Ontario Municipal Employees' Retirement System Submission
OMERS response to A Fine Balance, the report of the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions
Turning Recommendations into Actions
the time for moving ahead is now
February 2009
Contents
- Introduction
OMERS in Context
OMERS Response to the Commission’s Report
The Scope of the OMERS Response - Turning Recommendations into Actions
The Time for Moving Ahead is Now
2.1 Exempting Public Sector Jointly-Sponsored Pension Plans from the Quantitative Restrictions on Pension Fund Investing
2.2 Exempting Public Sector Jointly-Sponsored Pension Plans from the Solvency Funding Requirement
2.3 Enhancing the Regulatory Relationship by Moving to a More Consultative Model and Providing the Regulator with Additional Tools and Resources
2.4 Amending the Pension Benefits Act to consist of the Fundamental Principles Applicable to all Pension Plans in Ontario
2.5 Supporting Consolidation - Summary – OMERS Proposed Actions...
- Appendices
Appendix A- Asset Transfers/Divestment
- Division of Pensions on Marriage Breakdown
- Changes to Support Phased-in Retirement
- Removing Barriers to Flexible Plan Design
Appendix C
1. Introduction
OMERS in Context
OMERS has one clear and overriding goal: To secure and deliver the pension promise to all members and beneficiaries of the OMERS pension plans.
OMERS Primary Plan is:
A jointly-sponsored pension plan (JSPP) with a long tradition of strong employer/member governance;
A large multi-employer defined benefit plan with a highly diversified membership of more than 900 employers and 390,000 members; and
A large pension fund investor pursuing a global investment mandate. OMERS is one of the top-performing pension funds in Canada.
As perhaps Canada’s leading example of a successful multi-employer defined benefit plan, OMERS has been cited by the former Governor of the Bank of Canada as a plan that effectively pools risks among a large number of plan sponsors1. OMERS Administration Corporation was also recently recognized as one of the top contenders for the 2009 National Awards in Governance by The Conference Board of Canada. In addition, the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions (the Commission) has recognized OMERS as a “useful precedent” which could serve as a practical template for multi-employer defined benefit plans.
OMERS Response to the Commission’s Report
OMERS welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report of the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions (the Commission), led by Harry Arthurs. The Commission wrestled with some very complex issues and we applaud their efforts. We also congratulate Premier McGuinty’s government for recognizing the need for reform and for setting up the Commission and allowing it to do its work.
Our response, outlined in this document, represents the views of two statutory corporations: the OMERS Sponsors Corporation responsible for plan design, benefits and contribution rates; and the OMERS Administration Corporation responsible for investments, plan administration and services to plan participants. Employers and plan members are represented equally on the boards of both corporations.
The Commission’s report represents a positive, and long awaited, first step in the crucial task of reforming the current pension system in Ontario.
It is critical that this initiative not lose momentum. This will require a phased implementation approach with the Ontario government moving quickly to prioritize and execute the first phase of pension reform. We have highlighted stand-alone recommendations where action can and should be taken immediately.
We look forward to working with the Ontario government as it considers and addresses the report’s findings and recommendations, and we are ready to assist with this important initiative.
The Scope of the OMERS Response
Our commentary in this document refers only to recommendations contained in the report of the Expert Commission on Pensions. We have not conducted a full review of the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) and regulations. Due to the broad scope of the Commission’s report, and in the interests of ensuring timely implementation of the Commission’s key recommendations, we have focused this response on five key priorities.
Immediate Priorities
1 Exempting Public Sector Jointly-Sponsored Pension Plans from the Quantitative Restrictions on Pension Fund Investing
2 Exempting Public Sector Jointly-Sponsored Pension Plans from the Solvency Funding Requirement
Other Priorities
3 Enhancing the Regulatory Relationship by Moving to a More Consultative Model and Providing the Regulator with Additional Tools and Resources
4 Amending the Pension Benefits Act to Consist of the Fundamental Principles Applicable to all Pension Plans in Ontario
5 Supporting Consolidation
We provided details on these priorities in our original submission to the Commission in October, 2007 – Closing the Gap between pension regulation and best practices.
In section 2 of this document, we have commented under the following headings:
- OMERS Submission to Expert Commission – provides an overview of OMERS original submission to the Expert Commission on Pensions and expands on this submission;
- Expert Commission Recommendations – highlights the corresponding recommendations from the Expert Commission report;
- OMERS Response – responds to the Expert Commission recommendations; and
- OMERS Proposed Action – details the key actions that are needed.
Throughout our response, it will become clear that there is an opportunity for positive change. Ontario’s current pension law is no longer adequate, given the complexities of pension and investment management in today’s environment. Our fifth priority will explore different ways to consolidate the pension landscape to achieve economies of scale, so that we can collectively evolve and keep pace with the fast changing world of pensions.
We have included additional specific responses and comments in our three appendices. These address a number of technical issues, as well as the Expert Advisors’ Consensus Recommendations. The Expert Advisors identified a number of very important technical recommendations, such as providing pension plans with access to the provincial government death registry, to enhance the efficiency of plan administration.
2. Turning Recommendations into Actions
The Time for Moving Ahead is Now
The Commission acknowledges that drafting new legislation is likely to take a long time, especially if it is to be done well, and that extensive consultation will be necessary when creating a new structure to alter the dynamics of Ontario’s pension system. Harry Arthurs points out, “All of this could amount to a prescription for delay. However, in my view, delay must be avoided if at all possible. The time for moving ahead is now.” OMERS agrees that delay must be avoided – immediate action is needed to strengthen and protect the viability of Ontario’s pension system.
It is in this spirit that we present our feedback under the five headings that follow. As part of each section, we have cited actions which OMERS strongly believes must be taken immediately. At the end of this document is a summary of the key action items.
2.1 Exempting Public Sector Jointly-Sponsored Pension Plans from the Quantitative Restrictions on Pension Fund Investing
OMERS Submission to Expert Commission
In our submission to the Commission in October, 2007, OMERS recommended:
That the Pension Benefits Act exempt public sector jointly-sponsored pension plans from the quantitative restrictions in Schedule III of the Pension Benefits Standards Act (Canada) regulations.”
The quantitative restrictions (the “Quantitative Investment Restrictions”) in Schedule III of the Federal Investment Regulations:
- Limit investments in a single entity (the 10% Rule);
- Limit investment in real estate and Canadian resource properties (the 5%, 15% and 25% Rules); and
- Limit the exercise of corporate voting rights (the 30% Rule).
