NP: Justin Trudeau's Hidden Agenda

[killer_carlson]

Actually Longsuffering, you've accused me of scouring the web for anti-trudeau articles. The articles I posted came from the National Post and not the bowels of the web.

I don't like Trudeau at all and ive never tried to hide it. i'm really ticked off at a guy like Marc Garneau for continually running around and covering Trudeau's mistakes.

But this thread was to discuss the issue of using the CPP to fund infrastructure projects. you are attempting to derail it into something else. Attacking the poster as an attempt to distract from the issue. Nice try.

[Azure]

It is an important issue to discuss. Not sure why people are so up in arms over it.

CPP is important to Canadians and should be setup in such a way that the fund is always there down the road. If we can invest into Canadian infrastructure and make some long term money, we should. Win/win for both sides.

But if the risk is too high, there should be 3rd party people making sure the government doesn't pressure CPP to make the bet investment anyways.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is an important issue to discuss. Not sure why people are so up in arms over it.

CPP is important to Canadians and should be setup in such a way that the fund is always there down the road. If we can invest into Canadian infrastructure and make some long term money, we should. Win/win for both sides.

But if the risk is too high, there should be 3rd party people making sure the government doesn't pressure CPP to make the bet investment anyways.

Which exists according to the CPP Investment Board.

[indes]

As long as there's transparency I don't see this being an issue. The only thing that would concern me is if they use the CPP like a loan with the people paying it back.

ie. CPP investing way more money than needed into an infrastructure project and the funds being diverted elsewhere in the assumption that it's fine because it will just take longer to regain the capital.

[killer_carlson]

On the merits of the idea, I do not like the concept of the government dictating to an arm's length group how and where to invest.

Or for the decision makers on the arm's length board looking over their shoulder because a hot-to-trot MP will replace them with a crony.

That being said, looking at the provincial model, I don't think a guy like Fred Horne would have got too far with the board of AIMCO like he did with AHS:

http://www.aimco.alberta.ca/Who-We-A...d-of-Directors

[CaptainYooh]

I have mixed feelings on the concept itself.

Pro: I've been contributing the legislated maximums to CPP for my entire career. Yet, as it exists, CPP may not be there to support me, because its investment policies have not kept up with inflation (never mind beating the inflation and actually growing). So, should a more aggressive investment policy be on the table as soon as possible to save a nation-wide pension plan? I am 100% in support of it.

Con: I do not want CPP's investment decisions to be formed and influenced by any acting Government. Its primary purpose must be legislated to make money to support seniors; nothing else. Its management must be done by proven and successful money managers and its integrity overseen by an experienced Board of Trustees. If infrastructure propject investments make financial sense, then by all means, invest in it. But not because Trudeau or Harper told you to do so.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

But this thread was to discuss the issue of using the CPP to fund infrastructure projects.

Judging by your title, I am pretty sure this thread is to sling mud and try and ridicule Liberals and their supporters because they are thinking about doing something illicit with the CPP in secret planning sessions.

Except none of that came to be true. And the article that you found has been universally #### on by even CPC supports, so now you're switching gears to save face and make this about something it wasn't originally intended. If it was about the CPP being used for infrastructure, I have a hunch you would have used that in the title.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Judging by your title, I am pretty sure this thread is to sling mud and try and ridicule Liberals and their supporters because they are thinking about doing something illicit with the CPP in secret planning sessions.

Except none of that came to be true. And the article that you found has been universally #### on by even CPC supports, so now you're switching gears to save face and make this about something it wasn't originally intended. If it was about the CPP being used for infrastructure, I have a hunch you would have used that in the title.

You mean the title that identifies the National Post and uses the same headline verbatim from the article?

That title?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Lets say the project was the 407 in Ontario, so basically CPP pays and builds this, and then operates it for the return. The citizens get the infrastructure piece, the CPP gets the profits. Seems to make sense and no one is losing much because presently these projects are run by corporations anyway.

Consider the alternative:

Government issues bonds.
CPP invests in whatever it wants to invest in.

Done this way CPP should be getting a higher rate of return than the government bond rate. That spread is impossible if government is borrowing from CPP.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

You mean the title that identifies the National Post and uses the same headline verbatim from the article?

That title?

You used that provocative title as a means to get across that you think this is underhanded and we should all be up in arms.

I fully believe if your goal as intended was talk about CPP and it's use, you would have titled it as such. I suspect what you were hoping for was more of a Trudeau smear fest.

[killer_carlson]

So let me get this straight - because you don't like Trudeau criticism, you'd have me change the title the journalist used for their own article?

Not going to happen.

The journalist picked their title. I did not. That you object to it is your issue, not mine.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I fully believe if your goal as intended was talk about CPP and it's use, you would have titled it as such. I suspect what you were hoping for was more of a Trudeau smear fest.

The goal was probably to discuss what a senior Liberal, who is all but guaranteed a cabinet position in a Trudeau government, is saying they would use CPP for.

[Chingas]

Where are all of these money making infrastructure projects, and why isn't the government already doing this without funds from the cpp?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

So let me get this straight - because you don't like Trudeau criticism, you'd have me change the title the journalist used for their own article?

Not going to happen.

The journalist picked their title. I did not. That you object to it is your issue, not mine.

Actually, I have no issue with Trudeau criticism. If you don't like the idea of the Liberals using CPP as a means to fund things, that's legit.

Had you titled this "Liberals to use CPP for federal funding," I'd actually question nothing. Especially if you followed it up with your opinion on the matter. Instead you go with the provocative title and then disingenuously feed into it further with your post using innuendo that this was some secret that wasn't meant to get out. Not a direct quote from a senior Liberal to a media member that they are openly looking into this, and that this is a pretty common thing to do.

I don't object to your title. I just don't believe you when you say that it was to "Generate discussion on the CPP use."

Originally Posted by Chingas

Where are all of these money making infrastructure projects, and why isn't the government already doing this without funds from the cpp?

Because they usually go to private companies or the Government has to take out a loan to do them. The thought is CPP is a giant, untouched pool of money. The government can give these contracts to the CPP which won't cost them money and then the CPP remakes the money on the tolls and other money generating schemes created on this infrastructure instead of a private company.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Chingas

Where are all of these money making infrastructure projects, and why isn't the government already doing this without funds from the cpp?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%...te_partnership

This is already happening today. Right now, private enterprises build infrastructure on behalf of the government and then make money from it in the from of user fees. This alleged Liberal proposal would be a similar idea, except CPP would pay for the construction cost up-front in exchange for a long-term, predictable revenue stream.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

... This alleged Liberal proposal would be a similar idea, except CPP would pay for the construction cost up-front in exchange for a long-term, predictable revenue stream.

It's a bit more complicated than that. There are three key issues:

1. What is the acceptable level of investment risk for CPP?
2. Who is allowed to influence and decide on what CPP can and cannot invest in?
3. Who and how is accountable for CPP investments that potentially loose money - money managers/Board of Trustees or the acting Government that forced CPP to invest for some project?

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Actually, I have no issue with Trudeau criticism. If you don't like the idea of the Liberals using CPP as a means to fund things, that's legit.

Had you titled this "Liberals to use CPP for federal funding," I'd actually question nothing. Especially if you followed it up with your opinion on the matter. Instead you go with the provocative title and then disingenuously feed into it further with your post using innuendo that this was some secret that wasn't meant to get out. Not a direct quote from a senior Liberal to a media member that they are openly looking into this, and that this is a pretty common thing to do.

I don't object to your title. I just don't believe you when you say that it was to "Generate discussion on the CPP use."



Because they usually go to private companies or the Government has to take out a loan to do them. The thought is CPP is a giant, untouched pool of money. The government can give these contracts to the CPP which won't cost them money and then the CPP remakes the money on the tolls and other money generating schemes created on this infrastructure instead of a private company.

Bul####

Here is the entire second line of the initial post. I've bolded the question that was asked before you could click the link:

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

You can't handle journalistic critique of Justin Trudeau. Own it.

Happy to take this to PM to not derail the thread.

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%...te_partnership

This is already happening today. Right now, private enterprises build infrastructure on behalf of the government and then make money from it in the from of user fees. This alleged Liberal proposal would be a similar idea, except CPP would pay for the construction cost up-front in exchange for a long-term, predictable revenue stream.

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.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

It's a bit more complicated than that. There are three key issues:

1. What is the acceptable level of investment risk for CPP?
2. Who is allowed to influence and decide on what CPP can and cannot invest in?
3. Who and how is accountable for CPP investments that potentially loose money - money managers/Board of Trustees or the acting Government that forced CPP to invest for some project?

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.

[MarchHare]

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.

Toll roads and airports were the two examples given in the OP's article.

[Edit]
Per the wikipedia article I linked above:

In Canada, public–private partnerships have become significant in both social and infrastructure development. PPP Canada Inc. was created as a Crown corporation with an independent Board of Directors reporting through the Minister of Finance to Parliament. Its mandate is to improve the delivery of public infrastructure by achieving better value, timeliness and accountability to taxpayers, through P3s. The Corporation became operational in February 2009 with the appointments of a chair of the board of directors and a chief executive officer.

PPPs exist in a variety of forms in British Columbia through the focused efforts of Partnerships BC, a company registered under the Business Corporations Act, that is wholly owned by the Province of British Columbia and reports to its shareholder the Minister of Finance. Projects include the Canada Line rapid transit line, the Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre and the Sea-to-Sky Highway project.[38] In Quebec, a number of notable PPPs include the McGill University Health Centre, the new western extension of Autoroute 30 and Université de Montréal's Hospital Research Center.