Pension Plans Survey (PPS) 2017-18
Final Report

POR Registration Number: 013-17
PSPC Contract Number: 59017-170005-001-CY
Contract Award Date: 2017-07-20
Delivery Date: 2018-04-26

Prepared by:
Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc.
1678 Bank Street, Suite 2
Ottawa, ON, K1V 7Y6   
T: 613-260-1700   
info@phoenixspi.ca

Prepared for:
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français

For more information on this report, please email: information@osfi-bsif.gc.ca

Table of Contents

• Executive summary
  • Methodology
  • Key Findings
  • Statement of Political Neutrality
• Introduction
  • Background and Objectives
  • Methodology, Response Rate and Quality Control
  • Note to Readers
• Detailed Findings
  • 1. Overall Impressions
  • 2. Guidance
  • 3. Supervision
  • 4. Approvals
  • 5. Overall Communication with OSFI
  • 6. InfoPensions
  • 7. OSFI’s Website
  • 8. Regulatory Reporting System
  • 9. Final Comments
• Appendix
  • Annex 1: Research Instruments
  • Annex 2: Tabulated Survey Data

List of Table

• Table 1: Overall satisfaction with OSFI
• Table 2: Reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction
• Table 3: Awareness of OSFI’s guidance
• Table 4: Knowing where to find OSFI guidance material
• Table 5: Effectiveness of OSFI guidance in providing a clear indication of expectations
• Table 6: Effectiveness of OSFI guidance in supporting plan compliance
• Table 7: Types of correspondence received
• Table 8: Clarity of OSFI correspondence
• Table 9: Opportunities to discuss supervisory concerns
• Table 10: Overall effectiveness in supervising plans
• Table 11: Approval applications submitted
• Table 12: Type of regulatory approval sought
• Table 13: Overall satisfaction with processing of applications
• Table 14: Responsiveness to requests for updates on applications
• Table 15: Opportunities to discuss concerns related to approval requests
• Table 16: Time taken to process approval request
• Table 17: Satisfaction with timeliness of processing approval request
• Table 18: Who is contacted at OSFI
• Table 19: Reasons to contact OSFI
• Table 20: Was the information provided
• Table 21: Satisfaction with the timeliness of response to enquiries
• Table 22: Satisfaction with OSFI’s capacity to interact in official language of choice
• Table 23: Reasons for dissatisfaction with OSFI’s capacity to interact in official language of choice
• Table 24: Awareness of InfoPensions
• Table 25: Readership of InfoPensions
• Table 26: Reasons for not reading InfoPensions
• Table 27: Perceived usefulness of InfoPensions
• Table 28: Suggested content for InfoPensions
• Table 29: Visits to OSFI website
• Table 30: Reasons for not visiting OSFI’s website
• Table 31: Purpose of visit to OSFI website
• Table 32: Extent to which visitors found what they were looking for on OSFI’s website – Plan Administrators
• Table 33: Extent to which visitors found what they were looking for on OSFI’s website – Professionals
• Table 34: Usefulness of information on OSFI’s website
• Table 35: Users of RRS
• Table 36: Reasons for not using RRS
• Table 37: Updating information in RRS
• Table 38: Reasons for not updating information in RRS
• Table 39: Use of RRS training materials
• Table 40: Which RRS training materials used
• Table 41: Reasons for not using RRS training materials
• Table 42: Perceived ease of use of RRS training materials
• Table 43: Reasons why RRS training materials not easy to use
• Table 44: Overall usefulness of RRS training materials
• Table 45: Final comments

Executive summary

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) is the primary regulator and supervisor of federally regulated financial institutions and pension plans. In this role, OSFI supervises and regulates 1,233 private pension plans covering employees in federally regulated areas of employment.

To help assess how well it is achieving its mandate, OSFI commissioned Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. (Phoenix SPI) to conduct a survey with pension plan administrators and professionals for their perceptions of OSFI’s performance. Generally conducted every three years, the Pension Plans Survey (PPS) collects data needed to assess OSFI’s perceived effectiveness in monitoring and supervising pension plans and supports OSFI’s commitment to be responsive to stakeholder input and to seek suggestions for improvement. Previous waves of the PPS were conducted in 2008-2009, 2011-2012, and 2014-2015.

The main objectives of this year’s survey were to: 1) obtain perspectives of OSFI’s performance as a regulator of federally regulated private pension plans; and 2) assess OSFI’s performance on a series of core measures. The survey was designed to collect opinions on the following:

• overall satisfaction with OSFI;
• clarity and usefulness of OSFI’s guidance;
• OSFI’s effectiveness at identifying problems with pension plans;
• the clarity of OSFI’s supervisory correspondence;
• the timeliness of OSFI’s approvals process; and
• OSFI’s effectiveness at communicating with pension plan administrators.

The results of the research provide the data needed to meet OSFI’s performance reporting commitments and enable OSFI’s Private Pension Plans Division (PPPD) to identify areas for improvement.

Methodology

To meet the objectives, an online survey was conducted with pension plan administrators and professionals who regularly deal with OSFI on behalf of pension plans. All plans with an asset size of $500,000 or more and at least 10 members were included in the survey. Available in both official languages, the survey was online from November 15 to December 22, 2017. Of the 1,045 plan administrators and professionals invited to complete the survey, 314 did so, which represents a solid response rate of 30%. Of the 314 respondents, 200 were plan administrators and 114 were professionals. Of the 200 plan administrators, 86 were defined benefits plan administrators, 82 defined contribution plan or pooled registered pension plan administrators, and 32 combination plan administrators. Since the entire population was invited to participate in this study, there is no margin of sampling error to be estimated or reported.

Key Findings

The following are key findings from the survey:

• Overall satisfaction with OSFI as a regulator is strong and among plan administrators it has increased since 2014. Seven in 10 (71%) plan administrators (up from 66% in 2014) and 68% of professionals are either very or somewhat satisfied with OSFI as a regulator.
• Not only were plan administrators and professionals satisfied with OSFI overall, the majority offered positive assessments of OSFI’s guidance material, effectiveness in supervising plans, response time to enquiries, and capacity to interact in both official languages. Specifically:
  • 73% of plan administrators and 82% of professionals believe OSFI’s guidance is effective at providing a clear indication of OSFI’s expectations.
  • 81% of plan administrators and 84% of professionals view OSFI as effective at supervising their plans.
  • 81% of plan administrators and 78% of professionals expressed satisfaction with the timeliness of OSFI’s response to enquiries.
  • Nine in 10 plan administrators (90%) and professionals (92%) are satisfied with OSFI’s capacity for interaction in the official languages.
• Across all but one of the areas explored, few respondents provided a negative rating of OSFI. The exception was OSFI’s approvals process. Levels of dissatisfaction, in particular among professionals, were higher in this area.
• Perceptions of the usefulness of InfoPensions’ content, as well as the information found in the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website were positive.
  • 86% of plan administrators and 88% of professionals who read or reviewed an edition of InfoPensions rated the content as useful.
  • 86% of plan administrators and 85% of professionals who visited the OSFI website rated the information in the pensions area as useful.
• Use of the Regulatory Reporting System (RRS) varies by audience: 79% of plan administrators and 48% of professionals said they use RRS. Fewer than half of the RRS users said they used the training and support materials. Difficulties using RRS continue to exist. Consistent with 2014, many of those who provided final comments reported difficulties using RRS and those not satisfied with OSFI as a regulator pointed to issues using RRS.

