Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Jarnhamar]

Not saying those aren't valid questions, for sure

It's unfortunate we always give past governments and ousted politicians a free pass.

I was looking at how much money the 2015-2025 LPC lost or had disappear and the average seemed around $50B.

I'm sure competent investigators could find thousands of cases of criminal activity or fraud being committed.

New governments and politicians don't want to set a precedent because they know they'll be doing the exact same thing.

 

[mariomike]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, once the promised 25 and out pension kicks in, attrition will be even higher, making the dream of adding 1000 new officers even harder to attain and maintain.

Elimination of the 35-year cap on credited service would be an incentive to hang around.

Government of Canada,

The maximum amount of service that may count for a person under the public service pension plan is 35 years

 

[Czech_pivo]

Elimination of the 35-year cap on credited service would be an incentive to hang around.

Government of Canada,

That seems crazy. A person starts working for the Feds at age 22 and by 57 they force them out - crazy.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It's unfortunate we always give past governments and ousted politicians a free pass.

I was looking at how much money the 2015-2025 LPC lost or had disappear and the average seemed around $50B.

I'm sure competent investigators could find thousands of cases of criminal activity or fraud being committed.

New governments and politicians don't want to set a precedent because they know they'll be doing the exact same thing.

Misguided 'good intentions' wastes far more money than crime.

Help make government more effective and efficient and you can reduce some of that wastage.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Misguided 'good intentions' wastes far more money than crime.

Help make government more effective and efficient and you can reduce some of that wastage.

Sometimes I wonder if we should have more 'direct votes' given directly to the individual voters on big ticket items.

Example of one:
"Would you support a reduction on the salary cap on OAS payments before claw backs start from its current level of 94k to a new amount of 75k a year for individuals"

Or
"Do you support the Federal Government building and directly owning a new pipeline to a location on the coast of British Columbia in order to ensure Canadian energy independence. Consultation with and agreement by affected FN will be part of the process from start to finish"

These sort of questions cut across party lines, largely though not always, and it effectively gives all individuals who are able to vote the ability to have direct participation on the process. In essence they now have 'skin in the game.' This is one area that I believe that the US definitely does things better than us - direct voting on issues that politicians are typically afraid to come right out and properly address.

 

[mariomike]

That seems crazy. A person starts working for the Feds at age 22 and by 57 they force them out - crazy.

Right.

The Retirement System of our "muni" department eliminated the 35-year cap in 2021.

Nobody is being forced out.

But, some who would have voluntarily retired when maxed-out, are now choosing to.stay in.

Because they can now continue to accrue credited service beyond 35 years.

I maxed-out when I was 53. I would have appreciated being able to voluntarily accrue credited service beyond that.

Seems likewise at the OPP,

The Ontario Public Service Pension Plan has no maximum; 2% of the average of the best three years earnings x years of service. I know at least one OPP member who went 50 years so retired at 100% (less all the employment deductions). I know several members who have served 40+ years.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Right.

The Retirement System of our "muni" department eliminated the 35-year cap in 2021.

Nobody is being forced out.

But, some who would have voluntarily retired when maxed-out, are now choosing to.stay in.

Because they can now continue to accrue credited service beyond 35 years.

I maxed-out when I was 53. I would have appreciated being able to voluntarily accrue credited service beyond that.

Seems likewise at the OPP,

It almost like a 'Tall Poppy' syndrome - is it done by the Union or the Employer or both working together. Like they don't want a person working another 5yrs and having a better overall pension than the vast majority of the others that retire after 35yrs instead of 40yrs. I believe that if someone if capable of doing their assigned tasks at the overall same level as those around them, they should be allowed to continue doing so for as long as they are able and want to.

 

[captloadie]

Is my understanding wrong that the "35 year cap" is only related to pensionable service. I have had public servants working for me that have had 40+ years in, they just didn't earn any more towards their pensions. Same applies to CAF members who go to the PS. You only get 35 years total, so you could stay in the PS for 30 years after your 35 years in the CAF, but you won't gain any pensionable time.

The changes are only bringing the ability to access an immediate annuity at 25 years, not shuttling people out correct?

 

[Remius]

Is my understanding wrong that the "35 year cap" is only related to pensionable service. I have had public servants working for me that have had 40+ years in, they just didn't earn any more towards their pensions. Same applies to CAF members who go to the PS. You only get 35 years total, so you could stay in the PS for 30 years after your 35 years in the CAF, but you won't gain any pensionable time.

The changes are only bringing the ability to access an immediate annuity at 25 years, not shuttling people out correct?

Correct

 

[Haggis]

That seems crazy. A person starts working for the Feds at age 22 and by 57 they force them out - crazy.

Nobody is being forced out. It's your choice to leave at 35 YOS. One of my co-workers is 71 and still working the line at a major land border and loves their job.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's unfortunate we always give past governments and ousted politicians a free pass.

I was looking at how much money the 2015-2025 LPC lost or had disappear and the average seemed around $50B.

I'm sure competent investigators could find thousands of cases of criminal activity or fraud being committed.

New governments and politicians don't want to set a precedent because they know they'll be doing the exact same thing.

I think we need to reign in what our elected officials can actually do and instead institute more direct democracy.

Elected officials should simply be guardians that keep the lights on and the course steady. Any new law, legislation, rights adjustments or repealing of aforementioned, or spending over X amount requires a plebiscite or referendum to the citizenry.

