Pension Plans Survey (PPS) 2020-21
Final Report
Prepared for Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions

Supplier Name: Phoenix SPI
Contract Number: 51019-207002 001 CY
Contract Value: $45,180.01 (including taxes)
Award Date: 2020-12-15
Delivery Date: 2021-07-19
Registration Number: POR 083-20

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

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Pension Plans Survey (PPS) 2020-21

Final Report

Prepared for Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI)

Supplier name: Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc.

December 2020

This public opinion research report presents the results of a survey of 216 representatives of federally regulated private pension plans supervised by OSFI. Available in both official languages, the survey was online between February 16 and March 16, 2021.

This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). For more information on this report, please contact OSFI at: information@osfi-bsif.gc.ca

Communications and Engagement
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
255 Albert Street, 12^th floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H2

Catalogue number:
IN4-33/2021E-PDF

International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-39751-1

Related publications (registration number: POR 083-20):
Catalogue number IN4-33/2021F-PDF (Final report, French)
ISBN 978-0-660-39752-8

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Finance, 2021.

Aussi offert en français sous le titre : Sondage auprès des régimes de retraite – édition 2020-21

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
  • 1. Research Purpose and Objectives
  • 2. Methodology
  • 3. Generalizability and Use of Results
  • 4. Key Findings
  • 5. Contract Value
  • 6. Political Neutrality Certification
• Introduction
  • 1. Background and Objectives
  • 2. Methodology
  • 3. Note to Readers
• Detailed Findings
  • 1. Overall Impressions
  • 2. Guidance
  • 3. Supervision
  • 4. Approvals
  • 5. Communication and Information
  • 6. OSFI’s Website
  • 7. InfoPensions
  • 8. Regulatory Reporting System
  • 9. OSFI’s Response to COVID-19
  • 10. Final Comments
• Appendix 1: English Research Instruments
  • A. Invitation from the Superintendent
  • B. Survey invitation
  • C. Survey reminders
  • D. Questionnaire
• Appendix 2: French Research Instruments
  • A. Invitation from the Superintendent
  • B. Survey invitation
  • C. Survey reminders
  • D. Questionnaire

List of Tables

• Table 1: Overall satisfaction with OSFI
• Table 2: Reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction
• Table 3: Subscription to pension plan emails
• Table 4: Reasons for not subscribing to OSFI email notifications
• Table 5: Ratings of OSFI’s consultations with industry when developing guidance
• Table 6: Awareness of published guidance material
• Table 7: Knowledge of where to find OSFI’s guidance material
• Table 8: Effectiveness of OSFI guidance in providing a clear indication of expectations
• Table 9: Effectiveness of OSFI guidance in supporting plan compliance
• Table 10: Types of correspondence received
• Table 11: Opportunities to discuss supervisory concerns
• Table 12: Clarity of OSFI correspondence
• Table 13: Overall effectiveness in supervising plans under normal circumstances
• Table 14: Overall effectiveness in supervising plans during COVID-19
• Table 15: Approval applications submitted
• Table 16: Type of regulatory approval sought
• Table 17: Overall satisfaction with processing of applications
• Table 18: Responsiveness to requests for updates on applications
• Table 19: Opportunities to discuss concerns related to approval requests
• Table 20: Satisfaction with timeliness of processing approval request
• Table 21: Time take to process plan applications
• Table 22: Main point of contact at OSFI
• Table 23: Satisfaction with the timeliness of response to enquiries
• Table 24: Satisfaction with OSFI’s capacity to interact in official language of choice
• Table 25: Reasons for contacting OSFI
• Table 26: Outcome of contact with OSFI
• Table 27: Visits to OSFI website
• Table 28: Purpose of visit to Private Pension Plans area of website
• Table 29: Extent to which plan administrators found what they were looking for on OSFI’s website
• Table 30: Extent to which professionals found what they were looking for on OSFI’s website
• Table 31: Perceived usefulness of Private Pension Plans area
• Table 32: Readership of InfoPensions
• Table 33: Perceived clarity of InfoPensions content
• Table 34: Perceived relevance of InfoPensions content to work
• Table 35: Perceived usefulness of InfoPensions content
• Table 36: Content suggestions for InfoPensions
• Table 37: Use of RRS
• Table 38: Reasons for not using RRS
• Table 39: Updating information in RRS
• Table 40: Awareness of COVID-19 measures
• Table 41: Views on the appropriateness of COVID-19 measures
• Table 42: Perceived timeliness of OSFI’s response
• Table 43: Perceived clarity of OSFI COVID-19 expectations
• Table 44: Attendance of technical briefings
• Table 45: Perceived timeliness of technical briefings
• Table 46: Perceived usefulness of technical briefings
• Table 47: Reasons for not attending technical briefings
• Table 48: Consulted COVID-19 FAQs
• Table 49: Perceived timeliness of COVID-19 FAQs
• Table 50: Perceived comprehensiveness of COVID-19 FAQs
• Table 51: Perceived usefulness of COVID-19 FAQs
• Table 52: Frequency of pandemic communications/updates
• Table 53: 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 federally administered pension plans. OSFI supervises and regulates roughly 1,214 private pension plans covering employees in federally regulated areas of employment. As of March 2019, these plans covered 1,154,600 members and had a combined asset value of approximately $215.5 billion. 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. The results of this survey are presented in this report.

1. Research Purpose and Objectives

Generally conducted every three years, the Pension Plans Survey (PPS) collects data needed to assess OSFI’s perceived effectiveness in monitoring and supervising federally regulated private pension plans. Previous waves of the PPS were conducted in 2008-2009, 2011-2012, 2014-2015, and 2017-2018. The main objective of this research was 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. Specifically, this year’s survey was designed to collect feedback in the following areas:

• overall satisfaction with OSFI;
• OSFI’s effectiveness at communicating with pension plan administrators;
• OSFI’s response to COVID-19;
• the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website and InfoPensions;
• the balance, clarity and usefulness of OSFI’s guidance;
• the clarity and effectiveness of OSFI’s supervisory correspondence;
• the timeliness and transparency of OSFI’s approvals process; and
• the Regulatory Reporting System (RRS).

2. Methodology

To meet the objectives, an online survey was conducted with representatives of federally regulated private pension plans supervised by OSFI. 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 between February 16 and March 16, 2021. Of the 1,131 eligible plan administrators and professionals invited to complete the survey, 216 did so, which represents a response rate of 19%. Of the 216 respondents, 144 were plan administrators and 72 were professionals. Of the 144 plan administrators, 79 were defined benefits plan administrators, and 65 defined contribution plan or pooled registered pension plan administrators.

3. Generalizability and Use of Results

This was an attempted census survey. Since the entire population of federally regulated private pension plans supervised by OSFI were invited to participate in this survey, there is no margin of sampling error to be estimated or reported. 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.

4. Key Findings

The following are key findings from the survey:

• Most plan administrators and professionals are satisfied with OSFI as a regulator and supervisor of private pension plans; satisfaction, however, is stronger among professionals.

  • Majorities offered positive assessments of OSFI’s guidance material and consultations with industry when developing these guidelines, effectiveness in supervising plans generally and under COVID-19 circumstances, and response time to enquiries.

• Use of InfoPensions and the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website continues to be higher among professionals.

  • Those who read an edition of InfoPensions offered positive assessments of the publication, with majorities agreeing that the content is clear, relevant, and useful.

  • Similarly, the majority of those who visited the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website rated the information as useful. The top reason reported for visiting the site was to obtain information related to OSFI’s COVID-19 measures.

• The vast majority of plan administrators and professionals were aware of the measures OSFI communicated in March 2020 to provide guidance at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and provided positive ratings of OSFI’s response to COVID-19.

  • Specifically, the majority of plan administrators and professionals agree that OSFI identified the right COVID-19 measures, responded in a timely manner, and provided clear expectations regarding COVID-19 circumstances.

• While assessments of OSFI were positive, in some areas they tended to be moderately positive, with many selecting “good” as opposed to “very good” or “somewhat effective” rather than “very effective”.

  • These areas offer opportunities for improvement: consulting with industry to develop guidance, raising awareness of guidance materials and where to find them, providing opportunities to discuss issues related to supervision, and providing clear written correspondence outlining issues of concern.

5. Contract Value

The contract value was $45,180.01 (including taxes).

6. Political Neutrality Certification

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 Policy on Communications and Federal Identity and the Directive on the Management of Communications. 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.

Alethea Woods
President
Phoenix SPI

Introduction

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), 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.

1. Background and Objectives

OSFI is the primary regulator and supervisor of federally regulated financial institutions and federally administered pension plans. OSFI supervises and regulates roughly 1,214 private pension plans covering employees in federally regulated areas of employment. As of March 2019, these plans covered 1,154,600 members and had a combined asset value of approximately $215.5 billion.

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 federally regulated private pension plans. Previous waves of the PPS were conducted in 2008-2009, 2011-2012, 2014-2015, and 2017-2018.

The main objective of this year’s survey was 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. Specifically, this year’s survey was designed to collect feedback in the following areas:

• overall satisfaction with OSFI;
• OSFI’s effectiveness at communicating with pension plan administrators;
• OSFI’s response to COVID-19;
• the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website and InfoPensions;
• the balance, clarity and usefulness of OSFI’s guidance;
• the clarity and effectiveness of OSFI’s supervisory correspondence;
• the timeliness and transparency of OSFI’s approvals process; and
• the Regulatory Reporting System (RRS).

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.

2. 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. 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 February 16 to March 16, 2021. Of the 1,131 potential eligible plan administrators and professionals invited to complete the survey, 216 did so, which represents a response rate of 19%. Since the entire population was invited to participate in this study, there is no margin of sampling error to be estimated or reported.

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 March 16, 2021 (from March 2, 2021). 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. In total, 23 individuals elected to complete the survey with an interviewer over the telephone.

The response rate of 19% was calculated using the formula outlined in the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research (Online Surveys).

Of the 216 respondents, 144 were plan administrators and 72 were professionals. Of the 144 plan administrators, 79 were defined benefits plan administrators, and 65 defined contribution plan or pooled registered pension plan administrators.

The survey sample differs from the target population in several ways: it overrepresents those responsible for combination and defined benefits plans, as well as professionals with no plan and plan administrators, and it underrepresents by those responsible for defined contribution plans and professionals (with plans). Survey respondents, therefore, differ from survey non-respondents in terms of the type of plan administered and their role as a plan administrator or professional. What is not known is how “plan type” and “role” may affect individuals’ views of OSFI.

In lieu of this information, the subgroup results to a core metric, Q2A: Overall satisfaction with OSFI as a regulator, were examined for differences that might offer insight into the impact of non-response. Overall ratings of OSFI (scores of 4-5 on a 5-point scale, i.e., “somewhat” and “very” satisfied) do not differ significantly by type of plan. When it comes to type of respondent, the only noteworthy difference is between professionals (with no plans) and plan administrators.

Professionals (with no plans) were significantly more likely to rate themselves as satisfied with OSFI as compared to plan administrators. The views of professionals (with a plan), the underrepresented audience, did not differ significantly from either professionals (with no plans) or plan administrators. Based on this data, it is unlikely that survey non-response has affected the survey estimates.

3. Note to Readers

• Results for professionals are presented separately from those of plan administrators.
• All results in the report are expressed as a percentage, unless otherwise noted.
• All “don’t know” and “not applicable” responses have been removed.
• Throughout the report, percentages may not always add to 100 due to rounding and/or multiple responses being offered by respondents.
• The number of respondents changes throughout the report because questions were asked of sub-samples of survey respondents.
• Readers should be aware of this and exercise caution when interpreting results based on smaller numbers of respondents.
• 2014 and 2017 Pension Plan Survey results are discussed as relevant.
• The survey questionnaire is appended to the report.
• The tabulated data are available under separate cover.

Detailed Findings

1. Overall Impressions

Most are satisfied with OSFI as a regulator and supervisor of private pension plans

The majority of respondents were satisfied with OSFI as a regulator or supervisor of private pension plans. Among plan administrators, nearly two-thirds (63%) said they were very (39%) or somewhat (24%) satisfied with OSFI. This represents a decrease since 2017 when almost three-quarters of plan administrators rated themselves as very (42%) or somewhat (29%) satisfied.

Among professionals, satisfaction increased to 84% from 68% in 2017. The increase is attributable to a greater proportion of professionals saying they are somewhat satisfied (54%) as opposed to neutral or dissatisfied.

Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction with OSFI

Respondents were asked in an open-ended manner to explain why they were satisfied or dissatisfied with OSFI as a regulator and supervisor of private pension plans. Among plan administrators, reasons for satisfaction included that OSFI is a good regulator and supervisor (31%), that OSFI has good communication and updates (21%), and that OSFI is knowledgeable and good source of information (20%). This is similar to 2017 when the top reasons for satisfaction related to good communication.

Among professionals, and like plan administrators, the top reason for satisfaction is that OSFI is a good regulator and supervisor (30%). This was followed by the view that OSFI’s staff are helpful and provide good service (26%) and that OSFI’s service is quick and efficient (26%).

The top reasons for dissatisfaction among plan administrators included difficulty using the Regulatory Reporting System (RRS) (6 respondents), slow service and response times, interpretation being too rigid, and lack of experience with OSFI (each identified by 5 respondents). Difficulty using the RRS was also the top reason for dissatisfaction in 2017.

Professionals attributed their dissatisfaction to slow service and poor response time (9 respondents), followed by lack of clarity, lack of support or consistency from OSFI, and lack of plan reform (each identified by 6 respondents). Rigid interpretations were the top reason for dissatisfaction among professionals in 2017.

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

2. Guidance

Most subscribe to email notifications

Approximately seven in 10 plan administrators (69%) and professionals (72%) said they subscribe to OSFI’s email notifications for topics related to pension plans.

Lack of awareness is the top reason for not subscribing to email notifications

The most frequently given reason for not subscribing to email notifications for topics related to pension plans was lack of awareness. Among those who do not subscribe to such notifications, nearly half the plan administrators (47%) and one-third of professionals (33%) cited lack of awareness as the reason. Other reasons included the ability to source information elsewhere, lack of need or perceived irrelevance of information, and lack of interest.

High rating for OSFI’s consultations with pension plan industry

Approximately three-quarters (74%) of both plan administrators and professionals rated OSFI’s consulting with the pension plan industry when developing guidance as good or very good. Notably, a slightly greater proportion of plan administrators rated OSFI’s consulting as very good (25% and 20%, respectively).

Awareness of OSFI’s guidance material is high, especially among professionals

The vast majority of professionals (91%) agreed that they are aware of the guidance material published by OSFI (40% strongly agreeing). By comparison, nearly three-quarters (74%) of plan administrators agreed with this (13% strongly agreeing). These results are similar to those from 2017.

Most know where to find OSFI’s guidance material, especially professionals

A majority of respondents agreed that they know where to find OSFI guidance material, but professionals were more likely to agree with this than plan administrators (88% versus 74%, respectively). Among plan administrators, knowledge has changed little over time, from 75% in 2014 to 71% in 2017 and 74% this year. Among professionals, however, knowledge has been increasing since 2014: from 76% to 85% to 88%.

OSFI guidance is effective in providing clear expectations

A strong majority of plan administrators (78%) and professionals (83%) believe that OSFI’s guidance is at least somewhat effective in providing a clear indication of its expectations. While plan administrators were equally divided between those rating OSFI as somewhat (39%) or very (39%) effective in this regard, most professionals rated OSFI as somewhat effective (57%) rather than very effective (26%).

Among plan administrators, positive assessments of OSFI have increased slightly since 2017 (from 73% to 78% in 2021). Professionals’ views, however, have not changed over time—that said, in 2021, fewer professionals rated OSFI’s performance as very effective (26% versus 40% in 2017).

OSFI guidance is effective in supporting plan compliance

Strong and almost identical majorities of professionals (81%) and plan administrators (79%) believe that OSFI is at least somewhat effective in supporting them in their role to ensure that their plan is in compliance with federal pension requirements. That said, plan administrators were more likely to think that OSFI is very effective in this regard (41% versus 20% of professionals).

Among plan administrators, positive assessments of OSFI in this regard have increased since 2017 (from 73% to 79% in 2021). Among professionals, however, positive impressions have not changed since 2017, though the proportion rating OSFI as very effective in this regard has decreased from 34% to 20% in 2021.

3. Supervision

Variety of OSFI written correspondence received in the last year

When it came to types of OSFI written correspondence received in the last year, plan administrators were most likely to identify correspondence related to COVID-19 (38%), followed by late filing of regulatory returns (24%), plan specific issues (23%), and a review of actuarial valuation report (21%). Smaller numbers identified plan examination correspondence/findings/recommendations (14%), notification of late remittance of contributions (13%), and estimated solvency ratio or increase in funding requirements (10%).

For their part, professionals were most likely to identify plan specific issues (32%) followed by correspondence related to COVID-19 (26%) and a review of actuarial valuation report (21%). Smaller numbers identified plan examination correspondence/findings/recommendations (14%), estimated solvency ratio or increase in funding requirements (13%), late filing of regulatory returns (13%), and notification of late remittance of contributions (7%),

Nearly one-third of plan administrators (31%) and over one-third of professionals (36%) said they received no correspondence from OSFI in the last year.

OSFI provides opportunities to discuss issues related to supervision

Just over two-thirds (68%) of plan administrators said OSFI is doing a good (38%) or a very good (30%) job with respect to providing an opportunity to discuss issues of concern with OSFI prior to the agency coming to a conclusion. This represents virtually no change from the 2017 PPS survey results.

For their part, 82% of professionals rated OSFI’s performance as good (53%) or very good (29%) in this area. This represents a noticeable increase since 2017 when 70% of professionals assessed OSFI’s performance positively in this area.

Positive perceptions of the clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence

A strong majority of survey respondents rated OSFI positively over the past year with respect to the clarity of its written correspondence outlining issues of concern. Eight in 10 (79%) plan administrators considered the clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence to be good (52%) or very good (27%), while close to nine in 10 (86%) professionals rated this as good (62%) or very good (24%). Among both audiences this represents an increase in positive assessments compared to 2017, when 67% of plan administrators and 74% of professionals offered a positive assessment of OSFI in this area.

OSFI continues to be viewed as effective at supervising plans

Strong and nearly identical majorities of plan administrators (84%) and professionals (85%) viewed OSFI as at least somewhat effective at supervising their plans under normal circumstances. That said, plan administrators were more likely to rate OSFI as very effective in this regard (47% versus 35% of professionals). Among plan administrators, this represents a very slight increase in positive assessments since 2017 (from 81% to 84%). Among professionals, this year’s results are virtually identical to those of 2017.

OSFI viewed as effective at supervising plans under the current COVID-19 circumstances

When asked about the effectiveness of OSFI’s supervision under the current COVID-19 circumstances, plan administrators and professionals offered similar ratings to those provided when they were asked about OSFI’s supervision in general. Eighty-two percent of plan administrators and 84% of professionals viewed OSFI as at least somewhat effective at supervising their plans under the current COVID-19 circumstances.

4. Approvals

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

Among plan administrators, 27% (compared to 20% in 2017) said they submitted an application for a regulatory approval in the past three years. In contrast, four in 10 (39%) professionals submitted an application (compared to 31% in 2017).

Regulatory approvals sought vary by audience

Among those who submitted an application for a regulatory approval in the past three years, 63% of plan administrators and 32% of professionals sought approval for lifting the portability freeze that was introduced due to COVID-19. Following this, 32% of plan administrators and 53% of professionals sought approval for plan registration or termination, while 16% of plan administrators and 53% of professionals sought approval for asset transfer, reducing amendment, or refund of surplus.

*Exercise caution when interpreting these results due to the small number of responses: n=19.

Most are satisfied with OSFI’s processing of plan applications

More than eight in 10 (84%) plan administrators and professionals expressed satisfaction with OSFI’s processing of plan applications (up from 66% in 2017).

Most offer positive rating of OSFI’s responsiveness to application status updates

Three-quarters (76%) of plan administrators and professionals who submitted an application in the past three years (up from 64% in 2017) rated OSFI’s responsiveness to application status updates as good or very good. This year, no one rated OSFI’s performance in this area as poor or very poor.

OSFI provides opportunities to discuss issues of concern related to approvals

Nine in 10 (90%) plan administrators and professionals who submitted an application in the past three years rated OSFI’s provision of opportunities to discuss issues of concern prior to OSFI coming to a conclusion as good or very good. This represents an increase since 2017, when 68% of plan administrators and professionals rated OSFI’s provision of discussion opportunities as good or very good. This year, no one rated OSFI’s performance in this area as poor or very poor.

Majority are satisfied with timeliness of processing plan applications

Seven in 10 (72%) plan administrators and professionals are satisfied with the time it takes OSFI to process applications. This represents a modest improvement since 2017 when 65% of plan administrators and professionals expressed satisfaction.

Time taken by OSFI to process plan applications varies

Four in 10 (43%) plan administrators and professionals indicated that it took OSFI six months or less to process an application for approval (up from 37% in 2017). At the other end of the spectrum, 10% of plan administrators and professionals reported that OSFI took more than two years to process a plan application for approval. This is unchanged since 2017.

5. Communication and Information

Relationship manager main OSFI contact for questions

Asked who they normally contact at OSFI when they have a question related to their plans, respondents most often identified their relationship manager or plan supervisor.

Among plan administrators, just over one third (35%) said they normally contact their relationship manager or plan supervisor. This was followed by the OSFI toll free line (17%), the OSFI general email (11%), and an actuarial consultant (10%). These results are similar to those of 2017, though there has been a slight increase in the proportion of plan administrators who indicated they contact their relationship manager or plan supervisor (from 31% in 2017 to 35% in 2020).

Approximately four in 10 (41%) professionals said they contact their relationship manager or plan supervisor when they have questions. This was followed at a distance by the OSFI general email (20%), OSFI’s toll free line (10%), and an actuarial consultant (10%). The proportion of professionals who identified their relationship manager or plan supervisor is virtually unchanged since 2017 when 39% pointed to their relationship manager.

Most satisfied with timeliness of OSFI’s response to enquiries

Approximately three-quarters of plan administrators (76%) expressed satisfaction with the timeliness of OSFI’s response to enquiries (with over half expressing strong satisfaction). This represents a decrease since 2017, when 81% expressed satisfaction in this area. On the other hand, compared to 2017, plan administrators were more likely to indicate that they were very satisfied (56% versus 47% in 2017).

Exactly three-quarters of professionals (75%) expressed satisfaction with OSFI’s timeliness in responding to enquiries, including 34% who said they are very satisfied with OSFI’s performance in this area. While the proportion of professionals expressing satisfaction in this area has changed little over time (78% in 2017 compared 75% in 2020), the proportion expressing strong satisfaction has increased from 44% in 2017 to 34% in 2020.

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

A substantial majority of plan administrators (89%) expressed satisfaction with OSFI’s capacity for interacting with them in the official language of their choice, including 71% who said they are very satisfied. These results are virtually identical to what they were in 2017 when 90% of plan administrators expressed satisfaction with this.

Nearly all professionals (95%) expressed satisfaction with OSFI’s capacity to interact with them in their official language (83% were very satisfied). Satisfaction remains strong in 2021, with no significant changes since 2017.

Main reasons for contacting OSFI differed among plan administrators and professionals

When it came to reasons for contacting OSFI, plan administrators were more likely than professionals to seek assistance submitting returns using RRS (33% vs. 5%) and filling out forms and returns (13% vs. 2%).

For their part, professionals were more likely than plan administrators to contact OSFI about interpretation of guidelines (35% versus 8%), plan-specific questions (26% versus 10%), and interpretation of legislation or regulations (21% versus 8%).

Majority received the information or assistance needed

When contacting OSFI, nearly all plan administrators (95%) said they received the information or assistance they needed. This is a slight increase compared to 2017 when 90% of plan administrators reported receiving what they needed when contacting OSFI. The vast majority of professionals (91%) also reported receiving what they needed when they contacted OSFI. This represents a sizeable increase from 2017 (91% compared to 82% in 2017).

6. OSFI’s Website

Professionals more likely to visit the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website

Asked if they had visited the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website in the last year, 55% of plan administrators indicated they had done so compared to 82% of professionals. Since 2017, use of the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website has increased among plan administrators (45% in 2017 versus 55% in 2021) and changed little among professionals (85% in 2017 versus 82% in 2021)

Various reasons for visiting Private Pension Plans area of website

Among plan administrators and professionals who visited the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website in the last year, the main reason reported for doing so was to obtain information related to OSFI’s COVID-19 measures (46% and 58%, respectively). Following this, 54% of professionals and 33% of plan administrators visited OSFI’s website to obtain information on OSFI’s guidance or policy statements. The same proportion of professionals (34%) and plan administrators (34%) reported visiting the website for research or to look for information on a specific topic.

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

As the following tables show, plan administrators and professionals were generally able to find most or all of the information they were looking for in the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI's website. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to the small number of respondents who used that section of the website for the specific reasons indicated (n= 35 or less).

Private Pension Plans information considered useful

Using a 5-point scale (1=not at all useful; 5=very useful), 76% of plan administrators and 89% of professionals who visited the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website rated the information as useful. Nearly all those who did not rate the information positively were neutral rather than negative in their assessments. Since 2017, the proportion of plan administrators rating the information in this area of the website as useful has decreased (from 86% in 2017 to 76% in 2021), while the proportion of professionals rating it as useful has been increasing since 2014 (from 73% to 85% in 2017 to 89% in 2021).

7. InfoPensions

Use of InfoPensions virtually unchanged since 2017

Asked if they had read or reviewed an edition of InfoPensions in the last year, 38% of plan administrators and 68% of professionals indicated that they had done so. Results this year for both plan administrators and professionals are virtually identical to 2017.

InfoPensions information considered clear, relevant to work, and useful

Respondents who had read or reviewed an edition of InfoPensions in the last year were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with the following attributes for InfoPensions:

• The content of the InfoPensions was clear.
• The content of the InfoPensions was relevant to my work.
• The content of the InfoPensions was useful.

Strong majorities (over three-quarters of all respondents) agreed that the content of InfoPensions was clear, relevant, and useful. Almost identical proportions of plan administrators (86%) and professionals (85%) agreed that the content was clear. Nearly all professionals also agreed that the content was relevant to their work (98%) and useful (96%), while a smaller, but still substantial, majority of plan administrators agreed that the content was relevant to their work (78%) and useful (82%).

Content respondents would like to see featured in InfoPensions

All plan administrators and professionals were asked in an open-ended manner if there is any content that they would like to see featured in an upcoming edition of InfoPensions. Few offered any suggestions (plan administrators; n=4 and professionals; n=12). Suggestions included information on general governance and consultation, clarification of “pensionable age” and starting a pension while still employed, as well as information on common issues or frequently asked questions. Due to low base numbers, the following table depicts the feedback as number of respondents rather than as a percentage.

8. Regulatory Reporting System

Plan administrators more likely to be users of RRS than professionals

Three-quarters of plan administrators (75%) said they use RRS (compared to 79% in 2017). Professionals are less likely than plan administrators to be users of RRS, with 44% reporting they use the system (compared to 62% in 2017).

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

Among those who do not use RRS, more than three-quarters (78%) of plan administrators and more than nine in 10 professionals (95%) said they do not do so because it is not part of their job.

Most review/update corporate information in RRS, plan administrators more likely

While most RRS users said they review and update corporate directly in RRS when there are changes to the contact information, plan administrators were much more likely to say this than professionals (82% versus 38%, respectively).

Those who do not use RRS to review and update corporate information attributed this to their view that RRS is not user-friendly, lack of awareness that this is required, and lack of knowledge of where and how to do this.

9. OSFI’s Response to COVID-19

Substantial majorities were aware of OSFI’s COVID-19 measures

A substantial majority of plan administrators and professionals were aware of measures communicated by OSFI to provide guidance to regulated entities regarding COVID-19, though professionals were more likely to be aware of these measures than plan administrators (93% versus 82%, respectively).

Most agree OSFI identified the right COVID-19 measures

Among those aware of the COVID-19 measures implemented by OSFI, approximately three-quarters of plan administrators (74%) and professionals (76%) agreed that OSFI identified the right measures to put in place, though they were much less likely to express strong agreement about this.

Most agree OSFI’s response was timely

Among those aware of the COVID-19 measures implemented by OSFI, a substantial majority of plan administrators (84%) and professionals (89%) agreed that OSFI’s response was timely. Professionals, however, were more likely than plan administrators to strongly agree that OSFI’s response was timely (46% and 28%, respectively).

Most also agree OSFI’s COVID-19 expectations were clear

Among those aware of the COVID-19 measures implemented by OSFI most plan administrators and professionals (84% each) agreed that OSFI's expectations regarding COVID-19 circumstances were clear.

Attendance low for COVID-19 technical briefings; professionals more likely to attend

Professionals were significantly more likely than plan administrators to attend a series of technical briefings on COVID-19 related regulatory measures offered by OSFI to analysts (35% versus 15%, respectively).

Widespread agreement that technical briefings were timely

All plan administrators (100%) who attended the technical briefings offered by OSFI agreed that these briefings were timely in nature, although they were much less likely to express strong agreement about this. In addition, nearly all the professionals (92%) who attended these technical briefings agreed that they were timely, with nearly two-thirds (64%) of them expressing strong agreement.

Most who attended OSFI’s technical briefings agreed they where useful

Most of the plan administrators (96%) and professionals (92%) who attended OSFI’s technical briefings agreed that these briefings were useful.

Lack of awareness and need are the main reasons for not attending a technical briefings

Lack of awareness of the briefings was the most common reason given by plan administrators for not attending any of the technical briefings (31%), followed by lack of need (25%), perceived irrelevance (17%), being busy or having a schedule conflict (13%), and someone else attending (13%). Among professionals, the most common reasons given for not attending were also lack of awareness and lack of need (36% each), followed by perceived irrelevance (15%), being busy or having a schedule conflict (13%), and someone else attending (9%).

Professionals more likely to consult COVID-19 measures FAQs

Professionals (75%) were more likely than plan administrators (44%) to have consulted OSFI’s FAQs related to measures taken as a result of COVID-19.

Most found FAQs to be timely, comprehensive, and useful

Respondents who consulted the FAQs related to measures taken as a result of COVID-19 were asked to what extent they agree or disagree that the FAQs were timely, comprehensive, and useful. The vast majority of those who consulted these FAQs agreed they were timely, comprehensive, and useful. Specifically, 89% of plan administrators and 93% of professionals found them to be timely, 91% of plan administrators and 93% of professionals found them to be comprehensive, and 93% of plan administrators and 100% of professionals found them to be useful.

Vast majority found frequency of pandemic communications to be about right

The vast majority of plan administrators and professionals said the frequency of communications by OSFI during the pandemic has been about right (93% and 91%, respectively).

10. Final Comments

Difficulty using RRS is the 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 currently relevant. Respondents who provided final comments (30 plan administrators and 14 professionals), most often reported having difficulty using RRS, which is consistent with feedback from 2017.

Appendix 1: English Research Instruments

A: Invitation from the Superintendent

January 2021

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

Subject: Confidential online survey commissioned by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions

I am writing to invite your participation in an important confidential survey that is being conducted by Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc., 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 as a regulator and supervisor of private pension plans. Your participation in the survey is voluntary; however, your feedback will help us to improve our performance, which we believe is of ultimate benefit to you and your organization. Your acceptance or refusal to participate will not affect your relationship with OSFI.

In the coming days, Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc.will contact you by e-mail with a link to the survey, which is hosted on a secure Internet site. Only Phoenix Strategic PerspectivesInc. 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 summer 2021.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Laura Buckland, Manager, Communication Services at OSFI, at (613) 853-5791, or Alethea Woods, President, Phoenix Strategic PerspectivesInc. at (613) 260-1700, ext. 223.

We recognize that these are difficult, unprecedented times and thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Rudin,
Superintendent

B: Survey invitation

Subject : OSFI’s Pension Plans Survey / Sondage du BSIF auprès des régimes de retraite

Hello/Bonjour,

(Le texte français suit l’anglais)

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (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 about 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 March 2, 2021.

The survey is registered with the Canadian Research and Insights Council. If you wish to verify the survey’s authenticity, click here and enter the following project code: 20210105-PH593.

If you would like to discuss the survey 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) 853-5791 (laura.buckland@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.

