Skip navigation

Quebec promises to guarantee pension plans

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Opposition parties, business back proposal to protect workers from insolvency ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Vern McPherson from Canada writes:
    Guarantee pensions ?? Sure but what does it do for job creation or stimulous ??

    A better and surer move would be to make pensions funds a secured creditor - first in line - when assets are liquidated in a bankruptcy rather than the banks or others.

    But I suppose that would upset a lot of people. If current plans were grandfathered to the old system and new ones made first in line the problem would eventually go away wouldn't it ?? Pension benefits would be negoitiated/set up more carefully and more attention would be paid to this vital issue. Yes ?
  2. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    In Quebec its the Mom and Dad principle. The Feds can be bled! Do not worry about debt as it will just be future diary dated.
  3. Michel Pointu from Victoriaville, Canada writes: @ Bert Russell...

    And that's exactly what a provincial government is suppose to do... great analysis!
  4. Jim Petse from owings, United States writes: Did the article say that the government will be taxing every company doing business in Quebec an additional 2% to cover pension deficits?

    Thats the fly in the soup, companies that are already struggling to keep everyone on the payroll will have another burden put upon them and mark my words more companies will decide to call it quits.

    Quebec money grab?
  5. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: And diddly-squat for those who never even had pension plans. Typical. Them that's got, get.
  6. pants 7 from Japan writes: The boomers screw everyone again; let them eat dog food.
  7. Policy Wonk from Canada writes: 'Atta boy, Vern. Brilliant! Put all the banks in second postion and watch what little debt financing is currently available to business dry up and blow away like so much dust on a spring time prairie wind.

    I guess you must have flunked out of b-school way back when, eh Vern?
  8. John Connor from Canada writes: Translation: Quebec separation is a distant memory.

    Their pensions will be guaranteed by the province(s).

    End of story.

    Thanks Charest.
  9. Why do I bother, nothing changes from Montreal, Canada writes: And which is the institution that actually manages pension funds for the QPP? Hint: its the one the Premier wants to change the Board of directors of because they lost are useless.
  10. Steve Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: Must be nice to have a pension. How do I get one?
  11. Darn Drizzle from Ottawa, Canada writes: On the surface, without doing any research, I like the idea....just don't like where it is coming from. Can you say 'transfer payments' boys and girls?
  12. David Simon from Canada writes: Incompetent pension plan managers, here's a province you can move to.
  13. Mark Dip from Canada writes: As a diplomatic spouse, I can say that we have already been living this pension nightmare for decades. As a surviving spouse, we are only entitled to half of a government pension. That is because the Superannuation rules were designed for domestic public servants and pre-suppose that we would have our own pension, RRSP and CPP benefits. Sadly, that is seldom the case with us. Although approximately 90% of Canadian households are dual-income to make ends meet, our overseas 'representatives' are instead still advised by DFAIT that their spouses should not expect employment overseas. That prevents any possibility of retirement savings, with a crippled career continuing after repatriation. From the moment a spouse arrives in some foreign capital, the diplomatic hazing ritual begins. For instance, CRA designates overseas government spouses as 'Factual Residents' due to their diplomatic status and Canadian material ties. In CRA's mind, these spouses never really left Canada, and therefore must continue to file a domestic tax return from overseas. If a spouse is fortunate to work overseas, usually in a job inferior to or outside their profession, CRA therefore collects its due at tax filing time, which includes going after their now missing Canadian EI and CPP T4 deductions. However, these social benefit premiums go unrecorded, having not been collected via Canadian pay checks. Likewise, foreign income is also ineligible toward CPP and RRSPs, once again preventing spousal pension savings upon retirement. Although spouses are expected to help represent Canada overseas, our country apparently thinks they will perform this role better after first being disenfranchised by their own government. “Abandonment” seems to be the traditional way in which Canada says “thank you” to a government spouse for their overseas service.
  14. John Fedup from Canada writes: Ms. JĂ©rĂ´me-Forget said she will try to avoid a deficit in the 2009-2010 fiscal year and expressed optimism that Quebec could even avoid falling into a recession
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nice to see an important gov't minister with a firm hand on reality. What complete and utter BS! Canada can look forward to their whining for more of 'their money' from the Feds. BWT, 'their money', is more complete and utter BS!
  15. John Fedup from Canada writes: Mark Dip from Canada ....perhaps if enough people refused overseas assignments for this reason, the rules could have been changed. Better still, leave the gov't and get work in the private sector.
  16. PC Montreal from Canada writes: Jim Petse from owings, United States writes: Did the article say that the government will be taxing every company doing business in Quebec an additional 2% to cover pension deficits?

    Thats the fly in the soup, companies that are already struggling to keep everyone on the payroll will have another burden put upon them and mark my words more companies will decide to call it quits.

    Quebec money grab?

    Although I have yet to hear of this additional 2% you mention, this is not so horrible. Compared to individual taxpayers in QC, corporations have very low tax rates and for certain industries, have tax credits and grants that would knock your socks off! Industry is happy to enjoy this new bailout culture and if the pension fund guarantees are for company pensions (not us individual investors), passing the bill on to corporations seems fitting. I'm sure many companies will cry poverty, and work forces may be punished with layoffs, cutbacks, etc, but this is a sacrifice I would be willing to make to set a new tone that Joe taxpayer is not there to pick up every bill.
  17. Malcolm Thistle from Canada writes: 'Wait for what Flaherty's going to do.' You're bloody right to wait till what Flaherty's going to do because they couldn't do much of anything without the re-distribution money. Yet somehow it's the Feds fault, and they receive no credit by the Quebec government for helping.
  18. Darn Drizzle from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mark Dip...Just wondering about other perks of your spouses job such as free accomodation, meal allowances, vehicle allowances, extra remumeration for working oversea's and such. Do any of those apply here?Also, I don't know how much someone who works overseas makes as a diplomat but I'm guessing they may be well paid already making them partly responsible for own retirement? I'm not passing judgment. Just try to get some facts about something I know nothing about.
  19. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Bad idea in my opinion. Get your hands out of my pocket.
  20. Mark Dip from Canada writes: John Fedup, we’re way ahead of you. The Canadian Foreign Service keeps hemorrhaging its best and brightest faster than they can replace them. As such, DFAIT is no longer able to put “the right people in the right places at the right time”, with spousal employment inequities previously rated as the second-highest reason for resignations and recently by the department’s own Deputy Minister as the number one reason for posting refusals. It’s kind of hard to expect competent consular services overseas if government family living and working conditions have been allowed to deteriorate to such a disgraceful degree. Our diplomats are bailing out in droves in order to evade the long-unresolved spousal employment and family financial/taxation hardship inequities that get inflicted upon them overseas. While Canadian society has evolved to embody such things as dual-income couples, DFAIT Management’s family values still desperately cling to those of the Pearson Era. Canadians overseas should therefore prepare themselves for more of their overseas services to be delivered from Canada (“In case of arrest and torture, press 4”). While the DFAIT Emergency Hotline has you huddling in some prison or bombed-out school, on hold listening to “Girl from Ipanema”, you can at least rest assured that you’re getting what you paid for in overseas services from those of us who are left behind.
  21. Mark Dip from Canada writes: Thanks Darn Drizzle, you can’t be blamed for your stereotyping. No one takes the time to think whether the “unwashed” of the majority of embassy staff churning away down in the admin, IT, finance or security sections actually live the same profligate lifestyle as the Ambassador and go to all those cocktail parties. They can barely live because their living expenses are so high in their cockroach-infested residences (although the RCMP and DND families usually get stuck with the worst ones – DFAIT thinks they’re used to roughing it). Foreign allowances may be considered as generous to some, but don’t come near to replacing a second spousal income, and we still pay for all our rent and food. Meanwhile, DFAIT resorts to coaxing employees overseas with lies about their spouses being allowed to work locally (except for the odd embassy LES McJob paid at low local wages, but still taxed high as a Canadian) - so much for the dual-income to help make ends meet. It’s not an issue for our Ambassadors, who have a full stable of servants and get everything paid for. Meanwhile, he’s also getting enough tax-free foreign allowance on his umpteenth posting to equal three incomes (increases with each posting). This is considered an entitlement by most senior DFAIT officials because at one time, they too were junior officials being treated like garbage. By the time he makes Ambassador, he couldn’t care less about improving things for the next generation because he figures the junior staff needs to suffer the same as he once did. This is called “the corporate culture of eating one’s own young.” That’s why in the Canadian Foreign Service, we currently have content and lethargic senior diplomats swilling champagne and doing their pension numbers. The junior diplomats and support staff end up sharing equally in the negative stigma, which is why we never get any relief (all those defenders of the common man might get upset). Quitting when they come home is the usual answer.
  22. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: How refreshing!
    At long last, someone turns a Quebec article into a very interesting comment on Canada's Foreign Affairs and the treatment of Civil Servants after they have served overseas...

