Editorial: 'Pension push' should be abandoned

Article content

Federal cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc is being completely unconvincing about the Liberal government’s reasons for pushing the fixed date for the next national election by one week – to Oct. 27 from Oct. 20, 2025.

And it’s not only the governing Liberals who should be in the public’s line of fire here – but any party that chooses to vote with the government.

Ostensibly, the change is to avoid conflicts with a Hindu religious holiday and municipal elections happening in Alberta that week. Yet, as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has pointed out, delaying the election date will also make 80 Members of Parliament eligible for full pensions, for which they otherwise would not have served enough time. That includes two MPs from New Brunswick.

Forgive us for doubting this is a coincidence.

If an MP falls short of six years of service, their pension contributions and matching employer dollars are returned to them. But if they make it over the line, it means a secure pension for life after retirement age.

We don’t begrudge long-serving members, such as Mr. LeBlanc, a retirement benefit comparable to other federal workers. But for his more junior colleagues, six years in exchange for a full pension isn’t reasonable.

That’s especially the case when dozens of MPs will not qualify for the benefit – unless they intervene to reach the threshold on a technicality.

In a time of economic upheaval, having legislators vote themselves a pension is tone-deaf. It should be surprising only that someone thought this could sneak by the public without anyone noticing.

This legislative amendment should be scrapped, if only for the bad optics. To avoid conflicts, they can move the fixed election date earlier – or, more reasonably, just leave things the way they are.