Certainly, he apologized fulsomely once he realized that his comments — made last week to a Vancouver radio reporter — were putting Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in a bad light.
But the British Columbia MP deserves to have his original remarks taken seriously. Among other things, they provide some insight into the government’s curious decision to squelch any talk of reforming the Canada Pension Plan.
Understand that Moore is not a bogeyman. He does not easily fit the convenient stereotypes often used to describe Harper Conservatives.
First elected in 2000 under the Canadian Alliance banner, he has twice broken with his party on social issues: first to put gay rights into the human rights code, later to legalize gay marriage.
In government, he has been happy to support measures aimed at helping the homeless. “The federal government has a leadership role to play in these issues,” he explained two years ago.
My guess is that Moore does not hate poor people or their children.
So what did he mean when, in response to a question on child poverty, he told a Vancouver radio reporter Friday that it was not his government’s role to help hungry kids?
I think he meant what he said. And what he said was this: “Empowering families with more power and resources so they can feed their own children is, I think, a good thing. Is it my job to feed my neighbour’s child? I don’t think so.”
In this, he was expressing an ideological belief that flourished among liberals in the 19th century and that is held today by many Conservatives.
This belief holds that individuals are responsible for their own destinies, that markets distribute income fairly and that (with limited exceptions) governments should get out of the way to let people live their lives.
That means allowing individuals to marry whomever they will. It also means relying on parents to care for their children as best they can.
It doesn’t mean that Moore would refuse gruel to a starving baby. As he said in his apology, government has a responsibility to “be compassionate and care for those in need.”
But for 19th century liberals, need is strictly defined. I expect that Moore, and many others in Harper’s government, would look askance at the plan of Sen. Hugh Segal, a Red Tory, to assure every Canadian a guaranteed annual income.
So too pensions. In a world where few employers offer pensions and where so many engage in precarious work, expanding the Canada Pension Plan should be a no-brainer. Raising the maximum benefit from its current level of $12,150 a year would give those entering the workforce a chance to have at least something to live on when they retire.
True, higher benefits would require higher contributions from workers and their bosses. But the provincial governments promoting an expanded CPP have agreed that any such move should be delayed until the economy is stronger.
Yet the federal government, in the person of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has closed the door entirely to CPP reform.
Flaherty justified his decision Monday by saying that his government is reluctant to bind future administrations to pension reform. Given that the government had no such qualms when it announced plans to scale back Old Age Security, this rationale seems dubious.
The real reason for axing CPP reform, I suspect, has more to do with belief. The Canada Pension Plan is a form of forced saving. It requires workers to put aside money whether they wish to or not.
To the 19th century liberals of Harper’s government, this is anathema. Under their view, individuals should be free to save or spend as they please.
At retirement, the very poorest will be cared for by government at starkly minimal levels. The wealthiest can fall back on their inheritances.
But those in the middle had best get with the program: Invest wisely now or suffer in your declining years. It is the modern Conservative way. James Moore would understand.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com/
Author: Thomas Walkom
No comments:
Post a Comment