The One Spa

McGuinty says voters to decide on 'vote-buying'

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,607
2,947
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
McGuinty says voters to decide on 'vote-buying'

Updated: Mon Feb. 08 2010 2:39:14 PM

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — It's up to voters to decide whether the Ontario Liberals are trying to buy votes in an upcoming Ottawa byelection by providing an estimated $200 million to help Nortel pensioners or just doing the right thing, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Monday.

"I have a tremendous amount of confidence in voters to draw whatever conclusions they feel are fair and to make their decisions accordingly," he said.

The Ontario government has an "obligation" to Nortel workers who put so many years into the now insolvent company and are worried that they'll lose their retirement income because its pension plan is underfunded, he said.

The move comes just a week after a March 4 byelection was called in the riding of Ottawa West-Nepean -- where many of the pensioners live -- and just a few days after the party's star candidate Bob Chiarelli urged the government to help Nortel retirees.

Last week, the government also promised on the eve of a Toronto byelection an estimated $15 million for a threatened hospital in the downtown riding. The Liberals ended up hanging onto the seat.

Opposition critics say McGuinty is trying to buy another byelection on the backs of seniors, but McGuinty brushed off suggestions that his timing was suspicious.

"(The pensioners) have been asking us for an answer for a long time," McGuinty said.

"Some have suggested that we should keep this a question mark until after the byelection. I think that would be unfair. I think people are entitled to know where we stand on this issue."

But Progressive Conservative Lisa McLeod disagreed.

"If McGuinty really wanted to help those pensioners out of the goodness of his heart, he would have done so eight months ago when they asked for help, not when they're about to head to the polls," said McLeod.

"He played the worst kind of politics with people's lives," she said. "He strung seniors along for months who were worried about their future, all so he could give Bob Chiarelli a nice media hit in the middle of an election campaign. He put the `buy' in byelection."

But the government would have been on the hook for a much larger amount of money if it had jumped in to help Nortel pensioners a year ago, said Finance Minister Dwight Duncan.

The valuation of Nortel's pension plan has changed "dramatically" over the past year, he said.

"Quite a bit has changed, and we took this step as a result of a variety of those factors," he said.

"We laid the groundwork for taking this step more than a year ago."

It's not yet clear how much it will cost to help Nortel pensioners in Ontario, which is already grappling with an unprecedented $25-billion deficit this year alone. But a loan of about $100 million to $200 million will likely be required, Duncan said.

The government will ensure money is available for the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund if Nortel emerged from bankruptcy protection and filed for benefits under the plan, he said.

The fund provides Ontario's pensioners with up to $1,000 a month in the event a pension plan fails to provide its full benefit, or any at all. It is funded by corporate contributions, and the government has no legal obligation to top it up.

The province has already injected about $130 million into the provincial fund since the spring to help cover some of the smaller claims, Duncan said.

In the past, the provincial government has found ways to support the fund when it has been insufficient to meet demand, including when farm equipment maker Massey Ferguson and Algoma Steel filed for bankruptcy during previous recessions. But as it currently sits at about $100 million, the plan is dramatically underfunded.

Don Sproule, president of The Nortel Retirees and Former Employees Protection Canada organization, has said he hasn't received any details about the government's plans. But he said payouts that result from a windup of the pension plan would really only benefit those pensioners earning $12,000 a year.

Nortel's pension plan is about 30 per cent underfunded, and the guarantee fund doesn't contain enough money to cover the shortfall. If the guarantee fund kicks in, workers would get up to $1,000 a month.

That means anyone earning more than $12,000 would only get 70 per cent of their pension.

Many pensions are closer to $22,000 a year, so those people would see a big drop in their monthly income.

The fund also only applies to retirees who worked in Ontario and would do nothing for Nortel workers from Montreal, Calgary or Halifax.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...ty_nortel_100208/20100208/?hub=TorontoNewHome
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,478
12
38
So said McG:The Ontario government has an "obligation" to Nortel workers who put so many years into the now insolvent company and are worried that they'll lose their retirement income because its pension plan is underfunded, he said.
Just like he said when Chrysler and GM were tits up and their pensioners were looking at poverty. Remember?

Not.
 

train

New member
Jul 29, 2002
6,991
0
0
Above 7
There appears to be no level low enough so that McSquint won't stoop to it. His "its the right thing to do" speech would have been a lot more believeable had it been stated about a year ago when the pension funds were also in trouble because of the markets.
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
interesting so Duncan said they would have had to pay more if they had acted last year when the call went out. So either they are cynical poilitcal maipulators trying to buy votes in byelection, or they wated until teh value of a retirment fund dropped low enough not to cost them a lot of money.

These guys could not lead a drunk sailor into a cathouse with a map
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,478
12
38
OK landscaper, run for high ground and cover your head. I agree with you. Either way. Cynical, low and cheap; can only be redeemed if they follow up by actually fixing the Fund to be self-supporting.

Don't wait for it.
 

Possum Trot

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,093
1
0
So tell me why I'm paying for topping up the pension of some 37 year old guy who worked at Nortel ? And not the guy who got laid off and has no pension at all ? Or the 58 year old who worked in one of the 250,000 manufacturing jobs that disappeared in Ontario over the last 3 years ? What's so special about Nortel compared to all the other companies that went bankrupt ? At $200 million a seat can we afford to elect this guy to a majority again in a general election in a few years? Deficit Dwight strikes again.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,478
12
38
Precisely the point. Clearly there needs to be some sort of insurance for pension promises made by employers to workers and it should be funded by premiums, like any such plan. Forcing the guys they lunch with at Bay Street clubs to pay that freight outta profits was more than this or the previous governments who set up the Fund had the stomach for. Now they figure they can take it out of our taxes to win a few votes they want, hoping we'll all have forgotten by the time we all go to the polls.

It's gotta be fixed, there's at least one of these 'belly-up company's been shorting the pension fund at workers' expense' stories every year. The principle's not new, and not rocket science: You make a promise, the government makes sure you keep it. We just gotta elect one with the balls to make that happen.

Now there is a straw to clutch at: Duncan has made noises about reforming the fund to make it more sound, but does that amount to policing employers to ensure their premiums match the obligations they undertook? Bet not.
 

Possum Trot

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,093
1
0
It's gotta be fixed, there's at least one of these 'belly-up company's been shorting the pension fund at workers' expense' stories every year. The principle's not new, and not rocket science: You make a promise, the government makes sure you keep it. We just gotta elect one with the balls to make that happen.
.
OK name me one. One case of pensions being "shorted".

Going broke with an unfunded liability is quite different than shorting the pension. Shorting the pension is fraud and you go to jail. Haven't heard a case of that for a long while. With all due respect it's clear you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about, but you are, for some reason, still quite content to place the blame on management doing something crooked. Your willingness to oversimplify issues I guess makes it easier for you and you can then blame a group you must have a predisposition to dislike. Someone is not always to blame and if they are it's not always management.

The existing rules require any unfunded liabilities to be funded over a 5 year period. These rules have been in place for 20 years. Unfunded liabilities usually arise in benefit based plans as a result of:
1) An impairment of pension fund assets - such as a stock market crash. In the case of last year pension funds lost 25% of their value overnight creating huge unfunded liabilities that most companies simply do not have the ability to fund immediately. Combine that with a severe business recession and you have a real problem that has nothing to do with "shorting". A lot of pension plans that were fully funded in June of 2008 had large unfunded liabilities in November ;
2) An actuarial revaluation which changes interest rate assumptions, employee average age etc
3) pay raises or other plan changes such as when benefits vest. These can both increase past service costs because the benefit is usually based on your latest salary.


Quite often you don't even know you have an unfunded liability until after year end when you receive the actuarial valuation.

Cause 1) above can actually cause a company to fund the pension cost twice. Pension funds are administered independent of company management and control as are the required actuarial valuations. All pension costs are charged to profit now so I have no idea what you are talking about.

While insurance would be nice in last year's crisis it was the insurance companies who were amongst the most financially fragile. Manulife very nearly went under. Flaherty did toughen the rules somewhat in October last year but its not possible to do it retroactively.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Pensions should not be run by employers. Employers should hire pension administrators to manage the pension plans, and the pension money should be kept entirely separate from the company's money--as in, the Pesnsion administrator should have the pension money, not the employer.

Funding future pension payouts from future earnings is the most destructive thing you could possibly do. Businesses are meant to take risks, and that means accepting some probability that the business will fail. This is good and healthy capitalism. If the company fails, a better company will presumably take its place.

Of course it isn't good or healthy when the failure of the business also destroys the incomes of a bunch of retired people who have nothing to do with the current risks or opportunities that the company faces.
 

shakenbake

Senior Turgid Member
Nov 13, 2003
8,188
2,647
113
Durham Region, Den of Iniquity
www.vafanculo.it
Pensions should not be run by employers. Employers should hire pension administrators to manage the pension plans, and the pension money should be kept entirely separate from the company's money--as in, the Pesnsion administrator should have the pension money, not the employer.
Absolutely. That is how it is usually done. However, often times, the company can over ride the fund administrators, which is what happened to Nortel. but, Nortel was a badly managed company from about the beginning of 2000 and onward.

Having said this, does the tax payer have to bear the burden of this 'special interest' group's errors? I don't know about you and your financial situation, but my RRSP and company pension funds could have used a lot of help, lately. Who will help me and others like me, i.e., the common Joe and Jane? Where is McGuinty from? Vote buying at its finest!
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,478
12
38
OK name me one. One case of pensions being "shorted".…edit…
Autoworkers' pension funds were shorted i.e. promised and necessarry payments into the fund not made, with the connivance of the government of the day and the consent—we can pointlessly rehash how much duress was involved—of the unions, because the alternative was bankruptcy. Since the carmakers were 'too big to fail' the government's solution was to short the fund but pay more into the Guarantee Fund, and when the next bankruptcy rolled around that "more" proved to be not enough, and only the concessions made by today's workers protected the pensions promised and already earned by retired workers. My understanding is that Nortel's pension was similarly funded by contributions to a fund that were inadequate to meet their promises and that they expected always to make up the shortfall from income. Only in this case, with immediate votes at stake, Ontario topped up the Guarantee Fund. That's shorting your obligations in my books, whether or not it meets a legal definition of fraud is your issue, not mine.

Thanks for your informative post on the technicalities of managing pension obligations. My stance still is: You keep your promises, no matter how difficult you find it.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts