Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
save over 85%
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson.

The Globe and Mail

Pension reform was a signature triumph of prime minister Jean Chrétien's first government. Now, pension reform has become an early

triumph of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's first government.

Pension reform sounds easy, but it is not. For who, after all, can be against "reform?" Actually, a lot of people, and institutions.

Story continues below advertisement

Billions of dollars are at stake. Seven provinces plus Ottawa must agree to change the Canada Pension Plan. Higher contributions are never popular. The short-term pain of higher contributions is more easily identifiable, and therefore more politically controversial, than the long-term gain of increased pensions later. Business generally opposes any increase in premiums, claiming that it will kill jobs.

Paul Martin, finance minister in Mr. Chrétien's government, surmounted all these obstacles in 1996. Premiums and payouts were raised and a new arm's-length institution for investing the money was created. Both were far-sighted moves that put the Canada Pension Plan on a solid financial footing. The changes were among Mr. Martin's fine legacy as finance minister.

The CPP was placed on solid actuarial foundations, but were the payouts going to be enough for tomorrow's changed demographics with more elderly people and fewer young people having saved for retirement? Many retirees won't have plans at all; others will have small plans; still others will have defined-contribution plans that are less secure than defined-benefit plans.

What to do? What not to do was follow the Stephen Harper Conservatives, who listened to the business community and insisted that higher contributions would cripple the economy. Instead, the Conservatives proposed a voluntary plan for employees in companies without a pension plan. Predictably, uptake was small, because if plans are voluntary as opposed to mandatory, a whole lot of people will not participate, being more worried about today than tomorrow. Targeted plans don't cover as many people as do mandatory ones.

Governments could have designed a new system or bolted something new onto the CPP.

Either option would have rendered the new system more complicated than the old, thereby defying a principle of sound administration that, where possible, you choose simplicity over complexity.

Canadians know the CPP. They trust it. Their money is well invested, evidence for which are the good returns their money has earned. Risk is widely shared. If a problem exists, it lies in the age of full receipt – 65, a date set a long time ago when people lived up to a decade less than today.

Story continues below advertisement

Major countries in Europe and the United States have set higher ages for receipt of pensions and other income support for the obvious reason that people are living longer than when the programs were introduced. Raising that age has proved to be a bridge too far in Canada.

Unfortunately, the Trudeau government reversed the Harper government's increase of the age for receipt of the Old Age Supplement to 67 from 65. That move was based on Finance

Department projections that the cost of the OAS would have ballooned to $108-billion in 2030 from $38-billion in 2011.

The Conservatives estimated that by raising the age of receipt to 67 in 2023, the federal Treasury would save about $11-billion a year. That sum must now be found somewhere, somehow by means the Trudeau government has not yet determined.

Small business griped immediately about the higher contributions that companies will have to pay. There is a way, however, of easing their pain, provided that the Liberals fulfill an election campaign promise.

One of their promises was to drop the small-business tax rate to 9 per cent from 12 per cent. This was dubious policy, since why should small businesses have a lower tax rate than larger ones? Nonetheless, the Liberals made the promise. However, they conspicuously failed to fulfill it in the last budget. By doing it in the next budget, the Liberals could reduce costs with one hand for small business while increasing them with the other. Not pretty, to be sure, but perhaps a reasonable compromise.

Story continues below advertisement

In any event, the new contributions agreed to by the Trudeau government and a sufficient number of provinces will be phased in slowly and won't start until 2019. And they will be small to start. The pain will be eased, but the eventual gains will be real.

The 1996 reforms were among the wisest decisions of the Chrétien years. These new reforms stand on the shoulders of what happened 20 years ago.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies