I support the provisions contained in this week’s “Budget Implementation Act” dealing with the reform of MP Pensions.  The following are my thoughts on the matter, originally posted January 19, 2012……

Perhaps no area of political discourse is more contentious than the issue of politician compensation. Regardless of whether elected officials set their own remuneration or whether they farm the contentious issue out to a committee of “experts”, invariably the result is generous compensation for elected officials and outrage from the public which pays it. The problem with setting compensation for elected officials is the lack of comparable benchmarks in the private sector.

Having been a lawyer and part-time lobbyist in the private sector and a MLA and MP in the public sector, it is difficult to draw benchmark comparisons between the various roles, duties, time commitments etc. Most MPs cite long hours, extended periods away from home and a brutal travel schedule as the least attractive aspects of our job. But these occupational hazards are not the exclusive obligation of elected officials; certainly Executives of successful corporations experience similar constraints on their time and personal lives. Others argue that the lack of tenure and potential for abrupt dismissal without cause requires attractive compensation to attract a high quality of candidates. Fair enough, but a fickle electorate is not necessarily more judgemental than a disappointed Board of Directors or a cranky boss!

So politicians’ lives and tenures may not be as unique as we sometimes think. That being said, MPs. MLAs, Mayors and Counsellors ought to be generously and competitively compensated. The key word is “competitively” not “outrageously”. In fact, the issue with the salaries of MPs rarely comes under much scrutiny and appropriately not, in my view. The base salary of $157k is, I suspect, comparable, and therefore defensible, compensation compared to jobs in the private sector with comparable duties and time commitments. In fact, a compelling argument can be made that the Prime Minister is grossly underpaid at $315k when compared to what CEO’s of major corporations in the private sector earn.

However, all comparisons break down quickly when the issue of MP pensions come under scrutiny. Few, if any, in the private sector enjoy defined benefit pension plans. Regardless of how markets perform, the entitlement that a MP enjoys is defined and constant, which means when markets perform as poorly as they have been, the entitlement has to be topped up in order to ensure the defined benefit is available. According to Canadian Taxpayer Federation calculations, the public contributions versus the recipients’ contribution vary from $5.80: $1 (official formula) to $23.30: $1, when markets perform dismally. By any objective standard, these defined benefit pensions are overly generous, without private sector comparison and create unsustainable unfunded liability.

All of that being said, in absolute dollar terms, the whole issue of MP Pensions is a bit of a red herring. With only 308 Members of Parliament, changing the MP Pension Plan from a defined benefit plan to a more affordable defined contribution plan is not going to make a significant or even noticeable dent in the country’s $580 billion dollar accumulated debt. However, there is a larger issue at play; an issue of leadership (a moral issue, if you prefer). The Federal Government MUST get its fiscal house in order. The Government cannot continue to run deficits in the range of $30B annually. The Government must reduce the size and cost of government to prevent unsustainable long term debt.

Federal public servants also receive generous pensions and benefits. In fact during my recent pre-budget consultations with the St. Albert Chamber of Commerce, I heard emphatically that public service pensions and benefits (not salaries) make it difficult for the small and medium size business sector to attract and retain qualified employees. Meanwhile, C. D. Howe has just released a report estimating the unfunded liability in the Federal Government Employee Pension Plans at $227 Billion. This must be addressed and addressed quickly if we are to return to balanced budgets anytime in the foreseeable future.

In the mid-1990’s, in Alberta, Premier Ralph Klein made significant cuts to the Provincial Budget. All Albertans, especially the public service, were asked to make sacrifices. However, before proceeding, Premier Klein attained the moral authority to do so by first cutting MLA pensions.

If the federal government is to require compromise on the pensions and benefits enjoyed by its 317, 000 civilian employees, Parliamentarians must lead by example and scale back our defined benefit plans. To ask our public servants to take less requires moral leadership. Parliament will have no moral authority on the issues of government restraint, generally, and public sector benefits, specifically, unless it has the courage to lead by example. Members of Parliament are considered to be leaders in society and moral leadership starts at the top.

“You can’t lead anyone further than you have gone yourself.” – Baseball Manager Gene Mauch

Brent

One of the many great (non-financial) perks about being a Member of Parliament is that I occasionally get invited to great events.  That was certainly the case this Tuesday night when I was invited by Bell Media to the National Arts Center for the debut of TSN’s documentary film series “Engraved on a Nation”.  The film series recites great stories in CFL history and is being released to help commemorate the 100^th Anniversary of the Grey Cup.

Growing up in Melville, Saskatchewan, I was a great fan of both the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the CFL.  I remember Chuck Ealey unfavourably, because he led the Hamilton Tiger-Cats to a thrilling, last second 13-10 victory over the Riders in the 1972 Grey Cup. I remember the game; but knew nothing of Ealey or his great and inspiring story.

Ealey was born in Portsmith, Ohio.  He grew up poor in the “projects”.  His father was disinterested and mostly absent; he had an abusive step-father for a time.

