The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) is pleased to provide the following submission on Bill C-27, as requested in federal Minister of Finance Bill Morneau’s correspondence received March 2, 2017.

Bill C-27 is a deeply troubling piece of legislation that paves the way for employees of federally-regulated employers to see their pension security eroded. We worry that this legislation signals that the current government is also considering similar action with respect to the Public Service Superannuation Plan (PSSA), a move PIPSC would vehemently oppose.

Together with other unions and organizations representing retirees, PIPSC was shocked to see Bill C-27 tabled without either consultation or warning. We do not see Bill C-27 as different from similar proposals floated by the previous government and we are disappointed that the current government has chosen to pursue it.

We recommend that the government not pursue Bill C-27 and instead look to ways to further strengthen the retirement security of all Canadians by better promoting and shoring up defined benefit pension plans.

The Professional Institute
of the Public Service of Canada
(PIPSC)

Submission to the Minister of Finance on Bill C-27,

An Act to Amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act

May 2017

On behalf of our more than 55,000 members across the country, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) is pleased to provide the following submission on Bill C-27, as requested in the Minister’s correspondence received March 2, 2017.

Bill C-27 is a deeply troubling piece of legislation that paves the way for employees of federally-regulated employers to see their pension security eroded. It shifts the risks of providing for a secure retirement from employers to employees by permitting employers to seek to replace defined benefit pension plans with new target benefit pension plans. Bill C-27 would substantially expand the ability of federally regulated employers to offer target benefit pension plans, which provide a much lower level of security to members’ pension income than that provided by defined benefit plans. Moreover, we worry that this legislation signals that the current government is also considering similar action with respect to the Public Service Superannuation Plan (PSSA), a move PIPSC would vehemently oppose.  

PIPSC was pleased to see the government run on a campaign promise to support and grow the middle class. We have applauded your decision to expand the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), a significant step towards helping younger workers build and save for their future. During the 2015 election we saw no mention of the possibility of your government introducing a bill such as C-27. Together with other unions and organizations representing retirees, PIPSC was shocked to see Bill C-27 tabled without either consultation or warning.  We do not see Bill C-27 as different from similar proposals floated by the previous government and we are disappointed that your government has chosen to pursue it.

We therefore welcome the opportunity now to comment on the bill and will specify in more detail our particular objections to it. Your correspondence asked us for solutions. We therefore also recommend that you do not pursue Bill C-27 and instead look to ways to further strengthen the retirement security of all Canadians by better promoting and shoring up defined benefit pension plans.

Target benefit plans made headlines in 2013-14, when the New Brunswick government passed laws to convert longstanding public sector defined benefit pension plans into target benefit plans. This conversion has resulted in significant pension reductions and decreased benefit security for New Brunswick government employees, including many PIPSC members who were affected by this legislation. Many New Brunswick plan members and retirees felt they were misled and misinformed about what plan conversion would mean for them. As a result, plan conversions in New Brunswick have resulted in class action lawsuits and constitutional challenges. Our union is in the process of challenging this legislation in the New Brunswick courts on behalf of our members.

While Bill C-27 does not allow for direct conversions from defined benefit pension plans to target benefit plans, the legislation could be used to facilitate such a process over time. For example, the proposed legislation seems to contemplate that certain members could choose to consent to surrendering their benefits under a defined benefit plan in exchange for a new target benefit plan and that others could elect to remain with the existing plan, which would be highly unusual. If this is permitted it may mean that those groups of employees that have the most to lose from changing to a target benefit plan (e.g., retirees and employees close to retirement) would disproportionately choose to remain with the existing defined benefit plan. This could lead to the problems that come with “mature” pension plans, where more people are being paid out than are paying into the plan. In these circumstances, the defined benefit plan could become unsustainable and may eventually be wound up, leaving only the target benefit plan.

The legislation presumes that employees or unions must consent to changes to their pension plans, but we see this as a failure to recognize the realities of collective bargaining.  Bill C-27 has the potential to fuel labour disputes. Employers have a large incentive to push workers to “surrender” the pension benefits they have already earned. In a lockout situation, workers may be pressured to agree to surrender their benefits and pension rights. The proposed legislation also appears to allow employers to introduce target benefit plans for new employees without obtaining their consent, once again paving the way to the eventual elimination of existing defined benefit plans as current employees retire or leave the workplace.

The  Bill  states  that  these  target  benefit  plans  will  be  run  by  a  board  of  trustees  or another similar body. This board of trustees would have to include at least one member chosen by current pension plan members and, in the case of plans where the number of former  members  and  survivors  equals  a  prescribed  number,  at  least  one  member selected by former members and survivors. There is no limit on the number of members that can be appointed by the employer and no requirement that there be equal numbers of employer and employee representatives. There is also no reference to whether unions would be able to appoint any members in unionized workplaces.

The legislation requires that actuarial modelling with regard to pension benefit stability be undertaken both before the target benefit plan is established and at regular intervals afterwards.  In  other  words,  the  employer  will  decide  how  secure  the  plan benefits should be and then the actuaries will provide a model to help ensure that that level of security is achieved. Unfortunately, it is unclear just how accurate that actuarial modelling is. Certainly, there have been poignant questions raised over the modelling undertaken for the New Brunswick model,  and  actuaries  have  disputed  the  New  Brunswick government’s claims about the likelihood that the target benefit will be paid out. At the end  of  the  day,  target  benefit  plans  will  never  have  the  level  of  security  found in a defined benefit pension plan.

While many of the provisions of the proposed legislation are confusing, unclear or uncertain, the real difficulty with Bill C-27 is that it provides a path for federally regulated employers to move away from defined benefit pension plans, which represent the most secure and predictable type of pension plan, to a less secure model of pension plan. A few  jurisdictions  have  also  made  changes to  their  public  sector  pension plans  to  incorporate  elements  of  a  target  benefit  model.  This has typically been accompanied by other reductions in benefits under public sector plans.

PIPSC recommends that the federal government stop moving forward with Bill C27 as it constitutes a dangerous attack on future and current retirees and on Defined Benefit pension plans in the federal private sector and Crown Corporations.  It also opens the door to the degradation of plans such as the Public Service Superannuation Plan.

Thank you again for the opportunity to be consulted and to share with you the Professional Institute for the Public Service of Canada’s position on Bill C-27.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) was founded in 1920. With over 55,000 members, we are the largest union in Canada representing scientists and other professionals employed at the federal and some provincial and territorial levels of government.

Fellow members,

Since 1992, National Public Service Week (NPSW) has been an occasion to recognize and celebrate the contributions Canada’s public service professionals make to society. The Professional Institute supports this celebration of our members’ accomplishments and their true value to Canadians.

Given, however, the many, still-unresolved problems with the Phoenix pay system, we also feel it is vital we send a message to the federal government this year that failure to accurately and reliably pay federal public employees is no way to recognize them.

For this reason, while we will not be boycotting NPSW events, we will be encouraging PIPSC members to take part in sending a message to our Employer to “fix Phoenix” once and for all during National Public Service Week, June 11-17.

Buttons and other visibility items urging the government to “fix Phoenix” will soon be available for members to order, download and display.

I urge you to join in this effort. After all, we’re worth it, and it is only by working together that we can help ensure the government fixes Phoenix once and for all.

Better Together.

Debi Daviau
President

After defending literally hundreds of individual member grievances related to the Phoenix pay system and lobbying the government for many months with no permanent fix in sight, PIPSC has today filed policy grievances against the federal government, accusing the Employer of continuously violating the terms of our collective agreements since the implementation of the new Phoenix pay system in February 2016.

Specifically, we state that the Employer has, among other things, “made continuous and on-going errors in pay, including but not limited to: failure to be paid, substantial delays, miscalculation, underpayments, overpayments, and inaccurate payments for overtime, extra duty pay, allowances, annual increments, retroactive pay, acting pay, promotional pay, payments in lieu of severance.”

In a second set of grievances, we are also grieving problems paying disability benefits and maternity/parental leave benefits as violations of our collective agreements and the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).

Our members have shown remarkable patience and, in some instances, astonishing forbearance in coping with the problems and deprivations imposed by the government’s failure to accurately and reliably pay the salaries our members are owed.

Our demands that the Employer “immediately pay all monies owed,” “pay members accurately and in a timely manner” and, “process all information related to disability and maternity/parental benefits in a timely manner” are fair and reasonable demands to make under what for many have been – and remain – extremely trying circumstances.

Under Canadian labour law, individual union members are prohibited from filing class action suits and are obligated to seek remedies through established grievance procedures. We hope that today’s policy grievances expedite resolution of a problem that should never have been allowed to occur in the first place and should never be allowed to happen again.

Debi Daviau
President

Bill C-27: The Introduction of Target Benefit Plans

What Is Bill C-27?

• Bill C-27 introduces a new pension framework into the federal jurisdiction –Target Benefit plans.
• It proposes sweeping changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act (PBSA).
• The PBSA guarantees employees the benefits they have already earned and forces employers to set aside appropriate resources to fund these commitments.
• The PBSA applies to federally-regulated employers such as Crown Corporations, banks, telecoms and transportation companies.
• Bill C-27 weakens the PBSA and provides employers with an opportunity to avoid their obligations to pensioners.
• It also provides a process for employers to convert Defined Benefit (DB) plans into Target Benefit (TB) plans.
• Conversion cannot be made unilaterally by the employer -Plan members must agree to the changes.
• An employer could also wind up an existing DB plan and open up a new TB plan or run both plans in parallel.

Who Is Affected?

• Some 1700+ PIPSC members are affected (CCC, CMC, CMN, CTC, CRPEG, NGC, NAVCAN, WPEG, WTEG, YHC).
• Thousands more of present and future Canadians retirees are also impacted.
• Bill C-27 is a direct threat to their retirement security.
• And if the legislation comes into effect, we can expect employers to aggressively push for these changes and force other workers to accept the erosion of this vital and long-standing benefit. Bill C-27 sets a dangerous precedent for all Canadians by removing DB plans from retirement planning.
• The government should focus its energies on creating a legislative and economic environment in which Defined Benefit plans can thrive.

Defined Benefit vs. Target Benefit

• Most PIPSC members enjoy a Defined Benefit plan under the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA).
• It provides secure and stable income during retirement and predictability during their working life.
• In a DB plan, the employer assumes responsibility for funding shortfalls. While terms can change, when an individual makes a contribution for a period of time, the benefits received for that period are secure (except in the case of employer bankruptcy).
• Target Benefit plans are similar to DB plans except that risk is passed on to plan members, who assume responsibility for deficits or unfunded liabilities. Safeguards and protections that currently protect employees would be removed. Employee benefits and contributions may rise and fall.

What Happens With TB Plans:The New Brunswick Example

• In 2012, the New Brunswick government brought in what it called
• “Shared Risk” pensions.
• The term is misleading because all risk actually shifted from the employer to plan members –including people who had already retired.
• The NB government also allowed workers to make the change voluntarily. Those who did felt they were misled. Plan members were told that the terms of their new pension were
• “virtually guaranteed” when, in reality, by converting their pension over, they had just given up their legal guarantee.
• Since the New Brunswick law came into effect, the number of people with a DB pension in the province has dropped by over 14%.
• Does this sound like retirement security to you?

What Have We Done So Far To Fight C-27?

• We wrote to the federal Finance Minister.
• We encouraged PIPSC members to sign a petition against Bill C-27.
• We encouraged members to send a special postcard to their Member of Parliament (MP).
• We developed a sample letter to MPs.

What Can YOU Do To Fight C-27?

• Sign and send the postcard (available through the Mobilization team) to your MP (it’s postage-free):
• Write to your MP (the sample letter).
• Become a more active member, join the Better Together team and help us fight for good pensions for everyone.
• Follow us on Facebook and on Twitter (@pipsc_ipfpc).

Questions?

Bill C-27 – Who does this affect?

Everyone who supports Defined Benefit pension plans should be opposed to this proposed legislation. The federal government has jurisdiction over two major labour relations regimes: (1) the federal sector (Crown Corporations, banks, telecoms and transportation companies etc); and (2) the federal public service (Treasury Board and Separate Agencies). Bill C-27 directly impacts the former but not the latter. However, the federal sector covers numerous members across various jurisdictions and changes to existing legislation would have a broad national impact. Bill C-27 does not currently affect any member under the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA), however we see that this legislation does set a dangerous precedent for all Canadians by removing DB plans from retirement planning. If these proposed sweeping changes take effect in one regulatory area, a powerful trend will be set in motion and pressure will increase to make changes in the other.

Bill C-27 and the Pension Benefits Standards Act (PBSA)

Bill C-27 proposes sweeping changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act (PBSA). The PBSA applies to federally-regulated employers such as Crown Corporations, banks, telecoms and transportation companies. The PBSA was originally put into effect fifty years ago to protect workers and workplace pensions by forcing employers to keep their promises. The legislation guarantees employees the benefits they have already earned and forces employers to set aside appropriate resources to fund these commitments. Bill C-27 weakens the PBSA and provides employers with an opportunity to avoid their obligations to pensioners.

Target Benefit Plans vs. Defined Benefit Plans

Bill C-27 formally and legally introduces a new pension framework into the federal jurisdiction – Target Benefit Plans.

On top of introducing this new pension structure, the legislation also provides a process for employers to convert Defined Benefit Plans into Target Benefit Plans.

Most PIPSC members enjoy a Defined Benefit (DB) plan which provides secure and stable income during retirement and predictability during one’s working life. In a DB plan, the employer assumes responsibility for funding shortfalls. To address these, they may raise contribution rates but the benefit almost never changes. While terms can change, when an individual makes a contribution for a period of time, the benefits received for that period are secure (except in case of employer bankruptcy).

Target Benefit (TB) plans are similar to DB plans except that risk is passed on to plan members, who assume responsibility for deficits or unfunded liabilities. Safeguards and protections that currently protect employees are transferred over to the employer. While the latter’s contributions do not change, employee benefits and contributions may rise and fall.

Converting Defined Benefit Plans into Target Benefit Plans.

The new legislation will not automatically convert all Defined Benefit plans into Target Benefit plans. Conversion cannot be made unilaterally by the employer, as plan members must agree to the changes. An employer could also wind up an existing DB plan and open up a new TB plan, or run both plans in parallel.

Bill C-27 defines a process for employers to “exchange” one plan for the other and provides a mechanism for moving from a DB to a TB plan. This includes the notice process to be followed by the employer for DB plan members to surrender the benefits they have already accrued.

This provision is extremely dangerous. It provides employers with a goal that benefits them at the expense of workers and provides a blueprint for how to achieve it.

Converting Defined Benefit Plans into Target Benefit Plans. (continued)

If the legislation comes into effect, we expect employers to aggressively push for these changes at the bargaining table and force workers to choose between either a lengthy lockout or accepting the irreparable erosion of this vital and long-standing benefit.

The New Brunswick Example

In 2012, New Brunswick’s Conservative Government brought in legislation allowing employers to avoid past commitments and bring in what they termed “Shared Risk” pensions. The term “Shared Risk” is misleading because all risk is actually shifted from the employer to the plan members – including people who are already retired.

The provincial example was more extreme because it forcibly imposed this system on thousands of workers, but it also allowed for workers to make the change voluntarily. The preliminary results of these actions have been troubling. Those who did voluntarily convert their pension felt they were misled with inaccurate or misleading information. Plan members were told that the terms of their new pension were “virtually guaranteed” when, in reality, by converting their pension over, they had just given up their legal guarantee.

In the short period of time since the New Brunswick law came into effect, the number of people with a DB pension in the province has dropped by over 14%.

What is Bill C-27?

Bill C-27 is a federal government-sponsored bill that would make it easier for employers to convert existing employee Defined Benefit (DB) pension plans to so-called Target Benefit (TB) plans. TB plans offer much less secure post-retirement income than Defined Benefit plans, shifting the burden of a secure retirement from employers to employees. While employees would need to agree to any such change, there are serious concerns that those affected by Bill C-27 would be pressured against their best interests to convert to TB plans. In addition, while the proposed legislation does not apply to most federal government employees, there are serious concerns that such changes would spell the eventual elimination of DB plans altogether.

Why are Defined Benefit pension plans so important?

Defined Benefit pension plans provide a guaranteed stream of post-retirement income to workers. It’s guaranteed because employers are required by law to meet the plan’s payment obligations when employees retire. That means retirees with DB plans have more predictable, disposable income to spend (which helps them and the economy), contribute more in taxes (which helps public programs), and do not pose a burden to income-support programs such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS).

What’s wrong with Target Benefit pension plans?

Target Benefit plans do not require employers to meet the same guaranteed payment obligations as Defined Benefit plans. The plans only “target” post-retirement income meaning the benefits could go down and employees must shoulder the risk. That’s clearly more beneficial to employers and harmful to employees.

While TB plans are generally better than RRSPs and so-called Defined Contribution plans, which offer no promise of return, they are still a far cry from DB plans, which offer the most secure retirement income available.

I’ve heard Defined Benefit plans are unsustainable. Is that true?

When managed properly, DB pension plans aren’t only the most reliable source of post-retirement income for workers, they’re also among the most sustainable. That’s why they’ve remained the most popular form of pension plan for decades. Among workers in Canada who have registered pension plans 71% are DB plans. One of the main reasons DB plans have been underfunded in the past is that employers have been allowed to raid pension funds in good times, leaving them vulnerable in bad times.

OK, but what about private sector workers who don’t have DB pensions?

It’s true that more public sector workers have DB plans than private sector workers. One of the reasons is strong unions. But it’s not the only one. All Canadians want and deserve a secure retirement and should lobby their Members of Parliament for stronger laws protecting and promoting DB plans. Opposing Bill C-27 is a start.

Visit the PIPSC website to download a “Stop C-27” postcard that you can send to your MP. If you’re not already an active PIPSC member, join the Better Together team and help us fight for good pensions for everyone. If you’re not yet a member of a union consider joining one and advocate for stronger pensions. Other organizations, such as the National Association of Federal Retirees (NAFR), are also strong advocates of Defined Benefit pensions and worth joining or contacting. When we work together, we can ensure that we all have a secure retirement!