2020 YMPE Announced

On November 1st, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) announced the maximum pensionable earnings for 2020 will be $58,700, up from $57,400 in 2019.

Contributors who earn more than $58,700 in 2020 are not required or permitted to make additional contributions to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

The basic exemption amount for 2020 remains as $3,500.

The CRA announced the increase in YMPE reflects the growth in average Canadian weekly wages and salaries, calculated using a CPP legislated formula.

The 2020 contribution rate for employees and employers has increased to 5.25% from 5.1% in 2019. The 2020 contribution rate for self-employed has increased to 10.5% from 10.2% in 2019.

The increase in contribution rate is due to the CPP enhancement implemented in January 2019 as reported by the CRA.

The 2020 maximum employer and employee contribution has increased to $2,898 from 2,748.90 in 2019.

The 2020 maximum self-employed contribution has increased to $5,796 from $5,497.80 in 2019.


By |Uncategorized|Comments Off on 2020 YMPE Announced

2019 YMPE Announced

On November 1st, the Canada Revenue Agency announced that the maximum pensionable earnings for 2019 will be $57,400, up from $55,900 in 2018.

Contributors who earn more than $57,400 in 2019 are not required or permitted to make additional contributions to the Canada Pension Plan.

The basic exemption amount for 2019 remains $3,500.

The 2019 contribution rate for employees and employers has increased to 5.10% an increase of .15%.

The 2019 contribution rate for self-employed will also increase to 10.2%.

The 2019maximum employer and employee contribution to the plan will be $2,748.90, up from $2,593.80 in 2018.

The 2019 maximum self-employed contribution will be $5,497.80, up from $5,187.60 in 2018.

Check out our website for a breakdown of these rates and others.



By |Uncategorized|Comments Off on 2019 YMPE Announced

OHIP Plus May be a Negative

OHIP+ has a great premise, but the devil may be in the details.

The program was created so that children and young people under age 25 get free prescription meds. As good as the universal program is in Canada, one area of concern has always been access to medications. A person who needs medical attention gets free access to doctors, emergency rooms, hospital stays, surgery, cancer treatments, etc. Also, when they are in the hospital, their medications are provided. However, as soon as they go home, they need to pay for their own meds (with some exceptions), which some people are unable to do. So, you get the best doctors in the best facilities, but once you leave the doctor’s office, you are on your own.

Until OHIP+ came along in Ontario, that is. Finally kids are covered in Canada’s largest province.

Seems great, right?

Not so fast.

It turns out that the program has two very serious issues that is actually interfering with the healthcare of young people.

First, if a family has a personal supplementary health insurance plan (to top up the things the universal health system does not cover), then they will very likely have difficulties with OHIP+ coverage. If they have a child who needs regular medication, their personal health insurance will no longer cover that medication. The insurers now tell them to get their meds through OHIP+. But OHIP+ may not cover the specific medication that the doctor has been prescribing. OHIP+ has a list of 4,000 or so approved medications, and they release approval to use some of these drugs in order, from cheapest to most expensive. So, if your doctor prescribes a medication, you are required to try the cheapest drugs first to see if those work. If not, OHIP+ will move you up to the more costly drugs.

Consider what that means for a child who is currently being successfully treated with one of the “more expensive” drugs. OHIP+ now requires them to stop taking that drug, thereby risking making them sick (or sicker), in order to experiment on their bodies with a cheaper alternative. If that cheaper alternative does not work, then they can go back to the more expensive drug.

OHIP+ is doing this, despite warnings from physicians that the care of patients is being put at risk. If a doctor prescribes Medication A and knows that it works, OHIP+ is second-guessing the doctor and forcing them to experiment with Medications X, Y, and perhaps Z, to save money. If those don’t work, then the patient can go back to Med A.

As you can imagine, parents are not pleased. Neither are doctors.

For parents, they simply don’t want to put their children at risk of trying different drugs when the current ones are working. They also don’t understand why their personal insurance companies will no longer cover the prescribed medications when their premiums have not gone down. The insurers still charge them for insurance but will no longer pay for meds! Let OHIP+ cover the meds, they say.

The second major issue is with the doctors. To get a child on the more expensive drugs (which actually work), they have to spend hours filling out forms justifying their decisions. Then, to make matters worse, they need to fill out those forms at the beginning of every year, to justify the medications for another 12 month period. So much for trusting doctors to make the best health care decisions!

OHIP+ is still a new program that covers over 3 million young people. We will monitor and let you know if the government finds ways to streamline things for parents in this situation.

For more on this topic, check out this article from CBC. Click to open article …


By |Uncategorized|Comments Off on OHIP Plus May be a Negative

Will Sears Fall Short of Pension Obligations?

Here is an amazing story.

First, Sears Canada closed on January 14, 2018 after sixty-five years of operations in Canada. 14,140 employees lost their jobs at Sears over the past year, and hundreds of retail locations were shut down. This of course represents a dramatic hollowing out of the Canadian retail landscape, following on similar closings of Target and Zellers in recent years.

What is happening to retail in Canada? Is it a coincidence that the newly anointed “richest man in the world” is Jeff Bezos, the found of Amazon.com and Amazon.ca (the Canadian branch of Amazon). People still need to buy stuff for everyday living, but it appears that the rapid move to online shopping is taking down the retail giants one by one.

Note that these developments are ironic. Sears Canada was formed when Simpsons Sears bought out the storied Eaton’s retail chain in 1999. Eaton’s of course started in the late 19th century as a revolutionary catalog mail-order business in Canada, which is also how Sears started in the USA. Both brands eventually moved into retail and came to dominate their respective countries. It was only after a long successful run that Eaton’s surrendered to Sears in the Canadian market.

Then along comes Jeff Bezos and online shopping. What is online shopping if not a new version of a mail-order catalog? So, where Eaton’s and Sears put general stores out of business 100 years ago with their eye-catching catalogs featuring extensive selections and low prices and home delivery, now the modern mail-order catalog is doing the exact same thing to Eaton’s and Sears!

In the midst of this carnage, questions remain regarding the obligations of the Sears Canada pension plan. News reports on CBC.ca and other outlets have reported that the pension plan is underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars and that retirees may be shortchanged nearly 20% on their monthly pension payments for the rest of their lives. People are in an uproar, because Sears Canada allocated over half-a-billion dollars in dividend payments to shareholders in the past five years.

Looks like a corporate rip-off by greedy shareholders!

Actually, the truth beyond the headlines isn’t nearly so exciting.

First, Sears Canada is still in the process of selling off assets in bankruptcy, so the pension shortfall will probably get a chunk of those funds to top up to solvency.

Second, it appears that the pension shortfall is NOT the $266 million reported by the CBC and others. That total amount covers some group life and health funding obligations, but the Defined Benefit pension obligation is more in the $110 million range. Still a lot, but representing just 10% of the pension plan’s total obligations. So, even if the asset sales did not make the pension plan whole, members would still only lose perhaps 10% of their pension payments, rather than the 19% number trumpeted in the press.

Next, it appears that the Sears Canada board of directors did NOT rip off the pension plan by paying dividends to shareholders. Yes, the pension plan was in deficit at the time (as were many DB pension plans after the 2007-8 financial crisis), but it was paying down its obligations according to a schedule agreed to by the pension regulator (The Financial Services Commission of Ontario). Sears Canada was a viable, profitable business (“going concern”) when it paid out the dividends in question. The problem with Sears Canada was that their business strategy over the past 2-3 years did not work out and they started burning through significant cash, which is what forced the bankruptcy. There was no way they could foresee this result five years ago when they paid some dividends out of a healthy, profitable business with very little debt. Yes, bad things sometimes happen to businesses, and sometimes pension plan retirees get stuck holding the bag. But in this case, the story behind the headlines is not nearly as nefarious as the headline writers would have you believe.

Here is a link to the original CBC story.

Here is a link to a blog post on Sunday by Eddie Lampert, the Sears shareholder who gets skewered in the CBC article.Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

By |News Room, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Will Sears Fall Short of Pension Obligations?

CPBI Workshop: DB Pension Plans – Is Sustainability a Myth?

The following notes were taken at Forum 2017, the annual convention of CPBI (Canadian Pension and Benefits Institute) held June 5-7 at the Delta Hotel in Winnipeg with the theme: “Thriving In a Climate of Change”.

Presenter: Paul Lai Fatt, Partner, Morneau Shepell

Key Points

Sustainability is simply about making adjustments.
-change the money coming in,
-change future benefits (e.g., water down benefits for future cohorts)
-change past benefits

If you do all of these, almost any DB plan can be sustainable. However, that does not mean the stakeholders will all be happy!

The fact is, pension plan members all have different expectations about what payments they will be required to make and what benefits they will receive, but in the real world, nothing is carved in stone.

Therefore, the key is “right process”, where you adequately explain the risks and changes to stakeholders. It is not about measuring risk, but planning for it.

There are still a few new DB plans coming online from time to time, but most plan sponsors are moving to Target Benefit Plans.


By |Uncategorized|Comments Off on CPBI Workshop: DB Pension Plans – Is Sustainability a Myth?

2017 YMPE Announced

The Canada Revenue Agency announced on November 3rd that the maximum pensionable earnings for 2017 will be $55,300—up from $54,900 in 2016.

Contributors who earn more than $55,300 in 2017 are not required or permitted to make additional contributions to the CPP.

The basic exemption amount for 2017 remains $3,500.

The employee and employer contribution rates for 2017 will remain unchanged at 4.95%, and the self-employed contribution rate will remain unchanged at 9.9%.

The maximum employer and employee contribution to the plan for 2017 will be $2,564.10 each and the maximum self-employed contribution will be $5,128.20.

For a breakdown of these and other rates check out our website


By |Uncategorized|Comments Off on 2017 YMPE Announced

PRPP and ORPP: Huge Pension Developments in Canada Reflect Political Divide

***UPDATE August 12, 2015****

As an update to the article below, the Ontario Ministry of Finance announced yesterday that Defined Contribution plans that meet certain thresholds WILL be classified as “comparable plans” for the purposes of exemption from the ORPP. The full announcement is available by clicking here.

The basic threshold is that the “DC plan must:

  • Have a minimum annual contribution rate of 8 per cent
  • Require at least 50 per cent matching of the minimum rate from employers.”

In the meantime, the ORPP has become a major political football in the current federal election campaign. Prime Minister Harper has come straight out to accuse the ORPP of being nothing but a job-killing tax (despite the fact that 100% of the contributions go directly to the workers and not into government coffers like any other tax).

The Ontario government has responded by pointing out that the ORPP is designed to ensure that Ontario workers are saving sufficiently for retirement, and that they are disappointed that Ottawa was unwilling to amend the CPP to increase savings rates and thereby make the ORPP unnecessary.

Here is our full article on the ORPP and PRPP as published in June ….


PRPP and ORPP: Huge Pension Developments in Canada Reflect Political Divide

Exciting developments are underway in the Canadian pension world as governments take steps to help Canadians save for retirement, but behind all the new programs are some very strong philosophical differences.

As most readers of this magazine will be acutely aware, Defined Benefit (DB) pension plans have suffered a precipitous decline in Canada and most other countries in the past twenty years. The costs of administering plans and providing actuarial services climbed higher and higher to the point where only the larger plans with around 1,000 members and above could reasonably absorb the costs.

The other problem of course was that many pension plan members in the 1990’s wanted to opt-out of their boring old DB plans and use their pension funds to make huge gains in high flying tech stocks like Nortel … so they begged their employers to let them out of the company DB plans so they could transfer their assets to Defined Contribution (DC) plans where they could keep all the gains for themselves – which they did, until the tech bubble burst and DC funds cratered for years.

In Canada, thousands of DB plans were either frozen to new members or closed all together, especially amongst smaller businesses (DB plans are still thriving in the benefit architecture of large unions and governmental organizations.) The result was that millions of workers needed to turn to alternatives such as employer-sponsored DC plans  (if they existed at the employer), or do without employer-sponsored schemes altogether and simply try to personally save for retirement through RRSPs, TFSAs, and the vagaries of personal investments such as home equity or playing the stock market.

What a boondoggle! A primary pillar of pension savings was pulled out from under the collective feet of millions of Canadians and nothing was put in place to replace it (though Group RRSPs, a form of DC plan for small businesses, made an admirable effort). As a result, many people are now finding themselves ill-prepared for retirement and with no reasonable prospects for improving the situation anytime soon (unless they win big at the casino or work at Walmart until they are around 80 years old).

While this was going on, the governments of the country were NOT standing idly by (thank goodness!). They knew that the government has a key role to play to gently nudge or outright push people towards being able to take care of themselves in the future (otherwise the government may be expected to do it!), and so they set about thinking up initiatives that would help to prevent millions of elderly Canadians from spending their golden years pushing brooms at fast-food restaurants.

So, what “Big Idea” did the smarties in Ottawa and provincial capitals come up with?

Well, there were actually two, one which came from the right of the political spectrum, and the other from the left. In Ontario, both ideas were just passed into law (as pension programs for workers) in May of this year, but that does not mean that both will catch on in actual practice in the marketplace where small employers will need to make these savings programs a reality (you know, where the rubber hits the road).

