Thread by @yomeeks

This is your daily pension announcement: The "how LAPP got screwed over" edition. BTW here is my #fakedog. If the energy war room can do it so can the pension war room...#handsoffmypension #ABLeg #ABed

The same general comments I make about LAPP also apply to PSPP and SFPP though some of the details are different.

I can't provide the complete history of the plan... other than to say that Bill 22 substantially changes governance for the LAPP Corporation.

This seems to have resulted in the GOA re-assuming all the risk for the plan. Some history: before the LAPP was a plan where the Minister of Finance was the sole trustee and custodian of the plan (a "fiduciary"). This was not ideal in terms of structure. #really

The Canadian pension plan model is studied around the world as representing evolving best practice.

If the Minister is the sole trustee of the plan anything that happens (like an unfunded liability) is taken back and dropped on their desk.

So if the plan (this is critical) did not earn enough through investment to pay the pensions the GOA is on the hook. They would "fund" the liability with taxpayer dollars. Maybe 10 years ago research was undertaken to make LAPP into a jointly sponsored plan (GOA+employees).

So if something went wrong the employees would share the risk with the GOA. So the LAPP Corporate Board was set up to be the trustee and custodian of the plan. The Minister and employees would take 50/50 responsibility for the plan and the plan risks.

Well, if you take responsibility, you need some control. And, the LAPP Corporation was given the responsibility for many of its business decision. Including switching investment mangers if AIMCo did not perform. #dogsbreakfast

Bill 22 includes many restrictions on how LAPP does business in the future including the AIMCo monopoly. Some of these implications can't even be sorted out from the cryptic nature of Bill 22. And, Travis has been, so far, unwilling to meet with LAPP. #iwonderwhy

In the words of the LAPP CEO: "Our primary concern is LAPP Corporation’s ongoing ability to carry out its role as fiduciary to the members of LAPP." In other words...we can't be the trustee and custodian for a plan if we are restricted in our business decisions.

This is a grave error on the part of Travis. With no discussion about risk the GOA has re-assumed an unfunded liability risk that was a shared risk previously. He has made a joint plan a de-facto sole trustee plan again.

The GOA assuming billions of dollars of financial risk* deserves more debate in the Legislature than 20 minutes. It also requires tons of research to support this kind of decision. The OAG will be interested for sure.

Leave a light on over Christmas. Democracy dies in darkness.

*I'm not even sure that JK knows that he is exposing taxpayers to risk. He has made some made some very conflicting statements on Facebook and elsewhere about pension plan risks.