The Canadian pension industry has repeatedly asked that Quantitative Investment Restrictions be replaced by the “prudent person” principle. In 2001, for example, the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities (CAPSA) consulted the industry on the Federal Investment Regulations. In their 2001 submissions, the Association of Canadian Pension Management (ACPM), representing 400 pension plans; the Pension Investment Association of Canada (PIAC), whose member funds are responsible for the oversight and management of over $910 billion in assets (based on 2007 data); the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, whose members administered about two-thirds of Canada’s pension plans; and the Investment Counsel Association of Canada, with 64 member firms managing institutional and individual client assets – all stated their preference to be regulated by prudential obligations rather than mathematics or formulas. So did third-party pension fund managers such as TD Asset Management, Barclays Global Investors, Sun Life Financial, Scotiabank and others.
This position was reinforced through pension industry submissions to the Commission. For example, the PIAC submission and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) submission both reinforced the need to remove quantitative restrictions on investing.
PIAC: “Hold pension investments to the standard of a prudent person and eliminate all quantitative limits on investing.”
OTPP: “The current investment rules in the PBA were designed with the ‘typical’ single-employer private sector pension plan in mind. They do not reflect the reality of the Ontario pension environment in which ‘super funds’ with sophisticated investment operations and capabilities, such as Teachers’ and OMERS, have created the need for large placement in the capital markets. In our view, the prudent investment test would provide a more appropriate and tailored regulatory standard without the existing qualitative and quantitative restrictions that simply limit, and inflate the cost of, appropriate investment opportunities.”
Pension plans in Alberta and British Columbia have also recognized the problems created by the Quantitative Investment Restrictions. In its report Getting our Acts Together, the Joint Expert Panel on Pension Standards in Alberta and British Columbia recommends (Recommendation 7.2-A) that “Alberta and British Columbia investment standards should be “uncoupled” from the federal Schedule III, to remove quantitative restrictions on investment and increase reliance on the prudent investor principle.” Both of these provinces have recognized the need to remove Quantitative Investment Restrictions in order “to ensure that appropriate investment strategies and decisions are being made.”
The Quantitative Investment Restrictions are cumbersome to comply with, difficult to interpret and are not reflective of the market exposure of the funds. These restrictions are viewed as an impediment to maximizing risk-adjusted investment returns for tomorrow’s growing population of pensioners. They fail to recognize the enormous progress pension funds have made since the Federal Regulations were written in 1985, especially the advances in investment and risk management processes. Specifically, the 10% Rule and the 5, 15 and 25% Rules were put in place to prevent over-concentration in real estate/resource investments and other investments. Pension plans have implemented rigorous techniques to prevent excessively risky concentration in any industry, sector or geographic region. These techniques allow pension plans to address the question of concentration more effectively than through quantitative limits.
An independent academic study2 commissioned by OMERS suggests that Canadian pension funds could have earned 30 to 90 basis points (bps) more in investment returns if they had been able to invest on a prudential standard, similar to U.K. and U.S. pension funds that do not have Quantitative Investment Restrictions. By applying the 30 to 90 bps of potential returns to the $250 billion in assets under management for the 12 largest Ontario-only registered pension plans3, it is possible to infer that the Quantitative Investment Restrictions deny Ontario workers potential pension investment returns of $700 million to $2 billion a year.
Expert Commission Recommendations
In its report, the Commission indicates that it is in favour of removing the Quantitative Investment Restrictions on pension fund investing, with the following two recommendations addressing this issue:
Expert Commission Recommendation 4-25:
The Ontario government should endeavour to persuade the federal government to reform the federal investment rules and, in particular, to remove or amend particular quantitative restrictions that no longer make sense, such as those involving prohibitions on Canadian, but not foreign, investments. However, if the federal government does not do so within a reasonable time frame, the Ontario government should cease to rely on the federal regulations and establish its own investment rules, tracking the federal rules only to the extent that doing so is deemed good public policy in Ontario.
Expert Commission Recommendation 8-8:
Any plan with some recognized form of joint governance and with the requisite capacity to make complex investment decisions (as defined by regulations) should be allowed to adopt a resolution claiming an exemption from the 30% investment rule. The resolution should be filed with the pension regulator and have effect upon filing, unless and until it is successfully challenged.
OMERS Response
Like OMERS, the Commission recommends changes to investment rules that currently favour foreign over domestic investments, or impedes a plan’s ability to generate excess returns from active investing. However, the Expert Commission's recommendations do not go far enough4. The Ontario government should not wait for the federal government; it should move immediately to remove the Quantitative Investment Restrictions and rely on the existing prudential standards.
We also believe that the additional requirements introduced in Recommendation 8.8 regarding the 30% Rule recommendation are unnecessary, as there are already safeguards in place under the PBA as we have indicated under OMERS Proposed Actions.
OMERS Proposed Action #1
Immediate action is needed. This is a standalone recommendation which supports the Ontario government’s commitment to introduce legislation to address the serious challenges that pension plans face. It is also supported by other Canadian jurisdictions.
The ideal solution is for Ontario to move quickly to exercise its power to exempt all Ontario registered pension plans from the Quantitative Investment Restrictions in the Federal Investment Regulations. Adding a new section 47.5 to Pension Benefits Act (PBA) Regulation 909 would accomplish this – suggested wording is shown below:
- s.47.5 Despite sections 78 and 79 of this Regulation, sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Schedule III to the Pension Benefits Standards Regulations, 1985 made under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 (Canada) as it read on December 31, 1999 do not apply after [insert date].
Alternatively, public sector jointly-sponsored pension plans should be exempted from the Quantitative Investment Restrictions. Suggested wording is shown below:
- s.47.5 Despite sections 78 and 79 of this Regulation, sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Schedule III to the Pension Benefits Standards Regulations, 1985 made under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 (Canada) as it read on December 31, 1999 do not apply to public sector jointly-sponsored pension plans (JSPPs).
A new definition for “public sector” would also have to be included in the PBA or Regulation.
If the Quantitative Investment Restrictions in the Federal Investment Regulations were removed in Ontario, existing comprehensive and proven regulations would continue to provide sufficient oversight – specifically:
- The PBA requires pension plan administrators to exercise the care, diligence and skill that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in dealing with the property of another – PBA s.22(1);
- The PBA requires a plan administrator to use all relevant knowledge and skill that the administrator possesses, or by reason of the administrator’s profession, business or calling ought to possess, when investing plan assets – PBA s. 22(2);
- All employees and agents of plan administrators are directly subject to the fiduciary standard and duty of care – PBA s.22(8);
- The PBA requires pension plans to establish and file with their actuary written statements of investment policies and procedures in respect of their investments and loans, having regard to all factors that may affect the funding and solvency of the plan and the ability of the plan to meet its financial obligations – PBA Regulation 909 s.78, and Pension Benefits Standards Regulation s.7.2(2);
- Pension plans must file funding valuations at least triennially – PBA Regulation 909 s. 14(1).
