# Looks like Conservative Majority



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Looks like Harper wins a majority...very robust kick in the pants for the Canadian economy. I think I'm shopping tomorrow.
Grats Canada!


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

I cannot believe how non-existent the liberals are... And how well the NDP are doing.


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

woot!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

lol

PM Jack Layton in 2015?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Could be a building block for Layton.

In the meantime, welcome to USA North.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

I'm super happy about the Conservative majority! But I think the big story here is the NDP crushing the Liberals for opposition. 105 to 34 seats, holy Cowichan!


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Could be a building block for Layton.
> 
> In the meantime, welcome to USA North.


Sounds like sour grapes. Canadian conservatisim is very different from American republicans


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

*cad dollar*

I think the CAD$ went up already tonight because of this. It's almost 1.06 now.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

After their last two election victories, the Tories announced substantial new policies not in their platforms shortly after the election. Now that the Tories have a solid majority, what easter eggs do you think we'll see in the next few weeks and months?


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I think first thing Harper will do is move out of 24 Sussex and let them do a complete overhaul ,may as well it will be home for a while!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Ignatiefff wanted to destroy Harper and...comitted political suicide  ...same as separatists 
Happy that in my district first time ever Conservators win 
imho it will be much better for Canadian economy that Harper got majority...now NDP and Liberals can jump...


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Yeah I think CAD will go up ,too bad I get paid USD ,I will not be transferring any money over for a while.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think people over-estimate the impact of elections on things like foreign exchange or equity markets.


----------



## ChrisR (Jul 13, 2009)

crazyjackcsa said:


> Sounds like sour grapes. Canadian conservatisim is very different from American republicans


I sure hope you're right!


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Breaking news: 60% of voted against majority Conservative government.

http://www.fairvote.ca/en/Canadians-cheated-again-by-voting-system


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

> Looks like Conservative Majority


Thank goodness....now can we just get back to work and business?
Overall, I think this is best possible outcome on balance.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

IMO, a minority government would have been better than a majority. Majorities governments implement social, economic and political change. That is precisely what the country does not need right now.


----------



## rookie (Mar 19, 2010)

and a minority govt doesnt have the balls to do anything. no decision is worse than bad decision


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think you're right. Canadians seemed happy enough with the day to day management the government was providing, but weren't keen on any drastic reforms. We'll see if this government takes advantage of the next four and a half years to advance some pet causes or if they'll keep an eye on the long game and continue much as they have. If they over-reach, they'll galvanize their opposition.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

It seems Iggy has annouced he is stepping down this morning .... not that he had any other choice.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

marina628 said:


> Yeah I think CAD will go up ,too bad I get paid USD ,I will not be transferring any money over for a while.


CAD is down slightly, cratering on news the government has won a majority.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

LondonHomes said:


> It seems Iggy has annouced he is stepping down this morning .... not that he had any other choice.


I can't believe he said he would stay on. He's a decent guy, but you don't get to stick around after a defeat like that. Especially when you lose your seat. Interesting that Stephane Dion held on to his.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

slacker said:


> Breaking news: 60% of voted against majority Conservative government.


meh...it's all about the seats and the Conservative party won 54% of the seats.
Our system is not based on popular vote.

There is hardly a social democratic country out there today that regularly elects absolute majority governments any more.
I believe Hosni Mubarak in Egypt used to have > 60% popular vote


----------



## Kim (Jan 10, 2011)

I was happy without having another election - glad I was able to go and cast my vote. Results are good in my opinion. I think the Liberals got the message.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> 1. Ignatiefff wanted to destroy Harper and...comitted political suicide  ...same as separatists
> 
> 2. now NDP and Liberals can jump...


1. That's exactly what they did, leaving their opportunistic dreams in tatters. Mr. Ignatieff thought 'he had nothing to lose', thinking worst case scenario, that he would remain in opposition; a massive miscalculation of epic proportions, but then again, what did he know about Canadian voters in the first place?  Should have waited until next year when election was due.

2. NDP not yet, you're getting ahead of the game, give them some time to commit suicide.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The specter of a leftist coalition government including separatists running our country was the catalyst that really made me get active and ensure everyone I know was going out to vote.

I think the Liberals blew themselves up with this draconian (for Canada) plan.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

slacker said:


> Breaking news: 60% of voted against majority Conservative government.


Yet they were still well ahead of the others:

C = 39.6%
NDP = 30.6%
Liberals = 18.9%
Bloc = 6.1%
Green = 3.9%

Conservatives have won *3 successive victories;* 3rd time winning 167 seats [54%], which was well above the 155 seats needed for a majority & in our system, whether we like it or not and no matter how we want to interpret the results, it was a decisive & massive victory, period!


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Looks like the coalition came home to roost.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

slacker said:


> Breaking news: 60% of voted against majority Conservative government.


That is one of the great things about our system is that it can produce a majority government with less than 40% of the vote.

The Cons now get a chance to actually govern and stop all of the campaigning of these past minority parliaments.

Vote reform advocates seem to forget that the goal of democratic voting is produce a government that can govern well and is accountable for their actions.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There isn't an inherent problem with minority government. There is a problem with minority governments with first past the post. The constant campaigning and posturing and frequent elections are a result of the volatility of output from small changes in input in terms of results. The Conservatives swung 2 or 3 points and got a majority. Another two or three point swing can land you a majority NDP government. Thus there is an incentive to roll the dice.

Proportional systems need large changes in support to fundamentally change the composition of the legislature. This makes frequent elections pointless unless there has been a substantial change in popular support, not just a few point swing.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

what i wish to know is whodunnit.

who or what is responsible for the ndp landslide, at least in quebec. Offhand it looks like the youth vote, but offhand there are no stories.

please don't pretend it was jack layton in quebec. Quebecers are notoriously tolerant of guys who turn up sans culottes in shiatsu studios; but yesterday was something entirely different.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

I don't follow Quebec politics closely enough to speculate why Quebecers so over-overwhelmingly voted NDP. Chantal Hebert took a stab at explaining why in one of her columns:

Hébert: Why Quebec is loving Jack, leaving Gilles


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

_That is one of the great things about our system is that it can produce a majority government with less than 40% of the vote._

No, that's one of the worst things about our system. Such Governments can pass legislation without representing a majority of the population's views, or any consensus of views, or without any attempt to consider the views of parties who, in total, actually got more votes than they did.

_The Cons now get a chance to actually govern and stop all of the campaigning of these past minority parliaments._

Until the election was called, all the campaigning was being done by the Conservatives, some of it with barely-concealed public service money, and some of it quite nasty.