The contract value was $41,034.82 (including HST).

Statement of Political Neutrality

I hereby certify as a Senior Officer of Phoenix Strategic Perspectives that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not contain any reference to electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leader.

Signed by: Alethea Woods, President, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc.

Introduction

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), Canada commissioned Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. (Phoenix SPI) to conduct a survey to assess OSFI’s performance as the regulator and supervisor of federally administered pension plans.

Background and Objectives

OSFI is the primary regulator and supervisor of federally regulated financial institutions and pension plans. In this role, OSFI supervises and regulates 1,233 private pension plans covering employees in federally regulated areas of employment.

To help assess how well it is achieving its mandate, OSFI undertakes surveys with pension plan administrators and professionals for their perceptions of OSFI’s performance. Generally conducted every three years, the Pension Plans Survey (PPS) collects data needed to assess OSFI’s perceived effectiveness in monitoring and supervising pension plans and supports OSFI’s commitment to be responsive to stakeholder input and to seek suggestions for improvement. Previous waves of the PPS were conducted in 2008-2009, 2011-2012, and 2014-2015.

The main objectives of this year’s survey were to: 1) obtain perspectives of OSFI’s performance as a regulator of federally regulated private pension plans; and 2) assess OSFI’s performance on a series of core measures. The survey was designed to collect opinions on the following:

• overall satisfaction with OSFI;
• clarity and usefulness of OSFI’s guidance;
• OSFI’s effectiveness at identifying problems with pension plans;
• the clarity of OSFI’s supervisory correspondence;
• the timeliness of OSFI’s approvals process; and
• OSFI’s effectiveness at communicating with pension plan administrators.

The results of the research provide the data needed to meet OSFI’s performance reporting commitments and enable OSFI’s Private Pension Plans Division (PPPD) to identify areas for improvement.

Methodology, Response Rate and Quality Control

To meet the objectives, an online survey was conducted with pension plan administrators and professionals who regularly deal with OSFI on behalf of pension plans. The target population was federally regulated private pension plans with an asset size of $500,000 or more and at least 10 members were included in the survey. In advance of the survey, an invitation letter from OSFI’s Superintendent was sent by email to eligible pension plan administrators and professionals. This letter encouraged participation, identified Phoenix SPI as the firm conducting the online survey on behalf of OSFI, and provided assurances of confidentiality.

Following distribution of the letter, Phoenix SPI sent plan administrators and professionals an email containing a link to access the password-protected online survey. Available in both official languages, the survey was online from November 15 to December 22, 2017. Of the 1,045 plan administrators and professionals invited to complete the survey, 314 did so, which represents a solid response rate of 30%. The response rate was calculated using the formula outlined in the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research (Online Surveys).

Of the 314 respondents, 200 were plan administrators and 114 were professionals. In 2017, a larger number of professionals who interact with OSFI on behalf of pension plans were invited to complete the survey. For this reason, a larger proportion of the surveys were completed by professionals than in previous years.

Of the 200 plan administrators, 86 were defined benefits plan administrators, 82 defined contribution plan or pooled registered pension plan administrators, and 32 combination plan administrators. When compared to the population of plan administrators, the survey sample contained a greater proportion of defined benefits plan administrators than defined contribution plan or pooled registered pension plan administrators. As a result, the survey results over represent the views of defined benefits plan administrators and underrepresent those of defined contribution plan or pooled registered pension plan administrators. To the extent that the views and experiences of defined benefits plan administrators and defined contribution plan or pooled registered pension plan administrators differ, non-response bias should be considered possible though not certain.

To maximize the response rate, three reminder emails were sent (to those who had not completed the survey), and the deadline for completing the survey was extended to December 22, 2017 (from December 15, 2017).

In addition to reminders sent by email, a telephone campaign was used to remind plan administrators and professionals to participate in the survey. As part of the follow-up telephone calls, plan administrators and professionals were offered the option to complete the survey over the telephone at the time of the reminder call, or to schedule a time to complete the survey over the telephone at a later date. Eight individuals elected to complete the survey with an interviewer over the telephone.

Since the entire population was invited to participate in this study, there is no margin of sampling error to be estimated or reported.

Regarding quality control,

• The survey questionnaire was programmed using computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI) technology.
• The programming was tested for skip logic by the initial programmer, as well as by a second senior programmer. Following this, the script was tested through random data generation.
• Following survey best practices, the questionnaire was pre-tested in advance of the fieldwork to ensure that it measured what it was intended to measure. There were 10 completions in English and one in French as part of the pre-test; no issues or concerns arose during the pre-test. 
• The survey was registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association’s (MRIA) National Survey Registration System.
• After the first night of data collection, the survey data underwent a quality control check by a senior programmer. Additional quality control checks were conducted at 25% milestones throughout the survey period.

All steps of the project complied with market research industry standards, including those of the MRIA, and the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research.

Note to Readers

• Results for professionals are presented separately from those of plan administrators.
• 2014 Pension Plan Survey results are discussed as relevant.
• Results are expressed as a percentage, unless otherwise noted.
• Percentages may not always add to 100 due to rounding.
• All “don’t know” and “not applicable” responses have been removed.
• The following acronyms are used: DK/NA: Don’t Know/Not applicable; RRS: Regulatory Reporting System; and PPS: Pension Plans Survey.

Detailed Findings

1. Overall Impressions

Satisfaction with OSFI as a regulator and supervisor remains high

The majority of respondents were satisfied with OSFI as a regulator or supervisor of private pension plans. Among plan administrators, 71% said they were very (42%) or somewhat (29%) satisfied with OSFI. This represents an increase since 2014 results when only two-thirds of plan administrators rated themselves as very (34%) or somewhat (32%) satisfied.

With regards to professionals, just over two-thirds (68%) said they were very (35%) or somewhat (33%) satisfied with OSFI. Compared to the 2014 results, there has been a large increase in the proportion of professionals who said they were very satisfied, from 19% in 2014 to 35% in 2017.

