The Trump administration issued a series of policies in its first week, largely focused on the federal workforce, immigration, and eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and protections.  

A few key policies are highlighted below, but you can find a comprehensive catalogue of all policies relevant to working people and the economy at Federal Policy Watch, an EPI online tool documenting actions by the Trump administration, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts. You can subscribe to daily Federal Policy Watch updates here.

Federal workforce  

President Trump instituted a series of executive orders (EOs) aimed at gutting the federal workforce and politicizing the career civil service.

• Most significantly, he implemented Schedule F, which upends longstanding job protections for federal career employees and makes it easier to fire them for any reason. Moving a sizable chunk of the federal workforce to Schedule F makes it easier for President Trump to shift the work of the government away from the public interest and toward the president’s political goals.
• A new EO overturned a Biden administration executive order that protected the rights of federal workers to collectively bargain and affirmed due process protections.
• In an attempt to quickly shrink the federal workforce, President Trump issued an EO requiring federal workers to report in person to the office five days each week, ending remote work arrangements.
• Another EO freezes the hiring of federal civilian employees and directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the United States DOGE Service (USDS), to submit a plan to reduce the size of the federal workforce within 90 days.

Immigration

President Trump signed a number of EOs on day one that direct federal agencies to make sweeping changes to the immigration system, and rescinded five EOs on immigration that were issued early during the Biden administration. Some of the most notable recissions and new directives include:

• Declaring a national emergency at the southern border, allowing the administration to unlock various federal national security and emergency authorities, and calling for military reserves and the National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement.
• Shutting down virtually all avenues for persons to request asylum at the southern border and shutting down the U.S. refugee resettlement program indefinitely.
• Ending birthright citizenship so that future U.S.-born children with an unauthorized immigrant parent will not be U.S. citizens. (The EO orders the policy to go into effect 30 days after issuing the EO, but the policy was challenged and temporary blocked for 14 days by a federal district court in Washington state on January 23. Litigation will continue and the case is likely to end up at the Supreme Court.)
• Calling on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to take all possible actions to expand the immigrant detention system.
• Ending the Biden-era programs that use parole authority (which provides temporary deportation from removal and work permits), including those for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) One App, a tool for migrants abroad to use to schedule interviews with U.S. immigration officials.
• Setting out new, more expansive immigration enforcement priorities, and rescinding policies on enforcement operations at or near sensitive locations like schools, churches, and courthouses.
• Directing the Attorney General and DHS to take civil or criminal legal action against so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions and calling for stripping federal funding from such jurisdictions.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

• President Trump rescinded multiple Biden administration executive orders expressing the federal government’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. President Trump revoked policy goals like expanding language access to government benefits and services, responding to the rise in racial hate crimes, support for improved data disaggregation, and fulfilling the federal government’s commitment to further Tribal sovereignty. He also rescinded an EO that sought to strengthen the government’s partnership with and support of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). Trump’s actions rescind any national acknowledgement of the value of this nation’s racial diversity and commitment to address systemic inequities.
• One of the EOs directs the Attorney General to submit a plan within 120 days to deter DEI principles. As part of the EO, each agency is directed to identify for “civil compliance investigations” nine publicly traded corporations, large nonprofits and foundations, or institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion.

 

 

James Bradshaw of the Globe and Mail reports Ontario appoints veteran director Robert Poirier to lead review of OMERS governance model:

Ontario’s government has appointed businessman and corporate director Robert Poirier to lead a review of governance at Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, choosing a board member from one of the pension fund’s critics.

The province has handed Mr. Poirier a 10-month mandate to examine the effectiveness of the model for governing OMERS, which is steered by two boards of directors, and whether it has engaged clearly enough with its members.

Mr. Poirier is the chief executive officer of NeuState Advisory, a firm he founded, and a former executive in the pensions division of asset manager State Street Corp. He was the long-time chair of the Toronto Port Authority and, earlier in his career, advised a committee of Canada’s Senate on issues that included the creation of major public-sector pension funds such as the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.

Until last month, he was also a board member at transit agency Metrolinx – one of multiple OMERS employers that wrote to Ontario’s government in June asking for an urgent review of the pension fund’s governance structure.

Ontario’s Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Paul Calandra ordered the review in August. He was responding to pressure from associations representing OMERS members that complained to government about the pension fund’s governance, including a perceived lack of transparency from one of the pension fund’s two boards.

The review’s mandate is similar to one that former senior public servant Tony Dean followed in 2012 when he led the last provincial review of OMERS governance.

