The PCs, 7 of them if you include the Speaker*, voted to end their own contributions to their own RRSPs and have taxpayers cover 100% of the cost. They also voted to create a new transition allowance giving them one month’s pay for every year up to a full year’s pay after numerous promises made during the election campaign by Premier Redford saying "on a go forward basis there would be no such thing as transition allowances"
For the record here are the names of the 6* PCs who introduced the motions and voted to soak the taxpayers: Quest, Jablonski, Dorward, Goudreau, Calhasen and Steve Young. ALL opposition MLAs on the committee voted no (Forsyth, Mason and Danielle Smith) or abstained in the case of Raj Sherman.
Today Redford came out and said that she remains against transition pay under any name and claimed not to know the details on the change of having taxpayers foot 100% of the bill for RRSPs.
Funny that, considering Steve Young, the party whip and the one responsible to make sure the PC's follow the party line, was one of the 7 who voted in favour of the changes and to make matters worse tweeted at the time of the Member Services Committee meeting/vote that he was doing so on behalf of the PC caucus!
Steve Young's tweets:
"PC Caucus takes Targeted Benefit Pension off the table at the Member Services Committee due to the small potential liablity (sic)." link
"PC Caucus propose no pension rather an RRSP" link
"With all the talk of pensions PC caucus rejects a pension at Members Services Committee and goes with an RRSP
That's right. These changes to increase their MLA perks and soak the taxpayer were a "PC caucus" decision. At least according to what Young was tweeting. I have asked the Premier's office to clarify.
Alison, I think you may have a little problem here when your own whip votes for something you claim you do not support and while doing so claims to speak for the PC caucus. How you fix it I do not know but it is going to be fun watching PC whip Steve Young whip the vote against the very same transition allowance that he voted FOR when this does come up for a vote in the legislature.
Update: * It has been pointed out that the Speaker as Chair does not vote. This post has been edited to reflect the information.
Sun: Tories pushing to double the amount taxpayers contribute to MLAs RRSP plans to 100%
Herald: Alberta MLAs move to enrich retirement pay.
Related: How Redford has "managed" MLA pay/perks in the past:
6 comments:
Don't blame me I voted Wildrose.
"Don't blame me I voted Wildrose."
LOL, I read that somewhere.
I voted for Wildrose.
Alison has been playing cat and mouse game with the public just to see how we would react then to back down on those requests, since she took over from Stellmack.
The unions bought her therefore she is owned by them to do with as they please.
botsie 14Beware of the Red Ford
I love it! Albertans, you wanted her! You got her! I hope the Tories continue to "stick to us" for another 4 years…
The media party was determined the WR was not going to be given a fair shake and portrayed Smith and co. as homosexual hating rednecks. They even painted their usual nemesis, the Tories, as “progressives” and human rights champions. Never mind the debt/ never mind that every time Redford opened her yapper a billion bucks fell out. Eastern politician’s loved and offered support to our “gay affirming” and “progressive” Red Ali. Albertans lapped it up.
To paraphrase C. Montgomery Burns [you're] now free to wallow in your own crapulence. Enjoy the next four years!
btw I voted for Smith.
It isn't supposed to about the money. It's about "public service" and heavy on the service portion.
I don't run my business or pay myself a wage to pay taxes so that those taxes are to pay for a part-time employee like an MLA's RRSP/pension. Fund your RRSP like I do, out of your own paycheck that you bestow upon yourselves.
You aren't looking for a "career" in public service, when you can be fired after 4 years and then expect the public to fund your brief sojurn as a political pawn.
Did the roads get paved, did you negotiate a reasonable wage settlement for government workers and not leave the people you are supposed to represent - the private sector taxpayer holding a contract that is looking more like you were "working" for the government employee, instead of the other way around?
Why should I feel obligated to pay your retirement fund, when I'm having difficulty funding my own because of government regulation or economic policy that you wanted and not the taxpayer?
Post a Comment