Business
What is a Retirement Compensation Arrangement (“RCA”)?
An RCA is a plan that is funded by contributions from employers and employees to a custodian who manages the funds. RCAs are used to fund the retirement of an employee, their loss of employment or a substantial change in the services that they provide.
How it works?
Employers make annual tax deductible contributions to an RCA that are subject to a refundable 50% withholding tax. Since the payments are not made to the employee, they are not subject to any tax implications in the year the contributions are made. When payments are made from the plan to the employee, the refundable taxes paid are recovered at the same rate (e.g. $1 of every $2 paid). All income earned within the plan is subject to the refundable 50% tax and is recoverable at the same rate as above. The employee pays personal tax on distributions from the RCA in the year they are received.
Employees can also make tax deductible contributions to an RCA. The contributions are similarly considered deductible and subject to the 50% refundable withholding tax.
Types of plans
An RCA can be set up as either a Defined Benefit Plan (“DBP”) or a Defined Contribution Plan (“DCP”). As the title suggests, a DBP provides employees with a defined pension amount annually, upon retirement. Whereas employees on a DCP will receive only what was contributed to the plan, plus any income earned or less any losses incurred, a DBP will require the periodic involvement of an actuary to determine whether the plan is properly funded.
A DBP puts the risk of losses on investments in the hands of the employer and a DCP passes that risk to the employees as they will receive what is remaining in the plan.
Who will benefit from RCAs?
Employees
Employees who participate in an RCA will enjoy future pension benefits and peace of mind knowing that, if the employer were to close down and they lost their employment, the assets of the RCA would be protected against the creditors of the employer.
The 50% refundable withholding rate is currently less than the top tax bracket in a number of provinces. As such, the after-tax investment for the pension is no longer considered a disadvantage to RCAs for high-income earning employees as the plan will invest 50% of the amount they are paid as opposed to less than 50%, had they been paid as a salary.
Contributions to the RCA by an employer will not reduce the RRSP contribution room for the employee, which is not the case for contributions made to a Retirement Pension Plan (“RPP”).
Further tax savings can be obtained by paying the employees out of the RCA in future years when their income levels are lower and subject to lower marginal tax rates. When you consider the ability to include income in lower income earning years, employees living in provinces and territories not subject to >50% tax at the top rate can still benefit from an RCA.
Employers
Employers may wish to provide a retirement package for their employees but not pay the high costs of operating an RPP or an Individual Pension Plan (“IPP”). If the owner-manager of the company or someone already within the company completes the required remittance forms and bookkeeping for the plan, the costs associated with an RCA would include the preparation of the trust return, identified above, and investment advisor fees, if an advisor is used. Additional costs may be applicable for DPBs since possible periodic actuarial valuations may be needed to ensure the plan is properly funded.
Employers can also utilize RCAs for what’s referred to as “Golden Handcuffs,” meaning they can require an employee to meet certain length-of-employment requirements before the pension contributions vest. This will help employers retain key employees that are vital to their operations.
Tax benefits for employer
One group that may benefit most from these plans are companies involved in Scientific Research and Experimental Development (“SRED”) that must maintain low taxable income and taxable capital figures to retain their benefits from the enhanced investment tax credits. Since the taxable income and taxable capital figures exceed $500,000 and $10,000,000, respectively, the amount eligible for the enhanced tax credit decreases.
Federally, expenditures eligible for the enhanced tax credit are eligible for a 35% tax credit, whereas expenditures not eligible only provide for a 15% tax credit. When you also consider the provincial tax credit implications, it’s critical for these companies to maintain sufficient expenditure pool levels.
One common method for ensuring low income and taxable capital figures is to declare bonuses for the owner-managers and to pay those bonuses out of the company to reduce taxable capital. This is a good opportunity to use RCAs. The top tax rate in seven of Canada’s thirteen provinces or territories is over 50%. Given the RCA withholding rates are currently 50%, this can provide a deferral of up to 4% depending on your province. When you add the additional payroll costs, this can result in significant savings.
How much should be contributed?
An employer must be careful not to contribute an unreasonable amount to the plan on behalf of an employee as it could result in the plan being re-characterized as an SDA. The starting point for a reasonable DCP amount would be the 18% that is used to create RRSP deduction room annually. A higher rate would likely require a very strong argument as to why it’s reasonable.
A DBP requires a certain level of assets to be held within the plan to support the future pension obligations that an actuary has calculated. Given that the plan will require a certain amount, a reasonable contribution will be the amount that brings the assets of that plan to a sufficient level to fund that obligation. The pension benefit, however, must be considered a reasonable amount. Again, a reasonable amount will vary based on the facts of each situation.
The CRA has indicated that it will permit a deduction for recognition of an employee’s years of services even if it occurred prior to the establishment of the RCA.1 Since past years of service can be recognized, large contributions may be eligible when the RCA is initially established.
Careful planning is required to ensure that the plan meets the criteria of an RCA as adverse tax effects could result otherwise. You should seek professional advice if you are setting up an RCA.
Jesse Genereaux is a tax manager in the Durham office of Collins Barrow.
Want to get in touch with Jesse?
Connect with him by email at [email protected].
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
New script, same budget playbook. Nothing in the Carney budget breaks from the Trudeau years
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first budget talks reform but delivers the same failed spending habits that defined the Trudeau years.
While speaking in the language of productivity, infrastructure and capital formation, the diction of grown-up economics, it still follows the same spending path that has driven federal budgets for years. The message sounds new, but the behaviour is unchanged.
Time will tell, to be fair, but it feels like more rhetoric, and we have seen this rhetoric lead to nothing before.
The government insists it has found a new path, one where public investment leads private growth. That sounds bold. However, it is more a rebranding than a reform. It is a shift in vocabulary, not in discipline. The government’s assumptions demand trust, not proof, and the budget offers little of the latter.
Former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did not flirt with restraint; they executed it. Their budget cuts were deep, restored credibility, and revived Canada’s fiscal health when it was most needed. Ottawa shrank so the country could grow. Budget 2025 tries to invoke their spirit but not their actions. The contrast shows how far this budget falls short of real reform.
Former prime minister Stephen Harper, by contrast, treated balanced budgets as policy and principle. Even during the global financial crisis, his government used stimulus as a bridge, not a way of life. It cut taxes widely and consistently, limited public service growth and placed the long-term burden on restraint rather than rhetoric. Carney’s budget nods toward Harper’s focus on productivity and capital assets, yet it rejects the tax relief and spending controls that made his budgets coherent.
Then there is Justin Trudeau, the high tide of redistribution, vacuous identity politics and deficit-as-virtue posturing. Ottawa expanded into an ideological planner for everything, including housing, climate, childcare, inclusion portfolios and every new identity category.
The federal government’s latest budget is the first hint of retreat from that style. The identity program fireworks are dimmer, though they have not disappeared. The social policy boosterism is quieter. Perhaps fiscal gravity has begun to whisper in the prime minister’s ear.
However, one cannot confuse tone for transformation.
Spending still rises at a pace the government cannot justify. Deficits have grown. The new fiscal anchor, which measures only day-to-day spending and omits capital projects and interest costs, allows Ottawa to present a balanced budget while still adding to the deficit. The budget relies on the hopeful assumption that Ottawa’s capital spending will attract private investment on a scale economists politely describe as ambitious.
The housing file illustrates the contradiction. New funding for the construction of purpose-built rentals and a larger federal role in modular and subsidized housing builds announced in the budget is presented as a productivity measure, yet continues the Trudeau-era instinct to centralize housing policy rather than fix the levers that matter. Permitting delays, zoning rigidity, municipal approvals and labour shortages continue to slow actual construction. These barriers fall under provincial and municipal control, meaning federal spending cannot accelerate construction unless those governments change their rules. The example shows how federal spending avoids the real obstacles to growth.
Defence spending tells the same story. Budget 2025 offers incremental funding and some procurement gestures, but it avoids the core problem: Canada’s procurement system is broken. Delays stretch across decades. Projects become obsolete before contracts are signed. The system cannot buy a ship, an aircraft or an armoured vehicle without cost overruns and missed timelines. The money flows, but the forces do not get the equipment they need.
Most importantly, the structural problems remain untouched: no regulatory reform for major projects, no tax-competitiveness agenda and no strategy for shrinking a federal bureaucracy that has grown faster than the economy it governs. Ottawa presides over a low-productivity country but insists that a new accounting framework will solve what decades of overregulation and policy clutter have created. The budget avoids the hard decisions that make countries more productive.
From an Alberta vantage, the pivot is welcome but inadequate. The economy that pays for Confederation receives more rhetorical respect, yet the same regulatory thicket that blocks pipelines and mines remains intact. The government praises capital formation but still undermines the key sectors that generate it.
Budget 2025 tries to walk like Chrétien and talk like Harper while spending like Trudeau. That is not a transformation. It is a costume change. The country needed a budget that prioritized growth rooted in tangible assets and real productivity. What it got instead is a rhetorical turn without the courage to cut, streamline or reform.
Canada does not require a new budgeting vocabulary. It requires a government willing to govern in the country’s best interests.
Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author with Barry Cooper of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
It’s been nearly a year since I last wrote about the CBC. In the intervening months, the Prescott memo on bias at the BBC was released, whose stunning allegations of systemic journalistic malpractice “inspired” multiple senior officials to leave the corporation. Given how the institutional bias driving problems at the BBC is undoubtedly widely shared by CBC employees, I’d be surprised if there weren’t similar flaws embedded inside the stuff we’re being fed here in Canada.
Apparently, besides receiving nearly two billion dollars¹ annually in direct and indirect government funding, CBC also employs around a third of all of Canada’s full time journalists. So taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing what we’re getting out of the deal.
Naturally, corporate president Marie-Philippe Bouchard has solemnly denied the existence of any bias in CBC reporting. But I’d be more comfortable seeing some evidence of that with my own eyes. Given that I personally can easily go multiple months without watching any CBC programming or even visiting their website, “my own eyes” will require some creative redefinition.
So this time around I collected the titles and descriptions from nearly 300 stories that were randomly chosen from the CBC Top Stories RSS feed from the first half of 2025. You can view the results for yourself here. I then used AI tools to analyze the data for possible bias (how events are interpreted) and agendas (which events are selected). I also looked for:
- Institutional viewpoint bias
- Public-sector framing
- Cultural-identity prioritization
- Government-source dependency
- Social-progressive emphasis
Here’s what I discovered.
Story Selection Bias
Millions of things happen every day. And many thousands of those might be of interest to Canadians. Naturally, no news publisher has the bandwidth to cover all of them, so deciding which stories to include in anyone’s Top Story feed will involve a lot of filtering. To give us a sense of what filtering standards are used at the CBC, let’s break down coverage by topic.
Of the 300 stories covered by my data, around 30 percent – month after month – focused on Donald Trump and U.S.- Canada relations. Another 12-15 percent related to Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Domestic politics – including election coverage – took up another 12 percent, Indigenous issues attracted 9 percent, climate and the environment grabbed 8 percent, and gender identity, health-care worker assaults, immigrant suffering, and crime attracted around 4 percent each.
Now here’s a partial list of significant stories from the target time frame (the first half of 2025) that weren’t meaningfully represented in my sample of CBC’s Top Stories:
- Housing affordability crisis barely appears (one of the top voter concerns in actual 2025 polls).
- Immigration levels and labour-market impact.
- Crime-rate increases or policing controversies (unless tied to Indigenous or racialized victims).
- Private-sector investment success stories.
- Any sustained positive coverage of the oil/gas sector (even when prices are high).
- Critical examination of public-sector growth or pension liabilities.
- Chinese interference or CCP influence in Canada (despite ongoing inquiries in real life).
- The rest of the known galaxy (besides Gaza and the U.S.)
Interpretation Bias
There’s an obvious pattern of favoring certain identity narratives. The Indigenous are always framed as victims of historic injustice, Palestinian and Gazan actions are overwhelmingly sympathetic, while anything done by Israelis is “aggression”. Transgender representation in uniformly affirmative while dissent is bigotry.
