ONTARIO RETIREMENT PENSION PLAN: At last.
Canada
and Ontario have a strong foundation of retirement benefit programs, namely the
Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income System.
When the Province
of Ontario held hearings in the 1980s with respect to mandatory retirement, I
spoke at one of the hearings. In my presentation, I also expressed in part my
concerns about retired employees not getting their company pensions when the
companies went bankrupt. The member of the Ontario Legislature holding the
hearings subsequently asked me to send him a report of my concerns in greater
detail. This I did and in my report I listed many companies that went bankrupt
and the employees who had company pensions suddenly learned that their pensions
would be used to pay off other creditors instead. I suggested that the Province
of Ontario have a mandatory pension plan for all employees in Ontario. I was
later told that my report was sent to the Ministry of Labour. I immediately
thought’ “My report will never again see the light of day.”
Earlier this
year, (2015) I and everyone else heard about the Ontario government’s plan to
implement an Ontario Retirement Pension
Plan (ORPP) for Ontario workers
and its potential implications for employers.
Briefly, the ORPP would be a defined benefit (DB) type
of plan with an employee/employer contribution rate of up to 1.9% each that
would be requiring mandatory participation, subject to exemptions for workers
who already participate in a “comparable” workplace pension plan. While
the meaning of comparable workplace
pension plan is yet to be finalized, the Ontario government has indicated that
its preference is for only DB plans
and target benefit multi-employer pension plans to be considered comparable.
Under this approach, employers with defined contribution plans and/or
group registered retirement savings plans would not be exempt.
I have mixed feelings about the possibility of
employers having comparable pension plans having to participate in the ORPP while they still have the
comparable pension plans. However, I believe
that the current decision by the
Government of Ontario to let some company pension plans be considered
comparable to the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan is a positive move forward.
As I mentioned at
the beginning of this article, when I wrote my report on my proposal of the
creation of a provincial pension plan to the government, I expressed concern
that many employers who had a pension plan for their employees and the
employers later went bankrupt; the employees would get nothing from their
pensions. I still have that concern. However, if there is a law created that
states that if an employer goes bankrupt, the company pensions will not go to
any other creditors other than the employees for their retirement years, then
there will be no need for the employees (and employers) to pay anything to the ORRP while the employees are still working
for their employer. Alas, that would require federal legislation to protect the
company pensions since it would come under the Bankruptcy law which is federal
and not a provincial law.
Bill 56, which sets out the framework legislation for
the ORPP, passed second reading and had been referred to the Standing Committee
on Social Policy (the Committee).
The provincial government says the ORPP is needed because
Ontarians aren’t saving enough. Ontario’s Finance
Minister, Charles Sousa said as he delivered the budget in the legislature, “We
have a duty and must do more to ensure that people have adequate savings in
their retirement years.” I agree with that statement. However, like the federal
pension plan, the ORPP will be expensive for the provincial government to
operate, especially with workers moving in or out of the province.
Some pundits will also say that four-fifths of workers
already have sufficient savings for adequate retirement benefits. You will be
amazed how those funds can be used up quickly when a financial emergency crops
into their lives. At least with the ORPP, the retirement benefits will be still
there when they reach the age of retirement.
Further, two-thirds of Ontario
workers do not participate in workplace pension programs. None of the
companies I worked for in the fifty five years I worked in Canada had any
pension plans for their employees. If it wasn’t for the fact that I inherited
money and wisely invested it, I would not be reaping the benefits of my
investments during my retirement years. I wish the ORPP was in force when I was employed before I retired at age 75. I
would be then getting a minimum of least $6,900 every year from the ORPP for the rest of my life and added
to my other sources, I would live even more comfortably than I am now.
Other pundits will say that there is a better option available
to Ontarians such as telling them to put their own contributions into a pension
plan voluntarily. That option will hold about as much water as a sieve will.
Telling the average adult to voluntarily pay his own premiums on his own for
his retirement benefits that he will get decades away is like telling a toddler
that the cookies he sees on the table are not be eaten until the following
week.
Private sector organizations (employers) say they are worried
about the unintended consequences while public sector groups (employees) think
the plan should be universal.
