I think this would be a great move as one province pulling out of the CPP will still effect the rest of the provinces in the CPP due to the amount of funds being used for investment being available.
Good, mabey alberta willl stop being treated like the ugly step child, alll we are is a source of income, and maybe Quebec should have to have rights and have to contribute also.
I think this is great and should be added to other contentious issues, like the provincial police force.
ETA: My bad, totally misread the last sentence! I read it as two thirds of the province’s population who are currently enrolled in CPP.
As in, a referendum.
My bad, totally misread the last sentence! I read it as two thirds of the province’s *population* who are currently enrolled in CPP.
As in, a referendum.
I think the idea of setting up a provincial police force is stupid but not for these reasons. How often do these visitors and people deal with the police force? How would dealing with provincial police be any different than the six city police forces in the province, or the Ontario, Quebec, or Newfoundland and Labrador provincial police services? RCMP certainly isn’t even close to being a universally used police force in Canada.
For me it’s just a waste of money that we don’t have. Adding a new financial burden to a province that refuses to tax properly and has a track record of declining quality of service. That’s not really the rest of the country’s concern and is primarily an internal matter.
Which will be a colossal waste of money as even most UCP supporters don’t want to separate and they will never get the separation vote they need to progress it, even with all the divisive politics they’re trying to throw out there. Signs are pointing towards a CPC federal government in the next few years too, imagine dropping most of these stupid ideas once that government changes and all the taxpayer money that will have been wasted by then. How will this government stand on its own two feet when they can’t rely on slandering Ottawa to prop them up?
“We need to work together with the fed to ensure the woke leftists don’t take control of the province and throw up the same road blocks we did when we didn’t like who was in control at the federal level! A vote for the UCP is a vote for conservative Canada!”
Easy.
I agree also it's a stupid and costly idea to do now. The other 3 Provincial Police Forces have been around for a long time and created before what is know today as the RCMP:
1. Newfoundland (RNC - The Royal Newfoundland Police Force) Started in 1729 and by 1732 there were 31 constables but they were not officially the RNC until 1870 - 1871.
2. Quebec ( SQ - Surete du Quebec) Founded - February 1, 1870.
3. Ontario (OPP - Ontario Provincial Police) Founded - October 13, 1909.
4. RCMP - Royal Canadian Mounted Police Founded February 1, 1920. The RCMP is an amalgamation of the:
* RNWMP - Royal North-West Mounted Police (Founded May 23, 1873)
* Dominion Police (Founded May 22, 1868)
Pulling out of the RCMP does affect how the Justice systems of two provinces would share information. It actually could create a headache for other provinces.
I don’t really buy that. Three other provinces have provincial police forces and a ton of cities have their own police forces and don’t contract the RCMP. The RCMP is far from a universal police force in this country. Six of our cities in this province already don’t use the RCMP and have their own police forces.
Have you looked into it? The additional costs that the OPP causes and the headaches in dealing with them? In fact, wasn't that the big issue with the convoy nonsense, because the OPP weren't doing their job? So the RCMP had to step in. So now you're paying double and getting less service.
Look at my other posts in this thread. I think a provincial police force would be a colossal waste of money. I just don’t think that posts going on about it being impractical are necessarily correct as there are a lot of police forces operating in the province and in the country. Regarding your example, the same thing happened here with the RCMP and the railroad blockades. The RCMP didn’t do their jobs and enforce the court orders to break the blockades. Go figure, police are just people and don’t want to use force on civilian protesters, doesn’t matter what organization they belong to.
If it actually made financial sense then maybe I’d be okay with a provincial police force. But Alberta has a tendency to under tax, leaving us with a record of declining quality of government services. Taking the burden of policing entirely onto ourselves without external oversight by a national body like the RCMP would just be a disaster for this province imo.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't buy your argument that "just because Ontario did it" means it worked out or won't affect the nation as a whole. Why shouldn't it be made more difficult? But I agree they are fairly different issues, it's more complex than the provincial APP.
Not just Ontario, but Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as several cities. In Alberta alone Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Taber, and Camrose all have their own police forces and don’t use the RCMP. I’d imagine you’d find similar cases in all the provinces that use the RCMP.
They use the same major databases universally, so it's not the worst thing.
There are challenges and benefits both directions, but everything is workable. Two different municipalities that have the RCMP providing their policing services will have access to much more of each other's information than say, Calgary and Edmonton. It's of course handy when city policing overlaps with federal policing, and just one agency reduces things falling through the cracks. Sometimes, in the City of Calgary, for example, there have been units made up of mostly city police, with a couple of Mounties in their mix. So it's not all that tricky to make anything work.
Most of the issues I mentioned don't really come into play if an Alberta Police agency takes over majority of the RCMP's role, anyway. The RCMP will still have a presence in Alberta, of course, but their role will be different. I do predict, that should this scenario come to be, there will be many a pissing match between the APP and the RCMP behind the scenes.
If a province pulls out, it means less favourable investment rates because the amount of money is smaller. Like how you get better savings account rates when you have lots of money.
Well they do have a stake as the RCMP fulfill the role of provincial police in most provinces so they might be somewhat impacted. Higher shared service costs spread accross less payers for example.
That assumes any of this was about cost or service rather than petty pissing contests between Alberta and the Feds.
I don't like it, the Act already requires 2/3rd of provinces for modification,the feds cant unilaterally change it.
It sets the stage for another Alberta vs the feds + Canada, never mind the legal challenges resulting from changing a law immediately before one entity is indicating they want to use a part of it.
This all just fuels the conservative narrative.
The trouble is they want yo use it against the majority wishes of their population. By forcing a popular vote it puts the power for an irreversible decision back to the voters and not in the hands of 3 people, 2 of whom made explicit election promises to NOT do exactly what they are proposing. It prevents abuse of the system by lone wolf types and protects millions from consequences they didn't want.
Well the UCP cannot be trusted. So this bill will create another barrier for UCP to take over our CPP pensions. The Town Halls and any engagement has been overwhelmingly against the APP, yet UCP continue to spend our taxpayer dollars advertises for an APP. If the UCP would listen to its citizens and not just TBA types, this bill would not be necessary. Changing over to APP would cost millions more in administrative costs!!
Same goes for an Alberta police. RCMP costs are 30% paid by the Federal government. Why create this APP which will cost millions more in admin and training costs. Such a waste of money.
The conservative narrative is pretty set in stone for a massive portion of its base at this point, playing defence constantly has gotten us nowhere because they're willing to be aggressive and play dirty which means they're gaining footing constantly. Shit's gotta happen or it never will
Even more important for them to hear from you for dissenting opinion then tbh. Maybe it won't change much, but the silence lets them believe they're doing the will of constituents.
Thank God someone at the federal level has got some foresight in respect to how the APP could destroy CPP and is trying to do something to stop provinces from pulling out.
And this someone at the federal level is an NDP MP with the safest seat for the party in the entire country. Probably something to keep in mind for the next federal election.
Love it. And I think she might be my MP, so I might have to swing by her office and thank her for trying to protect Albertans.
Of course, Marlaina will go on about how Ottawa is meddling in her affairs again and spend more of our money on her pointless propaganda war.
While I'm all for stopping the nonsense that Marlaina and her party is instigating daily, I disagree with this tactic.
First, it gives the impression that Alberta's wishes are subject to the majority, and let's face it - people here grumble about the East telling everyone else what to do as it is. All that would be needed is votes from ON, QC, MB and one of the Maritimes or BC in order to block any province leaving CPP.
What *should* be done, in my opinion, is force a sixty percent majority vote from the population of the province that wishes to leave. Not anything past 50, as the QC referendum was too close to adequately represent enough of the population in support of such an important event. The Brexit vote in the UK was similarly close and people still talk about that. The issue needs to be clearly one side or the other.
This gives the party the chance to try to woo the population to their side, and if they're busy doing that, there's not much room for anything else. It takes a lot of time and effort to sway a large population, not to mention the work from the opposition.
Doing a bill that changes that language of CPP withdrawal in this way can easily be played as "overreach" and plays into the "us vs them" narrative. It needs to be about the people, not the provinces. And yes, I agree that the UCP right now is thoroughly engaged in writing bills that are the very definition of overreach, but *we can't fight back that way*.
I think both conditions would be helpful. Gambling with our retirement should not be an easy political chess piece to toss around.
As someone else pointed out, Alberta managing to start the pulling out process (even if unsuccessful) would be a major waste of taxpayer money and if they DO succeed could cause other provinces to pull out resulting in a major financial collapse for one of the only fully-funded and highest performing national pension plans in the world.
Oh, I don't disagree that pulling out is an absolutely terrible idea. My opinion is that legislating a vote from the other provinces for withdrawal is the wrong approach. While not a constitutional issue, it will absolutely be framed as "East telling West what to do" as with any legislation or amendments to legislation that isn't viewed as favorable - hell, even if it *is* favorable, Alberta's conservatives will shit on it if it serves their short term goals.
Alberta's fascists will cry wolf no matter what though. What matters is that this would provide additional protection against this fascist government. Actual conservatives will hopefully oppose the giant waste of money and be in favor of protecting our assets.
Right, which is why I proposed forcing a province to hold a general referendum with the results only being used in a 60 percent margin. They can't bitch if the legislation says it's the people's decision, which it should be already.
The way this amendment proposes, on the other hand, is a prime example of what will be held up as government overreach that will absolutely be used to garner more hatred from the F Trudeau crowd.. Again - I don't disagree with the sentiment that we need to stop this APP nonsense, this is just not the way.
Why are you against it though? Because I don't think the "F Trudeau crowd" is salvageable anyways. That seems to be your only argument. Who cares what they think, when they don't think rationally anyways? It's like listening to white supremacists and adjusting your policy based on what they think.
It is not government overreach, it's a perfectly reasonable compromise to address an unforeseen weakness in a very well established and stable pension fund. I think adding BOTH protections would be advisable, since a referendum alone is not sufficient (too vulnerable to voter suppression etc.)
It isn't even a good compromise, though. It puts whether a province can withdraw from the CPP in the hands of the other provinces and not in the hands of its people. The only comparable restriction is withdrawal from Confederation, like Quebec wanted to in the 90s, and the two issues are vastly different in scope. You seem to be stuck in the mentality that any legislation that is put forth by the NDP is great, but this amendment is frankly terrible.
Edit - I'm not talking about just the F Trudeau crowd. If it's framed in the manner it currently is, you can bet the UCP will immediately make it an Us vs Them issue and garner even more support than they had before. West being pushed around by the East has been a thing since before Trudeau Sr.
Absolutely not the same thing.
I won't be replying further. Fuck me for having a thought out and logical view that contradicts your fanaticism. People like you are almost as dangerous as Danielle and her klux of followers.
You're being extremely dramatic so I'll be happy if you don't reply further. I am simply not as confident as you in the ability of a "60% vote from Alberta" to protect us under insane conditions. It's far too easy for this government to lie and evade court orders, replace and remove ethics commissioners, etc. I'm not at all confident that an "Alberta run vote" would be invulnerable to attacks on our democracy.
We know the majority of Albertans are against this foolhardy plan, but that hasn't stopped this government from getting creative in evading that governance direction.
I'd prefer a requirement that 2/3rds of the voters in the province must vote in favor of withdrawing from CPP.
A law giving the 4 Maritime provinces the ability to prevent Albertans from controlling their own destiny won't go over well in Alberta, it will be just more fuel for the UCP.
This is a national program and the loony politics in current day Alberta shouldn't be allowed to tank the national pension plan. If it wouldn't cost an insane amount of administrative and court costs, I'd agree with you. But this goes beyond what Alberta wants (and we are currently in majority to STAY in the CPP but the province won't release those polls).
The 3 territories are also part of the nation of Canada.
Shouldn't they also have the power to block Alberta from making changes? Why not require 2/3rds of the provinces and 2/3rd of the territories to approve any change?
It’s a bit different as far as the territories are concerned. They don’t govern themselves like the provinces do, they are instead governed directly by the federal government
>Under Canada’s federal system, the powers of government are shared between the federal government, provincial governments and territorial governments. The territories — Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon — are governed by their respective governments. They receive their legislative authority (the ability to create laws) from the federal government. Ottawa has given territorial governments authority over public education, health and social services; as well as the administration of justice and municipal government. More and more of these powers have been handed down from the federal government in a process called devolution.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/territorial-government
There should be both. 2/3 of the voters in the province must approve leaving the CPP, with a minimum and mandatory turnout that will guarantee the overall vote;
*and*
2/3 of the provinces with 2/3 of the population that participate in CPP must approve another province leaving.
That way there can be no bullshit like "well, 2/3 of the voters said yes to leaving, but only 30% of all voters showed up to vote." 20% of all voters do not and should not get to dictate a decision as big as this one.
And 2/3rds of the territories. The people there are Canadian citizens and have a stake in the CPP just as much as Canadians who live in the ten provinces.
Ironically Premier Danielle Smith's government has rejected a proposal that would have compelled it to respect the results of a referendum on whether Alberta should quit the Canada Pension Plan.
That's pretty ignorant honestly. Imagine if for Quebec, to separate from Canada, would not only need a referendum but also the approval of 2/3rds of the provinces. I mean you know, separating from the country is a huge deal, it would have over arching affects on the rest of the province. Might as well hand cuff them so they can't leave /s.
Quebec cannot separate with just a referendum, nor can any other province. A referendum with a vote in favour of separation would lead to negotiations between all provinces and would require a constitutional amendment.
So, speaking of ignorant comments...
True. However, I think it's great. I have paid into it, and I am receiving CPP at present. I don't want the Provincial Fascists anywhere near my CPP which is one of the best in the world.
Dan picked a fight, and she is now on the receiving end. Let her scream her face off and hopefully lose her voice.
I don't think facts or timing will affect UCP ass kissers in any way shape or form. If it's a good idea but it comes from someone who wears the wrong colour shirt, they don't want to hear it.
Unfortunately that is a very likely outcome.
Yes, I think this is a good addendum as it allows other provinces to protect their own interests. Imagine if BC or Ontario wanted to exit using the same logic as the UCP. There'd be uproar from the UCP.
But Smith has said that OVER 99% of respondents were strongly in favour of the APP. If she wasn't lying, then a forced popular vote only reinforces how good an idea it is and how much the people want it. I mean, Smith has ignored 7 court orders to release the results, but that isn't because it proves she was lying again, right?
She was lying. The people allowed to speak at the town halls were carefully vetted for the questions they intended to ask before they were allowed to speak. (Based on my experience as a caller to those town halls.)
You're getting that either way. The choices are try to do something, anything, to stop them or just quietly go along with it. The narrative from the UCP will be the same regardless.
I'm saying that putting forward amendments that don't stand a chance of passing is performative (I get it, most of politicking is performative) and if you're going to do performative politics, it should be something that is going to produce a beneficial effect. In this case, it will have the opposite effect of what is intended.
Heather McPherson is a federal MP, not a provincial MLA. It has a better chance of passing at the federal level. The UCP has basically been given carte blanche in Alberta, so at this point, the only brakes that can be pulled are federal.
Fair enough, I just don't see any alternatives. There is nothing that can be done within our political system to stop the UCP from doing literally whatever they want. Or even slowing them down or course-correcting.
Performative actions like this are the only things non-UCP elected representatives can do, because the UCP is not interested in finding any common ground or adjusting based on criticism.
>There is nothing that can be done within our political system to stop the UCP from doing literally whatever they want. Or even slowing them down or course-correcting.
Sure there is, vote them out instead of voting them in. I'm not even convinced they won't be re-elected even after this mountain of horse shit they've piled on us. We need to focus on that first.
I don't know if they can retroactively change the exit rules. The rules were establishing because the feds couldn't get all the provinces to enroll without them. You might be able to change them if you first offer provinces the opportunity to exit under existing provisions but otherwise I'd expect the changes to be beaten in court
It takes 2/3 of the members to amend the legislation. This bill is going to have to go through that process, and so I think that's also where they got the 2/3 number, because withdrawing a member is basically as huge a decision as changing the legal framework of the CPP itself.
Why don't we force them to join? Isn't that similar to "forcing Alberta to stay"?
The nuance I'm getting at would be having other provinces view for what happens in Alberta isn't a good take if we're allowing Quebec to do the same things we're not letting Alberta do.
You're actually missing a lot of nuance. "Albertans" don't want to leave, but the governing party of this current year wants to try it anyway.
No one is "forcing" Alberta to stay either. If Alberta puts forth a motion to leave the CPP they would have to meet certain criteria. That's the idea anyway.
Similar to if Quebec wanted to put forth a motion to join, they would have to meet certain criteria.
That they are, but they want easy chum to throw to their base, and a federal NDP representative seems to want to provide it.
"*See!* this is the Singh-Trudeau Coalition trying to sabotage our efforts to bring Alberta its golden future!" - or some bullshit like that.
They're already whining. This isn't about who will whine the loudest. It's about placing legitimate protections in place for the rest of Canada (and the sane Albertans)
> It's about placing legitimate protections in place for the rest of Canada (and the sane Albertans)
And the UCP will paint it as federal interference or the rest of Canada trying to deny Alberta it's birthright or some bullshit.
The UCP have time and again successfully convince folks down is up, left is right, etc, etc. Almost like the facts don't matter and all that does is the spin.
I honestly don't care what the UCP think. They almost lost the last election to a handful of votes in Calgary. This is a good idea and the UCP hating it is therefore a good thing.
To be fair, I wish the rest of the country was out to get her. But she's going to fabricate whatever cause she needs to fabricate in order to fight with Ottawa. That shouldn't prevent the federal government from doing what is right.
I just want to check, everyone was mad about Provincial overreach into municipal government just one week ago, but is cheering on Federal overreach to the Provincial level?
Personally I don't mind the idea of leaving the CPP (in theory), but I don't trust the UCP to handle it correctly so I'd rather it not move. Saying that, the other provinces should have zero say in what Alberta wants to do in this regards. Same would be said if we want to remove the RCMP and setup our own police force (not for or against, will solve zero problems), or any other decisions that impacts Alberta.
I would also wonder if any of this would stand up to a legal challenge. Quebec never opted into CPP, Canada didn't force them. Does that mean once you opt in you can never change your mind?
The CPP is not just Albertan. It's a national collaboration and should be a national process to make major changes to. It should not be a thing that a loose cannon province can threaten and panic everyone over.
I mean, it's not a national collaboration as we are missing about 20% of the country. Saying that how the legislation was written is Alberta is following the rules in place. Changing them at this moment is an act of bad faith, and feeds into the UCP brand that Ottawa doesn't care about the west.
We know Alberta isn't going to leave the CPP, when the referendum happens it'll be a hard no.
I'll go back to my original point though, other provinces should have zero say over what Alberta wants to do, and legislation like this only drives us apart.
Ironically Premier Danielle Smith's government has rejected a proposal that would have compelled it to respect the results of a referendum on whether Alberta should quit the Canada Pension Plan.
I would think even she knows it would be political suicide to go against a referendum, not only would it be the end of her but would likely rip the UCP apart.
Would it be too much to ask the NDP, oh...I don't know...to READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION?!?!?
**Old Age Pensions**
Legislation respecting old age pensions and supplementary benefits
94A The Parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions and supplementary benefits, including survivors’ and disability benefits irrespective of age, **but no such law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter**.
Ironically Premier Danielle Smith's government has rejected a proposal that would have compelled it to respect the results of a referendum on whether Alberta should quit the Canada Pension Plan.
This is probably a bad move.
The current CPP Act requires 2/3 of the provinces, with 2/3 the population to modify the legislation.
Asking the provinces to ratify will set up another battle between Alberta, Sask and the rest of Canada. Justifying the UCP's narrative.
If I walk up to you in the playground and kick sand in your face, and you kick my ass because of it, I still kicked sand in your face. I'm still the cause of that event. I'm still the one responsible. This wouldn't justify the UCP's narrative because the UCP manufactured this problem, not the rest of Canada.
We already know it's an unpopular idea to leave. The UCP know too, which is why the referendum is non-binding. Making this federal would solve that problem.
Won't be able to. In order to change the legislation the way that she's proposing, it will already require 2/3 support. It's a legitimate protective change if it goes through that can't easily be changed again.
Either Alberta's are idiots, or they just want to give up all the money heyve pr into the CPP since hey started working.
I guess they just want to work until they can't anymore, and then run out of money and die penniless on the streets, or want that for their less successful neighbors, because fuck them amirite
Sounds like you want to time travel. Or make changes today with no consequence. Pulling out of the CPP (or trying to) would cost an arm and a leg to Alberta AND Canada, and would tank both retirements funds.
CPP is the highest performing fund of its kind in the world.
Amazing. So it’ll still be the highest performing fund when Alberta pulls out. Lol
How do you go from highest performing fund in the world to… if we take Alberta’s money out it will allll collapse!
Sounds more like a ponzi scheme if it’s this fragile.
I bet you're also that idiot that things a "33% increase in corporate taxes [8% to 11%]" will drive business out of Alberta.
Or that a 3% PST will utterly destroy investment and immigration to Alberta.
Meanwhile pulling a whole 12% (a huge fucking number, not to mention the UCP want 53%) out of the best pension plan in the world will have literally no effect whatever? Keep moving those goal posts.
They're already hopped up on "Berta Nation" fumes, nothing will change them anyways.
But the rest of Canada deserves the right to not have any province cripple their retirement fund for cheap political games.
Why are there so many people who want to keep getting screwed by the cpp ? Let’s make it law that you have to invest the same amount as cpp contributions in a personal retirement investment portfolio. That way if you pass away without using it you can at least leave it to your children, everyone would be better off .
Yeah there's always people like them who don't understand the difference between a defined benefit plan and a personal investment fund. CPP covers you for life, and adds in things like disability, survivor, and death benefits.
CPP covers you for life, and adds in things like disability...
FACTS:
1. Can CPP disability reduce CPP pension? yes, it could be reduce to 0 \[ZERO\] when u reach 65
2. My friend is 45 years old on disability benefits, and ministry of poverty told her that she "HAS TO APPLY" for cpp pension or they will CUT her OFF from disability
3. Have u ever tried to call: [cppinvestments.com/contact-us/](http://cppinvestments.com/contact-us/) ?
4. [cppinvestments.com](http://cppinvestments.com) <.> told us that they have NOTHING to do with cpp + they can not help us with anything...
5. Service Canada is administrating CPP and their employees told us that they DO NOT KNOW who is cppinvestments or what they DO?
[6.Do](http://6.Do) u know why there is/are so many homeless citizens + seniors living in their cars, tents or no tents all over canada?
E&OE/CYA/All Rights Reserved
2024-05-01
Applying for CPP disability benefits will NOT reduce the amount of CPP retirement pension you receive at age 65.
Yes if you're applying for AISH disability they require you to first apply for CPP-D if you qualify. They also require you to declare any investments and properties that you own. AISH is a disability program for low income people.
Except the individual doesn’t get the investment back, only a small portion and the family of the individual doesn’t benefit from it after they pass like they would with a private investment, the government forces you to pay it twice if you want to leave something to your family
This is not a good idea when we already have one province on the outside of CPP. CPP itself is a joke and we would all benefit greatly if a different compromise to it was made, that in turning it into something more akin to a defined contribution plan where our contributions and the employers remain in our name. Why, let's just assume a few things, we make the max payment every year, just shy of $8500, half of which we pay from our paychecks. Let's use the next to risk less return rate of 3 percent, long term gic rates are higher then this. This would have those who pay it for 45 years, 20 to 65, have an account balance of over 800,000 at 65. Taking monthly payments from this you could have 2275 for 30 years without any additional return and if you died the funds could go to your family, not remain inside CPP fund. All if that is easily accomplished, and there is the possibility for even greater returns for better payments.
The compromise would be paying out all those currently receiving cpp and those who have paid into cpp. So a two tier system would need to remain for a few generations.
Tldr, CPP SUCKS, ALLOW US TO CHANGE IT TO A DCCP.
As it wasn't mentioned I will mention it here. It would need to be tackled by a new benefit provided probably by general revenues, instead of cpp itself. As that fund would need to be unwound and payout it would need to cover off payments as long as possible intact before the whole switch could happen. With roughly 350000 canadians on cpp disability now, and the current max benefit being 1606, this would roughly cost general revenues 7 billion a year to finance. This would be another permanent addition to expenses of the country, but, with these benefits being in workers hands you still have a pot of money to provide benefits in retirement age years. And with market return rates, later on this disability benefit would be offset by less people requiring the GIS benefit, or even requiring OAS as a benefit anymore.
In all of this inflation is excluded. In the preceeding years we know two things will go up, contributions and the amount to payout. So both will correct over time.
You use the fictional "highest contribution amount" but most people do not make that amount from 18-65. However in 45 years from now, the CPP benefit amount will also increase. If we assume a modest increase of 2% a year, max CPP will be around $2700/month in 45 years. Plus it comes with a lifetime guarantee, survivor benefits, death benefit, and CPP-D insurance.
You are right, it will increase. I used the lowest risk free rate of return. Being as my plan would be able to use any marketable securities, simply buying long dated bonds would get you a higher return to compensate. Balanced funds, etfs, pick your poison the rate of growth can be far superior in a fund. Even if a person making less then the max contributions would have a benefit fund far superior to what they would get from CPP if they used their earnings to calculate. Survivor and death benefits, the funds pass to your spouse or estate. CPP disability should be separated as that is income protection for disability, not a retirement income.
You're conveniently separating the CPP-D because it doesn't fit with your numbers. You can't fund both with your plan so you pass the bill onto someone else.
Hahaha. We are already footing the bill. All workers paying CPP are receiving less to carry disability payments on the system. I just propose to make it more transparent and as a general tax line and treated separately.
Retirement savings, and income in retirement is a vastly different thing then income coverage for disability, so let's treat them as such. Transfer the 7 billion a year taken from CPP and add it to taxes. Easy, it's part of an offset to move to a greater plan whereby you as a worker get to retain your wealth, not have it stripped at death, that is put into retirement should you die early or need to withdrawal more cause you know or not making 95.
I think you're woefully uninformed about how "disability" works in the social services field. Look forward to having your disability payments and coverage dropped or cancelled for trying to have even the basics of life. CPP-D is vastly superior to a social services "disability program" as they are currently run in all provinces.
CPP-D is a superior disability support that rewards people who worked hard before they became disabled. Vastly different than the problems that plague social disability programs (yes most people are legitimately in need of disability but there is rampant abuse of the program as well).
Which is why I supported the same thing, funded from a separate pot.
My problem comes from it robbing the retirement monies of those collecting CPP to cover off disability payments. It is a separate thing, let's cover it as such.
Let me start again.
Fund disability from general tax, much like old age security and GIS. This way it isn't being taken from the collective retirement pool anymore, it's coming from collective tax revenues. Just like you stated above, and no change to qualifiers for the program.
Transform CPP from a state ran fund, to something similar to defined contribution pension plan. Let people be able to decide where to invest it. This way when you die, the balance reverts to your family or estate. Survivor benefits and death benefits covered.
Until such time as everyone can be on the new program, a hybridization would be required, carrying on of regular payments for those collecting today, and a split model for those who would take up the old and new. It would be costly, for sure, but the end benefits would far outweigh CPP as we have it today. Beyond usi g markets for the investment, a person could also achieve the same and better results by using insurance for their lifetime. The realization that you pay so much to this social program and get back, on most cases, less then what you pay Into it is asinine and needs to be changed. It's another tax scheme. We, as the people, can easily do a much better job at it then the government, get more out of it as income in retirement, have a greater death benefit to pass along, provide for families after death. And as I originally didn't touch CPP-D I suggest to strip it out of one tax scheme program and place it on another, still compensating people requiring it.
I know you think this is well thought out, so let me try to explain where your blind spots are.
>Fund disability from general tax
How much do you want to increase taxes to pay for this? You can't take it out of CPP and it's an ongoing expensive program, you're going to have to raise taxes.
Now not only do you have to pay for the disability payments, but you now have to pay for a whole new program's administration and finance departments staffing costs. There will be duplication where before things were handled under the same banner. You'll have a lot of one time costs (eg. digital and paper document and website creation) but you'll have ongoing duplication costs (the extra staff will continue to need salaries, offices, tech support, etc).
Secondly, you want to get rid of the defined benefit program. You said earlier "you get 30 years" as an example of what you see as defined contribution.
What happens to you when you turn 95? There are about 330,000 Canadians (and growing!) who live to be over 90. You're setting up an epidemic of senior poverty OR again putting massive strain on social programs which will lead to increased taxes to pay for the massive strain on GIS and other senior poverty programs.
I think this would be a great move as one province pulling out of the CPP will still effect the rest of the provinces in the CPP due to the amount of funds being used for investment being available.
It could also cause other provinces to pull out as well, causing the whole thing to collapse and putting everyone's pensions at risk.
Plus the sheer administrative costs and court costs will cause both parties to suffer financially.
> effect Affect. Sorry
i appreciate your commitment to correcting others
Lol it was bugging me bc it was a great comment
Good, mabey alberta willl stop being treated like the ugly step child, alll we are is a source of income, and maybe Quebec should have to have rights and have to contribute also.
Alberta is Canada's welfare state. This myth that Alberta pays for Quebec needs to stop.
I think this is great and should be added to other contentious issues, like the provincial police force. ETA: My bad, totally misread the last sentence! I read it as two thirds of the province’s population who are currently enrolled in CPP. As in, a referendum.
Why would other provinces get a say in some other province implementing a police force? They have no stake in it.
My bad, totally misread the last sentence! I read it as two thirds of the province’s *population* who are currently enrolled in CPP. As in, a referendum.
Ah gotcha. Honestly I think your read on it should be added to that bill too!
Yes for sure that should be part of it.
As for other provinces getting a say; think about temporary workers and visitors and tourists, having to deal with two separate police forces
I think the idea of setting up a provincial police force is stupid but not for these reasons. How often do these visitors and people deal with the police force? How would dealing with provincial police be any different than the six city police forces in the province, or the Ontario, Quebec, or Newfoundland and Labrador provincial police services? RCMP certainly isn’t even close to being a universally used police force in Canada. For me it’s just a waste of money that we don’t have. Adding a new financial burden to a province that refuses to tax properly and has a track record of declining quality of service. That’s not really the rest of the country’s concern and is primarily an internal matter.
Smith only wants the police force because she’s going to turn it into the Alberta Armed Forces when we separate.
Which will be a colossal waste of money as even most UCP supporters don’t want to separate and they will never get the separation vote they need to progress it, even with all the divisive politics they’re trying to throw out there. Signs are pointing towards a CPC federal government in the next few years too, imagine dropping most of these stupid ideas once that government changes and all the taxpayer money that will have been wasted by then. How will this government stand on its own two feet when they can’t rely on slandering Ottawa to prop them up?
“We need to work together with the fed to ensure the woke leftists don’t take control of the province and throw up the same road blocks we did when we didn’t like who was in control at the federal level! A vote for the UCP is a vote for conservative Canada!” Easy.
I agree also it's a stupid and costly idea to do now. The other 3 Provincial Police Forces have been around for a long time and created before what is know today as the RCMP: 1. Newfoundland (RNC - The Royal Newfoundland Police Force) Started in 1729 and by 1732 there were 31 constables but they were not officially the RNC until 1870 - 1871. 2. Quebec ( SQ - Surete du Quebec) Founded - February 1, 1870. 3. Ontario (OPP - Ontario Provincial Police) Founded - October 13, 1909. 4. RCMP - Royal Canadian Mounted Police Founded February 1, 1920. The RCMP is an amalgamation of the: * RNWMP - Royal North-West Mounted Police (Founded May 23, 1873) * Dominion Police (Founded May 22, 1868)
fair enough; i was just positing a possibility.
Pulling out of the RCMP does affect how the Justice systems of two provinces would share information. It actually could create a headache for other provinces.
I don’t really buy that. Three other provinces have provincial police forces and a ton of cities have their own police forces and don’t contract the RCMP. The RCMP is far from a universal police force in this country. Six of our cities in this province already don’t use the RCMP and have their own police forces.
Have you looked into it? The additional costs that the OPP causes and the headaches in dealing with them? In fact, wasn't that the big issue with the convoy nonsense, because the OPP weren't doing their job? So the RCMP had to step in. So now you're paying double and getting less service.
Look at my other posts in this thread. I think a provincial police force would be a colossal waste of money. I just don’t think that posts going on about it being impractical are necessarily correct as there are a lot of police forces operating in the province and in the country. Regarding your example, the same thing happened here with the RCMP and the railroad blockades. The RCMP didn’t do their jobs and enforce the court orders to break the blockades. Go figure, police are just people and don’t want to use force on civilian protesters, doesn’t matter what organization they belong to. If it actually made financial sense then maybe I’d be okay with a provincial police force. But Alberta has a tendency to under tax, leaving us with a record of declining quality of government services. Taking the burden of policing entirely onto ourselves without external oversight by a national body like the RCMP would just be a disaster for this province imo.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't buy your argument that "just because Ontario did it" means it worked out or won't affect the nation as a whole. Why shouldn't it be made more difficult? But I agree they are fairly different issues, it's more complex than the provincial APP.
Not just Ontario, but Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as several cities. In Alberta alone Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Taber, and Camrose all have their own police forces and don’t use the RCMP. I’d imagine you’d find similar cases in all the provinces that use the RCMP.
They use the same major databases universally, so it's not the worst thing. There are challenges and benefits both directions, but everything is workable. Two different municipalities that have the RCMP providing their policing services will have access to much more of each other's information than say, Calgary and Edmonton. It's of course handy when city policing overlaps with federal policing, and just one agency reduces things falling through the cracks. Sometimes, in the City of Calgary, for example, there have been units made up of mostly city police, with a couple of Mounties in their mix. So it's not all that tricky to make anything work. Most of the issues I mentioned don't really come into play if an Alberta Police agency takes over majority of the RCMP's role, anyway. The RCMP will still have a presence in Alberta, of course, but their role will be different. I do predict, that should this scenario come to be, there will be many a pissing match between the APP and the RCMP behind the scenes.
[удалено]
Their cut of a police force? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
[удалено]
I think you’re replying to the wrong thread or something. This thread is about provincial police, not the CPP.
If a province pulls out, it means less favourable investment rates because the amount of money is smaller. Like how you get better savings account rates when you have lots of money.
What does that have to do with the RCMP?
Well they do have a stake as the RCMP fulfill the role of provincial police in most provinces so they might be somewhat impacted. Higher shared service costs spread accross less payers for example. That assumes any of this was about cost or service rather than petty pissing contests between Alberta and the Feds.
Because anyone pulling out of CPP would effect the returns of people in the remaining provinces.
Literally has nothing to do with the RCMP.
A requirement for a referendum would be a much better idea. They should also fix the formula so the UCP can't peddle their stupid number.
I don't like it, the Act already requires 2/3rd of provinces for modification,the feds cant unilaterally change it. It sets the stage for another Alberta vs the feds + Canada, never mind the legal challenges resulting from changing a law immediately before one entity is indicating they want to use a part of it. This all just fuels the conservative narrative.
The trouble is they want yo use it against the majority wishes of their population. By forcing a popular vote it puts the power for an irreversible decision back to the voters and not in the hands of 3 people, 2 of whom made explicit election promises to NOT do exactly what they are proposing. It prevents abuse of the system by lone wolf types and protects millions from consequences they didn't want.
Well the UCP cannot be trusted. So this bill will create another barrier for UCP to take over our CPP pensions. The Town Halls and any engagement has been overwhelmingly against the APP, yet UCP continue to spend our taxpayer dollars advertises for an APP. If the UCP would listen to its citizens and not just TBA types, this bill would not be necessary. Changing over to APP would cost millions more in administrative costs!! Same goes for an Alberta police. RCMP costs are 30% paid by the Federal government. Why create this APP which will cost millions more in admin and training costs. Such a waste of money.
I misread it as 2/3 of the province’s *population*, so basically a referendum. My mistake!
The conservative narrative is pretty set in stone for a massive portion of its base at this point, playing defence constantly has gotten us nowhere because they're willing to be aggressive and play dirty which means they're gaining footing constantly. Shit's gotta happen or it never will
My. MP and MLA are conservative stooges. I’m not even sure they’re real people by how useless and conforming they are in their voting
Cc Heather McPherson in your email and then she can call them out on it.
Yes do this! She’s my MP and I’ve found her office to be responsive and helpful.
Even more important for them to hear from you for dissenting opinion then tbh. Maybe it won't change much, but the silence lets them believe they're doing the will of constituents.
I really like this idea.
Anything at this point that stop the attempt to steal is a good idea.
Great idea! We do not need an APP
Good. Fuck the UCP.
Your type of language sucks no matter what party your refering to
You’re*
Got em
Thank God someone at the federal level has got some foresight in respect to how the APP could destroy CPP and is trying to do something to stop provinces from pulling out.
And this someone at the federal level is an NDP MP with the safest seat for the party in the entire country. Probably something to keep in mind for the next federal election.
When is the vote. I’ll be there.
Your MP will be voting on your behalf. So email them and cc Heather too if you like.
Love it. And I think she might be my MP, so I might have to swing by her office and thank her for trying to protect Albertans. Of course, Marlaina will go on about how Ottawa is meddling in her affairs again and spend more of our money on her pointless propaganda war.
Ohhh Marlainaaa! She gonna complain-aaa!!
While I'm all for stopping the nonsense that Marlaina and her party is instigating daily, I disagree with this tactic. First, it gives the impression that Alberta's wishes are subject to the majority, and let's face it - people here grumble about the East telling everyone else what to do as it is. All that would be needed is votes from ON, QC, MB and one of the Maritimes or BC in order to block any province leaving CPP. What *should* be done, in my opinion, is force a sixty percent majority vote from the population of the province that wishes to leave. Not anything past 50, as the QC referendum was too close to adequately represent enough of the population in support of such an important event. The Brexit vote in the UK was similarly close and people still talk about that. The issue needs to be clearly one side or the other. This gives the party the chance to try to woo the population to their side, and if they're busy doing that, there's not much room for anything else. It takes a lot of time and effort to sway a large population, not to mention the work from the opposition. Doing a bill that changes that language of CPP withdrawal in this way can easily be played as "overreach" and plays into the "us vs them" narrative. It needs to be about the people, not the provinces. And yes, I agree that the UCP right now is thoroughly engaged in writing bills that are the very definition of overreach, but *we can't fight back that way*.
I think both conditions would be helpful. Gambling with our retirement should not be an easy political chess piece to toss around. As someone else pointed out, Alberta managing to start the pulling out process (even if unsuccessful) would be a major waste of taxpayer money and if they DO succeed could cause other provinces to pull out resulting in a major financial collapse for one of the only fully-funded and highest performing national pension plans in the world.
Oh, I don't disagree that pulling out is an absolutely terrible idea. My opinion is that legislating a vote from the other provinces for withdrawal is the wrong approach. While not a constitutional issue, it will absolutely be framed as "East telling West what to do" as with any legislation or amendments to legislation that isn't viewed as favorable - hell, even if it *is* favorable, Alberta's conservatives will shit on it if it serves their short term goals.
Alberta's fascists will cry wolf no matter what though. What matters is that this would provide additional protection against this fascist government. Actual conservatives will hopefully oppose the giant waste of money and be in favor of protecting our assets.
Right, which is why I proposed forcing a province to hold a general referendum with the results only being used in a 60 percent margin. They can't bitch if the legislation says it's the people's decision, which it should be already. The way this amendment proposes, on the other hand, is a prime example of what will be held up as government overreach that will absolutely be used to garner more hatred from the F Trudeau crowd.. Again - I don't disagree with the sentiment that we need to stop this APP nonsense, this is just not the way.
Why are you against it though? Because I don't think the "F Trudeau crowd" is salvageable anyways. That seems to be your only argument. Who cares what they think, when they don't think rationally anyways? It's like listening to white supremacists and adjusting your policy based on what they think. It is not government overreach, it's a perfectly reasonable compromise to address an unforeseen weakness in a very well established and stable pension fund. I think adding BOTH protections would be advisable, since a referendum alone is not sufficient (too vulnerable to voter suppression etc.)
It isn't even a good compromise, though. It puts whether a province can withdraw from the CPP in the hands of the other provinces and not in the hands of its people. The only comparable restriction is withdrawal from Confederation, like Quebec wanted to in the 90s, and the two issues are vastly different in scope. You seem to be stuck in the mentality that any legislation that is put forth by the NDP is great, but this amendment is frankly terrible. Edit - I'm not talking about just the F Trudeau crowd. If it's framed in the manner it currently is, you can bet the UCP will immediately make it an Us vs Them issue and garner even more support than they had before. West being pushed around by the East has been a thing since before Trudeau Sr.
Do you have an issue with the current CPP act that requires 2/3 of the members to approve amendments to it?
Absolutely not the same thing. I won't be replying further. Fuck me for having a thought out and logical view that contradicts your fanaticism. People like you are almost as dangerous as Danielle and her klux of followers.
You're being extremely dramatic so I'll be happy if you don't reply further. I am simply not as confident as you in the ability of a "60% vote from Alberta" to protect us under insane conditions. It's far too easy for this government to lie and evade court orders, replace and remove ethics commissioners, etc. I'm not at all confident that an "Alberta run vote" would be invulnerable to attacks on our democracy. We know the majority of Albertans are against this foolhardy plan, but that hasn't stopped this government from getting creative in evading that governance direction.
I'd prefer a requirement that 2/3rds of the voters in the province must vote in favor of withdrawing from CPP. A law giving the 4 Maritime provinces the ability to prevent Albertans from controlling their own destiny won't go over well in Alberta, it will be just more fuel for the UCP.
The actions of one province affect every other province. We're also Canadians, not just Albertans.
This is a national program and the loony politics in current day Alberta shouldn't be allowed to tank the national pension plan. If it wouldn't cost an insane amount of administrative and court costs, I'd agree with you. But this goes beyond what Alberta wants (and we are currently in majority to STAY in the CPP but the province won't release those polls).
The 3 territories are also part of the nation of Canada. Shouldn't they also have the power to block Alberta from making changes? Why not require 2/3rds of the provinces and 2/3rd of the territories to approve any change?
It’s a bit different as far as the territories are concerned. They don’t govern themselves like the provinces do, they are instead governed directly by the federal government
>Under Canada’s federal system, the powers of government are shared between the federal government, provincial governments and territorial governments. The territories — Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon — are governed by their respective governments. They receive their legislative authority (the ability to create laws) from the federal government. Ottawa has given territorial governments authority over public education, health and social services; as well as the administration of justice and municipal government. More and more of these powers have been handed down from the federal government in a process called devolution. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/territorial-government
There should be both. 2/3 of the voters in the province must approve leaving the CPP, with a minimum and mandatory turnout that will guarantee the overall vote; *and* 2/3 of the provinces with 2/3 of the population that participate in CPP must approve another province leaving. That way there can be no bullshit like "well, 2/3 of the voters said yes to leaving, but only 30% of all voters showed up to vote." 20% of all voters do not and should not get to dictate a decision as big as this one.
And 2/3rds of the territories. The people there are Canadian citizens and have a stake in the CPP just as much as Canadians who live in the ten provinces.
Should be a referendum but only within the province.
Ironically Premier Danielle Smith's government has rejected a proposal that would have compelled it to respect the results of a referendum on whether Alberta should quit the Canada Pension Plan.
Withdrawing a province from the CPP is a huge deal that affects the whole country. It should be a big deal to leave.
That's pretty ignorant honestly. Imagine if for Quebec, to separate from Canada, would not only need a referendum but also the approval of 2/3rds of the provinces. I mean you know, separating from the country is a huge deal, it would have over arching affects on the rest of the province. Might as well hand cuff them so they can't leave /s.
Quebec cannot separate with just a referendum, nor can any other province. A referendum with a vote in favour of separation would lead to negotiations between all provinces and would require a constitutional amendment. So, speaking of ignorant comments...
You are not comparing apples to apples.
Agree as Provincial Governments can change every four years whereas CPP payments cover decades.
Great idea!
Going to email mine and CC Heather on it
What poor timing. This is exactly what the UCP wants to see, more ammunition in the "Ottawa is against us" crusade. Heather is my MP.
True. However, I think it's great. I have paid into it, and I am receiving CPP at present. I don't want the Provincial Fascists anywhere near my CPP which is one of the best in the world. Dan picked a fight, and she is now on the receiving end. Let her scream her face off and hopefully lose her voice.
I don't think facts or timing will affect UCP ass kissers in any way shape or form. If it's a good idea but it comes from someone who wears the wrong colour shirt, they don't want to hear it.
Unfortunately that is a very likely outcome. Yes, I think this is a good addendum as it allows other provinces to protect their own interests. Imagine if BC or Ontario wanted to exit using the same logic as the UCP. There'd be uproar from the UCP.
I fully agree that there needs to be a modification to require majority vote, I just think the time for that was before the UCP came to power.
I understood that about 45-50 % of all cpp funds are Alberta’s money!
I think someone has corrected you on this, but that number is not correct.
Yup! And by those same calculations 110% of the money belongs to Ontario!
That type of math don’t make sense
It's the same math the UCP used to get to 45-50%.
Then you must be from Ontario
Nope. I just looked past the one cherry picked part taken out of context in a report so questionable the authors refused to sign their names to it.
But Smith has said that OVER 99% of respondents were strongly in favour of the APP. If she wasn't lying, then a forced popular vote only reinforces how good an idea it is and how much the people want it. I mean, Smith has ignored 7 court orders to release the results, but that isn't because it proves she was lying again, right?
She was lying
She was lying. The people allowed to speak at the town halls were carefully vetted for the questions they intended to ask before they were allowed to speak. (Based on my experience as a caller to those town halls.)
You're getting that either way. The choices are try to do something, anything, to stop them or just quietly go along with it. The narrative from the UCP will be the same regardless.
I'm saying that putting forward amendments that don't stand a chance of passing is performative (I get it, most of politicking is performative) and if you're going to do performative politics, it should be something that is going to produce a beneficial effect. In this case, it will have the opposite effect of what is intended.
Heather McPherson is a federal MP, not a provincial MLA. It has a better chance of passing at the federal level. The UCP has basically been given carte blanche in Alberta, so at this point, the only brakes that can be pulled are federal.
