new attack on pensions</h3> <p>In addition to making our position known to the government, PSAC is working with others in the labour movement to push back the government¡¯s proposal.</p> <p>We¡¯re working to counteract the government¡¯s rosy spin and make members aware of the real pitfalls of the government¡¯s plan. And, we¡¯re working to promote alternatives that will improve retirement security for all Canadians. ?</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/pensions">Pensions</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-publisher field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Publisher:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/publisher/communications-and-political-action">Communications and Political Action</a></li></ul></section> Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:35:47 +0000 clawson 2705 at/352 Position de l¡¯AFPC sur le document de consultation du Minist¨¨re des Finances, intitul¨¦ Innover en mati¨¨re de pensions, dans l¡¯int¨¦r¨ºt des Canadiennes et des Canadiens : Les r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles https://www.google.com//352/node/2704 <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><h3>(i)L¡¯ALLIANCE DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE DU CANADA</h3> <p>L¡¯Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada (AFPC) compte 150?000?membres qui font partie de 215?unit¨¦s de n¨¦gociation dans le secteur public f¨¦d¨¦ral. Employ¨¦s par le gouvernement du Canada ainsi que par des soci¨¦t¨¦s d¡¯¨¦tat et d¡¯autres employeurs assujettis ¨¤ la Loi sur les normes de prestation de pension, les travailleuses et travailleurs sont susceptibles de ressentir les effets des changements propos¨¦s dans le document de consultation. Plus pr¨¦occupant encore, ces changements pourraient mener ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦rosion des prestations de retraite, source de revenus stable pour les fonctionnaires f¨¦d¨¦raux.</p> <h3>(ii)INTRODUCTION</h3> <p>Comme en t¨¦moigne le document de consultation, le gouvernement s¡¯attaque au mauvais probl¨¨me, de la mauvaise fa?on.</p> <p>Il propose de remplacer les prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es, source de revenus s?re et pr¨¦visible, par des prestations cibles dont le montant peut diminuer. L¡¯adoption d¡¯un tel r¨¦gime compromettrait la s¨¦curit¨¦ du revenu de nos membres et porterait atteinte ¨¤ leur qualit¨¦ de vie.</p> <p>Remplacer des prestations de retraite stables et pr¨¦visibles par des prestations qui peuvent diminuer n¡¯importe quand, y compris ¨¤ la retraite, c¡¯est commettre une erreur.</p> <p>Les Canadiennes et les Canadiens ont besoin d¡¯une pension suffisante, s?re et pr¨¦visible qui leur permet de planifier leur retraite en fonction de leurs moyens. Vivre dans l¡¯incertitude et la crainte de voir son revenu diminuer d¡¯une semaine ou d¡¯une ann¨¦e ¨¤ l¡¯autre ne peut que compromettre la s¨¦curit¨¦ de leur pension, leur qualit¨¦ de vie et leur contribution ¨¤ la vie et ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦conomie de leur collectivit¨¦.</p> <p>Mais l¨¤ n¡¯est pas le vrai probl¨¨me.</p> <p>Le vrai probl¨¨me r¨¦side dans le fait que les deux tiers des Canadiennes et des Canadiens n¡¯ont aucun r¨¦gime de pension d¡¯employeur. Ils s¡¯en remettent au R¨¦gime de pensions du Canada, dont les prestations sont inad¨¦quates, et ¨¤ un m¨¦lange de r¨¦gimes enregistr¨¦s d¡¯¨¦pargne-retraite souvent plus avantageux pour le milieu financier que pour ses clients. Il va sans dire qu¡¯aucune de ces options n¡¯est un instrument d¡¯¨¦pargne ad¨¦quat.</p> <p>La vraie solution au vrai probl¨¨me des r¨¦gimes de retraite est la bonification du RPC pour l¡¯ensemble de la population. Et le v¨¦ritable obstacle ¨¤ la r¨¦solution du vrai probl¨¨me, c¡¯est le gouvernement f¨¦d¨¦ral. En effet, lors de la r¨¦union des ministres des Finances, en d¨¦cembre 2013, il a bloqu¨¦ unilat¨¦ralement la r¨¦forme du RPC, qui faisait l¡¯objet d¡¯un vaste consensus national. Les grands perdants sont les citoyens et les citoyennes, qui devront se contenter d¡¯un revenu de retraite incertain et insuffisant.</p> <p>Il est encore plus navrant de constater que le gouvernement canadien ne s¡¯est pas content¨¦ de refuser la vraie solution. Au contraire, il semble r¨¦solu ¨¤ ¨¦branler les fondations m¨ºmes de la s¨¦curit¨¦ du revenu offerte par les r¨¦gimes de retraite d¡¯employeur. Les prestations cibles ne r¨¦pondent pas aux besoins des travailleurs. Elles s¡¯ajouteront ¨¤ la longue liste des probl¨¨mes associ¨¦s ¨¤ la s¨¦curit¨¦ de la retraite au Canada, sans jamais contribuer ¨¤ les r¨¦soudre.</p> <h3>(iii)LA RAISON D¡¯¨ºTRE DES R¨¦GIMES DE RETRAITE</h3> <p>La modification des lois en mati¨¨re de pensions porte souvent sur des d¨¦tails importants, mais de port¨¦e tr¨¨s limit¨¦e.</p> <p>Les changements propos¨¦s dans le document de consultation sont d¡¯un tout autre ordre. Il ne s¡¯agit plus de faire de simples ajustements ¨¤ certaines dispositions ou d¡¯en am¨¦liorer le libell¨¦, mais de reformuler compl¨¨tement la promesse de retraite que les employeurs font ¨¤ leurs employ¨¦s et ¨¤ leurs retrait¨¦s. Revenir sur cette promesse aura de profondes cons¨¦quences sur ces employ¨¦s, leurs familles et l¡¯¨¦conomie du pays.</p> <p>Les r¨¦gimes de retraite sont essentiellement un moyen de garantir un revenu d¨¦cent, s?r et pr¨¦visible aux personnes retrait¨¦es. Dans un march¨¦ solide et concurrentiel, o¨´ les salaires du secteur priv¨¦ demeurent plus ¨¦lev¨¦s que ceux du secteur public, la promesse d¡¯une retraite ad¨¦quate permet d¡¯attirer et de garder du personnel.</p> <p>Offrir une retraite d¨¦cente, s?re et pr¨¦visible aux employ¨¦s, c¡¯est leur donner confiance en l¡¯avenir. Sachant que leurs vieux jours sont assur¨¦s, ils se sentent ¨¤ l¡¯aise de d¨¦penser leur argent pendant leur vie active. Ce n¡¯est pas tout. Une fois ¨¤ la retraite, ils poursuivent leurs activit¨¦s ¨¦conomiques en sachant qu¡¯ils continueront ¨¤ recevoir les m¨ºmes prestations leur vie durant. Cette confiance en l¡¯avenir nourrit l¡¯¨¦conomie et les petites entreprises de nombreuses collectivit¨¦s dont la population est vieillissante.</p> <p>Le vrai probl¨¨me dans le dossier des pensions, c¡¯est qu¡¯une trop faible proportion de la population a acc¨¨s ¨¤ un r¨¦gime de retraite ad¨¦quat. Certains employ¨¦s gagnent suffisamment d¡¯argent pour ¨¦pargner en vue de leur retraite, mais les v¨¦hicules financiers ¨¤ leur disposition sont g¨¦n¨¦ralement plus co?teux et moins efficaces qu¡¯un r¨¦gime de retraite de grande envergure. Un r¨¦gime de retraite ad¨¦quat est l¡¯¨¦l¨¦ment essentiel qui pourrait permettre aux petits salari¨¦s d¡¯en faire autant. Dans tous les cas, l¡¯absence de r¨¦gimes ad¨¦quats partout au Canada fait du tort au pays et ¨¤ ses r¨¦gions.</p> <p>Ainsi, le professeur Michael Wolfson pr¨¦voit que la moiti¨¦ des Canadiens ¨¤ revenu moyen subiront une importante r¨¦duction de leur niveau de vie ¨¤ la retraite. En effet, dans son ¨¦tude Projecting the Adequacy of Canadians¡¯ Retirement Incomes, publi¨¦e par l¡¯Institut de recherche en politiques publiques en avril 2011, il conclut ??qu¡¯environ la moiti¨¦ des Canadiens ¨¤ revenu moyen n¨¦s avant 1970 subiront une baisse de leur niveau de vie (c.-¨¤-d., des possibilit¨¦s de consommation) d¡¯au moins 25?% ¨¤ la retraite.?? [notre traduction] C¡¯est aussi la conclusion ¨¤ laquelle sont parvenus les auteurs d¡¯autres ¨¦tudes sur le remplacement du revenu au Canada<a href="#sdendnote1sym" name="sdendnote1anc" id="sdendnote1anc">i</a>. Cet ¨¦tat de choses est attribuable en grande partie ¨¤ la p¨¦nurie de r¨¦gimes de retraite ad¨¦quats. Et c¡¯est l¨¤ que le bat blesse.</p> <p>Malheureusement, le gouvernement ne s¡¯attaque pas ¨¤ la source de ce probl¨¨me. Et ce n¡¯est pas parce que le document de consultation propose le mod¨¨le des prestations cibles que les employeurs qui n¡¯ont pas de r¨¦gime de retraite s¡¯empresseront de l¡¯adopter et que d¡¯autres le substitueront ¨¤ leur r¨¦gime ¨¤ cotisations d¨¦termin¨¦es. Ce ne sont certainement pas les employeurs qui ont demand¨¦ au gouvernement de promouvoir les prestations cibles pour leur permettre de bonifier leurs r¨¦gimes. Non. Il est fort plus probable que les employeurs sauteront sur le mod¨¨le des prestations cibles pour convertir de bons r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es qui garantissent une retraite ad¨¦quate, s?re et pr¨¦visible en r¨¦gimes beaucoup moins stables. Nous devons prot¨¦ger et ¨¦largir les bons r¨¦gimes de retraite et interdire ce nivellement par le bas.</p> <p>H¨¦las, le document de consultation n¡¯offre aucun espoir ¨¤ ce chapitre. Le gouvernement privil¨¦gie plut?t une approche restrictive et punitive qui m¨¨nera ¨¤ la d¨¦gradation des r¨¦gimes existants et ¨¤ la baisse des prestations vers¨¦es aux cotisants.</p> <p>Si le Canada jouit d¡¯une r¨¦putation internationale dans le domaine des r¨¦gimes de retraite d¡¯employeur, c¡¯est qu¡¯il a ouvert la voie non pas aux prestations cibles, mais aux r¨¦gimes de retraite conjoints ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es qui garantissent une pension s?re et pr¨¦visible.</p> <h3>(iv)LE R¨¦GIME DE RETRAITE CONJOINT ¨¤ PRESTATIONS D¨¦TERMIN¨¦ES?: UN MOD¨¨LE CANADIEN</h3> <h3>Une r¨¦ussite incontest¨¦e</h3> <p>Le Canada fait figure d¡¯innovateur mondial en mati¨¨re de pensions. Ainsi, le R¨¦gime de retraite des enseignantes et des enseignants de l¡¯Ontario (RREO) et le Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) sont souvent cit¨¦s en exemple en raison de leurs pratiques exemplaires de gestion et de placement. Ces deux r¨¦gimes, ainsi que le British Columbia Municipal Employees¡¯ Pension Plan, le British Columbia Public Service Pension Plan, le British Columbia Teachers¡¯ Pension Plan, le British Columbia College Pension Plan, le R¨¦gime de retraite des employ¨¦s municipaux de l¡¯Ontario, le Colleges of Applied Arts and Technologies Pension Plan et bien d¡¯autres, t¨¦moignent du succ¨¨s d¡¯un mod¨¨le de gestion des pensions lanc¨¦ au Canada, appel¨¦ ??r¨¦gime de retraite conjoint ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es?? (RRCPD).</p> <p>Les membres de l¡¯AFPC participent d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¤ plusieurs RRCPD provinciaux, dont les suivants?: R¨¦gime de retraite des employ¨¦s municipaux de l¡¯Ontario (a¨¦roports de Windsor, Timmins et North Bay, port de Prescott et municipalit¨¦ de Moosonee); r¨¦gime de retraite municipal de la Colombie-Britannique (a¨¦roport de Victoria et Autorit¨¦ sanitaire des Premi¨¨res Nations); HOOPP (Weeneebayko Area Health Authority).</p> <p>Le mod¨¨le des RRCPD a fait son apparition dans les ann¨¦es 1990. Avant qu¡¯il soit adopt¨¦, ce sont les employeurs qui assuraient la capitalisation des r¨¦gimes de retraite, ¨¤ l¡¯aide, entre autres, des cotisations des employ¨¦s. En g¨¦n¨¦ral, les employeurs assumaient la plus grande part du risque, puisqu¡¯ils ¨¦taient responsables de la plus grande part des co?ts. Parall¨¨lement, ce mod¨¨le leur conf¨¦rait d¡¯importants avantages, dont celui de puiser dans l¡¯exc¨¦dent pour r¨¦duire leur contribution ¨¤ un niveau inf¨¦rieur ¨¤ celui des employ¨¦s.</p> <p>?</p> <h3>Les rouages</h3> <p>Les artisans des RRCPD ont propos¨¦ que l¡¯employeur et les employ¨¦s partagent ¨¦galement tous les co?ts li¨¦s au r¨¦gime, dont le financement du d¨¦ficit de solvabilit¨¦. Il va sans dire que le principe du partage ¨¦gal s¡¯appliquait aussi aux exc¨¦dents.</p> <p>En pratique, cela veut g¨¦n¨¦ralement dire que les deux parties sont responsables en parts ¨¦gales du co?t du service courant (pour l¡¯ann¨¦e en cours), ainsi que des cotisations additionnelles qui servent ¨¤ corriger les d¨¦ficits de solvabilit¨¦, le cas ¨¦ch¨¦ant. En ¨¦change, tous les exc¨¦dents sont aussi partag¨¦s ¨¦galement entre l¡¯employeur et les employ¨¦s.</p> <p>Bref, le mod¨¨le des RRCPD pr¨¦voit le partage ¨¦gal des co?ts et risques associ¨¦s ¨¤ la conception des r¨¦gimes, ¨¤ la politique de placement et aux pratiques administratives. Il est donc logique qu¡¯il accorde un pouvoir d¨¦cisionnel ¨¦gal ¨¤ l¡¯employeur et aux employ¨¦s.</p> <h3>Des prestations s?res et pr¨¦visibles</h3> <p>Il est essentiel de souligner que le mod¨¨le des RRCPD n¡¯a pas alt¨¦r¨¦ la promesse de retraite ni min¨¦ la confiance dans le syst¨¨me de pensions. Il permet aux employ¨¦s d¡¯accumuler des ann¨¦es de service ouvrant droit ¨¤ pension qui ne peuvent leur ¨ºtre retir¨¦es, sauf dans le cas exceptionnel de la liquidation du r¨¦gime. Les RRCPD garantissent des prestations ad¨¦quates, s?res et pr¨¦visibles aux participants en pr¨¦servant leur confiance, qui est g¨¦n¨¦ralement plus grande lorsqu¡¯ils ont un pouvoir d¨¦cisionnel. Les RRCPD ont renforc¨¦ le syst¨¨me de pensions canadien et jouissent d¡¯une excellente r¨¦putation dans le monde entier.</p> <p>Les RRCPD sont exclus de la Loi sur les normes de prestation de pension, m¨ºme s¡¯il s¡¯agit des r¨¦gimes de retraite qui ont remport¨¦ le plus de succ¨¨s au Canada.</p> <p>Il est ¨¦galement important de mentionner que les RRCPD, bien qu¡¯ils soient couronn¨¦s de succ¨¨s et devraient ¨ºtre inclus dans la Loi, ne sont pas toujours la meilleure solution. Lorsqu¡¯il existe d¨¦j¨¤ des r¨¦gimes qui fournissent des prestations ad¨¦quates, s?res et pr¨¦visibles, il est probablement pr¨¦f¨¦rable de ne pas les remplacer par des RRCPD.</p> <h3>(v)LA R¨¦FORME DE LA LOI SUR LES NORMES DE PRESTATION DE PENSION?: UNE N¨¦CESSIT¨¦</h3> <p>La Loi sur les normes de prestation de pension (LNPP) doit absolument ¨ºtre r¨¦form¨¦e, mais pas en y introduisant le mod¨¨le des prestations cibles.</p> <p>Le but de cette r¨¦forme est, d¡¯abord et avant tout, de structurer les RRCPD de fa?on ¨¤ garantir des prestations s?res et pr¨¦visibles aux retrait¨¦s, et non pas de permettre aux employeurs de remplacer ce type de prestation par des prestations cibles.</p> <h3>Il faut ajouter un cadre r¨¦glementaire sur les RRCPD</h3> <p>Une approche sens¨¦e de la r¨¦forme doit passer par l¡¯int¨¦gration d¡¯un cadre r¨¦glementaire sur les RRCPD dans la LNPP. ¨¦tonnamment, cette loi ne d¨¦finit m¨ºme pas les RRCPD. Donc, personne ne sera surpris d¡¯apprendre qu¡¯on n¡¯y trouve pas non plus de cadre r¨¦glementaire. La situation n¡¯est pas la m¨ºme en Colombie-Britannique, en Alberta, en Ontario et en Nouvelle-¨¦cosse, des provinces dont les lois ¨C adopt¨¦es ou en voie de l¡¯¨ºtre ¨C r¨¦glementent les r¨¦gimes de retraite conjoints. L¡¯AFPC serait heureuse de participer ¨¤ une consultation sur la r¨¦forme de la LNPP et la cr¨¦ation de RRCPD f¨¦d¨¦raux.</p> <h3>Il faut modifier les crit¨¨res et normes de solvabilit¨¦ r¨¦glementaires</h3> <p>Tous les r¨¦gimes de retraite d¡¯employeur doivent ¨ºtre capitalis¨¦s, c¡¯est-¨¤-dire financ¨¦s. Pour ce faire, les administrateurs mettent en r¨¦serve une somme d¡¯argent ¨¦quivalente aux pensions accumul¨¦es durant l¡¯ann¨¦e. En cas de d¨¦ficit, par exemple ¨¤ cause d¡¯un mauvais rendement, ils augmentent les cotisations pour r¨¦tablir la solvabilit¨¦ du r¨¦gime.</p> <p>Au Canada, la capitalisation des r¨¦gimes de retraite se fait selon deux approches distinctes.</p> <p>L¡¯approche de continuit¨¦?reconna?t que les r¨¦gimes de retraite sont des arrangements ¨¤ long terme. Malgr¨¦ la fluctuation du rendement des placements et des taux d¡¯int¨¦r¨ºt dans le temps, les actuaires peuvent se fier sur des donn¨¦es longitudinales pour ¨¦tablir les besoins de capitalisation des r¨¦gimes. En plus de tenir compte de l¡¯¨¦volution des taux d¡¯int¨¦r¨ºt et de rendement, l¡¯approche de continuit¨¦ permet de r¨¦agir aux tendances ¨¦mergentes. Il s¡¯agit donc d¡¯une approche sens¨¦e ¨¤ la capitalisation de r¨¦gimes viables qui r¨¦sistent ¨¤ la volatilit¨¦ des march¨¦s.</p> <p>L¡¯approche de solvabilit¨¦ est plus probl¨¦matique. Elle exige que les actuaires ¨¦tablissent les taux de capitalisation comme si le r¨¦gime devait ¨ºtre liquid¨¦ imm¨¦diatement. Lorsqu¡¯un r¨¦gime est liquid¨¦, certains employ¨¦s re?oivent une rente ¨C qu¡¯il faut acheter d¡¯un assureur ¨C, tandis que d¡¯autres re?oivent un montant forfaitaire calcul¨¦ par les actuaires. Ce sont deux mesures tr¨¨s co?teuses. M¨ºme si la plupart des r¨¦gimes ne seront pas liquid¨¦s et n¡¯auront pas ¨¤ acheter de rentes ni ¨¤ faire de paiements forfaitaires, la LNPP exige que tous les r¨¦gimes de retraite soient capitalis¨¦s selon l¡¯approche de solvabilit¨¦. Cette hypoth¨¨se est compl¨¨tement irr¨¦aliste dans la grande majorit¨¦ des cas.</p> <p>La solution la plus sens¨¦e est donc de ne pas appliquer l¡¯approche de solvabilit¨¦ ¨¤ tous les r¨¦gimes. Cette approche est co?teuse et inefficace, puisque nous savons que seul un petit nombre de r¨¦gimes est susceptible d¡¯¨ºtre liquid¨¦. Le secteur des retraites propose plut?t que le gouvernement souscrive une assurance qui servirait lors de la liquidation de r¨¦gimes d¨¦ficitaires. M¨ºme si tous les r¨¦gimes partageaient le risque, le montant des primes serait beaucoup plus modeste que le co?t de l¡¯approche de solvabilit¨¦.</p> <h3>(vi)AUTRES pr¨¦occupations au sujet des r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles</h3> <h3>Les droits de pension accumul¨¦s?: une promesse trahie</h3> <p>Dans son document de consultation, le gouvernement propose de convertir en prestations cibles les prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es des membres. En d¡¯autres mots, d¡¯ouvrir la porte ¨¤ la r¨¦duction potentielle des prestations de tous les participants aux r¨¦gimes, y compris les retrait¨¦s. Les prestations m¨ºmes pour lesquelles ils ont travaill¨¦ et que leur employeur a garanties pourraient ¨ºtre transform¨¦es en prestations sans garantie. Venant d¡¯un gouvernement qui a l¡¯obligation morale de prot¨¦ger les pensions, la proposition est scandaleuse.