_Vote reform advocates seem to forget that the goal of democratic voting is produce a government that can govern well and is accountable for their actions._

And how does having a government that can behave like an elected dictatorship with a 40% plurality lead to good governance or accountability? With proportional representation governments are obliged to seek some compromise and consensus on legislation. 

What part of *"40% is not a majority!"* don't you understand?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Sounds to me like the PQ engineered the defeat of the BQ to help them secure their shot at government in the next Quebec election. Apparently the BQ largely borrows the PQ ground machine during federal elections, and they pulled their support this time around.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> What part of *"40% is not a majority!"* don't you understand?


Are you talking to me? If so, I understand how our system works perfectly well.

And sure, when you combine the results of 4 parties combined, not difficult to figure out how the numbers can be higher. 

I don't like our parliamentary system, but like it or not, that is what we have.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> yesterday was something entirely different.


No question, whatever it was, there will be consequences and I reckon we'll see a bit of circus the next 4 years with his 'gang of rookies' [as in some 19 year olds].


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> After their last two election victories, the Tories announced substantial new policies not in their platforms shortly after the election. Now that the Tories have a solid majority, what easter eggs do you think we'll see in the next few weeks and months?


Sorry Andrew..as the PM already mentioned in his campaign speeches..
you have to wait for at least 4 years until the deficit is paid off for any
goodies in your basket.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> No question, whatever it was, there will be consequences and I reckon we'll see a bit of circus the next 4 years with his 'gang of rookies' [as in some 19 year olds].


It's just another round of spending out of control and running up the
deficit some more..USA style. Obviously now that he has a majority
any further tax cuts or services to the general public gets put onto
the back burner. Even Jack Layton isn't going to do too much damage
against him in the next 4 years..166 seats and he only needed 155 for
a majority, so they will be thumbing their noses at the opposition in a 
few months..once the humbleness and "shock" of getting a majority
finally wears off.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Sounds to me like the PQ engineered the defeat of the BQ to help them secure their shot at government in the next Quebec election. Apparently the BQ largely borrows the PQ ground machine during federal elections, and they pulled their support this time around.


This sounds farfetched to me. Most of what I've read indicated that support for Layton soared in Québec after the French-language debate, where he came across as a likeable guy with, as the NY Times put it, "a street smart accent" that Quebecers could relate to. People were tired of Duceppe's tactics, Layton seemed fresh, energetic, and optimistic. A lot of people vote based on personality; the fact that virtually all the NPD candidates in Québec were unknowns demonstrates that people were voting for Layton. On the street you didn't hear people saying "Vote NPD," you heard "Vote Jack."


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

carverman said:


> Sorry Andrew..as the PM already mentioned in his campaign speeches..
> you have to wait for at least 4 years until the deficit is paid off for any
> goodies in your basket.


Election promises are mostly directional and illustrative. Anyone who takes them as a literal commitment is bound to be disappointed.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> I don't follow Quebec politics closely enough to speculate why Quebecers so over-overwhelmingly voted NDP. Chantal Hebert took a stab at explaining why in one of her columns:
> 
> Hébert: Why Quebec is loving Jack, leaving Gilles


This was before the election? She doesn't say much in respect to the
real reasons. Sure there is a lot of backlash against Duceppe, but there
has to a more underlying situation in Quebec besides just a protest vote
to boost the NDP representation there.

At one time a few years ago, they were contemplating separation from
Canada with the referendum..that didn't pass a majority vote, although
it was a nail biter.

Now 20 odd years later, the time has passed for that kind of talk..the
economy in Quebec and survival is more important. They couldn't survive
on their own..and I don't think they would be happy with the US melting
pot or political situation these days, not to mention the trillions upon
trillions of national debt. 

Maybe they have finally come to their senses that staying in Canada and getting any handouts is the best thing for them over the next few years?


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

carverman said:


> Sure there is a lot of backlash against Duceppe, but there has to a more underlying situation in Quebec besides just a protest vote
> to boost the NDP representation there.


I don't feel a sense of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" here -- I think people were simply getting tired of the same-old same-old from the Bloc with no significant results, and were ready to try something new. Jack Layton presented a viable option.

I think the Bloc was gradually evolving away from a sovereigntist focus to one of simply protecting Québec's interests in Ottawa, and with that voice gone I do worry that Quebecers could grow to feel even less a part of Canada than they do already. But we'll see how it goes.

Edited to add this: Having just read Thomas Mulcair's remarks, it does seem he is committing strongly to ensuring that the NPD represents Québec's interests, "without re-opening the Constitution."


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> 1. That's exactly what they did, leaving their opportunistic dreams in tatters. Mr. Ignatieff thought 'he had nothing to lose', thinking worst case scenario, that he would remain in opposition; a massive miscalculation of epic proportions, but then again, what did he know about Canadian voters in the first place?  *Should have waited until next year when election was due.*


C'mon.."Iggy" played his high card by bringing down Harper on the "comptempt" finding, although Harper pooh-poohed it in one of his campaign speeches, saying it was "meaningless" since legally it didn't mean that much to him. 

Iggy convinced Layton to side with him on that issue, and force the election. Duceppe was already peeved off at Harper (over the HST transfer promise that didn't materialize), and perhaps that was the final nail that brought in the non-confidence vote ( passed only by a narrow margin of 3 or 4 votes), and the Harper had a minority gov't then. Try and pull that stunt NOW!

"Iggy" thought that because of that issue, he was a "shoe-in" with the voters
being in "the middle" with the Grits. Inspite of the critisism of Harpers
budget, (jets,jails and corp tax cuts etc), the Grits really had no platform,
(at least until later on in the campaign), to offer the voter..he made a gamble
and it didn't pay off. I don't think that a year later would have made any
difference on the political landscape.



> 2. NDP not yet, you're getting ahead of the game, give them some time to commit suicide.


Tend to agree with you on this one.
Jack Layton aside, the NDP picked up a lot of greenhorns in Quebec. 
Whether they will be of much use to him remains to be seen. Harper has
some strong helpers to set policy and being dictatorial in nature, he will
use his 167 seats to advantage when it comes to voting on policy.

Layton has 102 seats and a lot are from Quebec, so it is up to Layton
to try and find a middle ground to appease both the English and Francophone
MPs..it's not as easy as just saying he's got 102 seats...yes he has those
but he has to tread carefully since this is a very new thing in Quebec.

The next 4 years will determine how effective Layton is as leader of the
opposition and how he can keep the herd together..not an easy job..I
wish Jack lots of luck on that ... and as far as the "official opposition:..sure..
but 102 NDP seats are not going to be able to stop the 167 seat PC
"juggernaut"!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> I don't feel a sense of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" here -- I think people were simply getting tired of the same-old same-old from the Bloc with no significant results, and were ready to try something new. Jack Layton presented a viable option.


Well Brad..this all came as surprise to Jack. Although he's elated to be
raised to the level of the official opposition now, at the expense of BQ
and the Grits..there is still an serious underlying problem that may take
some time to surface. Obviously from the outcome of the vote, Quebec'ers
were not happy with the BQ for many reasons. 

It may have been just a political tide of protest votes against Duceppe, because Layton picked up a lot of newbies/greenhorns that "trounced the BQ encumbents"..so it remains to be seen whether the voters were going to try 'something new" with the NDP (at least for a little while)..or there
is another underlying issue here. 

In retrospect, when Chretien, Mulroney and others had major problems dealing with the demands of Quebec, Jack Layton with virtually no experience
in that regard,and will no doubt, have similar problems.
Are they using Jack to get back at the Tories? 



> I think the Bloc was gradually evolving away from a sovereigntist focus to one of simply protecting Québec's interests in Ottawa, and with that voice gone I do worry that Quebecers could grow to feel even less a part of Canada than they do already. But we'll see how it goes.


The current economic situation and debt load has a lot to do with it. 
Where exactly would Quebec as a sovereign nation go? It can't exist
as an island in the middle of Canada? As a sovereign nation, it should
have its own money..but that would be devalued against an already
devalued US dollar, and as I said, the sovereignists want control of
their own destiny, so amalgamating/joining the US is out of the question.
Not only would they have to bear some of the massive US debt, but
they would be assimulated very quickly...the times of Jacques Parizeau
and Lucien Bouchard are over..it's a whole new ball game out there..and
the current state of the economy overrides other issues. 



> Edited to add this: Having just read Thomas Mulcair's remarks, it does seem he is committing strongly to ensuring that the NPD represents Québec's interests, "without re-opening the Constitution."


Those are just words..actions speak louder than words..time will tell!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i get the impression jack layton thinks he's going to look just like the beauteous pippa middleton holding hands with 6 tiny flowergirls & pageboys when he, jack, shepherds his baby quebec memberlets into the commons at the next session.

so i think the folks who are saying We'll See are being fair, tolerant, open-minded & wise.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

The left in this country has ignored the wishes of the majority for long enough. The Conservatives won the election with a handsome majority. Let's put aside the bickering and get on with governing the country according to the party that received the most votes.

And remember: after the election, nobody cares what we think.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

carverman said:


> Where exactly would Quebec as a sovereign nation go? It can't exist as an island in the middle of Canada?


I'd have to study all the arguments pro and con for at least another 10 years before I can form an educated opinion about Québec sovereignty, but my impression as an outsider has always been that Canada resembles Europe a lot more than it resembles the US -- a relatively small number of large, powerful provinces bound together by a common currency and a comparatively weak central governing body. If Québec were to secede I could see it paving the way for all provinces becoming sovereign, keeping a common currency and a European-style central Parliament and Commission to ensure harmonization, equity, etc.

But I'm sure there are plenty of problems with that notion, not the least of which most of the other provinces don't want to become sovereign and are happy to be part of Canada.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> The left in this country has ignored the wishes of the majority for long enough. The Conservatives won the election with a handsome majority. Let's put aside the bickering and get on with governing the country according to the party that received the most votes.
> 
> And remember: after the election, nobody cares what we think.


Well, majority of the seats, but less than 40% support. We should be clear what we're talking about when we say majority.


----------



## clovis8 (Dec 7, 2010)

Count down to the Cons trying to ship us all back to the 50's

here comes the;

-banning gay marriage
-banning abortion
-end of public healthcare
-cramming as much church into public life as possible
-slashing the social net
-anti-immigration
-shrinking the federal government just enough that it fits into our bedrooms
-massive tax cuts for the richest people
-massive debt
-massive deficits
-huge increases in the military
-secret meetings
-Gerrymandering
-legislation to cement the Cons lead


It is going to be an awful 5 years.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> The left in this country has ignored the wishes of the majority for long enough.


Sounds like a Bill O'Reilly quote. 

The left in this country got 60% of the vote. That's 50% more votes than the right.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> I'd have to study all the arguments pro and con for at least another 10 years before I can form an educated opinion about Québec sovereignty, but my impression as an outsider has always been that Canada resembles Europe a lot more than it resembles the US -- a relatively small number of large, powerful provinces bound together by a common currency and a comparatively weak central governing body.


Well, I don't want to get into a detailed history lesson..but there is a lot
more involved in the formation of Canada and it's provinces. In the US,
once a state joins the union, there is NO provision for it to be allowed
to suscede from the Union. Everyone probably knows about the US Civil
War, the reasons and the outcome.

In Canada, though, it's a bit different. Starting with the defeat of the
French (Montcalm) by the British forces (Wolfe), the people of Quebec
lost their connection to be colony of France. Instead they were ruled
by an appointed governor from Britain. At that time, Quebec became
Lower Canada and Ontario, Upper Canada.

Under the British North America Act (and its amendments), 4 initial provinces
became a "union" (Dominion of Canada) and ruled by a governor appointed
by Britain and a Parliament similar to the British one was established.
The four initial provinces in the Dominion of Canada were:
Ontario, Quebec (which was required to be bilingual), Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick. 
Later on Queen Victoria selected Ottawa as the capital city where
Parliament would be finally located to.

Quebec although defeated still considered itself a "separate society" and
did not appreciate being ruled by Britain, so later on and after the 
Confederation of 1867, the resentment grew and fast forwarding to
the 20th century..more resentment and the FLQ uprising in the early
70s, where PM Trudea had to squelch by reading the War Measures Act
in Parliament. This was a close approximation to a 'civil war' with the
military being called out to protect citizens in Quebec.

Later on, the term "just society" and "distinct society" became a political
term used by Trudeau and others. However, there is a provision somewhere
that Quebec being a "distinct society" could, if circumstances warranted
"leave" the confederation and become a sovereign nation..but that would
require a majority vote by the people of Quebec through a referendum.
One was done in 1980
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1980

... and failed on the vote. 







> If Québec were to secede I could see it paving the way for all provinces becoming sovereign, keeping a common currency and a European-style central Parliament and Commission to ensure harmonization, equity, etc.


No, I don't believe that even that would give the other provinces a reason
for leaving. First of all that would be a breakup of Canada, secondly having
a ECM style of government would have many problems here in NA.
For starters, never mind each province having to have it's own currency,
or adopting the existing currency, which as you know still shows the
Queen on some of the bills. Quebec, definitely would not go for that.
The current economy of each province is not that strong to consider
whether it's GDP would even back up it's currency..so what standard
would you use? Is the gold standard at almost $1500 a troy ounce
and wildly speculative and fluctuating constantly... viable?



