Finance committee  I think the safe answer is “not necessarily”. The specific answer to your question is that in the case of Ontario, it insures approximately the first $1,000 of lost pension income, so if you lose more than $1,000, you could assume, if it were narrowly drafted and drafted in such

Finance committee  The only thing I would add is that with respect to the Bloc Québécois estimate we focused on the key cost drivers. Those were the frequency and the number of occasions, the number of plans, that would fall under and be captured by this proposed legislation. The Bloc Québécois m

Finance committee  No, we don't. We followed up with the two provincial regulators, but given that we didn't have clarity back from the committee with respect to the underlying assumptions, we didn't actually ask for the individual names; it would have required additional effort on the part of the

Finance committee  Actually, in comparison with the other witnesses you've had, I don't think we have a lot to add, apart from noting that when we went through the exercise of looking at the number of pension plan terminations owing to bankruptcy or financial distress, the most fair and equitable t

Finance committee  To answer your last question first, not every province has a pension benefit guarantee program. I think one that most members would be familiar with is Ontario's. That would cover approximately 40% of the registered pension plans across the country. The pension benefit guarantee

Finance committee  On the definition first, in the case of solvency, it's current and future obligations, so it's projected obligations over the life of the plan. But I'd like to point out that when we did the calculations focusing on the Bloc Québécois interpretation, the assumptions, we took a

Finance committee  It is true. The technical term actually isn't insolvency. It varies from province to province and regulator to regulator, but it's usually “termination”. When we were performing a sensitivity analysis with respect to the Bloc Québécois interpretation, we looked at specific pensio

Finance committee  That's essentially correct. It is essentially a similar definition, where the assets within the plan are unable to actually meet the accrued benefits payable to the beneficiaries of the plan, both the retired members and the current active members.

Finance committee  We didn't specifically look at the inducement issues, so the question of incrementality, how many people would receive the benefit who were currently living there versus how many people you would convince who otherwise wouldn't have moved back, wasn't directly addressed. In speak

Finance committee  Actually, the figures Mr. Page was referring to are taken directly from the Finance Canada model. For those numbers, we used the definition used by Finance Canada, the rural ratio used by Finance Canada, where the proportion of the population between the ages of 30 and 44 with po

Finance committee  We've tried to use a definition consistent with Finance Canada's. We actually used several other measures of rural, and whether it's a Statistics Canada definition or looking at other segments of labour force, for the most part, you come out to a similar number as that used by Fi