We don't need temporary workers, we need permanent ones

It seems everyone has a problem with Canada's temporary foreign worker program. It's the most visible federal employment program that satisfies almost nobody — even government itself.

Well, besides the Canada Jobs Grant program, I guess.

The rubber meets the road for most Canadians through the temporary foreign worker program. That's where government involvement in job placement becomes visible to most of us, whatever side of the labour market we live on.

I'm no expert in national employment planning, but like many Canadians, I do have direct contact with the issue.

A few years ago, the house next door to ours was purchased by a chap from London, England. He'd gotten his construction work experience under water, on the huge crews building the famous Channel Tunnel.

He arrived with good credentials, lots of money, and a willingness to work. He could not get permanent residence in Canada, and without that, no permanent job offers. So he sold the house and moved home.

Another contact is a friend we made while touring in Europe. This friend is an experienced agrologist working for the Swiss government. She came to Canada to visit and immediately saw what almost all visitors to Canada see: opportunity.

Opportunity, but no permission to come here to build a career.

Earlier this year, I joined a labour recruitment trip to Nepal, where almost all of the males I met were desperate to get into Canada. That included the manager of a basement “dance club” (who had a university degree in the hospitality trade), and the owner/operator of our four-star hotel's gift shop.

Unfortunately for them, we were looking for skilled trades for the Alberta oil patch. Perhaps, instead of recruiting females to dance on a stage, and order drinks and food on the visitors' tabs, if they could send their wives, sisters and daughters to Canada to work as live-in nannies, the path to Canada would be easier.

The weakness of the temporary foreign worker program is that Canada doesn't need temporary workers at all; we need permanent ones.

Dating back as far as 10 years and clear back to the Wilfred Laurier era, I have been able to find reports from government consultants and public think tanks suggesting our population is far too small and far to spread over far too much space, for Canada to achieve its potential as a nation.

Our talent pool is too small, our top thinkers separated by too much geography, our business leaders too thinly spaced, for the innovation needed for the future economy to be achieved.

That's why we still make our fortunes as hewers of trees and miners of natural resources.

The vast majority of Canadians live within a three- or four-hour drive of the U.S. border. Even so, if we were to achieve half the population density of England, say, just on that narrow populated strip, Canada would be home to about 200 million people.

Were that to be the case, the vast rest of Canada would still be largely unpeopled, compared with the rest of the industrialized world.

The thinkers who wrote all those reports suggest Canada needs a population of 100 million, to achieve the critical mass of thinkers, leaders and workers to make it possible for the social programs of a modern nation — including employment — to be able to work.

I'm no expert on that, either, but it seems obvious that rotating skilled/semi-skilled people in and out of Canada will not achieve our national goals.

Of all governments, Alberta seems to understand that best. In Alberta (at least for skilled trades), the way can be paved for a foreign worker to gain permanent residence with 24 months of full-time employment.

Families can then be brought into Canada, increasing the supply of labour of all types, and creating consumer demand for everything else available. These are newcomers who go where the jobs are available, and for whom our minimum wage matches the median wage of many countries.

Canada simply needs more people, and the temporary indentured labourers that must leave within months of arriving do not provide the answer.

The hoops for skilled workers to gain permanent resident status are too high. Semi- and unskilled jobs go begging, because unemployed Canadians won't move 100 km for a job that pays $13 an hour. But immigrants will — and be grateful for the chance, for generations.

A program of closely-monitored job sponsorship, with a guarantee that workers can move to another job (and not be bound like indentured servants), seems preferable to what we have now.

I don't understand why most governments don't get that.

Our best health technology sits waiting for us to use it

I like to read science fiction. I like the way authors create societies, and then put them under dire stresses, to examine how they react.

But in order to get to the meat of the plot, the writers have to solve certain unsolvable problems. That includes inventing improbable technology to achieve travel at light speed, for instance, or methods of prolonging human life to allow travel to the stars, while still having enough years in a character's tank to complete the story.

One of the common solutions authors use for the problem of longevity in space travel is the medical ability to regenerate body parts at will.