A spokesperson for Mr. Calandra, Justine Teplycky, said Mr. Poirier was screened by the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario before his appointment was finalized, and resigned his Metrolinx board seat on Nov. 20 – two days before he was appointed to lead the review.

“Mr. Poirier is well-positioned to lead the review with his advanced understanding and familiarity with pension plan governance and administration, as well as strong executive leadership skills,” Ms. Teplycky said in an e-mailed statement. “He will undertake a governance review of OMERS to ensure that its governance model is serving the interests of plan members in a fair, equitable, and transparent manner that supports the plan’s long-term financial sustainability.”

Mr. Poirier declined to comment and directed questions to the province.

The target of the members’ complaints, which were spearheaded by associations representing police and firefighters, has been the Sponsors Corporation (SC) board at OMERS. It makes board appointments, sets benefits and contributions, and monitors the plan’s long-term health.

A separate Administration Corporation (AC) board oversees the fund’s investments, plan valuation and pension administration.

The chair of the AC board, George Cooke, welcomed Mr. Poirier’s appointment in a statement.

“We are supportive of the review and see it as the right forum to build on the governance work initiated by the 2012 review,” Mr. Cooke said. “We are committed to fully cooperating with Mr. Poirier, and all stakeholders, to ensure we deliver the best possible outcome for our 628,000 members across Ontario.”

Some OMERS members felt the SC board had blindsided them with planned changes to contribution rates starting in 2027 that will require certain employees to pay more into the plan, though about 70 per cent of members will pay the same or lower amounts. Police, firefighters and other employees who earn more than $90,000, as well as some employers, will pay higher contributions – about $15 to $20 more per pay period for most police officers.

In a letter to Ontario Premier Doug Ford dated June 20, 2024, and reviewed by The Globe and Mail, Metrolinx board chair Donald Wright raised the contribution issue and wrote that “my fellow Board members and I” have growing concerns about the pension fund manager, including a perceived lack of consultation by OMERS on governance matters that affect employees’ financial futures.

Mr. Poirier was a Metrolinx board member at the time the letter was written, which could raise questions about his impartiality as the review’s leader. But the heads of two police associations that asked for the review welcomed Mr. Poirier’s appointment.

“We do not have any concerns about the appointment at this time, and have had no past involvement with Mr. Poirier,” said Clayton Campbell, president of the Toronto Police Association, in an e-mailed statement. “We’re eager to have the review get started and look forward to meaningful changes that will benefit our members.”

Police Association of Ontario president Mark Baxter said in an e-mailed statement that he hopes the review will make the OMERS SC board “more transparent and accountable to members.”

“Mr. Poirier is a qualified business person who has sat on many successful boards and we look forward to supporting his work with this review,” Mr. Baxter said.

Mr. Poirier was appointed on Nov. 22, according to a government notice. He has until Sept. 19 to complete his work, though he could finish sooner. According to the notice, he will be paid a per-diem rate of up to $1,500 for a maximum of 235 days, with total potential compensation capped at $352,500.

The current review will not cover the financial sustainability of the plan or OMERS’s investment performance, nor will it revisit the proposed changes to contribution rates.

I've already discussed why Ontario's government launched a governance review at OMERS here. 

I'm not going to get into it again except to say it's time to get on with it and in my humble opinion, it's time to do away with this dual board which none of OMERS' large peers have (one is plenty).

I don't know Robert Poirier but he is eminently qualified to review the governance at OMERS.

And while he was a Metrolinx board member at the time the letter was written, which could raise questions about his impartiality as the review’s leader, I'd wait to see the final report before making any such conclusions.

Again, for me it's straightforward, OMERS is a large global pension fund but it doesn't need two boards.

Still, I will wait to read the final report to see what Mr. Poirier has to say.

In other news, Paula Sambo of Bloomberg reports OMERS' private equity arm buys IT firm Integris from Frontenac:

 Omers Private Equity is buying a majority stake in Integris, a US cybersecurity and IT consulting company, from Chicago-based Frontenac Company LLC for an undisclosed amount.

The deal marks Omers’ entry into the IT managed-services industry, according to a statement seen by Bloomberg News. The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System is one of Canada’s largest pension managers, with net assets of C$133.6 billion ($95.2 billion) as of June.

The management team at Integris will remain in place, Omers said.

Integris, which is based in New Jersey and was formerly known as Domain Technology Group, focuses on providing IT services to small- and medium-sized businesses. It has offices along the US east coast and in the midwest and south.

Frontenac bought it in 2020 and merged it with other firms to form Integris in 2021, then supported it through several acquisitions.

“Integris is a world-class platform that excels in delivering expert outsourced IT services and customer support in an industry with significant growth potential,” Eric Haley, head of buyout at Omers Private Equity, said in the statement. 

