Boy Blunder (Trudeau) does not understand that your innocent until proven guilty and this clown wants to be PM.
Scott Andrews will probably run again in the next election but he will not win . He will split the Left vote and another Crosbie will represent the riding as a Conservative.
Independent MP Andrews slams Trudeau for ‘unprofessional’ sexual harassment investigation
Monday, June 29, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Canadian Gov. Explains the Pension Claw Back for the Canadain Armed Forces & The RCMP
I originally posted this on my other blog The Pinnacles Realm back in 2012. It is an interesting read and will piss off many Vets including me who is one of them.
Here is the story on Bill C-201. Where the CF is referred to, please assume a reference to the RCMP. Any reference to the Canadian Forces Superannuation (CFSA) should also be taken as a reference to the RCMP Superannuation (RCMPSA).
In 1966, members of the CF were paying 6% of their salary into the CFSA. When the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) was integrated with the CFSA (as were all other public service pension plans), CF members continued to pay 6% of their salary into pension benefits. The only change was that 1.8% now went to CPP and 4.2% went to CFSA. Upon retirement, the member receives 2% of his/her best five-year average salary per year or partial year of service.
Members of the CF typically retire well before age 65. When they collect their CFSA upon retirement, it consists of two parts. The larger part (approximately 70%) is the “lifetime benefit” and that amount will continue until the member dies. The smaller part (approximately 30%) is termed the “bridge benefit” and serves to “bridge” the pensioner’s income at the full 2% until age 65, when most people start collecting CPP. Both parts are indexed when the retiree reaches the combination of age and years of service equaling 85, but not before age 55. At the combined 85 and age 55 point, all back-indexing to retirement date is added to the pension benefit and annual indexing commences.
In most cases, the amount of CPP that commences will be at least equal to the amount of the bridge benefit that ceases, thus giving the pensioner a consistent income flow throughout retirement years. This will not be the case under two circumstances.
If the member does not earn taxable income from CF retirement age to age 65, he/she will not have contributed to CPP for that period. Therefore, the amount of CPP eligibility will be less and will likely be less than the bridge benefit, which ceases at age 65. In most cases, working or not is a decision the member makes.
Canadians can draw CPP as early as age 60, with a reduction of 0.5% per month before age 65. Total reduction at age 60 would, therefore, be 30%. That is the amount (plus indexing) that the pensioner will receive for the rest of his/her life. A CF pensioner taking CPP at age 60 will, in effect, be double-dipping the bridge benefit and CPP for five years. This is a good thing, but he/she must be prepared for a reduction in overall benefit when the bridge benefit ceases at age 65. At that point, the remaining integrated CFSA (lifetime benefit) and (reduced) CPP pension benefit will likely be less than the combination of lifetime benefit and bridge benefit. The total pension benefit continues to be indexed. The decision to take CPP early rests with the member.
The CFSA and CPP are working exactly as set up and paid for and do provide for a consistent, indexed level of retirement income for CF members.
The essence of the argument in Bill C-201 is that CF (and RCMP) pensioners should be able to collect both the bridge benefit and CPP beyond age 65. This would amount to “stacking” the CFSA (lifetime and bridge benefits) and CPP, amounting to an approximately 30% increase, even though they haven’t paid for a stacked pension plan. It’s as simple as that.
The cost to implement Bill C-201 would be enormous, with one-time costs (for the CF) being approximately $7 billion and annual costs being approximately $110 million and increasing, according to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Proponents of Bill C-201 suggest that the annual cost of implementation could be covered by diverting CF members’ EI contributions. Annual EI contributions by CF members total only $54 million and would cover less than half the annual cost. In addition, approximately 3,000 CF members use EI benefits every year for maternity leave and parental leave; and those important benefits would be denied. Implementing Bill C-201 would mean an additional contribution amount for each CF member of approximately 2%. For a soldier making $50,000, that would mean $1,000 less take-home pay. Most CF members are above that salary level.
Our government has acted. With the Budget Implementation Act, 2006, the Government approved an amendment to the Canadian Forces, Public Service, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension arrangements. In the case of pension arrangements provided under Part I of the CFSA, this amendment, which will operate in the plan member’s favour, alters the formula used to calculate the pension adjustment for those reaching age 65 in 2008 and beyond. This changes the calculation of the lifetime benefit in that the adjustment factor will be lowered from .7 percent to .625 percent, resulting in an increase in the lifetime pension benefit. Therefore, the dollar amount reduced at age 65 will be less, resulting in increased long-term pension benefit.
The very well organized advocates of Bill C-201 propose a number of what are essentially red herrings.
They point to the lack of consultation and input by CF members in 1966. CF members were not consulted, nor were members of other public pension plans that became integrated at the same time. The CF is not a union and doesn’t get to vote on pay and benefits. The leadership of the CF makes such decisions on behalf of the organization and that will always be the case. Communication of this change was sporadic, at best, but the overall integrated pension benefit remained the same.
They suggest that MPs have exempted themselves from what they call a “clawback” of the bridge benefit. MPs have no input into their pay and benefits package. MPs come and go at all ages and do not collect their pensions until age 55. Like all other public service pension plans, an MP pension is a fixed amount based on years of service and salary (defined benefit) and is indexed in the same way as other pensions. MPs do not collect any bridge benefit from or to any age; therefore, there is nothing to “claw back”. Stirring up resentment against public figures is always easy, but it is intentionally misleading in this case.
They point to petitions signed by 100,000 people in support of Bill C-201. It would be normal for anyone to sign a petition that holds an implied promise of more money. Many former senior officers have signed the petition, even though conversation with many of them reveals that they know it cannot go anywhere. There are a great many more who have not signed. These include many former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and leaders who are acknowledged as being strong supporters of the troops. They know that is simply not a legitimate issue.
Many retired members have responded angrily when Government members have not supported the bill. They send in copies of their CFSA statements that show that, at age 65, their CFSA will be reduced by $xxx per month and that they will lose indexing on that amount. What they don’t include is their CPP statement that says they will receive $xxx per month and that it will be indexed.
They propose emotional arguments about how members of the CF have served and sacrificed – themselves and their families. That is true and we all respect and are grateful for that. Canadians serve voluntarily. They are well paid, well treated, and get excellent trades training and experience for future employment. Retirement benefits are generous by any contemporary standard.
The CF / RCMP pension plans are set up exactly the same way as all other public service pension plans, and most other defined benefit pension plans; e.g. teachers plans. Where would the dominos stop and at what cost, if this bill were to be implemented? Given that Bill C-201 would require a Royal Recommendation, it has no chance of being implemented in any event.
The bottom line is that CF pensioners are getting 100% of what they have paid for and that the integrated CFSA / CPP pension is working exactly as it was set up.
Our Government has taken many steps to improve the quality of life of our veterans and their families. There will always be more that we would like to do. There are issues that are worthy of further action and government is pursuing many of those. We will never break faith with those who have given so much to Canada.
Here is the story on Bill C-201. Where the CF is referred to, please assume a reference to the RCMP. Any reference to the Canadian Forces Superannuation (CFSA) should also be taken as a reference to the RCMP Superannuation (RCMPSA).
In 1966, members of the CF were paying 6% of their salary into the CFSA. When the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) was integrated with the CFSA (as were all other public service pension plans), CF members continued to pay 6% of their salary into pension benefits. The only change was that 1.8% now went to CPP and 4.2% went to CFSA. Upon retirement, the member receives 2% of his/her best five-year average salary per year or partial year of service.
Members of the CF typically retire well before age 65. When they collect their CFSA upon retirement, it consists of two parts. The larger part (approximately 70%) is the “lifetime benefit” and that amount will continue until the member dies. The smaller part (approximately 30%) is termed the “bridge benefit” and serves to “bridge” the pensioner’s income at the full 2% until age 65, when most people start collecting CPP. Both parts are indexed when the retiree reaches the combination of age and years of service equaling 85, but not before age 55. At the combined 85 and age 55 point, all back-indexing to retirement date is added to the pension benefit and annual indexing commences.
In most cases, the amount of CPP that commences will be at least equal to the amount of the bridge benefit that ceases, thus giving the pensioner a consistent income flow throughout retirement years. This will not be the case under two circumstances.
If the member does not earn taxable income from CF retirement age to age 65, he/she will not have contributed to CPP for that period. Therefore, the amount of CPP eligibility will be less and will likely be less than the bridge benefit, which ceases at age 65. In most cases, working or not is a decision the member makes.
Canadians can draw CPP as early as age 60, with a reduction of 0.5% per month before age 65. Total reduction at age 60 would, therefore, be 30%. That is the amount (plus indexing) that the pensioner will receive for the rest of his/her life. A CF pensioner taking CPP at age 60 will, in effect, be double-dipping the bridge benefit and CPP for five years. This is a good thing, but he/she must be prepared for a reduction in overall benefit when the bridge benefit ceases at age 65. At that point, the remaining integrated CFSA (lifetime benefit) and (reduced) CPP pension benefit will likely be less than the combination of lifetime benefit and bridge benefit. The total pension benefit continues to be indexed. The decision to take CPP early rests with the member.
The CFSA and CPP are working exactly as set up and paid for and do provide for a consistent, indexed level of retirement income for CF members.
The essence of the argument in Bill C-201 is that CF (and RCMP) pensioners should be able to collect both the bridge benefit and CPP beyond age 65. This would amount to “stacking” the CFSA (lifetime and bridge benefits) and CPP, amounting to an approximately 30% increase, even though they haven’t paid for a stacked pension plan. It’s as simple as that.
The cost to implement Bill C-201 would be enormous, with one-time costs (for the CF) being approximately $7 billion and annual costs being approximately $110 million and increasing, according to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Proponents of Bill C-201 suggest that the annual cost of implementation could be covered by diverting CF members’ EI contributions. Annual EI contributions by CF members total only $54 million and would cover less than half the annual cost. In addition, approximately 3,000 CF members use EI benefits every year for maternity leave and parental leave; and those important benefits would be denied. Implementing Bill C-201 would mean an additional contribution amount for each CF member of approximately 2%. For a soldier making $50,000, that would mean $1,000 less take-home pay. Most CF members are above that salary level.
Our government has acted. With the Budget Implementation Act, 2006, the Government approved an amendment to the Canadian Forces, Public Service, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension arrangements. In the case of pension arrangements provided under Part I of the CFSA, this amendment, which will operate in the plan member’s favour, alters the formula used to calculate the pension adjustment for those reaching age 65 in 2008 and beyond. This changes the calculation of the lifetime benefit in that the adjustment factor will be lowered from .7 percent to .625 percent, resulting in an increase in the lifetime pension benefit. Therefore, the dollar amount reduced at age 65 will be less, resulting in increased long-term pension benefit.
The very well organized advocates of Bill C-201 propose a number of what are essentially red herrings.
They point to the lack of consultation and input by CF members in 1966. CF members were not consulted, nor were members of other public pension plans that became integrated at the same time. The CF is not a union and doesn’t get to vote on pay and benefits. The leadership of the CF makes such decisions on behalf of the organization and that will always be the case. Communication of this change was sporadic, at best, but the overall integrated pension benefit remained the same.
They suggest that MPs have exempted themselves from what they call a “clawback” of the bridge benefit. MPs have no input into their pay and benefits package. MPs come and go at all ages and do not collect their pensions until age 55. Like all other public service pension plans, an MP pension is a fixed amount based on years of service and salary (defined benefit) and is indexed in the same way as other pensions. MPs do not collect any bridge benefit from or to any age; therefore, there is nothing to “claw back”. Stirring up resentment against public figures is always easy, but it is intentionally misleading in this case.
They point to petitions signed by 100,000 people in support of Bill C-201. It would be normal for anyone to sign a petition that holds an implied promise of more money. Many former senior officers have signed the petition, even though conversation with many of them reveals that they know it cannot go anywhere. There are a great many more who have not signed. These include many former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and leaders who are acknowledged as being strong supporters of the troops. They know that is simply not a legitimate issue.
Many retired members have responded angrily when Government members have not supported the bill. They send in copies of their CFSA statements that show that, at age 65, their CFSA will be reduced by $xxx per month and that they will lose indexing on that amount. What they don’t include is their CPP statement that says they will receive $xxx per month and that it will be indexed.
They propose emotional arguments about how members of the CF have served and sacrificed – themselves and their families. That is true and we all respect and are grateful for that. Canadians serve voluntarily. They are well paid, well treated, and get excellent trades training and experience for future employment. Retirement benefits are generous by any contemporary standard.
The CF / RCMP pension plans are set up exactly the same way as all other public service pension plans, and most other defined benefit pension plans; e.g. teachers plans. Where would the dominos stop and at what cost, if this bill were to be implemented? Given that Bill C-201 would require a Royal Recommendation, it has no chance of being implemented in any event.
The bottom line is that CF pensioners are getting 100% of what they have paid for and that the integrated CFSA / CPP pension is working exactly as it was set up.
Our Government has taken many steps to improve the quality of life of our veterans and their families. There will always be more that we would like to do. There are issues that are worthy of further action and government is pursuing many of those. We will never break faith with those who have given so much to Canada.
THE POSSIBLE DEMISE OF THE ALBERTA OIL SANDS
With a NDP Provincial Government in Charge of Alberta the following article may become reality.
An article from Calgary Herald by Lisa Corbella written awhile back about the possible future of Alberta's
oil industry.
Quebec and the Fairy Godmother
Today,
let's have some fun and play Fairy Godmother to Quebec. Let's
grant the province the wish it articulated in Copenhagen. Wave
the magic wand and poof, wish granted. Shut down Alberta's
oilsands except, since it's Quebec making the wish, we have to
call it tarsands even though it's not tar they use to run
their Bombardier planes, trains and
Skidoos.
Ah,
at last! The blight on Canada's reputation shut down. All
those dastardly workers from across Canada living in Fort McMurray, Calgary and Edmonton out of jobs, including those waitresses, truck drivers, nurses, teachers, doctors, pilots, engineers etc. They can all go on Employment Insurance like Ontario autoworkers and Quebec parts makers!
Closing
down Alberta's oil industry would immediately stop the
production of 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. Supply and
demand being what it is, oil prices will go up and therefore the cost at the pump will go up too, increasing the cost of everything else.
But
lost jobs in Alberta and across the country along with higher
gas prices are a small price to pay to save the world and not
"embarrass" Quebecers on the world stage. Not to worry though,
Saudi Arabia, Libya and Nigeria can come to the rescue. You
know, the guys who pump money into al-Qaida and help Osama bin
Laden target those Van Doos fighting in Afghanistan. Bloody
oil is so much nicer than dirty tarsands
oil.
Shutting
down the oilsands will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by 38.4 Mt (megatonnes). Hooray! It's so fun to be a
Fairy Godmother! While that sounds like a lot, Canada only
produces two per cent of the world's man-made GHGs and the
oilsands only produce five per cent of Canada 's total
emissions or 0.1 per cent of the world's emissions. By
comparison, the U.S.produces 20.2 per cent of the world's GHG
emissions, 27 per cent of which comes from coal-fired
electricity.
The
530-square-kilometre piece of land currently disturbed by the
oilsands (which is smaller than the John F. Kennedy Space
Center at Cape Canaveral, Fla. at 570 square kilometres) must
be reclaimed by law and will return to Alberta 's 381,000
square kilometres of boreal forest, a huge carbon
sink.
