NP: Justin Trudeau's Hidden Agenda

[killer_carlson]

An article in the National Post discusses "leaked" information from the Liberal's caucus retreat. It is alleged that the Federal Liberals intend to use the CPP to fund the planned federal infrastructure projects.

This deserves its own thread. Are you willing to have the CPP fund infrastructure projects?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01...hidden-agenda/

Some tidbits:

"Pension plans exist for the benefit of the pensioners, not for governments in search of cheap and easy capital pools."

"Canadians considering a vote for Mr. Trudeau may want to consider whether they’re willing to bet their retirement income on him."

[polak]

But I want weed...

[killer_carlson]

lol

[Ozy_Flame]

Anyone who is in Gen X and younger should know that CPP is probably going to be non-existent by the time we retire, and that RRSPs and a healthy investment portfolio is where the real retirement bucks are.

So as long as he legalizes weed I'm on board!

[nik-]

wow

[kevman]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Are you willing to have the CPP fund infrastructure projects?

Sure, why not? I've completely ignored CPP in all of my financial calculations for I fully expect it to not be available when I retire so may as well just spend it on infrastructure now and see some benefit!

[fulham]

I'm a conservative, who is sick of harper. But there is no alternative for me.

Its impossible to be fan of JT. He literally has said nothing about how he will govern, other than spout off about how evil harper is. He has also given no interviews where he does not have the questions days in advance. He could not possibly be more vague. Their platform since he became leader is essentially

1. This guy is not harper
2. Look at how young and progressive he looks

[MarchHare]

Can someone explain exactly what this means? It doesn't sound like this plan would actually siphon off funds directly from CPP to pay for infrastructure, but rather CPP would finance the projects now and then collect predictable, recurring revenue from them for decades in the future. Is that interpretation correct, or am I misreading it?

From the article:

“If you look at the CPP [investment board], Omers, Teachers, AIMCO – pension funds in Canada are building infrastructure around the world. Is there the potential to engage them, and to engage global pension funds, in helping us to rebuild our infrastructure in Canada? I believe there is that potential.”

He referred specifically to the Quebec agreement, under which the Caisse, Canada’s second-biggest pension fund manager after the CPP, agreed to take on ownership of selected government infrastructure projects, which it will plan, finance, execute and operate. In effect the province is privatizing projects before they’re built, but always with the same owner.

As Mr. Brison noted, pension funds often invest in infrastructure such as toll roads, airports or other revenue-generating projects. They are seen as less risky and more predictable than financial markets. As the National Post editorialized recently, there is no problem with this as long as the fund has the ability to operate wholly independent of the government, and is able to make decisions based solely on their potential to generate a maximum return for the pensioners it serves. But there’s real reason to doubt this would be the case in the Liberal scheme.

Emphasis added.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Anyone who is in Gen X and younger should know that CPP is probably going to be non-existent by the time we retire, and that RRSPs and a healthy investment portfolio is where the real retirement bucks are.

So as long as he legalizes weed I'm on board!

This isn't true. You obviously need RRSPs and other investments, but CPP will be here for a long time.

[Blaster86]

Read the full article. Have zero issue with it.

As the article it self states before delving into the writers own personal opinion: this is incredibly common and actually a more stable money generating method than markets or businesses.

I have no issue with this and don't think it's "A hidden agenda." His own Finance Critic is the one talking about it to a reporter. This isn't a leak from a page or intern. This isn't a secret conversation picked up by eavesdropping. Infact, considering the Conservative Supporter bugaboo of how the Liberals are being too tight lipped about things, this should start to alleviate that.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

An article in the National Post discusses "leaked" information from the Liberal's caucus retreat. It is alleged that the Federal Liberals intend to use the CPP to fund the planned federal infrastructure projects.

This deserves its own thread. Are you willing to have the CPP fund infrastructure projects?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01...hidden-agenda/

Some tidbits:

"Pension plans exist for the benefit of the pensioners, not for governments in search of cheap and easy capital pools."

"Canadians considering a vote for Mr. Trudeau may want to consider whether they’re willing to bet their retirement income on him."

It's difficult to judge this without knowing if similar types of investments have paid off. Taking the article at face value (which is a stretch considering it is the NP), the Liberals stated that other countries have done this in the past with success, maybe it is a great idea? It just depends how you want to spin it I guess.... there isn't really any data or research presented.

The CPP has for a long time been involved in different types of investments, including different public companies development investments. They have in fact been involved in infrastructure investments already since 2006. All of these investments have various risks of return of course.

The Globe and Mail was questioning how the CPP was being used in late 2014:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle20317649/

[Caged Great]

If the revenue from said infrastructure projects funds the CPP moving forward, I don't see how this is a problem.

If you were to say finance a high speed rail system between cities, I think that would be a double benefit as it'll increase commerce and generate revenue from the operations of the train.

[Parallex]

What a awful articule... here I'll sum it up so no one else has to read:

"The Liberals are thinking about infrastructure funding in a manner that a lot of people (including the editors of this publication) think is a good idea... but I don't like the Liberals so I'll say that it's a bad idea"

[Coach]

I like when people use the word agenda with a negative conetation. It makes me laugh. Sometimes it comes with the word hidden, but not always.

"This guy has an agenda!"

So he has a plan? That's good. We used to get agendas every year in grade school. They were very helpful.

[polak]

I'm assuming the pension would be a part owner of whatever revenue the infrastructure generates?

[MarchHare]

It sounds like this is just an alternate type of a P3, except instead of a private enterprise reaping the future payoffs of the project, it'll be the CPP. Provided the infrastructure projects CPP chooses to invest in are selected wisely and will actually deliver an ROI in the future, I have no problem with this at all. I actually think it's a really innovative way to finance new public infrastructure.

The only concern I have is if the CPP directors will be forced to invest in projects of dubious financial viability. How "arms-length" is CPP from the ruling government of the day? Does the PM have the power to force CPP to behave in a particular way, or is the fund entirely managed in a "hands off" fashion?

[FlamesAddiction]

The funny thing is, they are already investing in infrastructure projects in Peru. Would it be that bad if they did it in Canada?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Parallex

What a awful articule... here I'll sum it up so no one else has to read:

"The Liberals are thinking about infrastructure funding in a manner that a lot of people (including the editors of this publication) think is a good idea... but I don't like the Liberals so I'll say that it's a bad idea"

Yeah, the article really is terrible. It's trying to convince readers that Trudeau wants to steal from their retirement money, when actually the (alleged) proposal is for CPP to help finance the construction of infrastructure that will benefit the Canadian economy now and in return gain a predictable source of revenue to fund pension payments in the future.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The funny thing is, they are already investing in infrastructure projects in Peru. Would it be that bad if they did it in Canada?

Yes! Because.... communism? No wait, tyranny!

Yeah, that one.

[V]

Haha, what a ridiculous article. So the Liberals think the CPP should consider investing similar to what every similar entity has?

I hate politics so much.