The Biggest Bailout in Canadian History

cute, but the truth will be lost on most Canadians.

What the video doesn't say is which government bailed them out? Since the title is "The Biggest Bailout in Canadian History", I assume it was the Federal Government, i.e. the CPC aka Harper and Co. Why is this piece of information conveniently omitted from the video?

CPC Majority, yay!!!!!!

Hey Folks,
Stop your bloody whining.....
Canada is the BEST COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET in which to live!
Understanding of course that SELF INTEREST is a human weakness and all Governmental, Teachers ,Municipal or civic UNIONS AND LOCAL POLITICIANS are bloated on SELF INTEREST AND ARE the Bane of any Democratic system, coasting and riding on THE SELF INTEREST MUSH and NOTHING ELSE!

So let's KICK self interest to the curb, Teachers and Governmental Unions, all !!!

By-the - way, I like living in the Stephen Harper Canada and I AM Joe Molnar

What happens to a retired government employee's government pension entitlement when they die?

To be fair, the video is lumping together all infusions by all levels of government (federal, provincial, municipal)into all defined-benefit plans of all employees in all levels of government (federal, provincial, municipal). Cumulatively, it amounts to "the biggest bailout", but there are multiple slices of the pie handled by multiple actors. Some defined-benefits plans will be better managed than others. I imagine ON, QC, NS, BC, VAN, TO, OTT, MTL are locales among the poorest managed.

When it comes down to crunch time, what the government gives can also take away.

We desperately need defined contribution, not defined benefit, pensions within the civil service.

It's transparent, it's pay-as-you-go, and it doesn't leave the taxpayers on the hook when the economy takes a dive.

The biggest problem is in fact the taxpayers themselves. The dang old farts are living well beyond the forecasted life expectancy the pension planners had envisioned. Boomers like me faithfully put in the required amounts that the government asked of us. Hell, when I started to contribute, they were predicting flying cars 30 years down the road. I had enough to worry about trying to make $375 a month last a month.
I figure that governments of all stripes and vintages should take most the blame for not adapting to the changing economic times. Remember, most people thought back when and still do today that the government knows best and will take care of them. Heck, the government(federal at least) had a balanced budget back before PET.

Didn't the Crouton Liberals raid the pension plan in the first place? In addition to raising EI contributions and making it more difficult to claim and raising CPP contributions? All part of the deficit-slayer Paul Martin's fantastic budgeting! Or, am I remembering that in correctly?

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=dd9a8545-920e-412b-ac52-3a26608b2771

Drivel. It's disingenuous to take the regular employer contribution and label it a bailout. The problem with the various plans is that for too long governments have not been making their payments. They defer them, borrow from the plans, etc. Well, just as with the regular debt, eventually, the bill comes due. Making good on that debt is not a bailout. Covering loses in the markets, etc., where those pension funds were invested... that's a completely different story.

Crying wolf does little to help the cause in the long run. Eventually you are found out an then lack the moral authority to be believed no matter what facts you have on your side.

Pensions, unfunded by their employers whether in the private or public sector is a ponzi scheme. The public or customers make up the difference until they refuse. The private sector does so by letting the corporation go broke with the pensioners getting a fraction of what they were erroneously promised. In the case of say, GM, a politically favoured union, gets bailed out by the tax-payers for a ponzi pension that any sentient employee should have recognized with a minimal level of numeracy. Negotiating unsustainable benefits into a labour contract is no guarantee of a benefit. In the public sector, the last holdout with defined benefits, as with all deficit financing, the ponzi scheme is emblematic of the greater ponzi statism which is slowly collapsing all of Western civilization.

An unsustainable agreement between a scum-bag politician and a public sector union "free from self-correcting markets" is not a claim on the lives of everyone else in society. Otherwise they would be called civil masters instead of civil servants.

The first step -- and if I could but whisper into Mr Harper's ear -- one of the key platform planks for the next election campaign would be to put all MP and Senatorial pensions henceforth on a defined contribution basis, with MPs contributing up to 7.5% of their income, which would be matched by the Treasury. Current members would be encouraged to switch over as well. This must be the step the precedes tackling federal employee pensions.

So why do we permit these parasites to vote?
Classic example of conflict of interest.
Those taking from the taxpayer get to vote to take more, harder faster?
Every bloody election.
Taxpayer is an endangered species, best remove oneself from this severely threatened group.

I'm working on our civic election for Nov. 15th. Our Ratepayers Association is working to be a 'center of influence' for voters who widely express dissatisfaction with our city council. It has been dominated for years with NDP and union sympathizers and our campaign represents a 'David and Goliath' scenario. One of our current councillors is a former firefighters union president. Our small-ish towns firefighters start at $82,000 and after a few years are into six figures. They have parity with Vancouver firefighters despite having fought only four major fires in the last year. Every 'medical distress' call results in at least one fully equipped truck with four firemen attending - along with a wagon and paramedics, of course.

It was put to this councillor that because living costs in our smaller town are so much less than Vancouver, firemen should be compensated accordingly. Makes sense. The councillors position is that because all the firemen are trained to the same degree and have the same 'responsibilities' they should all be compensated to the same level. Apparently the ability of taxpayers to pay them, or the actual amount of work they do, is irrelevant.

I did a presentation to city council some time ago, comparing similar positions in the private sector with those in city employment. The NDP councillor (who is strongly backed by CUPE) accused me of wanting city workers to be paid minimum wage, while another suggested I was 'engaged in a race to the bottom'. It amazes me that they have so little consideration for those actually making minimum wages who subsidize the outrageous wages, benefits and pensions of those who supposedly work on their behalf - and that these 1%'ers think any brakes on their annual increase is equivalent to a race to the bottom.

"When it comes down to crunch time, what the government gives can also take away"...

Ask Tim Hudak how well that worked out for him....

I guess you can "plan" to do it, just don't EVER actually talk about it.