• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Frank
    July 02, 2010 - 13:31

    This is very interesting when you discover that so many senior citizens who have retired are living below the poverty line. The federal liberals will agree to this, but they are only concerned with the upfront , young voters who seldom vote.
    There seems to be that feeling of putting seniors on the back burners , forgetting that they were the work horses who built this great country.

    On election day politicians offer senior's the service of kings and queens. The next day they are forgotten and given a deaf ear. Who really wants to hear about the below the poverty line conditions, not your politicians?

  • mark
    July 02, 2010 - 13:21

    How about cutting back on the federal contribution to fed civil servant pension plans while extending the minimum retirement age to 60 or above? The fed gov could then contribute the savings to the CPP so that all Canadians will see increased payout after 65.
    This way the civ servant gets a boost in his/her CPP to make up for a portion of their decreased pension benefit, and the rest of the country who are not fortunate enough to land a fed gov job get an increased CPP to help stabilize their retirement.
    Remember, it is the taxes of the non gov workers and the gov revenues realized from the products/services they deliver that pay for the fed gov worker's pension and their CPP.
    Once again Lana you have missed the mark in your effort to promote the union movement at the expense of all others.

  • rollie
    July 02, 2010 - 13:09

    Public pensions should not be reduced, but improved. Employees paid for their pensions over 30/ 35 years and to have the PC's even hint that pensions would be looked at is not the right approach. Also, the CPP intergration with the public pension applied at age 65 should be discontuined now! The only way government will lisen is to continue the fight, and for Lana to keep this issue alive with her message.

  • Frank
    July 01, 2010 - 20:19

    This is very interesting when you discover that so many senior citizens who have retired are living below the poverty line. The federal liberals will agree to this, but they are only concerned with the upfront , young voters who seldom vote.
    There seems to be that feeling of putting seniors on the back burners , forgetting that they were the work horses who built this great country.

    On election day politicians offer senior's the service of kings and queens. The next day they are forgotten and given a deaf ear. Who really wants to hear about the below the poverty line conditions, not your politicians?

  • mark
    July 01, 2010 - 20:05

    How about cutting back on the federal contribution to fed civil servant pension plans while extending the minimum retirement age to 60 or above? The fed gov could then contribute the savings to the CPP so that all Canadians will see increased payout after 65.
    This way the civ servant gets a boost in his/her CPP to make up for a portion of their decreased pension benefit, and the rest of the country who are not fortunate enough to land a fed gov job get an increased CPP to help stabilize their retirement.
    Remember, it is the taxes of the non gov workers and the gov revenues realized from the products/services they deliver that pay for the fed gov worker's pension and their CPP.
    Once again Lana you have missed the mark in your effort to promote the union movement at the expense of all others.

  • rollie
    July 01, 2010 - 19:44

    Public pensions should not be reduced, but improved. Employees paid for their pensions over 30/ 35 years and to have the PC's even hint that pensions would be looked at is not the right approach. Also, the CPP intergration with the public pension applied at age 65 should be discontuined now! The only way government will lisen is to continue the fight, and for Lana to keep this issue alive with her message.