Chelsea Edwards used to watch mice scamper across the floor while she attended classes in a mouldy Attawapiskat portable.

Now the 16-year-old is one of five First Nations youths travelling to Geneva for a private meeting with the United Nations to tell stories about what it is like to attend a reserve school in Canada. They meet Monday with the UN committee on the rights of the child.

Aboriginal leaders say the state of First Nations education in this country is in crisis: Only 40 per cent of youths living on reserves finish high school. On average, native students receive about $3,000 less in education funding than non-natives.

And many First Nations adolescents must leave their families to attend school off-reserve because their remote communities don’t have schools. In Thunder Bay, seven kids have died in the last 10 years while living on their own seeking an education.

Later this month, a national panel studying aboriginal education is expected to report to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

Reports matter little to Edwards. “I’ve seen all the inequalities, I’ve lived them,” she said Thursday at a press conference in the office of the Ontario Provincial Child and Youth Advocate. “It is time for our voices to be heard.”

When Edwards was younger, she thought all kids went to school in makeshift portables “with mice running around.”

“I didn’t know what better conditions were like,” she said. “I hadn’t been out of the community or saw another school.”

Edwards and the others are part of Shannen’s Dream campaign. Attawapiskat teen Shannen Koostachin was tired of going to school in rundown portables built next to a site contaminated by a 50,000-litre diesel spill. She started a letter-writing campaign to push for “safe and comfy” schools for children living on reserves. Her dream started a movement across Canada. Koostachin died in a car accident in 2010.

The Geneva meeting is small and private — the six youths and the 18-member UN committee. Travelling with them are Ontario Child Advocate Irwin Elman and University of Alberta professor Cindy Blackstock, who is executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society.

“It is heartbreaking it has to come to this,” said Elman. “But often times, young people can lead us. Young people standing up speaking about their real lived experiences and their real realities makes all the adults who are responsible lift their heads up and say, ‘We can do better.’”

In 2009, Blackstock received the Atkinson Charitable Foundation’s Economic Justice fellowship, which provides $100,000 per year to community leaders to support their work.

Late last year, Blackstock discovered she was being spied on by the federal government for her advocacy work. Through an access to information request she found out federal officials attended 75 to 100 meetings she spoke at since 2007 and that her Facebook page was being monitored. In 2007, she filed a human rights complaint accusing the government of willfully underfunding First Nations children services.

It is discriminatory not to give First Nations kids the same chances as other Canadian children, said Blackstock.

“Success for me will be Canada’s inequality by race, in telling children that they get less for who they are, is known to everyone in the world,” Blackstock said.

Last month, Ottawa announced a call to tenders to build a new elementary school in Attawapiskat, a Cree First Nation on the shores of James Bay that has made headlines over its poverty and third world-like housing crisis. The Conservative government approved the building of the school in 2009.

“I’ll believe it when I see it,” said Edwards. “But that won’t stop me. That isn’t the end for me. Not until all First Nations schools are built.”

< http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1125478–first-nations-education >

Small fixes will not be enough to bring about the transformational change Ontario’s social assistance needs, says a progress report by the province’s social assistance review commission.

More employment support for those on welfare, including those with disabilities; streamlined delivery and new benefits available to all low-income people outside the welfare system are some of the ideas the commission is exploring.

“Across the province, people asked us to be bold in thinking about how to reform the social assistance system,” says the report being released Friday by commissioners Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh.

“While many identified specific policies or rules that are not working under the current system, they also called for more fundamental change to the system as a whole,” it adds.

But mindful of the province’s fiscal tight-jacket, the commissioners acknowledge that “some changes will take longer to implement than others.”

The commission, established in November 2010, is aimed at removing barriers and increasing opportunities for people to work. It is expected to release its recommendations in June.

The progress is the result of 11 community meetings across the province with more than 2,000 participants, numerous informal meetings and 700 written submissions.

Rather than a comprehensive report on options for reform, the update discusses different approaches and highlights areas for more discussion.

“As our work unfolded, we strongly desired to engage in further dialogue and obtain feedback on specific areas of reform to help refine our thinking,” Lankin and Munir write. They are requesting input by March 16.

In the area of employment support, the commission notes that the current approach separates social assistance recipients from other job-seekers, such as those receiving Employment Insurance.

“This reinforces the stigma of receiving assistance and makes it more difficult for people, especially people with disabilities, to access a wider range of services,” the report says. “The separation also results in service duplication and gaps, confusion for job-seekers and employers, and administrative inefficiencies.”

Instead, the report suggests those on welfare, including people with disabilities get access to the full range of employment supports.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/1125640–small-fixes-to-ontario-s-welfare-system-not-enough-says-progress-report >

Most Canadians would be willing to discuss the retirement age, if they were asked.

But they weren’t.

The country’s basic pension program, Old Age Security, was launched 60 years ago when the average worker’s lifespan was 68.5 years. Today it’s 81.4 years.

Several western countries — Germany, Norway, the United States — have already raised their retirement ages. So there was nothing radical or groundbreaking about the reform Stephen Harper announced at a meeting of international decision-makers in Europe last week.

What was disturbing was the way the Prime Minister sprang the imperative of reducing seniors’ benefits on an unwary public, with no national debate, no explanation for its sudden urgency and no chance to consider alternatives.

Likewise, most Canadians would be open to adjusting the way immigrants are selected, if they were asked.

But they weren’t.

It makes no sense to keep recruiting highly educated professionals (who end up driving taxis because their qualifications aren’t recognized) and rejecting skilled tradespeople (whom employers are eager to hire).

But every change creates winners and losers. Canadians want an immigration system that balances the needs of economic migrants, new citizens seeking to reunite their families, refugees fleeing persecution and native-born Canadians competing for jobs.

Rather than working with these groups, Harper announced in Europe that his government would move unilaterally. “We will undertake a significant reform of our immigration system,” he said.

Most Canadians would be willing to revise environmental procedures, if they were asked.

But they weren’t.

There has to be a better way of protecting the ecosystem than holding hearings that drag on for years, cost taxpayers billions of dollars and encourage opponents of development to round up a long list of witnesses, all making the same point.

But Harper doesn’t want ideas. He wants a quick, made-in-Ottawa solution.

The Prime Minister can do all this — and more. He has a parliamentary majority. What he can’t do is stop Canadians from questioning his rationale (numerous actuarial reports show Old Age Security is affordable); questioning his motives (streamlined environmental rules would help oil producers); and questioning his trustworthiness (despite his claims to the contrary, immigrants fear he will restrict the intake of “non-productive’ newcomers such as grandparents, siblings and refugees.)

At the moment, voters’ options are limited. They can mount protests, circulate petitions and generate negative publicity, but none of these has deterred Harper in the past.

The more immediate challenge is to halt the spread of undemocratic practices to other levels of government.

Take Ontario, for example. Premier Dalton McGuinty, in a deft end-run around voters, appointed a panel of experts after last fall’s election to come up with a sweeping plan to cut provincial costs. The four-member commission, headed by former bank executive and federal bureaucrat Don Drummond, is to report this month.

Drummond answers to the premier, not the people. It is not clear what principles he has applied or how he weighed the needs of various groups. It is not clear whether his blueprint will be open to public debate.

McGuinty, unlike Harper, does not have a legislative majority. Conscious of his own vulnerability and public restiveness, the premier announced this week that his government would hold a series of telephone town hall sessions on its 2012 budget.

Then there is Mayor Rob Ford. He bullies or bulldozes anyone who gets in his way. It worked for about a year. Then a moderate group of city councillors, prodded by angry Torontonians, found their spines. They opposed most of the spending cuts in Ford’s 2012 budget and rallied enough votes to win.

Now they are challenging his legal right to scrap provincially approved transit improvements in favour of subways. The mayor says he won’t budge. Nothing will happen till this test of wills is resolved.

Across jurisdictions, political leaders seem to have forgotten their authority comes from the people. They don’t bother to listen, explain, persuade or look for a consensus. They simply pronounce.

< http://www.thestar.com/article/1125609–prime-minister-stephen-harper-s-high-handed-tactics-offend-canadians >

Mitt Romney’s thumping victory in the Florida primary this week is bringing us closer to a Romney-Obama faceoff in the autumn. While we do not know for sure if Mr. Romney will clinch the Republican nomination, if he does, we can already say what the central question in November will be: Is the United States one nation under God, or has it become a country where the government needs to secure a better deal for the 99 per cent?

We know Mr. Romney’s view. In a television interview last month, he explained: “When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 per cent versus 1 per cent – and those people who have been most successful will be in the 1 per cent – you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.”

Meanwhile, in his State of the Union address, the President opted explicitly for the 99 per cent perspective. Restoring their fortunes is “the defining issue of our time,” he said. “No challenge is more urgent. No debate more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

The Obama analysis gets a lift from “The China Syndrome,” a recent paper on the impact of trade with China by a powerful troika of economists: David H. Autor, David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson. The empirical study, which was cited in an important speech on inequality a few weeks ago by Alan Krueger, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, is particularly significant because it marks a shift in consensus thinking in the academy.

In the debate about the causes of growing income inequality, U.S. economists have tended to opt for technology as the driving force. Indeed, in his remarks, Mr. Krueger referred to a survey he did of those economists, who overwhelmingly cited technological change as the most important factor.

But, drawing on detailed data from local labour markets in the United States, the authors of the “The China Syndrome” argue that globalization, and in particular trade with China, is having a huge impact on blue-collar U.S. workers: “Conservatively, it explains one-quarter of the contemporaneous aggregate decline in U.S. manufacturing employment.”

The deleterious effects go beyond those workers who lose their jobs. In communities hit by the China Syndrome, wages fall – particularly, it turns out, outside the manufacturing sector – and some people stop looking for work. The result is “a steep drop in the average earnings of households.” Uncle Sam gets hit, too, especially in the form of increased disability payouts.

Messrs. Autor, Dorn and Hanson are no protectionists. But, in a challenge to the “one nation under God” view of the world, they offer a sharp reminder that the costs and benefits of trade are unevenly shared. As they put it, their finding does not “contradict the logic” of arguments favouring free trade: “It just highlights trade’s distributional consequences.”

When I raised the issue with Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel economics laureate and long-time doomsayer about the downside of globalization, he practically crowed with vindication. “The economic theory is very clear,” he said. “What happens when you bring together countries which are very different like the United States and China, what happens is that the wages in the high-wage country get depressed down. This was predictable. Full globalization would in fact mean the wages in the United States would be the same as the wages in China. That’s what you mean by a perfect market. We don’t like that.”

The truth is we are no longer living in “one nation under God” – we are living in one world under God. Globalization is working – the world over all is getting richer. But a lot of the costs of that transition are being borne by specific groups of workers in the developed West.

We are accustomed to thinking of the left as having an internationalist perspective. Liberals are the sort of people who worry about poverty in Africa or the education of girls in India. The irony today is that the real internationalists are no longer the bleeding-heart liberals, they are the cutthroat titans of capital.

Here, for instance, is what Steve Miller, the chairman of the insurance giant American International Group and one of Detroit’s legendary turnaround bosses, had to say about globalization and jobs. “Well, first off, as a citizen of the world, I think everyone around the world, no matter what country they’re in, should have the opportunities that we have gotten used to in the United States. Globalization is here. It’s a fact of life; it’s not going away. And it does mean that for different levels of skill, there’s going to be something of a levelling out of pay scales that go with it, particularly for jobs that are mobile, if the products can be moved, which is not everything.”

No matter what passport you hold, if you run or own a global company, that is not really a big deal. But, as Mr. Autor, Mr. Dorn and Mr. Hanson show, if you are a U.S. worker, that “levelling out” can be painful indeed.

Smart policy, however, can make a big difference. Europe may not seem to have much to teach the rest of the world at the moment, but as German Chancellor Angela Merkel leads a group of German industrialists to Guangzhou this week, Americans might want to study how Germany has turned the China Syndrome to the benefit of both its chief executives and its blue-collar workers.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/chrystia-freeland/china-syndrome-rears-head-in-coming-us-election/article2324446/ >

Canada’s statistics agency will use 2011 census results to shine a spotlight on gradual but profound shifts in this aging country – one where the elderly will soon outweigh children as a share of the population and there will be difficulty finding sufficient younger workers to replace those ready to retire.

Statistics Canada will release the first wave of 2011 census data next Wednesday, highlighting population shifts. But the “age and sex” component of the census, expected to be released by this spring, will further illuminate the greying of eastern provinces compared with Ontario and others further west.

INFOGRAPHIC

Canada’s aging population

< Population-ratio03_1369778a.jpg >

The data lands in the middle of a heated national debate over whether Ottawa should make Canadians wait an extra two years for government Old Age Security benefits, a policy change that could spur them to postpone retirement beyond 65.

An internal Statscan document, obtained by The Globe and Mail, estimates that the share of Canada’s working-age population in the 45-64 year group has hit a record high. This suggests that a significant number of mature workers could retire from the labour force in the next 20 years – the latest sign of a demographic shift as the population ages.

The Statscan presentation, from late December, 2011, shows the agency expects census data will continue a broad trend that’s leaving the Atlantic provinces and Quebec with an above-average proportion of seniors aged 65 and up. Many provinces further west, however, have a lower-than-average share of the retirement-age population.

“Since 2006 the share of the working-age population has decreased in most eastern provinces; it has remained the same or increased in Ontario and western provinces,” the Statscan document says.

There are variations: One Statscan slide notes that the proportion of people aged 65 years and up is two times lower in Calgary than in Peterborough, Ont.

The document – which does not contain 2011 census data but instead draws on Statscan’s ongoing population estimates to anticipate the findings – also expects that Canada will soon reach, or has already reached, the point where the number of younger people of age to enter the labour force equals the number of Canadians old enough to leave it. Immigration and delayed retirement, however, could ease this looming pressure on the work force.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has signalled that he is ready to tackle long-term questions about the sustainability of Canada’s social programs as the ratio of seniors to workers climbs. Mr. Harper has portrayed the reforms as a fix for a generation: Confronting an aging population now will create the conditions for prosperity down the road.

However, he has not outlined what the reforms may entail, forcing the government to reassure Canadians that their current pension benefits are not in jeopardy.

The paper is a late-2011 version of a slide presentation by Laurent Martel and France-Pascale Ménard of Statistics Canada’s demography division that details plans for presenting the “age and sex” portion of census results. One slide ranks more than 30 census metropolitan areas – populations of 100,000 or more – by the proportion of their population aged 65 years and over. The lineup shows Peterborough with the highest proportion of people aged 65 or older and, at the other end, Calgary, with the lowest.

Statscan is also forecasting that Canada is not far from the day when the proportion of the population that is 65 years and older surpasses the share that’s 14 years and under. On the agency’s website, it has anticipated this will first occur between 2015 and 2021.

Statscan estimates that in 2011 the share of Canada’s population under 14 years old is 16.4 per cent, and the proportion 65 years and over is 14.4 per cent. In 1971, by comparison, 29.3 per cent of the population was 14 years and younger, while only 8 per cent was 65 years and older.

Nevertheless, the Statscan document shows Canada is still in better shape relative to most of its Group of Eight peers when it comes to the balance between its working-age population and those aged 65 years and over.

As of 2011, the proportion of people aged 65 and over in Canada’s population is the third lowest in the G8 countries, with only the United States and Russia lower. At the same time, the proportion of the population that is working-age – 15 to 64 – is higher in Canada than in all other G8 countries except Russia.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/statscan-numbers-highlight-concerns-about-aging-and-the-work-force/article2324976/ >

We have pension challenges in Canada, but we do not have a crisis.

That distinction needs to be kept front and centre when we talk about both the adequacy of retirement income for Canadians now and the demographic changes that threaten the sustainability of our public pension system.

Stories in the news about the crisis in Europe might have led many Canadians to believe that the same dire conditions exist here. They do not. A comparative study done by the head of the social policy division of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for the federal Department of Finance in 2009 concluded that “Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its pension schemes.”

To put the issue into perspective, the study projected that spending on public pensions of all kinds will increase from the current level of 4.5 per cent of GDP to 6.2 per cent by 2060. By comparison, the 27 European Union nations already were spending on average nine per cent of GDP at the time of the study.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper ignited a firestorm in Canada with his speech last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in which he listed the need for pension reform as one of the priorities of his government.

Tossed into the overheated political atmosphere in Ottawa, those remarks and the confirmation from Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan have unleashed a torrent of unhelpful rhetoric from both sides of Parliament.

What Canadians need to hear instead is a rational discussion of the challenges facing our pension plans and the options for improving the outlook for the next several decades.

First, we do have demographic challenges. The chief actuary for the federal Old Age Security system estimates that as our population continues to get greyer over the next 40 years, the ratio of people of working age to retirees will fall from 4.4 to one to 2.2 to one.

All of the components of our Old Age Security system, which includes the OAS, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and survivors’ allowances, are supported by taxpayers. With fewer taxpayers of working age, the burden on those remaining will increase, not-withstanding that many retirees also pay taxes.

Without any changes to current formulas, the cost of Old Age Security is expected to increase from the current level of 2.3 per cent of GDP to 3.1 per cent in 2030.

All of which raises a number of crucial questions that we need to address in a national debate, rather than one that gets too easily hijacked for partisan advantage as we have seen already this week in Ottawa.

First is the question of sustainability. We can see that costs will rise over the next couple of decades. Do we need to cut those costs or should we look else-where to raise the funds necessary? In any organization, spending patterns have to change to meet changing priorities. In times of war, we spend more on defence. During the baby boom, we invested disproportionately in education. Do we need to simply accept the fact that as our population ages, we will have to spend more of our bud-get on pensions, leaving less for other priorities?

< http://www.vancouversun.com/business/pension+crisis+reform+opportunity/6089355/story.html >

A much savvier political option for the Harper Conservatives than raising Old Age Security eligibility to 67 from 65 would be taxing back all benefits from all 65-plus seniors not decidedly low income.

If they do anything else, they will be pegged as mean-spirited and excessively ideological.

Because the truth is, Canada, while better off than most developed countries, continues to have a fair number of low-income seniors, mostly women – a group that inspires empathy from most Canadians.

The Stephen Harper crowd can rightly be criticized for some of their past policies in which they went out of their way to favour upper-income groups.

For example, the government has promised, once the federal budget is balanced, to allow income splitting for tax purposes for higher income Canadians.

It’s already providing tax benefits for families of children enrolling in often-costly sports programs.

As for OAS, Conservatives have not yet specified what they’ll do. But they’re properly highlighting a need for reform in the face of a demographic challenge posed by retiring baby boomers.

New Democrats and Liberals this week began leading a charge against any changes, with both parties mobilizing the public with online petitions.

Between now and 2030, OAS costs are expected to triple. While that will represent only a modest increase when set against projected growth in the country’s overall economy, any hike in costs potentially will be problematic when seniors’ health care needs are factored in.

It’s thus defensible for the government to introduce reforms to make OAS more sustainable.

But surely those reforms should not be punitive for those between 65 and 67 who genuinely need financial help.

A 2009 Conference Board of Canada report cited an Organization for Economic Development study that showed only the Netherlands, with an elderly poverty rate of two per cent, outperforms Canada when it comes to keeping seniors out of poverty.

Canada’s rate is 5.9 per cent – remarkably, down from nearly 37 per cent 40 years ago.

But the ranks of the low-income elderly began growing again in the mid-1990s.

A 2009 report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, titled Women’s Poverty and the Recession, contends that 14 per cent of single older women are poor.

Centre researcher Monica Townson accused the Harper government of “seriously undermining progress toward reducing women’s poverty in Canada.”

Far better than raising OAS eligibility for everyone, Conservatives should restrict the benefit to those who really need the money.

Seniors increasingly will want to keep their jobs beyond age 65, especially since investment returns have been so scant in recent years and more older people are entering retirement with debt.

But not everyone will be able to keep working.

The disabled or those with physically onerous jobs should have the option of turning to OAS, which also functions as a gatekeeper for eligibility for a host of provincial and municipal social programs.

At present only two per cent of Canadians over 65, with incomes of more than $112,000 yearly, have OAS benefits entirely clawed back through the tax system.

Five per cent experience partial clawbacks, starting at about $67,000.

To make the program more sustainable, government reasonably could begin claw-backs at income levels of, say, $40,000; and cancel the entire benefit for those with incomes over $50,000.

That would be a far more rational, and politically salable, response to the legitimate financial challenge presented by a baby boom bulge that is about to retire.

< http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Best+pension+reform+would+take+from+rich+seniors/6089370/story.html >

The political controversy over possible cuts to old age security grew even hotter Wednesday, as the Harper government’s critics vowed to fight the reforms and called on Canadians to rise up against them.

“This is an issue about at what point does the federal government take some responsibility about the status and position of the most vulnerable and needy people of our society,” said interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae.

In less than week, more than 12,000 Canadians have signed an online petition started by the Liberals and MPs have heard loud complaints from constituents.

Rae said Harper has created a “totally manufactured crisis” about the future sustainability of pensions. The government says the cost of the old age security (OAS) system, without reforms, will soar from $36.5 billion in 2010 to $108 billion in 2030.

But critics and experts have said that, in fact, when viewed as a ratio of Canada’s GDP, the increase in pension costs won’t be so stark and the system will be affordable.

“There is no cause for panic, and there is no justification for the kind of measures which the prime minister is talking about,” Rae told reporters. “This is the most clear example we can point to of where this neo-conservative ideology of Mr. Harper’s is driving this country, is driving our social programs.”

Rae said making Canadians wait until age 67 to collect OAS benefits would boost the cost of other support programs for low-income seniors and create a huge financial burden for provinces and municipalities.

Quebec Employment Minister Julie Boulet said such a move would have a negative impact on senior citizens and be a drain on the province’s coffers. She said the age hike would cost her province “tens of millions of dollars” in welfare payments to low-income seniors between the ages of 65 and 67.

Pension experts echoed opposition concerns.

Andrew Jackson, chief economist for the Canadian Labour Congress, said raising the age of eligibility for OAS to 67 would likely result in “a very significant increase” in poverty among seniors. And that, in turn, would increase the costs of social assistance, disability and drug programs for provincial governments.

Matthew Mendelsohn, director of the Mowat Centre think-tank, agreed.

“It certainly makes sense to have a real discussion about retirement ages and programs and generosity but stealth downloading of support from the federal government to provinces for low-income seniors… is going to put way more pressure on provincial governments that have real fiscal pressures and deficit challenges already,” he said.

Harper sparked a raging debate over OAS during a speech last week in Davos, Switzerland, when he said Canada’s public pension system needs a serious overhaul to remain financially sustainable as the population ages. Officials made it clear the government is targeting OAS.

While the government has offered no details, it is widely believed to be looking at boosting the age of eligibility by two years.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday night the upcoming federal budget will not include changes to the OAS but changes are coming.

Rae said such a move would create a “domino effect” the government does not appear to have considered. He pointed out eligibility for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, an income-tested top-up for low-income seniors, is tied to eligibility for OAS. And qualifying for the GIS/OAS is tied to qualifying for provincial drug plans and other provincial and municipal support programs for seniors.

“He is not only dumping on the vulnerable senior citizens,” Rae told the House of Commons. “He is also dumping on the provinces, dumping on municipalities, creating a cascade of injustice because of a totally manufactured crisis on his side.”

Harper shrugged off the accusation, calling his assertions “nonsense” and “fear-mongering.”

Harper reiterated in the Commons Wednesday the planned changes to the pension system won’t affect today’s seniors or those close to turning 65.

“We will protect all of the benefits that go to seniors today,” said Harper. “A senior will not lose a single penny, nor one near retirement. What we are dealing with is people far off in the future who are very worried about their income security because they understand the pressures we are under. We are going to make sure the system protects them as well.”

That didn’t satisfy NDP critic Peter Julian, who said Canadian taxpayers have been “living by the rules” and are counting on a pension when they retire.

– Postmedia News / The Canadian Press

___________________________________

Canadian pension primer

THE future of Canada’s pension system is suddenly the hottest political issue on Parliament Hill. Here’s what you should know:

Q. What is old age security?

A. OAS is the centrepiece of the country’s public pension system, funded entirely by government revenues. It’s available to any Canadian citizen or permanent resident who has lived in the county for at least 10 years. People qualify at age 65. The maximum payment is $540.12 a month for seniors with less than $69,562 in annual net income. The payment is gradually clawed back for those above that income threshold, until it disappears for those earning more than $112,772.

Q. What’s the problem?

A. Baby boomers are heading toward retirement, and there will be fewer Canadians in the workforce to pay taxes to government. Without change, says the government, OAS will balloon in size and cost — from 4.7 million recipients (costing $36.5 billion) in 2010 to 9.3 million people (costing $108 billion) in 2030.

Q. What’s the government plan?

A. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he will make changes to the pension system to ensure its “future sustainability for the next generation while not affecting current recipients.” The government is tight-lipped on specifics, but pledges an “adjustment period” so reforms don’t hurt Canadians “close to retirement.”

Q. What are the options?

A. There are no final decisions, but the government is examining changing the age of OAS qualification — to 67 from 65. Conceivably, it could also remove inflation protection to OAS benefits, or lower the income threshold at which benefits are clawed back from people.

Q. What do opposition parties say?

A. They have pounced on the issue, promising to protect pensioners and blasting the Tories for not mentioning this plan in last year’s election.

Q. How could this affect you?

A. It depends on what your annual income is and how close to retirement you are. If you have a high income, OAS benefits probably wouldn’t factor into your retirement plans anyway. If you are much younger and earn an average income, expect to get less by the time you retire

Q. Will this affect the Canada Pension Plan?

A. No. It is a separate fund, available to Canadians who were in the workplace. It is actuarially sound and won’t be touched.

– compiled by Postmedia News

< http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/anger-rising-over-plan-to-reform-oas-138551194.html >

Free bus passes for poor seniors in British Columbia never came up during Stephen Harper’s speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Neither did prescription drug cards for struggling retirees in Newfoundland. But there is a link.

The Prime Minister has signalled that he is ready to tackle long-term questions about the sustainability of Canada’s social programs as the ratio of seniors to workers climbs.

Yet as provinces, seniors groups and federal opposition parties read the tea leaves coming from Ottawa on pension reform, questions are being raised about the trickle-down effects of a unilateral change in Ottawa.

Several provinces require citizens to prove they receive the federal Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors to qualify for their own programs aimed at helping poor seniors. In addition to B.C. and Newfoundland, other examples include Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario. Liberal MP Gerry Byrne pointed out that the city of Corner Brook uses the GIS as a trigger for tax breaks on water bills for low-income seniors.

Using the GIS is a way for provinces and municipalities to receive proof that those applying for programs to help poor seniors are, in fact, poor.

If Ottawa raises the current eligibility age of 65 for Old Age Security and the GIS – a prospect the government has neither ruled out nor confirmed – it would impact these other programs. Presumably provinces could find other ways to continue offering these programs, but critics argue a federal change would clearly create headaches – and possibly much higher costs – for other governments.

The GIS is a top-up program tied to Old Age Security. Monthly payments can range from a few dollars to as high as $732.36, depending on income. The GIS can only be claimed by seniors with incomes under $16,368.

“The interaction with provincial programs will exacerbate the impact on low-income seniors,” said Susan Eng, a spokesperson for the seniors advocacy group CARP.

The organization recently polled its members on the Prime Minister’s Davos speech, in which he said the growing cost of Canada’s retirement income support programs must be made sustainable so that they do not threaten social programs.

Some experts question whether the OAS really has an affordability problem. And even though Mr. Harper insists current seniors will not be affected by any changes, CARP members are giving the speech a thumbs-down.

The online survey of 3,540 CARP members found 63 per cent were opposed to increasing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. Further, support for the Conservatives among CARP members dropped from 44 per cent before the speech to 35 per cent after.

Mr. Harper hasn’t yet said what changes he has in mind for the OAS benefit, but Conservative officials are not contradicting rampant speculation that the qualifying age of 65 will increase for future retirees.

On Wednesday, Mr. Harper indicated that any changes would be phased in.

“This government has made it very clear that we will protect all of the benefits that go to seniors today,” he said. “A senior will not lose a single penny, nor one near retirement. What we are dealing with is people far off in the future who are very worried about their income security because they understand the pressures we are under.”

Alyson Queen, a spokesperson for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, declined to comment on the potential impact of changes on the provinces.

“We will take balanced, responsible, and prudent action to ensure OAS remains sustainable for future generations of Canadians,” she said in an e-mail. “At this time we cannot speculate on any specific changes as we have not yet announced a policy.”