Direct democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Participatory democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Deliberative democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Remius]

I think we need to reign in what our elected officials can actually do and instead institute more direct democracy.

Elected officials should simple be guardians that keep the lights on and the course steady. Any new law, legislation, rights adjustments or repealing of aforementioned, or spending over X amount requires a plebiscite or referendum to the citizenry.

Direct democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Participatory democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Deliberative democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That leads to tyranny of the majority. The risk of harm to the minority is too high in that system.

It only works in smaller more homogeneous groups.

 

[Czech_pivo]

That leads to tyranny of the majority. The risk of harm to the minority is too high in that system.

It only works in smaller more homogeneous groups.

So you would not be in favour of a question put directly to the electorate for something like building a new pipeline to the WC of Canada and if 50+.01% of the votes were in favour of it that, then the work goes ahead - including all consultations and the necessary 'buy in' from those FN's who's land would be crossed by said pipeline?

Isn't that what a democracy is? If the proper ground rules/process is laid out and agreed upon prior to the question put in front of the electorate and the majority of those who voted for the proposal said 'yes', then what's the issue?

 

[Remius]

So you would not be in favour of a question put directly to the electorate for something like building a new pipeline to the WC of Canada and if 50+.01% of the votes were in favour of it that, then the work goes ahead - including all consultations and the necessary 'buy in' from those FN's who's land would be crossed by said pipeline?

That isn’t what HT was proposing though.

One offs may or can be appropriate. As a system? No.

Isn't that what a democracy is? If the proper ground rules/process is laid out and agreed upon prior to the question put in front of the electorate and the majority of those who voted for the proposal said 'yes', then what's the issue?

The issues are many. Like I said, the tyranny of the majority becomes the norm. It basically can skip checks and balances and overrule basic tenets.

Democracy can come in many forms. Not all of them are good.

 

[Czech_pivo]

That isn’t what HT was proposing though.

One offs may or can be appropriate. As a system? No.

The issues are many. Like I said, the tyranny of the majority becomes the norm. It basically can skip checks and balances and overrule basic tenets.

Democracy can come in many forms. Not all of them are good.

The tyranny of the minority can be just as bad/destructive as the majority.

 

[Remius]

The tyranny of the minority can be just as bad/destructive as the majority.

Sure. Thankfully that isn’t our system either.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Think about all the people tearing their hair out because the US doesn't have pure democracy and does have structures that pit ambition against ambition. We don't have pure democracy, but we don't have many effective oppositional structures, either (see PMO, power of). Plebiscites would militate against what little oppositional structure we have and accelerate a slide towards self-indulgent over-spending and cultural tyranny.

 

[YZT580]

So you would not be in favour of a question put directly to the electorate for something like building a new pipeline to the WC of Canada and if 50+.01% of the votes were in favour of it that, then the work goes ahead - including all consultations and the necessary 'buy in' from those FN's who's land would be crossed by said pipeline?

Isn't that what a democracy is? If the proper ground rules/process is laid out and agreed upon prior to the question put in front of the electorate and the majority of those who voted for the proposal said 'yes', then what's the issue?

The only issues that I would personally favour going to referendum or those regarding constitutional changes. A cleverly worded question can achieve the goal of a minority whilst screwing others e.g. the naming of Thunder Bay when Fort William and Port Arthur amalgamated. There were 3 choices on the ballet one was favoured by those in leadership at the time, I will let you guess which one. Here are the choices: Lakehead, The Lakehead, Thunder Bay. IMHO what is needed is a method of ensuring that an elected government must adhere to its campaigning promises with the attached ability of the voters to force a new election before the 4 years are upl

 

[Halifax Tar]

That leads to tyranny of the majority. The risk of harm to the minority is too high in that system.

It only works in smaller more homogeneous groups.

You can change thresholds so it's not 50 +1%.

You could make the threshold 75% or higher.

For the record, I am aware this often won't go my way often. But I am more concerned about doing the right thing, than getting what I want.

 

[GR66]

So you would not be in favour of a question put directly to the electorate for something like building a new pipeline to the WC of Canada and if 50+.01% of the votes were in favour of it that, then the work goes ahead - including all consultations and the necessary 'buy in' from those FN's who's land would be crossed by said pipeline?

Isn't that what a democracy is? If the proper ground rules/process is laid out and agreed upon prior to the question put in front of the electorate and the majority of those who voted for the proposal said 'yes', then what's the issue?

How informed is the average Canadian on issues like the status of global refineries on the Pacific Rim that are capable of processing the bitumen produced in the oil sands, existing contracts vs capacity of those refineries, projected demand for the product by existing and projected markets, the current spot price of Canadian oil vs other supplies, the oil futures markets, the current and projected production capacities of the various companies working the oil sands, tanker availability and costs, current and projected OPEC production quotas, non-OPEC production, companies that are interested in investing in new pipelines to the West Coast vs other options, pipeline royalty rates and their effect on the selling price of the product, etc., etc., etc.

All of those factors (and many others) would have to be considered when determining the economic viability of a new pipeline to the West Coast. I'm not saying building additional pipelines is a bad idea, but it's very difficult to take extremely complex issues and boil them down to questions that can be answered by a simple "Yes" or "No". For that reason I'm not a fan of the idea of direct democracy through binding referendums that force a government to follow a particular course of action.

I don't however have any serious issues with non-binding referendums that are designed to inform the government of the general opinion of the public on a given issue to help inform their policy choices. If the government chooses not to implement policies that follow the will of the public then they will pay the price at the next election.