Reasons for Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with OSFI

Respondents were asked in an open-ended manner to explain why they rated themselves as satisfied or dissatisfied with OSFI as a regulator and supervisor of private pension plans. Among plan administrators, the reasons for satisfaction included that OSFI is a good regulator and supervisor (with 15 responses), that OSFI has good or helpful staff and service (13 responses), and that OSFI provides quick/efficient service (12 responses). This is similar to 2014 when the top reasons for satisfaction related to good staff and communication.

The top reasons for dissatisfaction among plan administrators included difficulty using the Regulatory Reporting System (RRS) (with 13 responses) and the view that OSFI demands are unrealistic and too complex (9 responses). Difficulty using the RRS was also the top reason for dissatisfaction in 2014.

Professionals reported similar reasons for satisfaction as plan administrators. However, professionals were more likely to attribute their dissatisfaction to rigid interpretations (with 14 responses), lack of support or consistency from OSFI (10 responses), and slow service (10 responses). Rigid interpretations was also the top reason for dissatisfaction among professionals in 2014.

**Response categories reflect analysis of open-ended feedback provided by respondents.

2. Guidance

Awareness of OSFI’s guidance material is high

Three-quarters (75%) of plan administrators indicated they are aware of the guidance material published by OSFI. This is consistent with the 2014 PPS results, when 77% of plan administrators said they were aware of OSFI’s guidance material.

Awareness of OSFI’s guidance material was higher among professionals. Nearly nine in 10 (87%) said they are aware of the guidance material. In addition, compared to plan administrators, professionals were more likely to strongly agree on this point (49% vs. 20%, respectively). As with plan administrators, these results are similar to those of 2014.

Most know where to find OSFI guidance material

Among plan administrators, 71% (down slightly from 75% in 2014) agreed that they know where to find OSFI guidance material. Compared to plan administrators, professionals (85%; up from 76% in 2014) were more likely to agree they know where to find OSFI guidance material.

OSFI guidance is effective in providing clear expectations

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of plan administrators believe OSFI’s guidance is effective in providing a clear indication of the agency’s expectation: 42% said guidance is somewhat effective and 31% said it is very effective. This represents a decline since 2014 when 78% of plan administrators said OSFI’s guidance was somewhat or very effective in providing clear expectations.

Compared to plan administrators, professionals (82%) were more likely to believe OSFI’s guidance is effective. These results are unchanged from 2014.

OSFI guidance is effective in supporting plan compliance

In addition to rating OSFI guidance material as effective in providing clear expectations, nearly three-quarters (73%) of plan administrators said OSFI’s guidance is somewhat or very effective in supporting them in their role to ensure that their plan is compliant with federal pension requirements. These results are unchanged from 2014.

Approximately four in five professionals (81%) said OSFI’s guidance is effective on this measure—47% rated it as somewhat effective and 34% said it is very effective. This represents a small increase from 2014, when 76% of surveyed professionals rated OSFI’s guidance as somewhat or very effective.

3. Supervision

Variety of OSFI written correspondence received in the last year

Plan-specific issues was the top type of written correspondence received by respondents in the last year, although this was more likely to have been mentioned by professionals (46%) than plan administrators (28%). Among plan administrators, other types of written correspondence mentioned with some frequency included late filing of regulatory returns (21%), review of actuarial valuation report (20%), plan examination correspondence, findings or recommendations (18%), and notification of late remittance of contributions (18%).

Following plan-specific issues, professionals were most likely to have received the review of actuarial valuation report (41%). Other types of written correspondence mentioned with some frequency included plan examination correspondence, findings or recommendations (18%) and late filing of regulatory returns (15%).

Notably, one-third (33%) of plan administrators and 27% of professionals said they did not receive any correspondence from OSFI in the last year.

Positive perceptions of the clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence

Survey respondents hold positive perceptions of OSFI’s written correspondence. Seven in 10 plan administrators considered the clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence to be good or very good. This is virtually unchanged from 2014, when 69% of plan administrators offered a positive assessment. What has changed is the proportion of plan administrators who rated the clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence as very good. This has increased six percentage points, from 23% in 2014 to 29% in 2017.

Among professionals, nearly three-quarters (74%) provided a positive assessment of OSFI’s written correspondence (up from 69% in 2014).

OSFI provides opportunities to discuss issues related to supervision

Approximately two-thirds (67%) of plan administrators said OSFI is doing a good (36%) or very good (31%) job with respect to providing an opportunity for their plan(s) to discuss issues of concern with OSFI prior to the agency coming to a conclusion. This represents a slight increase from the 2014 PPS survey when 63% of plan administrators provided positive performance ratings of OSFI in this area.

Seven in 10 professionals (down from 76% in 2014) rated OSFI’s performance as good or very good when it comes to providing opportunities to discuss issues related to supervision. Compared to 2014, a greater proportion of professionals rated OSFI’s performance as poor or very poor (14% in 2017 vs. 6% in 2014).

OSFI continues to be viewed as effective at supervising plans

Four in five (81%) plan administrators view OSFI as somewhat or very effective at supervising their plans. These results are unchanged from 2014. However, the proportion of plan administrators who rated OSFI’s supervision as very effective increased from 31% in 2014 to 40% in 2017.

Additionally, more than four in five (84%) professionals rated OSFI’s supervision as somewhat or very effective. This represents an increase from 2014 when 67% of professionals rated OSFI’s supervision as effective, as well as an increase in the intensity of positive perceptions. In 2017, professionals were more likely (41%) to think OSFI is very effective at supervising plans than they were in 2014 (9%).

4. Approvals

Few submitted an application for regulatory approval in the past three years

One in five plan administrators (down from 38% in 2014) said they submitted an application for a regulatory approval in the past three years. While professionals were more likely to have submitted an application than plan administrators, fewer reported submitting an application in the past three years than had reported doing so in 2014 (31% in 2017 compared to 58% in 2014).

Plan registrations/terminations more likely to have been sought than other regulatory approvals

Those who submitted a regulatory application in the past three years were more likely to have sought a plan registration or termination. Specifically, 43% of plan administrators and 52% of professionals sought this type of approval in the past three years. Conversely, 39% of plan administrators and 45% of professionals said they sought approval for an asset transfer, reducing amendment, or refund of surplus.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=23 plan administrators and n=31 professionals.

Satisfaction with OSFI in processing applications

Plan administrators (71%) were more likely than professionals (62%) to be satisfied with OSFI in processing applications from their plans. While there has been a slight decline in the proportion of plan administrators who are satisfied with OSFI this year, there has been an increase in the proportion of plan administrators who are very satisfied (38% in 2014 and 56% in 2017).