> But I'm sure there are plenty of problems with that notion, not the least of which most of the other provinces don't want to become sovereign and are happy to be part of Canada.


No other province so far has expressed any desire to leave Canada, but the
issue in Quebec, and the representation of it in the federal parliament is
very complicated. 

I listen sometimes to Chantal Hebert (Toronto Sun political columnist)
of Peter Manbridge's political commentary panel and frankly in my mind,
her explanation of things unfolding in Quebec is difficult to understand
as she explains it. It's full of journalistic "double speak" and she doesn't
always state her opinions and views in a clear manner.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

clovis8 said:


> Count down to the Cons trying to ship us all back to the 50's
> 
> here comes the;
> 
> ...


If Liberals/NDP count on this to help them ride to victory in 2015, they'll be sorely disappointed. 

The only one I agree with is the point where they are rejigging the political financing regime, removing only one of three public subsidies to parties, and the one that will stack the deck in their favour the most. 

Most jurisdictions that undertake political finance reform tend to do it from a consensus perspective. This government intends to unilaterally stack the rules in their favour.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't see what point there would be for the provinces to become sovereign but retain all the trappings of federation. I think it's a bit of a conceit of Quebec sovereigntists that the rest of Canada would be content to continue shoveling billions in transfer payments into Quebec after they decide to spurn membership in our federation. It's frankly nuts. They may decide to continue to use our currency, but they won't be part of a fiscal union with the rest of Canada, and would be in much the same position as Greece. Quebec has traditionally been pretty uncompetitive a a business environment, and not receiving transfer payments, having a high debt load, and using a currency they can't print will end in tears. So, they'd be down to the Quebec peso after they eventually default on their CAD denominated debts. One wonders how much wealth Quebeckers are willing to sacrifice for pride or vanity. And if the idea is to remain firmly entrenched in a Canadian political union (regardless of whether this is actually a possible outcome), I fail to see the point.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

clovis8 said:


> Count down to the Cons trying to ship us all back to the 50's
> 
> here comes the;
> -slashing the federal government just enough that it fits into our bedrooms
> ...


Well, what did we expect? We have given "neo-conservatives" a mandate
to govern. The current PC is an amalgamation of the original PC that got
severely decimated down to 2 or 3 seats in an election prior to its dissolution in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada


Harper was originally with the Alliance Party and it's neo-conservative
ideology..which is NOT the same as the original PC party that was
dissolved after when Joe Clark lost the election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Alliance

Harper has always had his own secret agenda..and now given a mandate
to rule as he pleases and ramrod legislation through Parliament, we
will have to see how the next 4 years unfolds..whether its a good thing
for Canada..or not.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Most jurisdictions that undertake political finance reform tend to do it from a consensus perspective. This government intends to unilaterally stack the rules in their favour.


Why do you say that they are unilaterally stacking the rules in their favour? The same rules will apply to all parties.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I don't see what point there would be for the provinces to become sovereign but retain all the trappings of federation. One wonders how much wealth Quebeckers are willing to sacrifice for pride or vanity. And if the idea is to remain firmly entrenched in a Canadian political union (regardless of whether this is actually a possible outcome), I fail to see the point.


Andrew..it's NOT going to happen, so this is a moot point. The time of
the FLQ uprising, Jacques Parizeau/Lucien Bouchard separatist movement
is OVER! With a precarious US economic situation and the current 
world/european economic situation..it would be sheer suicide for Quebec
to even consider a referendum in these times...hence probably ONE of
the reasons for the political "gear shift" in Quebec with so many NDP
newbies getting a chance to see the inside of the House of Commons.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

carverman said:


> Harper was originally with the Alliance Party and it's neo-conservative ideology..which is NOT the same as the original PC party that was dissolved after when Joe Clark lost the election.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Alliance


Originally, the Canadian Alliance was Preston Manning's Reform Party. Manning was hardly a neo-con. He was a populist and a consensus builder but his reputation was harmed by the extremists that latched onto the Reform Party in the early days. 

Harper is no consensus builder. His approach tends towards the authoritarian. He'll exercise a great deal of personal power because his MP's will be fiercely obedient. He'll probably turn out to be a lot like Jean Chretien in that respect. 



> Harper has always had his own secret agenda..and now given a mandate to rule as he pleases and ramrod legislation through Parliament, we
> will have to see how the next 4 years unfolds..whether its a good thing
> for Canada..or not.


I don't think that Harper has a secret agenda. He has always been forthcoming about his beliefs.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Harper would be an idiot to bring in a secret agenda and screw over his party before the next election. If he gets a majority again then maybe it will get to his head and he will become the dictator that he wishes he could be.

On a side note can only Quebec complain about everything even though they suck and Alberta can't stand up to the pillage and plunder they have suffered over the years. Olivaw can you explain why Alberta has taken the shaft year over year decade after decade. BC can stand up I believe but we get sidetracked, where as Alberta takes the abuse year after year decade after decade.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Dogcom, I wish I could answer your question. The only time I have personally felt abused was when Trudeau gave us the National Energy Program. It was a nightmare. 

Alberta votes are never in play so federal party leaders don't care what we think. Harper has most of this province locked up so tight that he didn't even bother to campaign here. 

In BC, you make them earn your votes. It forces them to pay attention.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

olivaw said:


> Originally, the Canadian Alliance was Preston Manning's Reform Party. Manning was hardly a neo-con. He was a populist and a consensus builder but his reputation was harmed by the extremists that latched onto the Reform Party in the early days.


Yes, I knew about Preston Manning..but as you say when the extremists
took over, it evolved to a different ideology from what it was when
Manning started it. 



> *His approach tends towards the authoritarian*. He'll exercise a great deal of personal power because his MP's will be fiercely obedient. He'll probably turn out to be a lot like Jean Chretien in that respect.


Harper, IMO is a mini-dictator and cannot be compared to Chretien that
came from the Quebec scene. 



> I don't think that Harper has a secret agenda. He has always been forthcoming about his beliefs.


Well by "secret agenda"..I mean you can't always depend on him or his
party to do everything in the open. Take for instance the F-35 jets..
that commitment went out to Martin Lockheed, without going through
parliamentary procedure or call for tenders...what kind of Parliament
is he running??? 


We shall see in the next 4 yrs...he is certainly not as open as some of the others before him. During the election campaign he wasn't as "smug" as
he was in Parliament, because he knew he had to speak more openly
to the voters..asking for a majority vote for him. 

I really liked Paul Martin..and I wish he hadn't been defeated. As far
as the Tory PMs...Mulroney was on the take almost from the day he
took office. Karl Heinz Schwieber..the bags of cash that he used to
hand Mulroney for "favors" dealing with contracts...that sort of thing.
When he finally got caught at it..he declared some of the money to 
Rev Canada as "legal services" to KHS..ya sure..and this was only
partial..the rest got hidden here, there and everywhere. At least Chretien,
(except for the golf course interest he was involved with) was reasonably
honest for a politician.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

olivaw said:


> Dogcom, I wish I could answer your question. The only time I have personally felt abused was when Trudeau gave us the National Energy Program. It was a nightmare.


Well you got Petro-Canada out of the deal. Have you ever read the book
"Other Peoples Money'? That was the story about Jack Gallager and DOME Petroleum and all the schenanigans they were up to scamming everyone..and in AB too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_Petroleum

and the book...
http://www.aina.ucalgary.ca/scripts/minisa.dll/144/hiproe/hiproesd/sisn+47655?COMMANDSEARCH



> Alberta votes are never in play so federal party leaders don't care what we think. Harper has most of this province locked up so tight that he didn't even bother to campaign here.


He doesn't need to. The whole province is basically Tory Blue. Heck, the
voters would probably vote for a dog as long as he belonged to the PCs.


----------



## clovis8 (Dec 7, 2010)

carverman said:


> He doesn't need to. The whole province is basically Tory Blue. Heck, the
> voters would probably vote for a dog as long as he belonged to the PCs.


Lived in Alberta my whole life and I wouldn't vote for a conservative if it were a one person ballot. The 1950s didn't seem all that interesting the first time. I see no need to go back.


----------



## martinv (Apr 30, 2009)

I am more concerned about my tax dollars paying the salary of a 20 year old who didn't even bother to campaign at all in his riding. $157,000 starting salary for an MP. Comical if it wasn't real money. Sad!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

martinv said:


> I am more concerned about my tax dollars paying the salary of a 20 year old who didn't even bother to campaign at all in his riding. $157,000 starting salary for an MP. Comical if it wasn't real money. Sad!


Damn right!
The whole thing appears to be a practical joke.
Most of these dudes have barely started university.
What are they gonna do now - quit school to go to the House of Commons?
Maybe they'll register in distance-learning undergrad courses for college dropouts....

It's perhaps fortunate that the world media barely yawns upon Canadian news, else we would be the laughing stock of the world.
Imagine the US right-wing talk show hosts like Bootz and Hannity having a field day with such news.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> Damn right!
> The whole thing appears to be a practical joke.
> Most of these dudes have barely started university.


If what Andrew (and Stephen Harper) said in another thread is true, then experience doesn't matter anyway:

http://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/showpost.php?p=62107&postcount=5

Maybe I should get my neighbour's cat to run as a PM in the next election.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

the youngest is 19. In his photo his skin is baby pink. It doesn't appear that he shaves yet. 

he says he's leaving school to work full-time at being a member of parliament. Has to buy some suits first. Says the country will be pleased when it finds out what youth can accomplish.

you're right, it is like a practical joke. Or an elizabethan comedy. These are the fools & jesters playing in the pits. The principal characters haven't set foot upon the stage yet. Something's up.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

clovis8 said:


> Lived in Alberta my whole life and I wouldn't vote for a conservative if it were a one person ballot. The 1950s didn't seem all that interesting the first time. I see no need to go back.


You are our bright shining hope for future change as far as the federal
political scene. My youngest bro lives in Peace River (55yrs) and he's
seen enough of what is happening in that area, that he voted for "change"..
but of course, he is of the "few" and there are "many" others that vote
the same way all the time.
Harper with his huge exploration tax concessions to "Big Oil" has them in
his "back pocket", so he doesn't really need to waste his jet fuel or "air"
on the "converted". 

Besides, the new corporate tax cuts pretty much guaranteed he would
come out on top there..not to mention Bay St. in Toronto and "Big Business"
in Canada who will gladly take what he's offering and inturn "enrich" his 
campaign funds for the next "juggernaut" assault in 4 years time.

"Attack (ads) gentlemen!..And don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!"


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

martinv said:


> I am more *concerned about my tax dollars paying the salary of a 20 year old who didn't even bother to campaign at all in his riding. *$157,000 starting salary for an MP. Comical if it wasn't real money. Sad!


You forgot about $20K+ of expenses each federally elected representative
can claim...and there is more..the pensions..that we taxpayers will have
to pay them.."if they qualify". Don't forget here that for each elected
rep, they pay Quebec income tax to Quebec

..now here's the disparity...we as ordinary (retired) citizens can
only get a token $2500 for funeral expenses from CPP...and as they say..
"If you qualify"...what does that mean?
1) You would have to be of "age" to collect..and DEAD!
2) You would have to have paid into the CPP "fund".
3) You would to have applied for it, started collecting CPP and have died.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Damn right!
> The whole thing appears to be a practical joke.
> Most of these dudes have barely started university.
> What are they gonna do now - quit school to go to the House of Commons?
> Maybe they'll register in distance-learning undergrad courses for college dropouts....


Mr Crump..as I have mentioned/joked before on the other forum..to
quote Ross Perot (in his unsuccessful attempt to run for president)..
.."Can you hear that GIANT sucking sound?"

Duceppe and Harper just didn't get along..Duceppe was antagonist, so
NOW they have a better plan.."load the dice" with "orange" instead
of "BQ powder blue" and they WILL get more concessions for Quebec
from Harper! ..ie: "Plan B"!


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

How many years do they have to be MP to get pensions , these guys are set for next 4 years .I bet many of them are thinking they won the lottery when they see what the job pays.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> Maybe I should get my neighbour's cat to run as a PM in the next election.


I like cats. I will vote for your neighbour's cat..as long as the cat promised "cat food" on every table. 
..because that's about whats left of the household income
after."Jets, Jails and Corporate tax cuts"...oh wait!..there's more
Mr. Harper promised to throw the poorest of the poor..a bone (GIS increase)..
sad news..it's only half a bone...and more than likely we will have to wait
in line with our hands out..for 4 more years, until the deficit spending gets
under control as Mr. Harper promised to the general public during his
campaign.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

brad said:


> If what Andrew (and Stephen Harper) said in another thread is true, then experience doesn't matter anyway


Jack Layton said that, defending his party's choice of candidates.

If this were a banana republic, we could have said the vote in Quebec was rigged.


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

brad said:


> Maybe I should get my neighbour's cat to run as a PM in the next election.


One of our local Rhino candidates in a long lost election tried to run his dog in a neighboring constituency since "he ran him there most days".


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> How many years do they have to be MP to get pensions , these guys are set for next 4 years .I bet many of them are thinking *they won the lottery when they see what the job pays*.


I think they did!..and they don't need to play poker to get that kind of
money..just sit around and get bored and "load the vote numbers" when there
important issues that Jack Layton wants to oppose Harper on...of course
as we know..majority rules on any House of Commons issue put to the vote..
so we will see Jack's smiling face and hear his rhetoric, but that won't
really change the outcome.

And the nice part of these cushy jobs is that even if YOU DON'T SHOW UP
you still get your monthly pay from the Federal gov't...a real gummint job!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> It's perhaps fortunate that the world media barely yawns upon Canadian news, else we would be the laughing stock of the world.


My thoughts exactly. 

The comedy [embarrassment] already started yesterday with Mr. Mulcair and with Ms. Brosseau, who has not had time to make any comments since her return from Vegas as she's very busy taking cours de français. 

*marina:* it is 6 years for the pension.

"Pensions are calculated on the best five earnings years and are locked in after only six years of “service.” Backbenchers make about $157,000 a year and will qualify for a minimum indexed lifetime pension of $27,000 a year when they reach age 55. As a result, an MP sacrificing all of six years in the House could pocket $675,000 (in today’s dollars) if he were to reach 80."


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

We should probably discount that figure appropriately.

$27k is not exactly luxurious. It also amounts to, at best, 2.86% per year of service. It would take 35 years of service to achieve 100% replacement of salary.

I'm finding it harder and harder to get worked up about this. If anything, the problem is not that MPs are over-compensated, but that they are under-employed by our system.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I'm not getting worked up about anything, especially about things we have little control over. I was merely answering *Marina's question.*


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I wasn't referring to you in particular. I saw someone from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation on TV last night griping about MP pensions.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I saw someone from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation on TV last night griping about MP pensions.


I don't know the specific context/person on the show, but the reason many people "gripe" about MP pensions is the short duration of service expected to qualify for the pension.
There is also the issue of conflict of interest allowing elected officials to set their own compensation and increase it at will (recent evidence of Ontario provincial govt. and the City of Toronto council).
Public sector pensions in general are a different and more serious issue than just elected officials' pensions.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> We should probably discount that figure appropriately.
> 
> $27k is not exactly luxurious. It also amounts to, at best, 2.86% per year of service. It would take 35 years of service to achieve 100% replacement of salary.
> 
> I'm finding it harder and harder to get worked up about this. If anything, the problem is not that MPs are over-compensated, *but that they are under-employed by our system*.


..pulling out the old calculator??.."survey says"...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> I don't know the specific context/person on the show, but the reason many people "gripe" about MP pensions is the short duration of service expected to qualify for the pension.
> Public sector pensions in general are a different and more serious issue than just elected officials' pensions.


And in most cases, they don't even attend Parliament to collect their pay
or pensions..ie" backbenchers.

Speaking of backbenchers..yesterday on CJOH news, they mentioned the
successful NDP candidate that was elected in Trois Riviere Quebec riding (Ruth Ellen Brosseau)..and she wasn't even there to campaign before the election,
she was in Vegas on vacation.
She is a 27 year old (single mom)..and working in the Carleton University pub at that. She will start collecting $127K a year +office expenses+
travel expenses..she doesn't speak french,and she has never visited the Trois Riviere riding
Now we have "Phantom candidates" surfacing. Some claim her nomination'
was irregular and fudged to Elections Canada..and the NDP doesn't screen
their candidates. 
Nice work, if you can get it!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> (Ruth Ellen Broussaud)...have "Phantom candidates" surfacing. Some claim her nomination' was irregular and fudged to Elections Canada..and the NDP doesn't screen their candidates.


It's Ms. Brosseau; seems you too need to brush up votre français. 

I sure hope those are just false allegations. 

Yes, the youngest is a 19 year old student, but altogether, there are nine students and/or recent grads as well as a former communist, who I believe unseated former Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, lol.

Can you imagine if the NDP would have won a majority? Majority of seats that is [needed to clarify what majority I was talking about].


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I wasn't referring to you in particular. I saw someone from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation on TV last night griping about MP pensions.


They gripe about everybody's pensions.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> It's Ms. Brosseau; seems you too need to brush up votre français.


Pardon mon francais..hey I don't even have accent cedilla anywhere on my 
microsoft keyboard..must be some Alt or Funct key I need to press.



> I sure hope those are just false allegations.


Well apparently, one signature was used without the owners knowledge
or permission on the elections form. All the requesting "candidate" needs
is 100 signatures to satisfy Elections Canada that he/she is a "legitimate"
candidate, qualified to run in a federal election. 

lets see..in the next election.I'll run in Harper's riding..
100 sigs..no sweat//
Carver dude
carver man
Mr.Right
Mr. Wrong..
and I'll just add "MoneyGal", Plugging Alone, The Royal Male...to the list..
now lets see..some dog and cat names to make it 100.



> Yes, the youngest is a 19 year old student, but altogether, there are nine students and/or recent grads as well as a former communist, who I believe unseated former Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, lol.


Obviously some kind of conspiracy against Mr Duceppe..what did he do
to p**s them off, I wonder?? 



> Can you imagine if the NDP would have won a majority? Majority of seats that is [needed to clarify what majority I was talking about].


Well inasmuch as I kinda like Jack Layton's easy going manner as a politician..
the country would go to hell in a handbasket..very quickly with all these
green horns running around and "the Shepherd" would be too busy trying
to figure out fiscal policies to keep them in line.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

157K isn't much for the responsibility and stress of being an MP. 

The real lottery win is a senate appointment. The salary may be a mere 132K but there isn't a lot of work involved and there's job security until age 75.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

olivaw said:


> 157K isn't much for the responsibility and stress of being an MP.
> 
> *The real lottery win is a senate appointment*. The salary may be a mere 132K but there isn't a lot of work involved and there's job security until age 75.


and the best thing is that you can collect your pay while vacationing for 
several months in Mexico, as one senator did,
.... and falsify expenses and not show up in the senate to deal with senate issues, as another most recently did, who was caught and convicted of fraud.

The senate..your tax dollars at work, folks!


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

When you're a senator, you can retire to Mexico and get paid for it. 

There are very good senators who work hard for this country but the examples you cited Carver are shameful. The senate is supposed to be our prestigious house of sober second thought but sometimes it looks more like a country club membership granted by the PMO as a reward to political allies.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Those of you complaining about the pensions and salaries of MPs and senators are pathetic. You complain about poor candidates, work ethic and corruption at the same time? How do you think you attract decent candidates, keep people working hard and straight? If you ask me they should be paid a lot more for the responsibilities they have. I sure wouldn't want to be an MP/PM/senator when you look at the dirt they get paid to listen to all of the whiners. A TTC worker makes about what a MP makes. I can't hire someone in Canada to clean my house for less than I make per hour after tax etc, let alone day care etc

Look at what CEOs and hockey players make if you want to cry about where all your money goes. Where do you think their salaries come from? Nobody cries about that salaries and the PM/MP/senators pail in comparison. I know a senator and a MP personally and they have a lot more work than people realize. When I started out working I decided I wanted to be a manager because all they did was walk around and say hi from my perspective. Travelling around all the time is fun at first but it becomes work after awhile. If you take a job like that seriously, like most of them do, you have a lot to stress and worry about. The biggest stress is PA and this thread shows why. In Canada, it's almost worth being a TTC driver or worker bee because at the end of the day you forget about your work and make about the same compared to other countries.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

mode3sour, what you say is not evidence that elected officials are underpaid, it is evidence that the TTC driver is overpaid, and by a lot.
And for what?
Texting and yakking on the phone while driving?
Being asleep on the job?
How about taking that 20 min. coffee break while his passengers wait in the bus during a cold winter night?

The CEOs that you are vilifying are a small subset of CEOs belonging to large, mega-billion public corporations like the banks, financial companies, energy companies, etc.
The CEO of many medium scale corproations (even public companies) do not get paid the mega millions that you allege.

Also, their jobs usually hang by a thread.
Miss a few quarters of earnings and they get whacked.

And what about those obnoxious executives at public sector agencies like the OPG etc.
Seen the latest "sunshine" list?

I agree that _theoretically_ the job of an elected official is a demanding, thankless and all-consuming job.
But the number of elected officials who take their oaths to heart and truly live up to the ideal can be counted on the fingers of your left hand.

I don't see why we need to pay these folks even more.

I'd be ok if you whack 1/3rd of the TTC workers to pay the politicians more salary.
In fact, I might even vote for such a politician.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

A politician is the only person who can get a job that requires no minimum education, no minimum training, just win a popularity contest.

The benefits would choke a horse, especially their Pension Plan, I don't know how many millions the Flaherty's and the Laytons will get, mega bucks, but CPP will be pushed out to 70, OAS to 75.

The fact is that several of the NDP winners are totally uknown to the people who elected them, in one case, a 19 year Old Freshman from Sherbrooke who comes across like an ardent seperatist.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> *Those of you complaining about the pensions *and salaries of MPs and senators *are pathetic*. You complain about poor candidates, work ethic and corruption at the same time? How do you think you attract decent candidates, keep people working hard and straight? If you ask me *they should be paid a lot more *for the responsibilities they have. I sure wouldn't want to be an MP/PM/senator when you look at the dirt they get paid to listen to all of the whiners.*I can't hire someone in Canada to clean my house for less than I make per hour *after tax etc,


Nice of you to join us mode3sour. I gather then, you have some gripes
about how little you take home after taxes? And you also state that
the people cleaning your home make more than you after taxes?
What are you doing in defence then? (read double entrendre)....

As they say..if life hands you lemons..make lemonade..open up a private
enterprise house cleaning business..like "SuperMaids"..or NextGenMaids"..



> Look at what CEOs and hockey players make if you want to cry about where all your money goes. *Where do you think their salaries come from*?


Let me give it a shot...
CEOs get paid millions because they provide leadership and vision for their
companies, so they deserve it..IF the company is successful.

Hockey players have a strong union and being professional atheletes with
sometimes short careers(brain damage due to high sticking) they have
to collect their lifetime salaries within a few short years..and the fans
pay for that.



> Nobody cries about that salaries and the PM/MP/senators pail in comparison. I know a senator and a MP personally and they have a lot more work than people realize. *The biggest stress is PA and this thread shows why.* In Canada, it's almost worth being a TTC driver or worker bee because at the end of the day you forget about your work and make about the same compared to other countries.


Public Apathy?? Gimme a break!
Look, I'm not saying that some of the MPs and some of the senators aren't
working hard and doing their job..but it takes one or two bad apples to
spoil the barrel..and these bad apples get the media exposure "your tax
dollars at work!"...and when there are literally hundreds of thousands of
seniors living just at the poverty level..the MPs/Senators ARE WELL PAID
for what they actually do.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm Howard said:


> A politician is the only person who can get a job that requires no minimum education, no minimum training, just win a popularity contest.
> 
> The benefits would choke a horse, especially their Pension Plan, I don't know how many millions the Flaherty's and the Laytons will get, mega bucks, but *CPP will be pushed out to 70, OAS to 75.*


The process to bring that about is already happening with recent changes.

The CPP (don't know much how the OAS is funded) is NOT sustainable
in the next 20 years..and they know that..and that is why they are
adding an early withdrawal "penalty" (less money), if you decide to apply
NOW, from age 60 (as I did) or wait until age 70..
(when they hold this carrot out saying you will get "more".

Now here is the reality..the gummint is hoping that by encouraging eligible CPP pensioners to hold out longer for "more", they will either die, or have some independent means of income. 

Either way the gummint will win, because in the first case, they don't pay anything in CPP benefits (not even the $2500 they would have to pay to the
qualified CPP recipient!), nor in the later case, where they get to collect
more income tax from RRSPs, private pension plans, or even some
pensioners still working and paying more income tax.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I have no problem with what I make after taxes carver. I'm simply pointing out that we all make relatively the same amount in Canada. People who do mind numbing jobs get paid very well in relation to people who have the stress of making decisions. PA is public affairs and heaven forbid someone go on vacation or do anything that could possibly be spun wrong on TV. Like I've said before a great amount of time and money is wasted to avoid bad press.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

To lighten the topic it seems the recent election has spurred a rebel group. All jokes are half truth though imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEemFcefC3w&feature=share


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Carver, CPP is just fine. The reason why you get less if you start collecting at 60 versus 65 is because you'll collect for five years longer than you would have. You get more for drawing at 70 because you have 5 fewer years. There's nothing sinister about it--it's an attempt to give some flexibility to recipients while retaining actuarial fairness.

For CPP, the payroll deductions will pay for benefits until 2021, and thereafter, investment income from the by-then $250 billion+ CPP fund will help to make up the difference between payroll deductions and benefits.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Carver, CPP is just fine. The reason why you get *less if you start collecting at 60 versus 65 is because you'll collect for five *years longer than you would have. You get more for drawing at 70 because you have 5 fewer years. There's nothing sinister about it--it's an attempt to give some flexibility to recipients while retaining actuarial fairness.


Yes, I know that. The point I was trying to make is that CPP payments
to the retirees now and in the next 20 years or so, will depend on
how much growth it will realize in the investment markets, and yearly increases
to the individual and employer CPP contributions. 

Without that, the plan would probably not be sustainable. 
As the population keeps expanding, and each generation heads for retirement, depending on CPP and OAS for SOME of their income, the CPP plan will be strained.

Now frankly I must admit, I don't know how the current CPP plan works,
and how it is invested and whether any shortfall would be just absorbed
into the government's debt..but there may be a bottom to the CPP barrel.
unless, the investment market and contributions keep up with the payouts.



> For CPP, the payroll deductions will pay for benefits until 2021, and thereafter, investment income from the by-then $250 billion+ CPP fund will help to make up the difference between payroll deductions and benefits.


That's 10 years from now. Do you have that crystal ball that things should
go according to plan?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Unless everyone stops working and the Canadian economy closes for business, in 2021, payroll contributions will be slightly less than 100% of benefit payments. A few percent. That shortfall will come out of the surplus we're amassing right now (currently at $140 billion) and investment returns. 

The CPP is definitely good for the rest of your lifetime. If the markets collapse and all of the CPP's investments go to zero (better stock up on beef jerky if you think the world is going to end), contributions will have to rise slightly to make up the deficit.

The idea that the CPP is not sustainable is a popular meme, it's just not based in any reasoned examination of the facts. It takes a drastic scenario for benefits to have to be reduced, and an apocalypse for the benefits to be cut altogether.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

andrew, REALITY,,fast foreward a few years, I think the ratio is something like for every Two people collecting CPP, One person is being taxed, and that tax will go up as the population continues to age and the demographic base ages.

The youth of today should be taking note, generous policies promised to old farts who make up a large % of voters are robbing our Youth.

HST is just the start of tax grabs, less people paying taxes for Indexed Benefits mean more people paying higher taxes.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> I don't see why we need to pay these folks even more.


Further to this, consider the following points (posted at http://taxpayer.com/node/14379).

_- Winnipeg MP Jim Maloway, who was elected in the 2008 fall election, lost his seat in this week’s election. After serving just two and a half years, Mr. Maloway won’t qualify for a federal MP pension, but he will receive about $78,886 as a severance package.

- It’s true that the overly generous formula that determines MP pension payments was reduced a few years ago. But if you peer into the new rules, you’ll find they’re still, well, overly generous. Right now, for every $1 MPs put into their pension plan, taxpayers contribute about $4 towards it._

These folks are milking the public finances of the country dry and making out like bandits.
It is shameful to say the least.

But then the whole issue of over-compensation of the public sector, and esp. outrageously generous pensions, is a bigger and more serious issue.
And I call it outrageous because of:

_Consider that Statistics Canada data from 2009 shows only 6 million of Canada’s 28.1 million citizens over the age of 15 have a pension plan. 
Yes, *over 75 per cent of us have no plan whatsoever*._


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Based on the time value of money, would you rather pay the public sector a competitive salary today, or pay them a pension 30 years later? If you don't have a pension, you have the opportunity to earn enough to save your own.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

mode3sour said:


> Based on the time value of money, would you rather pay the public sector a competitive salary today, or pay them a pension 30 years later?


Apparently, we are doing both.
We are paying them more than a competitive salary and an overly generous pension.


> If you don't have a pension, you have the opportunity to earn enough to save your own.


But it doesn't work that way in our public service.
Their salaries are not low[er] because they have a pension.
This situation exists for most of the public sector, and not just for the elected officials.
Their total compensation is widely disproportionate to private sector compensation, given the true value of a guaranteed, indexed, lifelong pension.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm certainly not denying that public servants are fortunate to have their db pension plans -as a retired public servant, I know that - but it's not true to suggest that "this situation exists for most of the public sector, and not just for the elected officials." As far as I'm concerned, politicians are entitled to reasonable pensions, but it is not reasonable to grant themselves pensions where they start collecting their full pension at 55 (not 65, as with public servants), where they only contribute $1 for every $4 contributed by the taxpayers (as opposed to equal amounts for public servants.)


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> I'm certainly not denying that public servants are fortunate to have their db pension plans -as a retired public servant, I know that - but it's not true to suggest that "this situation exists for most of the public sector, and not just for the elected officials." As far as I'm concerned, politicians are entitled to reasonable pensions, but it is not reasonable to grant themselves pensions where they start collecting their full pension at 55 (not 65, as with public servants), where they only contribute $1 for every $4 contributed by the taxpayers (as opposed to equal amounts for public servants.)


Why should they be reasonable at all?... Karen. They are elected officials
and representatives of their riding. Parliament gives them special priveledges
and expenses denied to ordinary public servants. 
Most of the back benchers just show up and sit and stare (or sleep) during
House of Common proceedings. Some don't always show up if they have
other things to do..it's not a job..it's an "elevated" position..and for that
they get all the perks they are entitled too..including voting to give
themselves a big fat raise on their salaries from time to time.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I don't completely disagree with you Carverman - I can see your point, but I can see the politicians' point of view as well. What I'm saying is that the politicians have granted themselves much better benefits than most Canadians get, and even better than government employees receive, and ours are pretty generous. I don't understand how they can justify that to themselves.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> What I'm saying is that the politicians have granted themselves much better benefits than most Canadians get, and even better than government employees receive, and ours are pretty generous. *I don't understand how they can justify that to themselves*.


Karen; may I refer you to a global parliamentary mandate study reference document...
(Please note that this is in PDF format so it takes time to load on your
computer.) 
http://www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/mandate_e.pdf
and *specifically pages..28 to 37 inclusive*..which deals with
renumeration and pension schemes.

Please note that the content herein basically applies to most parliamentary
models, including Canada.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

What an interesting read, Carverman - thank you. I read the first few pages and then skipped to the section you recommended on pensions and remuneration, but I intend the read the whole thing.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> What an interesting read, Carverman - thank you. I read the first few pages and then skipped to the section you recommended on pensions and remuneration, but I intend the read the whole thing.


You're welcome Karen. As someone once said "just when I learned to play
life by the rules...THEY CHANGED THE RULES! 

This document is a generalization of most democratic Parliaments, not
*withstanding* that within the specific's country's Parliamentary laws and rules, favor is bestowed on those that make the laws.

the notwithstanding clause in any legal document, allows Parliament with the
consensus of the majority..to do..er..as they please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
again, as someone once said "There are two things that you don't want to
see made as a rule...SAUSAGES...and the LAW!


----------