    Thank you.

    -
  23. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: P.S.
    Forgot to mention the treatment of ''junior diplomats''.... feel sorry for those who graduate from Political Science and get shipped to serve in some hellish place in the middle of nowhere... If they're ''lucky'' and get posted somewhere in Western Europe, the cost of living is so high that they live like paupers...

    -
  24. A Better Canada from no quebec, Canada writes: If the society of profiteers learn to punish attorneys with a license to steal who are responsible for the loss of hundreds and hundreds of millions of investments from immigrant-investors, perhaps, in the future, there will be real creation of jobs in Quebec, and real input from foreign investors.....till that time, the fascist group will still be in power, and the great majority will get less and less services...Do not expect foreigners to come to Quebec when there is no security of property right.
  25. Ray 61 from Sault Ste. Marie, Canada writes: The only problem with all these beautiful suggestions is how do the taxpayers bail out the taxpayers ?
  26. H Texmes from Gadshill, Canada writes: Man it is nice to be a resident in a 'have not' province in this country!
  27. John Fedup from Canada writes: Mark Dip from Canada ...besides the issues you raise, one other is why Canada even bothers to have embassies in many countries which are not our friends and no Canadians should even be allowed to visit. Perhaps a mass resignation would at least restrict postings to countries that are fit for our citizens to visit and do business with.
  28. A Better Canada from no quebec, Canada writes: Who will decide who are our friends or not, FED UP. Do you want to leave that to poodle Harper, naive Peter or Cheney-Bush Regime? Friendship is important, but, respect for others, is crucial for future economic and social relations. With your premises, I guess Canada should not have an Embassy in Germany....because we were not friends, 50 years ago. Just fed up to read short-sighted mind from tough Canadians with no brain.
  29. n l from Canada writes: Jim P. from U.S. indicates ---another Quebec money grab--.
    Neighbour have you examined whats been occuring in D.C. lately. Talk about state capital activities- Canada dims compared to you know who-.

    Of course capital speculators and ponzie schemes our major actors everywhere.

    One event that is certain and that is the planet has entered into a mega era of state capital investments and national awarenesses.
  30. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: At tomorrow's first ministers meeting in Ottawa, Mr. Charest will demand that Prime Minister Stephen Harper reverse his unilateral decision to change the plan and reduce payments to Quebec.

    'What Ottawa is doing with equalization payments is unacceptable,' Mr. Charest said yesterday. 'As far as I'm concerned, that is not the way the federal government said they would do business. '
    -------------

    What a friggin joke. Where was Charet whan Harper was unilaterly changing Equalization to include NON-RENEWABLE resource revenue in the calculation? No where because Quebec was the biggest beneficiary if that move while provinces like NL, NS and SK got screwed.

    This move will almost surely lower Quebecs fiscal capacity and ensure that it gets even more of the Equalization pie, considering they already get over 8 billion of a 13 Billion dollar program, someone is going to be pissed.
  31. Eric Martin from Canada writes: Whenever Quebec takes an initiative, sarcasm is guaranteed.

    I wholeheartedly support the Quebec initiative and I only wish other provinces will follow. I would not be surprised if they did. If I am not mistaken, wasn't Quebec among the first (if not the first) to introduce drug insurance for all, subsidized daycare at $5 (now $7) a day, no-fault automotive insurance, restrictions on political contributions, etc.?

    Yes, Quebec is often irritating because many Quebecers have different values. Yes, they are an expensive have-not province. However, lets give credit where credit is due. They have dared to introduce many social measures that others have followed and these measures are making Canada a better place to live for all.
  32. A Better Canada from no quebec, Canada writes: Who are terrorists, FedUP? More and more educated citizens from an increasing number of countries, including Europe, Asia, Latin America, believe Americans are terrorists by inivading so many countries in the last 50 years and/or supporting dictators and/or reversing democratically elected leaders and/or financing groups inside other countries for destabilizing the local governments. Again, who is there to decide? Poodle harper, naive peter or cheney-bush regime?
  33. Counterspinner tells the truth from Canada writes: Quebec can promise anything they want - it's not as if they're paying for it.....
  34. Vote NDP in the next federal/ provincial election. from Toronto, Canada writes: In fact, why dont we pass a law where workers are guaranteed from pensions. So for example if a worker contributes $100,000 over his or her lifetime then that worker should be guaranteed at least $100,000. Anything less than that is illegal.
  35. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Eric Martin from Canada writes: Whenever Quebec takes an initiative, sarcasm is guaranteed.

    I wholeheartedly support the Quebec initiative and I only wish other provinces will follow. I would not be surprised if they did. If I am not mistaken, wasn't Quebec among the first (if not the first) to introduce drug insurance for all, subsidized daycare at $5 (now $7) a day, no-fault automotive insurance, restrictions on political contributions, etc.?
    ===============================================

    When a worthy initiative happens, yes it should be endorsed. When a bad idea (this one) happens, it should be called out.

    Incidentally, you mention the heavily subsidized $7 daycare. There is a good article in this week's Economist showing how expensive the mini baby boom is going to be for all Quebecois.

    http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12891035
  36. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: Won't this cost billions???
    I thought Quebec was a 'have not' Province.
    How can they afford to do this?
  37. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: Won't this cost billions???
    I thought Quebec was a 'have not' Province.
    How can they afford to do this?
    ==========================================

    We can't.
  38. John Fedup from Canada writes: Eric Martin from Canada writes: Whenever Quebec takes an initiative, sarcasm is guaranteed

    Many of these social programs you mention are wonderful. Unfortunately Quebec can't pay for them without massive funding transfer via the FEDS from AB and ON. Now that ON is a have not province and its economy is in free-fall, where do you think the money is going to come from. Oil isn't the golden goose anymore so forget AB.
  39. John Fedup from Canada writes: A Better Canada from no quebec, Canada ...go join a whining circle with your buddies Libby and Jack
  40. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: Absolutely outrageous. What about those who haven't got a pension plan? are they now to subsidize those that have one? Outrageous.
  41. n l from Canada writes: Auroran B./Nancy W.
    There is a media iconic phrase going around the industrialized world --oh yes we can--.
    I do not completely agree with it as we cannot afford many state capital interventions but we must do so in order that our entire lifestyles will not plunge into economic-civil chaoses.
    National finance minister has said Canada will now have a mega deficit for present fiscal year.
    Again its not just Canada our immediate neighbour south of the border is investing state capital funds to a much greater proportion than Quebec or Canada.
    Of course borrowed state capital investments will produce inflation so be prepared for noticeable changes in our every day relationships.
  42. garlick toast from Canada writes: What better collateral than Hydro Quebec?
  43. B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, NCR, Canada writes: Did Vern McPherson actually get through an entire post without using the word 'Cons' or taking a needless swipe at Stephen Harper?

    Now I know that Ottawa is hell after all -- because it has totally frozen over.
  44. A Better Canada from no quebec, Canada writes: Hydro Quebec, garlick, is already financing the whole province and must sell to Eastern States to be able to financially survive....there also, you have a bunch of political appointees
  45. thomson gary from Canada writes: Just another reason for letting Quebec seperate, provided they take the rest of us with them.
  46. Sue W from Canada writes: Darn Drizzle from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mark Dip...Just wondering about other perks of your spouses job such as free accomodation, meal allowances, vehicle allowances, extra remumeration for working oversea's and such.....

    .....More of such: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubspol/hrpubs/TBM1112/fsd-dse-eng.asp
  47. J Lee from Canada writes: And for all those people who aren't members of pension plans but just have an RRSP or nothing. Is the government going to gtee them too? If pension funding is the issue then force companies and employees to properly fund their pension plans in the good times. Or reduce the value of the payouts to match the available assets- just like everyone else with a RRSP or RIFF has to do.
  48. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: thomson gary from Canada writes: Just another reason for letting Quebec seperate, provided they take the rest of us with them.
    ___________________________________________

    Best comment ever!
    Great idea. This way, Canada would definitely be ''different'' from the USA.

    Thks!

    -To pay for all those beautiful ''social programs'', we could imitate the US and borrow from Commie China, same as the US does, but in this case, it would be for pensions, $7 a-day-childcare, and so on....Better than to spend on war and destruction.

    -

    -
  49. charles ANTHONY from Canada writes: What about those without pensions? Use tax dollars fairly Quebec!
  50. Eric Martin from Canada writes: Here is why I think that guaranteeing Pension plans is a good thing and why I wish other provinces will follow the idea.

    Governments are allowing companies to spread their pension coverage aver 10 years instead of 5. This, in fact forces the pensioners to take additional risks if the company goes bankrupt. Guaranteeing the pensions, protects the pensioners from this additional risk.

    While they were working, pensioners were not allowed to contribute to their RRSPs to the same extend as people without pensions. They could contribute only 1/4 of the value so they have paid a whole lot more taxes for years.

    Pensioners pay taxes on their pensions, including federal tax. So some of the money is going back to the government. Some of this money is going from the provincial government to the federal government . Many pensioners spend all their pension without savings. So most of the pensions are actually contributing positively to the economy.

    The measure cost money only when companies go bankrupt. So hopefully the cost is not that prohibitive.

    I am not suggesting that the measure comes at no cost. But it costs less than it might appear at first and there is a certain degree of fairness in compensating pensioners for excess taxes paid while working and for the additional risk they are been forced to take.
  51. thomson gary from Canada writes: Remind me again, how long ago was it that gov't and private companies were creaming off the 'excess' pension funds they were responsible for?
  52. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: n l from Canada writes:
    There is a media iconic phrase going around the industrialized world --oh yes we can--.
    I do not completely agree with it as we cannot afford many state capital interventions but we must do so in order that our entire lifestyles will not plunge into economic-civil chaoses.
    ================================================

    I hear what you are saying but sometimes a painful and needed purge produces a wiser class of citizens, corporate and otherwise.
  53. Stude Ham from Canada writes:
    'What Ottawa is doing with equalization payments is unacceptable," Mr. Charest said yesterday. "As far as I'm concerned, that is not the way the federal government said they would do business. '

    TRANSLATION... We in quebec fully expect ottawa to underwrite our plans to subsidize all of our pension plans... entirely at the expense of a dying canadian economy... yessir... we just love federalism... hee hee hee!
  54. Jim C from Burnaby, Canada writes: Frankly, I think this is a very responsible action and I support government aiding corporations with funding pensions but it must be done with conditions and well thought out. It is the pension liabilities that companies face on defined benefit plans that has put the big three auto makers, airlines, etc. that has contributed to the dire financial shape of these companies. The workers held up their end of the deal by making contributions expecting he company to match and they haven't. That is wrong but that is reality. As a society, we have to accept that defined benefit plans are a thing of the past.

    However, as we transition to defined contribution plans, we should not abandon those still in a defined benefit plans by allowing their pensions to evaporate. I would suggest the governments should agree to cover the pension liabilities for people older than 45 on defined benefit plans and fast track the restructuring of corporate pensions for anyone under the age of 45. The company I work for made such a transition and it took over a year to complete. In today's economy, that is too long.

    Some will say you end up with a less attractive penion plan and that may be true. However, we must realize as workers that the party is over for defined benefit plans.
  55. martin hamel from longueuil, quebec, Canada writes: Hello all,

    Like everytime there is a article on the province of Quebec, i'm always amaze by the amount of Quebec society and politics specialists from other province that we have here. They know everything about Quebec( at least the two line they read on every article about Quebec written by people that never been here in majority ). I'm a federalist and im fed up by people that bash my province on every subject. We know we recieve equalisation payment like Manitoba. But do you have other arguments than that please?
    Thank you for reading.
  56. Ben E from Quebec, Canada writes: It is obvious that a lot of people have no idea how employer pension plans are managed. In Québec, plans must generally be fully funded at all times. Thus, there are two measures of a fund's soundness: solvency and long-term capitalization. On a solvency basis, a plan must have enough assets at all times to pay all promised benefits if the plan were immediately closed. On a capitalization basis, a plan must have enought assets to pay benefits as they become payable over time. When a plan is not fully capitalized, the employer bears the burden of covering the deficit by making special contributions. When times are good, that is not a problem. When times are bad, it is. If the time period allowed to amortize an unfunded actuarial liability is too short (considering the current economic environment), the employer may not be able to make the amortizattion payments and the plan will be insolvent since there are not enought assets on hand if an immediate payout was required. For most companies that can expect to continute to be going concerns for a long time, it is not dangerous to extend the amortization period. Otherwise, the employer, who may have other problems, will close the plan, declare bankruptcy and then the plan members, who have contributed for years may receive only a fraction of the promised benefits. This situation on affects defined benefit plans. There is also a problem for defined contribution plans, under which members receive at retirement the value of their and the employer's contributions. If condition have been bad in the years leading up to retirement, the amount received may be very low. The government's proposal does not address that issue in any significant way.
  57. PC Montreal from Canada writes: Hey Stude Ham,

    Didn't you forget something in your comment?
  58. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: Ben E from Quebec, Canada writes: If condition have been bad in the years leading up to retirement, the amount received may be very low. The government's proposal does not address that issue in any significant way.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    As someone who doesn't have a pension, why should I give a sh*t?
  59. scamp the from Canada writes:
    Last remaining productive members in society... give give give give give give.

    Politicians and their well connected unions and businesses... take take take take take take take take.

    This country is finished. No on in their right mind is going to work hard or take any risk in this country..
  60. Greg Out West from Canada writes: The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: Ben E from Quebec, Canada writes: If condition have been bad in the years leading up to retirement, the amount received may be very low. The government's proposal does not address that issue in any significant way.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    As someone who doesn't have a pension, why should I give a sh*t?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You should because the government will try and make all tax payers pay for this mess.
  61. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: scamp the from Canada writes:
    Last remaining productive members in society... give give give give give give.

    Politicians and their well connected unions and businesses... take take take take take take take take.

    This country is finished. No on in their right mind is going to work hard or take any risk in this country..
    =====================

    Let's just imagine for a moment that Nortel should go bankrupt and that its pension plan is underfinanced. Let's further assume that they have a hard-working workforce (they do). Are you saying that even though they worked hard and put in their pension money, they should get nothing, tough t1tty? Seems to me that Quebec is actually thinking about its citizens.
  62. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: Greg Out West from Canada writes: You should because the government will try and make all tax payers pay for this mess.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sorry. I read you as being in support of the initiative.
  63. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Eric Martin writes :

    While they were working, pensioners were not allowed to contribute to their RRSPs to the same extend as people without pensions. They could contribute only 1/4 of the value so they have paid a whole lot more taxes for years.

    __________________________________________________

    Exactly. And what if the company goes belly up, after ''borrowing'' from the employees' pension plan... which seems to be the latest modus operandi...

    -
  64. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: thomson gary from Canada writes: Remind me again, how long ago was it that gov't and private companies were creaming off the 'excess' pension funds they were responsible for?
    ______________________________________

    You're right, thomson gary. Instead of posting garbage, some people on this conversation should take a few minutes to THINK and try to remember (that is, if they know anything at all about pension plans...)

    -
  65. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: Let's just imagine for a moment that Nortel should go bankrupt and that its pension plan is underfinanced. Let's further assume that they have a hard-working workforce (they do). Are you saying that even though they worked hard and put in their pension money, they should get nothing, tough t1tty? Seems to me that Quebec is actually thinking about its citizens.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Is that any different than the people who worked hard all their life at a job that had no pension plan? ( If you say they should have picked a better job or employer, please refer to Nortel )
  66. Michel Pointu from Victoriaville, Canada writes: @ John Fedup...

    Now that Ontario is a have not province and that oil isn't the golden goose anymore, Quebec will have to adjust its social programs. Oh gawd!... Quebecers will have to live like Canadians from the rest of the country... that's just awful!
  67. Free The West Free The West from A Vote For The Liberals Is a Vote For The Bloc., Canada writes: Eric Martin from Canada writes: Whenever Quebec takes an initiative, sarcasm is guaranteed.

    That is because evrybody knows that Quebec can make all sorts of promises, and they don't have to pay for it. The rest of Canada pays for it. Everytime. Without exception. Quebec doesn't deserve the respect of other citizens.
  68. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: martin hamel from longueuil, quebec, Canada writes: Hello all,

    Like everytime there is a article on the province of Quebec, i'm always amaze by the amount of Quebec society and politics specialists from other province that we have here. They know everything about Quebec( at least the two line they read on every article about Quebec written by people that never been here in majority ). I'm a federalist and im fed up by people that bash my province on every subject. We know we recieve equalisation payment like Manitoba.
    _ _ _ _ _
    Martin, in all honesty, you never hear of Manitoba (or any other province) using the threat of seperation everytime they want something else. Add to that the fact that Quebec has the most progressive social system in North America thanks to Canadian taxpayers (because Quebec is broke, right?), for which we get credit, or access, and you start to understand why a growing majority of Canadians are fed up with Quebec.

    I was born where you live (Longueuil). I'll never move back to Quebec because of the way I was treated as an anglophone...1995 ring a bell?
  69. Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: .

    I prefer the conservative plan;

    Make sure if solvency occurs, that the CEO gets his golden parachute paid-out, then screw the rest.

    Yes, great plan there conservatives - let the 75 year old who worked for GM for 40 years suddenly get ZERO dollars and have him live out on the street.
  70. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Great. We've already eliminated moral hazard for banks. Why not for pension plans as well. How about we just eliminate all risk from financial markets by guaranteeing all investments, both the principle and a "reasonable" return. (What constitutes a "reasonable" return of course will be defined by a committee of luminaries and other smart people.)
  71. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes:
    martin hamel, very few Quebeckers, english or french, federalist or seperatist, can quote just how much Quebec receives in equalization.

    Of the 13.6 billion distributed in 2008, over 8 billion went to Quebec.
    That's what make Quebec different than Manitoba. Or Ontario. The sheer scope of the propping up from federal coffers. Year after year.

    And yep, right or wrong, taking the money means taking the grief. Its like taking money from your parents. If you think it's not going to come with incessant lecturing, youre nuts.
  72. Michel Pointu from Victoriaville, Canada writes: @ j wilson...

    And that's what you do to your children?
  73. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Great. We've already eliminated moral hazard for banks. Why not for pension plans as well. How about we just eliminate all risk from financial markets by guaranteeing all investments, both the principle and a "reasonable" return. (What constitutes a "reasonable" return of course will be defined by a committee of luminaries and other smart people.)