C: Survey reminders

Subject : Reminder : OSFI’s Pension Plans Survey / Rappel : Sondage du BSIF auprès des régimes de retraite

Hello/Bonjour,

(Le texte français suit l’anglais)

This is a reminder concerning the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ (OSFI) Pension Plans Survey. You will have recently received a letter from Jeremy Rudin, Superintendent of Financial Institutions, 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 about 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 March 2, 2021.

If you would like to discuss the survey 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) 853-5791 (laura.buckland@osfi-bsif.gc.ca).

Thank you for your participation.

Subject : OSFI Pension Plans Survey extended to March 9 / Le sondage du BSIF auprès des régimes de retraite se poursuit jusqu’au 9 mars

Hello/Bonjour,

(Le texte français suit l’anglais)

The closing date of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ (OSFI) on-line survey for federally regulated private pension plans was extended to March 9. If you have already completed the survey, please accept our thanks and disregard this message.

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.

The survey is being carried out by Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc., an independent research company. The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete and your feedback will remain confidential.

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

[Insert link]

If you would like to discuss the survey 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) 853-5791 (laura.buckland@osfi-bsif.gc.ca).

D: Questionnaire

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

• 1. To begin, which of the following types of plans do you spend most of your time on? Please focus only on these plans when completing the survey.
  • Defined Benefit Plans
  • Defined Contribution Plans or Pooled Registered Pension Plans
  • Combination Plans

OSFI recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and is continuing to have, a profound impact on your work. Later in the survey, you will be given an opportunity to share your feedback on OSFI’s effectiveness during the pandemic and on the actions taken by OSFI to address issues stemming from the crisis.

• 2. 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.

[OPEN-END]

OVERALL COMMUNICATION WITH OSFI

• 3. When you have a question related to the plan(s) for which you play a role, who do you normally contact at OSFI? Please select only one response.
  • 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 or pensions@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 in the last year on any pension supervisory or regulatory matter, overall how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with:

• 4. 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

• 5. 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
  • Very Satisfied
  • Don’t Know

• 6. In which of the following areas are 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).
  • Some other reason. Please specify: ____________

• 7. Now, thinking about your most recent interaction with OSFI, what was the main reason you contacted OSFI? Please select only one response.
  • Question(s) about members’ rights
  • Plan-specific question(s)
  • Interpretation of legislation or regulations
  • Interpretation of guideline(s)
  • Assistance filling out forms/returns
  • Assistance submitting returns using the Regulatory Reporting System (RRS)
  • Other, Please specify: _____________
  • I don’t recall [SKIP TO QUESTION 9]
  • Not applicable [SKIP TO QUESTION 9]

• 8. In the end, did you get the information/assistance you needed?
  • Yes [SKIP TO QUESTION 9]
  • No

• 8b. Please tell us what information/assistance you were seeking but did not receive.
  • [OPEN-END]

COVID-19

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada in early 2020, OSFI communicated a series of measures in March 2020 to provide guidance to its regulated entities. The following measures were put in place for pension plans:

• Implemented a freeze on portability transfers and annuity purchases relating to defined benefit provisions of pension plans from March 27, 2020 to August 31, 2020 (partially lifted in May 2020 for members eligible for early retirement)
• Extended filing deadlines for certain actions and annual filing requirements
• Temporarily suspended a number of consultation initiatives and policy development work

• 9. Were you aware of these measures?
  • Yes
  • No [SKIP TO QUESTION 14]

In regards to the measures put in place by OSFI as a result of COVID-19, do you agree or disagree with the following:

• 10. OSFI identified the right measures to put in place.
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Neither agree nor disagree
  • Agree
  • Strongly Agree
  • Don’t Know

• 11. OSFI’s response was timely.
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Neither agree nor disagree
  • Agree
  • Strongly Agree
  • Don’t Know

• 12. OSFI’s expectations regarding COVID-19 circumstances were clear.
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Neither agree nor disagree
  • Agree
  • Strongly Agree
  • Don’t Know

• 13. [If Strongly Disagree or Disagree] Please elaborate on why you disagree:

• 14. OSFI offered a series of technical briefings to analysts on COVID-19 related regulatory measures. Did you attend any of these technical briefings?
  • Yes
  • No [SKIP TO QUESTION 18]

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the technical briefings offered by OSFI were:

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

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

• 17. [If Strongly disagree or disagree] Please elaborate on why you disagree: [THEN SKIP TO Q.19]

• 18. What is the main reason why you did not attend any of the technical briefings?
  • Was not relevant
  • Did not need
  • Was not aware
  • Other, please specify:__________________

• 19. To keep stakeholders informed throughout the pandemic, OSFI has been issuing a series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to measures taken as a result of COVID-19. Have you consulted any of these FAQs?
  • Yes
  • No [SKIP TO QUESTION 24]

Thinking about the FAQs, to what extent do you agree or disagree that they were:

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

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

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

• 23. [If Strongly disagree or disagree] Please elaborate on why you disagree:

• 24. Throughout the pandemic period, the overall frequency of OSFI’s communications/updates to stakeholders has been:
  • More than I would like
  • About right
  • Less than I would like
  • Don’t know

OSFI’S WEBSITE

• 25. Have you visited the Private Pension Plans area of OSFI’s website in the last year?
  • Yes
  • No [SKIP TO QUESTION 29]

• 26. 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 related to COVID-19 measures taken by OSFI
  • 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 _____________________

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

  [ONLY PRESENT THE ITEMS SELECTED AT Q26]

  • All of what you were looking for
  • Most of what you were looking for
  • Some of what you were looking for
  • A little of what you were looking for
  • None of what you were looking for
  • Don’t know

  [IF RESPONDENTS SELECTED ‘NONE’ AT Q27, ASK Q27b. EVERYONE ELSE GO TO Q28.]

• 27b. Please describe what you did not find on the OSFI website.

• 28. 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

InfoPensions

• 29. Here’s an image of the most recent edition of InfoPensions. Have you read or reviewed any edition of InfoPensions in the last year?
  • Yes
  • No [SKIP TO GUIDANCE SECTION]

Thinking back to the last edition of InfoPensions you read, do you agree or disagree with the following:

• 30. The content of the InfoPensions was: Clear
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Neither agree nor disagree
  • Agree
  • Strongly Agree
  • Don’t Know

• 31. The content of the InfoPensions was: Relevant to my work
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Neither agree nor disagree
  • Agree
  • Strongly Agree
  • Don’t Know

• 32. The content of the InfoPensions was: Useful
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Neither agree nor disagree
  • Agree
  • Strongly Agree
  • Don’t Know

• 33. Is there any content you would like to see featured in an upcoming edition of InfoPensions?
  • Yes [DROPDOWN TEXT BOX: Please elaborate]
  • No
  • Don’t know

GUIDANCE

• 34. Do you subscribe to OSFI’s email notifications for topics related to pension plans?
  • Yes
  • No [DROPDOWN TEXT BOX: Why not?]

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

• 35. How would you rate OSFI with respect to consulting with the pension plan industry when developing guidance?
  • Very Poor
  • Poor
  • Fair
  • Good
  • Very Good
  • Don’t Know

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

• 36. I am aware of the guidance material published by OSFI.
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • Agree
  • Strongly Agree
  • Don’t Know

• 37. 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:

• 38. Providing a clear indication of OSFI’s expectations?
  • Very Ineffective
  • Somewhat Ineffective
  • Neither Effective nor Ineffective
  • Somewhat Effective
  • Very Effective
  • Don’t Know

• 39. 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.

• 40. 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
  • COVID-19 specific correspondence
  • Other correspondence, please specify:
  • No correspondence received

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

• 41. 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

• 42. The clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence outlining issues of concern?
  • Very Poor
  • Poor
  • Fair
  • Good
  • Very Good
  • Don’t Know
  • Not Applicable

Overall, how effective or ineffective do you think OSFI is in supervising your plan(s):

• 43. Under normal circumstances (e.g., ongoing monitoring, examinations and specific interventions)
  • Very Ineffective
  • Somewhat Ineffective
  • Neither Effective nor Ineffective
  • Somewhat Effective
  • Very Effective
  • Don’t Know

• 44. Under the current COVID-19 circumstances
  • Very Ineffective
  • Somewhat Ineffective
  • Neither Effective nor Ineffective
  • Somewhat Effective
  • Very Effective
  • Don’t Know

• 45. Please elaborate on why you found it ineffective: [If Very Ineffective or Somewhat Ineffective]

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.

• 46. Have you submitted an application for a regulatory approval in the past 3 years?
  • Yes [CONTINUE TO QUESTION 47]
  • No [SKIP TO REGULATORY REPORTING SYSTEM SECTION]
  • Don’t Know [SKIP TO REGULATORY REPORTING SYSTEM SECTION]

• 47. Which of the following categories of regulatory approvals have you sought in the past 3 years? Please select all that apply.
  • Plan registration or termination
  • Asset transfer or reducing amendment or refund of surplus
  • Lifting the portability freeze that was implemented due to COVID-19
  • Prefer not to say
  • I don’t know/recall

  [IF Q47 INCLUDES “LIFTING THE PORTABILITY FREEZE THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED DUE TO COVID-19”, ASK: ]

• Q48a. What is your overall level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with OSFI in processing applications to lift the portability freeze from your plan(s)?
  • Very Dissatisfied
  • Somewhat Dissatisfied
  • Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
  • Somewhat Satisfied
  • Very Satisfied
  • Don’t Know

  [IF Q47 = BOTH “PLAN REGISTRATION OR TERMINATION” AND “ASSET TRANSFER OR REDUCING AMENDMENT OR REFUND OF SURPLUS”, ASK:]

• Q48b. Which regulatory approval have you most recently sought?
  • Plan registration or termination
  • Asset transfer or reducing amendment or refund of surplus

The following section pertains only to your experience seeking regulatory approval(s) for:

• Plan registration or termination
• Asset transfer or reducing amendment or refund of surplus

• 49. What is your overall level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with OSFI in processing applications from your plan(s)?
  • Very Dissatisfied
  • Somewhat Dissatisfied
  • Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied [SKIP TO Q50]
  • Somewhat Satisfied [SKIP TO Q50]
  • Very Satisfied [SKIP TO Q50]
  • Don’t Know [SKIP TO Q50]

• 49b. Please elaborate on why you are dissatisfied:

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:

• 50. 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

• 51. 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

• 52. 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

• 53. 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

REGULATORY REPORTING SYSTEM

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

• 54. Are you a user of RRS?
  • Yes [SKIP TO QUESTION 56]
  • No [CONTINUE TO QUESTION 55]

• 55. Why have you not used RRS? Select all that apply
  • It’s not part of my job function/responsibilities [skip to Final Comments Section]
  • Other, please specify: ____________________ [skip to Final Comments Section]

• 56. 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 Final Comment Section]
  • Yes [SKIP to Final Comment Section]
  • No [CONTINUE TO QUESTION 57]

• 57. 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:

FINAL COMMENTS

• 58. 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? (WRITE IN)

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

Appendix 2: French Research Instruments

A: Invitation from the Superintendent

B: Survey invitation

C: Survey Reminders

D: Questionnaire