Federal legislators took the high road last week, voting in favour of a bill that brings the pension plan for parliamentarians more in line with the type of retirement stipend the people they work for are likely to receive. Not in terms of total dollars of course – members of parliament are still highly paid and their pensions are proportionate – but at least in terms of the percentage they will contribute to their own retirement funds.
They have scrapped a system where they paid just $11,000 a year and could look forward to an average pension of $54,693 a year beginning at age 55.
While the changes will be phased in to protect those currently sitting in the House of Commons, MPs will eventually contribute $39,000 a year to their pensions, and they won’t be able to collect until they turn 65. That will bring the contribution ratio between MPs and taxpayers very close to the 50-50 split available to most of those private sector workers fortunate enough to have permanent jobs with pension plans including an employer contribution component.
Stephen Harper’s government should get further credit for actually de-politicizing the issue by taking the pension reform measures out of their massive omnibus budget bill and making it a separate vote. This allowed opposition MPs to support the pension changes, without having to agree to every other action in a budget they’re pretty much duty-bound to find fault with – they are called the “opposition” after all. It could be argued the Harper government had little choice but to chip some of the gold plating off MP pension plans, given its last budget sets out a new eligibility rule for Old Age Security that will gradually raise the age of eligibility to 67 from 65, starting in 2023. Refusal to share the pain would hardly play well at the polls next time around.
Still, to give credit where it’s due, this government has taken steps toward correcting a long-standing inequity that has been clearly obvious to taxpayers and politicians alike for decades yet ignored by previous governments of all political stripes. Good for them.
Now, about that budget …
Perhaps the relative ease of passage of this legislation, and the positive public response, should also provide a clue to this and future governments that Canadians prefer their legislation based on logic, rather than ideology.
It might also be an indicator that taxpayers appreciate clear, focused legislation, rather than convoluted omnibus packages. It’s been a long-standing practice of governments seeking to pass unpopular measures to bundle them in wide-ranging bills that often pass with little notice or debate due to the sheer volume of actions under consideration.
The government’s current budget proposal is a 452-page tome that contains changes to regulations on everything from nuclear safety to navigable waters. The bill goes way beyond the type of public finance-related activity expected in a “budget” and becomes a means to expedite implementation of an entire political agenda in one fell swoop.
Canadians deserve a better legislative process, one that includes a reasonable opportunity for debate.