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Your proposal doesn't go far enough. Eliminate the employment and financial markets and put everyone on the dole. That way everyone is treated equally.
  74. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Before I sign off, let me remind you that by this time next year, the USA and CANADA, among others, will be in a MAJOR RECESSION and the governments will be planning ''SOUP KITCHENS'' instead of trying to tax us some more to bail out with trillions of dollars the Banks, the Investment Firms on Wall Street, the Detroit Big 3 and the rest.

    Soup Kitchens, people... meanwhile, ChaneyBushCo will have retired to live happily ever after in places with no extradition to the US; Mr Bush in Uruguay at his 3000-acre ranch and Chaney in Islamic Dubai.

    -
  75. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Soup Kitchens, people... meanwhile, ChaneyBushCo will have retired to live happily ever after in places with no extradition to the US; Mr Bush in Uruguay at his 3000-acre ranch and Chaney in Islamic Dubai.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Not sure why you emphasized Islamic Dubai? I wouldn't raise the question if you had said Catholic Uruguay as well. Trust me, Cheney could pick worse places than Dubai to live.
  76. Zhimmy Kanata from Canada writes: Get ready for it! Here it comes....WE WANT MORE MONEY FROM YOU ENGLISH CANADA! YOUR OPRESSING US! WE PAY MORE INTO CONFEDERATION THAN WE GET BACK! WHAA WHAA WERE GOING TO SEPARATE! VIVA LA QUEBEC LIBRE! WHAA WHAA!

    You what is really scary? They'll get it because in order to get the budget through they need the Liberals. Theirs only two places that the Liberals can get votes. That's in Ontario and Quebec. Being from Ontario I can tell you that they only have their strongholds left. Even those are questionable. So look out for the Quebec Liberal MPs demanding more money from the new guy Micheal Ingatieff.
  77. n l from Canada writes: Auroran B. I respect and appreciate your point of view that elected governments must act responsibly.
    I am merely bringing forth that because of lack of effective financial regulations in the global economies during the past several years our present systems face many crisis conditions.
    State capital injections such a TARP in U.S. are contraversial and complex. Likewise, pension plan protections in Quebec and possibly all of Canada would be somewhat the same.
    We live in very uncertain times to say the least.
  78. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: n l from Canada writes: State capital injections such a TARP in U.S. are contraversial and complex.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    What's an injection?
  79. rahim ladha from montreal, Canada writes: Wonderful charitable government, Canadians send us $8 billion in equalzation for 2009 and we use it to cover for companies who have fallen short or defaulted on pension contributions......of course to protect the precious votes.....as noble as it seems, we should not give private entreprises free pass like this.....
  80. St Fort from victoria, Canada writes: I guess the Quebec government is flush with cash.

    If I was a company now in Quebec I would start a pension plan for my staff.

    I would not really care if it was able to survive on it's own.......now that the Quebec government will pick up the tab.
  81. martin hamel from longueuil, quebec, Canada writes: j WILSON.

    MANITOBA RECEIVE TWICE THE MONEY PER CAPITA, IS THIS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GOOD TO MANAGE THEIR PROVINCE? i DONT THINK SO BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THEY ARE FROM THE WEST. QUEBEC IS THE EASY TARGET.

    sINCE 30 YEARS WE ARE IN POOR PROVINCE GROUP, BUT BEFORE THAT I THINK THAT IF YOU ARE HONEST WE CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR DEVELOPMENT TO.

    SALUT!
  82. PC Montreal from Canada writes: Yes, I see all the usual suspects are out in full force. Free The West Free The West from A Vote For The Liberals Is a Vote For The Bloc. never misses an opportunity to flaunt his ignorance and bigotry while never letting facts get in the way of a good flogging. Folks, equalization is part of a comprehensive transfer payment structure. Here's some information about equalization straight from the fed's website: "How Equalization Works Equalization entitlements are determined by measuring provinces' ability to raise revenues - known as "fiscal capacity". A province's Equalization entitlement is equal to the difference between its fiscal capacity and the average fiscal capacity of all provinces - known as the "10 province standard". Provinces whose fiscal capacity is above the standard do not receive Equalization payments." http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp Yes, Quebec gets more equalization than Newfoundland, PEI, NS, NB and Manitoba, but we also have a significantly higher population and if you look at the per capita amount, at $1038 we have the lowest proportional payment of all these provinces. When you look at full transfer payments per capita, at 2166 for 2008-09, Quebec gets less than: NL 2963 PEI 3701 NS 2835 NB 3288 MB 2860 YK 19271 NT 20370 NU 32475 http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp While I'm not in favour of bailing out pension plans, I don't see why this should affect equalization. If the Fed's have to make adjustments due to lowered tax revenues, then let them make their adjustments to all recipient provinces, but not for the sake of bailing out lenders, automakers, and all the other big corporate welfare bums. As an aside, respect is for all citizenry, not just for those deemed worthy by those that feel they have an upper hand; be wary of what you sow Mr. Free the West.
  83. little bowpeep from Wizards, Magicians, Politicians and Economic, Canada writes: My suggestion, if you don't work for government or a have corporate pension plan, ain't no sense in working in Canada anymore. All your doing is perpetuating business as usual, middle and working class private sector worker are only useful to pay taxes in order to subsidize uncompetitive business, PS unions and the rich. All ya may as well pack your bags and move to a country that believes in free enterprise and democracy; Its dead in this country.
  84. martin hamel from longueuil, quebec, Canada writes: PC,

    Thank you for your comment, true numbers but i dont think that its going to stop all negative comments on Quebec.

    Thank you
  85. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: PC Montreal from Canada wirtes: Quebec gets less than: NL 2963 PEI 3701 NS 2835 NB 3288 MB 2860 YK 19271 NT 20370 NU 32475

    -------

    Just for clarification, NL will not receive any equalization this year.
  86. PC Montreal from Canada writes: NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland,

    Yes, I've heard some talk of this but the federal finance website still shows total transfer payments of $2963 but with a footnote, "...and assumes Newfoundland and Labrador remains under the previous Equalization formula for 2007-08 and 2008-09. Equalization declines in 2008-09 due to strong provincial economic growth"

    Good on Newfoundland!
  87. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Firstly, for the first time ever, and quite probably the last, vern is right. Pensions are deferred compensation, it does not make much sense to put them behind all the creditors. Put them first in line and companies would treat the pensions with as much deference as making their bond coupon payments. The era of underfunded pensions would be over. Second, this law is discriminatory. Only 30% of employees have employer pensions. This transfers the liabilities to everyone, including the 70% who don't benefit from one. It doesn't make sense. Basically, if you have no pension, and your personal savings and investments fall, it's your problem and no one elses. However, if you have a company pension, and the value falls due to the same reasons, it's everyones problem. This is more feel good, poorly thought out policy.
  88. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes:

    The news the Globe and Mail doesn't want you to see:

    Israeli strike on UN headquarters in Gaza a 'total disaster': UN director

    United Nations chief expresses 'strong protest and outrage' over attack

    CBC- today

    SHAME!
  89. C. B. from Canada writes: Heard on SRC: Israel has dropped two bombs on a hospital. Patients are evacuated to the street, but neither firetrucks nor ambulances can go near the place because of nearby combats. This is looking more and more like a genocide.
  90. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Soup Kitchens, people... meanwhile, ChaneyBushCo will have retired to live happily ever after in places with no extradition to the US; Mr Bush in Uruguay at his 3000-acre ranch and Chaney in Islamic Dubai. ________________________________________ Good afternoon, Middle Finger. I know, I know, and fully agree with you that Chaney could have picked a worse place than Dubai for his retirement.... Emphasizing the Islamic Dubai was my point, the Islamic part, since we were swamped with the ChaneyDoctrine for the past couple of years and brainwashed against anything middle-east or islam... Lo and Behold! Where does Chaney decide to move his multi-millions and retire?? Of course, among the other retired MIC expats who live in luxury in Dubai... Meanwhile, for all those poor schmucks who worked 30 or 40 years in Oshawa, Windsor, Sept-Iles, Wherever from coast to coast, when the company goes belly up, what's left for them after they've paid their pension dues.... No use arguing, by this time next year, we'll all be up to our necks in a MAJOR RECESSION-DEPRESSION and only the ones with golden parachutes will manage to escape to better climes.... while their fellow canadians will be lining up in front of the ''Soup Kitchens''... just like in the 30's but much worse, since Commie China is lurking in the background and at this moment probably making plans for the next couple of years... Carpe Diem. -
  91. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: C. B. from Canada writes: Heard on SRC: Israel has dropped two bombs on a hospital. Patients are evacuated to the street, but neither firetrucks nor ambulances can go near the place because of nearby combats. This is looking more and more like a genocide.
    ______________________________________________

    Meanwhile, the best friends of Israel, ChaneyBushCo and their friends with ''golden parachutes'' are within days of spending their retirement years in luxury, most of them in Islamic Dubai....

    How disgusting. Disgusting beyond words.

    Good day.

    -
  92. Ray 61 from Sault Ste. Marie, Canada writes: Too bad a vote for Quebec independence was not held nation wide; I am sure they would win their long held and cherished goal of freedom from federal tyranny.
  93. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes:
    martin, no province contributed as much as Quebec to Canada's development. Montreal was the centre of Canada, and that includes english Canada. Im not sure Quebecker understand that this is commonly known outside of the province.

    What does not come across as understood in Quebec is the sense of loss felt in the rest of the country in watching Quebec deflate since 67.

    The economic downward spiral caused by the rise of separatism (a rise which english Canada takes very personally) makes Quebec the "easy target" you speak of, not the easterly locale.

    Where is the money to guarantee pension plans to come from? Taxes. And as long as Quebec takes transfer payments, that includes the taxes of people from Newfoundland, Alberta and Saskatchewan, who, remarkably, have no such guarantee. And cannot get it, since even if they move to Quebec, have not paid into the seperate (and floundering) pension plan there that their dollars go to guarantee.

    Manitoba doesnt even factor into this.
  94. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Where is the money to guarantee pension plans to come from? Taxes. And as long as Quebec takes transfer payments, that includes the taxes of people from Newfoundland, Alberta and Saskatchewan, who, remarkably, have no such guarantee. And cannot get it, since even if they move to Quebec, have not paid into the seperate (and floundering) pension plan there that their dollars go to guarantee.

    Manitoba doesnt even factor into this.
  95. Paul F. from ON, Canada writes: Quebec promises to guarantee pension plans...with Ottawa's wallet.
  96. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: Charest, your province is broke. You can't guarantee anything when you have no money. Where's your plan to get off of equalization?
  97. Ray 61 from Sault Ste. Marie, Canada writes: L.B. Murray from !! Canada. Thanks for the update on the most recent government sanctioned slaughter condoned and supported in the U.S. by that nice lady Hillary Clinton who will not speak with terrorists ; unless of course there in uniform.
  98. D M from Canada writes: This is a good decision by Quebec. There should be no risk with company pension plans, regardless of whether a company goes bankrupt at a future date. Companies need to fullly fund these plans. The money then belongs to the plan and not the company.

    Many company plans are now of the "defined contribution" type so it is the employee who is making the investment. At least this way it is your money. The advantage of the "defined benefit" type plans is that the pension fund does not take a hit in a recession as we have now.
  99. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: D M from Canada writes: This is a good decision by Quebec. There should be no risk with company pension plans, regardless of whether a company goes bankrupt at a future date. Companies need to fullly fund these plans. The money then belongs to the plan and not the company.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Can't argue with the last two lines of your comment. But Pensions are an investment. Why should all taxpayers ( with or without pensions ) pay the price for others pension investments?
  100. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: PC Montreal from Canada writes: NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland,

    Yes, I've heard some talk of this but the federal finance website still shows total transfer payments of $2963 but with a footnote, "...and assumes Newfoundland and Labrador remains under the previous Equalization formula for 2007-08 and 2008-09. Equalization declines in 2008-09 due to strong provincial economic growth"

    Good on Newfoundland!

    --------

    Yeah those numbers were the projections at the time the budget and new formula were released. That number changes every year depending on the economy of the receiving province. All I know that in this years budget in NL when they listed all sources of revenue the column for Equalization read 0.
  101. Frans Halls from Canada writes: I was just wondering, what is useless McGuinty going to do for Ontario residences and workers?
  102. Doug Lippay from Sunderland, Canada writes: If I move to Quebec, will they guarantee my RRSPs too?
  103. Joe Canadian from Canada writes: Gee Mr. Charest, where you getting the money for this. Oh I forgot, you're waiting for the layton/rae duo to overthrow the gov't & with duceppe in the drivers seat - there will be billions directed to Quebec. Yeah, sure - not in a million years. Mr. Charest start holding your breath now & we will let you know when to stop.
  104. Ontario Man from Canada writes: Quebec can guarantee whatever they want. It will not mean a dam thing until they get their provincial debt under control. Eventually this house of cards will crumble.
  105. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: Frans Halls from Canada writes: I was just wondering, what is useless McGuinty going to do for Ontario residences and workers?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Hopefully nothing on the residences. If workers includes all citizens, then I'll ask the same question.
  106. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: The companies should not have been allowed to borrow from their pension funds (TRUSTS) in the first place; then they were given five years to make good any default; now Harper has extended that period to ten years. At least Quebec (who historically has always been first in line for all good programmes in Canada) has stepped up and announced that it will guarantee pensions.

    Just imagine that California is running completely out of money. Yes, don't tell me you haven't heard -all over the TV for some time - that they will now be sending their residents IOSs instead of tax rebates. I am wondering what will happen to state pensions? And you think it cannot happen here?

    Believe me, in a few years, you might wake up to realize that you are on your own! Better start thinking about it now.
  107. Ben E from Quebec, Canada writes: The new pension guarantee fund is based on the expectation that a recession or depression will be followed by growth in the investment markets. The Québec government will pay the promised benefits at 100% and will manage the "toxic assets" resulting from a bankruptcy that forces liquidation of a pension fund. When the markets turn around, the government will re-pay itself for its temporary disbursements from the long-term capital enhancement it expects. This is NOT a straight buy out of pension obligations; it is a relatively prudent way of preventing those who will be forced into early retirement because of company failures from being unfairly affected by the current negative returns on pension fund investments.
  108. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: "martin hamel from longueuil, quebec, Canada writes: sINCE 30 YEARS WE ARE IN POOR PROVINCE GROUP," Martin, do you think that perhaps it's past time Quebec started examining WHY Quebec has fallen into the poor province group for 30 years? Lots of resources, lots of workers but not attracting new businesses...why is that? Why do existing businesses leave to go to other provinces? Why is tourism not doing so well? Here's a couple of reasons for you. 1- The prohibative language laws that do not encourage business and actually encourage isolation. 2- The ignorant attitude of many French people when it comes to talking to a English person. Don't be suggesting I'm just another English person who likes to slam Quebec either, I lived in Montreal for 25 years and speak both English and French fluently. The number of native English speakers who speak French is far above the number of native French speakers who speak English. That's just an observation though, it's possible the French do speak English. I just never saw them willing to do so and often watched them go out of their way to play ignorant. The English speakers will attempt to speak French when talking to a French person but the French do not reciprocate. I hate to say it because I do love my home town but Quebec deserves the bashing it gets. Social programs second to none that they can't afford. Got news for you, the rest of us would like those programs to but we can't afford them. The rest of Canada (barring Toronto the begger) knows if you can't afford it on your tax base you don't create the program and then whine for federal funding.
  109. James Young from Brampton, Canada writes: Wake up folks!

    Who is going to bail out the taxpayer? All these pie in the sky for solutions of the financial disaster are paid for by your money.

    Money is not unlimited, particularly paper money, unless it is printed, and then inflation is the result. If one thinks there is misery now, imagine inflation on top of the dysfunctional economic capitalistic system.

    Durgan.
  110. Brian Lee from Toronto, Canada writes: "Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes:Got news for you, the rest of us would like those programs to but we can't afford them. The rest of Canada (barring Toronto the begger) knows if you can't afford it on your tax base you don't create the program and then whine for federal funding. "

    Give this guy a medal or something... I wish Toronto and Quebec would learn to COUNT!!!... I was actually going to say something alongs the lines of what Robert said...

    Politicians in Ontario and Quebec always have fantastic ideas but can never find a way to pay for them with our raising taxes or adding on some bogus fee or begging the FEDS.
  111. n l from Canada writes: Middle F.: When I express -state capital injection- I refer to the Trouble Asset Recovery Program of U.S. What their national government (U.S.) has done is voted 700 billion dollars to invest in trouble U.S. financial institutions--350 billions have already been invested and another 350 billions is expected to be put into the national economy in the near future-.
    Also yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives (newly elected) has legislated for a further 825 billion government (state) investment package to be administered by new team coming in Jan.20th.
    Euroland, Japan and China -also other countres- are investing massively in their national economies.
    The G20 countries a new group are committed to state capital investments.
    Where do they get the money --from the national treasuries or they borrow on the international bond markets-.
    Obviously we live in a very complicated financial world.
  112. Eric Martin from Canada writes: o J Wilson from Vancouver. You wrote:
    "Where is the money to guarantee pension plans to come from? Taxes. And as long as Quebec takes transfer payments, that includes the taxes of people from Newfoundland, Alberta and Saskatchewan, who, remarkably, have no such guarantee. And cannot get it..."

    The transfer payment depends only on provincial government tax revenues not on how they spend the money. With a guaranteed pension plan, Quebec would actually increase its tax revenues, because pensioners will pay more taxes, and this would decrease the equalization payments. The rest of Canada should welcome that.

    Similarly, the subsidized day care allow more women to work and this increases the tax revenues.

    Quebecers have a much higher rate of provincial taxes than others, because they have elected to have more social programs. These expenditures do not cause equalization. It is often the opposite. These programs increase the tax revenues and decrease equalization.

    Nothing stops other provinces, such as Newfoundland, Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia to introduce their own guarantees on pensions. I am sure they can afford it. If it is a good thing then the citizens of these provinces should be grateful to Quebec for having led the way.
  113. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: "martin hamel from longueuil, quebec, Canada writes: sINCE 30 YEARS WE ARE IN POOR PROVINCE GROUP," Martin, do you think that perhaps it's past time Quebec started examining WHY Quebec has fallen into the poor province group for 30 years? Lots of resources, lots of workers but not attracting new businesses...why is that?

    _ _ _ _ _

    Robert, in my humble opinion, you've missed a major reason...Quebec is a "poor" province by choice. They give subsidies to sectors (pharma for one), they have more social programs than anywhere in the continent...After all these subsides and hand outs, they get to cry destitute; effectively making "English Canada" pay for all of it.

    I don't hate Quebec or Quebecers for taking advantage of the system...I have issues with heads of state that refuse to do anything about it.

    Speaking of which...I'm still waiting to see seperation treated as treason. That would shut Parizeau and the rest of the racist PQ in order quick!
  114. Louise Fribance from Abbotsford, Canada writes: I support giving a medal to Robert Waddell. You hit it right on the nail. I was born and raised in Quebec, I'm French and, as you have, I can attest that Quebecers are completely ungrateful when it comes to taxpayers of the rest of Canada. They feel entitled to everything that comes their way. They think nothing worthy happens outside of their province, but they certainly want the rest of Canada to pay for every social program they come up with. Ex. Subsidized Daycare, which is one reason Quebec has such a huge debt and needs so much from Ottawa. You can bet that the ROC taxpayers will be paying for a huge portion of this pensions guarantee scheme. It enrages me to hear Quebecers laugh out loud at the ROC. Time to cut them loose!
  115. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: n l from Canada:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Thank you for your explanation. I would prefer the use of terms like loan or equity purchase or other transaction. Injection is not a business transaction or accounting term. It implies a freebee which is not the case.
  116. J. Michael from Canada writes: This is crazy. It means that very likely people without pension plans - those in small business, will be taxed and gouged to pay for others.

    Is there any limit to our corruption?

    Time to shutdown and move out of Canada. Last one, please turn out the lights!
  117. PC Montreal from Canada writes: Wow Louise Fribance! I've lived here for 18 years and have never met these horrible people you speak of??? The Quebeckers I know are very concerned about our economic health and that of Canada as a whole. They find my French, with my thick English accent charming, and I dare say endearing. Perhaps you should read Eric Martin's 5:56 post. He makes some very good points about the overall economic effect of some of these social programs. Sometimes it's hard to see the connection when you can't match specific revenues to expenditures such as increased tax revenue with the cost of daycare. The government does nothing to help this as whenever the subject of daycare costs comes up, they discuss it as an isolated cost and fail to mention the related benefits. Having said as much, it is true that the founding of the $5 day daycare was poorly done without a long-term plan or any guidelines by incompetent buffoons, Pauline leading the herd... Anyway, the point being that I read a lot of stereotypes on this board and a few comments from people who lived here and for whatever reason, are now very jaded. I hope that those people who are just reading along realize that this is not really representative of Quebeckers overall, but perhaps the experiences of a few people.
  118. n l from Canada writes: Middle F.:
    I agree that --state capital injection--is not in the accounting dictionaries.
    However, since traditional profit and loss logic has often found itself during the past several years in the washrooms instead of the boardrooms I refer to this financial condition which symbolizes direct government involvements.
    With financial products such as A.B.C.P.;C.O.D.s (re SubPrimeMortgages);S.I.V.s and highly leveraged limitedly regulated Hedge Funds traditional investment conditions have been somewhat altered.
    Of course ponzie schemes have deluted accounting conditions also.
    Short position trading where parties make money when corporations are losing it have also placed new demensions on accounting logic.
    2009 will no doubt bring huge amounts of state monies to business and financial accounting products.
  119. George Scott from Canada writes: How truly generous of the Quebec government but where does a province so financially dependent on the have(at least for now ) provinces get the required cash. From the same source as the 7$ day care ?
  120. The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: n l from Canada writes: Middle F.: I agree that --state capital injection--is not in the accounting dictionaries. However, since traditional profit and loss logic has often found itself during the past several years in the washrooms instead of the boardrooms I refer to this financial condition which symbolizes direct government involvements. With financial products such as A.B.C.P.;C.O.D.s (re SubPrimeMortgages);S.I.V.s and highly leveraged limitedly regulated Hedge Funds traditional investment conditions have been somewhat altered. Of course ponzie schemes have deluted accounting conditions also. Short position trading where parties make money when corporations are losing it have also placed new demensions on accounting logic. 2009 will no doubt bring huge amounts of state monies to business and financial accounting products. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate that accounting treatment is not the issue. However, the presses term of " injection " and " pump " don't adequately explain the relationship that the government are involved in. The impression left is that the banks / companies, nd ultimately the shareholders, are getting a free ride. Although that might ultimately be the case should they declare bankruptcy, that is not the intent at the time of the transaction. Therefore, it is better to be clear and concise rather than nebulous.
  121. J. Michael from Canada writes: Government should only focus on guaranteeing CPP and social security that is all they will be able to afford.
  122. Gary Thomson from Canada writes: Alberta, Ontario and my own province, BC, do not finance Quebec and our citizens have no business bemoaning what the Quebec gov't spends its own money on. The Federal gov't taxes individual Canadians and redistributes a portion of this revenue to provinces based on their population and their potential tax base. This is done so all Canadians can expect a reasonably equivalent level of social services, which are primarily provided by provincial gov'ts. Saying this or that province is supporting this or that province is no better, nor more accurate, than saying this or that race (or religion or gender or ...) is supporting this or that race. What a province decides to do with their revenue, or the level of taxation that they choose to set to achieve their policies, is the business of the citizens of that province. It so happens that the citizens of Quebec are prepared to accept higher tax rates to raise the necessary funds to support better social services than most others. Those of you complaining about what another province is doing for its citizens should stop to think how they would feel if their provinces' policies were being criticized by citizens from other provinces on the basis that they are paying for it. For those of you in oil rich provinces, keep in mind that only a portion of your provinces oil revenues are counted in equalization calculations while 100% of Quebec's hydroelectric power revenues are counted. And let's not forget the federal money for Ontario's auto industry. Canada's federal/provincial funding is complicated, and ever evolving, so people shouldn't be so holier-than-thou about their provinces current fiscal situation.
  123. n l from Canada writes: Middle F.: I do not use the term -injection- my references are always --state capital injections or state capital investments-.

    What I try to infer is that the characteristics of state capital are not symetric to corporate capital and or leveraged capital.

    Of course when governments underwrite private pension plans they do so with specific conditions and most of the time request reimbursement.

    Interest free loans and other conditions tied to government investments are different then bank loans or corporate bond conditions.

    The trillions of dollars being introduced to national economies lately and expected to continue during the foreseeable future have distrinct conditions not always existing in business accounting.
  124. Michael Peters from White Rock, Canada writes: Okay folks, calm down. The Globe got it wrong! The initiative out of Quebec will not guarantee pensions at 100%. If a company goes bankrupt and leaves behind an underfunded pension plan (say 80%), benefits will be reduced to 80%. Only those eligible to receive a pension will be able to transfer funds to the Régie des rentes du Québec, and it's the reduced benefit that is guaranteed, but only for 5 years. Only if the fund administered by the Régie cannot provide the reduced benefit will additional funds be paid into the fund.

    And by the way, Yvonne Wackernagel, your understanding of pension law in Canada is appalling. Companies cannot borrow from pension plans. The assets are held separate and apart from the company's own assets. Shortfalls arise in a defined benefit plan when actual performance in the pension fund does not match what the actuary assumed it would. For example, if the actuary assumed 7% return on investment and the plan only earns 6%, that leads to a deficit, which hte company must then make up. No money was borrowed (or stolen), it's just that the fund didn't earn what was expected.
  125. rick from river city from Canada writes: Ray 61 from Sault Ste. Marie, Canada writes: Too bad a vote for Quebec independence was not held nation wide; I am sure they would win their long held and cherished goal of freedom from federal tyranny.

    if we all got a nation wide vote to vote other provinces out what would be left...

    When did governments begin to bankroll guarantees for businesses. Tax money should go to public services not private pensions. There are no guarantees in life.... even in Quebec.
  126. Andrei Popov from NYC, United States writes: Michael Peters from White Rock, Canada writes: Okay folks, calm down. The Globe got it wrong!...
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You are absolutly right Michael... at last someone smart here.

    This "columnist" Rheal Seguin is like always a complete m0r0n.
  127. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: When all the guff is stripped away, the success of Quebec's plan depends on how much money the province can bilk out of the Federeal government, i.e. the remainder of Canadian taxpayers. Maybe Quebec politicians should look to do their financing within the province, by providing the correct economic stimulus.
  128. Jack Frost from Toronto, Canada writes: The headline was missing a few words at the end....

    "...with money from the rest of Canada"

    Canadians, once again, will get the screwed by Quebec.
  129. MR. oz from Canada writes: With all the Handouts Quebec gets from the so called Have Provinces like Alberta and from the Feds who constantly are buying Quebec's votes with taxpayers money, they should be able to keep their promises
  130. MR. oz from Canada writes: Jack Frost!
    You said it better than I could! I am all the way with you!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top