Quebec’s minister responsible for employment and social security, Julie Boulet, said the Harper government’s plans to reform OAS could cost the province “several tens of millions of dollars.” She said the provinces need to be consulted before Ottawa moves ahead with pension reform.

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae called the potential impact on the provinces a “cascade of injustice” Wednesday as he questioned the Prime Minister in the House of Commons.

“He is not only dumping on the most vulnerable senior citizens, including women who are going to be qualifying for old age security who get their old age pensions, he is also dumping on the provinces, dumping on municipalities, creating a cascade of injustice because of a totally manufactured crisis on his side,” Mr. Rae said.

With a report from Rhéal Séguin in Quebec City

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pension-reform-raises-questions-about-effect-in-provinces/article2323329/ >

Canada’s justice system is far too offender-centric and it’s time to “shift the conversation” to ensure victims are treated more fairly, Canada’s new ombudsman for victims of crime said in her first report to be released Thursday.

Noting victims have few legislated rights and entitlements compared to offenders, Sue O’Sullivan called for an “Omnibus Victims’ Bill” to address the lack of access to offender information, meaningful participation at parole hearings and financial support for victims.

“Right now, the imbalance between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims are very stark in this country,” she said in an interview the day before her report was to be made public.

“Despite all the good intentions, the conversations about victims have been focused for the most part on offender-related issues and we think it’s time to tackle this head on.”

While the Conservative government’s tough-on-crime agenda, including Bill C-10, the so-called omnibus crime bill now under review in the Senate, contains some provisions for victims, O’Sullivan, who was named the ombudsman for victims of crime in Aug. 2010, said it’s not enough.

“We need to go farther,” said O’Sullivan, whose report contains some 20 recommendations aimed at rebalancing the justice system.

Victims, she said, should have access to a current photo of the offender in question at the time of their release from prison, as well as information about their incarceration and participation in any rehabilitation programs.

They should have an “automatic right” to attend parole hearings and should have the option to do so via video or teleconference. O’Sullivan argued victims also should be able to access recordings or transcripts of such proceedings.

Canada, she added, is far behind the United States when it comes to using technology to “enhance access to information for victims.” The U.S. has developed a telephone and web portal that allows registered victims to access offender information after hours and O’Sullivan is urging the Canadian government to develop something similar.

She’s also called for the federal victim surcharge convicts are required to pay, unless they could show proof of undue hardship, to be doubled and made mandatory. The fee is meant to support provincial and territorial victims’ services but O’Sullivan said too many offenders are getting out of it.

“Studies have found that judges are routinely waiving the surcharge and that the reasons for this are not being given,” she said in the report.

“Not surprisingly, the anticipated revenues to be generated by the automatic imposition of the federal victim surcharge were also found to be lacking.”

Noting “restitution is under-utilized and poorly enforced in Canada” where determinations about loss of income or property damages are made at the time of sentencing, O’Sullivan also recommended allowing restitution orders to be determined at a later date where necessary.

She further recommended victims be given detailed guidelines for calculating their losses and is urging the government to look at garnisheeing restitution awards from GST rebate cheques and employment insurance payments offenders receive.

“These are some excellent next steps that are going to allow us to continue to build on enhancing victims’ rights and their treatment in the criminal justice system,” she said.

“We think these recommendations can be combined into a comprehensive piece of legislation.”

While Bill C-10 addresses the rights of victims to read their impact statements at parole hearings, O’Sullivan said victims still have no definitive “right” to attend and they must have their statements vetted in advance.

There are also no provisions for victims who want to participate in a foreign offender’s immigration hearing and victims are kept in the dark with respect to any deportation orders.

The pending legislation removes an offender’s right to cancel a parole hearing within less than two weeks, but O’Sullivan said some think that’s still not enough time.

O’Sullivan said C-10, which is poised to pass within weeks, does broaden the definition of individuals who may access offender information to include guardians, caregivers and dependents of victims, and gives victims access to some additional information related to such things as prison transfers and serious disciplinary offences.

< http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/02/justice-system-should-focus-more-on-victims-rights-not-criminals-ombudsman/ >