He earned the moniker “Stone Thrower” because of his favourite leisure activity.  The train tracks separated the white and black neighborhoods in Portsmith.  A young Ealey would spend hours throwing rocks at the moving boxcars.  He was too poor to own an actual football but he honed his exceptional quarterbacking skill by aiming at the letters and numbers on the moving boxcars.  As trains moved at various speeds, he would have to adjust his trajectory and aim accordingly.  As quarterbacks throw at moving targets, these hours of stone throwing would later prove invaluable.

Ealey was an all-round athlete—especially in basketball and football.  He led his high school football team to an undefeated season and the State Championship, but received few scholarship offers.  He eventually did receive an athletic scholarship to attend the University of Toledo.  Amazingly, he led the University of Toledo Rockets to a 35-0 record over three seasons (1969-71) and three consecutive Tangerine Bowl victories, where he was named the MVP in each of his three Bowl championships.

Yet despite his 35-0 College Record, a record which stands to this day, Ealey was overlooked in the 1972 NFL Draft.  In the early 1970’s, black quarterbacks were unheard of in the NFL and Ealey would not compromise and learn another more “acceptable” position.  But he received a call from Ralph Sazzio of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and he was signed as a back-up QB.  After a four game lackluster start, the Stone Thrower was elevated to starting quarterback, where he led the Ti-Cats to a 13-3 season and the 1972 Grey Cup.  He was named the MVP of the 1972 Grey Cup and was awarded an automobile, colour of his choice.  Symbolically, he chose a black sedan!!

Portsmith, Ohio was on the famed Underground Railroad, which is neither underground nor a railroad, but was a route along which slaves travelled to freedom in Canada.  Ealey too had to travel to Canada, where he was free to pursue his dream of being a professional quarterback.  Similarly, baseball fans will recall that Jackie Robinson was sent to the Montreal Royals for his minor league apprenticeship, because Branch Rickey calculated that he would face less prejudice playing in Canada.

Ealey and his family now live in Mississauga and they have become Canadian citizens.  His wife states in the closing scenes of the documentary that “we were Americans by birth, but we are Canadians by choice”.

The story of the “Stone Thrower” makes me proud and thankful  to be Canadian and proud to be a fan of the CFL!!

Happy Canadian Thanksgiving!!

Brent

Motion 312, which would have called for an examination of when human life begins, was defeated in the House of Commons Wednesday night by a vote of 203-91.  Predictably, the “Nay” forces were claiming victory and many in the Pro-Life crowd required consoling.  Neither reaction was warranted; certainly any celebrations were premature.

As I told Alberta Talk Show Host, Rob Breakenridge, the sad reality is that the vote on Motion 312 resolved nothing.  This matter would keep coming back until Parliament has the courage to deal with it in a fulsome and respectful manner.  Refusing to study a matter does not resolution of an issue make.

I did not know how prophetic my prediction would be: on Thursday morning, while Canadians were still digesting the result of Wednesday’s vote, Langley MP Mark Warawa introduced Motion 408, which calls on Parliament to “condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination”.  Here we go again!!

This motion was both predictable and unavoidable.  With 91 (87 Conservatives) wanting to study when human life begins, deciding not to study something does not qualify as a final decision.

I am the poster boy for neither camp in this ultra-polarized debate.  But I am a lawyer and a Member of Parliament, who has put considerable thought into this matter.  I voted “yea” on M-312 largely because I believe Parliament must do what the Supreme Court asked it to do in 1988: craft a law that was constitutional, fair and consistently applied.  When the Court struck down the 1968 abortion law, it did so because of unfair and inconsistent operation of the voluminous Therapeutic Abortion Committees.  It did not come even close to affirming a woman’s unfettered right to choose.

Even esteemed Feminist Jurist, Justice Bertha Wilson’s concurring minority opinion “supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the latter stages…….reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state’s compelling interest in the protection of the fetus would justify it in prescribing conditions”.  The Judgment went on to leave to “the informed judgment of the legislature” exactly when and what those conditions might be.

Contrary to popular myth, R. v. Morgentaler does not stand for a woman’s unfettered right to choose.  Anybody who says otherwise has either not read the decision, doesn’t understand it, or most likely is being deliberately disingenuous.  The Supreme Court of Canada expressly invited Parliament to take on this complex and polarizing issue and thereafter craft a law that was constitutional.   Since 1988, Canada has had no restrictions on the procedure.  Even many pro-choicers are surprised, if not offended to learn, that late term and sex selective abortions are legal in Canada.  That is the result of having no restrictions.  But that was not the intent of the Supreme Court when it struck down the flawed and therefore unconstitutional law in 1988.

Canada’s legal vacuity when it comes to abortion makes it unique among western democracies.  Even “liberalized” European states such as Finland and Sweden place some restrictions on the procedure based upon the gestation period (unfettered at the beginning; increasing conditions towards the end).

As Mr. Warawa’s Motion demonstrates, this issue will not go away until Parliament has the courage to finally deal with it.  The issue is settled neither in the minds of many Canadians nor apparently in the minds of 91 Parliamentarians.  After a fulsome debate, we might decide to have no law regulating this procedure; alternatively, we might decide to place some restrictions perhaps based on gestational limits.  I don’t want to prejudge that debate.  But the issue will not go away until Parliament accepts the Supreme Court’s 1988 invitation to have an actual and conclusive debate on the issue.

Brent