Canada’s labour movement is organizing against a federal bill that would allow federally regulated employers to establish target-benefit pension plans and convert existing defined benefit pensions to the new approach.

“By permitting the conversion of past-service DB pension benefits to TB plans, Bill C-27 invites employers and other plan sponsors to abandon their pension promises to employees and retirees, downloading virtually all plan risks brought on by market volatility from employers to workers and retirees,” Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, wrote in a letter to Finance Minister Bill Morneau in response to the legislation introduced in October.

“This is an unconscionable betrayal of the legal rights and protections of plan members.”

Read: Are New Brunswick’s shared risk plans on target?

But Jana Steele, a partner at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP who has worked on target-benefit plans in New Brunswick, says the new option is better than the current trend towards converting defined benefit plans to defined contribution ones.

“Quite frankly, I was shocked by [the Canadian Labour Congress’s] position on this bill because in my view, employers are already leaving defined benefit plans and their only other option right now is defined contribution . . .,” says Steele.

“This would give another option, in the case of unions, to be bargained if an employer is looking to exit DB. . . . A target-benefit plan is arguably preferable from an employee’s perspective than a DC plan.”

Target-benefit plans, she says, include many of the features of defined benefit arrangements. As with defined benefit plans, target-benefit plan members can take advantage of pooling longevity and investment risk, don’t have to select their own investments and have a rough idea of their retirement income. As with defined contribution plans, employers benefit from fixed contributions.

Read: New Brunswick’s shared risk conversion faces a flurry of legal attacks

In his letter, Yussuff noted New Brunswick has seen several lawsuits since it began allowing target-benefit plans.

Steele, however, points out the litigation in New Brunswick is only in relation to one pension plan and not the legislation as a whole.

“By and large, these plans are doing quite well,” she says. “From what I’ve seen, they’re continuing to provide indexation, there haven’t been benefit reductions that I’m aware of and they’re being run by competent boards of trustees that understand their fiduciary roles vis-a-vis the plan beneficiaries.”

Overall, Steele supports the federal legislation. “I think target-benefit plans should be available as a design option. It does give employers another tool in the pension toolbox to select from,” she says.

Read: Which is better: DB, DC or a third way?


Copyright © 2020 Transcontinental Media G.P. Originally published on

Join us on Twitter

See all comments Recent Comments

Scott Aver:

This evolution can’t come soon enough if public service employees expect their retirement plans to be sustainable. Promises made 40 years ago cannot possibly continue in today’s investment environment. Additionally, the tax payer expects the government to be prudent with their spending.

Monday, November 21 at 1:53 pm | Reply

Sylvie Leduc:

Either defined or target benefits pension plans need to rest on common data standards feeding into the development of cutting edge, solid and transparent technology to ensure the sustainability of both types of plans for current and future generations around the globe with the ultimate goal of reducing income inequalities and strengthening our economies. This step is commendable; yet it does not address non-federally legislated plans sponsors and members. We need to be consistent here folks for all Canadians

Tuesday, November 22 at 3:32 pm | 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
Cancel Reply