MLA Pension Plan - A Source of Capital?
While the government of Saskatchewan continues to announce its
investment strategy of millions here and millions there on a weekly basis,
the investment contribution by the province is only form one source, the
taxpayer. Over the course of the past twenty years it's performance
at picking winners and losers has not been very comforting.
The list of losers has cost the people of Saskatchewan hundreds of
millions of dollars. With several litigations worth hundreds of
millions more winding their way through the courts the costs could be even
more devastating.
Over the years, the province has tried to invest itself out of
disaster. The failure of that strategy can be measured in many ways,
not the least of which is the current benchmarks identified by the Canada
West Foundation, the Fraser Institute, the Frontier Centre for Public
Policy, as well as the Prairie Centre Policy Institute's report entitled
"This Year Country - Creating Wealth in Saskatchewan."
The benchmarks are like a frame in time and they include the following:
- a 14 billion dollar debt
- a 1.3 billion dollar dependency on various transfer payments from
Ottawa
- an economy that performs at 32% less than the national average
- in 2001, a total of 136,000 net taxpayers supporting a 1 million
population
- 1 net taxpayer for every 7 dependents, a figure that is expected to
increase to 1 in 17 by the year 2026
- a population loss of about 15,000 in the past two years of our most
highly educated and skilled people
- real earning power that has declined by 7% over the past two years
Saskatchewan is obviously in a serious downward spiral and neither the
government nor opposition MLA's have the courage to speak publicly about
these conditions. All of these conditions exist in spite of years of
massive intervention in the economy by the government using taxpayer's
money, hailing it as "investment".
If these are such good "investments", why is the MLA Pension
Plan not demanding the option to join in the investment play? Why is
it not investing in Saskatchewan instead of Alberta shopping centers and
foreign instruments? If the MLA pension plan is not willing to
participate in provincial investments, why should the taxpayer be expected
to take all the risk? Why isn't the government's investment criteria
the same as that which the MLA Pension Plan employs? If an
investment is not good enough for the MLA Pension Plan, why is it good for
taxpayers?
The fastest way to a pension in most prairie provinces is to seek
public office as an MLA. All it takes is two terms, usually no more
than eight years, and a full pension is provided. In many cases, the
MLA does not even stay in the province to spend his or her pension.
Yet, the pension plan these MLAs enjoy does not invest in the enterprises
the government so easily throws tax dollars into.
It is time for the government to use the same investment criteria in the
investment planning for the province as the MLA Pension Plan uses when
making investments. Perhaps the enormous losses and civil suits
could be avoided if MLA's were required to put their own pension money on
the line through the MLA Pension Plan when a potential investment is
considered by the government, crown corporations and their subsidiaries.
While the MLAs are free and easy with other people's money, the MLA
Pension Plan remains safe. Most individuals take greater care when
it costs them something. As the old cliché goes, "put your
money where your mouth is."
Ken Dillen
October 28, 2002 |