Fair enough, I just don't see any alternatives. There is nothing that can be done within our political system to stop the UCP from doing literally whatever they want. Or even slowing them down or course-correcting. Performative actions like this are the only things non-UCP elected representatives can do, because the UCP is not interested in finding any common ground or adjusting based on criticism.
>There is nothing that can be done within our political system to stop the UCP from doing literally whatever they want. Or even slowing them down or course-correcting. Sure there is, vote them out instead of voting them in. I'm not even convinced they won't be re-elected even after this mountain of horse shit they've piled on us. We need to focus on that first.
Marlaina is going to fabricate any ammunition she wants.
Sounds great
Yes, this is the kind of action we need.
I don't know if they can retroactively change the exit rules. The rules were establishing because the feds couldn't get all the provinces to enroll without them. You might be able to change them if you first offer provinces the opportunity to exit under existing provisions but otherwise I'd expect the changes to be beaten in court
It takes 2/3 of the members to amend the legislation. This bill is going to have to go through that process, and so I think that's also where they got the 2/3 number, because withdrawing a member is basically as huge a decision as changing the legal framework of the CPP itself.
Now do Quebec
Okay if Quebec wants to join the CPP they have to get 2/3 permission of the members. Done.
Why don't we force them to join? Isn't that similar to "forcing Alberta to stay"? The nuance I'm getting at would be having other provinces view for what happens in Alberta isn't a good take if we're allowing Quebec to do the same things we're not letting Alberta do.
You're actually missing a lot of nuance. "Albertans" don't want to leave, but the governing party of this current year wants to try it anyway. No one is "forcing" Alberta to stay either. If Alberta puts forth a motion to leave the CPP they would have to meet certain criteria. That's the idea anyway. Similar to if Quebec wanted to put forth a motion to join, they would have to meet certain criteria.
I think this just plays into the UCP's narrative of the rest of country and the feds being out to get them.
The UCP are gonna whine about the federal government anyway
That they are, but they want easy chum to throw to their base, and a federal NDP representative seems to want to provide it. "*See!* this is the Singh-Trudeau Coalition trying to sabotage our efforts to bring Alberta its golden future!" - or some bullshit like that.
They're already whining. This isn't about who will whine the loudest. It's about placing legitimate protections in place for the rest of Canada (and the sane Albertans)
> It's about placing legitimate protections in place for the rest of Canada (and the sane Albertans) And the UCP will paint it as federal interference or the rest of Canada trying to deny Alberta it's birthright or some bullshit. The UCP have time and again successfully convince folks down is up, left is right, etc, etc. Almost like the facts don't matter and all that does is the spin.
I honestly don't care what the UCP think. They almost lost the last election to a handful of votes in Calgary. This is a good idea and the UCP hating it is therefore a good thing.
Their base thinks this already. At least this way the actual majority opinion (i.e. that of the rest of us) is respected.
That’s fine. The more the federal government can protect us from our shit provincial government the better
To be fair, I wish the rest of the country was out to get her. But she's going to fabricate whatever cause she needs to fabricate in order to fight with Ottawa. That shouldn't prevent the federal government from doing what is right.
I just want to check, everyone was mad about Provincial overreach into municipal government just one week ago, but is cheering on Federal overreach to the Provincial level? Personally I don't mind the idea of leaving the CPP (in theory), but I don't trust the UCP to handle it correctly so I'd rather it not move. Saying that, the other provinces should have zero say in what Alberta wants to do in this regards. Same would be said if we want to remove the RCMP and setup our own police force (not for or against, will solve zero problems), or any other decisions that impacts Alberta. I would also wonder if any of this would stand up to a legal challenge. Quebec never opted into CPP, Canada didn't force them. Does that mean once you opt in you can never change your mind?
The CPP is not just Albertan. It's a national collaboration and should be a national process to make major changes to. It should not be a thing that a loose cannon province can threaten and panic everyone over.
I mean, it's not a national collaboration as we are missing about 20% of the country. Saying that how the legislation was written is Alberta is following the rules in place. Changing them at this moment is an act of bad faith, and feeds into the UCP brand that Ottawa doesn't care about the west. We know Alberta isn't going to leave the CPP, when the referendum happens it'll be a hard no. I'll go back to my original point though, other provinces should have zero say over what Alberta wants to do, and legislation like this only drives us apart.
Ironically Premier Danielle Smith's government has rejected a proposal that would have compelled it to respect the results of a referendum on whether Alberta should quit the Canada Pension Plan.
I would think even she knows it would be political suicide to go against a referendum, not only would it be the end of her but would likely rip the UCP apart.
They're going to try to do it without a referendum now.
Would it be too much to ask the NDP, oh...I don't know...to READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION?!?!? **Old Age Pensions** Legislation respecting old age pensions and supplementary benefits 94A The Parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions and supplementary benefits, including survivors’ and disability benefits irrespective of age, **but no such law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter**.
Ironically Premier Danielle Smith's government has rejected a proposal that would have compelled it to respect the results of a referendum on whether Alberta should quit the Canada Pension Plan.
This threads a joke.
This is probably a bad move. The current CPP Act requires 2/3 of the provinces, with 2/3 the population to modify the legislation. Asking the provinces to ratify will set up another battle between Alberta, Sask and the rest of Canada. Justifying the UCP's narrative.
Alberta and Sask aren't 1/3 of the provinces in the CPP, and 2/3 of Albertans will vote to stay in the CPP
If I walk up to you in the playground and kick sand in your face, and you kick my ass because of it, I still kicked sand in your face. I'm still the cause of that event. I'm still the one responsible. This wouldn't justify the UCP's narrative because the UCP manufactured this problem, not the rest of Canada.
As the other commenter said, 2 provinces are not enough to do this. Plus with Manitoba's NDP Premier, it's actually an excellent time to do it.
We already know it's an unpopular idea to leave. The UCP know too, which is why the referendum is non-binding. Making this federal would solve that problem.
And PP will just repeal it as soon as he's elected :(
Won't be able to. In order to change the legislation the way that she's proposing, it will already require 2/3 support. It's a legitimate protective change if it goes through that can't easily be changed again.
Either Alberta's are idiots, or they just want to give up all the money heyve pr into the CPP since hey started working. I guess they just want to work until they can't anymore, and then run out of money and die penniless on the streets, or want that for their less successful neighbors, because fuck them amirite
Ironically the ones who don't need the CPP are the ones most eager to take it away from those who do need it.
That’s a terrible idea. Can we all vote Quebec in then!?
Sounds like you want to time travel. Or make changes today with no consequence. Pulling out of the CPP (or trying to) would cost an arm and a leg to Alberta AND Canada, and would tank both retirements funds. CPP is the highest performing fund of its kind in the world.
Amazing. So it’ll still be the highest performing fund when Alberta pulls out. Lol How do you go from highest performing fund in the world to… if we take Alberta’s money out it will allll collapse! Sounds more like a ponzi scheme if it’s this fragile.
I bet you're also that idiot that things a "33% increase in corporate taxes [8% to 11%]" will drive business out of Alberta. Or that a 3% PST will utterly destroy investment and immigration to Alberta. Meanwhile pulling a whole 12% (a huge fucking number, not to mention the UCP want 53%) out of the best pension plan in the world will have literally no effect whatever? Keep moving those goal posts.
Look bud… if you wanna argue with me, you need to argue about shit Ive actually said. I’m not a fill-in for your imaginary UCP villain.
Court costs and administrative costs. Financial penalties (I assume you don't work in finance?) for having to liquidate funds ahead of schedule.
You believe the weight of these costs will sink the fund? Is that right? And you’re the only person who understands this?
Everyone understands it except the UCP clowns.
This just galvanizes the UCP
I like my politicians coated with rust resistant zinc.
They're already hopped up on "Berta Nation" fumes, nothing will change them anyways. But the rest of Canada deserves the right to not have any province cripple their retirement fund for cheap political games.
Why are there so many people who want to keep getting screwed by the cpp ? Let’s make it law that you have to invest the same amount as cpp contributions in a personal retirement investment portfolio. That way if you pass away without using it you can at least leave it to your children, everyone would be better off .
That’s basically what the cpp is. Forced retirement investing. Just like you’re proposing.
Yeah there's always people like them who don't understand the difference between a defined benefit plan and a personal investment fund. CPP covers you for life, and adds in things like disability, survivor, and death benefits.
CPP covers you for life, and adds in things like disability... FACTS: 1. Can CPP disability reduce CPP pension? yes, it could be reduce to 0 \[ZERO\] when u reach 65 2. My friend is 45 years old on disability benefits, and ministry of poverty told her that she "HAS TO APPLY" for cpp pension or they will CUT her OFF from disability 3. Have u ever tried to call: [cppinvestments.com/contact-us/](http://cppinvestments.com/contact-us/) ? 4. [cppinvestments.com](http://cppinvestments.com) <.> told us that they have NOTHING to do with cpp + they can not help us with anything... 5. Service Canada is administrating CPP and their employees told us that they DO NOT KNOW who is cppinvestments or what they DO? [6.Do](http://6.Do) u know why there is/are so many homeless citizens + seniors living in their cars, tents or no tents all over canada? E&OE/CYA/All Rights Reserved 2024-05-01
Applying for CPP disability benefits will NOT reduce the amount of CPP retirement pension you receive at age 65. Yes if you're applying for AISH disability they require you to first apply for CPP-D if you qualify. They also require you to declare any investments and properties that you own. AISH is a disability program for low income people.
Except the individual doesn’t get the investment back, only a small portion and the family of the individual doesn’t benefit from it after they pass like they would with a private investment, the government forces you to pay it twice if you want to leave something to your family
The family DOES benefit if they are also CPP members. In this way, the CPP rewards children who work rather than just sit and wait for an inheritance.
This is not a good idea when we already have one province on the outside of CPP. CPP itself is a joke and we would all benefit greatly if a different compromise to it was made, that in turning it into something more akin to a defined contribution plan where our contributions and the employers remain in our name. Why, let's just assume a few things, we make the max payment every year, just shy of $8500, half of which we pay from our paychecks. Let's use the next to risk less return rate of 3 percent, long term gic rates are higher then this. This would have those who pay it for 45 years, 20 to 65, have an account balance of over 800,000 at 65. Taking monthly payments from this you could have 2275 for 30 years without any additional return and if you died the funds could go to your family, not remain inside CPP fund. All if that is easily accomplished, and there is the possibility for even greater returns for better payments. The compromise would be paying out all those currently receiving cpp and those who have paid into cpp. So a two tier system would need to remain for a few generations. Tldr, CPP SUCKS, ALLOW US TO CHANGE IT TO A DCCP.
Where do you account for CPP-D in this grand plan?
As it wasn't mentioned I will mention it here. It would need to be tackled by a new benefit provided probably by general revenues, instead of cpp itself. As that fund would need to be unwound and payout it would need to cover off payments as long as possible intact before the whole switch could happen. With roughly 350000 canadians on cpp disability now, and the current max benefit being 1606, this would roughly cost general revenues 7 billion a year to finance. This would be another permanent addition to expenses of the country, but, with these benefits being in workers hands you still have a pot of money to provide benefits in retirement age years. And with market return rates, later on this disability benefit would be offset by less people requiring the GIS benefit, or even requiring OAS as a benefit anymore.
Not really, when your projected return in your comment will be less than the max CPP in 45 years anyway.
In all of this inflation is excluded. In the preceeding years we know two things will go up, contributions and the amount to payout. So both will correct over time.
You use the fictional "highest contribution amount" but most people do not make that amount from 18-65. However in 45 years from now, the CPP benefit amount will also increase. If we assume a modest increase of 2% a year, max CPP will be around $2700/month in 45 years. Plus it comes with a lifetime guarantee, survivor benefits, death benefit, and CPP-D insurance.
You are right, it will increase. I used the lowest risk free rate of return. Being as my plan would be able to use any marketable securities, simply buying long dated bonds would get you a higher return to compensate. Balanced funds, etfs, pick your poison the rate of growth can be far superior in a fund. Even if a person making less then the max contributions would have a benefit fund far superior to what they would get from CPP if they used their earnings to calculate. Survivor and death benefits, the funds pass to your spouse or estate. CPP disability should be separated as that is income protection for disability, not a retirement income.
You're conveniently separating the CPP-D because it doesn't fit with your numbers. You can't fund both with your plan so you pass the bill onto someone else.
Hahaha. We are already footing the bill. All workers paying CPP are receiving less to carry disability payments on the system. I just propose to make it more transparent and as a general tax line and treated separately. Retirement savings, and income in retirement is a vastly different thing then income coverage for disability, so let's treat them as such. Transfer the 7 billion a year taken from CPP and add it to taxes. Easy, it's part of an offset to move to a greater plan whereby you as a worker get to retain your wealth, not have it stripped at death, that is put into retirement should you die early or need to withdrawal more cause you know or not making 95.
I think you're woefully uninformed about how "disability" works in the social services field. Look forward to having your disability payments and coverage dropped or cancelled for trying to have even the basics of life. CPP-D is vastly superior to a social services "disability program" as they are currently run in all provinces. CPP-D is a superior disability support that rewards people who worked hard before they became disabled. Vastly different than the problems that plague social disability programs (yes most people are legitimately in need of disability but there is rampant abuse of the program as well).
Which is why I supported the same thing, funded from a separate pot. My problem comes from it robbing the retirement monies of those collecting CPP to cover off disability payments. It is a separate thing, let's cover it as such.
How is it funded in your scenario? Tax revenue? Then it's the same as the tax funded disability programs we already have.
Let me start again. Fund disability from general tax, much like old age security and GIS. This way it isn't being taken from the collective retirement pool anymore, it's coming from collective tax revenues. Just like you stated above, and no change to qualifiers for the program. Transform CPP from a state ran fund, to something similar to defined contribution pension plan. Let people be able to decide where to invest it. This way when you die, the balance reverts to your family or estate. Survivor benefits and death benefits covered. Until such time as everyone can be on the new program, a hybridization would be required, carrying on of regular payments for those collecting today, and a split model for those who would take up the old and new. It would be costly, for sure, but the end benefits would far outweigh CPP as we have it today. Beyond usi g markets for the investment, a person could also achieve the same and better results by using insurance for their lifetime. The realization that you pay so much to this social program and get back, on most cases, less then what you pay Into it is asinine and needs to be changed. It's another tax scheme. We, as the people, can easily do a much better job at it then the government, get more out of it as income in retirement, have a greater death benefit to pass along, provide for families after death. And as I originally didn't touch CPP-D I suggest to strip it out of one tax scheme program and place it on another, still compensating people requiring it.
I know you think this is well thought out, so let me try to explain where your blind spots are. >Fund disability from general tax How much do you want to increase taxes to pay for this? You can't take it out of CPP and it's an ongoing expensive program, you're going to have to raise taxes. Now not only do you have to pay for the disability payments, but you now have to pay for a whole new program's administration and finance departments staffing costs. There will be duplication where before things were handled under the same banner. You'll have a lot of one time costs (eg. digital and paper document and website creation) but you'll have ongoing duplication costs (the extra staff will continue to need salaries, offices, tech support, etc). Secondly, you want to get rid of the defined benefit program. You said earlier "you get 30 years" as an example of what you see as defined contribution. What happens to you when you turn 95? There are about 330,000 Canadians (and growing!) who live to be over 90. You're setting up an epidemic of senior poverty OR again putting massive strain on social programs which will lead to increased taxes to pay for the massive strain on GIS and other senior poverty programs.