CALGARY SUN: City Hall Unaware How Golden Its Pensions Are

City hall’s pensions are costing taxpayers a small fortune. There’s no debating that fact.

Unfortunately, city hall bureaucrats and councillors don’t seem to understand just how costly and unfair their pensions are.

Here’s a quick background on city hall’s pension situation.

Almost all city employees receive a pension through the Local Authorities Pension Plan. This plan describes itself as “quite generous.” LAPP’s website also notes that these pension benefits are a “substantial workplace benefit at a time when most Canadians have no workplace pension at all.”

And taxpayers are getting stuck with an ever increasing bill for these pensions. In 2002, the city spent $25 million on this pension. By 2019, the bill had exploded to $137 million. That’s more than a 440% increase in pension costs in less than two decades.

On top of this generous primary pension plan, more than 2,000 city employees are set to receive a second or third pension top-up when they retire. These second and third pensions cost taxpayers about $15 million last year. While city employees contribute some of the costs to the second pension, the third pension is 100% taxpayer funded.

City manager David Duckworth doesn’t think it’s fair to refer to these top-ups as second and third pensions.

But here’s the fundamental unfairness that Duckworth can’t seem to grasp: Calgarians without any workplace pension who are struggling with job losses and pay cuts continue to pay for pension top-ups in addition to an already generous primary pension.

While the city of Calgary recently tweeted that “city employees do not receive more than one pension,” in separate letters to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Secondstreet.org, the city provided charts that broke down the different plans under the heading: “multiple pension scenarios.”

Duckworth says ending these golden perks would make it harder to attract top talent. Putting aside the many Calgarians looking for work, other politicians are recognizing that ending these golden perks are the right move. A few months ago, the city of Red Deer decided to put an end to its third pension.

Some council members are also unable to grasp the unfairness of their own pensions. During a 2017 council meeting, Mayor Naheed Nenshi tried to justify council’s pensions by claiming it’s “pretty much standard” for employers to put $2 into a workplace pension for every $1 put in by employees.

This is wrong on a few counts.

First, even the generous primary pension benefit paid to city employees isn’t that lucrative.

Second, council’s pensions have required taxpayers to put in more than $2 for every $1 put in by council members. For example, the city spent more than $1 million on council’s pension in 2013, while council members only put in $139,000.

Third, Nenshi will receive a second pension upon retirement. He’ll receive the pension that all councillors receive, plus a second pension that is paid for completely by taxpayers.

Fortunately, council recently acknowledged that second pensions are unfair for taxpayers and voted to end the second pension for future mayors. If councillors can recognize that a second pension for the mayor is unfair, then they should also be able to recognize that second and third pensions for city employees is unfair. Further, council could scale back the cost of its own pension, and tackle the city’s main pension which, again, refers to itself as “quite generous.”

It’s unfortunate that elected officials and the city’s own administration have been spreading misinformation about the pension party down at city hall. Perhaps they’re concerned someone will come along with facts and crash the party.

Colin Craig is the president of SecondStreet.org and Franco Terrazzano is the Alberta director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

This column was published in Calgary Sun on December 14th, 2020. To see article click here. 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.