Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


4 records – page 1 of 1.

CMA’s Response to CRA’s Questions, Public consultation on the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act regulations

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14027
Date
2015-05-15
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2015-05-15
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide the information below in response to questions by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for consideration as part of the development of regulations following the enactment of the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restriction Act. This information is in follow up to CMA’s submission to the CRA dated December 19, 2014, attached for reference. As explained in the CMA’s submission attached, the CMA strongly encourages the CRA to include an exemption for “a health care practitioner duly licensed under the applicable regulatory authority who provides health care and treatment” from the reporting requirements in the forthcoming regulations enabled by the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restriction Act. This exemption is necessary to ensure CRA does not impose duplicative regulatory oversight of the medical profession, specific to the provision of this uninsured service. As fully explained in the CMA’s brief, this exemption would not introduce a potential “loophole”. Issue 1: Organizations Responsible for Physician Regulatory Oversight The statutory authority for the regulatory oversight of physicians rests with the provincial and territorial medical regulatory colleges. As explained on page 4 of the CMA’s submission, medical regulatory colleges have statutory, comprehensive regulatory authority of physicians; this authority captures: medical licensure, governing standards of practice, professional oversight, and disciplinary proceedings. Included in this authority is broad regulatory oversight for fees that physicians may charge for uninsured services, which would capture the fee charged for the Disability Tax Credit form. The Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada (FMRAC) is the umbrella organization representing provincial and territorial medical regulatory authorities in Canada and can address how best to contact individual regulatory colleges.1 Issue 2: CMA’s Code of Ethics In addition to policies, guidance and oversight by provincial and territorial regulatory colleges, charging a fee associated with the delivery of an uninsured service, in this case a fee associated with completing the form associated with the Disability Tax Credit, is captured by Section 16 of the CMA’s Code of Ethics. Section 16 states: “In determining professional fees to patients for non-insured services, consider both the nature of the service provided and the ability of the patient to pay, and be prepared to discuss the fee with the patient.”2 Issue 3: Fee Structure for Uninsured Services As the CRA does not provide remuneration to physicians for the completion of the Disability Tax Credit form, the delivery of this service by physicians is an uninsured service. As an uninsured service there is no set fee level. While provincial and territorial medical associations Canadian Medical Association 3 May 15, 2015 may provide guidance to physicians within their jurisdiction on uninsured services, which may be referenced in policies by regulatory colleges, this guidance does not constitute a set fee schedule. As captured in the CMA’s Code of Ethics referenced above, physicians may consider patient-specific and other factors in determining a fee for the delivery of an uninsured service. The CMA encourages CRA to review relevant policies and guidance of individual provincial and territorial regulatory colleges for a comprehensive understanding of the oversight of uninsured services. Closing Once again, the CMA appreciates the opportunity to provide further information to support the development of regulations to enable the new authorities of the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restriction Act and to ensure that CRA does not impose redundant and duplicative regulatory oversight of the medical profession. 1 FMRAC’s Executive Director is Dr. Fleur-Ange Lefebvre and can be reached at falefebvre@fmrac.ca 2 CMA’s Code of Ethics may be accessed here: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assetslibrary/ document/en/advocacy/policyresearch/ CMA_Policy_Code_of_ethics_of_the_Canadian_Medical_Association_Update_2004_PD04-06-e.pdf
Documents
Less detail

Response of the Canadian Medical Association to the Canada Revenue Agency Draft GST/HST Policy Statement* (GST/HST Notices - Notice 286)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11479
Date
2015-02-23
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2015-02-23
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
*Draft GST/HST Policy Statement - Qualifying Health Care Supplies and the Application of Section 1.2 of Part II of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act to the Supply of Medical Examinations, Reports and Certificates (GST/HST Notices - Notice 286, October 2014) The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is the national voice of Canadian physicians. Founded in 1867, CMA's mission is to help physicians care for patients. On behalf of its more than 82,000 members and the Canadian public, CMA performs a wide variety of functions. Key functions include advocating for health promotion and disease prevention policies and strategies, advocating for access to quality health care, facilitating change within the medical profession, and providing leadership and guidance to physicians to help them influence, manage and adapt to changes in health care delivery. The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada's physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and 51 national medical organizations. Introduction The 2013 Federal Budget introduced amendments to the Excise Tax Act that extend the application of the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) to supplies of reports, examinations and other property or services that are not made for the purpose of the protection, maintenance or restoration of the health of a person or for palliative care: new sections were added to the Excise Tax Act introducing additional conditions that must be met before uninsured health care services will be exempted from the GST/HST. These amendments are retroactive to March 22, 2013, for most provinces (exception: April 1, 2013, for Prince Edward Island). In response, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) detailed the concerns of its members in a formal letter to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and requested that the CRA conduct a consultation with stakeholders. On October 31, 2014, the CRA released a draft GST/HST policy statement, Qualifying Health Care Supplies and the Application of Section 1.2 of Part II of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act to the Supply of Medical Examinations, Reports and Certificates, herein referred to as the draft policy. The CRA notes that these "amendments clarify that [the] GST/HST applies to supplies of reports, examinations and other property or services that are not made for the purpose of the protection, maintenance or restoration of the health of a person or for palliative care." The CMA has consulted with all provincial and territorial medical associations on this matter and is pleased to provide its comments with respect to the draft policy. This document is intended to (1) highlight CMA's concerns with respect to the draft policy and (2) provide recommendations to improve it. Overall comments Although the draft policy is intended to clarify CRA's position with respect to the meaning of the term "qualifying health care supply" (QHCS), it provides insufficient guidance with respect to the CRA's view on (1) the meaning of the different elements of a QHCS, (2) the factors to be considered when determining if a supply is a QHCS and/or (3) the documentation required to support a physician's conclusions regarding the nature of his/her supplies. The CMA is concerned that this ambiguity will ultimately lead to confusion for patients and clinicians alike. Moreover, the CMA has identified the following high-level concerns with the draft policy: * Changes in the draft policy are retroactive to March 22, 2013, for most provinces (exception: April 1, 2013, for Prince Edward Island). There is a prolonged gap between the coming into force date (budget date) and the date on which CRA issued guidance on the new tax rules. * The draft policy places the responsibility for determining the purpose of a supply on the practitioner. The policy needs to provide additional guidance to practitioners on how to determine the purpose of a particular supply. * The CRA must ensure that the audit process respects patient-physician confidentiality. The draft policy should indicate the record-keeping/reporting requirements a physician should consider. The scope of the policy is also limited in some other ways. The policy does not address the implications for a physician of making a taxable supply, such as (1) how to apply the coming into force rule, (2) when to register for the GST/HST and (3) which rate of GST/HST to apply. New purpose test The CMA believes that physicians will find it problematic to apply the new purpose test in certain situations. This is because the purpose test is subjective and needs to be applied on a case-by-case, patient-by-patient basis. As a result, different individuals may reach different conclusions, depending on their expertise (i.e., physicians vs. CRA auditors). Furthermore, the draft policy does not provide comments on the meaning of terms such as "for the purpose of" or the terms "maintaining health," "preventing disease" and "treating ... illness, disorder or disability." Moreover, the draft policy does not mention the first order supply principle or specify CRA's view on whose health must be maintained or whose disease, injury, illness, disorder or disability must be addressed. Must it be the recipient of the supply, the person to whom the services are rendered, or may it be another person? The answers to these questions are determined based on the particular scenario. The draft policy places the responsibility for determining the purpose of a supply on the practitioner. However, the draft policy does not provide guidance on how to determine the purpose of a particular supply. Furthermore, it is conceivable that the purpose of a supply could change either during an initial visit (i.e., if an illness is identified) or over time (as a result of changing medical opinions on certain procedures). Moreover, the draft policy does not recognize and consider that the diagnostic procedures performed by a practitioner when examining a patient are the same whether or not the practitioner is being paid by or providing a report to a third party. It also does not recognize and consider that even though the practitioner may be reporting to a third party, he/she is also discussing his/her recommendations for treatment with the patient. Recommendations 1. Expand on the meaning of "for the purpose of," as follows: * Discuss the first order supply principle and how it would apply to the purpose test in this circumstance (e.g., is the purpose the immediate reason for the supply or does one have to consider the eventual or ultimate goal?). * Provide a list of factors that practitioners should consider when they are determining the purpose of the supply (see Appendix 1 for other CRA policy statements that include such lists). * Discuss the impact of an additional purpose arising during the course of an examination. 2. Clarify the meaning of the following terms: * maintaining health * preventing disease * treating, relieving or remediating an injury, illness, disorder or disability 3. Recognize and consider that the diagnostic procedures used by a practitioner when examining a patient are the same whether or not the practitioner is being paid or providing a report to a third party (e.g., insurance company, court) and that even though the practitioner may be reporting to a third party, the practitioner is also discussing their recommendations for treatment with the patient. The draft policy should address and explore this issue. 4. Provide examples of documentation that could be used to support a practitioner's decision, taking into account the need to maintain the confidentiality of patient records. Assisting (other than financially) an individual in coping with an injury illness, disorder or disability Without further guidance, the meaning of "assisting (other than financially) an individual in coping with an injury illness, disorder or disability" is subjective. Practitioners may disagree on whether or not a particular supply meets the definition. The current policy provides insufficient guidance on how to determine if a report is for financial assistance or for coping with an injury, illness, disorder or disability. For example, reports to employers could be for either purpose. Recommendations 5. Provide greater clarity with respect to the concept of "assisting (other than financially) an individual in coping with an injury illness, disorder or disability." 6. Provide comments on the meaning of the following terms: * financial assistance * injury, illness, disorder or disability 7. Provide factors to guide practitioners in determining when a report to a third party is for financial assistance or for another purpose. 8. Provide examples of documentation that would be sufficient to demonstrate to the CRA the validity of the practitioner's conclusion that a supply is a QHCS. Single- versus multiple-supply analysis The draft policy states: "In cases where a supply is made for more than one purpose, all of these purposes would be considered when determining if the supply is a qualifying health care supply. If one of the purposes for the supply meets the definition of 'qualifying health care supply' then the supply would be a qualifying health care supply. However, it should be noted that supplies are generally made for a single purpose. In cases where a health care service, such as an examination or assessment, is supplied together with a report or certificate it is necessary to determine if the supplier has made a single or multiple supplies." The addition of the single versus multiple supply analysis adds significant complexity to the process of determining whether a supply is a QHCS. If a service is considered by the CRA as constituting multiple supplies, each with a different tax treatment, the practitioner will have to apportion the fees between the supplies for tax application purposes. It is not practical for a clinician to analyze whether a particular patient visit is a single supply or whether it constitutes multiple supplies. This responsibility would be an onerous burden for practitioners. Recommendations 9. The draft policy should take the view that, in general, there is a single supply. 10. The draft policy should clearly indicate that the health care purpose is determinative and takes precedence over any other purpose. If a supply has multiple purposes, and one of the purposes is a qualifying health care supply, then the supply will be classified as a QHCS and thus exempt from GST/HST. 11. Provide practical examples of situations in which a practitioner could be making multiple supplies. 12. Provide a list of factors specific to the QHCS to help practitioners determine whether a supply constitutes a single supply or multiple supplies. Examples The draft policy includes 23 examples that each set out the CRA's view on whether or not a particular supply or combination of supplies qualifies as a QHCS and is therefore exempt. All of the examples involve a single supply; there are no scenarios involving multiple supplies. Furthermore, although the examples provide the CRA's decision on whether or not the supply in question constitutes a QHCS, they do not discuss the various factors/elements that the CRA would consider in reaching that decision. For example, examples 3, 4 and 5 all involve an examination of a patient and a report or document that a patient provides to an employer or potential employer. The draft policy does not clearly explain why the supplies in examples 4 and 5 are QHCS but the supply in example 3 is not. Moreover, in some cases, the examples provided by the CRA do not reflect all of the aspects of the scenario in question. For example, in Alberta, a driver's medical examination (and completion of the associated form) is an insured service after the age of 75 years, but example 10 makes the blanket statement that completion of such a form is not a QHCS. Another example is that in some cases there is a subtle distinction between sick notes and short-term disability forms, for time missed because of illness. Recommendations 13. If both single- and multiple-supply concepts are included in the final version of the policy, examples with multiple supplies should also be included. 14. For each example, clarify in the rationale section how the tax status was determined in each example. 15. Include a linkage to the factors discussed in the draft policy statement suggested above in making its determination of the tax status of the supply. 16. The CRA should maintain a repository and distribute a list of additional examples not included in this iteration of the policy (e.g., annual executive medical examinations, applications for Disability Tax Credit). 17. The policy could include comments on GST/HST registration, collection and reporting requirements, the association rules and the small supplier threshold as well as possible eligibility for recoveries of GST/HST by way of rebate or input tax credits (ITC) and ITC allocation requirements. Conclusion The CMA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft policy as part of CRA's consultation process. To ensure that clinicians can implement the new requirements with minimal impact on their patients and their practice, additional clarity is required with respect to the meaning of the various elements in the definition of a QHCS, the factors to be considered when determining if a supply is a QHCS, and the documentation required to support a physician's conclusions regarding the nature of his/her supplies. The CMA would welcome the opportunity to comment on future iterations of this policy. Appendix 1 Examples of GST/HST policy statements that include a list of factors to assist the reader in determining whether a particular set of facts meets the CRA's policy: * P - 244: Partnerships - Application of subsection 272.1(1) of the Excise Tax Act. * P - 238: Application of the GST/HST to Payments Made Between Parties Within a Medical Practice Organization * P - 228: Primary Place of Residence * P - 208R: Meaning of Permanent Establishment * P - 276R: Application of Profit Test to Carrying on a Business * P - 167R: Meaning of the First Part of the Definition of Business * P - 164: Rent-to-own Agreements * P - 111R: The Meaning of Sale with Respect to Real Property * P - 104: Supply of Land for Recreational Units Such as Mini-homes, Park Model Trailers, and Travel Trailers * P - 090 Remote Work Site * P - 077R2 - Single and Multiple Supplies * P - 051R2: Carrying on Business in Canada
Documents
Less detail

CMA's Submission to Finance Canada regarding proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10353
Date
2012-02-14
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2012-02-14
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
As previously indicated in the Retirement Income Improvement Coalition's (RIIC) letter to the Minister of Finance on August 10, 2011, the CMA supports the federal government's proposal to expand access to pensions, specifically by establishing a legislative and regulatory framework to permit pooled registered retirement plans (PRPPs). The CMA is concerned that as currently proposed, the PRPP framework, including Bill C-25 and the proposed legislative amendments to the Income Tax Act, would limit the potential for PRPPs to contribute to expanding access to, and investment in, pensions for self-employed individuals. With respect to the pension framework, a critical issue, two principles are central to the CMA's membership of over 76,000 physicians. These are, to encourage the federal government to: 1) ensure that self-employed Canadians can retire with an appropriate level of retirement income (e.g., a 70% of pre-retirement income target); and, 2) expand the retirement savings options that are available to self-employed Canadians. The CMA's comments herein on the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act are in support of these two principles. As elaborated below, the CMA encourages the federal government to: 1. Increase the retirement savings capacity of self-employed individuals by raising the combined limit for RRSPs; 2. Expand the PRPP framework to include defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans; and, 3. Clarify the eligibility criteria of "PRPP administrators" to include professional associations. 1. Increase the combined contribution limit for PRPPs and RRSPs As proposed, it is our understanding that the core benefit of the PRPP framework is in providing smaller businesses access to low-cost pension plans, thereby providing a vehicle to encourage employers to establish, and contribute to, pensions for their employees. While the CMA recognizes the value of, and supports, this objective, this proposal in effect maintains the status quo for self-employed individuals. Under Clause 10 of the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act, the contribution limit to PRPPs would be calculated as an additional component of the current registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) contribution limit. As outlined in the Explanatory Notes, "an employer's contributions to an individual's PRPP account [and...] an individual's PRPP contributions in a taxation year will immediately reduce the individual's ability to make deductible RRSP contributions in that same year." While individuals with employer contributions stand to benefit from increased retirement savings via employer contributions, self-employed individuals are merely provided with access to an alternate retirement savings vehicle. As explained in the Summary Report on Retirement Income Adequacy Researchi, "[h]igher income groups tend to exhibit a greater tendency to substitute one form of saving for another since they tend to be bound by limits...[I]f newly introduced plans are included in limitations imposed on the degree to which contributions may be deductible for tax purposes, saving may not increase for individuals who are constrained (i.e. saving up to their limit), since they would more likely substitute one type of saving for another (e.g., RRSP for a private pension plan)." Therefore, the CMA encourages the federal government to consider increasing the retirement savings capacity of self-employed individuals by raising the combined limit for RRSPs and PRPPs. 2. Include defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans As noted under Clause 12, the registration criteria for PRPPs will be established by the PRPP Act, Bill C-25. Of concern, Bill C-25 limits PRPPs to defined contribution pension plans by specifically excluding from eligibility of registration: (a) a pension plan as defined by 2(1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act; (b) an employees' or a deferred profit sharing plan; (c) an RRSP or a retirement compensation arrangement defined by 248(1) of the Income Tax Act; and, (d) any other prescribed plan or arrangement. As highlighted by the Summary Report on Retirement Income Adequacy Research, "defined benefit pension funds and annuities enable investors to share longevity risks as well as pool risky investments to diversify risk." By pooling risk, defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans provide more secure savings vehicles than defined contributions plans. The CMA encourages the federal government to expand the PRPP framework to include defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans. While the CMA will advance this recommendation to the House of Commons Finance Committee during its consultation on Bill C-25, we include it as part of this submission as modifications to the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act would be required. 3. Clarify the eligibility criteria of "PRPP administrators" to include professional associations Further clarification is required on the type of organization that may qualify as a PRPP administrator. As noted under Clause 12, an administrator of a PRPP is authorized under the PRPP Act. As Bill C-25, the PRPP Act, is still in the legislative process, the CMA will elaborate on this issue during the formal Parliamentary consultation. However, as it stands, further clarification is required on the eligibility criteria proposed by Bill C-25. While Bill C-25 can be interpreted to extend administrator eligibility to organizations that are able to fulfill the criteria established by the PRPP Act, Finance Canada's Framework for PRPPs states that eligibility of administrators would be limited to "regulated financial institutions that are capable of taking on a fiduciary role". Well-governed professional organizations that represent a particular membership should be able to sponsor and administer RPPs and PRPPs for their own members, including self-employed members. Conclusion While the CMA supports the proposed PRPP framework in principle, the proposed limitations to PRPPs should be addressed to ensure that they also provide value to self-employed Canadians, including physicians. The CMA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act and to once again advance recommendations to Finance Canada on the PRPP framework. i Prepared for the Research Working Group on Retirement Income Adequacy of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Finance.
Documents
Less detail

CMA's Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance: Amending Bill C-25 to expand the PRPP framework to provide value to self-employed Canadians

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10355
Date
2012-02-24
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2012-02-24
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) supports the Government of Canada's efforts to improve Canada's retirement income system, specifically by establishing a legislative framework to permit pooled registered pension plans (PRPPs) as proposed in Bill C-25, the PRPP Act. The CMA has long supported the Government of Canada's efforts to expand access to pensions, including by permitting PRPPs. However, the CMA is concerned that as currently proposed, Bill C-25 limits the potential for PRPPs to expand the access to, and investment in, pensions of self-employed individuals. The CMA has participated in, and made recommendations to, Finance Canada over the course of the department's multi-year consultative process, including responding to the 2010 consultative paper Ensuring the Ongoing Strength of Canada's Retirement Income System. The CMA has also made recommendations to Finance Canada as a member of the Retirement Income Improvement Coalition (RIIC), which consists of 11 national professional associations representing over 1 million self-employed professionals. The following discussion and recommendations align with those previously made by the CMA and the RIIC. The pension framework is a critical issue to CMA's membership of over 76,000 physicians. In addressing the pension framework, including permitting PRPPs, two principles are central to the CMA's membership: to ensure that self-employed Canadians can retire with an appropriate level of retirement income (e.g., a target of 70% of pre-retirement income); and, to expand the retirement savings options that are available to self-employed Canadians. The CMA's comments herein, and recommendations to the Finance Committee to amend Bill C-25, are in support of these two principles. As elaborated below, the CMA encourages the Finance Committee to: 1. Amend Bill C-25 to raise the combined limit for RRSPs and PRPPs in order to increase the retirement savings capacity of self-employed individuals. 2. Amend Section 12(1) of Bill C-25 to expand the PRPP framework so it includes defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans, which provide more secure savings vehicles than defined contributions plans. 3. Ensure the eligibility clauses of Bill C-25 (Sections 14-26) would allow well-governed professional organizations that represent a particular membership to be able to sponsor and administer RPPs and PRPPs for their own members, including self-employed members. 1. Increase the combined contribution limit It is our understanding that the core benefit of the proposed PRPP framework is in providing smaller businesses access to low-cost pension plans, thereby providing a vehicle to encourage employers to establish, and contribute to, pensions for their employees. However, as explained by the Explanatory Notes accompanying the proposed Income Tax Act amendments, "an employer's contributions to an individual's PRPP account [and...] an individual's PRPP contributions in a taxation year will immediately reduce the individual's ability to make deductible RRSP contributions in that same year." While the CMA recognizes the value of, and supports, this objective, this proposal in effect maintains the status quo for self-employed individuals. Like the Canadian population at large, physicians represent an aging demographic - 38% of Canada's physicians are 55 or older - for whom retirement planning is an important concern. In addition, the vast majority of CMA members are self-employed physicians and, as such, they are unable to participate in workplace registered pension plans (RPPs). At present, physicians are more reliant on registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) relative to other retirement savings vehicles. While individuals with employer contributions stand to benefit from increased retirement savings via employer contributions, self-employed individuals are merely provided with access to an alternate retirement savings vehicle. As explained in the Summary Report on Retirement Income Adequacy Researchi, "[h]igher income groups tend to exhibit a greater tendency to substitute one form of saving for another since they tend to be bound by limits...[I]f newly introduced plans are included in limitations imposed on the degree to which contributions may be deductible for tax purposes, saving may not increase for individuals who are constrained (i.e. saving up to their limit), since they would more likely substitute one type of saving for another (e.g., RRSP for a private pension plan)." Therefore, the CMA encourages the Finance Committee to consider amending Bill C-25 to increase the retirement savings capacity of self-employed individuals by raising the combined limit for RRSPs and PRPPs. 2. Include Defined Benefit and Targeted Benefit Pension Plans As currently proposed, Section 12(1) of Bill C-25 limits PRPPs to defined contribution pension plans by specifically excluding from eligibility of registration: (a) a pension plan as defined by 2(1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act; (b) an employees' or a deferred profit-sharing plan; (c) an RRSP or a retirement compensation arrangement defined by 248(1) of the Income Tax Act; and, (d) any other prescribed plan or arrangement. As highlighted in the Summary Report on Retirement Income Adequacy Research, "defined benefit pension funds and annuities enable investors to share longevity risks as well as pool risky investments to diversify risk." By pooling risk, defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans provide more secure savings vehicles than defined contribution plans. The CMA encourages the Finance Committee to amend Bill C-25 to expand the PRPP framework to include defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans. 3. Clarify the eligibility criteria of "PRPP administrators" to include professional associations Further clarification is required on the type of organization that may qualify as a PRPP administrator under Bill C-25. While Sections 14-26 of Bill C-25 can be interpreted to extend administrator eligibility to organizations that are able to fulfill the criteria it establishes, Finance Canada's Framework for Pooled Registered Retirement Plans states that eligibility of administrators would be limited to "regulated financial institutions that are capable of taking on a fiduciary role." The CMA encourages the Finance Committee to ensure that the eligibility clauses of Bill C-25 would allow well-governed professional organizations that represent a particular membership to be able to sponsor and administer RPPs and PRPPs for their own members, including self-employed members. Conclusion While the CMA supports the proposed PRPP framework in principle, the limitations currently proposed by Bill C-25 should be addressed to ensure that PRPPs also provide value to self-employed Canadians, including physicians. The CMA appreciates the opportunity to comment to the Finance Committee as part of its study of Bill C-25. Summary of Recommendations Recommendation 1 Amend Bill C-25 to raise the combined limit for RRSPs and PRPPs in order to increase the retirement savings capacity of self-employed individuals. Recommendation 2 Amend Section 12(1) of Bill C-25 to expand the PRPP framework so it includes defined benefit and targeted benefit pension plans, which provide more secure savings vehicles than defined contributions plans. Recommendation 3 Ensure the eligibility clauses of Bill C-25 (Sections 14-26) would allow well-governed professional organizations that represent a particular membership to be able to sponsor and administer RPPs and PRPPs for their own members, including self-employed members. i Prepared for the Research Working Group on Retirement Income Adequacy of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Finance.
Documents
Less detail