Among professionals, satisfaction has declined this year, from 72% in 2014 to 62% in 2017. In addition, there has been an increase in the proportion of professionals who expressed dissatisfaction, up from 18% in 2014 to 28% in 2017.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=27 plan administrators and n=32 professionals.

Half or more offer positive rating of OSFI’s responsiveness to application status updates

The majority (82%) of plan administrators who submitted an application in the past three years rated OSFI’s responsiveness to application status updates positively. This represents a slight increase since 2014 when 77% said OSFI is doing a good or very good job. The rest, 17%, rated OSFI’s performance as fair. No-one said OSFI is doing a poor job in this area.

Fewer professionals, but still half (50%), rated OSFI’s responsiveness to application status updates as good or very good. This represents a decrease since 2014 when 63% of professionals rated OSFI’s responsiveness positively. At the same time, there has been an increase in negative scores (21% compared to 3% in 2014).

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=23 plan administrators and n=28 professionals.

OSFI provides opportunities to discuss issues of concern related to approvals

Among plan administrators who submitted an application in the past three years, 81% rated OSFI’s provision of opportunities to discuss issues as good or very good. This represents an increase since 2014 when 73% rated OSFI positively on this measure.

However, only 58% of professionals rated OSFI’s provision of opportunities to discuss issues as good or very good. This represents a decline in the proportion of professionals holding a positive view of OSFI’s performance, from 79% in 2014 to 58% in 2017. In addition, 17% of professionals rated OSFI’s performance as poor or very poor (compared to 5% in 2014).

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=21 plan administrators and n=29 professionals.

Time taken by OSFI to process application varies

The majority of respondents who submitted an application for regulatory approval in the past three years said their application was processed in 12 months or less, with the plurality reporting processing times of six months or less. Specifically, 41% of plan administrators and 34% of professionals reported that it took OSFI six months or less to process their applications, and 36% of plan administrators and 34% of professionals said it took between seven and 12 months. On the other end of the spectrum, 23% of plan administrators and 31% of professionals reported it took OSFI more than 12 months to process a plan application for approval.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=22 plan administrators and n=29 professionals.

Majority satisfied with timeliness of processing plan applications

The majority of those who submitted an application for a regulatory approval in the past three years were somewhat or very satisfied with the timeliness in which OSFI processes these applications. Among plan administrators, 76% (up from 69% in 2014) were somewhat or very satisfied with OSFI’s timeliness. Fewer professionals, but still a majority (55%; down from 60% in 2014), were somewhat or very satisfied with OSFI’s timeliness of processing plan applications.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=25 plan administrators and n=31 professionals.

5. Overall Communication with OSFI

Relationship manager main OSFI contact for questions

When respondents were asked who they normally contact at OSFI when they have a question related to their plans, their relationship manager or plan supervisor was the most commonly cited contact.

Looking first at plan administrators, three in 10 (31%) said they normally contact their relationship manager or plan administrator. This was followed by the OSFI toll free line (23%) and the OSFI general email (12%). These results are similar to those of 2014, though there has been a decrease in the proportion of plan administrators who indicated they contact their relationship manager or plan administrator (from 43% in 2014 to 31% in 2017).

Among professionals, nearly four in 10 (39%) said they contact their relationship manager or plan administrator when they have questions. This is virtually unchanged since 2014 when 38% pointed to their relationship manager. Relationship manager was followed at a distance by OSFI’s toll free line (12%) and an Actuarial Consultant (12%).

Assistance using RRS and plan-specific questions top reasons for contacting OSFI

Nearly half of plan administrators (47%) said that the reason for their most recent interaction with OSFI was to obtain assistance submitting returns using the RRS. This was by far the most common reason for contacting OSFI. Much smaller proportions pointed to other reasons, including plan-specific questions (19%) and assistance filling out forms or returns (17%).

Among professionals, four in 10 contacted OSFI with plan-specific questions. This was followed by interpretation of legislation or regulations (29%) and assistance submitting returns using the RRS (18%).

All other reasons were mentioned by fewer than one in 10 plan administrators and professionals.

Majority received the information or assistance needed

Nine in 10 (90%) plan administrators said they received the information or assistance they needed when they contacted OSFI. This is virtually unchanged from the 2014 when 91% of plan administrators reported receiving what they needed when contacting OSFI. A smaller proportion of professionals, but still a strong majority of 82%, reported that they also received what they needed when they contacted OSFI. This is also nearly identical to 2014 (82% in 2017 versus 81% in 2014).

Most satisfied with timeliness of OSFI’s response to enquiries

Among plan administrators, 81% expressed satisfaction with the timeliness of OSFI’s response to enquiries. The proportion of plan administrators that expressed satisfaction on this measure has increased since 2014, from 69% in 2014 to 81% in 2017. Furthermore, plan administrators were more likely to indicate they were very satisfied in 2017 (47%) than they were in 2014 (32%).

Many professionals (78%) also expressed satisfaction with OSFI’s timeliness in responding to enquiries. This includes 44% saying they were very satisfied with OSFI’s performance in this area. As was the case with plan administrators, satisfaction has increased over time, from 64% in 2014 to 78% in 2017, and in intensity, from 23% saying they were very satisfied to 44% in 2017.

Widespread and strong satisfaction with OSFI’s capacity for interaction in official languages

Nine in 10 (90%) plan administrators said they are satisfied with OSFI’s capacity for interacting with them in the official language of their choice, including 72% who said they were very satisfied. This represents a small increase since 2014 (85%). 

Additionally, 92% of professionals indicated they are satisfied with OSFI’s capacity to interact with them in their official language (77% were very satisfied). Again, this represents a small increase from 2014 (89%).

Reasons for Dissatisfaction with OSFI’s Capacity for Interaction in Official Language

Plan administrators who were dissatisfied with OSFI’s capacity for interaction in the official language of their choice pointed to OSFI’s capacity to write and to read materials sent in their official language choice. Dissatisfaction among professionals arose from OSFI’s capacity to speak to them in their official language of choice.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=2 plan administrators and n=1 professional.

6. InfoPensions

At least half aware of InfoPensions; awareness higher among professionals

Half of surveyed plan administrators (50%) indicated they are aware of InfoPensions. This represents an increase from the 44% reported in 2014. In addition, 78% of professionals said they are aware. Compared to the 2014 PPS, awareness of InfoPensions has increased slightly among professionals (from 74% to 78%).

Use of InfoPensions increased since 2014; use is higher among professionals

When asked if they had read or reviewed an edition of InfoPensions in the last year, 37% of plan administrators (up from 28% in 2014) and 68% of professionals (up from 52% in 2014) indicated they had done so.

Lack of time main reason for not reviewing or reading InfoPensions

Those who had not read or reviewed an edition of InfoPensions in the last year were most likely to attribute this to lack of time: 55% of plan administrators and 62% of professionals.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses:: n=13 professionals.