Mankind (in the real world) is a lot closer to organ regeneration than it is to interplanetary travel, but the barriers to the success of our best medical technologies is our own reluctance to use it.

We can't grow new hearts, eyes or kidneys at will in a lab somewhere, but we can prolong life for a whole lot of people using donated organs. Except that we don't.

In 2012, in Canada, there were just over 2,000 organ transplant operations performed, in total. That number, we are told, hasn't changed much since 2006.

In Alberta in 2011 (the most recent figures I could find) there were only 313. This is according to a chart provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

The wait list for organ transplants in Alberta in 2011 was 785, the majority (475) waiting for a kidney — a relatively easy organ to transplant, once a suitable tissue match is made.

We know that too long of a wait for a new kidney drastically reduces the chances of success, for what is really a rather common type of transplant operation. So, every year, people withdraw from the wait list, while more are added.

In 2011, 21 patients withdrew from the kidney transplant wait list. Another 13 Albertans died on the list in 2011, of a total of 138 patients in Alberta who either withdrew or died on the wait list for all types of transplant operations in that year.

So, roughly speaking, one Alberta patient either dies or is withdrawn from the wait list, for every five operations performed. By any reckoning, that's a pretty dismal success rate, given the technology at hand.

Which makes it hard to understand why, in the last 10 years, the number of registered organ donors in this province has dropped by 40 per cent.

There are two main barriers to a person becoming registered as an organ or tissue donor. One, obviously, is making the decision while living, and making that decision known to the medical community.

The other is making the decision known to next of kin, and for them to allow tissue and organs to be harvested from you after you die.

Irrespective of any organ donor cards or whatever you have signed, once you're dead, your next of kin has final say over you. So, for this process to be honoured, your successors need to honour it, too.

That means — no surprise — they have to be aware of your intentions long in advance. For your sake, hopefully very long in advance.

The province want to make it easier for this process to begin.

The Alberta Organ and Tissue Donation Registry at MyHealth.Alberta.ca allows people to give their consent to donate organs and/or tissues when they die.

The process is as simple as can be made with a legal document. You go to the site, you fill in your name and particulars, you print the form, sign it, have it witnessed and send it back.

It would make things easier if your witness was also next of kin, but that need not be so.

The paperwork is easy. It's the discussion with family that's hard.

But it needs to be done. You as an individual are valuable while you are alive. You are also potentially vitally valuable to a suffering person after you die, if you decide to become an organ donor.

I've written before that other incentives — OK, financial rewards — for becoming an organ donor are considered distasteful by people with squeamish sensibilities.

I still maintain that some consideration (I'm thinking of covering cremation costs, for instance) could still be given. It's a lot cheaper to do that for a kidney donor, than to keep a suffering person on dialysis.

But it should amaze us all, given the technology we do have right now to extend the life of individuals, to heal them instead of endlessly treating their ailments, is not being used.

It's no wonder that science fiction writers simply invent the means for excellent health for a very long time. Relying on human co-operation and kindness seems to be just too much of a stretch.

Canada's Economic Action Plan isn't working, but who cares?

In an age when almost any kind of information is available to anyone who knows how to look for it, you'd think it would be almost impossible that an agency with all the resources of government would fail at getting its message out.

In an age when government seems to know more about you personally than you may be comfortable with them knowing, how could they fail to figure out that they can't get you on board with their plans?

The answer to both questions can be obtained reading news reports on Canadians' reactions to the federal government's costly Economic Action Plan advertising.

It costs $100,000 to put a 30-second ad into TV coverage of this year's NHL playoffs. At those prices, you'd think government would expect some kind of payoff for placing them. So would taxpayers.

But not only are those ads woefully ineffective, the predominant viewer response to them now reads onto the scale of annoyance.

And therein lies the answers to our questions, or partial answers anyway.

In our information age, it appears that getting a government's message out regarding its policies and objectives is actually pretty difficult. Especially if the message is more about message than action.

On the Economic Action Plan alone, about $133 million has been spent to convince you of the plan's merits. But that $133 million worth of advertising is falling on deaf ears.

One report on the government web site dedicated to informing Canadians about the plan (www.actionplan.gc.ca) has averaged 12,600 hits a day. But a poll taken in April calling on 2,000 Canadians found only three people who had visited the site.

Curious, I checked out the site myself, and found it rather uninformative. I found three tips on tax deductions that I could not use (I haven't adopted any children; I am not a first-time charitable donor; and I have no caregiver costs to deduct). Any professional tax filing agency would already have that information.

The rest was what news people call “government bumph.”

There, saved you the trouble.

And the last time anyone checked (which was a long time ago), there have been zero calls to the toll-free 1-800-O-Canada phone line, which the ads direct us to use. Operators are still standing by.

Worse, a poll taken last November (and released over the Easter weekend, when fewer people pay attention to the news), shows the all-time lowest approval rate of government performance for the plan — 38 per cent.

Polling on government advertising is mandatory under federal rules. If government is spending our money on advertising, we who pay for it all are entitled to know if the ads work.

The approval rating of respondents has averaged about 43 per cent since the program began in 2009. But as of last September, Canadians' acceptance of the ads — and their cost — has hit a wall.

So rather than improving the product, the government decided to stop asking for approval rates on the polling they are required by law to do. All they ask now is whether you recall seeing the ads, and whether you did anything as a result.

Well, did you, and did you? There's your answer.

It's not that the government doesn't want to know we don't approve of costly ads for programs that have very little effect on employment rates or small business prospects. One ad in the series once promoted a government support program that didn't even exist.

The government's own in-house polling knows all that and more, about our opinions. The uncomfortable questions about our approval have been lifted from the polls, because the results must be publicly reported.

They know, but they don't want you to see a report that they know.

It is pretty amazing that telling Canadians about the thousands of new jobs created or the businesses that have prospered because of the Economic Action is so difficult. Maybe because there's not a whole lot to talk about, considering the money that's been spent.

But do not believe the government does not want to know if you approve of their spending. They do. They just don't want to alert you that they know the program isn't working.

Council backstrokes to the future

Let's see. . . does Red Deer really need a new aquatics centre, with a competition-grade 50-meter pool, and associated amenities to make the centre useful to the widest possible number of users?

Of course it does.

That needs assessment has already been done. A $200,000 concept plan solving that question has already been completed — and rejected — by a city council more interesting in appearing to consult, than in providing leadership.

So we have another 10-member ad-hoc committee, to add goodness-knows-what to the knowledge base Red Deer already has about swimming pools.

This committee will not even be able to report on what is to happen if the province shuts down the pool at Michener Centre, when it shuts down the entire Michener Centre complex.

But when it comes to deciding things, our city council prefers the backstroke.

I'm being more grumpy than I need to be about this latest decision to study an issue whose parameters are already well-known. But that's because just one day earlier, council backtracked on another project of importance to the future this city, by removing yet one more piece of its bike lane infrastructure — without really knowing why.

Readers know by now that I am quite biased on that issue. You would be forgiven if you discounted everything I could say about cycling infrastructure, for the reason that I happen to be an advocate on the issue, who for a time sat on the council committee that brought the doomed pilot project into being.

But today, I promise not to gripe about any of that. In fact, I firmly expect that what will replace the the lost section of bike lanes along 39^th Street will be better, more safe (though ironically more expensive) than what is there now.

Instead, I want to quarrel with the ethos of our current city council.

You cannot confine Red Deer's future to guidelines in a policy book. Sooner or later, we expect our leaders to lead.

Mayor Tara Veer is still new to her job, but we are hearing too often that no decisions should be made until leadership for them is provided by the community, after all possible town hall meetings and online polling studies are done — in triplicate.

I agree with consulting. In fact, I spend a lot of time participating in public consultations.

But there comes a time when people who have full access to the facts have to go out on a limb, and rely on the community's trust.

Here's what I believe is being ignored: Red Deer is growing fast, and the future will not be a simple continuation of the past, just bigger. Plans are not made just for us, but for people who will be arriving to make our city grow.

The boomer generation has discovered (late) that sustainability matters. Gen X and Y already knew this, but their voice hadn't been fully heard by decision-makers. Sustainability relates not just to capital projects and taxes. It also relates to environment and to culture.

Each year, Red Deer grows by 3,000 people (or more).

But this growth is culturally different than it has been in decades past. A higher proportion of new Red Deerians are more interested in personal fitness and recreation, in protecting our environment, and in experiencing culture.

This is in addition to wanting local government to keep its own costs reasonable.

My reading suggests Western society has reached “peak car.” There will be growth in our region, but that growth will include higher numbers of people wanting a city less designed on cars and parking, and more on human movement.

Every year, more people show a preference to walk, bike or take transit on commutes. Growth in these areas is faster than simple growth in population.

We will need more grocery stores, but there will be a faster growth in a desire for local food production than has been in the past.

We will not be able to “make do” with publicly-built recreation and fitness centres, at levels we have now. Not if we expect to attract continuing growth.

People who advocate these position are not revolutionaries. The revolution has already occurred. A societal switch has been thrown, and we cannot “un-switch.”

The consultation our city council needs is about how we can make already-known solutions work here, not whether.

The sustainable future that everyone talks about is already here. When government dithers and delays, the result is to quash the enthusiasm that people bring to the table — and that is a great sin.

Decide on what the future wants, not the past. That's real leadership.

Confessions of a fair-weather fan

I didn't watch the game, when the Edmonton Oilers finished their eighth straight season out of the playoffs last weekend. But I took some comfort that it was on a hopeful note (a convincing win, and with slightly better than a .500 record in the last 30 games of the season).

I didn't catch much of the action this season either. But I was happy to see that Oilers stalwart Ryan Smyth was able on his last game, at home, to personally feel the goodwill and appreciation of the fans he served so well in his 19 years in the NHL — the vast majority of it either as an Oiler, or as a Team Canada member, and much of that with a C on his jersey.

I was also sad to see him retire, because I wanted him to be there on the ice, finally lifting the Stanley Cup — in an Oilers jersey. That would have been the movie ending, but this is real life.

Such are the dreams of fair-weather sports fans like me.

The phrases are given as a pejorative. “Fair-weather fan.” “Bandwagon-jumper.” One can't control the judgements of others, but I don't recall signing any contracts when I decided a long time ago, that pro sports teams from Edmonton would be my go-to favourites in their respective leagues.

People who regard themselves as “true” fans of sports teams will break their own marriage vows, before they would foreswear their allegiance to a team logo. I try not to judge that, either, but I do not understand their ranking of loyalties.

I don't buy season tickets. The only team jersey I own is supports Arsenal in England’s Premier League — and I got that as a gift. I devote fewer hours per week to watching sports than I do volunteering in the community. No team anywhere will ever make money mining my loyalties.

But loyalties do exist, such as they are. Every August, my interest perks up for both the Edmonton Eskimos and the Oilers. It's early weeks yet, but I am hopeful for Toronto FC in the MLS (mostly because I like the narrative; the team grew out of terrific fan support, before there was a business plan).

So why should I be judged an individual of poor character, if my personal interest should wane, when a particular team under-performs for an extended time? They do not benefit from my interest when they do well, so how are they harmed when I decide to catch up on some reading, rather than spend three hours watching them lose?

Some time ago, a scientific report was released that attempted to quantify the health benefits (and risks) of sports fandom. In general, it was found that when a fan's team does poorly, the fan's physical markers of poor health increase.

Blood pressure rises, as does blood cholesterol levels. In males, testosterone levels drop when their team loses.There is an increased incidence of depression among “true” fans of teams that lose a lot of games.

All of these things not only hurt the individual, but society as a whole. So why would releasing one's attachment to a particular team when they go into the tank be judged as an expression of poor character?

Far better, I believe, to be a “fair-weather” fan who is healthy and productive, than a “true” fan who is on a downward personal spiral along with his team.

True fans know that elite sports teams are in the entertainment business. If they do not provide good entertainment (or at least a reasonable expectation of it), why should their business not suffer?

For example, the Toronto Maple Leafs continue to make scads of money from thousands of “true” fans whose hopes of seeing winning seasons have been continuously dashed for as long as I can remember. Maybe I just have a selective memory, but that does not follow the business model.

If a certain movie studio continuously produces bad movies, they go broke. The same applies to television studio. If a restaurant cannot guarantee good food and good service for money spent, the doors will quickly close.

An entertainment dollar is subjectively spent, by definition — except, it seems, when it is to be spent on professional sports. Even organized religion cannot count on such ardent financial support from its followers, or on the internal judgement made against followers whose financial support is not ardent enough.

I confess that I do not understand this.

The Edmonton Oilers will be back next season (alas, without Ryan Smyth). And so will I.

But if they mess with my health by losing games for an extended period of time, I will once again disassociate. I don't have a jersey to throw on the ice (and certainly not enough money to make one disposable if I did own one and could afford tickets close enough to the ice to make the toss. Or the incredibly bad manners to do so.).

However, I do have a stack of good books I have yet to read.

I will stay true to my family, no matter what. But a professional sports team? I want something in return. What's wrong with that?

Follow Greg Neiman's blog at readersadvocate.blogspot.ca

A transit plan that wins three ways

We all know there are times when getting around in our city can be a hassle. Heavy traffic, bad weather, a stalled car or collision at an intersection — or just feeling over-booked on a too-tight schedule — can make getting from A to B to C and back again a real chore.

And that's for those of us with the means to make decisions about how we will get from A to B to C and back again. There are more people in Red Deer than we might think, for whom there is only one choice on a trip that's too far to walk: using transit.

For them, the barrier to showing up at a doctor's office for instance, will be the $2.50 bus ticket there and another $2.50 return. The same might apply for some people on a training program for a job that would move them out of poverty.

A quick survey of 12 agencies in Red Deer that serve people in some kind of crisis found almost 40,000 people in our city who sometimes find that getting on a transit bus is a hard choice. These would be some seniors, single moms with their children, and others who live on the lowest income rank.

Red Deer is no different from other cities in this regard. The difference is that other cities have found a solution that works — for people in crisis, for the transit system as a whole, and ultimately, for the taxpayer.

In 1996, Edmonton city councillor Allan Bolstad proposed a system by which people could donate money to purchase bus tickets for people who needed them. It started as fare donations made by people using city transit on New Year's Eve, when all rides were free.

Well, the taxpayers know there is no free ride. But his idea, Donate A Ride, has morphed into something much more efficient. It has become a package that is free for organizers and city councils to copy and paste anywhere.

And it's coming to Red Deer.

Spearheaded by the Red Deer Action Group Society, and with the blessing of the mayor's office and the assistance of transit management, Red Deer will soon begin a donation campaign for Donate A Ride.

The program is designed to be simple and low-cost. This year, fundraising will run through May. (In Edmonton and Calgary, for instance, Donate A Ride campaigns run in December, to coincide with the end of the United Way campaign. In Red Deer, it is hoped to eventually run this way as well.).

A small board consisting of city representatives and local non-profits will use the money to buy transit tickets. Then, they will divide those tickets among local agencies that apply for them, in the same way the United Way divides its donations between its member agencies.

The agencies can then hand out bus tickets over the course of the year, to clients who need them.

The donations (in many cases, from businesses) are actually capped. Official sponsorships begin at $1,000, but no donation over $5,000 will be accepted.

Jean Stinson, a friend and colleague of mine, is the president of the Action Group Society's board and chair of the Donate A Ride organizing committee. She says the cap is in place to prevent draining the corporate donations pool. There are many requests out there for all kinds of causes, and Stinson is sensitive to that.

Eventually, the Donate A Ride board will self-dissolve and the program will be run by a steering committee.

Here's where the benefits meet the transit system and the taxpayers.

Every year, transit authorities struggle with budgets. Who doesn't? Transit needs to balance costs with service standards, and a fare schedule that doesn't rule out the people it is set up to serve.

The city has to list and acknowledge all the costs of its transit system. (Car owners, for their part, almost never do. If they did, thousands of Red Deerians would find that it is actually cheaper for them to buy a monthly transit pass to get to work — and possibly get rid of one family vehicle.)

