Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

I think having the media break the accusation would have at least allowed Justin to save diplomatic-face.

Instead of our head of state directly accusing an ally of perpetrating an assassination on our soil he could have stayed at arms-length from the accusations and maintained the "we will wait for the investigation to be complete" line that our other allies are already taking, and he could have avoided the immediate and ongoing backlash from an angry India. International diplomacy is an art, and Justin ain't no Picasso.

I also really really hope that Justin had his ducks in a row before opening his mouth. We shall see.

I agree. Trudeau could have just released a statement about an ongoing investigation without publicly accusing India. Could have got out in front of the media.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Because the media was about to break it. If the media broke the story first, people would be asking "why oh why" didn't the news come from Trudeau first. I don't think the people criticizing the government would be going any easier on him if the Globe and Mail were the ones coming out and making the accusation.

You have two options:

1) Trudeau publicly accuses India of state sponsored assassination on Canadian soil. Causes major rifts between the 2 countries.

2) News story comes out. Trudeau and Liberal go in defense mode and stating there is an ongoing investigation and working hard to get to the right conclusion.

Both choices are tough, one has major diplomatic repercussions, 2nd has political repercussions.

2 is only an issue because of how dismal Liberals looked on Chinese foreign interference where throwing fuel to the raging fire will decimate all election chances the Liberals think they have. Liberals made their bed here, 1 is the better choice politically, at the expense of diplomatic relations early.

In the end it would likely resulted in a similar condemnation once the investigation is completed.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Torture

Sure, but if every province said "I want to leave just like Alberta and I'll take the same math" you'd apparently be at 9x the assets of the entire plan.

Ontario and Alberta alone leaving based on this math would be >100% of assets. It's lunacy and doesn't even withstand the most minimal of scrutiny.

I mean, I haven't reviewed the math but assuming it's as stated (contributions by Albertans, less withdrawals by Albertans brought to present value by the returns on the CPP fund) then if the country split the plan up on that basis it would work out to exactly 100% of assets.

Of course, some provinces whose citizens have taken out much more money than they've put in would have a huge deficit and would have to contribute.

But the fact that apparently more than 50% of the CPP fund FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY has come from excess contributions made by Albertans seems, on the face of it, to suggest that Alberta is in fact getting a bad deal here.

Obviously we can't take half the money and leave, we've already subsidized that, just because it isn't fair doesn't mean we'll get the money back. But it does make, "leave now and stop subsidizing going forward" a potentially more attractive choice.

I'd be strongly in favour of it if I though Aimco could competently manage the money and do so without political interference. Unfortunately I think neither of those are true.

[Torture]

I mean, I haven't reviewed the math but assuming it's as stated (contributions by Albertans, less withdrawals by Albertans brought to present value by the returns on the CPP fund) then if the country split the plan up on that basis it would work out to exactly 100% of assets.

That would be logical, but no, it doesn't. According to Trevor Tombe by the same math Alberta and Ontario would be >100% of assets.

He pegs a more realistic figure at 20-25% which honestly, forget the math, that passes the smell test.
And if you use that instead, we have less assets and have to contribute more so the "win" for Alberta is significantly less.
So our "Alberta Pension Plan" contributions would likely wind up being ~1% lower than CPP for the same benefit [works out to about $34/month for someone earning CPP max], but the APP would be significantly riskier.

[all from Trevor Tombe but Twitter is stupid nowadays so I can't embed at the moment..]

[timun]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'd be strongly in favour of it if I though Aimco could competently manage the money and do so without political interference. Unfortunately I think neither of those are true.

Said it before and I'll say it again: AIMCo-managed funds have performed worse than the CPP and QPP, and they get used as a political tool to help prop up corporate "favourite sons". It's crony capitalism, ultimately, and it's my god-damned money and I want no part of it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Torture

That would be logical, but no, it doesn't. According to Trevor Tombe by the same math Alberta and Ontario would be >100% of assets.

He pegs a more realistic figure at 20-25% which honestly, forget the math, that passes the smell test.
And if you use that instead, we have less assets and have to contribute more so the "win" for Alberta is significantly less.
So our "Alberta Pension Plan" contributions would likely wind up being ~1% lower than CPP for the same benefit [works out to about $34/month for someone earning CPP max], but the APP would be significantly riskier.

[all from Trevor Tombe but Twitter is stupid nowadays so I can't embed at the moment..]

It seems completely plausible to me that Alberta and Ontario would have generated more than 100% of the CPP surplus over time. Quebec isn't involved, and Saskatchewan/Manitoba and the Maritimes have historically lost a big chunk of their young people at the start of their careers. Those provinces have almost certainly received more than they've put in, so their contributions are likely meaningfully negative.

The math still works if it's something like
AB = 50%
ON = 75%
BC = 10%
SK/MB/NB/NL/NS/PE = -35%

From a political point of view, it's going to be impossible to get those provinces to put up the extra money. It's already been spent by seniors who live there, they're not going to give it back.

But if Alberta had a separate plan from the beginning and had hired CPPIB to run it that's the figures we'd be looking at.

I say "hired CPPIB" very deliberately, because any plan that involves AIMCO running the money is a bad plan, imo.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, I haven't reviewed the math but assuming it's as stated (contributions by Albertans, less withdrawals by Albertans brought to present value by the returns on the CPP fund) then if the country split the plan up on that basis it would work out to exactly 100% of assets.

Of course, some provinces whose citizens have taken out much more money than they've put in would have a huge deficit and would have to contribute.

But the fact that apparently more than 50% of the CPP fund FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY has come from excess contributions made by Albertans seems, on the face of it, to suggest that Alberta is in fact getting a bad deal here.

Obviously we can't take half the money and leave, we've already subsidized that, just because it isn't fair doesn't mean we'll get the money back. But it does make, "leave now and stop subsidizing going forward" a potentially more attractive choice.

I'd be strongly in favour of it if I though Aimco could competently manage the money and do so without political interference. Unfortunately I think neither of those are true.

Right, and that's what they want you to believe. That's the only part they are going to hammer on, no matter how much bull#### it's made up of. Facts don't matter anymore, so you can say whatever you want. Isn't it great?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, I haven't reviewed the math but assuming it's as stated (contributions by Albertans, less withdrawals by Albertans brought to present value by the returns on the CPP fund) then if the country split the plan up on that basis it would work out to exactly 100% of assets.

Of course, some provinces whose citizens have taken out much more money than they've put in would have a huge deficit and would have to contribute.

But the fact that apparently more than 50% of the CPP fund FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY has come from excess contributions made by Albertans seems, on the face of it, to suggest that Alberta is in fact getting a bad deal here.

Obviously we can't take half the money and leave, we've already subsidized that, just because it isn't fair doesn't mean we'll get the money back. But it does make, "leave now and stop subsidizing going forward" a potentially more attractive choice.

I'd be strongly in favour of it if I though Aimco could competently manage the money and do so without political interference. Unfortunately I think neither of those are true.

It's not quite so straightforward. For one, someone who works in Alberta but retires in BC, is considered an Albertan when they pay in and a British Columbian when they collect, so that's going to create distortions that make Alberta's share look bigger than it is.

And their figure also seems to rely on the assumption that Alberta is entitled to the returns on their contributions as if they were segregated in a hypothetical account that matched the CPP returns. This creates a huge figure, because Alberta's excessive net contributions are almost entirely composed of contributions from the last 20 years, when the pension plan has done extremely well after it moved from bonds to a more growth-oriented investment portfolio in the '90s.

But the pension doesn't work that way. Individuals don't get higher pension payments because they happened to pay in during a boom period. It's a shared pot of money and you receive payments on the basis of your contributions. So why would a province get extra money beyond what it needs to fund future liabilities on that basis?

The more likely way it would be apportioned would be on the basis of:

Alberta's % of total contributions (16%)
+ 16% of the net returns over the life of the plan
– any payments from CPP to Albertans
– Administrative and other costs

If done that way, then the share is more like 20-25% of current net assets.

[Torture]

It seems completely plausible to me that Alberta and Ontario would have generated more than 100% of the CPP surplus over time. Quebec isn't involved, and Saskatchewan/Manitoba and the Maritimes have historically lost a big chunk of their young people at the start of their careers. Those provinces have almost certainly received more than they've put in, so their contributions are likely meaningfully negative.

Maybe, but why would only the contributions and not the liability of those people count to an APP vs CPP? There's quite a few young workers starting work in Alberta that later return to the Maritimes for instance. Does that mean that Alberta gets the $$$ and then CPP/ the Maritimes get stuck with the cost? "Those provinces" aren't receiving or contributing anything, it's individual workers that are paying into CPP and later getting a pension benefit.

In the fictional world where Alberta has a separate APP, and somebody starts their career in AB then finishes it in NFLD, they'd either get both a CPP & APP at retirement, or they'd transfer their APP to the CPP, but either way Alberta is on the hook for part of that pension.

We're only adding up the contribution side of the balance sheet and leaving the liabilities with CPP which is why the number looks whack.

I don't care how crazy amazing our economy is, there's no way Albertans are entitled to 53% of CPP. It's ludicrous.

[Firebot]

An interestingly timed report:

https://globalnews.ca/news/9961032/f...tion-fox-hunt/

Foreign Interference: RCMP investigate death of B.C. man targeted by China

Operation Fox Hunt is not new, here is an article from 2016

https://globalnews.ca/news/2956396/t...tion-fox-hunt/

Since we are seeing foreign interference at the forefront in the first week of parliament, hopefully we get some serious work put forward on our public inquiry on foreign interference. It's a clearly significant issue and one that has been neglected for far too long.

[Firebot]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sik...modi-1.6974607

Bombshell just dropped, which is why I deliberately haven't criticized Trudeau on his initial announcement. That was an announcement that was not taken lightly considering the severe repercussions.

I think his announcement ahead of the media was a sound decision in this case.

[Fuzz]

Canadian sources say that, when pressed behind closed doors, no Indian official has denied the bombshell allegation at the core of this case — that there is evidence to suggest Indian government involvement in the assassination of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil.

