New TA reached!

[MeAndMrPenguin]

I think everybody is ahead of themselves on this at this point. I do agree that the current pension is incredibly valuable. Who wouldn't take a true guaranteed return on their investments! If there is a shortfall, the company picks up the tab! Sounds like wall street's view of the government to me. You can bet anything you own that the mandate of the company is to eradicate this pension going forward. I am sure that they will give up a lot of lipstick and mascara to get it too. Once it is gone...it is gone. Doug is right.

However, I feel obliged to share my viewpoint. I sit on the fence on the issue but have always leaned away from the DB plan. I think we tend to look at the past and generally use this lense to form thoughts about our future. It is my opinion that the next period in this world will be unlike anything we have seen in the last 30 years. We face the downside slope of peak oil which means rising energy costs. We face exponential population growth which increases competition for these resources. We face a likely increase in political/social unrest and world tension. We face an economic system based on a reserve currency of a country that is technically insolvent.

Why does this all matter? Why do you think I am an alarmist, when in reality I am a realist. It matters because we need to think proactively about protecting our future. It means that I am thinking 50 years out in my life, as i sit on the dock patting the head of my labrador, either thinking about continued solvency of an airline and my pension cheques or holding my own wealth.



With the pension in our pocket, we will continue to give up gains or even maintain our compensation. In my opinion, the company will eventually get it's way. Scream all we want, this program will go the way of the dodo. The question I have to ask is, will we recognize this too late? Will we be in a poorer position to negotiate next time? We currently sit in the eye of the hurricane when it comes to the global financial crisis. Lets think pro actively. Lets have open debate. Lets wait until we see the proposal. Lets look into the future with less foggy glasses and take it all into account.

We need to see what the DC proposal looks like and evaluate it on all levels.

[BLZD1]

Thanks Doug!

[SilentMajority]

....will we be in a poorer position to negotiate next time? We currently sit in the eye of the hurricane when it comes to the global financial crisis. Lets think pro actively. Lets have open debate. Lets wait until we see the proposal. Lets look into the future with less foggy glasses and take it all into account.

We need to see what the DC proposal looks like and evaluate it on all levels.

Me & Mr P.

Well spoken. We do need to sit back and wait to see this proposal in full detail. I doubt our negotiating committee would bring such a radical change without good reason.

And what would that good reason be? This airline does not need another trip into CCAA. Take a long hard look at Air Canada's financial performance for 2010 and read what some of the analysts are saying...particularily when they compare us in our industry sector. Then look at the pension payments that are coming due in 2011, 2012 and 2013. We can window dress this all we like but we are not in great shape going forward. The tipping point for our last trip into CCAA was the OSFI's demand for $250. million for our DB pension top-up.

Had it not been for CR and his Rubix Cube solutions, Air Canada would have been back into CCAA in 2009. ....and with it the probable demise of ALL of our DB Pensions. And for those pilots already on pension.... the Top Hat would probably come into question as well.

To attempt to repopulate all of Air Canada's future pension holders (20,000+) for the next 30 years with a generous DB plan, in the world we face today, would be a risky venture and one I doubt too many responsible CEO's would be prepared to take on.

In this brave new world I see the pilots of Air Canada as having 2 main goals:

1)..Get our passengers, safely and professionally to their destination on each and every flight.

2)..Do our utmost to keep this airline out of the CCAA courts.

[accumulous]

You guys have to talk this up amongst yourselves; involve your Pension Committee. There has to be a reason why this is even being brought to you;

Once upon a time, a Monkey got the brilliant idea to lay down in front of a Leopard.

We’re staring at a level of Fractured Myopic Insanity seldom seen in any organization.

Our loose assemblage of Special Interest Groups has an effective collective IQ of Zero.

Let’s vote our flying away to a Regional Carrier.

Let’s vote away our Pension Indexing.

Well heck, hey Fred, that worked, let’s vote away the Pension.

Let’s throw 25 million at the Human Rights Commission.

Scorched Earth.

There are only three possible reasons why any pilot would commit Fiscal Suicide in public.

A. Just Plain Stupid. (And we're not talking about just a little bit stupid here, we're talking about Stone Face sitting on the front porch with a Banjo)

B. Seniority.

C. A & B.

[teacher]

This is a tough one for us as well. Fact of the matter is any new company vs a legacy company (aviation or other) usually has a big difference, pension. I am of the younger (but not that young ) generation that I believe in taking care of yourself. Economically speaking pensions are a drag on company revenue and since AC is no longer a crown corporation revenue is no longer a sure thing. No start up companies have pensions anymore or very few of them. They match RRSP contributions or have a DC plan at best. I would love to opt out of our pension plan and go it alone but obviously it's not allowed.

Warning, devil's advocate speaking in 3.....2.....1.....

Thing is you have to remember, if your pension plan drags the company back into CCAA or keeps the profits so low that cut backs occur elsewhere who are you helping? Would it be possible to set up a system where new hires could actually opt out of the plan and choose bewteen RRSP matching or a DC plan? It does create a kinda "B" scale for retirees BUT I'd bet the RRSP matching guys would fare batter in the long run. This isn't Air Canada circa 1970 anymore unfortunatly and the future doesn't look bright for ANY airline. Not that we shouldn't fight and fight hard for better compensation and working conditions but costs are going up and companies refuse to raise ticket prices.

My 2 cents.

[Rockie]

I'm beginning to find this a bit alarming. I don't see the company making the case for us so why are we making the case for them?

In the race to the bottom Air Canada pilots are supposed to be the brake. Or do I have that wrong?

[mbav8r]

Rockie wrote;
In the race to the bottom Air Canada pilots are supposed to be the brake. Or do I have that wrong?

I would've thought so, but 2 items in this new TA are a direct shot across the bow of Jazz and in response to those items, Jazz will have to respond by cutting cost, as pointed out numerous times recently by our management. We have to remain competitive, what does that mean? Don't look for any significant increases next round of bargaining. I fear they will extract as much shareholder value as possible for the time being, then when the time comes, claim we are not competitive enough to retain the CPA flying and then I'm in the market for a new Job at Sky Regional, BOTL. Are my fears unfounded, who knows, would I now consider going to mainline, not likely. No transfer of seniority, DC pension, fratured group, all not great selling features. My new plan is to spend the next years getting a law degree and possibly representing one of the AC groups who will undoubtedly be suing another AC group.

[SilentMajority]

I'm beginning to find this a bit alarming. I don't see the company making the case for us so why are we making the case for them?

In the race to the bottom Air Canada pilots are supposed to be the brake. Or do I have that wrong?

Can you elaborate?

[Brick Head]

As with any dilemma it is just not that easy.

Perhaps someone with a good understanding of the new pension laws could educate us on the new powers the OFSI has, if a funding issue resurfaces? Specifically combine those new powers with the repeated warnings from the gov't that they will not step into protect the AC pensions from the regulations again.

Place both against the backdrop of the present funding moratorium and its approaching expiry date.

What does it add up to?

[SilentMajority]

Who in their right mind would ever go into the airline business? We have all heard the old saying...."if you want to make a small fortune running an airline....start with a large one"

Unfortunately a similar dilema faces the employees in this industry. If it is not security against terrorism it could be fuel escalating out of sight for no real reason. Or SARS or....whatever. And how about aircraft that cost a cool $200+ million each. And then there is the never ending new competition....remember Jetsgo? Yes they went under but they inflicted a lot of damage before they were dead and buried.

Old ideas of what is just and what isn't...... are just that....old ideas. And the idea that we can continue along the same old comfortable paths that we have since the 70's are not only foolhardy...they can be downright dangerous.

A quick glance at AC's 2010 financial performance ( I am no expert here at all) says this:

Income....$10.8 billion
Net Profit...$107 million. (and that is after a one time foreign exchange gain of $145million)

Pension Obligations
2011....$397 Million
2012....$440 Million
2013....$495 Million

As well, we haven't even started the payments on the 30+ 787's that are coming into our fleet.
.
My only point here....when (and if) the TA comes out and presents a DC plan going forward for those not even on the payroll yet....that we at least should look at it and keep an open mind as to why it could be in EVERYONE'S best interests.....new and old alike. Our next trip into CCAA will be brutal and the losses will be irreversible.

[Rockie]

I'm beginning to find this a bit alarming. I don't see the company making the case for us so why are we making the case for them?

In the race to the bottom Air Canada pilots are supposed to be the brake. Or do I have that wrong?

Can you elaborate?

Up until two weeks ago all the talk was about making back as much as we can of what we lost in the last two contracts. From what we are told Air Canada is doing quite a bit better than in the recent past and it was time to start going in the other direction for working conditions and benefits. But that was two weeks ago. What happened?

When Air Canada was in much more trouble than they are now we didn't...ever...entertain losing the DB pension. Now that they are in much better shape we all of a sudden are? WHAT THE HELL FOR? Did I miss a WAWCON survey where ACPA asked us if we wanted to end DB pensions for new hires?

When did we give ACPA permission to do that? When did we express a willingness to do that? When did we express a willingness to split the pilot group into the have's and the have nots like that? What gloom and doom have we been told that this was necessary to preserve our pension? What are the long term ramifications to the existing DB plan as more and more people draw from it as fewer people contribute? What other measures have we looked at to support the health of our pension plan? I've said before there has been a huge one staring us in the face for years that we are fighting tooth and nail to prevent.

Why are WE justifying getting rid of the biggest benefit this company has forever?

This is a discussion that we shouldn't even be having. If the company wants us to consider that then they had better make the case and we all take part in it. It has to be proven it's required, and alternatives have to be EXHAUSTIVELY examined and considered before taking action on them. Dropping this like a surprise 500 megaton nuke on the membership and expecting them to vote on it within a few weeks is utterly preposterous.

[Doug Moore]

For those of you who think a DB pension is a sure thing, I hate to burst your bubble.

What happened to the Nortel employees and their DB Plan was very tragic – and illustrates very clearly that nothing is guaranteed in life, with the exception of death and taxes.

The Nortel employees and their DB Plan were the victims of the “perfect storm”: their plan became seriously under-funded; plan investment performance went in the tank with the world financial crisis of ’08-‘09, Nortel was unable to inject cash to satisfy its funding obligations to top up the plan, until eventually the company went bankrupt and the DB plan had to be wound up under circumstances of serious under-funding. To rub salt in the wound, when the assets of Nortel were sold off, the DB plan was at the bottom of the list of creditors claiming those assets and consequently the plan received, I believe, basically nothing. There are no guarantees.

That being said, there are an estimated 7000 DB Pension Plans in Canada and I don’t believe that Nortel’s single spectacular failure should serve as an indisputable condemnation of DB Plans in general.

There is no disputing that a DB Plan is expensive for the employer. It is in everyone’s best interest that the employer remains healthy such that it can properly manage and maintain its DB Plan. The question for you to consider is: does a DB Plan cause a company to be unprofitable or is a company unprofitable due to unrelated, unsatisfactory management practices?

The following are a few comments taken from the Certified General Accountants of Canada website:
· Employers favour defined contribution pension plans over defined benefit pension plans
· There is a shift among employers towards DC plans and away from DB plans.
· The private sector stimulated the build of increased activity in defined contribution plan participation.
· By 2006, DB pension plans represented 81% of the workers participating in registered pension plans while DC plans represented a more conservative 16%.
· There was a noticeable rise in DC plans between 1991-2006 and this number continues to rise.
· DC plan membership in the private sector nearly doubled over the same period (1991-2006) increasing the coverage rate from 14% to 27%.
· Unlike a DB plan, DC plans afford certainty of expense and cash flow for the employer and hence assists in planning controlling and monitoring risk.
· DC plans allow the employee to exercise greater control over retirement planning and increased adaptation to their own individual circumstances and lifestyle.
· DC plans impose ownership responsibilities on the participants for shaping their working lives and retirement expectations.
· Private savings cannot outperform defined benefit pension plans
· Private savings done outside of retirement savings vehicles would hardly reach half of the benefits level offered by the defined benefit plan, particularly in the public sector. For this reason, declining defined benefit pension plan coverage is received as bad news to many.
· It is simply not possible under the current tax rules to generate or to mimic the benefits bestowed by public-sector DB pension plans.
· Maximizing RRSP contributions does not lead to achieving a level of pension benefits similar to that of defined benefits pension plans.
· CGA-Canada contends that private savings would have to be undertaken outside of tax-preferred saving instruments to produce similar benefits.

There is a lot to learn about pension plans and most people simply aren’t interested – and therein lies the true beauty of a company DB Plan for most people. You make your contributions each month and then, if you are so inclined, you can forget about it. The employer accepts all responsibility for investing and managing your money, for making up any shortfalls due to inadequate investment performance, and for delivering your lifetime pension income upon retirement. In my view, your many years of “dedicated service” have earned you that benefit, but apparently more and more employers see you worker bees as nothing more than a burden to be unloaded when they're done with you. You can bet that the big boys and girls at the top of the company don’t see their own “dedicated service” in that same light and don’t see their own retirement plan as being in any way onerous for the company, thank you very much!

[accumulous]

This is a discussion that we shouldn't even be having. If the company wants us to consider that then they had better make the case and we all take part in it. It has to be proven it's required, and alternatives have to be EXHAUSTIVELY examined and considered before taking action on them. Dropping this like a surprise 500 megaton nuke on the membership and expecting them to vote on it within a few weeks is utterly preposterous.

Precisely, and words can’t describe how far past Preposterous this really is.

Preposterous because it was actually negotiated out of sight of over 3000 benefactors.

Long term, long time, big scale benefits, washed under the table, with consultation AFTER the fact. The single most important benefit in existence.

This is from CUPE’s website:

“…defined benefit plans have been the choice of most workers, especially union members. Statistics Canada reports that over 88% of pension plan members belong to defined benefit plans, and this figure climbs to 95% when looking at public sector workers. The overwhelming majority of pension plan members participate in defined benefit plans. On the other hand, nearly 90% of money purchase plans had less than 100 members, which reflects the fact that they have been the secondary pension option for small employers that are unwilling or unable to take on a defined benefit plan.
More recently, along with some of the other potential challenges that come with mergers and amalgamations, many employers are attacking our defined benefit plans, and proposing less secure, inferior alternatives in the form of money purchase plans (or worse yet, group RRSPs or nothing at all!). In money purchase plans, employers and employees contribute at a certain level (a percentage of earnings), with these contributions to be invested during an employee's work life.”

It's been suggested many times. Clearly, Pilot negotiating should be the handled by the Flight Attendants.

[teacher]

“…defined benefit plans have been the choice of most workers, especially union members. Statistics Canada reports that over 88% of pension plan members belong to defined benefit plans, and this figure climbs to 95% when looking at public sector workers.

This explains it all right here. Public sector employees whose employer will never go out of business and union workers who have the backing to force employers into it or keep them there. Fact of the matter is that these plans are more and more unaffordable and unless the price of an airline ticket goes up I see all airline managements taking a hard look at pensions through the scope of a rifle. They sound great but are the realistic in today's economic environment?

[Rockie]

Fact of the matter is that these plans are more and more unaffordable and unless the price of an airline ticket goes up I see all airline managements taking a hard look at pensions through the scope of a rifle. They sound great but are the realistic in today's economic environment?

It is the height of stupidity to give away the single most important and valuable benefit we have now because at some point in the future it may become unsustainable.

We have done nothing to safeguard the health of the pension. Quite the opposite in fact, we are actively working to kill a measure that will help it. Doesn't anybody think it's prudent to take other less drastic measures first before killing this benefit for good? Has anybody examined in even a cursury fashion how the remaining DB pension fund will fare with fewer and fewer people contributing to it? No? Why not? I mean come on people...WHY NOT? Think of the magnitude of this decision without the benefit of even the tiniest bit of investigation into the implications to everybody.

I am also not willing to split this pilot group into yet another faction based on layman predictions of what may happen to the pension in the future. Absolutely no good will come from having newhires on an inferior pension scheme than the rest of the pilots. As the years go by it will only get worse as bitterness increases and those on the short end of the stick gain in voting power. It is cutting the throat of the newhires before they even get here, and guaranteeing they will cut ours when they gain the numbers.

There is no better way to irrevocably split the pilot group and we are handing it to them on a platter.

[SilentMajority]

They sound great but are they realistic in today's economic environment?

I think the problem here is taking a realistic look at the playing field that Air Canada finds itself having to compete on.....on a daily basis.

With the exception of American Airlines (whose net loss was $471 million in 2010 amid record profits with their legacy counterparts) I cannot think of any other carrier on this continent who still has a DB Plan that it has to fund come hell or high water. WestJet, our strong domestic competitor doesn't. Nor are they required to have "bilingual services" on each and every flight. In addition, the costs of operating out of this fine country are completely out of proportion to those of our US counterparts.

I am not suggesting for one millisecond that AC needs to shed it's DB Plans for it's current employees. We have, in large part, paid for these many times over and for those in their later years of employment, the possibility of reverting to a plan B is impossible. I am concerned, however, that if we are not careful we might end up putting our existing plans in harms way.

I am refering to those that are about to come on-board and start their new career at AC. To saddle our employer going forward with another 30 years of DB Pension funding, in today's environment, while our competitors get off with little or no exposure deserves a long hard look and my guess is that this has been driven home to our negotiating team in no uncertain terms.

If I'm reading these other posts correctly, it would appear that my concerns along with some others, are vastly overstated. I surely hope that that turns out to be the case.

[777longhaul]

Ask yourself, what are the senior managers doing at AC with their plans????

Are they indexed????

Are the funds set aside in a special retirement fund???

Is, Milton's pension, $500,000.00 per year?

Is Milton's pension indexed?

What are the other senior's who have been at the airline a lot less time then many of you, what are they getting?

Stop looking inward to see what can be taken away from the pilot, who is standing across from you. Look up, outward, and forward to see what the senior managers in this company are doing? YOU will be shocked!

Doug Moore, could you please....use your talents, and search out Miltons, and say the next 25 top management person's renumeration, pension, indexing, and shares in their management accounts.

AC paid 28 million in cargo fixing fines last year, they had set aside 108 million, they got off lucky. There is money for the pilots pensions, go and get it.

[yyz monkey]

Calin's pay: http://investing.businessweek.com/busin ... LINES%20CO

Key Executives: http://investing.businessweek.com/busin ... er=AC/A:CN

[vic777]

I finally understand the reluctance to use professional negotiators. Until we have professional negotiators, the Elite will always rob from their juniors. There is no necessity to force the Company to pay Pilots what they're worth, when the Elite can negotiate for themselves at the sake of their juniors. It was so obvious, I now understand, I'm done.

[Rockie]

I want to know why this is even being discussed. What was it in the WAWCON survey that gave the union the impression we wanted to cut future Air Canada pilots off from the pension? I didn't read anything that would give that impression no matter how it was answered.

Why have we been blindsided with this by our very own union who is supposed to protect the pension, not give it up for a couple of dog biscuits.

[Fanblade]

Rockie,

I am new to AC. Very new in fact. I would love not to be in our doomed DB pension. I do not believe it will be there when I retire. I don't see the point of putting good money after bad. I welcome the idea of negotiating a DC pension, hopefully to a high company contribution level, before it gets rammed down our throat, with less appealing contribution levels, by an outside force (OSFI). Do me a favor and let me out. I want the money where I can see it. Can you blame me with the history AC has had?

Nearly half of the present pension is completely unfunded or underfunded. 80% solvency funding on the pension and a SERP from general revenue (completely unsecured) In this industry? With AC's track record? No thanks. AC goes down and Doug's pension will be halved over night. Not that I hope that for you Doug, but you must realize, the younger you are, the more likely it is to happen.

Don't presume to know what is best for me please. If given the chance I am out. Running for the door.

[Doug Moore]

Ask yourself, what are the senior managers doing at AC with their plans???? ....
Doug Moore, could you please....use your talents, and search out Miltons, and say the next 25 top management person's renumeration, pension, indexing, and shares in their management accounts.

Take a look here: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/inves ... _proxy.pdf

At page 50 it is written: “Mr. Rovinescu was entitled to an annual benefit payable of $168,600 in relation to his previous period of employment with the Corporation. Effective November 1, 2009, all pension payments in relation to his previous employment with Air Canada were voluntarily suspended. Amounts received prior to the voluntary suspension date are reflected in the table above offsetting the noncompensatory change that would have otherwise been determined. Once the payments were made, they no longer represented an accrued obligation. Benefits related to his previous employments will continue to accrue and will become payable to Mr. Rovinescu upon his departure / retirement from Air Canada, together with the pension that will accrue from his current period of employment.”

In other words, before Mr. Rovinescu returned to AC in 2009, he was enjoying a $168,000 pension from AC. He’s not collecting that now but those amounts will accrue, together with that which is being earned during his current period of employment. In other words, he will be looking at an even higher annual pension when he leaves AC for the second time.

Now take a look here: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/inves ... _proxy.pdf

At page 34 it is written: “As of December 31, 2005 the years of credited service were as follows: Mr. Milton, 26.67 years; …” According to the chart on the same page, an executive with 36 month’s Final Average Earnings (FAE) of one million dollars (which I have no doubt he easily exceeded) and 25 years of service, the annual pension (indexed) is $497,469 and 30 years of service $596,963. I repeat, indexed.

Note the words “credited service”, Milton didn’t spend 26.67 years at Air Canada but he was “credited” with that service by the end of 2005. Goodness only knows the years of service he ultimately left with, and we can only guess as to the “credited service” that Mr. Rovinescu might possibly leave with when it is his time to go.

Believe me, you worker bees may be a burden to the company when it comes to pension; but when it comes to their own pension, these boys at the top know how to look after themselves. All the way to the bank.

Those of you who were hired older in age and looking at maybe a 25-year pension, figure out what your pension will be. Don’t be surprised to see it well under six figures. And if you were working the numbers within a DC Plan … good luck!

So, how are you feeling now?

[bearinmind]

The strategy of the company negotiators is to drive home the point that Pilots are a measurable cost, and that it has to be reduced by either pay/benefits and/or productivity. This is driven by the accountants need to put a number on it so that they can acheive a bigger positive number at the bottom of the balance sheet. We cant fall into that trap.

The VALUE of a happy well paid pilot group well exceeds its pay, and on the flip side the COST of a miserable pilot group is high and immeasurable (sp). We are faced with decisions every day that we have a direct affect on cost and performance and if motivated we can make the operation much more efficient. If we continue to assign each pilot a cost, we have lost.

This is where we need some leadership and vision, from our union. We need some salesmanship to convince the other side of the table that we can do more than a few little numbers on the table. There are carriers that will always do it for less, but the value of an employee is experience, training and the commitment to a job and do it well. We should be proud of our safety record and professionalism (sp) and it comes at a cost. Its a hard sell to people without the vision to understand it but the VALUE is real and its worth it.

as for the benefit of DB vs DB this is the reason that the accountants want this to happen:

"Unlike a DB plan, DC plans afford certainty of expense and cash flow for the employer and hence assists in planning controlling and monitoring risk."

[Rockie]

Rockie,

I am new to AC. Very new in fact. I would love not to be in our doomed DB pension. I do not believe it will be there when I retire. I don't see the point of putting good money after bad. I welcome the idea of negotiating a DC pension, hopefully to a high company contribution level, before it gets rammed down our throat, with less appealing contribution levels, by an outside force (OSFI). Do me a favor and let me out. I want the money where I can see it. Can you blame me with the history AC has had?

Nearly half of the present pension is completely unfunded or underfunded. 80% solvency funding on the pension and a SERP from general revenue (completely unsecured) In this industry? With AC's track record? No thanks. AC goes down and Doug's pension will be halved over night. Not that I hope that for you Doug, but you must realize, the younger you are, the more likely it is to happen.

Don't presume to know what is best for me please. If given the chance I am out. Running for the door.

Fanblade.

I don't presume to know what's best for you because I know nothing about you. But here is what I do know, and all or none of it may apply to you:

Before making this kind of decision for yourself, you should have all the facts at your disposal. You should know the true health of our pension plan and what it would take to keep it healthy. You should know what the union is doing to ensure its health, and if they are doing nothing you should find out why and make them. You should know the unique political axe that Air Canada wields in Canada and measure the political fallout of killing our pension. Air Canada is not Nortel and you should find out why. Are you a sophisticated, knowledgable and lucky investor who is sure to turn your wage into the multi-million dollar investment portfolio needed to provide the same retirement earnings that the current DB plan does? Or are you relying on the word of "freedom 55" investment advisors selling their own company's products? Can you build an enviable investment portfolio and keep the DB benefit at the same time further diversifying your portfolio?

If you know the answers to all that and still would like to do it on your own that would be your own personal decision and you would have to live with the results. But you are not being asked to decide for yourself. You are being asked to decide on a measure that could have its own terrible consequences on the existing DB plan that have not been investigated in any way. You are being asked to make that decision for every pilot hired at Air Canada from this moment on. Do you have the information you need to make that decision intelligently? Do you even have the right to make that decision on behalf of every single future Air Canada pilot?

[rudder]

This isn't complicated.

Go to the CRA website and read how a Defined Contribution Pension Plan works per the applicable regulations. In particular, read the only forms in which a member of the plan accesses the funds at retirement.

In DC Plans there are 2 forms of risk - investment performance and interest rates at retirement. Contrast this against the risk of solvency of the plan sponsor in a DB Plan. There is always risk but which of these would you rather be exposed to?

If there were ever a scenario where DB was not available, DC is the worst possible alternative. If forced to substitute a plan for DB, it would have to be an extremely generous (10%+ company contribution) Group RRSP Plan.