NP: Justin Trudeau's Hidden Agenda

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Chingas

Thanks. I understand the concept but can anyone point me to successful ventures of this type in Canada? I am not aware of too many user pay "infrastructures" currently operating in Canada.

The Cobequid Pass seems to be an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobequid_Pass

I believe it's making a profit for the US company that operates the tolls.

In all honesty I have no problem with the government investing in ventures which are stable enough for long-term profitability.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Obviously I don't know any details about the proposal beyond what was written in the NP article, but I highly suspect it would work like this:

The government identifies an infrastructure project that would be a good candidate for P3-style financing. Rather than offering the contract to private enterprises, CPP instead would get first right of refusal. CPP then does their due diligence and determines if they would receive a good ROI for their investment. If yes, then they fund the project and construction begins. If no, then they pass and the government either finds another source of funding or cancels the project.

The questions in my earlier post must be answered before any decisions on funding any projects by CPP can even be considered. CPP is already investing billions in public, private and mixed instruments (see here). It does invest in infrastructure projects already too. But, supposedly, only based on merits of the investments and not for political reasons. So far, they have not been doing a very good job, unfortunately, from a pure return on investment perspective, but that's not the point of the article (and the OP).

Trudeau is in favour of using CPP money for infrastructure projects, because the Government (and, perhaps, the public) needs to build infrastructure. These are political reasons. This is arguably VERY wrong. It's not up to the Government to make the investment decisions based on needs from the fund allocated for pensions. Hence; the difference.

[V]

Originally Posted by Chingas

Thanks. I understand the concept but can anyone point me to successful ventures of this type in Canada? I am not aware of too many user pay "infrastructures" currently operating in Canada.

The Coquihala would be an example, I imagine.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The questions in my earlier post must be answered before any decisions on funding any projects by CPP can even be considered. CPP is already investing billions in public, private and mixed instruments (see here). It does invest in infrastructure projects already too. But, supposedly, only based on merits of the investments and not for political reasons. So far, they have not been doing a very good job, unfortunately, from a pure return on investment perspective, but that's not the point of the article (and the OP).

Trudeau is in favour of using CPP money for infrastructure projects, because the Government (and, perhaps, the public) needs to build infrastructure. These are political reasons. This is arguably VERY wrong. It's not up to the Government to make the investment decisions based on needs from the fund allocated for pensions. Hence; the difference.

You're assuming that the government will force CPP's hand and dictate that they must invest in whatever infrastructure projects the government wants them to. There have been no details released about the plan yet (beyond the limited information in the NP article), so such an assumption is completely premature. If that is indeed the case, then I would be firmly against the proposal. On the other hand, if it works how I think it will (CPP is given first right of refusal but doesn't have to invest if they don't think they'll get a good ROI), then I think this is a great way to fund the construction of Canadian infrastructure.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You're assuming that the government will force CPP's hand and dictate that they must invest in whatever infrastructure projects the government wants them to. There have been no details released about the plan yet (beyond the limited information in the NP article), so such an assumption is completely premature. If that is indeed the case, then I would be firmly against the proposal. ...

I don't see much misinterpretation here:

Mr. Brison hinted at the party’s thinking when he told Mr. Berthiaume much of the work could be done “off the government balance sheet” by tapping funds from pension plans, including the Canada Pension Plan, into which all working Canadians contribute.

CPP already invests in infrastructure projects where it sees fit. The article suggests that Trudeau and Brison would look beyond that; thus, forcing CPP to make certain investments for political reasons. And, if so, I would also be very much against that.

[Burke Salad]

So the tolls and user fee's would be funded by our tax payers, paying back a premium into our funded CPP?

[CliffFletcher]

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.

If the CPP is insolvent in 20 years, we better prepare for a future where most seniors live in abject poverty. Because a lot of people simply don't have money at the end of the day to put into RRSPs, and a lot of people who do are relying to CPP as a foundation for their retirement with RRSPs topping it up.

But of course there's no reason to believe it will be insolvent other than generalized fear and mistrust.