Back to Article:

Will PRPPs close the pension gap?

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

harold gilroy:

re prpps the comment about the govt not being able to cover all pension needs begs question on how it is that plolitians @govt pensions appear to be silver lined if not gold.

Thursday, December 08 at 10:18 pm | Reply


Again we wish to make a point by stretching the examples.

Few plans provide a 2% per year benefit, even the rich public sector plans do not, so this individual would likely get a benefit at 65 of not $2,000 but $1,300. Sill more than your other individual but then maybe take 2.5 times the contribution and the other individuals pension amounts to $900 and the employer contributed $0. And I am not sure of the interest assumtion you used. Add an extra 1% return and the benefits get pretty close although no indexing for the individual.

Now the question is would employers join in and contribute, well for those who have DC plans, the answer is yes if the plan does not charge payroll taxes as it will be less expensive to operate. Maybe the reduction in cost may be added to the employer contirbutions.

And who knows, maybe many small employers , who some may say are the future may now be able to jump in and contribute.

Of course, since we wish to give no one any choice, we want to legislate what we think is better for all.

Friday, December 09 at 8:35 am | Reply

Jean-Pierre Laporte:

The irony is that the Govt insists on calling PRPPs a new form of ‘pension plan’. Pensions are mandatory. Employers must contribute. And if of the DB variety, the payments are predictable, often indexed for life. As far as I can tell, PRPPs do not meet a single of these criteria. Let’s be frank, the PRPP is an attempt to avoid expanding the Canada Pension Plan, not a genuine attempt to close the pension gap.

Friday, December 09 at 11:04 am | Reply


The public-private diidve will never be broken down until the public sector and private sector have the same pensions provisions available to them .Only when everyone is in the same boat will there be any chance for decent pensions for all .All pensions should be fully funded and the recipient should bear the majority of the risk of shortfall , not someone else . I just don’t see how that is possible with any defined benefits system .What is being put forward by John Hutton is a stop gap .

Friday, July 20 at 2:19 am

J.-P. Morency:

I would agree with M. Laporte’s comments. Furthermore, I would add that the Govt want to please the private financial institutions since they will manage ‘IT’ and then increase their earnings. Silmilarly, I would say that it is some form of disguise taxes as the writer put it.
Finally, I doubt very much that the employers would join the bandwagon since they were, through their national representatives, against the extension of the CPP in which they must contribute.
As far as I am concerned this is a new fancy scheme to save the ‘façade’ and not to help the workers…

Sunday, December 11 at 12:09 pm | Reply

Join us on Twitter