Quebec,
of course, has clean hydro power but more than 13,000 square
kilometres were drowned for the James Bay hydroelectric
project, permanently removing that forest from acting as a
carbon sink.
But
Fairy Godmother is digressing all over the place. While the
oilsands only produce 5 per cent of Canada's GHGs, it
contributes much more to Canada 's economy. After all, oil and gas make up one-quarter of the value on the TSX alone. Alberta is also the largest net contributor per capita by far to Confederation and there are only two more -- B.C. and Ontario .
Quebec
hasn't made a net contribution to the rest of Canada for a
very long time. This is not to be critical (after all, Fairy
Godmothers never criticize), it's just a fact. In 2009, Albertans paid $40.46 billion in income, corporate and other taxes to the federal government and received back just $19.35 billion in services and goods from the feds. That means the rest of Canada got $21.1 billion from Albertans or $5,742 for each and every Alberta man, woman and child. In 2007 (the last year national figures are available), Alberta sent a net contribution of $19.49 billion to the ROC or $5,553 per Albertan -- more than three times what every Ontarian contributes at $1,757. Quebecers, on the other hand, each received $627 net or a total of $8 billion, money which was designed to help "equalize" social programs across the country.
Except,
that's not what is happening. Quebec has more generous social
programs like (nearly) free university tuition (paid for
mostly by Albertans) and cheap provincial day care (paid for
mostly by
Albertans).
But
in this Fairy Godmother world, poof, those delightful unequal
programs have now disappeared! Quel
dommage!
The
July 2009 Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) report
states that between 2008 and 2032, the oilsands will account
for 172,000 person-years of employment in Ontario during the
construction phase, plus 640,000 for operations over the
25-year period. For Quebec, the oilsands will account for
84,000 person-years of employment during the construction
phase, plus 292,000 for operations over the 25-year
period.
In
total, the oilsands are expected to add $1.7 trillion to
Canada 's GDP over the next 25 years.
Wave
wand and poof, jobs gone! So, now that the oil industry has
shut down and left Alberta, Alberta has become a have-not
province and so has every other province. Equality at last!
Hugo Chavez will be so
pleased.
Meeting
our Copenhagen targets suddenly looks possible, as most of us
can't afford to drive our cars or buy anything but
necessities, so manufacturers have closed their doors and
emissions are way
down.
The
dream of many Quebecers to form their own nation and separate
from Canada has died at last. Alas, in Alberta, separatist
sentiment has risen dramatically, citizens vote to separate
and the oil and gas industry
returns.
Albertans
start to pocket that almost $6,000 for each person that used
to get sent elsewhere and now their kids get free tuition.
Fairy Godmother's work is done. Wish granted. Quebecers must
now sign up for a foreign worker visas to work in Alberta to
send their cheques back home so junior can start saving up to
pay for college.
|
Saturday, June 27, 2015
FIFA scandal is getting the Ben Afflect slant
Ben Afflect took a real life event and totally misrepresented the actual facts of what happen to the American hostages in the movie Argo. Ken Taylor the Canadian Ambassador was the real brains behind the protection and getting the hostages out of Iran. Taylor got very little credit for his courage's effort from Afflect.
Argo was fantasy, so lets see how he handles the FIFA Scandal.
FIFA scandal to get Hollywood movie treatment | SOCCER | Soccer | Sports | Toron
Argo was fantasy, so lets see how he handles the FIFA Scandal.
FIFA scandal to get Hollywood movie treatment | SOCCER | Soccer | Sports | Toron
Thursday, June 25, 2015
The Climate Myth Continues
Goldstein calls out the Myth Sayers of Climate Change. Didn't they once call it Global Warming?
As long as Al Gore, David Suzuki. Elizabeth May and Obama keep pouring fuel on the fire of Climate Change, the myth will continue.
