Subscribe to our Newsletter Subscribe to our Magazine
golden-nest-eggs-pension-retirement

The last actuarial report on the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) estimated that 38% of Canadians in 2010 started receiving their CPP at age 60. Another 38% or so started their pension at 65. The remaining 24% started their CPP at other ages, mainly between 61 and 64. To someone new to Canada, the “normal” retirement age would not be at all obvious. Yet ask any Canadian and he or she will tell you that normal retirement means age 65.

If we look at our three-tiered retirement system from an historical context, it is easy to see how we arrive at this conclusion. Old Age Security (OAS), which is part of Tier 1, starts at age 65. (It used to be 70.) The CPP and the Quebec Pension Plan, which comprise Tier 2, used to be available only at age 65. Registered pension plans, which are part of Tier 3 along with RRSPs, generally define normal retirement as age 65 even when unreduced benefits are available earlier. And when mandatory retirement was permitted, it was triggered at age 65.

The trend toward de-emphasizing age 65 has been in place for a number of years now. One reason is a change in work patterns as an increasing number of Canadians work beyond age 65—some through need but many more through choice. In addition, people are living longer, which makes 65 look increasingly arbitrary as an age to stop working. When the CPP was introduced in the 1960s, the average 65-year-old male could expect to live another 14 years. His modern-day counterpart can expect to live another 20 years, while 65-year-old women can expect to live another 23. There is a creeping realization that one has to do something meaningful with all that extra time; one can only play so many rounds of golf!

Of course, the rest of the world has already concluded that the normal retirement age has to rise. Steps have been taken to raise it to 67 or 68 in most European countries as well as in the U.S. and Australia. We could do the same, of course, and increase the normal retirement age under the CPP to 67 starting in 2030 or so, but why not go one step further? Why not realign all three tiers of our retirement system to restore some of the consistency it once had?

A realignment would correct some glaring anomalies. For instance, the CPP allows for pensions to commence at any age between 60 and 70—with actuarial adjustment—but not OAS, which is payable only from 65. In registered pension plans, the typical range in starting ages is from 55 to 70, but it can be earlier. To summarize, retirement is available by age 55 in Tier 3, age 60 in Tier 2 and age 65 in Tier 1. Why are they all different?

There are other anomalies. For a DB pension plan to be registered, it must provide for an unreduced pension to be payable at no later than age 65, even though our increased longevity has made 70 the new 65. Moreover, we now accept the notion that 65-year-olds can work productively, which is why we abolished mandatory retirement, yet we haven’t upped the retirement ages in Tier 1 and Tier 2, even though they were originally supposed to be a form of insurance against the “disability” of old age. What are they now? Finally, we know the worker-to-retiree ratio will drop from the current 4:1 to only 2:1 in the next 25 years, yet we devote enormous amounts of taxpayer money to allow public sector workers to exit the workforce by as early as age 55. If the retirement system is to be compatible with workforce management, these inconsistencies need to be addressed.

Against this backdrop, it is hard to be overly enthusiastic about pooled retirement pension plans at this particular time. Should we be adding another vehicle before we realign our current retirement vehicles? It is even harder to think about expanding the CPP if we haven’t yet figured out what we should do with the retirement age under the current CPP.

Consequently, the current three tiers should be modified to realign pension commencement ages and to recognize longer life spans. One possibility is to allow pension commencement at any age between 55 and 75, with the amounts actuarially adjusted so that no given age is favoured. In the process, we could dispense entirely with the concept of normal retirement age.

Fred Vettese is chief actuary of Morneau Shepell. These are the views of the author and not necessarily that of Benefits Canada.
© Copyright 2014 Rogers Publishing Ltd. Originally published on benefitscanada.com

Photos

Photographs of our
most recent events
are now posted

Check them out!

Register today

For the latest industry news and opinion sign up for our daily e-newsletter.

See all comments Recent Comments

Neena Gupta:

I want to thank Fred Vettese for one of the best short plain language overview of the incoherent retirement benefit policies in Canada. It should be mandatory reading for every MP and MPP/MLA in the country. We need to make some hard decisions about how we fund retirement and we need to do it now. Well done!

Monday, December 05 at 6:08 pm | Reply

Roto:

Unfortunately, one may miss the entire background/beginning of thes eprogems and where overtime they will end up. So again we oversimplify to the benefit of no one unless the intent is again to take a shot at Public Sector DB plans.

In the sector of the world of office workers/professionals, the ability to work to age 70 or 75 may be a distinct possibility. For the manufacturing sector and construction trades, this is not so. So if you build pensions for the more well to do, the argument may make sense. For the rest, it makes no sense.

The change to delay retirement has little to do with longevity, people knew about this long ago, the reason for the delay is money, no one set aside enough money to provide for the promises, so dleay retirement and tell people it is because they will work longer. Good story…

I do agree that public sector plans need to be addressed because they have not been funded.

At the same time, the majority od us who will be in DC plans/PRPP’s or save in our RRSP’s could care less about a Normal Retirement Date and since that is a majority why waste time on it.

Of course for those who promote target pension plans, it would give another tool to enable benefit adjustments downward to meet the available funding.

Tuesday, December 06 at 8:28 am | Reply

Add a comment

Have your say on this topic! Comments that are thought to be disrespectful or offensive may be removed by our Benefits Canada admins. Thanks!

* These fields are required.
Field required
Field required
Field required