InfoPensions information considered useful

Most of those who read or reviewed an edition of InfoPensions said the information was useful. Specifically, 86% of plan administrators and 88% of professionals said they found the information useful. Perceptions of the usefulness of this information have increased since 2014. Among plan administrators, this represents an increase of 13 percentage points (from 73% to 86%), and among professionals, there has been a considerable increase in the proportion who rated the information as very useful (from 25% in 2014 to 52% in 2017).

Desired content to be featured in InfoPensions

All respondents were asked in an open-ended manner if there is any content they would like to see featured in an upcoming edition of InfoPensions. Few plan administrators (n=9) and professionals (n=14) offered suggested content. A variety of content suggestions was offered as the table below illustrates.

**Response categories reflect analysis of open-ended feedback provided by respondents.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=9 plan administrators and n=14 professionals.

7. OSFI’s Website

Professionals more likely to use OSFI’s website

When asked if they had visited the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website in the last year, 45% of plan administrators indicated they had done so compared to 85% of professionals.

Lack of time, need main reasons for not visiting OSFI’s website

Similar to the reasons offered for not reviewing or reading InfoPensions, nearly half of plan administrators (47%) who did not visit the website cited a lack of time to explain why they had not done so. Among professionals, over half (56%) who did not visit the Private Pension Plans area of the website attributed this to a lack of need or the perception that the content is not relevant to them.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=16 professionals.

Accessing OSFI guidance/policy main reason for visiting Private Pension Plans area of website

Respondents were most likely to report visiting the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website to obtain information or updates on OSFI guidance or policy. Almost half (47%) of plan administrators and three-quarters (75%) of professionals said this was the reason they visited this area of the website. Compared to 2014, more respondents reported visiting the Private Pension Plans area of the website information or updates on OSFI guidance or policy: plan administrators (33% in 2014) and professionals (67% in 2014).

Most found at least some of what they needed using OSFI website

Most plan administrators and professionals found at least some of what they needed when using the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website. Consistent with the 2014 PPS, 59% of plan administrators and 53% of professionals found all of the information they were looking for when it came to viewing, printing or downloading forms. Among professionals, 53% also obtained all the information they sought on filing returns using the RRS (only 17% of plan administrators reported finding all of this information).

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses for some activities.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses for some activities.

Information on Private Pension Plans area of website seen as useful

Perceptions of the usefulness of the information provided in the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website have improved since 2014. The majority of plan administrators and professionals who visited the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website said the information is useful. Specifically, 86% of plan administrators and 85% of professionals rated the information on the website as useful. Notably, professionals were more likely than plan administrators to view this information as very useful (51% versus 31%).

8. Regulatory Reporting System

Majority are users of RRS

Approximately four in five (78%) plan administrators said they use RRS. This is virtually unchanged since 2014. Professionals were less likely than plan administrators to use RRS—62% identified themselves as users which represents an increase since 2014 when 45% said they used RRS.

Main reason for not using RRS is that it is not part of their job function

Among those who do not use RRS, half (53%) of plan administrators and more than four in five (84%) professionals said they do not do so because it is not part of their job. Notably, more than one-quarter (28%) of plan administrators reported that they do not use RRS because they did not know they had to use RRS.

Majority review/update corporate information in RRS

The majority of RRS users said they review and update corporate information (e.g., plan administrator, plan custodian) directly in RRS when there are changes to the contact information. This includes 79% of plan administrators and 53% of professionals.

Reasons for not using RRS to update corporate information

Lack of awareness of the requirement and knowledge of how to do so were the main reasons offered by respondents to explain why they do not use RRS to update their corporate information.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=11 plan administrators and n=3 professionals.

Fewer than half used RRS training and support materials

Fewer than half of the respondents who reported using RRS said they used the training and support materials. Among plan administrators, 48% of RRS users said they used the training and support materials. This is down from 75% in 2014. Furthermore, 44% of professionals who use RRS indicated they used the training and support materials. This is also down from 68% in 2014.

User guides most commonly used RRS training and support material

User guides were the most commonly cited RRS training and support materials by both plan administrators (71%) and professionals (77%). This was followed by quick reference guides (49% of plan administrators and 60% of professionals) and web tutorials and videos (33% of plan administrators and 30% of professionals).

Lack of awareness and need – top reason for not using RRS training and support material

Half (49%) of plan administrators who did not use the RRS training and support material said they were not aware of the material. This represents an increase since 2014 when 41% cited this reason. Following this, 27% (up from 21% in 2014) said they did not use the materials because they do not need training.

Among professionals, not needing training was the top reason for not using the materials (42%; down from 50% in 2014). Additionally, 38% said they did not use the training and support materials because they were not aware it was available. This represents an increase from the 20% reported in 2014.

Many consider RRS training and support materials easy to use

Just over half of plan administrators (54%) who used the training and support materials said the materials were easy to use. The proportion of plan administrators who found the materials easy to use has increased, from 46% in 2014 to 54% in 2017.

Only 45% of professionals who used the materials found them to be easy to use. However, this represents an increase since 2014 (29%).

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=29 professionals.

Various reasons offered for not finding RRS training materials easy to use

Respondents who did not rate the RRS training materials as easy to use offered various reasons to explain why. Reasons included perceptions that the materials are not user-friendly, are too confusing and technical, are too long, and do not include the types of issues encountered by users, among others.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=14 plan administrators and n=5 professionals.

Half rated RRS training and support materials as useful

A little more than half (54%) of plan administrators who used the RRS training and support materials found them to be either useful or very useful. Compared to plan administrators, fewer professionals (47%) found the RRS training and support materials useful.

9. Final Comments

Difficulty Using RRS Most Common Issue Raised

At the end of the survey, respondents were asked in an open-ended manner if they had any other comments they wanted to make concerning the issues raised in the survey, or about other issues they believe were relevant at the time. Among the respondents that provided final comments (31 plan administrators and 30 professionals), many reported having difficulty using RRS. This is consistent with the feedback from 2014.

**Response categories reflect analysis of open-ended feedback provided by respondents.

Appendix

Annex 1: Research Instruments

1a: Advance Letter from the Superintendent - English

November 2017

To: Administrators and Professional Advisors of Federally Regulated Private Pension Plans

Subject:  Confidential online survey commissioned by OSFI

I am writing to invite your participation in an important confidential survey that is being conducted by Phoenix Strategic Perspectives, an independent research firm, on behalf of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). Since 2005, OSFI has commissioned studies with the administrators and professional advisors of the private pension plans we regulate to obtain your assessment of our effectiveness. Your participation in the survey is voluntary. Your acceptance or refusal to participate will not affect your relationship with OSFI; however, your feedback will help us to improve our performance, which we believe is of ultimate benefit to you and your organization.

