Pension Regulation in Canada (provincial pensions)
Pension regulation in Canada is characterized by a complex and fragmented system that varies significantly across provincial jurisdictions. Employers may fall under federal or provincial regulations depending on their location and the nature of their business, complicating compliance for those with employees in multiple provinces. This fragmentation can lead some employers to forgo pension benefits altogether to avoid the administrative burden, which is concerning given the importance of pension support in light of rising living costs and an aging population.
Historically, pension standards were established in the 1960s, but efforts to harmonize these regulations have been limited, resulting in disparities that can affect employee benefits based on their province of residence. The Canadian pension landscape also grapples with a notable income gap between working individuals and retirees, which is exacerbated by smaller public pensions compared to those in other OECD countries. Advocates for pension reform suggest that simplifying regulations and creating a unified system could incentivize employers to provide more retirement benefits, ultimately improving the financial security of Canadians. However, proposals for reform face various challenges, including political resistance and constitutional concerns. As globalization intensifies, ensuring a cohesive and responsive pension system has become increasingly urgent for Canada’s competitiveness in attracting and retaining skilled workers.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Pension Regulation in Canada (provincial pensions)
Pension regulation in Canada has been described recently as a "fragile" system that is overly complicated due to the proliferation of rules and regulations in multiple jurisdictions. Some employers are subject to federal regulation by the national government of Canada, while other employers are instead subject to regulation at the provincial level, because of the way power is divided between states and the federal government of Canada. This makes the provision of pension benefits challenging for some private employers who have employees located in different provinces, because they must take steps to remain within compliance of multiple jurisdictions. Some employers simply opt out of paying pension benefits to avoid the administrative costs of complying with multiple sets of regulations. Policy makers continue to explore ways to prevent this, because pension benefits are seen as increasingly important due to the rising cost of living and the aging population of Canada.
Brief History
When Canada’s pension system is compared with that of other countries, the measure often used is the income gap. This concept describes the difference between the income of an employed person from his or her salary, and the income of a retired person from his or her private pension. Studies comparing Canada’s public pension system with that of other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) indicate that the average Canadian worker can expect to see a larger gap between working income and retirement income, due to smaller public pensions. This is a source of concern for many, as a larger gap often results in a poorer quality of life.
To prevent this from becoming the norm, pension reform advocates suggest that Canada needs to encourage a healthy mixture of both private and public pensions. The best way to do this, they argue, is by simplifying the pension regulation system and making it easier for employers to comply with, thereby incentivizing them to offer pensions. At present, almost two thirds of Canadians are without coverage from private pensions, meaning that when they retire they will have only their public pensions to support them.
As confusing as the issue of federal versus provincial jurisdiction is, there is actually an additional layer of complexity that must be considered. This is because pension regulations fall into two broad categories, each of which is handled differently. The first category has to do with the way pensions are taxed, while the second category concerns the creation of sets of minimum standards which pension plans must comply with.
Basically, all pensions in Canada are governed by federal requirements for purposes of taxation, but when it comes to establishing minimum standards, Canada’s government has given that power to the provinces. The only exception to this is for certain occupations that fall under federal jurisdiction for minimal standards. These include people employed at communications companies, banks, and certain other designated occupations. The largest source of frustration for private employers in Canada is the wide variation in minimum standards for pensions that exists among provinces.
Overview
Most provinces began enacting legislation to define pension standards in the 1960s. This has been a difficult process, because pension regulations fall under different areas of governmental interest, and thus require collaboration from various provincial offices specializing in labor rights, economics, and legal concerns. Since the creation of standards, there have been several reform efforts designed to encourage the provinces to make their pension regulation systems easier to navigate. What has been lacking, however, is an effort at harmonization, which would try to bring the standards into closer alignment with one another by eliminating or reducing differences between provincial systems.
The closest Canada has come to harmonization has been its occasional attempts at strengthening the public pension plan available to all, in the hope that doing this would make private pensions less necessary; this would not really solve the problem of disharmony between provinces, but it would at least make it a moot point. So far, however, efforts at augmenting public pensions have been successfully opposed by the private sector because the private sector would prefer to profit from an increased role for private pensions.
The lack of harmony in pension plans across jurisdictions creates problems for pension plan administrators quite separate from the administrative difficulties. For one thing, it is not uncommon for the pension plan of an employer with employees in more than one province to offer different levels of benefits to different employees doing the same work, as a result of provincial variations in how the benefits are delivered. These types of disparities can give rise to legal issues, as employees may claim that they are being treated unfairly because of where they live.
Several proposals have been made for simplifying and streamlining Canada’s current pension regulation scheme. One would create a single system of pension regulations that would apply to everyone in the country and that would be regulated by a single governmental entity. Another option would be to permit the various jurisdictional regulations to remain, but to have them all administered by a single entity. This model takes the current structure of multiple jurisdictions and multiple regulatory agencies and simplifies only the latter component.
A third approach would be to require the existing jurisdictions to harmonize by developing a model law for each jurisdiction to use in crafting its own approach; this would achieve less unity but would also provoke less intense resistance. Reform advocates note that the plan most likely to resolve the current confusion would be that which establishes a single jurisdiction and regulatory regime for all of Canada, but there may be constitutional problems with this strategy. Because it could take many years to address the constitutional concerns (time in which the current problems are only expected to grow worse), some have been willing to consider less controversial options, even if they would likely be less effective. With the continuing influence of globalization, Canada cannot afford to lag behind other nations in the responsible management of pension benefits, as countries must now compete with one another for workers by offering them benefits such as pensions.
Bibliography
Bell, Jeremy. "Cpp Enhancement: The Debate Takes Centre Stage." Plans & Trusts 53.1 (2015): 8–13. Business Source Complete. Web. 11 Jan. 2016.
Canadian Pensions and Retirement Income Planning. Toronto: Wolters Kluwer, 2013. Print.
"ESG Roundtable." Benefits Canada 39.10 (2015): 61–70. Business Source Complete. Web. 11 Jan. 2016.
Frazer, Mitch. A Practical Guide to Private Pension Plans in Canada. Toronto: Canada Law, 2012. Print.
Kaplan, Ari N, and Mitch Frazer. Pension Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2013. Print.
Klassen, Thomas R. Retirement in Canada. Don Mills: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.
Knight, Jamie, Carla Nassar, and Paula Pettit. Canada and Quebec Pension Plan and Employment Insurance Acts: Quick Reference. Toronto: Carswell, 2014. Print.
Laurin, Alexandre, Kevin Milligan, and Tammy Schirle. Comparing Nest Eggs: How CPP Reform Affects Retirement Choices. Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe Institute, 2012. Print.
Leech, Jim, and Jacquie McNish. The Third Rail: Saving Canada's Pension System. Toronto: Signal, 2013. Print.
Smith, Jill Taylor. "Selecting and Monitoring Investment Options in a DC Retirement Plan." Plans & Trusts 33.6 (2015): 12–17. Business Source Complete. Web. 11 Jan. 2016.