Workers not to blame for Quebec pension problem: Don Pittis
The difference between a good pension and a bad one is actually setting the money aside
A deal's a deal, right? Well, not when it comes to the province of Quebec and the pensions of its municipal employees.
And if Quebec gets away with cutting municipal worker pensions, which have been eaten away through mismanagement by the very people doing the cutting, then watch this phenomenon spread.
Quebec is pulling a Detroit. About a year ago, I pointed out that the shattered dreams of Detroit pensioners should be a warning to the rest of us. But unlike Detroit, Quebec is trying to snatch back promised pension money by fiat through its proposed Bill 3 pension reform legislation, without the inconvenient legal process of bankruptcy.
No wonder the municipal workers are protesting.
- Quebec aims to reform pension plans of municipal workers
- Explainer: Brett House breaks down pension plan reforms
- Quebec municipal employees stop work to protest pension bill
To read many of the stories about these Quebec pension cuts you would think that it was the pensioners' fault. The same kind of thing happened in Detroit. Outraged taxpayers inveigh against government employees for sucking money out of the public purse for a cushy retirement. It's as if by choosing a job with a pension and keeping to their side of the contract, the workers are taking advantage.
"Right now, municipalities are taking all of the risk on the payouts and employees are taking relatively none of the risk," said economist and McGill Professor Brett House on CBC's Montreal's radio morning show.
Such comments anger Bernard Dussault, the architect of the Canada Pension Plan and former Chief Actuary for the Government of Canada. The CPP is well known around the world because, unlike many government plans, it is properly funded and can pay out forever (as I've mentioned before, the flaw with the CPP is the actual payout is too small, barely covering rent in many Canadian cities). In fact, this week the chief executive of Hong Kong's social services said he is studying CPP as a model for the reform of the territory's pension system.
As an actuary, Dussault is a sort of super statistician who studies lifespans, average investment yields and the cost of risk. He says that if you do your calculations right, update them frequently and set enough money aside, there is almost no risk involved with pensions.
He says "risk" is not the reason Canadian pension plans are facing problems, and he points out that Quebec is not an exceptional case.
"There are plans with problems all across Canada," says Dussault.
In every case, he says, the problem isa simple failure to set enough money aside.
Many blame the market crash of 2008for shortfalls in pension plan investment returns. Dussault agrees that was a setback, but adds that it's a weak excuse, because as I write this the Toronto stock exchange has just hit another all-time record high. Yes, it's higher than the peak before the crash. And any pension contributions invested since the crash have seen extraordinary gains.
That assumes, of course, that the pension plans have collected enough money in contributions from both employer and employees, and have actually invested it. And therein lies the flaw.
In Quebec's case, the pension deficit can be traced back, in part, to a previous attempt to balance the province's books. Back in the nineties, Quebec downloaded hundreds of millions in costs to the municipalities. To help them deal with those expenses, since pension plan investment returns were strong at the time, municipalities were permitted to take a pension-contribution holiday.
Brett House agrees that pension holidays were a mistake, and regular contributions should have continued. "By any historical measure, those were exceptional surpluses that should have been saved rather than disbursed."
Actuaries know that even if things look really good one year, that only makes up for other years when things look really bad.
In the dark
And unless they did some serious homework, the workers wouldn't even know the pension pot wasn't full.
It is terrible because it is stealing money that has already been accrued.- Bernard Dussault, former Government of Canada chief actuary
Their monthly contributions would come off their paycheques. They would get periodic pension statements showing their accrued benefitsbased on the promises in their contract, but the accounting in those documents was imaginary. By this year the province, which is ultimately responsible for municipal debts, was in the hole by almost $4 billion for municipal pension deficits.
Just like Detroit, just like the car companies, Quebec and its cities negotiated these pension contracts with their unions with their eyes wide open. Now they are planning to walk away from those deals. Years after you've signed a deal with the bank you can't go and say, "You charged me too much for my mortgage; I'm taking it back." Try it and see what happens. But that is what the province is saying to city workers.
And in their negotiations for improved pensions, the workers traded away other benefits, like better pay. "We’d rather have taken our salary raises," says the head of the Gatineau police union.
"It is terrible because it is stealing money that has already been accrued," says Dussault.
He adds that Canada has a good financial reputation because it regulates banks, insurance companies and pension funds.
"So now we allow pension plans to renege on their obligations," he says. "We will next allow banks and insurance companies to renege on their obligations?"
- Gatineau municipal workers join Quebec pension protests
- Montreal police call in sick to protest pension reforms
- Montreal firefighters retire en masse to protect pensions
Dussault points out that Quebec is not the first to take away pensioners' accrued benefits. New Brunswick did the same thing and pensioners are still not happy about it. And he says if Quebec succeeds, it won't likely be the last.
Perhaps the most underfunded pension plan in the country belongs to the federal government. Federal employees have pension contributions deducted and they go into a "fund," but that fund is based on what Dussault calls "notional bonds." Essentially, the contributions are on the government's books, but they go into general revenue and no outside assets are purchased to cover them — ultimately the payment to the pensioner will come out of future general tax revenue.
"All this accounting is theoretical. It is not real money," says Dussault. "I don't see the federal government reneging on its obligations, but there are more and more pressures. And that frightens me."
Despite the theoretical accounting, Canada's federal government more or less has its financial house in order. But as we saw in Detroit, other governments — and many companies — have shown a willingness to hide disturbing amounts of financial trouble by sweeping it under the carpet of pension deficits.
It may be a painful process, but it appears that Quebec workers will be forced to negotiate a new pension deal. As they do so they should study other arrangements, such as the Ontario municipal pension fund OMERS and the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. Those pension plans are fully funded and about as well managed as any pensions anywhere.
The difference? It's certainly not risk. They were exposed to the same market crash as everyone else.
What is different is where the money goes and who manages it. Contributions from both the employees and employer go straight into a fund. No notional bonds. No deficits. No promises to pay later.
And the fund is invested and controlled by the employees. The only way the government will get that money back is in the income tax those pensioners pay as they live out a comfortable retirement.