In Edmonton, the program constantly sets new records. In 2012, Donate A Ride raised $202,000 — which went to Edmonton Transit to buy tickets. These tickets go to people who might otherwise not be able to use the system. That's about 91,000 additional rides, helping the transit system recover costs, and hold down price increases for everyone else.

Don't expect those numbers in Red Deer, but one of the barriers to improving service here is that growth in ridership is slower than growth of population. More riders means better service, which ultimately makes transit an easier choice for people who could save the money they now spend on a car.

And, of course, the donations are tax-deductible. Check out donatearide.ab.ca to see more about the program. Locally, the Action Group Society expects to have an online link to info sheet and downloadable sponsorship form on their site at rdactiongroup.ca by the end of April. Stay tuned.

No one can compel my allegiance to The Queen (but I'm still a Canadian)

Question: What do a 79-year-old descendent of an Irish Nationalist, an Israeli-born math professor and a Jamaican-born Rastafarian have in common?

Answer: They are all permanent residents of Canada who wish to become full citizens, but cannot, because they can't in good conscience swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.

Swearing allegiance to Canada's foreign monarch is part of the oath of allegiance to Canada that new citizens must profess (or affirm), before getting the right to a Canadian passport and the right to vote.

Naturally-born Canadians, like myself, are not required to take the oath. But I've done so many times, as our entire elementary school class was compelled to do. We did not include “heirs and successors” in our pledges in those days, because Queen Elizabeth was surely going to live forever.

But we all did pledge “our love and loyalty” to the picture that hung at the front of the class. And as if we didn't really mean it this week, we would all take the pledge again next week.

We all did this, except for a few of my classmates who were of a religious sect who were do not allowed to do such things. But they are Canadians nonetheless.

Last week, a new case was begun by the three would-be Canadians in the Ontario Court of Appeal, claiming the oath violates Canada's right of free speech.

Last September, Ontario Supreme Court Justice Edward Morgan ruled the oath is indeed “compelled speech” but in this case, it does not violate our Constitution.

Thus the appeal, and the probable trip to the Supreme Court of Canada. The federal government — loyal monarchists all — have already said they will appeal any ruling that would allow an opening for strict non-monarchists to become Canadians. You have to be born here to have that.

For Tories, our Canada includes hereditary rule by people who frequently appear on the cover of supermarket pulp magazines. An irony if ever there was one, because the best-before date for the notion of hereditary rule passed with the end of the bubonic plagues, the invention of moveable type, and the rise if literacy.

So Queen Elizabeth may well have to live forever, if she is to see the end of this legal battle.

Our historic status as a constitutional monarchy may not be as permanent as the federal government would have us believe.

Last September, when Justice Morgan delivered his decision, MP Peter Goldring said: "I'm weary of a lot of these stories of people who come to a country seeking a fresh start (and) a fresh life and then not really wanting to subscribe into the type of society that the country is."

But then, Peter Goldring wearies easily.

Really, it depends on who you ask, whether Canada still clings to medieval beliefs about the divine right of kings.

An online poll by the Toronto Star showed 54.6 per cent of respondents saying that swearing allegiance to Canada should be sufficient to gain citizenship.

A similar poll, though, on Canada.com showed a 70 per cent support for keeping the royal oath. 

Comments on the report of that poll show a fairly scary aspect of Canadian society, with anonymous people saying immigrants who don't profess loyalty to the Queen are either ignorant of what Canada is, or should just “go home.”

Now would be a good time to mention that the people launching the current court appeal have called Canada “home” longer than most current Canadians have been alive.

Nor are they particularly ignorant of Canadian realities. If you want an education on the finer points of our Constitution, try launching a Supreme Court challenge.

Other commentators — immigration lawyers included — suggest objectors should just cross their fingers behind their back and say the words. After all, not a whole lot of natural-born Canadians spend much time pondering their allegiance to the Queen, beyond honouring the face on their money.

For instance, Louis Riel did just that to become a Member of Parliament. He was later hanged as a traitor, but he's now considered a Great Canadian Martyr.

If that's more history than you care for, consider that all separatist MPs did the same, when they took office. And they were Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

If you're seeking the moral high ground, I'd suggest you look to a 79-year-old retired journalist, before a whole roomful of members of the Shadow Cabinet, whose allegiance was as thin as a $20 bill. Yet they were all Canadian citizens.

I am Canadian. But I don't believe anyone should be allowed head-of-state status by simple right of birth. A new citizen should be allowed that same freedom to think and to speak.

Why the feds don't want to reform CPP

After three years of saying the federal government would look favourably at a modest boost to Canada Pension Plan premiums and benefits — if the economy was stronger, and if the provinces would get on board — then-finance minister Jim Flaherty pulled the plug last December.

There would be no CPP reform on his watch. A couple of months later, he retired.

That was after his conditions were met; the economy is getting stronger, and all the provinces and territories (including Quebec) agree change is needed.

Why the turnaround? Flaherty said an internal study by his own department concluded that boosting payroll taxes would hurt the economy and job growth.

Up to 17,000 jobs, he said, would be either lost or not created, if companies had to boost CPP contributions for their staff.

Well, that is what the study did say, and we'd have to believe him on the rest, until somebody outside the finance department could actually read the report.

The report does say there would be harm to the economy, there would be job losses — but only if the reforms were all made in one year. The actual plan, which the provinces all agreed to, is to blend the reforms in over a decade, as economic growth made it affordable.

CBC News made a request for the study, and here's what it really says: “In the long run, expanding the CPP would bring economic benefits.”

“If such an increase is implemented at a time of robust economic growth, as was the case during the late 1990s (e.g. when Paul Martin brought in the last round of hikes) … the impact would be outweighed by the underlying strength of the economy.”

That's what Flaherty's report really said.

So why would a guy like Jim Flaherty switch gears like that?

I'll give you one cynic's suggestion: because CPP reform would not benefit today's seniors, only younger workers. Seniors vote, young people don't. Seniors hold a lot of wealth in mutual funds, which would be affected in the short term by a drop in corporate profits. There is an election in two years. No brainer.

Flaherty also said he did not want to tie a future government's hands, by entering into a reform program that would last longer than one electoral cycle.

That's why he objected to two cuts to the GST, which affects all government revenue for all time. Oh, but he didn't object, did he?

National governments make changes that affect the future and tie future governments' decisions all the time. It's part of the job.

But on the basis of a deliberate misreading of his own office's report, Flaherty killed a reform plan that had the unheard-of unanimous support of every province. When was the last time every province agreed on something?

And anyway, why are the provinces meddling in a federal tax program in the first place? That's not supposed to be their role.

Because it's the provinces whose hands are being tied here.

Years from now, today's 20- and 30-somethings will reach retirement age with their careers pockmarked by long periods of unemployment and part-time jobs. They will have spent their early career lives paying for student loans and mortgages, with little or nothing left for savings.

They won't qualify for full CPP as it now stands (only a minority of retirees do today, even). They will be looking to far more costly social support programs in their senior years. Those would be programs the provinces will have to raise taxes to cover.

If anyone's hands should be tied to prevent this, it should be those in the federal government's gloves, not the provinces.

The Canada Pension Plan is among the world's best and most efficient. Administration costs are low compared to other national plans (and much less than private plans, while being much more secure) and it is available equally across the country.

Red Deerians who get tired of shovelling snow and move to balmy B.C. to retire, take their federal benefits with them.

People who move to Red Deer from another province for a job do not have to start their government-sponsored retirement plan from scratch. If everyone adopted Ontario's go-it-alone plan, they would.

Less than a quarter of Canadians file tax returns with RSP deductions on them. Jim Flaherty wishing it were 100 per cent will never make it so.

Many younger and middle-aged workers have already lost those early savings years that are so important to building the fortune required for retirement on their own. A forced-savings plan like CPP is their best (or only) bet.

Flaherty did Canada a disservice, in the months before he left office, by not considering any future, other than that of his party, two years from now.