On Tuesday, OMERS Private Equity issued a press release on this acquisition:

OMERS Private Equity today announced the signing of a definitive agreement to acquire a majority stake in Integris (“Integris” or the “Company”) from Frontenac, a Chicago-based private equity firm. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

Integris offers a full suite of outsourced IT, cloud, and cybersecurity services to small and medium-sized businesses across the United States. Headquartered in New Jersey, the company supports its customers nationally through its network of offices on the East Coast, in the Midwest and the South.

The partnership with Integris marks OMERS Private Equity’s entry into the IT managed services provider (MSP) space – a large and rapidly growing sector that delivers IT services to small and medium-sized businesses across various industries. OMERS Private Equity will support management in maintaining its impressive track record of profitable growth, both organically and through strategic acquisitions.

“Integris is a world-class platform that excels in delivering expert outsourced IT services and customer support in an industry with significant growth potential,” said Eric Haley, Senior Managing Director and Head of Buyout, OMERS Private Equity. “This investment provides an opportunity to establish our presence in the sector and enhance our business services portfolio, backed by a team with deep industry expertise and a strong, customer-centric reputation.”

“We are excited to welcome Integris to our portfolio to continue building on what is already an impressive culture, platform, and strategy,” said Geoffrey Bird, Managing Director and Head of Business Services, OMERS Private Equity. “Equally critical is that Integris' proven leadership team will remain at the helm, ensuring seamless continuity and the continued delivery of outstanding customer service.”

“As we embark on our next chapter, having the right partner is key to our continued success. With OMERS proven track record of scaling its portfolio companies, we are confident in our ability to drive continued growth and success for Integris,” said Rashaad Bajwa, Founder and CEO, Integris. “At the same time, we extend our sincere gratitude to Frontenac for its investment, leadership, and collaboration over the past four years.”

“OMERS Private Equity is the ideal partner to build on the strengths of Integris. Our organizations share a strong alignment in cultural values and a unified vision for the future,” added Glenn Mathis, President and COO, Integris. “With their support, we will continue to raise the bar, expanding our national footprint and serving an even larger customer base.”

The transaction is expected to close in December 2024. DLA Piper acted as legal counsel and Baird served as financial advisor for Integris and Frontenac. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP acted as legal counsel for OMERS Private Equity.

About OMERS Private Equity

OMERS Private Equity manages investments globally on behalf of OMERS, one of Canada’s largest defined benefit pension plans, with C$128.6 billion in net assets as of December 31, 2023, including approximately C$25.1 billion in net private equity investment asset exposure. The team invests across Industrials, Healthcare, Business Services and Technology, deploying an evergreen capital base to partner with strong management teams and transform good companies into industry leaders around the globe. For more information, please visit www.omersprivateequity.com

About Integris

Integris is a national, managed IT service provider dedicated to helping small and mid-sized companies power their success through technology. Through a growing network of local service offices and gold-level partnerships with technology vendors, Integris provides companies with comprehensive and a la carte system platform management that’s responsive, secure, regulation ready, and tailored to their industry vertical. Founded in 2021, Integris offers clients the power of a national network, with the personal service of a nearby, local-market MSP. Integris appears regularly on the Inc. 5000 list of fastest-growing companies. Headquartered in Cranbury, New Jersey, Integris employs 600+ professionals nationwide. For more information, visit integrisit.com

About Frontenac

Frontenac is a Chicago-based private equity firm. The firm focuses on investing in lower middle market buyout transactions in the consumer, industrial, and services industries. Frontenac works in partnership with established operating leaders, through an executive-centric approach called CEO1ST®, which seeks to identify, acquire, and build market-leading companies through transformational acquisitions and operational excellence. Over the last 50+ years, Frontenac has built a franchise working with over 300 owners of mid-sized businesses as they address complex transition issues of liquidity, management enhancement, and growth planning. For more information, please visit www.frontenac.com

It's worth noting what Eric Haley, Senior Managing Director and Head of Buyout, OMERS Private Equity said about this deal:

“Integris is a world-class platform that excels in delivering expert outsourced IT services and customer support in an industry with significant growth potential. This investment provides an opportunity to establish our presence in the sector and enhance our business services portfolio, backed by a team with deep industry expertise and a strong, customer-centric reputation.” 

Also worth noting what Geoffrey Bird, Managing Director and Head of Business Services, OMERS Private Equity stated: “Equally critical is that Integris' proven leadership team will remain at the helm, ensuring seamless continuity and the continued delivery of outstanding customer service.”

