MPs to debate stripping convicted politicians of their pension


SLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1
MPs to debate stripping convicted politicians of their pension

OTTAWA Parliamentarians this week will consider the merits of a private member's bill that would revoke the pensions of misbehaving colleagues.
The bill Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act is the brainchild of New Brunswick Tory MP John Williamson.
It's inspired by a similar bill the Nova Scotia legislature passed last summer in the wake of a spending scandal that rocked the province.
Williamson's bill, to be debated in the House of Commons on Tuesday, would strip a politician of his/her pension if convicted of an indictable offence committed while in office that results in a sentence of two or more years in prison. It would be retroactive to last June.
Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau are under RCMP investigation. Former senator Mac Harb is also under investigation.
No charges have been laid and no allegations against them have been proven in court.
Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau were suspended without pay in November because of expense claims the Senate deemed out of bounds.
In 2012, MPs passed a bill that reformed their platinum-plated nest egg so that they will each pay just under $39,000 a year by 2017, nearly quadrupling their current pension contributions. The bill also raised the age of eligibility for a full pension from 55 to 65.
Last year, a Canadian Taxpayers Federation report revealed taxpayers chipped in $23 for every $1 an MP contributed to the pension plan.


MPs to debate stripping convicted politicians of their pension | Canada | News | Calgary Sun


I don't want to go so far as to have hope but.....at least someone's willing to talk about something for a change.



And yes, that's $23 that we contribute for every $1 they contribute. We are told to save for ourselves and not be reliant on the taxpayer in retirement though. What a colossal ****ing joke.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#2
Time to bring the system down.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
#3
You bring the weapons I'll bring the snack foods.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+7
#4  Top Rated Post
God it's so F'ing frustrating These same peons threatened to throw me off EI forever two years ago for an overpayment of $400.00 after 25 years of contributions on which I made one claim between jobs. Funny how the standards are different when you are seated at the trough.
 
BornRuff
+1
#5
Passing bills like this to go after specific individuals is really just a side show. The thought process seems to be that if they can get people to focus on somebody else nobody will go after their own pension.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Passing bills like this to go after specific individuals is really just a side show. The thought process seems to be that if they can get people to focus on somebody else nobody will go after their own pension.

That's why it's vitally important to keep reminding everyone of the 23/1 ratio for pension contributions. Know anyone else that gets a deal like that?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Passing bills like this to go after specific individuals is really just a side show. The thought process seems to be that if they can get people to focus on somebody else nobody will go after their own pension.

I agree. The entire process should be outsourced and overseen by an independent auditor.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+1
#8
I don't see anything wrong with doing it on the basis that everyone had their day in court.
Sideshow it is though. Duffy and Wallen were suspended without pay while they have not
been convicted of any crime in a court of law. Therefore if the law was to support itself
they should still get paid. Instead to take the heat off the PMO had them suspended without
pay so it won't reflect on the Prime Minister and it looked like he was doing something.
You cannot propose a new law with wording such as if found guilty when you have already
violated the premiss of democracy that states one is innocent until proven guilty. That law
has already been violated by the highest most powerful people in Canada the PMO office.
WE can't have it both ways. I can't stand Duffy and that crowd but are we going to abide
by our own laws or not?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

I don't see anything wrong with doing it on the basis that everyone had their day in court.
Sideshow it is though. Duffy and Wallen were suspended without pay while they have not
been convicted of any crime in a court of law. Therefore if the law was to support itself
they should still get paid. Instead to take the heat off the PMO had them suspended without
pay so it won't reflect on the Prime Minister and it looked like he was doing something.
You cannot propose a new law with wording such as if found guilty when you have already
violated the premiss of democracy that states one is innocent until proven guilty. That law
has already been violated by the highest most powerful people in Canada the PMO office.
WE can't have it both ways. I can't stand Duffy and that crowd but are we going to abide
by our own laws or not?

It would have been nice if Duffy, Wallen and that other douchebag would have done the right thing and stepped down.
 
BornRuff
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

That's why it's vitally important to keep reminding everyone of the 23/1 ratio for pension contributions. Know anyone else that gets a deal like that?

It does sound like the ratio is changing though, so you have to make sure that whatever number you are quoting is actually correct.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

I don't see anything wrong with doing it on the basis that everyone had their day in court.
Sideshow it is though. Duffy and Wallen were suspended without pay while they have not
been convicted of any crime in a court of law. Therefore if the law was to support itself
they should still get paid. Instead to take the heat off the PMO had them suspended without
pay so it won't reflect on the Prime Minister and it looked like he was doing something.
You cannot propose a new law with wording such as if found guilty when you have already
violated the premiss of democracy that states one is innocent until proven guilty. That law
has already been violated by the highest most powerful people in Canada the PMO office.
WE can't have it both ways. I can't stand Duffy and that crowd but are we going to abide
by our own laws or not?

Well, there is a difference between not being a criminal and acting appropriately on the job. In any other job, there are tons of non criminal things that you can do that would get you fired.

Seeing as they were just political appointees to begin with, there should be ways like this to at least somewhat remove them.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

It does sound like the ratio is changing though, so you have to make sure that whatever number you are quoting is correct

Well it's out of the article and from 2012. Accurate enough for ya?
 
petros
#12
What is there to debate? The taxpayers will obviously say no.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What is there to debate? The taxpayers will obviously say no.

Be nice to be asked at least.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#14
I don't disagree with reimbursing the tax payer but going after pensions seems pretty like a pretty arbitrary punishment.

And for most politicians, they will be rich long before they retire anyway.
 
BornRuff
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Well it's out of the article and from 2012. Accurate enough for ya?

If you read the article, it says that they passed a bill last year that will change the amount that they contribute over the next ~4 years.

"In 2012, MPs passed a bill that reformed their platinum-plated nest egg so that they will each pay just under $39,000 a year by 2017, nearly quadrupling their current pension contributions. The bill also raised the age of eligibility for a full pension from 55 to 65.
Last year, a Canadian Taxpayers Federation report revealed taxpayers chipped in $23 for every $1 an MP contributed to the pension plan."

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I don't disagree with reimbursing the tax payer but going after pensions seems pretty like a pretty arbitrary punishment.

And for most politicians, they will be rich long before they retire anyway.

Canadian politics isn't really that lucrative for the average politician. It is nothing like the states.
 
petros
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I don't disagree with reimbursing the tax payer but going after pensions seems pretty like a pretty arbitrary punishment.

And for most politicians, they will be rich long before they retire anyway.

Why would they be rich?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why would they be rich?

Cause they had union jobs before they became politicians?
 
EagleSmack
+1
#18
This is a great idea. In Mass, politicians who are convicted felons lose their pension.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

This is a great idea. In Mass, politicians who are convicted felons lose their pension.

Yes. Now if we could just reign in all the unconvicted criminals, lol.
 
EagleSmack
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Yes. Now if we could just reign in all the unconvicted criminals, lol.

That is the tricky part.
 
BornRuff
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

This is a great idea. In Mass, politicians who are convicted felons lose their pension.

I think it is a bit sticky. The pension is part of their compensation, so if they have served the years to get a certain pension, it is essentially taking away part of their salary retroactively. It kind of stinks of kangaroo court tactics.

If we are concerned with the cost of pensions for politicians, we really need to look at how to reform them for all politicians going forward, not finding reasons to retroactively strip them from a few individuals.
 

Similar Threads

32
Is stripping for school okay?
by oneiopen | Mar 19th, 2007
no new posts