Calgary Herald

PENSIONS TO HELP LIBERALS FROM BEING TOPPLED

MPS loathe to lose benefits if they drive them out too soon, Howard Levitt writes.

- Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces. The most recent of his six books is Law of Dismissal in Canada. hlevitt@levittllp.com

The other federal parties can, at any time, depose the Liberal minority government through a non-confidence vote. But they won’t for at least two years. Why? In part, because of parliament­ary pensions.

Now that the Liberals are in a minority, the opposition parties control the committees, and Parliament itself, if they work collective­ly.

They can put before the public the secrets that the Liberals worked so assiduousl­y to hide. Some of the informatio­n that former attorney-general Jody Wilson-raybould and others said they wished to share but were precluded from doing so, could potentiall­y come out. The Liberals can no longer block committee hearings or prevent witnesses from testifying, although they can still invoke cabinet confidenti­ality and solicitor-client privilege.

One might think that the other parties would rush to bring down the Liberal party. After all, they made political mileage over the government’s refusal to release Wilson-raybould, former Treasury Board president Jane Philpott and others from cabinet confidenti­ality, despite how anxious witnesses were to tell their stories.

But that was before the election. There are two reasons that they won’t now. The first is that, if the Liberals are totally wiped out by the revelation­s, the Conservati­ve party will likely get a majority and the NDP and Bloc Québécois will lose the upper hand in Parliament, with Liberals dependent upon them to enact legislatio­n.

But one should never ignore the impact of a more mundane motivation: pensions.

MPS initially elected in 2015 are not eligible to claim their Parliament­ary pension unless they remain in office until at least 2021. This is a defined benefit pension plan, pursuant to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, which can be received regardless of interest rates or the market.

Such plans used to be relatively common in large private sector employers but they are so expensive that they drove many companies into insolvency. That is why you scarcely find them today outside of the public sector. An analysis by Frederick Vettese, author of the book, Retirement Income for Life: Getting More without Saving More, predicts that defined benefit plans will be extinct in the private sector by 2026 while continuing to grow in the public sector.

One might think it unfair that Parliament­arians receive pensions the vast majority of Canadian employers cannot afford for their own employees. But, for the same reason public sector unions are loathe to give them up, Parliament­arians are motivated to ensure that they work the requisite number of years to receive them. That is why they are unlikely to drive the Liberals out of office for at least two years.

In my practice, I have found that employees are loathe to leave their jobs before they receive a significan­t bonus or other potential entitlemen­t. Few MPS are children of privilege or have created significan­t wealth themselves. So why topple the Liberals and call an election now, before they are guaranteed their pensions?

The traditiona­l private-public sector dichotomy was that public sector employees had better benefits and pensions, enjoyed greater job security, worked less but, in return, earned less. Over the last number of years, that has reversed with public sector workers continuing to enjoy these advantages, particular­ly the defined benefit pension, but earning more as well.

Why is that? In the private sector, union and non-union alike, market discipline applies. If an employer provides wages that are too high, it goes out of business. Even unions understand that and, in my experience, are open to employers sharing their financial statements and modifying their demands to ensure their members keep their jobs.

In the public sector, market discipline does not apply. The government simply runs a deficit. Moreover, the people negotiatin­g on the other side of the unions are directed by politician­s whose main goal is to avoid a strike “on their watch.” The politician­s simply defer the consequenc­es of their lavish public sector benefits/pensions and the resulting deficits to later years.

 ?? SEAN KILPATRICK/THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES ?? Parliament­arians are motivated to ensure that they work the requisite number of years to receive their defined benefit pensions, writes Howard Levitt.
SEAN KILPATRICK/THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES Parliament­arians are motivated to ensure that they work the requisite number of years to receive their defined benefit pensions, writes Howard Levitt.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada