It might just be me and my overly suspicious nature, but has anyone else considered that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's so-called assault on public pensions is really about something else?
The prevailing notion to date has been the PM's recent pronouncements on austerity and runaway pension costs, made high upon a mountain top in Switzerland overlooking several ruined European economies, should be taken at face value. Given the nature and style of this prime minister, there is reason for seeing his message for exactly what it is.
After all, Harper's Davos message of the dangers of continued massive social spending and presumptions of inevitable Western economic prosperity seemed designed for domestic consumption in advance of the Parliamentary session and budget later this month.
And announcing it this way fits with both his philosophical views and rather ham-handed way of doing things.
Tuesday's further developments, which saw the Conservative government already moving to limit debate on its pension bill, were justified by Government House Leader Peter Van Loan with the laughable notion that this issue had been thoroughly debated in the last federal election campaign 10 months ago. Van Loan took the position the results of that campaign showed "enthusiastic support" for pension reform, including the creation of new Pooled Retirement Pension Plans
Alas, this is how the Harper government does business: Ignore the reality that there was no real debate on this issue in last April's election campaign (which, ironically, centred around Harper's willingness to run roughshod over democratic process). Attempt to stifle any real debate as quickly as you can (in this case, after a mere day) to avoid opposition momentum. And make sure all this dirty work gets done early in the term and while opposition parties are disorganized and leaderless.
This was the formula for the quick demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. Really, it's become the Harper modus operandi.
As dissident and normally unproductive Saskatoon Humboldt MP Brad Trost suggested, there is absolutely no dissension in the ranks of MPs who might be wearing the issue in their ridings because Harper demands "ironclad" party discipline. (Notice that the only thing you've truly heard from our MPs on the this issue is the spouting of party script? Once again, they've demonstrated they're elected to serve the prime minister - not us.)
Add in well-placed supportive comments from supposed experts backing the Harper government and the push is on.
It is for this reason that we're now hearing from the C.D. Howe Institute projections of a possible unfunded liability of $2.8 trillion, largely based on fewer working children paying for more aging babyboomer parents at the current level of benefits. It sounds scary, but it also happens to be at odds with Ottawa's own research, which suggests Canada's pension system is in far better shape than those in Europe. An analysis from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank suggests: "Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes." By most measures, the Canada Pension Plan - shelling out a paltry maximum $11,800 a year per recipient - is very stable.
The prevailing notion to date has been the PM's recent pronouncements on austerity and runaway pension costs, made high upon a mountain top in Switzerland overlooking several ruined European economies, should be taken at face value. Given the nature and style of this prime minister, there is reason for seeing his message for exactly what it is.
After all, Harper's Davos message of the dangers of continued massive social spending and presumptions of inevitable Western economic prosperity seemed designed for domestic consumption in advance of the Parliamentary session and budget later this month.
And announcing it this way fits with both his philosophical views and rather ham-handed way of doing things.
Tuesday's further developments, which saw the Conservative government already moving to limit debate on its pension bill, were justified by Government House Leader Peter Van Loan with the laughable notion that this issue had been thoroughly debated in the last federal election campaign 10 months ago. Van Loan took the position the results of that campaign showed "enthusiastic support" for pension reform, including the creation of new Pooled Retirement Pension Plans
Alas, this is how the Harper government does business: Ignore the reality that there was no real debate on this issue in last April's election campaign (which, ironically, centred around Harper's willingness to run roughshod over democratic process). Attempt to stifle any real debate as quickly as you can (in this case, after a mere day) to avoid opposition momentum. And make sure all this dirty work gets done early in the term and while opposition parties are disorganized and leaderless.
This was the formula for the quick demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. Really, it's become the Harper modus operandi.
As dissident and normally unproductive Saskatoon Humboldt MP Brad Trost suggested, there is absolutely no dissension in the ranks of MPs who might be wearing the issue in their ridings because Harper demands "ironclad" party discipline. (Notice that the only thing you've truly heard from our MPs on the this issue is the spouting of party script? Once again, they've demonstrated they're elected to serve the prime minister - not us.)
Add in well-placed supportive comments from supposed experts backing the Harper government and the push is on.
It is for this reason that we're now hearing from the C.D. Howe Institute projections of a possible unfunded liability of $2.8 trillion, largely based on fewer working children paying for more aging babyboomer parents at the current level of benefits. It sounds scary, but it also happens to be at odds with Ottawa's own research, which suggests Canada's pension system is in far better shape than those in Europe. An analysis from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank suggests: "Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes." By most measures, the Canada Pension Plan - shelling out a paltry maximum $11,800 a year per recipient - is very stable.
Moreover, attacking the CPP and forcing workers to work until 67 years of age doesn't exactly square with MPs' own gold-plated pensions, which quickly gust up to six-figures a year for life if you've managed to get elected three or four times.
But it's also about here where you begin to wonder whether the cunning Harper might be using this pension firestorm to achieve something else.
As a crafty student of politics, Harper would fully understand the dangers of messing with the pensions of seniors who not only vote but also happen to be core Conservative supporters. (Why else has the Harper regime placed such emphasis on the crime bills or even cutting the GST, which has clearly contributed to the deficit mess we are now in?) Moreover, a student of the business like Harper would be well aware of Brian Mulroney's "Good Luck, Charlie Brown" message from seniors who feared his messing in this area. In so many ways, it makes no political sense for Harper to be doing what he's doing.
So, might it be possible that Harper really has other targets in his sights? (The CBC? Bilingualism? Environment? Health and medicare?)
Were it anything but pensions, one would naturally assume this fight is real. But might we be seeing a clever, distracting trial balloon to draw our attention away from other matters in the upcoming budget?
Time will soon tell whether this pension fight is real or a distraction so that the Harper Conservatives can take aim at other things.
But it's also about here where you begin to wonder whether the cunning Harper might be using this pension firestorm to achieve something else.
As a crafty student of politics, Harper would fully understand the dangers of messing with the pensions of seniors who not only vote but also happen to be core Conservative supporters. (Why else has the Harper regime placed such emphasis on the crime bills or even cutting the GST, which has clearly contributed to the deficit mess we are now in?) Moreover, a student of the business like Harper would be well aware of Brian Mulroney's "Good Luck, Charlie Brown" message from seniors who feared his messing in this area. In so many ways, it makes no political sense for Harper to be doing what he's doing.
So, might it be possible that Harper really has other targets in his sights? (The CBC? Bilingualism? Environment? Health and medicare?)
Were it anything but pensions, one would naturally assume this fight is real. But might we be seeing a clever, distracting trial balloon to draw our attention away from other matters in the upcoming budget?
Time will soon tell whether this pension fight is real or a distraction so that the Harper Conservatives can take aim at other things.
Original Article
Source: leader post
Author: Murray Mandryk
No comments:
Post a Comment