Failing to lead by example
They preach restraint, but Conservative politicians in Ottawa are slow to practise it. And that dismal hypocrisy can’t help but undercut public confidence in the get-tough theme undertaken by this federal government.
Barely a week after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled his slashthe-bureaucracy budget, thousands of civil servants are already starting to receive formal notification that their jobs are being erased. About 1,100 civilian positions are being torpedoed at the defence department alone — and that’s just a start.
More than 19,000 federal public service posts are to disappear over the next three years, with about 7,000 positions lost to attrition and about 12,000 current employees shown the door.
Other finance ministers make job creation a priority; Flaherty’s mission is public sector job destruction.
Of course, there are no layoffs planned for Members of Parliament — perhaps the most privileged civil servants of all. And while public employees hired after this year will have their normal retirement age jacked up from 60 to 65, MPS still remain eligible to collect their pension at 55.
Flaherty has said the government will hold consultations on boosting the age at which MPS can reap their retirement benefits. Depending on those discussions, some unspecified “adjustments” could take effect after the next election, three years away. That’s not good enough. A government truly interested in leading by example would treat MPS the same as other public servants and increase their retirement age to 65 starting next year.
Calling MPS’ pensions a gold-plated perk is an understatement. Not only can they cash in at 55, after serving just six years in office, they are entitled to receive 75 per cent of their salary. And that’s indexed to inflation and fully funded by taxpayers, not tied to how well their pension portfolio performs in the investment market.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper benefits most of all. He’s eligible for a special allowance, granted to MPS who have served as prime minister for four years or more, amounting to two-thirds of his salary. That bonus kicks in when Harper turns 65 and is worth more than $100,000 a year in addition to his already generous pension. There’s nothing in the budget about trimming that.
The Liberals have tabled a reasonable budget sub-amendment that would formally increase the qualifying age for this prime ministerial bonus to 67. That’s entirely appropriate given that the Conservatives plan to raise Canadians’ eligibility for Old Age Security benefits to that age. Even if he doesn’t feel inclined to back this Liberal measure, Harper should — at least — have the decency to announce that he will personally delay cashing in until his 67th birthday.
In truth, we’re not seriously expecting the Prime Minister to make that sacrifice. It would take money from his pocket, and restraint is so much easier when it affects someone else.