Reforming Canada's Retirement Savings System – Solutions for a Non-Existent Problem?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past five years in Canada, issues concerning the adequacy of the Canadian retirement system has been debated with increasing intensity amongst politicians, economists, academics, policy analysts, think tanks and unions. This paper contributes to this important theoretical and public policy debate by reviewing and analysing existing research and presenting and reviewing additional empirical evidence. The central issue in this debate is whether or not Canadians are saving and investing enough through government, employer and private savings to provide an adequate income in retirement. And if a retirement income adequacy problem does exist, is it a universal problem for most Canadians or does it only affect some income groups or age cohorts? The third major question concerns the appropriate policy response. The paper also reviews and questions whether the current and proposed policies properly address the challenge and provides some recommendations. The paper shows that the larger part of this debate actually hinges on assumptions surrounding savings and the definition of savings. Those who claim that Canada faces a national pension and savings crisis only consider government and private savings pension plans whose assets are approximately only one third of total household wealth in Canada. However, this narrow definition of savings exclude all savings and investments held outside of recognized pension plans and thus exclude investments in stocks, bonds etc. as well as private homes and secondary residences which can provide for an important source of retirement income. However, there are a small number of Canadians that are or will be below the poverty line and this calls for a targeted policy response rather than an across the board reform of the Canada Pension Plan or provincial programs such as the newly proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP) which may actually be viewed as a payroll tax. Based on the evidence and analysis, the paper concludes that most Canadians do not face an inadequate income during retirement and no new government policy response is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".