Taxpayers Paying $18 into MLA Pension Plan for Every $1 Paid by MLAs

Taxpayers Paying $18 into MLA Pension Plan for Every $1 Paid by MLAs

Taxpayers Paying $18 into MLA Pension Plan for Every $1 Paid by MLAs
HALIFAX, NS: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) has crunched the numbers on the MLA pension plan and notwithstanding two independent reviews and reforms in 2011 and 2014, MLA pensions remain a rich golden parachute. Last year, for every $1 contributed by politicians to their pensions, taxpayers contributed $18. That is down slightly from 2010 when the contribution ratio was $22 to $1.
“It’s time for our politicians to do the right thing and scrap this rich pension scheme once and for all,” said Kevin Lacey, Atlantic Director with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF). “The province is broke. Yet, our politicians are accepting this fat pension plan while asking Nova Scotians to accept cuts in services and higher taxes,”
In 2014-15 alone, MLA pensions cost taxpayers $10.4 million.
The calculations on the MLA pension plan come from the “Financial Statements of Members Retiring Allowances Plan And Members Supplementary Retiring Allowances Plan” released by the Nova Scotia Pension Agency.
You can get a copy of the Financial Statements of the MLA Plan HERE
Particulars as to how much each individual MLA is entitled to as of December 31st, 2013 can be found HERE
To see how the $18 to $1 ratio was calculated, you can find more information HERE
A copy of the CTF’s report on MLA pensions from 2010 can be found HERE

Harper:preventing federal scientists from freely sharing their results


As an outsider, I have been following with great interest and deep unease the ongoing story of the federal government’s fight to prevent federal scientists from freely sharing the results of their work. I include myself in the word "we"

This government has used a culture of fear— achieved by de-funding, and the strategic dismissal of key leaders— as a means to suppress the flow of information from federal scientists. This ‘muzzling’ of researchers has been noticed in Canada and indeed around the world.

It has even, astonishingly, become an election issue. When was science ever an election issue? Never before to the best of my knowledge — which shows how bad the situation really is.

For all of these reasons, I was highly suspicious, and unfortunately not the least bit surprised, to learn that Dr. John Wilmshurst, Resource Conservation Manager for one of Canada's most precious natural resources, Jasper National Park, had been fired.

Dr. Wilmshurst is the same scientist who was quoted in the Canadian Press around this time last year for his observations regarding the rapid shrinking of the Athabasca Glacier within Jasper National Park.

In a recent article, Jasper’s Fitzhugh newspaper mentioned the ‘mystery’ of Wilmshurst’s dismissal. While the reason for Dr. Wilmshurst’s dismissal has not been revealed, its news keeps the chill wind blowing on the Canadian scientific community, and on federal researchers in particular.

It is a mystery, but it is also tempting to connect the dots: federal government scientist notes environmental issue relating to climate change, communicates that information to the press, and about a year later that scientist is summarily fired.

Is this yet another skirmish in the government’s ongoing war on information? It could scarcely be more obvious by now that this government does not welcome information, particularly when it reveals instances of economic weakness, environmental decline, or both. Indeed, Jasper’s success as a park and a town that attracts two million visitors a year is directly connected to its fragile environment.

The role of scientists is to acquire and communicate information. In fact, scientists generally believe that it is their responsibility to publish or otherwise publicize data they perceive to be important to the public interest.

Im my opinion no scientist paid with public funds should be compelled to filter the information they collect away from the public simply to keep our politicians happy. We all have the right to decide for ourselves what information is of value. That our government appears to be working so very hard to keep information from us should be deeply troubling to all Canadians who value their democracy and the roles of our institutions within it.

Yet another federal scientist fired may be lost in the noise of the daily news cycle, but as a scientist, I cannot let it pass without voicing my concern for the overall trend. The government of Canada seems to be fighting hard to not just spin but actually suppress the flow of information that we all require to effectively engage in the conversation about the state of our expansive, shockingly beautiful, and vulnerable country.

This is in my opinio,n fundamentally undemocratic and even dangerous in the long term, particularly if we allow ourselves to become accustomed to it. Don't underestimate the insidious decay that will ensue if we continue to allow this government to bury information vital for our nation's integrity.

Just as scientists have a responsibility to communicate research in the public’s interest, Canadians have a responsibility now to stand up for their right to hear what our federal scientists and researchers have to say about issues related to their safety, health and prosperity.

I sincerely hope that Canadians seize the opportunity this October to elect a smart, science-friendly government that respects our democratic values of transparency and accountability.

THE prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, his peculiar hatred for sharing information.


THE prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has called an election for Oct. 19, but he doesn’t want anyone to talk about it. .He has chosen not to participate in the traditional series of debates on national television, confronting his opponents in quieter, less public venues, like the scholarly Munk Debates and CPAC, Canada’s equivalent of CSPAN.  

His own campaign events were subject to gag orders until a public outcry forced him to rescind the forced silence of his supporters."

Mr. Harper’s campaign for re-election has so far been utterly consistent with the personality trait that has defined his tenure as prime minister: his peculiar hatred for sharing information."

Americans have traditionally looked to Canada as a liberal haven, with gun control, universal health care and good public education.But the nine and half years of Mr. Harper’s tenure have seen the slow-motion erosion of that reputation for open, responsible government. His stance has been a know-nothing conservatism, applied broadly and effectively. He has consistently limited the capacity of the public to understand what its government is doing, cloaking himself and his Conservative Party in an entitled secrecy, and the country in ignorance.

His relationship to the press is one of outright hostility. 

At his notoriously brief news conferences, his handlers vet every journalist, picking and choosing who can ask questions. In the usual give-and-take between press and politicians, the hurly-burly of any healthy democracy, he has simply removed the give.

Mr. Harper’s war against science has been even more damaging to the capacity of Canadians to know what their government is doing. The prime minister’s base of support is Alberta, a western province financially dependent on the oil industry, and he has been dedicated to protecting petrochemical companies from having their feelings hurt by any inconvenient research.

In 2012, he tried to defund government research centers in the High Arctic, and placed Canadian environmental scientists under gag orders. That year, National Research Council members were barred from discussing their work on snowfall with the media. Scientists for the governmental agency Environment Canada, under threat of losing their jobs, have been banned from discussing their research without political approval. Mentions of federal climate change research in the Canadian press have dropped 80 percent. The union that represents federal scientists and other professionals has, for the first time in its history, abandoned neutrality to campaign against Mr. Harper.

His active promotion of ignorance extends into the functions of government itself. Most shockingly, he ended the mandatory long-form census, a decision protested by nearly 500 organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Catholic Council of Bishops.


I beleive, in the age of information, he with the aid of Canadian apathy has stripped Canada of its capacity to gather information about itself. The Harper years have seen a subtle darkening of Canadian life. Has anyone else notiuced it besides me?

The darkness has resulted, organically, in one of the most scandal-plagued administrations in Canadian history. Mr. Harper’s tenure coincided with the scandal of Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto who admitted to smoking crack while in office and whose secret life came to light only when Gawker, an American website, broke the story. In a famous video at a Ford family barbecue, Mr. Harper praised the Fords as a “Conservative political dynasty.”

Mr. Harper’s appointments to the Senate — which in Canada is a mercifully impotent body employed strictly for political payoffs — have proved greedier than the norm. Mr. Harper’s chief of staff was forced out for paying off a senator who fudged his expenses. The Mounties have pressed criminal charges.
After the 2011 election, a Conservative staffer, Michael Sona, was convicted of using robocalls to send voters to the wrong polling places in Guelph, Ontario. In the words of the judge, he was guilty of “callous and blatant disregard for the right of people to vote.” In advance of this election, instead of such petty ploys, the Canadian Conservatives have passed the Fair Elections Act, a law with a classically Orwellian title, which not only needlessly tightens the requirements for voting but also has restricted the chief executive of Elections Canada from promoting the act of voting. Mr. Harper seems to think that his job is to prevent democracy. Sadly in my opinion he is backed by Canadian apathy


But in my opinion, the worst of the Harper years is that all this secrecy and informational control have been at the service of no larger vision for the country.

The policies that he has undertaken have been negligible — more irritating distractions than substantial changes. He is “tough on crime,” and so he has built more prisons at great expense at the exact moment when even American conservatives have realized that over-incarceration causes more problems than it solves. Then there is a new law that allows the government to revoke citizenship for dual citizens convicted of terrorism or high treason — effectively creating levels of Canadianness and problems where none existed.
For a man who insists on such intense control, the prime minister has not managed to control much that matters. The argument for all this secrecy was a technocratic impulse — I beleive he imagined Canada as a kind of Singapore, only more polite and rule abiding.
The major foreign policy goal of his tenure was the Keystone Pipeline, which Mr. Harper ultimately failed to deliver. The Canadian dollar has returned to the low levels that once earned it the title of the northern peso. Despite being left in a luxurious position of strength after the global recession, he coasted on what he knew: oil. In the run-up to the election, the Bank of Canada has announced that Canada just had two straight quarters of contraction — the technical definition of a recession. He has been a poor manager by any metric.
The early polls show Mr. Harper trailing, but he’s beaten bad polls before. He has been prime minister for nearly a decade for a reason: He promised a steady and quiet life, undisturbed by painful facts. The Harper years have not been terrible; they’ve just been bland and purposeless.  

Mr. Harper represents the politics of willful ignorance. It has its attractions.
Whether or not he loses, I think he will leave Canada more cenrally governed, ignorant police state than he found it. The real question for the coming election is a simple but grand one: Do Canadians like their country like that?

Art