On quarter measures

The NDP's response to Jim Flaherty's pension proposal is duly skeptical. And the fact that the Cons are looking for the provinces to settle for extremely modest improvements makes a lot more sense as a means of minimizing the more ambitious plan passed unanimously by Parliament (presumably since the Cons didn't want to be on record opposing greater retirement security):

Mr. Flaherty’s proposal is a partial response to the four-part plan to provide retirement security for Canadians included in a NDP motion of June 16, 2009, which was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons. That motion called for:

* Increasing the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) to end seniors’ poverty.
* Strengthening the Canadian Pension Plan/Quebec Pension Plan, in consultation with the provinces, with a goal of doubling benefits.
* Developing a national pension insurance program, funded by employer pension plans, that will guarantee pensioners up to $2,500/month in the event of bankruptcy and plan failure.
* Creating a national facility to adopt workplace pension plans of companies in bankruptcy or in difficulty and keep them operating on a going-concern basis.

Which isn't to say that the Cons were ever likely to live up to their supposed support of the NDP's plan. But the provinces should be hesitant to give Flaherty cover to back away from the greater improvements already agreed to in the House of Commons - and should respond by looking for more improvements to be included in a consensus deal, rather than concluding that they can't do better than Flaherty's effort to do as little as possible.