The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50810
result in "rearranging the deck chairs in the bureaucracy," Nachshen argues. "I sort of say [that] even if there is merit to these things, the amount of time and energy that would have to be devoted to creating the perfect bureaucratic structure for the regulation of pensions in Ontario is so disproportionate to the amount of atten- tion I think we can realistically expect. . . . If you have the perfect bureaucracy, but no one wants to operate a pension plan here, then what's the point?" Arthurs, however, says it was precisely his goal to reverse the decline of pension coverage through defined-benefit plans in Ontario, an issue highlighted in recent years by the troubles faced by companies like Air Canada. Innovation, for example, was a key theme as Arthurs outlined a proposal to encourage so-called target- benefit pension plans in which the ulti- mate payout an employer would have to make depends on the performance of the scheme's investments. As a result, partici- pating businesses would get some relief from strict defined-benefit obligations while employees would get greater pro- tection than most defined-contribution plans provide. The proviso is that such plans, while already common in sectors that group together several employers, would require joint governance with employees if applied to single entities. In that way, workers would get meaningful input into what happens with their pen- sions. At the same time, Arthurs dismisses criticisms that his proposals for chang- ing who regulates pensions in Ontario would amount to bureaucratic tinker- ing. Establishing what he calls an Ontar- io pension agency to manage stranded pensions, for example, wouldn't neces- sarily require a new government body. "We are not talking about a bureaucracy necessarily at all because the proposal says that it can be put out to tender. Ob- viously, the government could run it, but it's not dependent on the government running it," he says. "Secondly, I think there are significant savings, and I think most employers will acknowledge this, in not having to tend to these stranded pensions. They wouldn't have to chase people, so there are savings involved." In the west, meanwhile, some of what the six panellists recommended echoed Arthurs' proposals, including the idea of a pension champion or advocate. The western report departed, however, from Ontario's in its consideration of defined- contribution plans. At the same time, Brown, Sweatman, and their colleagues specifically rejected the notion of a pen- sion guarantee fund, a clear departure from Arthurs' recommendation that Ontario boost the protection limit from $1,000 to $2,500. "Honestly, there's been no appetite at all for that in this jurisdiction," says Sweatman. "I guess the panel's view was that you're really creating another level of cost for all plan sponsors, and cost of running plans is a real obstacle to some employers. . . . We're not certain it actually provides any significant guarantee be- cause what you're really doing, the cynical person might say, is providing insurance A balanced approach recognizes that learning is a two-way street. The most productive relationships are born of mutual understanding. That's why we're as committed to learning about a client's business as we are to helping clients understand the intricacies of labour law. Toronto 416.408.3221 I London 519.433.7270 I filion.on.ca www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com FEBRU AR Y 2009 43 lion_CL_Feb_09.indd 1 1/20/09 3:48:02 PM