To understand why this is a great deal even though financial details weren't disclosed, you need to go back to September 2020 and read about when Frontenac acquired Domain Computer Services and merged it with Tier One Technology Partners to create a leading premium MSP platform (now called Integris):

Domain Computer Services (“Domain”), a New Jersey-based managed IT services provider, announced it has completed a merger today with like-minded Maryland managed IT services company, Tier One Technology Partners (“Tier One”), to form a premium national MSP platform. To propel their growth, the companies also announced a recapitalization in partnership with Frontenac, a Chicago-based private equity firm. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

Domain and Tier One specialize in managing the IT and cybersecurity needs of top-tier professional services firms. Both companies have been recognized as award winning MSP industry leaders in several verticals: Domain in legal and financial services and Tier One in non-profit. Together with Frontenac, they are on a path to build a premium national provider of managed IT services by partnering with other MSPs that share their values of operational excellence, vertical focus, employee engagement and development.

The combined firm will be led by Rashaad Bajwa as CEO, Jim Kehres as Managing Director of the Maryland/DC market and Kris Laskarzewski as Managing Director of the NJ/NY/PA market.

Rashaad Bajwa, CEO of Domain, said, “When we set the intention of building a national MSP platform, I knew that Dave and Jim at Tier One were one of the first conversations I was going to have. We’ve worked together closely for years as peers in ITNation Evolve; joining forces with them and Frontenac as our partner fulfills our vision of building a premium MSP platform focused on people, process and reputation.”

“After knowing Rashaad for years through our professional peer group, I knew and respected Domain as a leading MSP. When Rashaad approached me about bringing Domain and Tier One together, I quickly realized this could be a dream team,” stated Dave Shaffer, CEO of Tier One. “Together with Frontenac, they care about the things that matter most – our people, our clients and our reputation. This team makes a very attractive partner for best-in-class MSPs.”

Domain and Tier One found Frontenac and its executive-centric approach to be a natural fit as they were looking for the right partners to help them expand their MSP business. Joining the Board of Directors at closing is industry veteran Mike Jenner, who has 25+ years of experience growing technology services companies. Mike is the current CEO of ControlCase and is the former CEO of NexusTek. He will be joined on the Board of Directors by Corey Sisler, former CFO of NexusTek and CFO of Spectraseis.

Joe Rondinelli, Principal at Frontenac, said, “Together with Mike and Corey, we were attracted to Domain and Tier One because of their people, culture, best-in-class operations and exceptional client base. We see substantial white space in the industry and are excited to support management by investing in strategic organic growth initiatives and acquiring other like-minded MSPs.”

“Domain and Tier One fit perfectly with Frontenac’s franchise of investing in and growing best-in-class, tech-enabled services companies alongside extraordinary leadership teams,” added Michael Langdon, Managing Director at Frontenac. “We look forward to aggressively building out a national MSP.”

Honigman LLP served as legal counsel to Frontenac on the transaction. Szaferman Lakind served as legal counsel for Domain and Tier One.

About Domain Computer Services

Domain Computer Services is an IT managed services provider that focuses on cybersecurity, cloud services, IT consulting, and infrastructure. They offer unlimited on-site and remote support packages to clients in the New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia metro areas, with an emphasis on law firms, financial services and other high-end professional services. Domain was founded in 1997 by Rashaad and Michelle Bajwa. For more information on Domain, please visit www.go-domain.com.

About Tier One Technology Partners

Tier One Technology Partners is an IT managed services provider that focuses on cybersecurity, cloud services, IT consulting, and infrastructure. They offer unlimited on-site and remote support packages to clients in the Maryland and DC metro area, with an emphasis on the non-profit industry. Tier One Technology Partners was founded in 1998 by Dave Shaffer and Jim Kehres. For more information on Tier One, please visit www.tieroneit.com.

About Frontenac

Frontenac is a Chicago-based private equity firm. The firm focuses on investing in lower middle market buyout transactions in the consumer, industrial, and services industries. Frontenac works in partnership with established operating leaders, through an executive-centric approach called CEO1ST, which seeks to identify, acquire, and build market-leading companies through transformational acquisitions and operational excellence. Over the last 50 years, Frontenac has built a leading franchise working with over 275 owners of mid-sized businesses as they address complex transition issues of liquidity, management enhancement, and growth planning. For more information, please visit www.frontenac.com.

I would invite you to read more about Integris here and see their experienced leadership team, especially Rashaad Bajwa, founder and CEO:

Cybersecurity is a huge field and there are well-known giants like CrowdStrike but a lot of lesser well-known firms like Integris growing fast.

Lastly, as I noted in my comment on why OMERS is stopping to make direct private equity investments in Europe, there is a shift at OMERS in the private equity group..

Eric Haley is Head of Private Equity, Buyout and leads the OMERS Private Equity strategy and team, focusing primarily on direct PE investments. He is responsible for the strategic execution of our Buyout strategy and oversees OMERS Private Equity's investments in the business services, industrial, and healthcare sectors. 

The investment in Integris was made by OMERS Private Equity. Michael Block is Head of Private Capital and leads OMERS Private Capital strategy and team, which includes the development and execution of our new global funds and co-investment strategy.

[Note: Private Equity won’t be renamed Private Capital, they’re two separate entities: (1) OMERS Private Equity - majority buyout and (2) OMERS Private Capital - funds and co-investments.]

Below, Rashaad Bajwa, Founder & CEO of Integris explains how they premium technology solutions for small-to-medium-sized businesses across the country.

Mr. Bajwa also spoke about the changing state of office culture in the hybrid world during NJBIA's 2023 Insights and Outlooks summit (worth listening to this). 

Lastly, I'd be wrong not to take this opportunity to plug the great interviews Celine Chiovitti, Chief Pension Officer, OMERS, has done at the Pension Blueprint Podcast which you can view here.

Also worth noting that Nancy Nazer, Chief Human Resources Officer, and Celine have been honoured with one of the country’s most prestigious recognitions: the Women’s Executive Network (WXN)’s Canada’s Most Powerful Women: Top 100 Awards.

You can read details here and let me take this opportunity to congratulate them both on this well deserved award.

On Friday, PSP investments' former CEO Neil Cunningham sent me Bill Curry's Globe and Mail article on how Ottawa could reap $9-billion from surpluses in public-service pension fund, projections show:

Ottawa could potentially reap a $9-billion boost to its bottom line over the next few years, federal documents show, thanks to a growing surplus in the pension fund for public servants, prompting a standoff with unions over what should be done with the windfall.

Treasury Board President Anita Anand upset the major public-sector unions earlier this week when she announced that about $1.9-billion in the Public Service Pension Fund from the previous fiscal year will be shifted to general revenues. Labour leaders say workers also contributed to the fund and should benefit from any surplus, rather than having the money go toward other priorities such as new spending or reducing the size of the deficit.

The minister said the change is because the size of the surplus in the $186.4-billion fund has exceeded allowable levels.

However, in an analysis to be released Friday by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), the union points out that new federal records show the government is projecting changes totalling $9.2-billion through 2028.

The figure is contained in a table from a special actuarial report that was also released this week showing that if the existing surplus continues to grow as projected, the federal government could partly pause its contributions to the fund in 2025, fully pause them the next two years and have a partial pause for 2028.

“I was quite shocked and disappointed that the government flat out omitted one major point: that they plan to give themselves the biggest holiday present,” said Sharon DeSousa, national president of PSAC, which is the largest of the unions representing federal public servants.

Ms. DeSousa said in an interview that rather than shifting funds out of the pension plan, PSAC would prefer to see changes to address an inequity in the current pension rules that requires newer workers to work more years to qualify for a full pension. She said any contribution holiday should also apply to public servants.

Ms. DeSousa said PSAC has been urging the government for months to consider such options in anticipation of a pension surplus decision. Instead, she said Ottawa is using the funds to improve its bottom line.

“They plan to do this on the backs of workers,” she said.

The special actuarial report, prepared by the Office of the Chief Actuary, said the value of the pension fund as of March 31, 2024, is $186.4-billion. The fund has a surplus of $38.8-billion over $147.6-billion in liabilities, which is a funded ratio of 126.3 per cent.

Federal rules say the plan cannot hold a surplus of more than 125 per cent of liabilities, defining such amounts as a “non-permitted surplus.”

The actuarial report said the fund’s return on investment earnings was 7.2 per cent in 2024, compared with the expected return of 5.8 per cent.

Each year that a projected surplus above the 125-per-cent threshold does in fact materialize, the government is required to take action to bring the surplus back within the limit. The actuarial report presents a government contribution freeze as a default scenario, but the government could choose to repeat this year’s practice of shifting the surplus to the consolidated revenue fund.

Myah Tomasi, a spokesperson for Ms. Anand, the Treasury Board President, said the government’s $1.9-billion transfer “will be held while next steps are considered,” in accordance with federal legislation governing the fund.

“Once this transfer is made, there will no longer be a non-permitted surplus in the pension plan, allowing the government to continue its contributions,” she said.

It is not immediately clear how these accounting adjustments will affect the Liberal government’s bottom line.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has yet to announce a date for the fall economic update. The House of Commons is scheduled to sit until Dec. 17.

In last year’s fall update, Ms. Freeland pledged that the deficit for the fiscal year that ended in March, 2024, would not exceed $40.1-billion. Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux released a report in October that said it appears the government is heading toward a $46.8-billion deficit, meaning Ms. Freeland has missed her fiscal target.

Ms. Freeland has repeatedly declined to clarify whether her update will in fact show the target was missed.

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, who is now founding president and CEO of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, said only the $1.9-billion transfer announced by the minister this week is confirmed. The remaining amounts are projections.

“We might only know in the next federal budget whether the figures presented in the table represent a source of funds for other measures,” he said in an e-mail.

“It is the minister’s prerogative to use funds for other policy priorities as long as the fund requirements are met. Given that the increase in the funded ratio above 125 per cent is due to over-contribution by both employees and the government, one might expect that the contribution holiday could be shared by both parties.”

 As I stated, on Friday, PSP's former CEO Neil Cunningham sent me this article along with this note:

The concept of the federal government using the surplus funds in the Public Service Pension Fund (PSPF) for other purposes is, in my opinion, a good idea. But I am not supportive of the choice that the current government is making to use this surplus as a piggy bank to support their overspending on their various other priorities.
The recent discussion regarding Canadian pensions not investing sufficiently in Canada has missed a significant point regarding the difference between the PSPF and every other Maple 8 pension funds - that is that the PSPF is essentially a sovereign wealth fund wherein it is the federal government who is the plan sponsor and is on the hook for the full pension promise that is provided to its workforce. Being a federal fund with ALL Canadians participating as contributors and sponsors through our tax dollars makes this fund essentially a sovereign wealth fund, albeit with a primary purpose to pay the promised pensions.
As you well know, the PSPF investments are managed by the PSP and represents about 70% of PSP’s assets under management, the balance being the pension funds or the Canadian Army, Army Reserve and the RCMP. (What I outline here would also apply to these other pension funds managed by PSP, although the details and surpluses are not uniform). PSP has been over the long term an extremely successful investment firm and has built up the 126% funding surplus described in the article while staying within the risk limits proscribed by the Treasury Board, to whom PSP reports. This has been accomplished while maintaining a risk profile equivalent to what currently is a 58/42 equity to fixed income ratio (by comparison CPPIB’s risk tolerance expressed by their reference portfolio is currently 85/15). So what to do with the surplus?
The legislation covering the PSP specifies the 125% limit on funding levels, any excess being described as the “non-permitted surplus”. The Act provides Treasury Board with several options regarding how to deal with such a surplus that I will summarize as i) a funding holiday for the sponsor, and/or the beneficiaries, ii) an increase in benefits or iii) a lump sum withdrawal from the fund by the sponsor. I would propose an additional option which goes to the discussion on pension funds investing more in Canada.
Quite simply, Ottawa could transfer the surplus money into a separate fund that has a mandate to invest exclusively in Canada. This fund could be set up in a similar fashion to the Canada Growth Fund that was established two years ago and is managed by PSP with NO political interference in the actual investments - the government is responsible for the fund’s mandate and then getting out of the way and letting the investment professionals do their job. For various reasons, and I admit some bias here, the PSP would be the logical manager of this new Canada fund. 
And why stop there, why not increase the risk appetite of the PSPF beyond the current 58/42 to a higher but still very reasonable asset mix, like 70/30, with the expectation that the surplus would grow over time and be could be used to continue to finance this new fund?

I’ve simplified some of the details here, but I’m sure you get the idea - Canada has a terrific investment manager that charges zero fees other than paying the direct costs of running the place - why not optimize it to the long-term benefit of all Canadians that also addresses a long-standing issue of importance to Canada’s economy. 

What followed was a very interesting discussion with Neil on what can be done with the surplus to benefit the Canadian economy.

According to Neil, the Government can use that surplus at its discretion to create a new "Canada Fund" with an explicit mandate to invest only in Canada.

This new fund can be modelled after the Canada Growth Fund which the Government incorporated exactly two years ago:

Canada Growth Fund Inc. (CGF) is a C$15 billion independent and arm’s length public fund that will help Canada to speed up the deployment of technologies in its efforts to reduce emissions, transform its economy and support the long-term prosperity of Canadians.

CGF’s mandate is to build a portfolio of investments that catalyze substantial private sector investment in Canadian businesses and projects to help transform and grow Canada’s economy at speed and scale on the path to a low-carbon economy.

This CGF is managed by PSP Investments. Its President and CEO, Patrick Charboneau, is part of PSP's executive team but he answers to his own board of directors which is made up of a subgroup of PSP's board.