By contrast, stories critical of immigration policy, sympathetic to Israeli/Jewish perspectives, or skeptical of gender medicine are virtually non-existent in this sample.
That’s not to say that, in the real world, injustice doesn’t exist. It surely does. But a neutral and objective news service should be able to present important stories using a neutral and objective voice. That obviously doesn’t happen at the CBC.
Consider these obvious examples:
- “Trump claims there are only ‘2 genders.’ Historians say that’s never been true” – here’s an overt editorial contradiction in the headline itself.
- “Trump bans transgender female athletes from women’s sports” which is framed as an attack rather than a policy debate.
And your choice of wording counts more than you might realize. Verbs like “slams”, “blasts”, and “warns” are used almost exclusively describing the actions of conservative figures like Trump, Poilievre, or Danielle Smith, while “experts say”, “historians say”, and “doctors say” are repeatedly used to rebut conservative policy.
Similarly, Palestinian casualties are invariably “killed“ by Israeli forces – using the active voice – while Israeli casualties, when mentioned at all, are described using the passive voice.
Institutional Viewpoint Bias
A primary – perhaps the primary job – of a serious journalist is to challenge the government’s narrative. Because if journalists don’t even try to hold public officials to account, then no one else can. Even the valuable work of the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be wasted, because there will be no one to amplify their claims of wrongdoing. And Canadians will have no way of hearing the bad news.
So it can’t be a good sign when around 62 percent of domestic political stories published by the nation’s public broadcaster either quote government (federal or provincial) sources as the primary voice, or are framed around government announcements, reports, funding promises, or inquiries.
 |
In other words, a majority of what the CBC does involves providing stenography services for their paymasters.
Here are just a few examples:
- “Federal government apologizes for ‘profound harm’ of Dundas Harbour relocations”
- “Jordan’s Principle funding… being extended through 2026: Indigenous Services”
- “Liberal government announces dental care expansion the day before expected election call”
Agencies like the Bank of Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Transportation Safety Board are routinely presented as authoritative and neutral. By contrast, opposition or industry critiques are usually presented as secondary (“…but critics say”) or are simply invisible. Overall, private-sector actors like airlines, oil companies, or developers are far more likely to be criticized.
All this is classic institutional bias: the state and its agencies are the default lens through which reality is filtered.
Not unlike the horrors going on at the BBC, much of this bias is likely unconscious. I’m sure that presenting this evidence to CBC editors and managers would evoke little more than blank stares. This stuff flies way below the radar.
But as one of the AI tools I used concluded:
In short, this 2025 CBC RSS sample shows a very strong and consistent left-progressive institutional bias both in story selection (agenda) and in framing (interpretation). The outlet functions less as a neutral public broadcaster and more as an amplifier of government, public-sector, and social-progressive narratives, with particular hostility reserved for Donald Trump, Canadian conservatives, and anything that could be construed as “right-wing misinformation.”
And here’s the bottom line from a second tool:
The data reveals a consistent editorial worldview where legitimate change flows from institutions downward, identity group membership is newsworthy, and systemic intervention is the default solution framework.
You might also enjoy:
Is Updating a Few Thousand Readers Worth a Half Million Taxpayer Dollars? |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| Plenty has been written about the many difficulties faced by legacy news media operations. You might even recall reading about the troubled CBC and the Liberal government’s ill-fated Online News Act in these very pages. Traditional subscription and broadcast models are drying up, and on-line ad-based revenues are in sharp decline. | ||||||
|
Death by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet
Chinese Billionaire Tried To Build US-Born Baby Empire As Overseas Elites Turn To American Surrogates
Viral TikTok video shows 7-year-old cuddling great-grandfather before he’s euthanized
Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles
-
Community2 days agoCharitable giving on the decline in Canada
-
Alberta22 hours agoAlberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
-
Alberta1 day agoCanada’s New Green Deal
-
Energy18 hours agoCanada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy
-
armed forces1 day agoOttawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
Business1 day agoCOP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand
-
Energy2 days agoEnergy security matters more than political rhetoric
-
Indigenous23 hours agoResidential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests