The Liberal Model: An Aristocratic Government-in-Exile

The Cat has puzzled over exactly what model of politicking the Liberal Party seems to have adopted over the past year or so, and after delving into the history of the past century or so, has concluded that the model now being used by the LPC is that of an aristocratic government-in-exile.

The analogue that seems to resonate the most is that of the aged aristocrats who fled from the bloodthirsty Red Russians during the Russian Revolution. These people ended up sprinkled amongst various capital cities in Europe, where they busied themselves forming committees for the restoration of the monarch and the old order in Mother Russia.

They would meet often, to discuss their various ailments, preach to the converted about the perfidious Reds, agree whose turn it was to write a stern letter to the editor of the local newspapers, decrying the latest Red misdeeds, fighting amongst each other on occasion over who would do what, and generally being totally ineffective when it came to the cardinal issue of actually doing something to replace the Reds.

Lenin disregarded them, while Stalin ignored them when he wasn't sending out a team to harass them on occasion.

Gradually over time these displaced aristocrats passed on the happier hunting grounds awaiting displaced blue bloods, and their offices were closed, one after another, and the mildewing collections of newspapers stored therein tossed into the garbage.

It has been decades since anyone even thought of those displaced former rulers.

Now the Liberal Party seems intent on following in their footsteps.

The party seems to have forgotten one cardinal rule of politics - the right of every single voter to ask of any political party seeking his or her vote one important question: What is in it for me?

The Liberal Party seems to have an answer, but one which does not work. Instead of laying out a platform before the voters showing what it will do for them if elected, it seems intent on answering the question with this suicidal answer:

"You don't count. Your role is simply to vote for us and restore us to our former glory as Canada's governing party. Now please be quiet and vote us in again. After all, we are entitled to rule this country."

Poor brooding aristocrats, huddled in their seedy offices in the capitals of Europe, waiting for a miracle to sweep aside the triumphant Reds, and restore them to their rightful place.

And poor members of the Liberal Party, who watch helplessly as their party elite seems determined to use those aged aristocrats as their operating model.

And above all, poor Canada for having so few choices come election time.

A very good idea

Keep your fingers crossed for Hope Plus.

"President Barack Obama and Bill Gates are being invited to back a website that promotes social politics.

The web portal, entitled Hope Plus, aims to offer online tools to enable social projects such as building schools and fighting pollution.

Although still being created, the site is billed as "a place where people can meet, congregate and participate..to change the world online".

It aims to launch in December at the Copenhagen Climate Change conference."

If it is launched, this idea could really take off.

Imagine tens of millions of people signing up to help fight global warming ….

Step aside, climate sceptics, the people are on the move!

Harper fiddles while Canada burns

Politically literate Canadians have a democratic right (indeed, an obligation) to delve into history in order to make sense of our present circumstances. And the swine flu epidemic now striking all regions of Canada call for us to do so.

The Cat believes it has found a striking parallel to the manner in which the current Harper minority government has handled the swine flu epidemic.

For that we go back to early Rome, to one of the most memorable emperors, Nero.

Wikipedia has a nice little summary of some events that happened during Nero's lamentable rule:

"Nero also built a new palace complex known as the Domus Aurea in an area cleared by the fire. This included lush artificial landscapes and a 30 meter statue of himself, the Colossus of Nero... To find the necessary funds for the reconstruction, tributes were imposed on the provinces of the empire. According to Tacitus, the population searched for a scapegoat and rumors held Nero responsible. To deflect blame, Nero targeted Christians. He ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified and burned… In 64, Nero began singing in public … in order to improve his popularity."

Hmmm …

Now, let's see if the behaviour of PM Harper and his government match some of Nero's behaviours.

First, Nero is accused by Roman historians of inaction during a severe crisis. Then, during the crisis, legend has it that he played the fiddle while Rome burned. And then he is charged with trying to shift the blame from himself to others.

Well, yesterday, Harper and his government were also accused of inaction, and trying to shift the blame:

"An emergency debate was held in Ottawa and the opposition parties let loose on the governing Conservatives. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff led the charge saying the government wasn't prepared for the wave of people seeking the H1N1 vaccine.
"The Health Minister said the vaccine would be available to all Canadians in early November now she says it won't be available until Christmas, and we've discovered there isn't an adequate supply for next week," Ignatieff said.

The criticism didn't stop there. The opposition says the government has failed to inform Canadians about H1N1. "This is a government that has spent something like ten times more on its own publicity, publicizing its own highly partisan infrastructure program than it spent on public health information," added the Liberal Leader. He also says the government is avoiding responsibility by blaming everyone else. "They blame the drug company, they blame the provinces," accused Ignatieff."

Parallels? Harper (Nero) was not prepared for the crisis. Then Nero (Harper) fiddled while the crisis erupted, instead of taking action to resolve the crisis.

And finally, Nero (Harper) tried to deflect responsibility by pointing fingers at others …

Who said history isn't instructive?

But let's ask one more question: why does the Harper government behave this way when crises hit the country?

The answer lies in two things.

Firstly, the Harper Conservatives really do not, in the heart of their hearts, believe in a central government which has any obligation to become active in defence of Canadians. They believe in a minimalist government, with most actions being devolved to the provinces, and the Ottawa-based central government mostly acting as a funds-gatherer and funds-dispenser. That ideology means that if things go wrong, you don't dive in to help Canadians. You first take out the constitution to check if the matter falls within the powers of the provinces. If it does, you sit back and let everyone know that it is up the premiers. If it does not, you still sit back for a while to see if the crisis will blow over without any action being taken by you.

That is what Harper's government has been doing. When it was obvious that the deep recession was coming, this incompetent and untrustworthy government sat back and did nothing. When the recession broke upon us, it dragged its feet until forced to act by the MPs of the other parties. When it was clear the swine flu was coming and was going to be an epidemic, Harper's government did the same.

But in the meantime, when parents feared for the lives of their children, is has been using our money to pay for advertisements saying that it was doing a heckuva job pumping stimulus funds into the economy.

Secondly, these behaviours are the behaviours of fat cats, who have become lazy. The Tories have grown to love the trappings of power, and are delighted in self-praise, while neglecting the really serious things facing our country. This has made them lazy.

Too lazy to lift a finger to anticipate and prepare for a deep recession.

Too lazy to lift a finger to anticipate and prepare for an epidemic.

Too lazy to lift a finger to help jobless Canadians.

Not only do we seem to have a Nero for prime minister, but we seem to have a lazy Nero.

We can do better than this.

The "Byers Ceasefire" would benefit the NDP by up to 19 seats

Professor Byers has proposed a one-time ceasefire between the Liberals and Dippers in the next election.

The Byers Ceasefire would mean a gain for the NDP of between 14 and 19 seats.

In his article in The Toronto Star Byers calculates that the NDP would gain between 5 and 10 seats more than the 36 it now holds in Parliament, and the Liberals would gain between 30 and 40 seats.

However, the true calculation which Jack Layton and his MPs have to make is to consider what the most likely results of an election held without the Byers Ceasefire would be. Recent polls over the past several months are a guide.

Let's take the latest results by Threehundredandeight as the starting point. They show the NDP losing 9 seats, reducing from the 36 now held to 27.

So the Byers Ceasefire offers the NDP the chance to improve their fortunes from the forecasted 27 seats to a total of between 41 and 46 seats – that is, gains over the most likely result of 14 to 19 seats.

In addition, the NDP would gain two more advantages: the retention by current NDP MPs of their seats, and a commitment by the Liberal Party to fund a referendum on some form of proportional representation.

The advantage for the Liberals would be a gain of 30 to 40 seats, and the chance to form the next government, replacing Harper's do-little right wing regime.

The further advantage for the LPC is that the Byers Ceasefire does not require any coalition or governance agreement to be struck between the two parties; the Ceasefire deal would involve only two commitments.

Firstly, not to fight each other in seats held by the other party or, if a Conservative was elected in a seat, in such a seat (the choice of the NDP or LPC candidate to face the Tory incumbent would be made based on which party gained the most votes in the October 2008 election).

And secondly, to fund the referendum on some form of proportional representation.
The Byers Ceasefire sounds like a very workable solution to me.

Now let's get the discussion of his proposal started. Who within the ranks of the Liberal MPs will champion this Ceasefire suggestion?

Thanks to Lawrence Martin for defining Harper's political style

In an interesting article in today's Globe & Mail, Martin gives us a very pithy, very apt, and very useable definition of the politics practised by our current prime minister: brutish.

"In Jean Chrétien, he was marketing a populist; in Michael Ignatieff, someone who was to the manor born and who must stake out that higher ground as opposed to being dragged into the pit of tactical games and brute politics that Stephen Harper relishes."

Let us all hope that Harper's style of politicking leads to his foray into the prime minister's office as being one that is nasty, brutish and short.

Especially short.

A sharp edge for the Ignatieff/Donolo Team

Two weeks before he was asked to join Michael Ignatieff's team, pollster Donolo had this to say about the tactics of the Liberal Party:

"He needs to find issues that have sharp edges to them and that serve as really sharp wedges between him and the government. And he needs riskier events to do that."

The Cat agrees with that advice, and offers a sharp edge for the Liberal leader and his new Chief of Staff to consider.

Harper's Tories are consistently winning headlines and beating the Liberals in the media war by coming up with new proposals every week or so on one of the topics which the voters see as being a Tory topic: crime.

And every time the Liberals splutter, mutter and then come out with a Me-Too chorus. Too late, too ineffective, and too reactive.

So let's use a sharply edged issue that will resonate with the public and which the Liberals can clearly own, with the Tories unlikely to get much traction on, due to their history of broken promises and questionable actions.

The sharp edge issue?

Making Parliament work.

The theme - Come out with a comprehensive, hard edged set of policies which the Liberal government will craft legislation on, designed around the theme: This is your Parliament, and we can do better.

New Accountability Act - Include a revised Accountability Act, with teeth in it; spell out the details.

Taxpayers' money - Include restrictions on the use of taxpayers' money by governments, so that political parties cannot use our money to advance their parties (for example: no cheques with PM names or party names or emblems; no wasted advertising which does not provide clearly defined information to voters about government programs, and end there; an independent body to have powers to investigate complaints by political parties and/or individuals of questionable advertising which might have breached the new rules, and claw back the wasted monies from the political party responsible for the waste).

TV in the House - Change the ability of the television cameras to show all of Parliament (including split screens), and not just the Speaker and MP speaking – this will show buffoons acting like buffoons and reduce the childishness we see so often.

MPs speaking - Provide for MPs to speak while sitting down (this reduces foolery).

Accountability Czar - Beef up the ability of an independent body to investigate, comment on and publish findings on the costs of proposed and current government initiatives, with the proper staffing and funding, and without Parliamentary interference. Set out very clearly what such a body can and cannot do. The Accountability Czar would also have the right to comment on the completeness of any government answers to questions raised during Question Period.

Best practices - Introduce steps which other parliaments have taken and which have improved their ability to represent their constituents. See my earlier posts for some suggestions.

Free votes - Legislate for more free votes in Parliament, without party whips riding herd on MPs.

Democratic reform - Commit to set up a process to decide on parliamentary reform, with a view to introducing legislation after a successful referendum, which provides for some form of modified proportional representation.

Gender fairness - Provide for additional public funding of political parties which field more female candidates as MPs, and which increase the number of female MPs in parliament.

Political promises - Legislate accountability for political platforms, by requiring parties to document a set of promise and policies prior to elections, and, if they become the government, to report to voters each year in a state of the nation report on their promises, their progress to achieving those promises, and their reasons for their failure to do so.

Election debates - Legislate a series of public debates between leaders of all parties which have achieved a national vote of at least three percent (3%) in the preceding election, with all television channels to air them and if needed the government to fund them; there should be at least five such debates, covering at least one hour each, with independent moderators; questions are to include questions selected at random from those submitted by Canadians to the moderators; and topics of each debate are to cover the major issues facing Canadians. The format is to provide for serious debate, without interruptions and gotcha nonsense.

Above all, be bold.

Harper will find it very difficult to defend against such a sharply edged issue, given his broken promises over the past few years, and current contemptuous use of our money.

And then make sure that the party hammers home this issue repeatedly, and in as many ways as possible, to ensure that it reaches past the filter of the lazy media to the ears of the voters.

How about it, Messrs Ignatieff and Donolo?

Opt In or Opt Out: Good news for US health care

With Republican senators dogmatically opposed to a public health care system similar to the very efficient and morally justifiable Canadian and certain EU systems, and with conservative Democratic senators siding with the right wingers, the prospect of the US having a public health care system option as part of the legislation now before the Senate and the House was dim indeed.

But now there is life in the public option again, because some senators have found a new way to skin the cat and allow them to vote for a public option without losing votes in their states.

How did they do that?

"The approach would create a national health insurance program while permitting each state to ‘opt-out’ of the plan or come up with its own public plan to compete with private insurers. As a “fall-back” position, the White House is considering supporting Sen. Carper’s initial proposal of an ‘opt in’ program whereby states would be permitted to launch their own public option with some federal support."

How does this protect the conservative Democratic senators?

This way:

"Essentially, the ‘opt-in’ and ‘opt-out’ approach takes Democratic senators, like Evan Bayh, off the hook with their constituents back home. If their state doesn’t want to play, their senator will have reserved to their state’s voters the right to take a pass. If a state does wish to participate, their senator will have brought home the victory.

The Republicans, on the other hand, who will likely stand pat in opposition, will be left empty handed and remain the party of “no”, having voted to deny their home state the opportunity to make a decision as to whether or not they want in on the program."

Let's keep our thumbs crossed that the Americans will end up with a sensible system.

Canadian pensions: A Failed Experiment

"And no one in power wants to talk about the problem."

That is the stark message in the latest of the Globe & Mail's significant series of articles on the miserable state of the country's pension plans.

The Cat's challenge to Michael Ignatieff is to dare to be innovative, and emulate Hotspur – he of the "Out of the nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety" quote.

The G&M goes on to say:

"Despite the middle-class retirement shortfalls that are obvious to pension experts, politicians and business leaders seem fixated on patching up existing systems.
Attention and resources get focused on underfunded corporate plans, and on a tired debate over the merits of defined-benefit schemes, where the employer makes good on shortfalls, versus defined-contribution plans, which shift market risk to employees.
There is very little talk about enhancing pensions for the majority of the population that lacks any retirement safety net. University of Toronto pension guru Keith Ambachtsheer says: “Rather than defending old faulty designs, why haven’t pension industry leaders been searching hard for designs better suited to delivering 21-century retirement living standards that are adequate, universal and sustainable?”"

Let's examine who is covered by pension plans, and what kinds of plans there are, before going on to my recommendation to the Liberal Party for an innovative solution.

One key is to understand the buzzwords in the industry, starting with DB and DC:

"Traditional pension plans are DB, defined benefit. A retiree covered by the plan is guaranteed a given level of income. If the plan falls short, the employer is on the hook.

The new model, increasingly favoured by employers, is DC, defined contribution. In this approach, the employer’s responsibility is limited to making a certain (“defined”) contribution to the employees’ pension plan. Contributions made by both the employer and employee go into an individual account for the employee, who makes his or her own investment choices. If the plan falls short, the employee is on the hook."

Instead of using the word 'defined', I find that it helps to use the word 'definite'.

The difference between a Definite Benefit company pension plan and a Definite Contribution company plan is where the risk lies.

Under a Definite Benefit plan, the company promises or commits to the employee that he or she will get a definite pension amount each year upon retirement. The company bears the risk that it has not made enough investments, or the markets (stock and/or real estate) have fallen, so that there are not enough assets available to pay the definite pension amounts.

Companies – aided and abetted by governments at the federal and provincial levels (Conservative and Liberal), long ago decided they did not want that risk, and so stopped the DB plans and moved to the Definite Contribution plans, which shifted the risk of inadequate assets on to the shoulders of the employees.

So we have had a major shifting of pension risks from the corporate sector to the employees over the years, put in place by the economic and political elites of Canada.

The second major shift that the political and economic elites in Canada have brought about in the past quarter of century is to allow a big whack of Canadians to fall between the cracks, ending up without any corporate pension plans.

In 1945, when the Second World War ended, 19% of workers in the private sector had company pension plans. In 1960 this had risen to a whopping 40%. But by 1977 35.2% of workers in the private sector had pension plans; this has fallen by about a third, to 25.5% in 2007.

From 40% in 1960 to 25.5% in 2007. Down by 38% in 47 years, a drop of almost 1% per year. A time when both Liberal and Conservative parties ran our central government.

And so we have a large majority of workers in the private sector in Canada who do not have a pension plan.

The economic and corporate elite finessed this debacle by introducing the concept of retirement savings plans (RRSPs). Canadians who did not have public sector or company pension plans could provide for their retirement by making investments, with the ability to deduct such payments (up to a certain annual limit) from their taxes.

People can take care of themselves, the argument went.

There is no need for the Nanny State to step in and sort out the mess.

And that right wing framing of the issue still reigns today.

Imagine how different we would have been if instead of buying into the right wing Nanny State framing of the pension issue, we had instead adopted the framing of what a responsible state would need to do.

For example, leaving it up to the individual sounds good, right?

But only 31% of those who do not have public sector or company pension plans actually do invest in RRSPs.

That means more than two thirds do not – and that is a measure of the failure of the RRSP substitute for company pension plans if you need any measure!

Some have advocated using a third type of company pension plan, a hybrid one combining elements of the DB and DC plan, called by some a 'target benefit plan':

"In this model, plans target a certain level of benefit payout that appears safely achievable. But if long-term investment performance makes that target unreachable, funding is not increased. Rather, the benefit level is lowered. Conversely, if investment returns exceed the target, the benefits can be increased."

The risk that the assets will not be enough to pay an adequate pension should be shared between employers and employees in a hybrid, but (as the plan quoted by the G&M in the above article shows), such hybrids can shift most of the risk of non-performance onto the employees:

"Another key feature of the plan is that the member companies make a flat contribution on behalf of workers, set as a percentage of their wages. That is their only funding requirement: If the plan is short of money, employers don’t have to cough up more to repay shortfalls. Instead, the plan has to cut benefits for workers or retirees."

In order to properly protect workers in hybrid plans, there is a need to invest the funds in assets which are relatively immune to stock and real estate market risks (such as government bonds).

How big is this problem?

We have 17.6 million Canadians working. Of those, 11 million (63%) have no pension plans. Of those 11 million, only 4 million have RRSPs (leaving 7 million without even RRSPs, and totally dependent on the CPP and OAS payments when they retire. More than half (55%) of the pension plans of the 4.5 million workers with pension plans have DB (defined benefit) plans that guarantee the pension income of retirees until they die, are held by public sector employees.

And the average pension per year is $25,000.

Back to Michael Ignatieff, and the opportunity he now has to solve the problems of so many seniors in a decisive way.

The opportunity for the Liberal Party to come up with an innovative solution to the pension debacle is there. My best guess is that such a solution will take this shape:

1. Everyone who earns income (whether employed by a company or self-employed) must be forced to put aside a certain portion in a pension plan. Leaving the choice open to individuals simply shifts the risks that they turn 65 and don't have enough to live on, onto the rest of the taxpayers. You earn, you pay should be the model.

2. A new hybrid model is created, with contributions each year coming from the employer, the employee and the central government. Let's call the new hybrid the Canada Minimum Pension, or CMP.

3. Workers may contribute additional amounts to their own RRSPs, up to some limit.

4. Companies may make additional contributions to employees, if they so wish.

5. The only Defined Benefit (that is, definite benefit or pension payments) will be made from the amounts invested in the CMP.

6. Canadians will still qualify for the existing Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS), in addition to the CMP payments.

7. All funds in the CMP will be invested in newly designed Government of Canada bonds of various maturities. The interest paid on such bonds will be re-invested in the new government bonds, so as to build up capital.

8. The total amounts which individuals can contribute to RRSPs will be reduced. This means their tax deductions will be reduced, and the earnings on the investments they might have made under the older higher level will not be made and so not be sheltered from taxes. This will result in the central government receiving more taxes. However, such higher taxes will be partially offset by the payment by the GOC of the interest on the new bonds.

9. Company obligations to pay under funded commitments of company pension plans will rank ahead of all creditors (including secured creditors, who will have to take heed of such liabilities before lending to companies), so as to protect workers upon the bankruptcy of the company (currently, workers rank as unsecured creditors against the assets of bankrupt companies which have failed to fund their company pension plans adequately). Nortel employees, for example, stand to lose one third of their pensions because Nortel went bust.

The major obstacle to reform of pensions is that no level of government in Canada wishes to grasp this nettle, preferring to tinker with changes rather than address the problem that millions of Canadians do not have any pensions (company or RRSPs) other than the CPP and OAS.

How to solve that problem?

One simple solution would be for the Liberal Party to state that should it become the government it will change the law governing the payment of pensions to MPs to one which pays MPs a pension based on the Canadian average pension (let's call this the CAP). In calculating that average, the total amounts paid each year as pensions will be divided by the total number of senior Canadians (including all those who only get the CPP and OAS).

By committing to the CAP for all MPs, the Liberal government will ensure that all MPs pay attention to methods to increase pensions of all Canadians so that all senior might have adequate pensions, rather than having millions with fat-cat public service or corporate pensions, and millions without any pensions other than the paltry $17,000 a year.

How about it, Michael Ignatieff?

Don't grow old under a Tory government

Take a moment to contemplate these startling figures from the Globe & Mail's ongoing and admirable investigation of the state of the nation's pensions:

• 84% of public service workers have pensions.
• 78% of these plans are gold plated defined benefit pensions
• 25% of private sector workers have a pension plan
• 16% of these plans are gold plated defined benefit pensions
• 11 million workers, or 60 per cent, of Canada’s workers have no pension at all
• 8 million or 45 per cent, have no pensions or registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs)

That's right.

Eight million Canadian workers (45%) have no pensions or RRSPs; they will depend on the pitifully small handouts grudgingly provided by the Harper Tories, who have run up a huge deficit through their incompetence and untrustworthiness.

And eleven million workers (60%) have no pension at all.

Just hope that you don't grow old in the near future. With the structural deficits brought to you by our piano-playing and stock-picking (The recession is a good time to buy shares …) prime minister, your chances of living out your life as poor senior are high indeed, if you belong to these groups.

Of course, if you are a Tory Cabinet minister, you will probably not notice the monthly cheques from CPP…

The LIberal Party and our seniors

Here is one problem for Michael Ignatieff to mull over: only one in four of voters 45 years old or older favour the Liberals, while almost half prefer the Tories. The Conservatives have walloped the Liberals by opening up a huge gap in potential support amongst the older voters.

The EKOS poll of October 15, 2009 shows that amongst those 65 and over, a startling 50.3% favoured the Conservatives, compared to only 27.7% for the Liberals. Amongst the 45 to 64 year old group, the Tories lead with 44.5% compared to the Liberals' 25.1%.

But do not abandon hope, All Ye Liberals!

There is a chance for the Liberals to present a policy to the voters which could dramatically change the relative support of the two national parties by older Canadians.

That opportunity arises from a simple fact: millions of Canadians do not have any or adequate pensions, other than the pitifully small CPP and OAS.

Today's Globe & Mail introduces a week long series dealing with the appalling state of the nation's pensions, and the reluctance of federal and provincial governments to publicly recognize the problem, and to protect older Canadians.

This gives us the chance to forge policies which promise all Canadian seniors a decent life after retirement. This will require the Liberal Party to be bold and innovative, but by staking out the territory of pension reform, the party could win over a big chunk of the senior vote (remember, more seniors actually vote in elections, far more than other age groups do), and at the same time fill a vacuum in our political space left by the timorous right wing Harper minority government, and the equally fearful provincial governments.

How big is the problem?

Consider these facts:

"Another set of poorer Canadians should never have had the illusion of security in the first place. A large proportion of workers - 44 per cent, or eight million Canadians - have neither an RRSP nor an employer-based registered pension plan. A growing proportion is self-employed. They will depend on the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans and government backstops like Old Age Security. These provide basic assistance, but little more. The maximum CPP monthly payment for a 65-year-old is $908.75. Unless blessed with other assets, a senior who relies on the public system alone lives a life of poverty."

Ignatieff can start by reading the G&M editorial, which contains these suggestions:

"With so many Canadians at personal financial risk, a new approach is needed. Regulators must be more active in monitoring plans between official evaluations. Governments should facilitate the creation of multi-employer pension plans, whose scale can help spread risk and attract workers from smaller workplaces; new plans could get tax credits to encourage their growth. Commitments inherent in existing defined-benefit plans should be legislatively enshrined, so that they cannot be lost in bankruptcy or squandered when good times make plan administrators succumb to the temptation to reduce incoming payments. The principle, outlined by University of Toronto professor Keith Ambachtsheer in an unpublished paper, is that "accruing pension promises must be fully costed and fully funded at all times."

But employers do not need to wait for the government's hand. They can ensure their plans are better funded by setting higher default contribution rates from employees. Other employers can facilitate payroll deductions to the savings account of the employee's choice. As long as these schemes, or "nudges," as described by the economists Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, still leave the ultimate choice on whether to participate in the hands of individual workers, they should be pursued widely. And employers must see the larger public benefits that come with their sponsorship of pensions."

For starters, the Liberal Party should consider making it obligatory for each and every employed or self-employed Canadian to make larger contributions to a revised pension plan, with contributions to the pension plan from both the employer and the federal government. Then the LPC can implement some of the other recommendations of the G&M.

But we should be bold, and innovative, and by so doing, differentiate ourselves from the Harper Tories, who have proven themselves incompetent and untrustworthy in many things, including protecting senior Canadians.

Let us entrench the right of our senior citizens to a decent standard of living after their retirement in our laws, and take steps to make that happen.