- Pension plans must file financial information including audited financial statements and regulatory reports.
The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) – or a new public agency, as outlined in the Commission’s Report – would continue to provide regulatory oversight.
2.2 Exempting Public Sector Jointly-Sponsored Pension Plans from the Solvency Funding Requirement
OMERS Submission to Expert Commission
In our submission to the Commission in October, 2007, OMERS recommended:
That the Pension Benefits Act exempt public sector jointly-sponsored pension plans from the solvency funding requirements.”
In making this recommendation, OMERS was seeking an exemption of its Primary Plan from the solvency funding requirements. OMERS is a durable plan, a fact recognized in its exemption from the Pension Benefits Act's (PBA’s) Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund provisions. The Supplemental Plan introduced for police, firefighters and paramedics was exempted in 2007. A legislated exemption would alleviate the potential unnecessary burden of additional contributions, caused by a solvency deficiency, on OMERS stakeholders and ultimately, taxpayers. These additional contributions often serve to increase a plan surplus once markets rebound or interest rates rise.
The efficacy of the solvency valuation is reduced for jointly-sponsored pension plans (JSPPs), where the negative consequences far outweigh any potential benefit. The JSPP rules in the PBA Regulation specifically contemplate the possibility of benefit reductions on wind-up of a jointly-sponsored pension plan. The theory behind these rules is that employers and members should decide jointly the level of funding appropriate in light of plan liabilities and other relevant factors, and the consequences if such funding proves insufficient to fund accrued benefits in the event of a wind-up. Solvency funding is unnecessary for clear risk-sharing governance structures, such as those of JSPPs, where members have equal input into decisions around funding, investment and benefit design. Sponsors should have the ability to design a plan in which employers and members decide to share in the benefits of lower contribution rates or more generous benefits, on the understanding that benefits will be reduced in the event of wind-up in an insolvency situation.
The recommendation for exemption from the solvency funding requirement for public sector jointly-sponsored pension plans appeared in a number of pension industry submissions. For example, the Pension Investment Association of Canada (PIAC) submission recommended that the government, “Exempt all public sector plans from solvency funding requirements due to their low probability of default.” Similarly, the Association of Canadian Pension Management (ACPM) submission and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) submission both supported solvency exemption for public sector jointly-sponsored pension plans.
Expert Commission Recommendations
The Commission’s report contains two recommendations that relate to the funding requirements for jointly-sponsored pension plans (JSPPs):
Expert Commission Recommendation 4-11:
Jointly sponsored pension plans should be required to fund only according to going concern valuations on the same basis as Specified Ontario multi-employer pension plans, but should continue to provide solvency valuations for the information of the regulator as well as their active and retired members. The comprehensive legislation and regulations governing the funding of multi-employer pension plans, to be developed pursuant to Recommendation 4-9, should apply, perhaps with appropriate modifications, to jointly sponsored pension plans.
Expert Commission Recommendation 4-9:
Following consultation with Ontario’s multi-employer pension plans, special legislation and regulations should be developed relating to all aspects of their funding, regulation and governance. The basis for such legislation and regulations should be the Specified Ontario multi-employer pension plan regulation of 2007. After five years, the practical effects of these arrangements should be assessed.
OMERS Response
We are pleased to see that the Commission (Expert Commission Recommendation 4-11) has endorsed OMERS recommendation regarding solvency funding exemption for JSPPs. As the OMERS Pension Plans are subject to joint governance, plan participants are already aware that benefits could be reduced in the event of a plan wind-up, and there is therefore no requirement for additional protection. In addition, OMERS, as a public sector pension plan, is not likely to wind-up.
As an offset to the exemption from solvency funding, the Commission is recommending (Expert Commission Recommendation 4-9) a reduction in the amortization period for going concern valuations – from 15 years to the 12-year period which is the requirement for Specified Ontario Multi-employer Pension Plans (SOMEPPs). There are two key distinctions between JSPPs and SOMEPPs which make the reduction in the amortization period unnecessary for JSPPs:
i) JSPPs can respond more quickly to funding issues as the member and employer contributions reflect the funded position whereas employer contributions are fixed by definition for SOMEPPs making their process for changing contributions slower; and
ii) the likelihood of wind-up is very low for JSPPs like OMERS (and in practical terms may be non-existent). OMERS believes that a more rigorous going concern amortization period is not required for public sector pension plans like OMERS.
A move to a 12-year amortization period would impact the funding requirements of large plans – it could increase OMERS deficit funding requirement by approximately 15% to 20% in times of a going concern deficit. For example, to fund a $1 billion deficit, annual special payments would have to increase from approximately $105 million under the 15-year amortization to $120 million under the 12-year amortization. Taking all of the above into account, OMERS is requesting that the government retain the current 15-year amortization period for going concern valuations.
OMERS Proposed Action #2
Immediate action is needed to exempt public sector jointly-sponsored pension plans from solvency funding requirements. This is a stand-alone recommendation which should be implemented as part of the first phase of pension reform. Adding a new section 47.6 (after the new 47.5 recommended in section 2.1) to PBA Regulation 909 would accomplish this – suggested wording is shown below:
47.6 The employers who are required to make contributions under a public sector jointly-sponsored pension plan and the members of the pension plan are exempt from the requirement to make contributions under clause 4(2)(a) with respect to any solvency deficiency under the plan and from the requirement to make special payments under clauses 4(2)(c) and 4(2.4)(b) with respect to any solvency deficiency under the plan.
2.3 Enhancing the Regulatory Relationship by Moving to a More Consultative Model and Providing the Regulator with Additional Tools and Resources
OMERS Submission to Expert Commission
In our submission to the Commission in October, 2007, OMERS recommended:
That (i) the Financial Services Commission Act and the Pension Benefits Act be amended to provide for rule-making authority for FSCO on pension matters, enhance the jurisdiction of the Tribunal with respect to pension matters, and provide it with an appropriate exclusivity to protect its jurisdiction; and (ii) the pension office within FSCO be provided with appropriate resources by supplementing the current industry levies with additional powers to charge pension funds an appropriate and fair fee for the services that the regulator is providing.”
While acknowledging the independence of the regulator, OMERS is strongly in favour of enhancing the regulatory relationship, clarity and ongoing dialogue. Industry consultation, and respect for the role of administrators in managing their affairs, would help close the gap that has opened up between a regulatory regime created in 1986 and the practices of large pension funds like OMERS in an era of complex and sophisticated investing.
Expert Commission Recommendations
The Commission’s report contains many recommendations that promote enhancements to the regulatory relationship, pave the way for a more consultative model and would provide the regulator with additional tools and resources.
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-9:
The pension regulator should issue policy statements indicating how it views and intends to process all standard pension transactions. Before doing so, it should give notice of its intention to issue such statements, and provide stakeholders with an opportunity to submit comments. After doing so, while not bound by such statements, the regulator should depart from them only for good reason and, preferably, by way of an amending statement rather than in the context of a particular proceeding.
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-10:
The pension regulator should have power to provide opinion letters and advance rulings in connection with proposed or pending transactions. The regulator should feel free to disregard such letters or rulings in subsequent proceedings if the applicant has not made full disclosure of relevant facts; if they adversely affect other parties who have not had a prior opportunity to be heard; or if they contravene legal rules or regulatory policies that were not in force when the letter or ruling was issued.
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-18:
An independent pension regulator – the Ontario Pension Regulator – should be established with budgetary, staffing and other powers of self-management comparable to those of the Ontario Securities Commission.
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-24:
The pension regulator should facilitate the introduction of a program of enhanced risk-based regulation by consulting closely with stakeholder groups concerning the collection and analysis of standard data on which risk assessment can be based, and it should subject its own risk-assessment systems to rigorous self-evaluation and to critical comment by stakeholders.
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-25:
The new Ontario Pension Regulator should have power to make rules in order to define and lend greater specificity and clarity to its governing statute and regulations. It should exercise this power only after giving stakeholders notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, proposed rules. Rules adopted pursuant to the use of this power should have the force of law so long as they are made in accordance with the statute and regulations and do not purport to contradict or derogate from them.
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-26:
The pension jurisdiction of the Financial Services Tribunal should be transferred to a new Pension Tribunal of Ontario. The Tribunal should have power to hear and decide specified matters at first instance, and to hear and decide all appeals from orders made by the Superintendent.
Enhancing the regulatory relationship by moving to a more consultative model and providing the regulator with additional tools and resources
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-29:
The Pension Tribunal of Ontario ought to have all powers necessary to dispose of matters before it.
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-30:
The Pension Tribunal of Ontario should exercise exclusive and ultimate jurisdiction over all matters arising out of or incidental to the interpretation of the Pension Benefits Act (PBA). Decisions of the Tribunal should be final and binding, subject to appeal to the Divisional Court only if they involve a denial of natural justice, a misinterpretation of the applicable law so serious as to amount to jurisdictional error, or a violation of the constitutional rights of a party.
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-31:
The Tribunal should have plenary power, upon enforcing or hearing an appeal from any order made by the Superintendent, to make any order required to secure compliance with the PBA, including but without limiting its general power, the power to:
- require the doing of any act required by the statute and the cessation of any act forbidden by it;
- order the payment of contributions, benefits or premiums wrongly withheld, together with interest thereon;
- require the disclosure of information and the provision of documents to the regulator, active and retired plan members, unions and representative organizations and others entitled to such information or documents; and
- impose administrative fines for non-compliance with the Pension Benefits Act.
Any order of the Tribunal may be registered in the Ontario Court of Justice and enforced as an order of that Court.
Expert Commission Recommendation 10-5:
Ontario should identify an agency or unit of government as its Pension Champion with responsibility for conducting research into the pension system, for working closely with the stakeholders and the proposed Pension Community Advisory Council, for promoting and facilitating innovation in the pension system and for leading policy development efforts in the pension field.
The Commission’s report also recommends the establishment of a Pension Community Advisory Council (PCAC).
Expert Commission Recommendation 10-2:
A Pension Community Advisory Council should be formed comprising representatives of all significant stakeholder groups together with other interested parties such as professionals, service providers, academic researchers and business and social advocacy groups. It should be provided with access to data and interpretative studies on Ontario’s pension system, invited to advise on significant policy initiatives, and used as a forum to promote an informed and ongoing exchange of views on pension issues.
OMERS Response
OMERS strongly supports the Commission’s recommendations which set the scene for greater dialogue, clarity and equity. This includes recommendations that strengthen the power of the pension regulator and create a new Pension Tribunal of Ontario. OMERS believes that the Commission’s recommendation to establish a PCAC recognizes the need for broad input into the evolving pension landscape in Ontario. A body of this nature would address the need to understand a diverse range of stakeholder perspectives. However, if the PCAC’s mandate is for its representative stakeholder groups to reach consensus, OMERS is concerned that the sheer size of this body of representatives could cause a bottleneck that would hinder, rather than facilitate, progress. It may be very challenging to obtain consensus on issues where stakeholder opinions are diametrically opposed.
OMERS would like to see a clear articulation of the PCAC’s objectives, and be consulted on the development of this role, to ensure that it is a meaningful and effective mechanism that brings a true benefit to the pension community. We would like to more clearly understand the PCAC’s purpose, frequency of meetings and associated expenses.
While we believe strongly in consultation, we would recommend that the PCAC not be formed until the other recommended regulatory bodies are in place. This step-by-step approach would make for a more effective mandate for the PCAC and a stronger relationship with the other regulatory bodies mentioned above.
OMERS Proposed Action #3
The government should move quickly to put in place the Pension Champion and the Ontario Pension Regulator. These officials must then be charged with ensuring that an effective structure is implemented and that the reform process continues to move forward as rapidly as possible.
2.4 Amending the Pension Benefits Act to Consist of the Fundamental Principles Applicable to all Pension Plans in Ontario
OMERS Submission to Expert Commission
In our submission to the Commission in October, 2007, OMERS recommended:
That the Pension Benefits Act be amended to consist of the fundamental principles applicable to all pension plans in Ontario, such as the fiduciary duties and obligations of plan administrators, a ‘prudent person’ test for investment of pension funds, a broad purpose clause, the powers of the regulator, wind-up provisions, offence provisions and adequate minimum standards for plan design (eligibility for membership, vesting and locking in, portability and transfer options, and member communication).”
As we outlined in our submission to the Commission, Ontario’s pension law should be flexible, so that legislative change evolves more naturally over time in step with best industry practices. This can be achieved by shifting as much as possible to a principles-based approach from the current excessive use of rules particularly the Quantitative Investment Restrictions. In making such a change, it is essential that legislation fully preserve the pension rights of plan members. The pools of capital held by Canada’s pension funds are critical to the security of the population’s retirement income.
Governments have been increasingly interested in principles-based legislation, such as that recently adopted by the U.K. Pension Regulator, as an alternative to the traditional approach to regulation whereby a myriad of detailed rules are designed to prescribe regulated behaviour. It has been held out as a vehicle for simplifying legislation, improving consumer protection and reducing the number of detailed regulations that impose restrictive and often counterproductive limits on pension plans.
In their recent report, Getting Our Acts Together, the Alberta and British Columbia’s Joint Expert Panel on Pension Standards indicates that, “Strength and flexibility can best be achieved by articulating broad principles in legislation, backed up where necessary by specific rules.” Their report goes on to state, “One of the most important features of a successful principles-based model is the involvement of those that are regulated in the development of principles and their interpretation.
For example, this has been demonstrated in the development of the governance principles contained in Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities, CAPSA’s No. 4: Pension Plan Governance Guidelines, which are the product of intensive consultation with, and are generally accepted by, the pension industry.”
Expert Commission Recommendations
The Commission’s report recommends drafting revisions to the Pension Benefits Act (PBA), encompassing both rules-based and principles-based approaches:
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-2:
A s a medium-term project, the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) and regulations should be re-drafted so as to clearly articulate both (a) general principles applicable to all types of pension plans, and (b) comprehensive codes applicable to specific plan types.
Expert Commission Recommendation 7-3:
Revisions to the Pension Benefits Act should be drafted to provide both rules-based and principles-based approaches, as appropriate. In particular, minimum standards with respect to benefits should generally be rules-based; some aspects of investment, plan governance and innovation are more appropriately regulated by a principles-based approach; and funding requirements should likely involve a mixture of the two.
Expert Commission Recommendation 10-3:
The Pension Benefits Act and regulations should be drafted in such a way that changes can be made with all deliberate speed to facilitate the introduction of new types of pension plans, to enable rapid regulatory responses to significant changes in the social and economic environment, and to safeguard the interests of sponsors and plan members. Significant changes in pension law should be accomplished through regulation-making. Except in emergencies, the process of regulation-making should provide for timely notice to and comment by stakeholders and other interested parties, and for advice by the proposed Pension Community Advisory Council.
OMERS Response
OMERS is encouraged to see from the report that the Commission is recommending a degree of movement away from an overly restrictive quantitative, rules-based approach towards a principles-based, “prudent person/prudent investor” model. The changes to regulator powers outlined in the Commission’s report set the stage for this principles-based approach. Page 129 of the report, which speaks about rules and principles in pension regulation, reads, “…the precise balance struck between rules and principles will heavily influence the optimal design, powers and staffing requirements of the pension regulator. Whatever balance is struck, it should be one that facilitates a guiding principle of this report: that of open, fair, effective and adaptable regulation.”
OMERS recommended approach is to use principles where possible (e.g., “prudent person” principle rather than quantitative investment rules), and rules where necessary (e.g., where there is an impact on members’ benefits such as locking-in and minimum reporting requirements).
OMERS Proposed Action #4
Immediate changes should be made to adopt the “prudent person” test for investments, and to abolish the Quantitative Restrictions (discussed in 2.1).
Following the removal of the quantitative restrictions for investments, a full review of the PBA should be undertaken with changes introduced in phases. The recommended approach for redrafting is to employ principles, wherever possible, supported by detailed rules where necessary.
For change to be successful, the Ontario Pension Regulator must involve the regulated bodies in the development of principles and their interpretation. OMERS welcomes the opportunity to work with the government on this important initiative.
2.5 Supporting Consolidation
OMERS Submission to Expert Commission
In our submission to the Commission, we noted that OMERS experience supports the Commission’s notion of encouraging the consolidation of smaller pension plans, either with compatible large partners, or by pooling their resources with similar-sized funds. We also highlighted that other pension funds could benefit from having funds like OMERS, with its investment expertise, assume responsibility for investing their pension assets. In particular, smaller funds could benefit from asset diversification, risk management, enhanced returns and economies of scale not currently available to them.
Supporting consolidation
Expert Commission Recommendations
The Commission’s report recognizes the appeal of the Multi-employer Pension Plan (MEPP) model, and stresses the value added by plans serving larger numbers of employees rather than fewer. It recommends that steps be taken to encourage cooperation among existing smaller plans.
Harry Arthurs states, “In general, I have preferred solutions that favour more plan members over those that favour fewer, solutions that enhance long-term system stability over those that produce occasional advantages for one party or the other, and those that make for clarity over those that contribute to ambiguity and uncertainty.” (p.56)
When speaking about promoting larger plans, he points out,
“… spreading certain risks across large populations results in more predictable outcomes and less volatility. Examples of these variables include life expectancy and age at retirement. This size advantage is compounded along almost every vector of plan success. For example, large plans pay far lower fees on their investments than small ones...” (p.183, 9.3)
Arthurs goes on to say, “…lower investment fees are but one of the many advantages enjoyed by large plans over smaller ones and over individual savers. In terms of income generation, large plans are in a position to hire expert staff to initiate and execute their investment strategies, to make attractive private placements of their investment funds, and to spread the investment risk by acquiring a wider range of investment vehicles. In terms of administrative expense, large plans are able to reduce their unit costs of administration by spreading them across a large plan membership, and they are typically able to offer members enhanced levels of information, education and service.
Finally, large plans are more likely to survive than smaller ones, if only because the enterprises (or groups of enterprises) that sponsor them are likely to be more stable or resilient than those that sponsor small plans. The cumulative effect of all of these advantages is extremely significant. It is so significant, in fact, that plan size may be a greater determinant of a member’s pension than plan design.” (p.184)
In proposing a new strategy for Ontario’s occupational pensions system, the Commission’s report suggests, “…the government would have to allow Ontario’s existing large plans to amend their membership criteria and mandates…a fairly simple procedure should be established to make it possible for them to broaden the scope of their activities and the qualifications for plan membership, if they wish to do so. For example, large plans should be allowed to offer investment services to smaller plans and sell investment vehicles to individuals. Many of these plans, I believe, would welcome such an opportunity, as they are reaching a point of maturity past which their future net cash flows will shrink, and their ability to undertake new investments will be severely reduced. Without new members and new cash flow, their existing investment expertise will be under-utilized and, ultimately, difficult to sustain.” (p.186)
Supporting consolidation
We have grouped the Expert Commissions recommendations on consolidation and innovation under three categories:
1. Creating the Ontario Pension Agency (OPA)
Expert Commission Recommendation 5-2:
The Lieutenant Governor in Council should establish an Ontario Pension Agency to receive, pool, administer, invest and disburse stranded pensions in an efficient manner.
2. Creating New Benefit Plans
Expert Commission Recommendation 9-2
Pension policy and legislation ought to facilitate the growth and operation of large-scale pension plans or to enable and encourage cooperation among small- and medium-sized plans.
Expert Commission Recommendation 9-3
Legislation and regulations should be enacted to enable and promote large commingled target benefit plans that might provide affordable pension coverage to Ontarians who do not presently have pensions or for whom the costs of obtaining a pension are unnecessarily high.
3. Providing Enhanced Pension Coverage
Expert Commission Recommendation 9-4
The government of Ontario should investigate the advantages and disadvantages of expanding the mandate of the Canada Pension Plan, or creating a comparable provincial plan, so as to enhance pension coverage, control costs and improve benefit portability.
Expert Commission Recommendation 9-5
The government of Ontario should support the call for a national pension summit whose agenda should extend to all ideas for significantly expanding pension coverage, including the innovative proposals contained in this report.
OMERS Response
OMERS agrees strongly with the Commission’s position that, where the pension market is concerned, there is strength in numbers. Various forms of consolidation would enable the Ontario pension marketplace to achieve economies of scale that would make the plans more competitive and would benefit all plan participants. The OMERS model personifies economies of scale in plan administration and pension fund investing, and in attracting talented professionals on both sides of the business. And we see a number of ways for existing pension plans, as well as employees not currently covered by a pension plan, to benefit from OMERS model through consolidation, including:
Consolidating Plan Management
OMERS experience supports the Commission’s notion of encouraging consolidation by pooling the resources and management of independent pension plans. This form of consolidation allows both parties to benefit from the added economies of scale, sharing in costs and the pooling of capital for investment purposes, while keeping separate governance structures intact. OMERS believes that many smaller plans can benefit from the kind of administration efficiency and investment expertise that is available from larger plans. Under the OMERS Act, 2006, OMERS has the authority to administer additional pension plans or pension funds on a third-party basis. OMERS currently provides third-party fund management to two other plans, Ryerson University and Transit Windsor.
Consolidating Membership
As a Multi-employer Pension Plan (MEPP), the OMERS Plan was created in 1962, in part through the merger of a number of existing municipal pension plans in Ontario. It was understood at that time that there were significant advantages for local governments and their employees across Ontario, to be gained by pooling pension plan activities under one pension plan. OMERS has continued to evolve and grow through consolidation as new groups have joined the plan over the years.
Supporting consolidation
Consolidation under one pension plan has reduced overall administration and investment management costs across the “system,” and has provided consistent, uninterrupted pension benefit coverage to employees who move from one participating employer to others throughout their careers. In its report, the Commission cites the OMERS Pension Plan as a useful model when combining MEPPs.
In addition, the Commission has made a number of broad recommendations to maintain and ultimately expand pension coverage, through various forms of consolidation.
1. Creating the Ontario Pension Agency (OPA)
By establishing an Ontario Pension Agency (OPA) (Expert Commission Recommendation 5-2) to receive, pool, administer, invest and disburse stranded pensions in an efficient manner (on plan wind-up or change of employment), the Commission provides a focus for those plan participants who have, until now, not had a strong voice representing them. During a breakfast session on November 21, 2008, hosted by the Commission, Harry Arthurs mentioned that there may be an opportunity for one of the large pension plans, for example OMERS or the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, to take a role in the ongoing administration and investment management of the OPA.
OMERS supports the concept of a central agency that would act as a data warehouse and provide a tracking function for information on stranded pensions. By pooling resources, and keeping agency costs low, the entire pension industry would benefit. It will be important to consider various models for containing agency costs, including outsourcing administration and investment management to one or more of the large pension funds. To this end, OMERS would be very receptive to exploring ways to share the benefits of our efficient operating model with the OPA.
OMERS believes that it should not be mandatory for pension plans to move stranded benefits to the OPA. While OMERS would not benefit from sending stranded benefits and their associated assets to the OPA , we do see the benefits of sharing data with the OPA , so that there would be one central spot for former pension plan members, including former OMERS members, to locate their stranded benefits.
2. Creating New Benefit Plans
OMERS welcomes the Commission’s recommendations (Expert Commission Recommendations 9-2 and 9-3) to explore new ways to offer pension coverage to Ontarians who do not now have pension coverage, or where their coverage is costly.
In exploring the options, full consideration should be given to pooling administration and investment activities with one of the large public sector pension plans like OMERS, in order to maximize the opportunity to enhance benefit coverage and stability for any new plans established.
3. Providing Enhanced Pension Coverage
OMERS supports the Commission’s recommendation (Expert Commission Recommendation 9-4) to explore expanding the mandate of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) or create a comparable provincial plan to enhance pension coverage, control costs and improve benefit portability; however, participation should be voluntary. Once again, any new model considered should fully embrace the benefits of consolidation. For example, an expanded CPP could leverage from the existing administration and investment management activities that CPP already has in place. If a new provincial plan was established in Ontario, full consideration should be given to outsourcing pension administration and investment management activities to one or more of the large public sector plans.
Supporting consolidation
OMERS fully supports the need to maintain the momentum in pension reform triggered by the Commission’s report. Now more than ever, Canadians are looking for leadership to pave the way for their financial security in retirement. A national pension summit (Expert Commission Recommendation 9-5) would send a positive message that the issues are being addressed and that decision-makers are looking for answers. However, while dialogue is important, the real need is for action. The scheduling of a pension summit should not cause the government to delay making changes to the pension landscape.
OMERS Proposed Action #5
Immediate steps should be taken to implement the Commission’s recommendations that support consolidation across the industry. Consolidation can bring significant and widespread benefits to Ontario’s pension system. And the current economic climate dictates the need to pave the way now for a more flexible environment to allow smaller pension plans to remain sustainable – and larger plans to grow.
3. Summary – OMERS Proposed Actions...
Summary of OMERS recommendations in response to A Fine Balance, the report of the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions
Immediate Priority Actions
1 Exempt public sector jointly-sponsored pension plans from the Quantitative Investment Restrictions – by immediately amending the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) regulations.
2 Exempt public sector jointly-sponsored pension plans from the Solvency Funding Requirement – by immediately amending the PBA regulations.
Other Priority Actions
3 Make change happen by establishing an effective regulatory framework – starting by establishing the Pension Champion and the Ontario Pension Regulator to begin creating an effective structure for pension reform.
4 Adopt a principles-based approach wherever possible to drafting – starting with a principles-based “prudent person” approach for investment of pension funds.
5 Implement the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions’ recommendations supporting consolidation of the pension industry.
4. Appendices
Additional specific responses and comments
We have included additional specific responses and comments in our three appendices. These address a number of technical issues, as well as the Expert Advisors’ Consensus Recommendations. The Expert Advisors identified a number of very important recommendations, such as providing pension plans with access to the provincial government death registry, to enhance the efficiency of plan administration.
Overview: In our submission to the Commission in October 2007, OMERS made recommendations on four technical issues. In the following chart we restate our submission recommendation, highlight the corresponding recommendation(s) from the Commission and conclude with our response.
| Asset Transfers/Divestment | ||
|---|---|---|
| OMERS Submission | Expert Commission Recommendation(s) | OMERS Response |
| The regulations under the Pension Benefits Act be amended to permit the Superintendent to consent to a pension asset transfer between pension plans under subsections 80(5) and 81(5) of the Pension Benefits Act provided that: (i) affected members are provided with full disclosure; (ii) members and/or bargaining agents have the right to opt out of group asset transfers; and (iii) the value of benefits transferred on behalf of affected members is at least equal to the value of benefits under the exporting plan, calculated using consistent and appropriate actuarial assumptions, in accordance with a report prepared by an actuary. | Recommendation 5-4: When individual or group transfers from one plan to another are contemplated, the importing plan should provide a detailed statement of the benefits to be provided. Each transferee should be given four options:
If active plan members are represented by a union or similar organization, it may accept one option on behalf of all members, or allow each member to exercise one or more of the options provided. The value of benefits provided by an “importing” plan should be deemed to be “comparable” to those provided by an “exporting” plan for purposes of the default option, if (a) approved by the Superintendent as approximating the aggregate collective value of such benefits, notwithstanding differences in the nature, value or terms of individual benefits, or (b) agreed to by a union representing active plan members affected by the transfer. Recommendation 5-5: |
The Commission recognizes the importance of facilitating asset transfers from one plan to another. With the following modifications, we support the Commission’s recommendations.
Action: As the Commission pointed out, the present regulatory impediments to group transfers are inappropriate and should be changed. In addition, PBA changes should also allow retroactivity for members who are active as at the effective date of a transfer agreement. The government should move quickly to implement the changes to sections 80(5) and 81(5) of the PBA. |
Appendix B – Additional Comments on Specific Commission’s Recommendations
Overview: The chart below provides additional comments that have not been covered elsewhere in our document. There is limited detail in the recommendations, so it will be important for the government to solicit further input before drafting the legislation.
| Workforce Mobility | |
|---|---|
| Expert Commission Recommendation(s) | OMERS Response |
| Recommendation 5-3: Sponsors should be required to develop a standard policy for dealing with newly hired employees who seek pension credit for service during employment with a previous employer. The policy should state whether such credit will be given and, if so, on what terms, and should be made available to all such employees. |
OMERS supports this recommendation. |
| Recommendation 5-11: All active plan members should be immediately vested for all accrued pension benefits. However, as at present, the plan administrator should retain the discretion to authorize the payment out of small amounts in specified circumstances. |
The OMERS Pension Plan already incorporates immediate vesting. |
| Recommendation 5-12: A ctive plan members who are involuntarily terminated, whether in groups or individually, while a plan is ongoing, should not be entitled to an immediate distribution of surplus. However, those who leave their pension assets in the plan should retain the right to participate in any subsequent surplus distribution. |
We require clarification as to the intent of the recommendation and whether this applies to MEPPs/JSPPs. |
| Recommendation 5-17: Any surplus in a plan that is to be split (the “original plan”) can be allocated to any of the new plans derived from it, provided that the liabilities associated with the original plan and all of the derivative plans remain fully funded (including the 5% security margin) as of the date of completion of the transaction. |
We require clarification as to whether this recommendation applies to MEPPs/JSPPs. |
| Recommendation 5-18: Any surplus in a plan that is to be merged with another plan can be assigned to the merged plan, provided that the members of the original plan remain in the new merged plan, and that the merged plan itself is fully funded (including the 5% security margin) as of the date of completion of the transaction. |
We require clarification as to whether this recommendation applies to MEPPs/JSPPs. |
| When a Plan Fails | |
|---|---|
| Expert Commission Recommendation(s) | OMERS Response |
| Recommendation 6-1: The Superintendent should have the power to establish benchmarks that identify plans “at risk of failure;” to order additional valuations and reports by such plans, if the benchmarks are met; and to require such valuations and reports to be conducted or reviewed by independent auditors and actuaries, or by auditors, actuaries or other staff of the pension regulator, at the cost of the sponsor. |
We require clarification as to whether this recommendation applies to JSPPs. If the recommendation does apply to JSPPs, consultation will be important to establish an appropriate benchmark. |
| Recommendation 6-6: The regulator should create an office of compliance to deal with the failure of sponsors to remit contributions and other violations of the Pension Benefits Act that imperil the security of pension plans and impede regulatory oversight of the pension system. That office should also maintain, for its own purposes and for the benefit of interested parties, an online register of delinquent sponsors and other offenders, and the measures taken to deal with them. |
The employer is responsible for remitting contributions to the plan administrator. It is not clear whether this recommendation applies to JSPPs. |
| Regulations and Governance | |
|---|---|
| Expert Commission Recommendation(s) | OMERS Response |
| Recommendation 7-10: The pension regulator should have power to provide opinion letters and advance rulings in connection with proposed or pending transactions. The regulator should feel free to disregard such letters or rulings in subsequent proceedings if the applicant has not made full disclosure of relevant facts; if they adversely affect other parties who have not had a prior opportunity to be heard; or if they contravene legal rules or regulatory policies that were not in force when the letter or ruling was issued. |
OMERS already reveals much of the information specified in the recommendation. |
| Recommendation 7-15: The Pension Benefits Act should grant the Superintendent power to:
The Superintendent should provide all affected parties with as full a right to be heard as is feasible given the urgency of the situation. Orders of the Superintendent should be enforceable by the Pension Tribunal of Ontario. All decisions and orders of the Superintendent should be subject to appeal to the Tribunal. |
OMERS supports this recommendation. We assume that the Superintendent will work closely with the Canadian Institute of Actuaries to establish the associated guidelines. |
| Recommendation 7-31: The Tribunal should have plenary power, upon enforcing or hearing an appeal from any order made by the Superintendent, to make any order required to secure compliance with the Pension Benefits Act, including but without limiting its general power, the power to:
Any order of the Tribunal may be registered in the Ontario Court of Justice and enforced as an order of that Court. |
OMERS does not support the recommendation to reduce the time for filing an actuarial valuation from nine to six months. This does not allow sufficient time for OMERS to make decisions related to contributions and benefits. |
| Recommendation 8-4: Multi-employer and jointly sponsored plans should develop governance policies that ensure participation of representatives of both active and retired members in their governance, establish the means of selection of those representatives, fix their remuneration and lay down rules governing their conduct in office. |
OMERS supports the recommendation that plans create a comprehensive governance manual. |
Recommendation 8-5:
|
OMERS supports disclosure, and currently provides statements to deferred and retired members. However, without further clarification, it is difficult to determine whether it is reasonable to require “disclosure of any known events likely to lead to a reduction in benefits.”
This recommendation could impact a plan’s procedures when plan changes are being contemplated. |
| Recommendation 8-7: All policies, statements or reminders required by current law or provided by multi-employer and jointly sponsored plans pursuant to these recommendations should be communicated to plan members and beneficiaries and filed with the regulator. The regulator should have the power to sanction violations of both statutory requirements and plan policies. |
OMERS supports disclosure and sanction of violations. However, without further clarification, it is difficult to determine how broad “all policies, statements or reminders” will be and whether it is appropriate. |
Recommendation 8-10:
|
OMERS generally supports this recommendation provided this approach is encouraged, not required. Further clarification is also needed with respect to the third point. |
Recommendation 8-12: These consultations should focus on rules governing the conduct of professionals in pension practice, and on the redesign of regulatory and governance structures and processes – in both cases, with a view to ensuring the honest and transparent administration of pension plans. |
OMERS supports the consultation process. |
Recommendation 8-13:
|
OMERS supports the consultation process. This recommendation could have far-reaching implications. It is important to clearly define the term “Agent;” for example, is a participating employer considered an “Agent”? |
Recommendation 8-14:
|
OMERS supports this recommendation, including the ability for professional bodies to discipline their members, and further recommends that codes of best practice be included in a plan’s comprehensive governance manual. |
| Recommendation 8-15: All persons responsible for providing valuations, reports or other documents that are filed with the regulator, or provided to active and retired plan members, should be required to certify that all such documents have been prepared in accordance with the law and with relevant professional standards. |
OMERS agrees in principle with the recommendation. However, the wording in this recommendation is too broad. The following wording should be added:
The following wording should be changed:
|
| Recommendation 8-16: An early task for the proposed “Pension Champion” should be to consult with pension stakeholders, relevant professional bodies, educational institutions and the pension regulator with a view to determining what lay and professional participants in plan governance ought to know about pension plans and the pension system, how they might best acquire such knowledge, and to what extent its acquisition should be a necessary qualification for service as a trustee or administrator of, or advisor or service provider to, a pension plan. |
OMERS supports this recommendation and further recommends that skills and qualifications of trustees and directors be included in a plan’s comprehensive governance manual. |
| Recommendation 8-17: Following the consultations outlined in Recommendation 8-16, the “Pension Champion” ought to develop standards for educational programs for all participants in pension governance. The “Pension Champion” ought also to determine how educational programs should be provided and at whose expense, and whether acquisition of appropriate educational qualifications should be mandatory and, if so, for the performance of what functions. |
See comments under 8-16 above. |
| Recommendation 8-18: The regulator should develop codes of best practice to guide plan governors, administrators and their agents. These codes of best practice should be based on the experience of successful plans, disseminated across the pension system and used to give meaning to the general statutory requirements for “prudence,” “care,” “diligence” and “skill.” |
It is not clear how this will be integrated with existing legislation. This appears to conflict with the principles-based approach, as it could introduce excess rules.
Best practices may be different for SEPPs, MEPPs and JSPPs (as the Commission pointed out, one size does not fit all). |
| Recommendation 8-19: The regulator should make available on-line to active and retired plan members and their authorized representatives – without charge but subject to security arrangements – all plan documents as well as triennial, annual or other valuations and reports required to be filed with the regulator. |
OMERS believes that this recommendation is unnecessary. Many plans like OMERS already provide plan documents and reports on their websites. This recommendation would lead to a duplication of effort. |
| Recommendation 8-22: Plan board members, governors or trustees should prepare, file with the regulator and make available to active and retired members at three-year intervals (or more often, if material changes have occurred) the plan’s detailed governance, funding and investment policies. Particulars of the matters to be addressed by these policies should be developed by the pension regulator in consultation with the stakeholders. Template policy statements should be developed for the assistance of smaller plans. |
OMERS agrees in principle with this recommendation. However, it should more clearly define policies. For example, the recommendation should refer to the statement of investment policies and procedures rather than investment polices. |
| Recommendation 8-28: The Pension Benefits Act should be amended to describe plan pensioners as “retired” rather than “former” plan members. |
The recommendation changes the term “former member” to “retired member.” Former member is a term used in the OMERS Act, 2006 re the composition of the SC and AC Board. If this recommendation is implemented it will require a housekeeping change to the OMERS Act, 2006. However, it should not impact the composition of the two boards as “former member” has been interpreted to mean “retired member.” |
| Recommendation 8-29: Retired and deferred plan members should be assured effective access to all plan information available to active plan members. |
Access to “all plan information” is a broad statement, which needs to be defined. Pension plan websites are an efficient and cost-effective communication tool, which should be considered “effective access.” |
| Recommendation 8-30: Retired plan members should be eligible to participate in any plan governance process in which active plan members are eligible to participate. The extent of their representation and participation in governance should be determined by the governing body of each plan, but must be sufficient to ensure that their voice is heard and their interests protected. |
OMERS supports this recommendation.
The current composition of the AC and SC boards includes a retired plan member, as specified in the OMERS Act, 2006. |
Appendix C – Expert Advisors’ Consensus Recommendations on Technical and Operational Issues
Overview: Our comments in Appendix C refer only to the issues contained in the report titled Expert Advisors’ Consensus Recommendations on Technical and Operational Issues. We have not conducted a full review of the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) and regulations to identify additional issues. A full review should be carried out as part of the recommendation to revise the PBA to articulate broad principles wherever possible, backed up where necessary by specific rules.
We have not commented on the following Expert Panel recommendations:
- Recommendations that do not affect jointly-sponsored pension plans (JSPPs); and
- Housekeeping recommendations which clarify existing wording. These do not appear to be critical changes.
1 David Dodge, Governor of the Bank of Canada, in remarks to Conference Board of Canada’s 2007 Pension Summit: Striking the Right Balance, Toronto, Ontario, May 10, 2007.
2 Davis, Philip E., Brunel University, London and Hu, Yu-Wel, OECD, Paris, March 2008, Are Canadian Pension Plans Disadvantaged by the Current Structure of Portfolio Regulation?
3 Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, OMERS, Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan, Ontario Pension Board, OPSEU Pension Trust, Ontario Power Generation Pension Plan, Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Pension Plan, Hydro One Pension Plan, TTC Pension Plan, and Toronto, Queens and York universities pension plans.
4 It should be noted that the description of the 5, 15 and 25% Rules on page 85 of the Expert Commission’s report is incorrect.