Some employers’ and business groups’ concerns are as follows;
(1) Employers say that their company contributions will
bankrupt them. That’s hogwash. Admittedly, the ORPP will
place new costs on employers regardless of their profitability. However, some of those CEOs are
getting millions of dollars a year in salaries and benefits from their
companies and yet they want to nickel and dime their employees by not wishing
their companies to pay their share of the ORPP
contributions towards their employees’ pensions. I have about as much sympathy
for such CEOs as a dog gets when it carelessly wanders into a flea convention.
(2) Business groups strongly oppose enhancing universal pensions,
either provincially or nationally. They argue that the accompanying payroll tax
increases will cause employers to pull back on hiring and other growth
initiatives that will hurt Canadians and the economy.
That’s more hogwash. Why should the accompanying payroll expenses
increases cause employers to cease hiring more employees? If a company is
successful and wants to expand, it would be outright stupid in its part to not
hire more staff simply because the employers have to pay their share of the
employee’s pensions.
These business groups are trying to scare us with their
bogeymen—entities that don’t really exist. It really comes down to greed on the
part of these business groups that supersedes the best interests of their firm’s
employees.
Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) is
standing in the way of an Ontario pension plan and says that he’s happy to
block what he calls “an enormous tax hike.” Federal finance minister of state for finance, Kevin
Sorenson went further, calling the planned Ontario pension a “tax hike on
workers and businesses” that “will disadvantage Ontario and kill jobs.”
Now there is a stupid remark if there ever was one. Think
about it. He claims that the ORPP is
a tax hike. What is a tax hike? It
occurs when a government increases taxes to pay for government services and
expenses such as building roads, schools etc. That is not what the money
received from businesses and their employees and applied to ORPP will be used for. I will refer you
to Bill 66 and specifically to
sections 2(3) and 2(4) of Bill 66
which state;
Investing contributions: The administrative entity shall be responsible
for investing the collected contributions for the benefit of the members and
other beneficiaries of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.
Holding contributions: The administrative entity shall hold the
contributions, and any accruals from the investments, in trust for the members
and other beneficiaries of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. The
contributions and the accruals shall not form part of the Consolidated Revenue
Fund.
In order to explain what is meant
by a Consolidated Revenue Fund, I will give you the definition
of the Federal Consolidated Revenue
Fund. It is payments
to and from the Consolidated Revenue
Fund of Canada and
are made by the Receiver
General.
Cheques distributed by the Government of Canada to citizens and organizations are made in the name of
the Receiver General, just as payments to the Government are made out to the same. It is a fund into which tax revenue is paid
in order to meet standing charges especially interest payments on the national
debt.
There you are. Kevin Sorenson’s bogeyman isn’t hiding under your bed
anymore. So why did this man try and scare us away from the ORPP?
He works for that political twerp, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada. Harper knows that his attempt to win his election again will be an
uphill effort on his part. He is not unlike a stalled car—trying to run on
empty. Actually, with him at the helm, his efforts at winning the upcoming
election is is like trying to climb a steep cliff with only one leg. So what
does he do to try and win votes for the next election being held in October of
this year? He criticizes Premier Wynne’s
efforts to bring in a provincial pension plan so that retirees can live better after
they retire. How does he do it? He calls the provincial pension plan a
tax—which it is not. It is an investment for the benefit of employees working
in Ontario.
What does he do to make matters worse in his efforts in
attempting to climb a steep and difficult cliff with only one leg? He refuses
to increase the federal pension benefits that Canadian workers have paid for (as
suggested by the premier and at the same time, he attempts to shoot down the Premier
Wynne’s provincial pension plan so that workers in Ontario will not have a
provincial pension to assist them in their old age after they retire. He yelps that the ORPP is simply an increase
in their taxes. He even said, and I quote; ““I am
delighted to see, quite frankly, that our refusal to co-operate with the
imposition of this tax is making it more difficult for the Ontario government
to proceed.”
“Imagine this scenario if you will. A climber with only one
leg attempts to climb a cliff. A female fellow climber suggests that the
one-legged climber can take an easier route. What does he do? He tells the
fellow climber to get lost. When he discovers that the fellow climber is taking
an easier route to arrive at her goal, he throws a rock at the fellow climber
in hopes of dislodging her and as a result, the one-legged man loses his
balance and ends up on the valley floor. Meanwhile, the fellow climber reaches
the top of the cliff with little difficulty.
Ohh. Don’t you just love that story? Could Aesop have done better with his tale of
the dog with the bone in its mouth?
I hope you have enjoyed this article as much as I have
enjoyed writing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment