2010 in Review

It seems like a year end commentary on DIPAC's efforts might be appropriate since it has been a high activity year, although much remains to be done.

We have been extremely busy with our efforts to influence both the Ontario and Federal governments opposite pension issues, both on our own and also as a member of the Canadian Federation of Pensioners.

Provincially the focus has been the reform of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (PBA), which is the result of the report issued by the Arthur's Commission in which we participated. The two bills reforming the PBA (Bills 236 & 120) have both been passed by Queen's Park. During the year, we appeared before the Finance & Economic Committee of the Legislature to present our views on the bills. They now await the drafting of applicable regulations and once these surface, we will present our input to ensure the 'details' align with our priorities. At some point within the next couple of months we will be seeking your involvement via a 'contact your MPP' campaign. Bill 120 involves the more critical package of changes needed to assure pension plans continue to deliver the expected pension entitlements through the years ahead.
Federally we have also added our voice to that of others in support of pension plans which face deplorable consequences when caught up in bankruptcy proceedings. This is commonly identified these days as the "Nortel" situation. A small concession has been made by the Provincial government opposite how pension plans are wrapped-up when the sponsor leaves the scene. However the primary issue is Federal and has not received the widespread support needed to give pension plan deficits competitive status opposite bankruptcy liquidations. As you are aware, federal bill C-501 is currently being reviewed "in committee" but the banks and other financial lobbyists are exerting considerable opposition. This legislation is of equal importance to the provincial agenda.
With regard to the increased CGLIP (life insurance) premiums all participants will be paying as of their January 1^st pension payment, we have little progress to report opposite our efforts to have either or both the Kingston and Maitland unions file grievances on this matter. Efforts to move this forward are continuing however and we are hopeful some progress will soon take place.
An unexpected but not surprising additional issue surfaced in regard to Solvency Relief when INVISTA indicated its intent to pursue this option given the $238 million under-funded state of our pension plan. The Ontario government enacted legislation creating a provision for special Solvency Relief to aid sponsors in their struggle to restore funds to a 'healthy' state and INVISTA decided they should pursue this option. It required the non-objection of two-thirds of active employees and retired 'former' employees, and this was confirmed via a government defined process. Thus Solvency Relief will be implemented such that up to ten years will be permitted for elimination of the $238M current deficit.
Your Board has not expressed any position regarding the media reported discussions by Minister Flaherty and the provincial Finance Ministers on the merits of improving CPP plan benefits vs the creation of an alternate pension vehicle for the significant numbers of 25-35 year old Canadians who currently have no prospects of a private pension benefit when they retire. Other than to register a general comment of support, we are of the opinion that this matter is not a part of our focus as it does nothing for current retirees and is also beyond our resource limitations. Hence, it is best left to the parliamentarians, the pension 'experts' and the population segment to which it applies.
Finally while the eMail campaign initiated in early December had modest success in terms of participation, we were disappointed in the participation level. Roughly 100 individuals sent an eMail or comparable communication to the four Liberal members of the committee currently reviewing C-501. While these four individuals were specifically targeted, because of their expressed opposition, this bill is on an uphill path given the strong lobby effort by the financial institutions. The federal review committee is scheduled to resume meetings in February at which point we will again require your active involvement, and the same will be the case once we have a clearer understanding of what the province has in mind for the regulations associated with Bills 236 and 120.

Did you do your part??

Those who joined in on the December eMail effort deserve to feel a measure of satisfaction. Very little will change without your pro-active input and each of you has a personal stake in these issues. As a group we are sadly mistaken if we expect any real improvement (to the security of our pensions) will flow solely from the efforts of the 3-4 DIPAC board members who are spending hours of their personal time in this regard. The DuPont/INVISTA pensioner group constitutes over 3000 individuals, and DIPAC has been able to establish routine communications with around 2000. Over 1000 have internet access and were asked to participate in the eMail campaign, yet only 100 or so stepped up to the plate. Experience indicates that politicians are influenced by the volume, quality and content of feedback they receive from constituents.

Perhaps this will improve with the New Year!!!!

If not we will have to live with the consequences!!!!

On behalf of the DIPAC Board

29 December 2010