In the coming days, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives will contact you by e-mail with a link to the survey, which is hosted on a secure Internet site. Only Phoenix Strategic Perspectives will have access to your electronic responses. The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. You may pause and save your responses at any time.

OSFI is committed to a confidential research process and the final report will present results in summary form only, without attribution to individuals. OSFI will not know which organizations have participated. As part of OSFI’s commitment to transparency and accountability, the results from the research will be posted on our website in spring 2018.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Alexandra Bray, Consultations Advisor at OSFI, at (613) 990-8822, or Alethea Woods, President, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives at (613) 260-1700 ext. 223.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Rudin,
Superintendent

1b: Advance Letter from the Superintendent - French

Novembre 2017

Destinataires : Administrateurs et conseillers professionnels de régimes de retraite privés fédéraux

Objet : Sondage confidentiel en ligne commandé par le Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières

Le cabinet Phoenix Strategic Perspectives s'apprête à mener un important sondage confidentiel pour le compte du Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières (BSIF), auquel je vous invite à participer. Depuis 2005, le BSIF s'adresse régulièrement aux administrateurs et aux conseillers professionnels des régimes de retraite privés qu'il réglemente, par le biais d'entreprises de sondage, afin de savoir ce qu' ils pensent de sa prestation. La participation à cet exercice est laissée à votre entière discrétion. Le fait d'accepter ou de refuser n'aura aucune incidence sur les rapports que nous entretenons avec vous. Cependant, je me permets de préciser que le BSIF revoit sa façon de faire à la lumière des réponses et des commentaires reçus, ce qui, en définitive, est dans votre intérêt et celui de votre société.

Phoenix Strategic Perspectives vous fera parvenir sous peu un courriel qui contient un lien hypertexte vers le questionnaire du sondage, hébergé sur un site Internet sécurisé. Seul le cabinet Phoenix Strategic Perspectives aura accès à vos réponses électroniques. Une quinzaine de minutes devraient suffire pour répondre aux questions. Vous pourrez vous arrêter à tout moment, sauvegarder vos réponses et revenir au questionnaire par la suite.

L'identité des participants étant confidentielle, les résultats nous sont transmis sans mention de leur nom et de la société qu' ils représentent, après avoir été regroupés sous forme de synthèse dans le rapport final. À noter que nous ne saurons pas non plus quelles sociétés ont pris part à l'exercice. Enfin, le BSIF souscrivant aux principes de la transparence et de la reddition de comptes, nous afficherons les résultats de ce sondage sur notre site Web au printemps de 2018.

Si vous avez des questions, je vous invite à appeler Mme Alexandra Bray, conseillère en consultations au BSIF, au 613-990-8822, ou Mme Alethea Woods, présidente, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives, au 613-260-1700, poste 223.

Nous vous remercions de l'attention que vous accorderez à cette demande.

Cordialement,
Le surintendant,
Jeremy Rudin

1c: Survey invitation - English

Subject : OSFI’s Pension Plans Survey

Hello/Bonjour,

(Le texte français suit l’anglais)

OSFI has retained Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc., an independent research firm, to conduct an online survey with administrators and professional advisors of federally regulated private pension plans. You will have recently received via email a letter of invitation from OSFI requesting your participation in this survey. If you have not received the letter, please contact us and we will share a copy with you.

The survey will take 10 to 15 minutes to complete. All responses will be kept confidential and will only be reported in aggregate form. Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. has put in place standard industry practices to ensure that your confidentiality is protected.

To proceed to the survey, please click on the following link:

[Insert link]

Please complete the survey by December 15, 2017.

The survey is registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association. Click here if you wish to verify the survey’s authenticity.

If you would like to discuss the study at any time during the process or, if you require an alternative format (Word format of the survey or hard copy), please contact Alethea Woods, President, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. at (613) 260-1700 ext. 223 (awoods@phoenixspi.ca) or Alexandra Bray of OSFI at (613) 990-8822 (alexandra.bray@osfi-bsif.gc.ca).

Thank you for your participation.

If you do not wish to be contacted again about this survey, please click here to opt out of further emails.

1d: Survey invitation - French

1e: Survey reminders - English

A. Subject : Reminder : OSFI’s Pension Plans Survey

Hello/Bonjour,

(Le texte français suit l’anglais)

This is a reminder concerning OSFI's Pension Plans Survey. You will have recently received a letter from Jeremy Rudin, Superintendent of OSFI, requesting your participation in this survey. If you have not received the letter, please contact us and we will share a copy with you.

OSFI has retained Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc., an independent research firm, to conduct an online survey to obtain your feedback on OSFI’s effectiveness as a supervisor and regulator of private pension plans. The survey will take 10 to 15 minutes to complete and all responses are anonymous.

To proceed to the survey, please click on the following link:

[Insert link]

Please complete this survey no later than December 15, 2017.

If you would like to discuss the study at any time during the process or, if you require an alternative format (Word format of the survey or hard copy), please contact Alethea Woods, President, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. at (613) 260-1700 ext. 223 (awoods@phoenixspi.ca) or Laura Buckland of OSFI at (613) 990-9959 (laura.buckland@osfi-bsif.gc.ca).

Thank you for your participation.

B. Subject : OSFI Survey – Reminder : Closes December 15, 2017

Hello/Bonjour,

(Le texte français suit l’anglais)

This is a reminder concerning OSFI's Pension Plans Survey – the survey will be closing at midnight on Friday, December 15th, 2017. Your input is very important to the success of this study. If you have not yet had a chance to complete the survey, we would appreciate your participation.

Please be assured that all responses will be anonymous. The findings will be reported in a summary format to ensure individual respondents cannot be identified.

The survey will take 10 to 15 minutes to complete. To proceed to the survey, please click on the following link:

[Insert link]

If you would like to discuss the study at any time during the process or, if you require an alternative format (Word format of the survey or hard copy), please contact Alethea Woods, President, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. at (613) 260-1700 ext. 223 (awoods@phoenixspi.ca) or Laura Buckland of OSFI at (613) 990-9959 (laura.buckland@osfi-bsif.gc.ca).

Thank you for your participation.

C. Subject : Last chance to complete the OSFI Pension Plans Survey

Hello/Bonjour,

(Le texte français suit l’anglais)

The closing date of OSFI’s on-line survey for federally regulated private pension plans was extended to Wednesday, December 20. If you have already completed the survey, please accept our thanks and disregard this message.

If you have not yet had a chance to complete the survey, there is just one day left to offer your feedback. If you can spare a few minutes today or tomorrow, we would appreciate hearing from you. Your input is very important to the success of this study and your feedback will remain confidential.