"I can assure you that the decision to share these allegations on the floor of the House of Commons … was not done lightly," Trudeau said Thursday in New York after attending the United Nations General Assembly.

"It was done with the utmost seriousness."

The Canadian government has not released its evidence and has suggested it could emerge during an eventual legal process.

Pretty convincing already.

[activeStick]

I heard from my Indian colleagues today that another Khalistani was murdered in Canada today?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's not quite so straightforward. For one, someone who works in Alberta but retires in BC, is considered an Albertan when they pay in and a British Columbian when they collect, so that's going to create distortions that make Alberta's share look bigger than it is.

This is certainly a good point. If you were just looking at it from a "fairness" point of view, a hypothetical APP would be liable for payments to its retirees wherever they lived. I don't have a sense of how meaningful that is, but you'd certainly want to adjust for it.

Originally Posted by opendoor

And their figure also seems to rely on the assumption that Alberta is entitled to the returns on their contributions as if they were segregated in a hypothetical account that matched the CPP returns. This creates a huge figure, because Alberta's excessive net contributions are almost entirely composed of contributions from the last 20 years, when the pension plan has done extremely well after it moved from bonds to a more growth-oriented investment portfolio in the '90s.

But the pension doesn't work that way. Individuals don't get higher pension payments because they happened to pay in during a boom period. It's a shared pot of money and you receive payments on the basis of your contributions. So why would a province get extra money beyond what it needs to fund future liabilities on that basis?

The more likely way it would be apportioned would be on the basis of:

Alberta's % of total contributions (16%)
+ 16% of the net returns over the life of the plan
– any payments from CPP to Albertans
– Administrative and other costs

If done that way, then the share is more like 20-25% of current net assets.

I'm not quite as sure I agree with this piece. Earlier contributions absolutely shouldn't get credited as a straight percentage, because they produced no excess contributions. Until the reforms of the 1990s, CPP contributions weren't high enough to cover the benefits being earned. It was more like "as long as the population grows geometrically forever it should work out". Basically the early Boomers/greatest generation voted themselves pensions without paying for them. The changes in the 1990s mean that everyone since then is helping to pay off that previous deficit plus funding their own pensions.

At roughly the same time they reformed the investments making them much active, which has also helped with the previous deficit.

All that said, ultimately it doesn't matter. Like anything else, Alberta won't get what it "deserves", if we leave the CPP we'll get what we can negotiate. And I don't see any reason to think Smith (who is an imbecile) will be able to negotiate anything better than a straight $/population deal.

[bizaro86]

There are many different options to combine pension contribution decreases for workers with benefit improvements for seniors in the design of a new APP. This will depend on how that $5 billion in savings is divided between reductions to contribution rates from workers and increases in benefits to seniors. Take our survey to help us understand your thoughts on an Alberta Pension Plan.

This is from the AB government's page on the matter, and it's infuriating. There is absolutely no way that any of that savings should go to higher payments for current CPP recipients. Anyone who had contribution years prior to the changes in the '90s underpaid for the benefits they're getting now.

But that's probably the only way they could get enough popularity to pass. Like everything else, even the ideas they have that are grounded in reality they manage to screw up.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You have two options:

1) Trudeau publicly accuses India of state sponsored assassination on Canadian soil. Causes major rifts between the 2 countries.

2) News story comes out. Trudeau and Liberal go in defense mode and stating there is an ongoing investigation and working hard to get to the right conclusion.

Both choices are tough, one has major diplomatic repercussions, 2nd has political repercussions.

2 is only an issue because of how dismal Liberals looked on Chinese foreign interference where throwing fuel to the raging fire will decimate all election chances the Liberals think they have. Liberals made their bed here, 1 is the better choice politically, at the expense of diplomatic relations early.

In the end it would likely resulted in a similar condemnation once the investigation is completed.

Not sure I would compare China allegedly throwing a couple hundred thousand dollars in political donations with state sponsored murder. One is definitely worse than the other in my opinion.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1705016562246377576

https://twitter.com/user/status/1705015919926235279

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1705016562246377576

Honest question, what do you expect? It’s very early in the process. Via the CBC article, a quote says that it’s likely evidence won’t be produced until a legal process occurs.

To me, if Trudeau presents direct evidence this early, it allows a) India to potentially understand how Canadian intelligence obtained the info, putting our agents at risk or/and, b) puts Indian diplomats at risk if names were to be released.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

It seems pretty obvious why our government doesn't want to disclose everything they know at this point, but some people would rather play team politics and look for a reason for some fake outrage. Gotta love team politics, even when it comes to a Canadian citizen being murdered on Canadian soil.

[bluejays]

I'm not a Justin Trudeau supporter by any stretch (hate all three of them equally, actually), but even the staunchest haters have to admit this is highly unusual for him to go after another country. That alone tells me something is up, and there's some truth to the story. The guy likes sucking up to certain leaders, so this is against the grain. Only part I truly wonder about is why release it now and shoot yourself in the foot by not clarifying further? If you didn't want to clarify further should've stayed quiet or issue a n/c if asked about it. Everything in politics is calculated so something seems off on this one as to why it was announced.