Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

The proposed expansion of the Canada Pension Plan is expected to be front and centre at the upcoming meeting of the provincial finance ministers in June. Unfortunately, many of the arguments for expanding the CPP are either debatable or flat-out incorrect.

One source of confusion about the CPP relates to the benefits provided by the program. Too many people conflate the returns earned by the CPP fund with the actual benefits received by Canadian retirees.

Story continues below advertisement

The CPP was overhauled in 1997 and one of the reforms was the creation of the CPP Investment Board, an independent organization tasked with investing the available funds from the plan.

The CPPIB has performed well since 2000, when its mandate was broadened to allow for active investment. From 2010 to 2015, for instance, its average rate of return (adjusted for inflation) was 11.4 per cent.

Its strong performance does not, however, directly influence the retirement benefit received by Canadian workers. CPP Benefits are calculated based on the number of years worked, CPP contributions and the age the worker retires. Nowhere in this calculation are returns from the CPPIB included.

This is not to say that they have no influence. The high yields from the CPPIB lessen the need for further benefit reductions and/or contribution rate (i.e. tax rate) increases as were implemented in the 1997 reforms.

A recent paper calculated the actual returns received by Canadian workers from the CPP by analyzing contributions over their working lives and comparing them to the benefits received during retirement. The main conclusion is that the benefits received by Canadian workers in retirement vary considerably depending on when the worker was born and thus retired.

For instance, A worker born in 1905 who retired (at age 65) in 1970, one of the first years Canadians received CPP benefits, would have enjoyed a rate of return (adjusted for inflation) of 39.1 per cent. A worker born in 1950 who retired in 2015, on the other hand, would have received a return of 3.6 per cent. The rates decline further – those born after 1971 will receive a CPP benefit of 2.1 per cent.

The projected rates of return outlined above decline if certain assumptions are made less favourable. For instance, the calculations assume that workers make no contributions to the CPP during the exemption period, which is roughly the eight years with the lowest earnings that are excluded from a person's benefit calculation. But if we do assume workers make contributions during these exempted years, that do not change their retirement benefits, then the rate of return for workers born in 1972 or later falls from 2.1 to 1.7 per cent.

Story continues below advertisement

There are two main reasons for the decline in the rates of return over time. The first is that the contributory period in the early years of the CPP (10 years) was much less than the current period of contributions (39 years). And second, the contribution or tax rate applied during those working years has increased from 3.6 per cent when the program was started in 1966 to 9.9 per cent today.

A different way to think about the returns received by Canadian workers from their CPP benefits, particularly those born after 1971, is that contributions are made to a fund that must generate a 4-per-cent real rate of return to provide a 2.1-per-cent real rate of return to workers.

While the CPP in its current form is an important component of the overall retirement income system in Canada, it's difficult to see how its proposed expansion can be justified on the basis of its rate of return to retirees.

As we enter a pronounced period of debate on the costs and benefits of expanding the CPP, it's critical to consider the rather meagre rates of return offered to most current and future workers.

Report an error
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

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

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