Pooled Registered Pension Plans

The first idea, Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs) was proposed during the 2011 federal election. After the election, the government moved ahead quickly to lay the foundations for PRPPs at both the federal and provincial levels, with a number of provinces following suit and reading PRPPs into law in the past two years (Ontario being the most recent). However, there is still a ways to go as nobody except the feds has completed a regulatory framework (it takes time to create this once the legislation is passed).

In general, the idea behind the PRPP is very well thought out and creates a framework for people to really start to take care of their retirements. Under this model, an employer can contact a financial services company and have a PRPP set up for their employees. The process is supposed to be so easy that one financial services provider, Manulife, claims a pension plan can be set up in less than thirty minutes, after which the employer’s role is mostly complete (compare this simplified setup to the ghastly process of setting up a DB plan and you can see that some very clever people put a lot of thought into streamlining the process so that small employers could set up company pension plans with minimal discomfort).

Once the PRPP is created, the financial services company would then automatically enroll every employee in the company, and each employee would then begin to see deductions taken from their paystubs as a small percentage of their salary was set aside for their retirement.

To avoid any resistance from employees, they were given the option to opt out of the plan after it was set up. In addition, employers were given the option to also make matching contributions to the pension plans of the employees (but they were NOT mandated to do so).

Unlike Group RRSPs (another form of pension savings plan for small employers), contributions to a PRPP do not count as taxable income. Also, unlike Group RRSPs, if an employer decides to make contributions on the behalf of the employees, these contributions are deductible as a business expense, AND the employer does NOT have to pay CPP, QPP and other payroll taxes on the contributions.

The genius part of the equation was the “P for Pooled”, in that administration and investment management would be handled by a financial services company which would pool the millions of account holders for efficiency and economies of scale, rather than the old DB model where every small pension plan needed its own investment manager, administration contract, and actuarial services provider. The pooled approach is also expected to be much more efficient than the Group RRSP approach, where fees have typically been quite high.

Manulife got so excited at the prospect of signing up all these millions of account holders and collecting and managing all of their pension savings that they went out and purchased the web address: www.prpp.com so that they could get ready for the wave of employers signing up for these new savings vehicles.

It has taken a few years, but finally things seemed to be falling into place for PRPPs as the provinces get closer to finalizing the rules, which would allow financial services companies to start selling PRPPs (they are already available to some federal workers).

But remember what I said about the source of this program? I.E., the federal government? Well, lo and behold, guess which party was in power when PRPPs were proposed? The Progressive Conservative party (which is centre-right, for those who are reading this article in faraway lands and might naturally be confused by the concept of a conservative who also claims to be progressive).

PRPPs met several important conservative ideological criteria, namely:

• Employers were NOT mandated to offer OR contribute to PRPPs (many small business owners would view such a mandate as a job-killing tax).
• Employees could opt out if they so desired (conservative governments are generally loathe to force people to save their money if they don’t want to).
• Administration and investment management would be handled by the private sector (because conservatives believe that the free market is the most efficient provider of any kind of services – except, of course, services provided by military, police, fire, healthcare, social security, and government itself).

Meanwhile, as the PRPP program was wending its way through the setup process, a provincial government with a different political philosophy was cooking up an alternative program to compete with PRPPs.

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP)

While the Conservative party had ruled in Ottawa since 2006, the centre-left Liberal party had ruled in Ontario during the same time period. And while the Ontario Liberals played nice and passed the legislation to allow PRPPs to move forward, they also came up with their own program to promote pension savings, the ORPP (Ontario Retirement Pension Plan), which takes a very different approach to PRPPs.

• Unlike PRPPs, employers ARE mandated to BOTH offer AND contribute to the ORPP, unless the employer offers an approved comparable alternative such as a DB plan, DC plan, a Group RRSP, or a PRPP. This means that virtually ALL workers in Ontario will be covered by some kind of pension plan.
• Employees CANNOT opt out (the big bad government forces them to save for their retirement, just like with the Canada Pension Plan).
• Administration and investment management of this massive pension plan (it is projected to cover around 3.5 million workers) will NOT be handled by the private sector but will be managed by a corporation specifically created for that one task of managing the ORPP, with the expectation that an entity focused on providing the lowest possible cost of service rather than the highest possible profits to shareholders will do a better job of keeping administration costs down.

In addition, the ORPP is in effect a Defined Benefit plan, whereas PRPPs are DC plans. Employees who make the mandated contributions to the ORPP will receive a guaranteed pre-determined benefit for life, unlike PRPPs where the employees own their contributions, plus interest, and can use this amount to purchase an annuity at retirement or withdraw a lump-sum.