CGF has a clear mandate and is managed at arm's length from the government, just like PSP:

By partnering with PSP Investments, CGF benefits from PSP Investments’ deep investment expertise and track record across a broad range of sectors and strategies, a mature and scalable operational ecosystem and a governance framework that is independent and at arm’s length from the Government of Canada, allowing CGF to rapidly and successfully deliver its mandate. CGF Investment Management’s activities are operationally distinct from PSP Investments’ pension investment mandate, and the assets of CGF and of PSP Investments are not commingled.

Neil told me the expected long-term return of CGF is zero, its investment activities focus on three key sectors:

CGF is funded by the federal government (C$15 billion) with a clear mandate and it's actively ramping up its investments to meet that mandate (read latest interim report here and see their latest news here).

The best way to think of CGF -- even though it's not exactly like this -- is a clean technology venture capital fund but they are not looking to shoot the lights out in terms of returns and their investment mandate is broader.

Neil Cunningham followed up on our conversation stating this:

As a follow up to our conversation yesterday it occurred to me that it might to useful for me to differentiate between the Canada Growth Fund (CGF) created a few years ago and my suggested Canada Fund (CF). 
CGF as you know was created by the federal government in 2023 with a mandate to make investments that take on higher risk than what the private sector will invest in to fill the funding gap on innovative investment in Canada that are expected to reduce emissions, preserve Canadian IP in Canada, create long-term employment in Canada and leverage our natural resource assets. It has a venture capital element to it, but the long-term target return of the fund is to break-even - which would be considered a success if the other objectives were achieved. It’s funded by a specific $15 billion commitment by the federal government, its mandate being in line with current federal government objectives, especially on climate. 
The CF in contrast would be funded by the excess returns generated by the PSPF (and potentially the other funds managed by PSP) and therefore would not have any impact on Canada’s annual deficit or national debt. Its mandate would be to invest exclusively in Canada - the mandate and target return to be established but could be similar to the CGF but with a broader range of industry sectors. I would suggest that it have a focus on early to mid-stage Canadian companies that often have to look to the US or elsewhere for the capital required for the development of their IP and to move their business to the next level. 
The similarity of the two funds would be the governance structure wherein the federal government sets the mandate but is NOT in any way involved in the actual investing decisions, both funds to be managed by an independent investment manager. 
By having a long-term funding source that is independent of future government finances, the CF would be a permanent source of capital to promote strategic Canadian private sector investment.

Now, I like Neil's idea of setting up a Canada Fund to invest exclusively in Canada where the governance is exactly like the Canada Growth Fund, namely, it would operate at arm's length from the government which funds it and sets the mandate.

What are other possibilities? I've long argued we need to set up a Canada Healthcare Fund which has the same governance as PSP and CPP Investments with a clear mandate to invest and meet the growing healthcare expenditures of our growing population.

Since the feds handle healthcare expenditures, they can easily set up such a fund and grow it over time to make sure we have enough money to pay for growing healthcare costs as the population ages.

To be honest, this should have been done years ago, but we don't have much foresight when it comes to thinking long-term in this country.

Another idea for that C$9 billion surplus similar to my Canada Healthcare Fund is to start the Canada Disability Fund which is a fund that will pay benefits to Canadians living with a disability.

Why do we need a Canada Disability Fund? Simple, the recent passage of Bill C-22 creating the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB) isn't enough, the disability benefits fall short of what the government promised and we need to rectify this to take care of our most vulnerable citizens who have been living in poverty for far too long.

As I stated many times, if the Government of Canada handed out CERB payments of $2,000 a month to every eligible Canadian during the pandemic, then why are Canadians with disabilities expected to live on half that amount or less in 2024 after a significant rise in inflation. It's a travesty and they know it.

Again, our policymakers make political choices that suit their agenda but how about they start making intelligent choices that fix our healthcare and boost disability payments to those that need them?

Lastly, I enjoyed my conversation with Neil because he's a sharp guy with a lot of experience and it shows.

We discussed compensation at Canada's large pension funds and he told me that at PSP, they implemented a total fund compensation system where the vast majority of every employee's compensation is based on PSP's long-term results (only a small portion based on individual and team results). 

In this regard, PSP is ahead of its peers since their compensation is based a lot more on total fund results (have to verify this to see if there are important differences with other funds that also claim their comp is largely based on total fund long-term performance).

Neil told me the idea came at an offsite and there was "buy-in from all the investment teams." 

What else? Neil explained how platforms mean different things for private market asset classes:

• For real estate, you have joint ventures 50/50 splits with funds developing and acquiring properties
• In private equity, platforms are built on strategic relationships with PE fund to gain co-investments and reduce fee drag. The same goes in private credit.
  
• In infrastructure, you have operating companies owned by pension funds that buy toll roads, airports, ports, etc.

Neil told me given the reputation risks of owning platform companies in infrastructure that are sole operators of an asset, it might make sense for several large pension funds to invest together in the future and compete with the ever growing mega billion private equity infrastructure funds.

On separating alpha and beta, he gave Eduard van Geldren, the former CIO, all the credit for setting geographic diversification and then figuring out where it makes sense to go after alpha and where it makes sense to stick to beta.

For example, in fixed income, private credit has added important alpha but in Hong Kong, it makes more sense to have beta exposure through public markets and so on and so on.

Admittedly, I am oversimplifying here and I would prefer if Eduard wrote a nice research piece on how to properly separate alpha and beta a large pension fund since he did this successfully at PSP.

Alright, before I wrap this up, I did ask Neil if he'd be interested in running this Canada Fund he is proposing and he said he's retired now and might help them as part of the board but he's not interested in heading up this fund.

He's advising Sagard and enjoying that and enjoying retirement in the Eastern Townships.

I personally can't think of a better board member to have on a large pension fund board, he has tremendous experience and knowledge and can bridge existing gaps (you need someone like that on the board of CPP Investments or other Maple Eight funds, except PSP since he was the CEO there).

Alright, that's a wrap, time to grab some dinner and put my little guy to sleep.

I thank Neil Cunningham for another great conversation and sharing his thoughts on the surplus at the Public Service Pension Fund.

Below,I urge you to watch this clip on the hidden costs of Canadian healthcare. This video was made by McMaster University students Muskaan Natt, Ali Mohammad, Asiya Ali, and Jasiya Janjua in collaboration with the Demystifying Medicine McMaster Program.

And Canada is taking an important step towards launching a long-awaited national disability benefit. The new measure was unveiled in April when the federal budget was presented and payments are expected to begin at in July 2025.

The Liberals say the program is meant to help lift Canadians living with disabilities out of poverty, but as Global News' Mike Armstrong reports, critics say the funding isn’t even close to what’s needed. 

As I stated many times, a society shows its character by how it takes care of its most vulnerable citizens. In my opinion, we are failing in this regard and need to properly fund disability benefits to Canadians that need them. Same in healthcare, we are not planning for a better future.

Update: PSP's former CIO, Eduard van Gelderen, shared this with me after reading this comment:

Herewith a quick reaction on your "conversation with Neil" blog comment. I fully support Neil's suggestion and argumentation. 
Just shaving off the surplus above 125% to reduce the debt position is not particularly creative nor productive. 
But, there is another argument to make here. Over the years, CEOs like Gordon, Andre and Neil have created a professional and successful asset manager based on the principles of the Canadian model. The performance in the past has been significantly higher than the discount rate and this is likely to be the case going forward. Hence, the 'problem' of the non-permitted (excess) surplus will reoccur over and over again. 
There are three solutions:

1. Make sure that the surplus will never go beyond 125%. For example, by changing the risk profile and/or the asset mix. But, this has potentially serious negative implications for PSP as an asset manager. For example, it might mean downsizing the internal private markets investment teams. In essence, it breaks down what the previous CEOs carefully built up. 
2. Go the "Neil" route. Shave off any surplus >125% over time. You keep the organization intact and there is a clear incentive to continue to perform well. 
3. Create a formal off-balance pension plan for government employees and get rid of the non-permitted surplus rule. In this case the Canadian government cannot claim any surplus, but also doesn't need to cover a potential deficit. This forces them to come up with a clear risk-sharing protocol and a Board taking decisions and responsibilities (similar model as, for example, OTPP). Clearly, this implies that the members carry some of the risks too and is not put in place overnight.

The 'Neil' route is probably the best option to protect PSP as a professional investment organization.

I want to thank Eduard for sharing his suggestions with my readers and since he and his team were the liaison with Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada which oversees SP, he is well suited to comment on this issue.

Also, Alison Loat, Senior Managing Director, Investments at OPTrust shared this with me after reading this comment:

Very interesting set of ideas. On your disability idea, you might want to look at Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the assets of which are managed by the Future Fund (Australian government's wealth fund). Notably the Future Fund also manages a fund for medical research. It'd be great to have this kind of long-term thinking and programs in place in Canada, and appreciate the contribution you and Neil are making to the discussion.

Alison spent much of her career in Canadian public policy and long-term investing (and was on the founding team of FCLT). She told me "the discussion you’re stimulating is so so important." 

I thank her for sharing this with my readers and fully agree with her.