</p> <p>L¡¯AFPC croit qu¡¯une promesse est une promesse. Si les r¨¦gimes de retraite sont r¨¦glement¨¦s au Canada, c¡¯est pour garantir la promesse de retraite faite par les employeurs. Et pourtant, les changements propos¨¦s par le gouvernement f¨¦d¨¦ral feraient tout le contraire?: ils permettraient aux employeurs relevant du f¨¦d¨¦ral de la trahir.</p> <p>Au Canada, la r¨¦glementation des pensions a pour principal objectif de prot¨¦ger les prestations de retraite acquises. Les employeurs se sont engag¨¦s les yeux grand ouverts sur la voie des r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es. Les employ¨¦s aussi, gagnant leur retraite et cotisant au r¨¦gime pendant leur vie active. Les lois f¨¦d¨¦rales ont prot¨¦g¨¦ l¡¯int¨¦grit¨¦ des pensions de retraite et charg¨¦ un organisme de r¨¦glementation de veiller ¨¤ ce que la promesse de retraite soit tenue. Porter atteinte aux prestations acquises, m¨ºme en principe, m¨ºme grace ¨¤ un vague processus de ??consentement??, est carr¨¦ment inconcevable.</p> <h3>Prestations cibles?: les facteurs de r¨¦ussite manquants</h3> <p>Le succ¨¨s des RRCPD et d¡¯autres r¨¦gimes de retraite repose sur plusieurs facteurs, dont la taille et l¡¯¨¦chelle du r¨¦gime, l¡¯acc¨¨s ¨¤ des placements offerts exclusivement aux plus gros joueurs et une assiette de cotisations stable. D¡¯autres facteurs essentiels p¨¨sent aussi dans la balance, mais brillent par leur absence dans le document de consultation. En effet, les r¨¦gimes de retraite canadiens les plus r¨¦ussis?:</p> <ul><li>sont des r¨¦gimes ind¨¦pendants que les parties prenantes g¨¨rent et contr?lent efficacement;</li> <li>sont encadr¨¦s par des r¨¨glements et des pratiques de gestion sens¨¦s;</li> <li>jouissent de l¡¯appui actif de toutes les parties prenantes.</li> <li>Il en va autrement des r¨¦gimes de retraite ¨¤ prestations cibles. En effet, ces r¨¦gimes?:</li> <li>ne pr¨¦voient pas de m¨¦canisme efficace de contr?le par les parties prenantes;</li> <li>sont susceptibles de mener ¨¤ de fausses promesses, ¨¤ une augmentation des co?ts administratifs et ¨¤ des affirmations trompeuses;</li> <li>ne jouiront pas de l¡¯appui actif des parties prenantes.</li> </ul><h3>Le mod¨¨le propos¨¦ ne permet pas aux parties prenantes d¡¯¨¦tablir librement les modalit¨¦s de leur r¨¦gime de retraite</h3> <p>Les r¨¦gimes de retraite sont au c?ur des ententes salariales conclues par les employeurs et les syndicats. Le salaire repr¨¦sente le revenu actuel des travailleurs, tandis que la pension est un revenu diff¨¦r¨¦. Ensemble, ces deux revenus constituent la majeure partie de l¡¯entente salariale entre l¡¯employeur et les employ¨¦s.</p> <p>Le principe de la libre n¨¦gociation des conditions d¡¯emploi entre employeurs et travailleurs syndiqu¨¦s est ancr¨¦ dans nos valeurs sociales et ¨¦conomiques. C¡¯est durant la n¨¦gociation que les parties ¨¦tablissent les modalit¨¦s de l¡¯entente salariale et du partage des revenus actuels et diff¨¦r¨¦s.</p> <p>Ces modalit¨¦s, et plus particuli¨¨rement le rapport entre les revenus actuels et diff¨¦r¨¦s, sont un atout cl¨¦ non seulement pour les employeurs qui d¨¦sirent attirer et garder du personnel, mais aussi pour les personnes susceptibles de choisir un emploi qui leur procure un revenu de retraite s?r et ad¨¦quat.</p> <p>Le mod¨¨le des prestations cibles propos¨¦ par le gouvernement f¨¦d¨¦ral plafonnerait le taux de cotisation au r¨¦gime, ce qui limiterait le montant des prestations que pourraient n¨¦gocier les parties. Il va sans dire que cela imposerait des restrictions inacceptables ¨¤ la n¨¦gociation collective, puisque les parties ne pourraient pas conclure une entente salariale, ni ¨¦tablir le partage entre le revenu actuel et le revenu diff¨¦r¨¦ en toute libert¨¦.</p> <p>L¡¯ing¨¦rence politique ¨¤ ce chapitre emp¨ºche les employeurs et les syndiqu¨¦s de conclure une entente adapt¨¦e ¨¤ leurs besoins, ce qui constitue une violation injustifi¨¦e du droit fondamental ¨¤ la n¨¦gociation collective, en plus de mettre en p¨¦ril le r¨¦gime de retraite et l¡¯int¨¦grit¨¦ de la relation de n¨¦gociation collective.</p> <p>Les administrateurs des RRCPD canadiens ont reconnu le r?le intrins¨¨que que jouent les r¨¦gimes de retraite dans la relation de n¨¦gociation collective entre les employeurs du secteur public et les participants aux r¨¦gimes. Ils ont respect¨¦ le droit et la capacit¨¦ des deux parties de n¨¦gocier les grandes lignes de l¡¯entente salariale et le partage de l¡¯enveloppe entre les revenus actuels et diff¨¦r¨¦s. La reconnaissance de ce r?le a permis aux parties prenantes de se doter de tous les outils n¨¦cessaires ¨¤ la gestion efficace de leur r¨¦gime et de l¡¯adapter en fonction des circonstances. Les parties ont accord¨¦ leur confiance au r¨¦gime, allant jusqu¡¯¨¤ accepter une fluctuation des taux de cotisation ¨C parfois au d¨¦triment des augmentations salariales ¨C, pour assurer sa viabilit¨¦. Dans l¡¯ensemble, le respect de l¡¯autonomie des m¨¦canismes de gestion et l¡¯absence d¡¯un plafond de cotisation ou d¡¯autres mesures l¨¦gislatives contraignantes ont grandement contribu¨¦ ¨¤ la viabilit¨¦ des RRCPD.</p> <h3>Le mod¨¨le propos¨¦ d¨¦bouchera sur de fausses promesses, l¡¯augmentation des co?ts administratifs et des affirmations trompeuses</h3> <p>L¡¯exp¨¦rience r¨¦cente du Nouveau-Brunswick t¨¦moigne des p¨¦rils inh¨¦rents aux r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles. En effet, la province a adopt¨¦ ce mod¨¨le, que les doreurs d¡¯image ont rebaptis¨¦ ??r¨¦gime ¨¤ risque partag¨¦??. En r¨¦alit¨¦, le risque est tout sauf ??partag¨¦??, comme l¡¯a admis le gouvernement au v¨¦rificateur g¨¦n¨¦ral de la province, puisque la r¨¦duction des prestations ¨C qui constitue le facteur de risque ¨C touche principalement les travailleurs et les retrait¨¦s, les employeurs s¡¯en tirant presque indemnes.</p> <p>Le nouveau r¨¦gime de retraite du Nouveau-Brunswick est sujet ¨¤ une s¨¦rie de r¨¨gles extr¨ºmement complexes, ¨¤ peu pr¨¨s impossibles ¨¤ comprendre et horriblement co?teuses ¨¤ suivre. Ainsi, les administrateurs du r¨¦gime doivent ¨¦tablir des projections sur 20?ans, avec un degr¨¦ d¡¯exactitude de 97,5?%, une tache vou¨¦e ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦chec qui exigera l¡¯affectation indue de pr¨¦cieuses ressources.</p> <p>L¡¯exp¨¦rience du Nouveau-Brunswick a aussi donn¨¦ lieu ¨¤ des affirmations manifestement trompeuses sur la s?ret¨¦ des pensions de retraite, certaines fond¨¦es sur des exercices de mod¨¦lisation qu¡¯on pr¨¦tend ??scientifiques??. Avec le temps, la promesse de retraite sera trahie, la confiance dans le r¨¦gime faiblira et les parties prenantes se mettront en col¨¨re ¨¤ juste titre.</p> <h3>Le mod¨¨le propos¨¦ ne jouira pas du soutien actif des parties prenantes</h3> <p>Dans son document de consultation, le gouvernement propose un mod¨¨le qui permet la r¨¦duction des prestations de retraite de n¡¯importe quel montant ¨¤ n¡¯importe quel moment, m¨ºme pour les retrait¨¦s. Il est difficile d¡¯imaginer qu¡¯un tel r¨¦gime pourra jouir longtemps du soutien des parties prenantes, puisqu¡¯il ne r¨¦pond pas aux crit¨¨res ¨¦l¨¦mentaires de s¨¦curit¨¦ et de pr¨¦visibilit¨¦.</p> <p>Les pensions sont intimement li¨¦es aux relations de travail, mais elles sont aussi des v¨¦hicules financiers. Elles fournissent un revenu viager dont les gens d¨¦pendent lorsqu¡¯ils ne peuvent plus travailler. Ce type de v¨¦hicule financier n¡¯est pas aussi incertain que le seraient les r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles.</p> <p>Personne ne d¨¦poserait d¡¯argent dans un compte bancaire dont le solde peut baisser de n¡¯importe quel montant ¨¤ n¡¯importe quel moment. Personne n¡¯accepterait de souscrire une police d¡¯assurance dont la couverture pourrait ¨ºtre r¨¦duite ¨¤ la guise de l¡¯assureur, m¨ºme si, selon la banque ou l¡¯assureur, les probabilit¨¦s d¡¯une telle ¨¦ventualit¨¦ n¡¯¨¦taient que de 10?%. Ces mod¨¨les pr¨¦visionnels ne sont pas assez fiables pour ¨ºtre rassurants; apr¨¨s tout, des mod¨¨les encore plus perfectionn¨¦s n¡¯ont pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ pr¨¦dire la crise financi¨¨re de 2008. Les gens veulent et m¨¦ritent des v¨¦hicules financiers s?rs, surtout lorsqu¡¯il s¡¯agit des pensions de retraite. C¡¯est au gouvernement de les r¨¦glementer pour qu¡¯ils tiennent leurs promesses financi¨¨res.</p> <p>Les r¨¦gimes de retraite ¨¤ prestations cibles ne sont pas le gage d¡¯une pension s?re et pr¨¦visible. Ils engendreront un manque de confiance et de soutien de la part des parties prenantes. Ce n¡¯est pas le genre de promesse que m¨¦ritent les Canadiennes et les Canadiens.</p> <h3>(vii)R¨¦SUM¨¦ ET CONCLUSIONS</h3> <p>Dans son document de consultation, le gouvernement s¡¯attaque au mauvais probl¨¨me, de la mauvaise fa?on. Le vrai probl¨¨me r¨¦side dans le fait que les deux tiers des Canadiennes et des Canadiens n¡¯ont pas acc¨¨s ¨¤ un r¨¦gime de pension d¡¯employeur et la vraie solution est la bonification du RPC. Malheureusement, le gouvernement f¨¦d¨¦ral a bloqu¨¦ la r¨¦forme du RPC, au d¨¦triment de millions de Canadiens. Le gouvernement consid¨¨re comme un ??probl¨¨me?? les r¨¦gimes de retraite ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es qui fournissent une pension suffisante, s?re et pr¨¦visible, alors qu¡¯il n¡¯en est rien.</p> <p>Le but principal de tout r¨¦gime de retraite est de fournir une pension suffisante, s?re et pr¨¦visible. La conversion propos¨¦e des prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es en prestations cibles ne nous rapprochera pas du but. Au contraire, elle ne fera qu¡¯augmenter exponentiellement les risques financiers courus par les employ¨¦s et les retrait¨¦s, cr¨¦er de l¡¯incertitude et r¨¦duire le montant des pensions.</p> <p>La r¨¦forme de la LNPP est n¨¦cessaire, mais remplacer de bons r¨¦gimes de retraite par des prestations instables, comme le propose le gouvernement dans son document, n¡¯est pas la solution.</p> <p>La r¨¦forme doit plut?t passer par l¡¯enchassement des r¨¦gimes de retraite conjoints ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es dans la LNPP. Le f¨¦d¨¦ral accuse un important retard ¨¤ cet effet, loin derri¨¨re l¡¯Ontario, la Colombie-Britannique, l¡¯Alberta et la Nouvelle-¨¦cosse.</p> <p>La r¨¦forme doit aussi ¨¦liminer les exigences trop on¨¦reuses de solvabilit¨¦ des r¨¦gimes de retraite. Au lieu de les imposer ¨¤ l¡¯ensemble du syst¨¨me, le gouvernement doit souscrire une assurance qui prot¨¦gera la s¨¦curit¨¦ des pensions en cas de faillite d¡¯un r¨¦gime.</p> <p>Le mod¨¨le des prestations cibles met en p¨¦ril le syst¨¨me de pensions canadien?:</p> <ul><li> <p>Les employeurs remplaceront les bons r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es par des r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles.</p> </li> <li> <p>Un vague processus de ??consentement?? lib¨¦rera les employeurs de leur promesse, c¡¯est-¨¤-dire garantir, en compensant tout d¨¦ficit, les prestations d¨¦j¨¤ acquises par les employ¨¦s. Cela cr¨¦era un climat d¡¯incertitude et r¨¦duira les prestations.</p> </li> <li> <p>Le gouvernement propose aussi de plafonner les cotisations aux r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles, portant atteinte ¨¤ la capacit¨¦ des parties de n¨¦gocier collectivement une entente salariale et de d¨¦terminer ¨¦quitablement le partage des revenus actuels et diff¨¦r¨¦s.</p> </li> <li> <p>Les r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles seront complexes et leur administration co?tera cher. Le montant des prestations sera calcul¨¦ en fonction de pr¨¦visions sur 20?ans. Puisqu¡¯aucun mod¨¨le n¡¯est capable de pr¨¦voir l¡¯avenir avec un degr¨¦ d¡¯exactitude de 90?%, comme l¡¯exigerait le gouvernement, toute promesse fond¨¦e sur la mod¨¦lisation sera trompeuse et n¨¦faste pour le syst¨¨me de pensions canadien.</p> </li> </ul><p><a name="docsstamplast" id="docsstamplast"></a> 1145900v1</p> <div id="sdendnote1"> <p><a href="#sdendnote1anc" name="sdendnote1sym" id="sdendnote1sym">i</a> Voir aussi S. LaRochelle-Cot¨¦, J. Myles et G. Picot, S¨¦curit¨¦ et stabilit¨¦ du revenu ¨¤ la retraite au Canada, document de recherche no 306, Direction des ¨¦tudes analytiques, Ottawa, Statistique Canada, 2008.</p> </div> <p>?</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/pensions">Pensions</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><div class="field field-name-field-publication-date field-type-datestamp field-label-inline clearfix view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-label">Publication Date:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">Thursday, July 10, 2014 - 4:15pm</span></div> </div> </div> Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:30:01 +0000 clawson 2704 at/352 Position of the PSAC on a Department of Finance consultation paper: Pension Innovation for Canadians: the Target Benefit Plan https://www.google.com//352/position-psac-department-finance-consultation <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><h3>A.THE PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA (the ¡°PSAC¡±)</h3> <p>The PSAC represents 150,000 members who work in 215 bargaining units in the federal sector. PSAC members work directly for the Government of Canada, and also work for federal Crown Corporations and other employers that are subject to the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act and could be affected by the proposals set out in the consultation paper. Also of particular concern is that these changes could be used a template to erode the superannuation benefits that provide stable retirement income for federal government workers.</p> <h3>B.INTRODUCTION</h3> <p>The discussion paper addresses the wrong problem, in the wrong ways.</p> <p>It contemplates replacing secure and predictable ¡®defined benefit¡¯ retirement plans with ¡®target benefits¡¯, i.e. benefits that can be cut. Members¡¯ retirement income security would fall under the proposed target plan, and so would their quality of life.</p> <p>Replacing secure and predictable ¡®defined benefit¡¯ pensions with pensions that are ¡®target¡¯ and may be reduced at any time ¨C including in retirement ¨C is a mistake.</p> <p>Canadians require decent pensions upon which they can rely ¨C pensions that are secure and predictable, and that allow them to plan their retirements within the budgets their pensions allow. Not knowing how much a pension will be next week or next year undermines the retiree¡¯s security in retirement, compromises the retiree¡¯s quality of life and weakens the retiree¡¯s ability to participate in their community and support their local economy.</p> <h3>Predictable and secure pensions are not the problem</h3> <p>The real pension problem is that 2/3 of Canadians have no workplace pension at all. They rely on the too-low Canada Pension Plan and a hodgepodge of high-fee, finance industry friendly private retirement savings plans that are inadequate to the task of real retirement savings.</p> <p>The real solution to the real pension problem is to improve the CPP for all Canadians. The Government of Canada is the chief obstacle to solving this real problem. It single-handedly vetoed, at the December 2013 Finance Ministers meeting, a broad national consensus to move forward with CPP reform. This left Canadians in the lurch, heading towards insecure and unpredictable retirements with inadequate retirement incomes.</p> <p>It is particularly disappointing that, not content to veto a real solution to a real problem, the Government of Canada seems intent on undermining the very basis for retirement income security in Canadian workplace pension plans. Target benefit plans do not provide the platform Canadian employees need for their retirements; target plans will become part of a growing retirement income problem in Canada, and will form no part of its solution.</p> <h3>C.the purposes of pension plans</h3> <p>Pension legislation often invites us to ¡°get into the weeds¡± and consider narrow albeit important issues.</p> <p>But the changes proposed in the discussion paper are profound. They do not make simple adjustments, or improve the drafting of one or another legislative provision. Rather, they reframe the nature of the pension promise that employers make to their employees and retirees, and this will have profound impacts on those employees, their families and Canada¡¯s economy.</p> <p>The basic purpose of a pension plan is to provide decent retirement incomes that are secure and predictable. The promise of a pension is essential to attracting and retaining employees in an economy that is strong and competitive, and where private sector wages continue to outpace public sector wages.</p> <p>Decent, secure and predictable pensions give their recipients ¡®pension confidence¡¯. Pension confidence means that people, while they work, can spend their earnings, knowing that their retirement days are secure. As important, pension confidence also means that retirees can spend each pension check, knowing with confidence that their income stream is not in doubt. Pension confidence underpins the economies of many small communities with significant pensioner populations and the small businesses that serve them.</p> <p>The real problem in the pension sector is the number of people who do not participate in decent pension plans. In some cases, employees without pension plans earn incomes that allow them to save for retirement, but the savings mechanisms available to them from financial institutions are typically expensive and inefficient in comparison to large scale pension plans. In other cases, a decent pension plan is the crucial bridge that could allow modest income earners to save enough for a decent retirement. In all cases, the lack of pension coverage across Canada hurts the country, and hurts its regions.</p> <p>Looking forward, for example, Professor Michael Wolfson projects that half of Canada¡¯s middle income earners will experience a significant decline in their standard of living standards after retirement. In his paper, ¡°Projecting the Adequacy of Canadians¡¯ Retirement Incomes¡¯, published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy in April 2011, Professor Wolfson concluded that ¡°¡­roughly half of Canadians born before 1970 who had mid-level earnings in their pre-retirement years will face declines of at least 25 percent in their living standards (i.e., consumption possibilities) post-retirement.¡± These findings have been confirmed in other studies of income replacement prospects for Canadians<a href="#sdendnote1sym" name="sdendnote1anc" id="sdendnote1anc">i</a>. This failure is largely owing to the inadequacy of pension coverage in Canada. This is the real problem that presses for solution.</p> <p>Unfortunately, the consultation paper does not address the fundamental problem of pension coverage. Employers will not establish new target benefit plans where no plan currently exists, and they will not convert existing defined contribution plans to target plans. There has been no cry from employers for target plans to improve coverage. Rather, employers will use any target benefit plan provisions to convert good defined benefit plans that provide decent, secure and predictable benefits, into the much less secure form of target benefits. No such conversions should be permitted; good pension plans should be preserved and expanded, not downgraded.</p> <p>Unfortunately, the discussion paper takes a narrow and punitive approach to those with existing pension plans. It sets the stage for a downgrade of those plans, and a reduction of benefits to members.</p> <p>Within the sphere of workplace pension plans, Canada¡¯s experience has led the world ¨C not in the direction of ¡®target¡¯ plans, but rather towards ¡®jointly sponsored plans¡¯ that provide secure and predictable defined benefit style benefits.</p> <h3>D.The Canadian jointly sponsored defined benefit pension model</h3> <h4>E.The Most Successful Pension Model in Canada</h4> <p>Canada has been a world leader in pension innovation. Pension boards, including the Ontario Teachers¡¯ Pension Plan Board (¡°OTPPB¡±) and the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan ("HOOPP") are often cited examples of leadership in pension management and investment. The OTPP and HOOPP, along with the British Columbia Municipal Employees¡¯ Pension Plan, the British Columbia Public Service Pension Plan, the British Columbia Teachers¡¯ Pension Plan, the British Columbia College Pension Plan, the Ontario Municipal Employees¡¯ Retirement System, the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technologies Pension Plan and many others, are successful examples of a pension governance model pioneered in Canada, and now known as the ¡°jointly sponsored defined benefit plan¡± (the ¡°JSDBP¡±) model.</p> <p>PSAC members already participate in many provincially regulated JSDBPs. PSAC members belong to a number of JSDBPs, including OMERS (covering PSAC members at the Windsor, Timmins and North Bay Airports, the Port of Prescott, and Town of Moosonee), the British Columbia Municipal Plan (covering PSAC members at Victoria Airport and B.C. First Nations Health Authority) and HOOPP (covering PSAC members at the Weeneebayko Area Health Authority).</p> <p>The JSDBP model first emerged in the 1990s. Prior to its introduction, employers were responsible for funding the full cost of the pension plan less any amounts contributed by a plan¡¯s members. In general, this meant that employers carried more risk than employees since employers were responsible for the full balance of cost of the plan. Under this model, employers also had significant advantages ¨C many used plan surpluses to reduce their contribution levels below the rates paid by their employees.</p> <h3>F.How the JSDBP Model Works</h3> <p>The JSDBP model rejected the premise that the employer was ultimately responsible for funding the full costs of benefits less employee contributions. Instead, the new model proposed a sharing of all plan costs, including deficit funding costs. As important, JSDBPs also share any plan surpluses between employees and the employer.</p> <p>In general, this means that JSDBPs¡¯ current service costs (i.e. the cost for service accruing in the current year) are shared between the employer and the employees. In addition, if a deficiency emerges in a JSDBP, the contributions necessary to pay down that deficiency are also shared between the employer and its employees. On the other hand, and as a quid pro quo, where the plan experiences a surplus, that surplus is also shared between the employer and the employees.</p> <p>Because costs, risks and surpluses are shared in a JSDBP, governance is also shared. Both employees and employers bear the cost consequences of pension design decisions, and also of pension investment and administration decisions. Accordingly, both employers and employees jointly control the processes to make these decisions in a JSDBP.</p> <h3>G.JSDBPs Provide Secure and Predictable Benefits</h3> <p>It is critical to spotlight that the JSDBP model did not change the nature of the pension promise, nor did it undermine confidence in the pension system. Under a JSDBP model, pensions are accrued with every year of service, and once accrued they cannot be reduced except in the extraordinary event of plan wind-up. JSDBPs provide decent, secure and predictable pensions and maintain pension confidence among their members ¨C a confidence that is generally enhanced by the participation of their representatives in pension governance. JSDBPs have strengthened the pension system in Canada and continue to attract widespread support and approval from all over the world.</p> <p>The federal Pension Benefits Standards Act does not currently accommodate JSDBPs, even though JSDBPs are the most successful form of pension plan in Canada.</p> <p>It is also important to add that, while JSDBPs have been very successful, and their absence from the Pension Benefits Standards Act needs to be corrected, JSDBPs are not the appropriate pension model in all cases. Where adequate, secure and predictable benefits can be delivered through existing models, those models may well be preferable to JSDBPs.</p> <h3>H.The Pension Benefits Standards Act (PBSA) Needs Reforms</h3> <p>The PBSA urgently needs reforms, though not 'target benefit plan' reforms.</p> <p>First, the PBSA needs reforms to provide for JSDBPs that deliver secure and predictable pensions ¨C not to permit employers to replace secure and predictable pensions with ¡®target¡¯ benefits.</p> <h3>I.The PBSA Needs a JSDBP Regulatory Framework</h3> <p>Sensible JSDBP reforms would include the introduction of a JSDBP regulatory framework into the PBSA. Remarkably, the PBSA doesn¡¯t even contain a definition of a JSDBP, much less a sensible regulatory framework for them. Existing pension legislation in Ontario, and about to be proclaimed legislation in British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia all create a regulatory framework for jointly sponsored pension plans. The PSAC would be pleased to participate in a consultation process directed to updating the PBSA and creating the possibility of JSDBPs in the federal jurisdiction.</p> <h3>J.The PBSA Needs Reform of its Solvency Funding Rules</h3> <p>All workplace pension plans should be ¡®funded¡¯ ¨C moneys should be set aside each year to pay for the pensions earned in that year, and, if there are any shortfalls in the pension plan (due, for example, to investment losses) this should be made up through additional contributions.</p> <p>In Canada, we use two different sets of funding rules.</p> <p>'Going concern' funding rules recognize that pension plans are long term arrangements, and that, while investment returns and interest rates will fluctuate, there are reasonable, historically based returns and rates that can be used as a basis for funding a pension plan. Going concern funding rules are based on such long term returns and rates, although they are also sensitive to a changing long term environment. For plans that will endure for a long time, and can absorb the volatility of financial markets, going concern funding rules are sensible ways to fund a pension plan.</p> <p>'Solvency' funding rules are more problematic. They are based on the assumption that the pension plan will be terminated and wound up immediately. In this case, annuities must be purchased from insurance companies for some plan members, and actuarially determined lump sums must be paid to other members. Annuity prices and actuarially calculated lump sum amounts are very expensive.Even though most plans won¡¯t be wound up and forced to buy annuities and make these lump sum payments, the PBSA requires that all pension plans be funded on the assumption that they will terminate and wind-up, and that annuities will be purchased and lump payments will be made. This is a wholly unrealistic assumption for most plans.</p> <p>The most sensible solution to the problem of termination and wind-up, when we know that some plans will terminate and wind-up but most will not, is not to compel every single pension plan to set aside enough money to cover a wind-up. This is inefficient and costly; most plans won¡¯t wind up and so won¡¯t need to be funded as though they will be wound up. Rather, the pension sector requires a government sponsored pension insurer that will cover those plans that do wind up with a deficiency. The amount of premiums can be determined to cover expected wind-up deficits system-wide, and will cost much less than the current prohibitively expensive PBSA requirement that all plans be funded on the basis that each one of them will be terminated and wound-up.</p> <h3>K.Other Problem features of target plans under the Federal discussion paper</h3> <h3>Earned Pension Promises Will be Broken</h3> <p>Perhaps most outrageous to see from a government with responsibility to protect peoples' pensions, the discussion paper proposes that benefits already earned and paid for by a member in a defined benefit plan - including by retirees - may be cut. Accrued defined benefits may be converted to target benefits, and those target benefits may be reduced. The very benefits towards which members have worked and made contributions, and that have been guaranteed by their employers, may be converted to target benefits guaranteed by nobody.</p> <p>In the PSAC's view, promises made must be kept. The most basic purpose of pension regulation is to ensure that people can rely on their employers' pension promises, and that those promises are kept. Instead, by its proposed reforms, the federal government proposes that pension promises made by federal sector employers to their employees, may be broken.</p> <p>The protection of guaranteed vested pension benefits has been the core objective of pension regulation in Canada. Employers have made defined benefit commitments with their eyes open. Employees have worked and contributed to earn those benefits. Federal pension legislation has protected those benefits and prohibited their reduction. The federal pension regulator has been mandated to ensure that vested pension benefits, promised and earned, are delivered. To permit those vested benefits to be undone, even on the basis of some undefined consent process, is unconscionable.?</p> <h3>L.The Target Plan Model Does Not Have These Success Factors</h3> <p>Successful pension plans, including JSDBPs, owe their success to a number of factors, including size and scale, access to investments available only to the largest pension plans and a stable contribution base. Critically, however, they also enjoy features that the federal discussion paper ignores. In particular, Canada's most successful pension plans have:</p> <ul><li>independent and effective stakeholder control over and responsibility for the pension plan;</li> <li>sensible regulatory and governance frameworks;</li> <li>vigorous stakeholder support.</li> <li>¡®Target benefit plans¡¯ do not have these features. They</li> <li>do not provide for effective stakeholder control over the pension arrangement;</li> <li>will be prone to false promises, overly expensive administration and misleading communications;</li> <li>will not enjoy vigorous stakeholder support.</li> </ul><h3>M.Under the Discussion Paper¡¯s Model, Stakeholders are not Free to Govern their Pension Arrangements Independently</h3> <p>Pension plans are a critical element in the overall wage deal between employers and trade unions. While wages represent employees' current income, pensions represent their deferred income. Together, current and deferred incomes make up the bulk of the overall compensation arrangements between employers and their employees.</p> <p>As a matter of principle, it is a premise of our society and economy that employers and employees represented by trade unions are free to establish the terms and conditions of employment through free collective bargaining. Collective bargaining establishes the parameters for the overall wage package, and also allocates that package between current and future income.</p> <p>The way that the overall wage package is allocated, and especially its division between current and future income, is key critical not only to employers seeking to attract and retain employees, but also to members who may be attracted to certain employments specifically because they value the security and stability of a decent retirement income.</p> <p>The ¡®target benefit plan¡¯ proposal in the discussion paper would impose or require a ¡®contribution cap¡¯ that would limit the amounts that collective bargaining parties could negotiate for the pension plan. Plainly, this interferes with collective bargaining. It unacceptably intrudes on the parties¡¯ ability to set the wage package, and to allocate it between current and deferred wages.</p> <p>Political interference in the establishment of the wage package, or, equally seriously, in its allocation between current and deferred income, fouls up the ability of employers and employees through their trade unions to configure the wage package and its allocation in a way that best suits their mutual interests. Such interference in free collective bargaining constitutes a wholly unjustified violation of the fundamental right to bargain collectively, and jeopardizes the integrity of both the collective bargaining relationship and the pension plan.</p> <p>JSDBPs in Canada have recognized that pension arrangements are integral to the overall collective bargain relationship between public employers and pension plan members. They have respected the abilities and rights of public employers and the trade unions representing public employees to set the overall terms of a wage package through collective bargaining, and to allocate the wage package between current and future incomes. This has allowed employee and employer plan sponsors the full range of tools necessary to effectively sponsor their pension plans, and to adapt to changes in circumstances. It has given members confidence in a governance process that has seen contribution levels fluctuate, sometimes at the expense of wage increases, in order to sustain their pension plans. In general, respect for the autonomy of the pension governance process, and the absence of a ¡®contribution cap¡¯ or other legislative interference with the terms of pension governance, has been critical to the sustainability of those pension plans.</p> <h3>N.Under the Discussion Paper¡¯s Model, Pension Plans will be Prone to False Promises, Overly Expensive Administration and Misleading Communications</h3> <p>Recent experiments in New Brunswick illustrate the perils of the target benefit regime. New Brunswick has introduced the spin-doctored ¡®shared risk plan¡¯ ¨C a form of target benefit plan. In fact, as the government of New Brunswick admitted to the Province¡¯s Auditor General, that there is nothing ¡®shared¡¯ about the risks under the New Brunswick target plan model ¨C the risks (of benefit reductions) are overwhelmingly on the members and retirees in those plans, with employers bearing little or no risk in regard to them.</p> <p>The New Brunswick experiment is also an experiment with an extraordinarily complex set of rules that are not only virtually impossible to understand, but are horribly expensive to follow. Plans are required to model 20 years into the future, and predict the future to a 97.5% level of certainty ¨C an impossible task that will consume untoward resources and yield up results that will inevitably be wrong.</p> <p>The New Brunswick example also includes plainly misleading assertions about the security of retirement income benefits. Some of these assertions are based on future modelling, which is passed off as being of virtually scientific accuracy. As New Brunswick¡¯s promises fail, confidence in its system will falter and stakeholders will become justifiably angry.</p> <h3>O.Under the Discussion Paper¡¯s Model, Pension Plans will not Enjoy Vigourous Stakeholder Support</h3> <p>The discussion paper contemplates a regime in which retirement income benefits may be reduced at any time and by any amount ¨C including for retirees. It is hard to imagine that such a system could enjoy enduring stakeholder support, since it fails the elementary retirement income criteria of security and predictability.</p> <p>Pensions are integral elements of labour relations, but they are also a financial product. They provide life income benefits that people depend upon when they can no longer work. But these types of financial products do not entail the level of uncertainty that the proposed ¡®target benefit plan¡¯ would carry.</p> <p>No one would deposit money in a bank account if their account balance could be reduced at any time and in any amount. No one would agree to pay premiums for a life or other insurance policy if the amount of coverage could be reduced at any time or in any amount. And it would be of little help for the bank or insurance company to say, based on their models, that there is a 90% chance the bank account or insurance policy would retain its value. The models upon which such projections are based are not good enough to provide any real level of comfort at all ¨C after all, much more sophisticated financial models failed in the 2008-09 financial crisis. People want and deserve certainty in their financial products, and nowhere more so than in their pension plans. It is the government's job to regulate financial products, including pensions so that financial promises are kept.</p> <p>A ¡®target pension plan¡¯ does not make a secure and predictable retirement income commitment. A target promise is not the kind of promise that Canadians want or need; it does not sustain pension confidence and it will not maintain vigorous stakeholder support.</p> <h3>P.?Summary and conclusions</h3> <p>The discussion paper addresses the wrong pension problem, and does so in the wrong ways. The real pension problem is that two thirds of Canadians do not participate in any workplace pension plan, and the real solution to this problem is an expanded CPP. Unfortunately, the federal government has blocked CPP reform for millions of Canadians. The discussion paper treats defined benefit plans that provide decent, secure and predictable pensions as a 'problem' - they are not.</p> <p>The key objective of any pension system is to provide decent, secure and predictable pensions. The proposed conversion of defined benefit to target benefit plans will not achieve this objective. To the contrary, target plans will shift financial risk from employers to employees and pensioners, increase pension uncertainty and reduce pension benefits.</p> <p>Reforms to the PBSA are required, but reforms are not needed, as the discussion paper proposes, to convert good pensions into pensions that provide unreliable benefits.</p> <p>Reforms are necessary to allow for jointly sponsored defined benefit plans in the federal jurisdiction. The federal PBSA is a laggard in this respect - well behind Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia.</p> <p>Reforms are also necessary to relieve pension plans of onerous solvency funding obligations. A public pension insurance arrangement is needed to protect benefit security in those plans that do fail, without burdening the system as a whole with expensive solvency funding requirements.</p> <p>The target proposal presents real risks to the Canadian pension system:</p> <ul><li> <p>Employers will convert good defined benefit plans into target plans.</p> </li> <li> <p>Existing benefits earned and paid for by members, and backed by their employer¡¯s promise to pay any deficiency, will be stripped of that employer promise, through some undefined ¡®consent¡¯ process. This will mean that employers will be allowed to break the pension promises they have made to their employees and pensioners, who will suffer pension uncertainty and benefit reductions as a result.</p> </li> <li> <p>Under the discussion paper's rules, target benefit plans will be subject to a contribution cap, and so will deny collective bargaining parties the ability to bargain an overall wage package and allocate it fairly between current and future consumption.</p> </li> <li> <p>Target plans will be complex and expensive to administer, and will offer benefit security based on models of a future that is 20 years away; no models are capable of predicting the future to a 90% level of certainty, and any promises based on such models are simply misleading and corrosive of Canada's pension system.</p> </li> </ul><p>?</p> <p><a name="docsstamplast" id="docsstamplast"></a> 1145900v1</p> <div id="sdendnote1"> <p><a href="#sdendnote1anc" name="sdendnote1sym" id="sdendnote1sym">i</a> See also LaRochelle-Cot¨¦, S., J. Myles, and G. Picot. 2008. Income Security and Stability during Retirement in Canada. Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series no. 306. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.</p> </div> <p>?</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/pensions">Pensions</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><div class="field field-name-field-publication-date field-type-datestamp field-label-inline clearfix view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-label">Publication Date:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">Thursday, July 10, 2014 - 4:15pm</span></div> </div> </div> Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:24:10 +0000 clawson 2703 at/352 Aper?u des r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles et de la proposition des conservateurs https://www.google.com//352/node/2702 <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><h3>Les prestations cibles, un ¨¦norme risque</h3> <p>Il est facile, ¨¤ premi¨¨re vue, de confondre le r¨¦gime ¨¤ prestations cibles et le r¨¦gime ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es. Dans les deux cas, l¡¯employeur et les employ¨¦s y cotisent et les retrait¨¦s touchent des prestations de retraite.</p> <p>La ressemblance s¡¯arr¨ºte l¨¤. En effet, seul le r¨¦gime ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es garantit le montant que vous toucherez ¨¤ la retraite. Avec les prestations cibles, rien n¡¯est garanti et le fardeau du risque passe de l¡¯employeur aux employ¨¦s et aux retrait¨¦s.</p> <h3>La proposition des conservateurs n¡¯am¨¦liorera pas les r¨¦gimes de retraite</h3> <p>Les conservateurs semblent d¨¦termin¨¦s ¨¤ aider les employeurs tout en compromettant la retraite de chacun et chacune d¡¯entre nous. Ils ont d¨¦j¨¤ refus¨¦ de bonifier le R¨¦gime de pensions du Canada ¨C une mesure qui b¨¦n¨¦ficierait ¨¤ l¡¯ensemble des travailleuses et travailleurs, qu¡¯ils jouissent ou non d¡¯un r¨¦gime de retraite en milieu de travail.</p> <p>Il n¡¯y a absolument rien dans cette proposition qui incitera les employeurs soit ¨¤ implanter un r¨¦gime ¨¤ prestations cibles, soit ¨¤ bonifier un r¨¦gime ¨¤ cotisations d¨¦termin¨¦es.</p> <p>Il est fort plus probable que les employeurs sauteront sur le mod¨¨le des prestations cibles pour convertir de bons r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es qui garantissent une retraite ad¨¦quate, s?re et pr¨¦visible en r¨¦gimes beaucoup moins stables. Les conservateurs pr¨¦parent d¨¦j¨¤ le terrain.</p> <h3>Mauvais pour les employ¨¦s et pour les personnes retrait¨¦es</h3> <p>La proposition des conservateurs comporte bien des probl¨¨mes, outre la conversion de r¨¦gimes s?rs en r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles. En voici quelques-uns :</p> <p>Les employeurs pourront briser la promesse de retraite faite ¨¤ leurs employ¨¦s en r¨¦duisant les prestations qu¡¯ils leur versent. Il s¡¯agit, pourtant, de sommes qui appartiennent aux membres, eux qui ont contribu¨¦ leur vie durant ¨¤ leur r¨¦gime de retraite. Pire encore, les employeurs pourront r¨¦duire les prestations vers¨¦es aux personnes retrait¨¦es.</p> <p>Les cotisations seront plafonn¨¦es. Une bonne id¨¦e, ¨¤ prime abord, mais cela signifie que ni les employ¨¦s ni les employeurs ne pourront augmenter leurs contributions au besoin. On se contentera de r¨¦duire les prestations, m¨ºme celles des personnes retrait¨¦es.</p> <p>Selon les experts qui ont examin¨¦ la proposition des conservateurs, administrer cette version du r¨¦gime ¨¤ prestations cibles sera complexe, co?tera cher et entra?nera probablement la r¨¦duction des prestations.</p> <h3>Conna?tre le montant de sa rente, c¡¯est important</h3> <p>Les r¨¦gimes de retraite sont essentiellement un moyen de garantir un revenu d¨¦cent, s?r et pr¨¦visible aux personnes retrait¨¦es. Les Canadiennes et les Canadiens ont besoin d¡¯une pension suffisante, s?re et pr¨¦visible qui leur permet de planifier leur retraite en fonction de leurs moyens. Vivre dans l¡¯incertitude et la crainte de voir son revenu diminuer d¡¯une semaine ou d¡¯une ann¨¦e ¨¤ l¡¯autre ne peut que compromettre la s¨¦curit¨¦ de leur pension, leur qualit¨¦ de vie et leur contribution ¨¤ la vie et ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦conomie de leur collectivit¨¦. Tout le monde est perdant.</p> <h3>Une solution de rechange aux r¨¦gimes ¨¤ prestations cibles, ?a existe!</h3> <p>Le Canada fait figure d¡¯innovateur mondial en mati¨¨re de pensions. ¨¤ preuve, les r¨¦gimes de retraite conjoint ¨¤ prestations d¨¦termin¨¦es (RRCPD), un des mod¨¨les de gestion des pensions qui a remport¨¦ le plus de succ¨¨s. Les conservateurs pourraient fort bien adopter ce mod¨¨le si la s¨¦curit¨¦ de la retraite des Canadiennes et Canadiens leur tenait vraiment ¨¤ c?ur.</p> <p>Le mod¨¨le des RRCPD pr¨¦voit le partage ¨¦gal des co?ts, risques et d¨¦cisions associ¨¦s ¨¤ la conception des r¨¦gimes, ¨¤ la politique de placement et aux pratiques administratives. Et contrairement ¨¤ ce que proposent les conservateurs, on ne peut pas r¨¦duire les prestations de retraite, sauf en des circonstances extraordinaires.</p> <p>Cela dit, lorsqu¡¯il existe d¨¦j¨¤ un r¨¦gime qui fournit des prestations ad¨¦quates, s?res et pr¨¦visibles ¨C la pension de la fonction publique, par exemple ¨C il est pr¨¦f¨¦rable de ne pas le remplacer par un RRCPD. Mais pour les travailleuses et travailleurs qui ne b¨¦n¨¦ficient pas d¡¯un bon r¨¦gime de retraite, le RRCPD est une bien meilleure solution que celle pr¨¦conis¨¦e par les conservateurs.</p> <p>Des membres de l¡¯AFPC participent d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¤ plusieurs RRCPD provinciaux, dont les suivants : le R¨¦gime de retraite des employ¨¦s municipaux de l¡¯Ontario (certains a¨¦roports de la province) et le r¨¦gime de retraite municipal de la Colombie-Britannique.</p> <h3>Tout le monde m¨¦rite des revenus de retraite d¨¦cents</h3> <p>La majorit¨¦ des Canadiennes et Canadiens n¡¯ont pas de r¨¦gime de retraite au travail. Ils s¡¯en remettent au R¨¦gime de pensions du Canada (RPC), ou au R¨¦gime des rentes du Qu¨¦bec (RRQ), dont les prestations sont inad¨¦quates, et ¨¤ un ramassis de r¨¦gimes enregistr¨¦s d¡¯¨¦pargne-retraite souvent plus avantageux pour le milieu financier que pour ses clients. Il va sans dire qu¡¯aucune de ces options n¡¯est un instrument d¡¯¨¦pargne ad¨¦quat.</p> <p>Il existe une vraie solution au probl¨¨me : la bonification du RPC pour l¡¯ensemble de la population. Mais les conservateurs s¡¯y opposent, et ce, m¨ºme si les ministres provinciaux des Finances appuient sans r¨¦serve une telle initiative. Pourtant, bonifier le RPC ne co?terait rien au gouvernement f¨¦d¨¦ral puisque ce r¨¦gime est financ¨¦ par les contributions des employeurs et des employ¨¦s. Le Qu¨¦bec songe lui aussi ¨¤ bonifier le RRQ.</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/pensions">Pensions</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-publisher field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Publisher:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/publisher/communications-and-political-action">Communications and Political Action</a></li></ul></section><div class="field field-name-field-publication-date field-type-datestamp field-label-inline clearfix view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-label">Publication Date:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">Thursday, July 10, 2014 - 4:15pm</span></div> </div> </div> Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:18:45 +0000 clawson 2702 at/352 Target benefit pension plans and what the Conservatives have planned https://www.google.com//352/target-benefit-pension-plans-and-what-conservatives-have-planned <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><h3>A target benefit pension plan is a big gamble</h3> <p>At first glance, a target benefit pension plan looks like a plan where the employer and employees contribute and retirees know how much they can expect when they retire. That type of plan is called a defined benefit plan ¨C you know how much your pension will be when you retire.</p> <p>The big difference is that with a target benefit plan, the amount of your pension is literally a target. The plan aims to give you a certain pension benefit but there¡¯s no guarantee. The other big difference is that target plans shift the financial risk from the employer to employees and pensioners.</p> <h3>What the Conservatives are proposing won¡¯t mean better pension plans</h3> <p>The Conservatives seem intent on helping out employers while making everyone¡¯s retirement less secure. Tney¡¯ve already said no to improving the Canada Pension Plan ¨C something that would benefit all working Canadians whether they have a workplace pension or not.</p> <p>The proposal doesn¡¯t give employers any incentive to establish new target benefit pension plans where no plan already exists and or any incentive to improve existing defined contribution plans.</p> <p>Instead, we¡¯ll see employers use target benefit plan provisions to convert good, defined benefit plans that provide secure and predictable benefits, into the much less secure form of target benefits. The Conservatives are setting the stage for this to occur.</p> <h3>The Conservative proposal is bad for employees and retirees</h3> <p>The proposal the Conservatives are pushing has a lot of problems, in addition to employers being able to convert good plans into target benefit plans.</p> <p>Pension payments will be put at risk: Employers will be allowed to break the pension promises made to their employees by reducing pension benefits that were earned and paid for by members. They¡¯ll even be able to reduce the pensions retirees are receiving.</p> <p>The plans will have a contribution cap: Sounds like a good idea but it doesn¡¯t allow either the employees or employers to even temporarily increase contributions if they need to. They¡¯ll just reduce benefits ¨C even for retirees.</p> <p>Pension experts who¡¯ve reviewed the Conservative proposal say that their version of the target benefit pension plan will be complex and expensive to administer with the potential to reduce benefits even more.</p> <h3>Knowing what your pension will be is important</h3> <p>The basic purpose of a pension plan is to provide decent retirement incomes that are secure and predictable. People need to be able to plan their retirement within the budget their pensions allow. Not knowing how much a pension will be next week or next year undermines your security in retirement, compromises your quality of life and weakens your ability to participate in your community and support your local economy. Everyone loses.</p> <h3>There is a real-life alternative to the target benefit pension plan</h3> <p>Canada has been a world leader in pension innovation. One of the most successful models is the jointly-sponsored defined benefit pension plan or JSDBP for short. The Conservatives could easily introduce this model if they were really concerned about Canadians¡¯ retirement security.</p> <p>In a JSDBP, costs, risks and surpluses are shared by employer and employees. Both employees and employers jointly control the processes to make decisions about pension investment and administration. This model also provides secure and predictable benefits. Unlike the Conservatives¡¯ proposal, pensions can¡¯t be reduced except in extra-ordinary circumstances.</p> <p>JSDBPs shouldn¡¯t be used to replace good pension plans that already exist, such as the Public Service Superannuation Act. But they are a much better alternative for workers who don¡¯t already have good plans than anything the Conservatives are suggesting.</p> <p>Some PSAC members already participate in this type of plan where they exist provincially. For example, some PSAC members at airports in Ontario are covered by the Ontario Municipal Employees¡¯ Retirement System (OMERS), while some in B.C. are covered by the BC Municipal Employees Pension Plan.</p> <h3>Everyone deserves a decent, secure retirement</h3> <p>The majority of Canadians don¡¯t have a workplace pension plan. They rely on the Canada or Quebec Pension Plan and a hodgepodge of high-fee, finance industry friendly private retirement savings plans that are inadequate to the task of real retirement savings.</p> <p>One real solution would be to improve the CPP for everyone. While provincial finance ministers have given broad support to expanding the CPP, the Conservatives have just said no even though improving the CPP wouldn¡¯t cost the federal government a cent in contributions because it¡¯s funded only by employer and employee premiums. Quebec also supports improving their version of the public pension plan.</p> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/topics/pensions">Pensions</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/352/topics/retirement">Retirement</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-publisher field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-rss"><h2 class="field-label">Publisher:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/352/publisher/communications-and-political-action">Communications and Political Action</a></li></ul></section><div class="field field-name-field-publication-date field-type-datestamp field-label-inline clearfix view-mode-rss"> <div class="field-label">Publication Date:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">Thursday, July 10, 2014 - 4:15pm</span></div> </div> </div> Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:15:56 +0000 clawson 2701 at/352