As an example of the scheduled benefit for an ORPP member, a person with a salary of $45,000 would contribute $2.16/day. At retirement, they would stand to collect $6,410/year for life. Not enough to live on, but this benefit will help fill the gaps in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security program.

Comparing the two programs, one cannot help but wonder, who in Ontario will ever use PRPPs?

At this point, it is impossible to say, but many people expect that most small employers will end up in the ORPP, while PRPPs will likely appeal to a few self-employed people and not many others. While that might happen in Ontario due to the introduction of the ORPP, in other provinces that have not set up ORPP-equivalents, PRPPs could still become a significant savings vehicle as they are a big improvement on Group RRSPs.

At public hearings about Ontario PRPPs in April of this year, Wynne Hartviksen, executive assistant to the president of CUPE Ontario (Canadian Union of Public Employees) said that CUPE was against PRPPs being offered in Ontario for a number of reasons: “We know that private investment vehicles like RRSPs and PRPPs have higher financial service costs and frankly seem designed to deliver investment returns into the hands of banks and the financial services industry rather than into workers’ pockets at retirement.”

The Liberal government of Ontario went ahead in spite of opposition from unions and passed legislation for PRPPs into law, but by also passing legislation to allow the creation of ORPPs, it is likely that the final word will be spoken by the marketplace: will small Ontario employers adopt the mandatory ORPP or will they opt for an approved alternative such as a PRPP?

Only time will tell. Whatever happens, Penad will be there to report on new developments (so stay tuned!).


By |Alerts, News Room, Uncategorized|Comments Off on PRPP and ORPP: Huge Pension Developments in Canada Reflect Political Divide

Are You Ready for Windows 10?

Here are some interesting facts about Windows.

— Windows is currently the OS on 1.5 billion PCs.

— 77% of businesses with Windows still run Windows 7 on some or all of their PCs, because Windows 8 and 8.1 were/are so reviled.

— Only 18% of companies deployed Windows 8 or 8.1 on their computers.

— Because of the failure of Windows 8 and 8.1, there is a huge pent-up demand for an upgrade path.

— Windows 10 will be launched on July 29, 2015, and it will be free for people running Windows 7, 8, and 8.1.

— 60% of IT departments have already tested Windows 10, and 73% plan to adopt Windows 10 by 2017.

— Windows 10 will actually have a Start button, just like in Windows 7. Amazing, but the more things change, the more they stay the same.



By |News Room, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Are You Ready for Windows 10?

A Fresh New Logo

This year is the 30th anniversary of the founding of Penad Pension Services Limited, a leading pension administration and systems specialist. To mark this exceptional milestone (not many companies live to see their 30th birthday!), Penad has commissioned the release of a new logo and a new take on its overall brand identity.

For thirty years, Penad has been at the forefront of HR benefits administration automation in the pension field. In fact, Penad was the very first company in Canada, if not the world, to develop a PC-based pension administration software system, which radically streamlined admin and resulted in much faster processing of year-ends and benefit calculations, greatly increased accuracy, and an order of magnitude improvement in turnaround times. Basically, Penad’s flagship Defined Benefit administration solution dragged pension administration kicking and screaming out of the dark ages.

Building on 30 years of success!

Building on 30 years of success!

Penad has continued this history of innovation to the present day, with the development of PX3000™, a global leader in benefits administration systems. PX3000™ is used by banks, insurance companies, governments, and large corporations for the administration of Defined Benefit, Defined Contribution, Group Life & Health, and Social Security benefit plans.

The new Penad logo has been developed to reflect the vision of Penad entering its fourth decade in business. Only a fraction of 1% of businesses ever make it past the thirty year mark, so Penad has a lot to celebrate as it continues on its course towards a bright future. The new logo has been developed to reflect the optimism and vision we hold for the new decade. Penad’s previous logo, which stood the test of time for thirty years (with some slight modifications along the way) was a statement of strength (the large, bold, upper case font) and a business-like attitude (the royal blue color).

The new logo softens both the color and the typography, going with a lighter blue, a mixed-case font, and a bright green cross stroke on the letter “a”. Taken together, the new look reflects a quiet confidence that we know who we are and why we are in business … to provide the best pension and benefit administration solutions on the planet. The logo also reflects the Penad team — we are approachable, communicative, creative – not a monolith but a group of individuals to whom our clients and peers can relate and with whom they can work.

Penad has been building world-class systems for three decades – in our fourth decade and beyond, we want to let the world know that we are still here, that we have great products, and we can help our clients develop solutions for success!


By |News Room, Uncategorized|Comments Off on A Fresh New Logo