XPost: misc.invest.canada, soc.culture.canada, can.atlantic.general   
   XPost: can.general, can.politics, soc.culture.quebec   
   From: abc@a123.ca   
      
   Maher: Harper sets an example by slashing his own pension   
      
   BY STEPHEN MAHER, OCTOBER 19, 2012   
      
   Prime Minister Stephen Harper waves as he boards his aircraft enroute for   
   Dakar, Republic of Senegal Wednesday, October 10, 2012 in Ottawa. Harper   
   will also participate in the Francophone Summit in Kinshasa, Democratic   
   Republic of Congo.   
      
      
   Stephen Harper tightened his own belt this week, voluntarily — and   
   quietly — accepting a pension cut that will likely cost him more than a   
   million dollars.   
      
   The prime minister doesn’t need our sympathy. He’ll still have a very   
   comfortable pension, but he deserves credit for showing leadership and   
   finally scraping some of the gold off of MPs’ gilded pension plan. MPs   
   passed a bill on Friday that will see all of them start to pay more for   
   their own retirements, ending 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.   
      
   MPs qualify to collect after just six years of service, which means that   
   Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre qualified for a pension at age 31.   
   For every dollar that MPs or senators contribute to their pension,   
   taxpayers pony up $23.30, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation,   
   which has been pushing this issue for decades.   
      
   In changes that will be phased in, to spare the cohort now warming the   
   chairs in the House of Commons, MPs will contribute $39,000 a year to   
   their pensions, and they won’t be able to collect until they turn 65.   
      
   Harper, who did not need to do this, took a look at his own entitlements   
   and decided to put another hole in the belt.   
      
   Until the bill passed, retired prime ministers received 66 per cent of   
   their prime ministerial salary — $104,000 a year — on top of their MP   
   salary.   
      
   Harper, who makes $157,731 as an MP plus his $157,731 prime ministerial   
   stipend, will now receive three per cent of his prime ministerial salary   
   per year of service.   
      
   If he serves until after the next election, in 2015, he’ll get about   
   $47,000 a year in pension, $57,000 less than he would have received under   
   the old system.   
      
   Depending on when he leaves office, and how long he lives, Harper’s   
   pension decision will cost him $1.5 million to $2 million. Harper is   
   quietly setting a good example, and deserves a bit of credit.   
      
   He also deserves credit for agreeing to split the pension measures off   
   from the enormous budget omnibus bill.   
      
   It had looked like the Tories were planning to keep the measure in the   
   bill, which the opposition is pretty much duty-bound to vote against, so   
   that the Tories could complain theatrically that Liberal and NDP MPs   
   refused to vote to cut their own pensions.   
      
   Instead, when Liberal interim leader Bob Rae asked Harper during question   
   period on Thursday to split the bill, Harper said he would take it under   
   advisement.   
      
   On Friday, the government decided to slice the measure off the budget   
   bill and pass it. The NDP hemmed and hawed, and said that it really   
   should go to committee for study, likely because they aren’t keen to give   
   the government a fig leaf for cuts to public servants’ pensions, but they   
   quickly realized they couldn’t be seen to vote against this, and got in   
   line.   
      
   It is about time.   
      
   MPs make $157,731 a year, which for most of them is the biggest salary   
   they will make in their lives. While a handful of business people and big   
   shot lawyers do take pay cuts to serve in Parliament, when you consider   
   all the benefits and free stuff they get, the number who really lose out   
   by entering politics is vanishingly small.   
      
   We would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if we make it an   
   unappealing job. It’s a tough life, full of rubber chicken, long airplane   
   rides, ridiculous talking points and the risk of public indignity on a   
   scale most of us couldn’t endure.   
      
   But it was a bit too rich, so the changes are good, and it was good to   
   see the prime minister co-operate with opposition MPs to get this done.   
      
   Harper often mistakes his opponents for blood enemies, sending his   
   legions out to attack them with asinine and insulting talking points,   
   unnecessarily reducing the level of debate.   
      
   And the budget omnibus bill is too big — 450 pages! — to allow for proper   
   debate of the many laws it changes.   
      
   It guts the Navigable Waters Act, for instance, removing federal   
   protection from a huge number of lakes and rivers, handing responsibility   
   to municipalities that may be too tempted to pave lakes when a big box   
   retailer moves to town.   
      
   The Conservatives say other acts will still protect those bodies of   
   water, and they may be right. That’s the kind of thing we would find out   
   in a proper debate at the environment committee, after hearing from   
   witnesses, rather than a rushed session at finance committee.   
      
   It is good to reduce the pensions of MPs, but bad to prevent them from   
   earning their pay by giving our laws the debate they need.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)