MP pensions are finally going to get reformed?

[Jacks]

I'm sure most will feel it's not enough but it's a seriously good start. I'd like to see them have to serve at least 8 years before getting any pension and then having the pension indexed to their length of service. For instance if they serve 20 years they get the full pension, 8 years they get 40%, etc.

Full text here ---> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4552682/

New Tory plan would water down MPs’ lucrative pensions

Canadian MPs will have to wait upwards of 10 years longer to start collecting their political pensions under changes the Harper government is crafting to demonstrate the Conservatives are leading by example on restraint.
...
The plan would be to change the rules – beginning after the next federal election – so that MPs begin receiving their parliamentary pension at age 65 instead of 55. The Conservatives are hoping to insert all the pension changes into the second and final implementation bill for the 2012 budget.
...
By 2029, changes to seniors pensions announced by the Harper government this year will mean Canadians must wait until age 67 to receive Old Age Security benefits – up from age 65. Another proposal in the works would require MPs to similarly wait until age 67 to receive their pensions – an additional change that would take effect years from now when the OAS changes kick in. It’s meeting resistance inside Tory caucus.
...
That’s why the Conservative caucus is designing a new scheme that would force MPs to pay 50 per cent of the annual contribution to their pension package. These days, MP contributions represent a small fraction of what the government is contributing.
...
Conservative MPs are being asked to select as a group which of three options they want: a plan where benefits accrue at 2 per cent a year, 2.5 per cent a year or 3 per cent a year. Each one would require heftier contributions from their annual take-home pay package.
...

[Azure]

They make more money than most people, why shouldn't they pay in what everyone else does?

[Fire]

It's good to see something finally happening with this after all the years the Liberals ignored it.

[vanisleflamesfan]

The problem here is that the Conservatives will not introduce a single, stand alone bill on pension reform that every party could support. They will likely introduce it as part of another omnibus bill, loaded with other questionable amendments that the other parties can't philosophically support.

As such, the Conservatives will be able to challenge the NDP and the Liberals as not supporting pension reform.

Politics is a dirty game, and even something like this, which the vast majority of the country would support, will not be done simply.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

The problem here is that the Conservatives will not introduce a single, stand alone bill on pension reform that every party could support. They will likely introduce it as part of another omnibus bill, loaded with other questionable amendments that the other parties can't philosophically support.

As such, the Conservatives will be able to challenge the NDP and the Liberals as not supporting pension reform.

Politics is a dirty game, and even something like this, which the vast majority of the country would support, will not be done simply.

Even if they did introduce this as a stand-alone bill, are you so sure that the other parties would support it? I know for sure the vast majority of the country would but not so sure about all or most of the MPs from other parties. MPs on the whole, tend to be known as a group that doesn't engage in a lot of self sacrifice.

Oh.... and bravo to the CPC. One more positive, in a long list, as a result of a Conservative majority.

[Ozy_Flame]

Wait a minute, get pension after 8 years? What if they are not re-elected after the four year mandatory vote? That's a waste of four years, and would discourage good MP's from serving.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

It's good to see something finally happening with this after all the years the Liberals ignored it.

Its been ignored for years under the conservatives as well.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its been ignored for years under the conservatives as well.

If you're talking about the past years with a Conservative minority, I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do that there was no way they could get it passed.

[Senator Clay Davis]

File this one under "I'll believe it when it passes". Nice to talk about it, but talk is cheap.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you're talking about the past years with a Conservative minority, I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do that there was no way they could get it passed.

What about the Mulroney majorities? Did they not receive pensions back then?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you're talking about the past years with a Conservative minority, I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do that there was no way they could get it passed.

The reality is that people vote in their own best interest and pursue policies for their own best interest, regardless of the party. The conservatives have had many years to bring this up, both under Harper and past governments.

Lets not discount the reports of serious opposition to this in the conservative party either. This is hardly one party being altruistic and everyone else being selfish.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you're talking about the past years with a Conservative minority, I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do that there was no way they could get it passed.

He must be talking about the Progressive Conservative majority governments from 1984 to 1993, which was the last time a conservative party held a majority. Different party but lets not let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

The reality is that people vote in their own best interest and pursue policies for their own best interest, regardless of the party. The conservatives have had many years to bring this up, both under Harper and past governments.

Lets not discount the reports of serious opposition to this in the conservative party either. This is hardly one party being altruistic and everyone else being selfish.

This feels like a situation where some party discipline/pressure from the PMO could be in the best interests of the country as a whole.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its been ignored for years under the conservatives as well.

I knew I would get a response from you.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its been ignored for years under the conservatives as well.

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

What about the Mulroney majorities? Did they not receive pensions back then?

Well, it's getting done now. This is the first real opportunity that this Conservative Party has had to get any meaningful reform passed.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

I knew I would get a response from you.

You're welcome!

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Even if they did introduce this as a stand-alone bill, are you so sure that the other parties would support it? I know for sure the vast majority of the country would but not so sure about all or most of the MPs from other parties. MPs on the whole, tend to be known as a group that doesn't engage in a lot of self sacrifice.

Oh.... and bravo to the CPC. One more positive, in a long list, as a result of a Conservative majority.

Article which says exactly what I said but it's in a newspaper so now you can believe it.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Article which says exactly what I said but it's in a newspaper so now you can believe it.

That article says that the Liberal party, with their 34 votes, would support cuts to MP pensions. That comes from Marc Garneau who is not the leader of the party and he knows it's not going to be a stand alone bill so take that with a grain of salt.

The article also states that the NDP would not support the legislation and instead prefer an "independant blue ribbon panel". Your argument was that every party would support a stand alone bill which is clearly not the case and is not supported by the article that you have linked to.

Also, don't believe everything you read in papers, half of the content is made up of opinion pieces.

[vanisleflamesfan]

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

That article says that the Liberal party, with their 34 votes, would support cuts to MP pensions. That comes from Marc Garneau who is not the leader of the party and he knows it's not going to be a stand alone bill so take that with a grain of salt.

The article also states that the NDP would not support the legislation and instead prefer an "independant blue ribbon panel". Your argument was that every party would support a stand alone bill which is clearly not the case and is not supported by the article that you have linked to.

Also, don't believe everything you read in papers, half of the content is made up of opinion pieces.

I have no idea what you're arguing here. The Liberals are saying that they'll support this while the NDP wants to wait and see what the bill actually looks like before making a decision (the horror!).

Why won't the conservatives just put a bill forward that is a stand-alone bill though if the vast majority will likely support it? Why does it have to be laced with all sorts of other clauses and riders that are disliked by the other parties? I suppose that wouldn't be pragmatic enough.