[Insert link]

The survey is being carried out by Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc., an independent research company. If you require an alternative format (Word format of the survey or hard copy), please contact Alethea Woods, President, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. at (613) 260-1700 ext. 223 (awoods@phoenixspi.ca) or Laura Buckland of OSFI at (613) 990-9959 (laura.buckland@osfi-bsif.gc.ca).

1f: Survey reminders - French

1g: Survey Questionnaire - English

Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. has been retained by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) to conduct this survey with administrators and professional advisors of private pension plans regulated by OSFI. OSFI wishes to obtain your assessment of its effectiveness as a supervisor and regulator of private pension plans.

Participation in the survey is voluntary and will take about 15 minutes to complete.

You can be assured that Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc., as an independent third party, will hold your comments in strict confidence. OSFI will not know who participated in the research or what specific respondents have said about it. Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. has put in place standard industry practices and secure procedures to ensure your confidentiality is protected. The survey is registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association. Click here if you wish to verify its authenticity.

OSFI will receive a report aggregating the findings from this survey. The results of the study will be posted on the OSFI website.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

1. To begin, which of the following types of plans do you spend most of your time on?

• Defined Benefit Plans
• Defined Contribution Plans or Pooled Registered Pension Plans
• Combination Plans

2a. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with OSFI as a regulator and supervisor of private pension plans?

• Very Dissatisfied       
• Somewhat Dissatisfied         
• Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied     
• Somewhat Satisfied  
• Very Satisfied
• Don’t Know [SKIP TO Q3]

2b. Please provide any comments on why you are satisfied/dissatisfied/ neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with OSFI as a regulator and supervisor of private pension plans

• Comments
• No comments

GUIDANCE

From time to time, OSFI develops guidance (which includes guides, guidelines and instructions) for federally regulated private pension plans.

Thinking about OSFI’s guidance, would you agree or disagree with the following:

3. I am aware of the guidance material published by OSFI.

• Strongly Disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly Agree
• Don’t Know

4. I know where to find OSFI guidance material.

• Strongly Disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly Agree
• Don’t Know

Overall, how effective or ineffective do you think OSFI’s guidance is in:

5. Providing a clear indication of OSFI’s expectations?

• Very Ineffective
• Somewhat Ineffective
• Neither Effective nor Ineffective
• Somewhat effective
• Very Effective
• Don't Know

6. Supporting you in your role to ensure that your plan is in compliance with federal pension requirements?

• Very Ineffective
• Somewhat Ineffective
• Neither Effective nor Ineffective
• Somewhat effective
• Very Effective
• Don't Know

SUPERVISION

The following questions pertain to OSFI’s supervision as it relates to the federally regulated private pension plan(s) for which you play a role.

7. Which, if any, of the following types of OSFI written correspondence have you received in the last year? Please select all that apply.

• Plan-specific issue
• Plan examination correspondence/findings/recommendations
• Estimated solvency ratio or increase in funding requirements
• Late filing of regulatory returns (e.g. Annual Information Return, Actuarial Valuation, Report)
• Review of actuarial valuation report
• Notification of late remittance of contributions
• Other correspondence, please specify:
• No correspondence received

Thinking back over the last year, how would you rate OSFI with respect to:

8. Providing an opportunity for your plan(s) to discuss issues of concern with OSFI prior to OSFI coming to a conclusion?

• Very Poor
• Poor
• Fair
• Good
• Very Good
• Don’t Know
• Not Applicable

9. The clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence outlining issues of concern?

• Very Poor
• Poor
• Fair
• Good
• Very Good
• Don’t Know
• Not Applicable

10. Overall, how effective or ineffective do you think OSFI is in supervising your plan(s) (e.g., ongoing monitoring, examinations and specific interventions)?

• Very Ineffective
• Somewhat Ineffective
• Neither Effective nor Ineffective
• Somewhat effective
• Very Effective
• Don't Know

APPROVALS

OSFI’s Superintendent must approve certain initiatives that pension plans wish to take. The following questions pertain to OSFI’s approvals process as it relates to the federally regulated private pension plan(s) for which you play a role.

11. Have you submitted an application for a regulatory approval in the past 3 years?

• Yes
• No [SKIP TO COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SECTION]
• Don’t know [SKIP TO COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SECTION]

12. Which of the following categories of regulatory approvals was most recently sought?

• Plan registration or termination
• Asset transfer or reducing amendment or refund of surplus
• Prefer not to say
• I don’t know/ recall

13. What is your overall level of satisfaction with OSFI in processing applications from your plan(s)?

• Very Dissatisfied
• Somewhat Dissatisfied
• Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
• Somewhat Satisfied
• Very Satisfied
• Don't Know

Thinking about application(s) for a regulatory approval your pension plan submitted in the past 3 years, how would you rate OSFI with respect to:

14. Responding to requests for updates on the status of applications submitted by your pension plan(s)?

• Very Poor
• Poor
• Fair
• Good
• Very Good
• Don’t Know
• Not Applicable

15. Providing an opportunity to discuss issues of concern with OSFI prior to OSFI coming to a conclusion?

• Very Poor
• Poor
• Fair
• Good
• Very Good
• Don’t Know
• Not Applicable

16. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the timeliness with which OSFI processes application(s) for approval from your plan(s)?

• Very Dissatisfied
• Somewhat Dissatisfied
• Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
• Somewhat Satisfied
• Very Satisfied
• Don't Know

17. Approximately, how long did it take OSFI to process an application for approval from your plan(s)?

• 6 months or less
• 7-12 months
• 13-23 months
• 2 years or more
• I don’t know/recall

COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

18. When you have a question related to the plan(s) for which you play a role, who do you normally contact at OSFI?

• Relationship Manager/Plan Supervisor
• Approvals Officer/Manager
• Actuarial Consultant
• Policy Officer/Manager
• OSFI toll free line (1-800 number)
• OSFI general email (i.e. information@osfi-bsif.gc.ca)
• Returns Admin Support (i.e. Regulatory Data Management Division)
• Other, please specify:
• Don’t know

Thinking about your interactions with OSFI staff on any pension supervisory or regulatory matter, overall how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with:

19. The timeliness of OSFI’s response to general and plan-specific related enquiries?

• Very Dissatisfied 
• Somewhat Dissatisfied 
• Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
• Somewhat Satisfied
• Very Satisfied
• Don’t Know
• Not Applicable

20. OSFI’s capacity to interact with you in the official language of your choice (i.e., English or French)?

• Very Dissatisfied       
• Somewhat Dissatisfied         
• Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied     
• Somewhat Satisfied [SKIP TO Q22]
• Very Satisfied [SKIP TO Q22]
• Don’t Know [SKIP TO Q22]
• Not Applicable [SKIP TO Q22]

21. In which of the following are areas you dissatisfied with OSFI’s capacity to interact with you in the official language of your choice? Please select all that apply.

• OSFI’s capacity to speak to me in my official language of choice (e.g., in meetings, over the phone).
• OSFI’s capacity to write to me in my official language of choice (e.g., in emails, letters).
• OSFI’s capacity to read materials I send to them in my official language of choice (e.g., institution-specific documents, letters).
• None of the above.
• Some other reason. Please specify:

22. Now, thinking about your most recent interaction with OSFI, what was the main reason you contacted OSFI?

• Question(s) about members’ rights
• Plan-specific question(s)
• Interpretation of legislation or regulations
• Interpretation of guideline(s)
• Assistance filling out forms/returns
• Other, Please specify:
• I don’t recall [SKIP TO QUESTION 24]
• Not applicable [SKIP TO QUESTION 24]

23. In the end, did you get the information/assistance you needed?

• Yes [SKIP TO QUESTION 24]
• No

23b. Please tell us what information/assistance you did not receive?

• Comments
• No comments

24. Have you heard of OSFI’s electronic newsletter “InfoPensions”?

• Yes, I’m aware of the electronic newsletter InfoPensions
• No, I’m not aware of the electronic newsletter InfoPensions

25. Here’s an image of the most recent edition of InfoPensions. Have you read or reviewed an edition of InfoPensions in the last year?

• Yes [SKIP TO QUESTION 27]
• No

26. Why have you not reviewed or read any editions of InfoPensions in the last year? Please select all that apply.

• Lack of time/too busy
• No need/not relevant [DROPDOWN TEXT BOX: Why is that?]
• Not useful/provides no added value [DROPDOWN TEXT BOX: Why is that?]
• Content is out of date/Already knew about content
• Use other resources [DROPDOWN TEXT BOX: Why is that?]
• Other, please specify:

[SKIP TO QUESTION 28]

27. How would you rate the usefulness of the information that is provided in InfoPensions?

• 1-Not at all useful
• 2
• 3-Neutral
• 4
• 5-Very useful
• Not applicable/don’t know

28. Is there any content you would like to see featured in an upcoming edition InfoPensions?

• Comments
• No comments

29. Have you visited the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website in the last year? [Image of website shown]

• Yes [SKIP TO QUESTION 31]
• No 

30. Why have you not visited the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website? Please select all that apply.

• Lack of time/too busy
• No need/not relevant [DROPDOWN TEXT BOX: Why is that?]
• Not useful/provides no added value [DROPDOWN TEXT BOX: Why is that?]
• Content is out of date/Already knew about content
• Use other resources [DROPDOWN TEXT BOX: Why is that?]
• Other, please specify:

[NON-USERS SKIP TO RRS SECTION]

31. What was the main purpose of your visit(s) to the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website in the last year? Please select up to 3 responses.

• Obtain information/updates on OSFI guidance or policy statements
• Access information related to reporting requirements
• Read the most recent edition of OSFI’s electronic newsletter “InfoPensions”
• View, print or download forms
• Research or look for information on a specific topic
• Look for answers to specific questions (e.g. in the Frequently Asked Questions section)
• View and/or download documents (e.g. reports, newsletters, guides)
• Search for specific pension plans
• Obtain information on filing returns using the Regulatory Reporting System (RRS)
• Access speeches/presentations
• Learn about OSFI (e.g. mandate, activities)
• Something else, please specify

32. When using the Private Pension Plans area of OFSI’s website for the reason(s) listed in the table below, would you say you found…?

[IF RESPONDENTS SELECTED ‘NONE’ AT Q32, ASK Q32b. EVERYONE ELSE GO TO Q33.]

32b. Please describe what you did not find on the OSFI website.

• Comments
• No comments

33. Overall, how would you rate the usefulness of the information provided in the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website?

• 1-Not at all useful
• 2
• 3-Neutral
• 4
• 5-Very useful
• Don’t know

REGULATORY REPORTING SYSTEM

The Regulatory Reporting System (RRS) was introduced by OSFI, the Bank of Canada and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation in 2014 to gather and process regulatory returns.

34. Are you a user of RRS?

• Yes [SKIP TO QUESTION 36]
• No

35. Why have you not used RRS? Please select all that apply.

• It’s not part of my job function/responsibilities
• I could not find any training and support material
• I had trouble logging in to the Bank of Canada secure site to access RRS
• I didn’t know I had to use RRS
• Other, please specify

[THOSE WHO HAVEN’T USED RRS, SKIP TO FINAL COMMENTS SECTION]

36. Do you review and update your corporate information (e.g. plan administrator, plan custodian) directly in RRS when there are changes to the contact information?

• I do not file this information on behalf of the plan [SKIP TO QUESTION 38]
• Yes [SKIP TO QUESTION 38]
• No

37. Why don’t you review and update your corporate information directly in RRS?

• I was not aware that this was required
• I do not know where/how to do this
• Other, please explain:

38. OSFI has made available on its website a number of RRS training and support materials. Have you used any of the training and support materials for RRS users (e.g. web tutorials, user guides, quick reference guides)?

• Yes
• No [SKIP TO QUESTION 40]

39. Which of the following RRS training and support materials have you used? Please select all that apply.

• Web tutorials/videos
• User guides
• Quick reference guides
• Other, please specify:

[CONTINUE TO QUESTION 41]

40. Please tell us why you have not used the RRS training and support materials?

• I do not need training
• I was not aware that training and support materials were available
• I could not find the training and support materials on the OSFI website
• Other, please describe:

[THOSE WHO HAVEN’T USED TRAINING, SKIP TO FINAL COMMENTS SECTION]

41. Do you agree or disagree that the training and support materials for RRS users are easy to use (e.g. web tutorials, user guides, quick reference guides)?

• Strongly Disagree     
• Disagree        
• Neither agree nor disagree   
• Agree [SKIP TO Q42]
• Strongly Agree [SKIP TO Q42]
• Don’t Know [SKIP TO Q42]

41b. Please explain why you did not find the RRS training materials easy to use.

• Comments
• No comments

42. Overall, how useful did you find the RRS training and support materials?

• 1-Not at all useful      
• 2
• 3-Neutral
• 4
• 5-Very useful
• Don’t know

FINAL COMMENTS

43. Are there any other comments you would like to make concerning the issues raised in this questionnaire, or about other issues you believe are relevant at this time?

• Comments
• No comments

The survey is now complete. On behalf of OSFI, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. would like to thank you for your participation.

1h: Survey Questionnaire - French

Annex 2: Tabulated Survey Data

The full set of tabulated data is submitted in a separate document.