The climate ‘consensus’ myth | GOLDSTEIN | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun
As long as Al Gore, David Suzuki. Elizabeth May and Obama keep pouring fuel on the fire of Climate Change, the myth will continue.
The climate ‘consensus’ myth | GOLDSTEIN | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
TRUDEAU'S MIDDLE CLASS BLUNDER.
Canada's middle class richest in study of big nations.
Middle class gainsCanada’s middle class appears to be the richest in a new study of incomes in several big countries.
The in-depth report published today in The New York Times, which looks at about 20 nations, indicates that Canadians have bumped Americans out of the top spot they have long held.
“Middle-class incomes in Canada – substantially behind in 2000 – now appear to be higher than in the United States,” the report says.
“Median income in Canada pulled into a tie with median United States income in 2010 and has most likely surpassed it since then,” it adds.
The New York Times backs up its findings saying they’re based on 35 years of surveys and compiled by LIS, which runs the Luxembourg Income Study Database. The findings were also studied by LIS researchers, along with colleagues at a New York Times website, and outside economists.
The findings show that median per-capita income in Canada, after tax, matched that of the Americans in 2010 at $18,700 (U.S.), However, as the report noted, it has probably increased since.
(As economics professor Anke Kessler of Simon Fraser University pointed out, the current numbers did not take into account countries that have traditionally been ahead of Canada, such as Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg. Indeed, according to one of the researchers involved in the study, Luxembourg is higher.)
“Because the total bounty produced by the American economy has not been growing substantially faster here in recent decades than in Canada or Western Europe, most American workers are left receiving meagre raises,” the New York Times report says.
“Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.”
Douglas Porter of BMO Nesbitt Burns noted that commodity prices, and the Canadian dollar, were strong in 2010, and, of course, the country had an exceptional rebound from the global recession compared to most other countries.
"And, historically, of course, Canada's going to be up there, in any event," he said.
Median income in Canada has climbed by 19.7 per cent since 2000, according to the New York Times report, matching the pace in Britain, ahead of Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and Germany, and far ahead of the meagre 0.3 per cent in the United States.
Wealthy Americans, of course, still come out on top.
According to BMO's Mr. Porter, the report offers some confirmation of what anecdotal and other evidence have suggested.
"I would attribute some of this divergence to the much deeper recession the U.S. suffered through, especially on the employment front," he said.
"U.S. private sector employment finally recouped its recession losses in March, something Canada had accomplished about three years ago. And, payrolls in both U.S. manufacturing and construction are still down about 2 million jobs each from pre-recession levels, both industries that represent relatively well-paying, middle class jobs. In a nutshell, I believe that some of this weakening in the U.S. middle represents the lingering hangover of the most savage U.S. recession in the post-war era."
On top of that, he added, America's emphasis on "low taxes and low social support" oft means stronger income gains in good economic times, and soft incomes in poor times.
According to Statistics Canada, median income in 2010 was just shy of $30,000 (Canadian), while median family income was $76,000.
That, of course, masks the vast differences across the country and across income groups.
Deputy chief economist Benjamin Tal of CIBC World Markets cited the widening income gap in the United States over the past 15 years, and, at a slower pace, in Canada, which he believes is a huge issue.
“It is not that we are doing great (we are not), it is that the U.S. is doing much worse,” Mr. Tal said.
“In my opinion, the widening income gap in the U.S. is the number one economic problem facing the U.S.”
Given that, many manufacturers are now targeting the middle class in emerging economies as that group in America is a “shadow of its former self,” Mr. Tal added while warning about Canada, as well.
“I do believe that the growing income gap in Canada is an important and a significant problem with real macro economic implications,” he said.
“The debate about employment quality and skill mismatch is part of this picture. The fact that we are doing better than the U.S. does not mean that we have to relax about this issue. The opposite is the case.”
Average weekly earnings across the provinces rose last year to $910.74 from $894.71, lowest in Prince Edward Island at $753.58 and highest in Alberta at $1,108.01.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)